Split (1)

train · 100k rows

text stringlengths 4 2.78M	meta dict
--- abstract: 'We present a novel notion of complexity that interpolates between and generalizes some classic existing complexity notions in learning theory: for estimators like empirical risk minimization (ERM) with arbitrary bounded losses, it is upper bounded in terms of data-independent Rademacher complexity; for generalized Bayesian estimators, it is upper bounded by the data-dependent information complexity (also known as stochastic or PAC-Bayesian, $\operatorname{KL}(\text{posterior} \operatorname{\\|}\text{prior})$ complexity. For (penalized) ERM, the new complexity reduces to (generalized) normalized maximum likelihood (NML) complexity, i.e. a minimax log-loss individual-sequence regret. Our first main result bounds excess risk in terms of the new complexity. Our second main result links the new complexity via Rademacher complexity to $L_2(P)$ entropy, thereby generalizing earlier results of Opper, Haussler, Lugosi, and Cesa-Bianchi who did the log-loss case with $L_\infty$. Together, these results recover optimal bounds for VC- and large (polynomial entropy) classes, replacing localized Rademacher complexity by a simpler analysis which almost completely separates the two aspects that determine the achievable rates: ‘easiness’ (Bernstein) conditions and model complexity.' author: - \| Peter D. Grünwald [email protected]\ Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica and Leiden University Nishant A. Mehta [email protected]\ University of Victoria bibliography: - 'nml\_rad.bib' title: 'A Tight Excess Risk Bound via a Unified PAC-Bayesian–Rademacher–Shtarkov–MDL Complexity' --- Introduction ============ We simultaneously address four questions of learning theory: 1. We establish a precise relation between Rademacher complexities for arbitrary bounded losses and the minimax cumulative log-loss regret, also known as the Shtarkov integral* and normalized maximum likelihood (NML) complexity. 2. We bound this minimax regret in terms of $L_2$ entropy. Past results were based on $L_{\infty}$ entropy. 3. We introduce a new type of complexity that enables a unification of data-dependent PAC-Bayesian and empirical-process-type excess risk bounds into a single clean bound; this bound recovers minimax optimal rates for large classes under Bernstein ‘easiness’ conditions. 4. We extend the link between excess risk bounds for arbitrary losses and codelengths of Bayesian codes to general codes. All four results are part of the chain of bounds in Figure \[fig:bounds\]. The $\leftarrow$ arrow stands for ‘bounded in terms of’; the precise bounds (which may hold in probability and expectation or may even be an equality) are given in the respective results in the paper. Red arrows indicate results that are new. We start with a family of predictors ${\mathcal{F}}$ for an arbitrary loss function ${\ell}$, which, for example, may be log-loss, squared error loss or $0/1$-loss, and an estimator $\hat{\Pi}$ which on each sample $Z^n = Z_1, \ldots, Z_n$ outputs a distribution $\hat{\Pi} \mid Z^n$ on ${\mathcal{F}}$; classic deterministic estimators $\hat{f}$ such as ERM are represented by taking a $\hat{\Pi}$ that outputs the Dirac measure on $\hat{f}$. The main bound ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {2};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {3};}}$, Theorem \[thm:first\], bounds the annealed excess risk of a fixed but arbitrary estimator $\hat{\Pi}$ in terms of its empirical risk on the training data $Z^n$ plus a novel notion of complexity, ${\text{\sc comp}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, Z^n)$ (formulas for ${\text{\sc comp}}_{\eta}$ and all other concepts in the paper are summarized in the Glossary on page ). The annealed excess risk is a proxy (and lower bound) of the actual excess risk, the expected loss difference between predicting with $\hat{\Pi} \mid Z^n$ and predicting with the actual risk minimizer $f^$ within ${\mathcal{F}}$. The bound ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {1};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {2};}}$ (Corollary \[cor:risk-comp-esi\], based on Lemma \[lemma:kl-renyi\], itself from [@grunwald2012safe]) bounds the actual excess risk in terms of the annealed excess risk, so that we get a true excess risk bound for $\hat\Pi$. The complexity ${\text{\sc comp}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, Z^n)$ is dependent on a luckiness function* $w: {\mathcal{Z}}^n \times {\mathcal{F}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+_0$; $w$ can be chosen freely; different choices lead to different complexities and excess risk bounds. For nonconstant $w$, the complexity becomes data-dependent; in particular, for $w$ of the form $\pi(f) / \hat{\pi}(f \mid z^n)$, where $\pi$ is the density of a ‘prior’ distribution $\Pi$ on ${\mathcal{F}}$, the complexity becomes, by ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {3};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {4};}}$ (Proposition \[prop:newgeneration\]) (strictly) upper bounded by the information complexity of [@zhang2006epsilon; @zhang2006information], involving a Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence term $\operatorname{KL}(\hat{\Pi} \|Z^n \operatorname{\\|}\Pi)$. Information complexity generalizes earlier complexity notions and accompanying bounds from the information theory literature such as (extended) stochastic complexity* [@rissanen1989stochastic; @yamanishi1998decision], resolvability [@barron1991minimum; @BarronRY98], and also excess risk bounds from the PAC-Bayesian literature [@audibert2004PAC; @catoni2007PAC]. Together, ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {1};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {2};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {3};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {4};}}$ recover and strengthen Zhang’s bounds. For constant $w$, the complexity is independent of the data and turns out (${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {3};}} = {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {5};}}$), Section \[sec:simpleshtarkov\]) to be equal to the minimax cumulative individual sequence regret for sequential prediction with log-loss relative to a family ${\mathcal{Q}}_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ of probability measures defined in terms of ${\mathcal{F}}$, also known as the log-Shtarkov integral or NML (Normalized Maximum Likelihood) complexity. NML complexity has been much studied in the MDL (minimum description length) literature [@rissanen1996fisher; @grunwald2007the]. #### Problem A: NML and Rademacher NML complexity can itself be bounded in terms of a new complexity we introduce, $H$-local complexity, which is further bounded in terms of Rademacher complexity ${\mathcal{R}}_n$ (Theorem \[thm:opper-haussler-talagrand\] and Corollary \[cor:opper-haussler-talagrand\], ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {5};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {6};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {8};}}$). Both Rademacher and NML complexities are used as penalties in model selection (albeit with different motivations), and the close conceptual similarity between NML and Rademacher complexity has been noted by several authors (e.g. [@grunwald2007the; @zhu2009human; @roos2016informal]). For example, as shown by @grunwald2007the [Open Problem 19, page 583] in classification problems, both the empirical Rademacher complexity for 0-1 loss and the NML complexity of a family of conditional distributions can be simply expressed in terms of a (possibly transformed) minimized cumulative loss that is uniformly averaged over all possible values of the data to be predicted, thereby measuring how well the model ${\mathcal{F}}$ can fit random noise. Theorem \[thm:opper-haussler-talagrand\] and Corollary \[cor:opper-haussler-talagrand\] establish, for the first time, a precise and tight link between NML and Rademacher complexity. The proofs extend a technique due to [@opper1999worst], who bound NML complexity in terms of $L_{\infty}$ entropy using an empirical process result of [@yurinskiui1976exponential]. By using Talagrand’s inequality instead, we get a bound in terms of Rademacher complexity. #### Problem B: Bounding NML Complexity with $L_2(P)$ entropy and empirical $L_2$ Entropy If ${\mathcal{F}}$ is of VC-type or a class of polynomial empirical $L_2$ entropy, the Rademacher complexity can be further bounded, (Theorem \[thm:small-rad\], ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {8};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {9};}}$), in terms of the empirical $L_2$ entropy; if ${\mathcal{F}}$ admits polynomial $L_1(P)$ entropy with bracketing, then $T_n$ is further bounded, (Theorem \[thm:small-Esup\], ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {6};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {7};}}$), in terms of this $L_1(P)$ entropy with bracketing. These latter two results are well-known, due to [@koltchinskii2011oracle] and [@massart2006risk] respectively, but in conjunction with ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {5};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {6};}}$ they become of significant interest for log-loss individual sequence prediction. Whereas previous bounds on minimax log-loss regret were invariably in terms of $L_{\infty}$ entropy [@opper1999worst; @cesa2001worst; @rakhlin2015sequential], the aforementiond two results allow us to obtain bounds in terms of $L_1(P)$ entropy and empirical $L_2$ entropy, where $P$ can be any member of the class ${\mathcal{Q}}_{f}$. Unlike the latter two works, however, our results are restricted to static experts that treat the data as i.i.d. #### Problem C: Unifying data-dependent and empirical process-type excess risk bounds As lamented by Audibert ([-@audibert2004PAC; -@audibert2009fast]), despite their considerable appeal, standard PAC-Bayesian and KL excess risk bounds do not lead to the right rates for large classes, i.e. with polynomial $L_2(P)$ entropy. On the other hand, standard Rademacher complexity generalization and excess risk bound analyses are not easily extendable to either penalized estimators or generalized Bayesian estimators that are based on updating a prior distribution; also handling logarithmic loss appears difficult. Yet ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {1};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {2};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {3};}}$ shows that there does exist a single bound capturing all these applications — by varying the function $w$ one can get both (a strict strengthening of) the KL bounds and a Rademacher complexity-type excess risk bound. In this way, via the chain of bounds ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {1};}} \leftarrow \ldots \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {7};}}/{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {9};}}$, we recover rates for empirical risk minimization (ERM) that either are minimax optimal (for classification) or the best known rates for ERM (for other losses), even for VC and polynomial entropy classes; the rates depend in the right way on the ‘easiness’ of the problem as measured by the central condition , which generalizes Tsybakov’s ([-@tsybakov2004optimal]) margin condition and Bernstein conditions [@bartlett2005local]. #### Problem D: Excess Risk Bounds and Data Compression [While Zhang’s bound holds for arbitrary ‘posteriors’ $\hat{\Pi}$, one gets the best excess risk bounds if one takes $\hat{\Pi}$ to be a generalized Bayesian estimator. With such a $\hat{\Pi}$, the information complexity can be expressed in terms of a (generalization of) the cumulative log-loss of a Bayesian sequential prediction strategy [@zhang2006epsilon; @grunwald2012safe] defined relative to the constructed probability model ${\mathcal{Q}}_{{\mathcal{F}}}$.]{} By the correspondence between codelengths and cumulative log-loss (reviewed in Section \[sec:intro-complexity\]), we may say that we bound an excess risk in terms of a codelength. ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {3};}} = {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {5};}}$ shows that we also get a useful excess risk bound in terms of the codelengths of the minimax (NML) code — interestingly, Bayes and NML codes are the two central codes in the universal coding literature [@BarronRY98; @grunwald2007the]. In fact, our work shows that the correspondence between excess risk bounds and codelengths is a quite general phenomenon, not particular to Bayes and NML codes: in Section \[sec:intro-complexity\] we show that there is a 1-to-1 relation between luckiness functions $w$ and codes for data based on ${\mathcal{Q}}_f$: each luckiness function $w$ defines, up to scaling, a different code giving rise to a different complexity ${\text{\sc comp}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{\Pi},w,z^n)$ and hence a different excess risk bound, and vice versa. Because of its relation to data compression, it becomes easy to extend the approach to model selection by using ‘two-part codes’ (Section \[sec:twopart\]). For yet other choices of $w$, we obtain bounds for penalized ERM with arbitrary bounded penalization functions (Section \[sec:penalized\]); if we specialize to log-loss, the complexity bound becomes a minimax regret-with-luckiness-term as considered in recent papers on sequential log-loss prediction such as [@kakade2006worst; @bartlett2013horizon]. Many other choices of $w$ are possible and remain subject for future investigation. #### Additional Features and Limitations The full story above can only be told for bounded losses, although the bounds ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {2};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {3};}}, {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {3};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {4};}}$ also hold for unbounded losses, and ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {1};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {2};}}$ was recently extended to unbounded losses under a mild additional condition [@grunwald2016fast]. Remarkably, ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {2};}} \leftarrow {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{ \node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.5pt] (char) {3};}}$ is as tight as can be: when viewed in terms of exponential moments, it is really an equality rather than a bound; this suggests that, no matter the choice of $w$, the resulting bound is essentially unimprovable. The complexity ${\text{\sc comp}}_{\eta}$ depends on a learning rate parameter $\eta$, and all bounds in the figure become different depending on the choice of $\eta$. The optimal $\eta$ depends on the easiness of the problem at hand, as measured by central/Bernstein/Tsybakov’s conditions (see above). ERM can be applied (and optimal rates can be obtained) without knowledge of the optimal $\eta$; to get the right rates for Bayesian and penalized ERM algorithms however, these algorithms should be made dependent on $\eta$ ($\eta$ is akin to $1/\lambda$ in the lasso and ridge regression); in practice, one can learn it from the data using an algorithm such as the ‘safe Bayes’ algorithm of [@grunwald2012safe] (Section \[sec:twopart\]). #### Contents In Section \[sec:simpleshtarkov\], we introduce the simple data-independent version of our complexity, ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f})$, which is really the NML complexity. In Section \[sec:generalizedshtarkov\] we extend our notion of complexity to the generalized data-dependent form ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, z^n)$. Section \[sec:zhang-nml\] contains our first main result, Theorem \[thm:first\]. In Section \[sec:complexity\], we derive our second main result, Theorem \[thm:opper-haussler-talagrand\] and its Corollary \[cor:opper-haussler-talagrand\], a bound on ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f})$ in terms of Rademacher complexity; we also present a concrete application of this result, Theorem \[thm:excess-risk-erm\], which provides the best known rates for ERM under Bernstein conditions for bounded loss functions in a number of situations. Section \[sec:applications\] gives various applications of our result. Finally, Section \[sec:discussion\] closes with a discussion of our work in the context of other recent works. All long proofs can be found in the appendix. Mathematical definitions and notations are summarized in the Glossary on page . The Novel Complexity Notion {#sec:intro-complexity} =========================== Preliminaries ------------- In the statistical learning problem [@vapnik1998statistical], a labeled sample $Z^n = Z_1, \ldots, Z_n$ is drawn independently from probability distribution $P$ over ${\mathcal{Z}}= ({\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{Y}})$, where, for each $j \in [n]$, we have $Z_j = (X_j, Y_j)$. We are given an action space or model ${\mathcal{F}}$ and a loss function ${\ell}: {\mathcal{F}}\times {\mathcal{Z}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$, where we denote the loss that action or predictor $f$ makes on $z$ as ${\ell}_f(z)$. Loss functions such as 0-1, squared error, and log-loss (for joint densities on $z=(x,y)$) can all be expressed this way: in the former two cases ${\mathcal{F}}$ consists of functions $f: {\mathcal{X}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{Y}}$, with ${\ell}_f(x,y) = \|y-f(x)\|$ and $(y- f(x))^2$ respectively, and in the latter case ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a set of probability densities on ${\mathcal{Z}}= {\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{Y}}$ relative to some underlying measure $\nu$ and ${\ell}_f(x,y) = - \log f(x,y)$, with $\log$ denoting natural logarithm in this paper. An estimator or learning algorithm $\hat{\Pi}$ is a function from ${\mathcal{Z}}^n$ to distributions over ${\mathcal{F}}$. Here and in the sequel we simply assume that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is endowed with a suitable sigma-algebra $\Sigma$ so that $({\mathcal{F}},\Sigma)$ is a measurable space and all functions we refer to are measurable. We will write $\hat{\Pi} \mid z^n$ to denote the distribution chosen for data $z^n$. In practice $\hat{\Pi}$ is often supported entirely on a single function $\hat{f} \in {\mathcal{F}}$; in that case we simply write the estimator as $\hat{f}$ and the $f$ chosen for given data $z^n$ as $\hat{f}_{\|z^n}$. An example of such a deterministic estimator is ERM, the empirical risk minimizer. An example of a randomized estimator is obtained by setting $\hat{\Pi} \mid z^n$ to be the generalized $\eta$-Bayesian posterior [@zhang2006information; @catoni2007PAC], which we explicitly define in Section \[sec:generalizedshtarkov\]. Henceforth, we simply call $\hat{\Pi}$ an ‘estimator’ irrespective of whether it is deterministic or randomized. We aim to learn distributions $\hat\Pi$ that obtain low expected risk $\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{f \sim {\hat\Pi}} [ \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} [ {\ell}_f(Z) ] ]$. The risk of an action $f$ is the expected value of the loss ${\ell}_f(Z)$ suffered when playing action $f$ and the actual outcome is $Z$. A natural way to measure the quality of $\hat{\Pi}$ on data $z^n$ is therefore the excess risk $\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{f \sim \hat{\Pi}\mid z^n} [ \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} [ {\ell}_f(Z) - {\ell}_{f^}(Z) ] ]$, where $f^$ is a minimizer of the risk over ${\mathcal{F}}$; like many other authors (e.g [@bartlett2005local]) we assume throughout this work that such a minimizer exists. We use the notation ${{R}_{f}}(z) = {\ell}_f(z) - {\ell}_{f^}(z)$, extended to samples ${{z}^n}= (z_1, \ldots, z_n) \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$ as ${{R}_{f}}({{z}^n}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \left( {\ell}_f(z_i) - {\ell}_{f^}(z_i) \right)$. Note that, when $Z^n \sim P$, $\hat{\Pi} \mid Z^n $ and $\hat{f}_{\|Z^n}$ can be thought of as random variables so we simply write them without $Z^n$ whenever this cannot cause any confusion. The Novel Complexity Measure, Simple Case {#sec:simpleshtarkov} ----------------------------------------- To prepare for the definition of our complexity measure ${\text{\sc comp}}$, we first need to associate each $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$ with an associated probability distribution $Q_f$. [We may assume without loss of generality that the underlying distribution $P$ on $Z$ has a density $p$ with respect to some base measure $\nu$ (we could for example take $\nu = P$ but the formulas below are easier to parse for general $\nu$).]{} Now for each $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$, we define $Q_f$ to be the distribution over ${\mathcal{Z}}$ with density (with respect to the same base measure $\nu$) $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:entropified} q_f(z ) := \frac{p(z) \cdot e^{-\eta {{R}_{f}}(z)}}{\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P } \left[ e^{-\eta {{R}_{f}}(Z)} \right]} . \end{aligned}$$ We extend the definition to $n$ outcomes by taking the product densities, $q_{f}(z^n) := \prod_{i=1}^n q_{f}(z_i)$. In this way the model ${\mathcal{F}}$ is itself mapped to a set ${\mathcal{Q}}_{{\mathcal{F}}} = \{q_f : f \in {\mathcal{F}}\}$ of probability densities, the mapping depending on the loss function ${\ell}$ of interest, but also (suppressed in notation) on $\eta$, $f^$, and on the ‘true’ $P$; this is an instance of the ‘entropification procedure’ suggested by [@grunwald1999viewing]. We are now ready to define our new complexity measure. For simplicity of we first present the very special case of deterministic estimators $\hat{f}$ without data dependence; this case is sufficient to make the connection to minimax regret and Rademacher complexities in Section \[sec:complexity\]. For this setting we define the Shtarkov integral* (name to be explained below) as $$\begin{gathered} \label{eq:shtarkovdet} {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}; \hat{f}) := \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \left[ \frac{e^{-\eta {{R}_{\hat{f}_{ \mid {{Z}^n}}}}({{Z}^n}) } }{C({\hat{f}_{ \mid {{Z}^n}}})} \right] = \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}^n} q_{\hat{f}_{ \mid {{z}^n}}}({{z}^n}) d \nu({{z}^n}) \\ \ \ \ldots \left(\ \overset{\text{(if $\ell$ log-loss, $\eta =1$, model correct)} }{=} \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}^n} p_{\hat{f}_{ \mid {{z}^n}}}({{z}^n}) d \nu({{z}^n}) \right),\end{gathered}$$ where, for any $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$, $C(f) := \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P } \left[ e^{-\eta {{R}_{f}}({{Z}^n})} \right]$ is the normalization constant. Whenever ${\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f})$ is finite (as will automatically be the case with bounded loss), the corresponding complexity of model ${\mathcal{F}}$ equipped with $\hat{f}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:simplecomplexity} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}) := \eta^{-1} \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}). \end{aligned}$$ ${\text{\sc comp}}, {\text{\sc S}}, q_f$, and normalizer $C$ all depend on $\eta$, but this is suppressed in notation unless needed for clarity. The final equality in holds in the very special case that the original loss function is log-loss, $\eta= 1$, and ${\mathcal{F}}$ contains the density $p$ of $P$ (‘the model is correct’). In that case $f^* = p$ (since log-loss is a proper loss, see e.g. [@gneiting2007strictly]) $C(f)$ evaluates to $1$ for all $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$, $\mathcal{Q}_{{\mathcal{F}}, {\ell}}$ is equal to ${\mathcal{F}}$, and ${{R}_{f}}(z) = - \log f(z) + \log p(z)$; thus, reduces to $q_f(z) = f(z)$, and the final equation in follows. We further define the maximal complexity ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}})$ as $$\label{eq:maxcomplexity} {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}) := \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}^n} \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} q_f(z^n) d \nu(z^n) \ \ \ ; \ \ \ {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}) := \eta^{-1} \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}) = \sup_{\hat{f}} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f}),$$ where the final equality is a trivial consequence of the definition, the $\sup$ ranging over all deterministic estimators that can be defined on ${\mathcal{F}}$. We often use the following observation due to (e.g.) [@opper1999worst]: Let ${\mathcal{K}}$ be a finite set and let $\{ {\mathcal{F}}_k : k \in {\mathcal{K}}\}$ be a partition of ${\mathcal{F}}$. Then for every deterministic estimator, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:decomposenml} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f}) \leq \frac{\log \| {\mathcal{K}}\|}{\eta} + \max_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}_k). \end{aligned}$$ This result follows as a special case of Proposition \[prop:decomposingcomp\] in Section \[sec:applications\], but its proof is simple enough to state in just a few lines: $$\begin{aligned} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f}) &\leq \eta^{-1} \log \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}^n} \max_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}} \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k} q_f(z^n) d \nu(z^n) \\ &\leq \eta^{-1} \log \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}^n} \sum_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}} \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k} q_f(z^n) d \nu(z^n) \\ &\leq \eta^{-1} \log \|{\mathcal{K}}\| + \eta^{-1} \max_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}} \log \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}^n} \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k} q_f(z^n) d \nu(z^n) .\end{aligned}$$ Using , we can link ${\text{\sc comp}}$ to Rademacher complexity, which we will do in Section \[sec:prelloss\] and \[sec:rademacher\]. Below, we first link ${\text{\sc comp}}$ to log-loss prediction, extend it to encompass data-dependent and PAC-Bayesian complexities and present our excess risk bound for the general complexities (Section \[sec:prelloss\] and \[sec:rademacher\]) can be read without this material). #### Minimax Cumulative Log-Loss Interpretation of ${\text{\sc comp}}$ For every given estimator $\hat{f}$, we can define a density $r$ on ${\mathcal{Z}}^n$ relative to $\nu$ by setting $$\label{eq:nmldist} r(z^n) := \frac{q_{\hat{f}}(z^n)}{{\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f})},$$ which evidently integrates to $1$ and hence is a probability density (different choice of estimator $\hat{f}$ leads to different $r$; this is suppressed in the notation). We can use density $r$ to sequentially predict $Z_1, Z_2, \ldots, Z_n$ by predicting $Z_i$ with the corresponding conditional density $r(Z_i \mid Z^{i-1})$. The cumulative log-loss obtained this way is given by $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{i=1}^n -\log r(Z_i \mid Z^{i-1}) = - \log r(Z^n) ,\end{aligned}$$ the latter equality following by definition of conditional probability and telescoping. Because of the correspondence, via Kraft’s inequality, of log-loss prediction and data compression, we can also think of this quantity as a codelength. Similarly, $\min_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} - \log q_f(Z^n)$ is the minimum cumulative loss one could have obtained with hindsight, i.e. if one had sequentially predicted the $Z_i$ by the $q_f$ that turned out to minimize $- \log q_f$ on $Z^n$. Assuming this minimum is well-defined it is of course achieved by ${\hat{f}^{\text{\sc ml}}}$, the maximum likelihood estimator relative to ${\mathcal{Q}}$, for which evidently also ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}) = {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}},{\hat{f}^{\text{\sc ml}}})$. Thus we get that for all $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:cldiff} \eta^{-1} \cdot {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f}) & = \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f}) = - \log r(z^n) - \left( - \log q_{\hat{f}}(z^n) \right) \nonumber \\ & \overset{\text{if $\hat{f} = {\hat{f}^{\text{\sc ml}}}$} }{=} = \eta^{-1} \cdot {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}) = - \log r(z^n) - \min_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \left( - \log q_{f}(z^n) \right),\end{aligned}$$ the first equation holding for general $\hat{f}$ and the second for ${\hat{f}^{\text{\sc ml}}}$. The final expression is just the (cumulative log-loss) regret of $r$ on data $z^n$, which, by , is constant on $z^n$. As first noted by [@shtarkov1987universal], this implies that is also the minimax individual-sequence regret relative to the model ${\mathcal{Q}}$ when sequentially predicting outcomes $Z_1, \ldots, Z_n$ with the log-loss; the corresponding optimal sequential prediction strategy $r$ is usually called the normalized maximum likelihood (NML) or Shtarkov density; see [@rissanen1996fisher; @grunwald2007the; @opper1999worst; @cesa2001worst] for details. Allowing Data-Dependency ------------------------ We now generalize the complexity definition above for arbitrary deterministic $\hat{f}$ so that it becomes data dependent; further extension to randomized estimators follows in Section \[sec:generalizedshtarkov\]. The central concept we need is that of a luckiness function $w: {\mathcal{Z}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+_0$; every combination of estimator and luckiness function will, up to scaling, define a unique version of complexity; and every such complexity will induce a different data-dependent bound on excess risk. We call $w$ ‘luckiness function’ since it will influence our excess risk bounds so that they become better iff we are ‘lucky’ in the sense that $P$ is such that $w(X^n)$ will be large with high probability). The generalized Shtarkov integral for estimator $\hat{f}$ relative to luckiness function $w$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:shtarkovdetb} {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}, w) := \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \left[ \frac{e^{-\eta {{R}_{\hat{f}_{ \mid {{Z}^n}}}}({{Z}^n}) } }{C({\hat{f}_{ \mid {{Z}^n}}})} \cdot w(Z^n) \right] = \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}^n} q_{\hat{f}_{ \mid {{z}^n}}}({{z}^n}) w(z^n) d \nu({{z}^n}), \end{aligned}$$ and, whenever ${\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f},w) < \infty$, we define the corresponding data-dependent complexity as $$\label{eq:simplecomplexityb} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}, w, {{z}^n}) := \frac{1}{\eta} \left(- \log w({{z}^n}) + \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f} , w) \right).$$ Both expressions evidently reduce to and if we take $w$ constant over ${\mathcal{Z}}^n$. #### Cumulative Log-Loss Interpretation Fix an arbitrary estimator $\hat{f}$. Then for any luckiness function $w$ with ${\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f},w)< \infty$, we can define the probability density $$\label{eq:nmldistb} r_w(z^n) := \frac{q_{\hat{f}\|z^n}(z^n) \cdot w(z^n)}{{\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f},w)},$$ with being the special case with $w \equiv 1$. Just as with $r_1$, for general such $w$, $r_w$ can be thought of as a sequential prediction strategy, and $\eta \cdot {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f},w,z^n) - \log q_{\hat{f}_{\|z^n}}(z^n) = - \log r_w(z^n)$ is the cumulative log-loss achieved by $r_w$. Different (up to scaling) $w$ generate different log-loss prediction strategies (codes) and corresponding complexities. Conversely, for every probability density $r'$ relative to $\nu$ on $Z^n$, we can set a luckiness measure $w(z^n)$ proportional to $r'(z^n)/q_{\hat{f}\|z^n}(z^n)$; with the appropriately scaled choice of $w$, $r_w$ will coincide $r'$; we thus have a $1$-to-$1$-correspondence between luckiness functions $w$ with ${\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f},w) < \infty$, codes and complexities. The Novel Complexity Measure, General Case {#sec:generalizedshtarkov} ------------------------------------------ Here we further generalize the complexity definition so that it can output distributions $\hat{\Pi} \mid {{Z}^n}$ on ${\mathcal{F}}$. For this we need to extend the domain of the luckiness function to encompass ${\mathcal{F}}$, i.e. we now take arbitrary functions of the form $w: {\mathcal{Z}}^n \times {\mathcal{F}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+_0$. The [generalized Shtarkov integral]{} for estimator $\hat{\Pi}$ relative to luckiness function $w$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:shtarkovgen} {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w) := \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \left[ \exp\left(- \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid Z^n} \left[\eta {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}(Z^n) + \log C({\underline{f}}) - \log w(Z^n, {\underline{f}}) \right] \right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ and the generalized (data-dependent) model complexity corresponding to is now defined as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:gencomp} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, z^n) & := \frac{1}{\eta} \cdot \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid {{z}^n}} \left[ - \log w(z^n,{\underline{f}}) \right] + \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Both expressions are readily seen to generalize and respectively: if, for a given deterministic estimator $\hat{f}$, we take $\hat{\Pi}(\cdot \mid Z^n)$ to be $\delta_{\hat{f}}$ (the Dirac measure on $\hat{f}_{\mid {{Z}^n}}$) and we take a function $w(z^n,f) \equiv w(z^n)$ that does not depend on $f$, then the expressions above simplify trivially to and respectively; thus ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}},\delta_{\hat{f}},w,z^n) = {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f},w,z^n)$. Finally, we define $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:compnewfull} {\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, z^n) := {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, z^n) + \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid z^n}[R_{{\underline{f}}}({{z}^n})]\end{aligned}$$ as the sum of the complexity and the expected excess loss that a random draw from $\hat{\Pi}$ achieves on the data. #### ${\text{\sc comp}}$ generalizes information complexities To explain how PAC-Bayesian type complexity arise a special case of ${\text{\sc comp}}$, we consider luckiness measures $w$ that are defined in terms of probability distributions $\Pi$ on ${\mathcal{F}}$ that do not depend on the data; we call these ‘priors’. For notational convenience it is useful to assume (without loss of generality) that $\Pi$ has a density $\pi$ relative to some underlying measure $\rho$ on ${\mathcal{F}}$ and that, for all $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$, $\hat{\Pi} \mid z^n$ also has a density $\hat{\pi} \mid z^n$ relative to $\rho$. \[prop:newgeneration\] Consider arbitrary $\Pi$ and $\hat{\Pi}$ as above with densities $\pi$ and $\hat\pi \mid z^n$ relative to some $\rho$. Set $w(z^n,f) := \pi(f) /\hat{\pi}(f \mid z^n)$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sbound} S({\mathcal{F}},\hat{\Pi},w) \leq 1. \end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:infcomp} {\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, z^n) \leq \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid {{z}^n}}[R_{{\underline{f}}}({{z}^n})]+ \eta^{-1} \cdot \operatorname{KL}(\; ( \hat{\Pi} \mid {{z}^n}) \operatorname{\\|}\Pi \; ),\end{aligned}$$ where $\operatorname{KL}(\; ( \hat{\Pi} \mid {{z}^n}) \operatorname{\\|}\Pi \; ) = \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid {{z}^n}}\left[ \log \hat{\pi}(f \mid z^n)/\pi(f) \right] $ is KL divergence. By Jensen’s inequality applied to , we have, using the definition of $w$ and Fubini’s theorem, $$\begin{aligned} {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w) & \leq \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid z^n} \left[ \frac{e^{ - \eta {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}(z^n)}}{C({\underline{f}})} \cdot w(z^n, {\underline{f}}) \right] = \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \Pi} \left[ \frac{e^{ - \eta {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}(z^n)}}{C({\underline{f}})}\right] \\ & = \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \Pi} \left[ \int_{z^n} q_{{\underline{f}}}(z^n) d \nu(z^n) \right] = 1,\end{aligned}$$ which gives ; follows by plugging in our choice of $w$ into the definition of ${\text{\sc comp}}$. We thus see that ${\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}$ is upper bounded by information complexity defined relative to prior $\Pi$ [@zhang2006epsilon; @zhang2006information], which is just normalized (divided by $n$). The notion of information complexity is also used to bound excess risks in the PAC-Bayesian approach of [@catoni2007PAC] and [@audibert2004PAC]. As noted by [@zhang2006information], the right-hand side of is minimized if we take as our estimator $\hat{\Pi}$ the $\eta$-generalized Bayesian estimator, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:posteriorC} \hat{\pi} (f \mid z^n) := \frac {\exp\left(-\eta \sum_{i=1 }^{n} {\ell}_f(z_i) \right) \cdot \pi(f)}{\int \exp\left(-\eta \sum_{i= 1 }^{n} {\ell}_f(z_i) \right) \cdot \pi (f) d\rho(f)},\end{aligned}$$ and in that case is equal to the generalized marginal likelihood, known in the MDL literature as the extended stochastic complexity [@yamanishi1998decision] $$\label{eq:esc} - \eta^{-1} \log \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim W} [\exp(- \eta {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}({{Z}^n}))],$$ which, for $\eta =1 $ and ${\ell}$ the log-loss, coincides with the standard log Bayesian marginal likelihood. We provide some further simple properties of ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi},w,z^n)$ for general $\hat{\Pi}$ and $w$ in Section \[sec:applications\]. #### Cumulative Log-Loss Interpretation Just as for deterministic estimators, we note that every randomized estimator $\hat{\Pi}$ and luckiness function $w$ defines a probability density/prediction strategy on $Z^n$ by setting $$\begin{aligned} r_{w}(z^n) := \frac{ e^{ \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid {{z}^n}} \left[ \log q_{{\underline{f}}}(z^n)\cdot w(z^n,{\underline{f}}) \right] \right)}}{S({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w)} ,\end{aligned}$$ and just as before, ${\text{\sc comp}}$ can be interpreted in terms of the ‘code’ $r_w$. First Main Result: Bounding Excess Risk in Terms of New Complexity {#sec:zhang-nml} ================================================================== In this section and Section \[sec:complexity\], we restrict to the bounded loss setting; given this restriction, it is without loss of generality that we assume that $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{f, g \in {\mathcal{F}}} \operatorname{ess\,sup}\|{\ell}_f(Z) - {\ell}_g(Z)\| \leq \frac{1}{2} , \tag{A1} \label{eqn:bounded}\end{aligned}$$ as this always can be accomplished by an appropriate scaling of the loss. Before presenting our first main result, it will be useful to introduce a variant of an ordinary expectation as well as some notation. For $\eta >0$ and general random variables $U$, we define the annealed expectation* (see [@grunwald2016fast] for the origin of this terminology) as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:genren} {\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}^{\textsc{ann},\eta}} \left[U \right] = -\frac{1}{\eta} \log \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[e^{-\eta U} \right].\end{aligned}$$ Below we will first bound the annealed excess risk rather than the standard excess risk and then continue to bound the latter in terms of the former. Our first main result below may be expressed succinctly via the notion of exponential stochastic inequality, \[def:esi\] Let $\eta > 0$ and let $U, U'$ be random variables on some probability space with probability measure $P$. We define $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:esi} U {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_\eta U' \,\,\,\, \Leftrightarrow \,\,\,\, \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{U, U' \sim P} \left[e^{\eta (U- U')} \right] \leq 1,\end{aligned}$$ and we write $U {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{\eta}^* U'$ iff the right hand of holds with equality. Clearly $U {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{\eta}^* U' \Rightarrow U {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{\eta} U'$. An ESI simultaneously captures high probability and in-expectation results: \[prop:drop\] For all $\eta > 0$, if $U {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{\eta} U'$ then, (i), $\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}[ U ] \leq \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}[ U' ]$; and, (ii), for all $K >0$, with $P$-probability at least $1- e^{-K}$, $U \leq U' + K/\eta$. Jensen’s inequality yields (i). Apply Markov’s inequality to $e^{-\eta (U - U')}$ for (ii). We now present our first main result, a new bound that interpolates between the Zhang bound and standard empirical process theory bounds for handling large classes and that is sharp in the sense that it really is an equality of exponential moments. \[thm:first\] For every randomized estimator $\hat{\Pi}$ and every luckiness function $w: {\mathcal{Z}}^N \times {\mathcal{F}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:cond-first} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{\| {{Z}^n}}} \left[ {\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}^{\textsc{ann},\eta}}_{{\bar{Z}}\sim P} \left[ {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}({\bar{Z}}) \right] \right] {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}^_{n \eta} \frac{1}{n} \cdot {\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w , Z^n).\end{aligned}$$ The proof is in the appendix; it is merely a sequence of straightforward rewritings, where the key observation is that for every $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$, the annealed risk ${\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}^{\textsc{ann},\eta}}_{{\bar{Z}}\sim P} \left[ {{R}_{{f}}}({\bar{Z}}) \right]$ is related to the normalization factor appearing in the definition of the probability density $q_f$ and its $n$-fold product $C(f)$ appearing in via the following equality, as follows immediately from the definitions: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:firstthm} {\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}^{\textsc{ann},\eta}}_{{\bar{Z}}\sim P} \left[ {{R}_{{f}}}({\bar{Z}}) \right] = \frac{1}{n} \cdot \frac{- \log C(f)}{\eta} .\end{aligned}$$ We note that, by taking $w$ as in Proposition \[prop:newgeneration\], via , this theorem strictly generalizes Theorem 3.1 of [@zhang2006information], the left-hand side of Zhang’s inequality being equal to the annealed excess risk and the right-hand side to the information complexity, i.e. the right hand of . However, by taking different $w$, we get different bounds which are not covered by Zhang’s results and which, as we’ll see, can be used to recover minimax excess risk bounds for certain large classes of polynomial entropy. The above ESI’s have annealed expectations on their left-hand sides and thus still fall short of providing such excess risk bounds. This gap can be resolved under the $v$-central condition. \[def:v-central\] Let $v \colon x \mapsto \eta_0 \cdot x^\alpha$ be a function with domain $[0, \infty)$ for some $\eta_0 > 0$ and $\alpha \geq 0$. We say that $(P, {\ell}, {\mathcal{F}})$ satisfies the $v$-central condition if, for all $\gamma > 0$, $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}[ e^{-v(\gamma) {{R}_{f}}(Z)} ] \leq e^{v(\gamma) \cdot \gamma} .\end{aligned}$$ In the special case of $\alpha = 0$, we say that the $\eta$-central condition holds (for $\eta = \eta_0$). If the loss is $\eta$-exp-concave and the class ${\mathcal{F}}$ is convex, it is known that the $\eta$-central condition holds (see the figure on page 1798 of , or Lemma 1 of [@mehta2017fast] for an explicit proof). More generally, in the case of bounded losses the $v$-central condition is in fact equivalent to the well-known Bernstein condition. \[def:bernstein\] Let $\beta \in [0, 1]$. We say that $(P, {\ell}, {\mathcal{F}})$ satisfies the $\beta$-Bernstein condition if, for some constant ${B}< \infty$ $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ {{R}_{f}}(Z)^2 \right] \leq {B}\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ {{R}_{f}}(Z) \right]^\beta \qquad \text{for all } f \in {\mathcal{F}}.\end{aligned}$$ We only recall one direction of the equivalence of the $v$-central condition to the Bernstein condition here; the full equivalence is due to . \[lemma:bernstein-v-central\] Assume for all $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$ that $R_f(Z) \in [-1/2, 1/2]$ a.s. If the $\beta$-Bernstein condition holds for some $\beta \in [0, 1]$ and some constant ${B}$, then the $v$-central condition holds for $$\begin{aligned} v(\gamma) = \min \left\{ \frac{\gamma^{1 - \beta}}{{B}}, 1 \right\} . \end{aligned}$$ For clarity, let $\bar{a}$ and $\bar{b}$ refer to the constants $a$ and $b$ from part 1(a) of Theorem 5.4 of . Apply that result with $\bar{b} = \frac{1}{2 \bar{a}}$, $\bar{a} = 1/2$, and the $u$ function there set to $x \mapsto {B}x^\beta$. Note that although the statement of Theorem 5.4 actually imposes the stronger condition that the loss ${\ell}$ be $[0,1/2]$-valued, the proof thereof only requires that $R_f \in [-1/2, 1/2]$ a.s. for all $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$. Note that for such bounded loss functions, the weakest Bernstein condition with $\beta = 0$ holds automatically and so does the $v$-central condition with $v(\gamma) \propto \gamma$. The following lemma is a translation of Lemma 2 of [@grunwald2012safe] which addresses the aforementioned gap between the annealed and actual expectations. \[lemma:kl-renyi\] Suppose that the $v$-central condition holds for some $\eta_0 > 0$ and $\alpha \geq 0$. If $R_f(Z) \in [-1/2, 1/2]$ a.s., then for all $\gamma > 0$, for all $\eta \leq \frac{v(\gamma)}{2}$ $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{f}}(Z) \right] \leq C_\eta \cdot {\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}^{\textsc{ann},\eta}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{f}}(Z) \right] + \frac{C_\eta - 1}{\eta} v(\gamma) \cdot \gamma ,\end{aligned}$$ with $C_\eta = 2 + 2 \eta$. In particular, taking $\eta = v(\gamma) / 2$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{f}}(Z) \right] \leq C_{v(\gamma)/2} \cdot {\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}^{\textsc{ann},v(\gamma)/2}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{f}}(Z) \right] + 2 (C_{v(\gamma)/2} - 1) \gamma .\end{aligned}$$ We note that a version of the above result also holds for general bounded losses. In fact, [@grunwald2016fast] (still under review) provide a refined version of this lemma that works even for unbounded losses and for any $\eta < v(\gamma)$, with sharper bounds for $\eta < v(\gamma)/2$. With all the pieces in place, the next two excess risk bounds in terms of ${\text{\sc comp}}$ are nearly immediate. \[cor:risk-comp-esi\] Take the same setup as Lemma \[lemma:kl-renyi\]. If $\hat{\Pi}$ is an arbitrary randomized estimator, and $w$ is an arbitrary luckiness function, then $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{\| {{Z}^n}}} \left[ \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}(Z) \right] \right] {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{v(\gamma) \cdot n / 6} \frac{3 \, {\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{v(\gamma)/2}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w , Z^n)}{n} + 4 \gamma . \label{eqn:risk-comp-rand}\end{aligned}$$ If $\hat{f}$ is ERM, then $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{\hat{f}}}(Z) \right] {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{v(\gamma) \cdot n/6} \frac{3 \, {\text{\sc comp}}_{v(\gamma)/2}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f})}{n} + 4 \gamma . \label{eqn:risk-comp-erm}\end{aligned}$$ For , start with Lemma \[lemma:kl-renyi\] with $\eta = v(\gamma)/2$ for the desired $\gamma > 0$, and then apply Theorem \[thm:first\] to (stochastically) upper bound the annealed excess risk term. Observe that since $v(\gamma) \leq 1$ by assumption, we have $C_{v(\gamma)/2} \leq 3$. For , start with , and take $w \equiv 1$ and $\hat{\Pi}(\cdot \mid {\mathcal{Z}}^n)$ equal to the probability measure that places mass $1$ on $\hat{f}_{\mid {{Z}^n}}$ and $0$ elsewhere. From these settings and the optimality of ERM for the empirical risk, ${\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w , Z^n)$ reduces to the simpler form ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f})$. To aid in the interpretation of the corollary, let us remark on two special cases of . In both cases, we will suppose that, as in Proposition \[prop:newgeneration\], $w(z^n,f) := \pi(f) /\hat{\pi}(f \mid z^n)$ where $\pi$ is the density of a fixed probability measureon ${\mathcal{F}}$ independent of the sample, so that ${\text{\sc comp}}$ is bounded by information complexity. First, if the $\eta$-central condition holds, then, setting $\eta' = \eta/2$ and using , it further follows that $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{\| {{Z}^n}}} \left[ \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}(Z) \right] \right] {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{\frac{n \eta}{6}} \frac{3}{n} \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid {{Z}^n}}[R_{{\underline{f}}}({{Z}^n})] + \frac{2 \operatorname{KL}(\; ( \hat{\Pi} \mid {{Z}^n}) \operatorname{\\|}\Pi \; )}{ \eta} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ In the second case, we take $\hat{\Pi}$ to be any posterior whose $\hat{\Pi}$-expected empirical risk is at most the empirical risk of $f^$ (for example, $\hat{\Pi}$ could be Dirac measure on, hence coincide with, ERM), and for simplicity we further assume that a $\beta$-Bernstein condition holds for some ${B}\geq 2$ (if it holds for a smaller ${B}$, we will simply weaken the condition). Thus, from the bounded loss assumption the $v$-central condition holds for $v(\gamma) = \frac{\gamma^{1-\beta}}{{B}}$ (provided that we only consider $\gamma \leq B^{1/(1- \beta)}$), and tuning $\gamma$ yields $\gamma = A_1 \cdot n^{-1/(2-\beta)} \operatorname{KL}(\; ( \hat{\Pi} \mid {{Z}^n}) \operatorname{\\|}\Pi\; )^{1/(2-\beta)}$ for a constant $A_1$ depending only on $\beta$ and $B$, so that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:finiteexample} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{\| {{Z}^n}}} \left[ \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}(Z) \right] \right] {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{n \cdot a_n} A_1 \cdot \left( \frac{ \operatorname{KL}(\; ( \hat{\Pi} \mid {{Z}^n}) \operatorname{\\|}\Pi\; )}{n} \right)^{1 / (2 - \beta)} , \end{aligned}$$ where $a_n = A_2 ( \operatorname{KL}(\; ( \hat{\Pi} \mid {{Z}^n}) \operatorname{\\|}\Pi \; )/n)^{(1- \beta) / (2 - \beta)}$ for a constant $A_2$ depending only on $\beta$ and $B$. Lastly, as usual, in both cases when the class is finite and the prior $\Pi$ is uniform, the KL-divergence term reduces to $\log \|{\mathcal{F}}\|$. We thus retrieve the familar bounds $O(n^{-1/2})$ in the worst-case ($\beta = 0$, for which the Bernstein condition holds vacuously for bounded losses) and $O(n^{-1})$ for the best case, $\beta = 1$. In the next section, we derive excess risk bounds for large classes by suitably controlling ${\text{\sc comp}}$ and then applying Corollary \[cor:risk-comp-esi\]. Bounds on Maximal Complexity ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}})$ and the excess risk bounds they imply {#sec:complexity} ===================================================================================================== The results of the previous section do not yet yield explicit excess risk bounds as they still involve a ${\text{\sc comp}}$ term. In this section, we leverage and extend ideas from [@opper1999worst] as well as results from empirical process theory to provide explicit bounds on ${\text{\sc comp}}$ for several important types of large classes: classes of VC-type, classes whose empirical entropy grows polynomially, and sets of classifiers whose entropy with bracketing grows polynomially. Along the way, we form vital connections to expected suprema of certain empirical processes, including Rademacher complexity. At the end of this section we present explicit excess risk bounds; these bounds are simple consequences of the bounds we developed on ${\text{\sc comp}}$. Preliminaries {#sec:prelloss} ------------- #### Losses and Lipschitzness. To properly capture losses like log-loss and supervised losses like 0-1 loss and squared loss, we introduce two different parameterizations of the loss function: 1. the direct parameterization: ${\ell}_f(z) = f(x,y)$; 2. and the supervised loss parameterization: ${\ell}_f(z) = {\ell}(y, f(x))$. For example, in the case of conditional density estimation with log loss, we then have ${\ell}_f(z) = f(x, y) = -\log p_f(y \mid x)$. Thus, each function $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$ has domain ${\mathcal{Z}}$, and the equivalence ${\mathcal{F}}= \{{\ell}_f : f \in {\mathcal{F}}\}$ holds. On the other hand, for supervised losses, each function $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$ has domain ${\mathcal{X}}$ while each loss-composed function ${\ell}_f$ has domain ${\mathcal{Z}}$. Unlike previous sections, in this section we require an additional assumption in the case of the supervised loss parameterization: we assume that, for each outcome $(x,y) = z \in {\mathcal{Z}}$, the loss ${\ell}_f(z) = {\ell}(y, f(x))$ is ${L}$-Lipschitz in its second argument, i.e. for all $f, g \in {\mathcal{F}}$, $$\begin{aligned} \left\| {\ell}(y, f(x)) - {\ell}(y, g(x)) \right\| \leq {L}\left\| f(x) - g(x) \right\| . \tag{A2} \label{eqn:lipschitz}\end{aligned}$$ In the case of classification with 0-1 loss, ${\mathcal{F}}$ is the set of classifiers taking values in $\{0, 1\}$ and ${\mathcal{Y}}= \{0, 1\}$, and so will hold with $L = 1$ (and is in fact an equality). For convenience in the analysis, in the case of the direct parameterization we may always take $L = 1$. #### Standard complexity measures. It will be useful to review some of the standard notions of complexity before presenting our bounds. In the below, let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a class of functions mapping from some space ${\mathcal{S}}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$; we typically will take ${\mathcal{S}}$ equal to either ${\mathcal{X}}$ or ${\mathcal{Z}}$. For a pseudonorm $\\|\cdot\\|$, the $\varepsilon$-covering number ${\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{H}}, \\|\cdot\\|, \varepsilon)$ is the minimum number of radius-$\varepsilon$ balls in the pseudonorm $\\|\cdot\\|$ whose union contains ${\mathcal{H}}$. We will work with the $L_2(Q)$ (or $L_1(Q)$) pseudonorms for some probability measure $Q$. A case that will occur frequently is when $Q = P_n$ is the empirical measure $\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \delta_{S_j}$ based on a sample $S_1, \ldots, S_n$; here, $\delta_s$ (for $s \in {\mathcal{S}}$) is a Dirac measure, and the sample will always be clear from the context. For two functions $h^{(l)}$ and $h^{(u)}$, the bracket $[h^{(l)}, h^{(u)}]$ is the set of all functions $f$ that satisfy $h^{(l)} \leq f \leq h^{(u)}$. An $\varepsilon$-bracket (in some pseudonorm $\\|\cdot\\|$) is a bracket $[h^{(l)}, h^{(u)}]$ satisfying $\\|h^{(l)} - h^{(u)}\\| \leq \varepsilon$. The $\varepsilon$-bracketing number ${\mathcal{N}}_{[\cdot]}({\mathcal{H}}, \\|\cdot\\|, \varepsilon)$ is the minimum number of $\varepsilon$-brackets that cover ${\mathcal{H}}$; the logarithm of the $\varepsilon$-bracketing number is called the $\varepsilon$-entropy with bracketing. Let $\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_n$ be independent Rademacher random variables (distributed uniformly on $\{-1, 1\}$). The empirical Rademacher complexity of ${\mathcal{H}}$ and the Rademacher complexity of ${\mathcal{H}}$ respectively are $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{R}}_n({\mathcal{H}}\mid S_1, \ldots, S_n) := \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_n} \Biggl[ \sup_{h \in {\mathcal{H}}} \left\| \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_i h(S_i) \right\| \Biggr] \qquad \qquad {\mathcal{R}}_n({\mathcal{H}}) := \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\Biggl[ \sup_{h \in {\mathcal{H}}} \left\| \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_i h(S_i) \right\| \Biggr] ,\end{aligned}$$ where the first expectation is conditional on $S_1, \ldots, S_n$. $H$-local complexity and Rademacher complexity bounds on the NML complexity {#sec:rademacher} --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We first show that the simple form of the complexity ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}) \leq {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}})$ can be directly upper bounded in terms of two other complexity notions, the $H$-local complexity (defined below) and Rademacher complexity, up to a constant depending on the $L_2(P)$ diameter of ${\mathcal{F}}$. \[thm:opper-haussler-talagrand\] Fix $\varepsilon > 0$ and let ${\mathcal{F}}$ have diameter $\varepsilon$ in the $L_2(P)$ pseudometric. Define $\sigma := e \, {L}\, \varepsilon$, fix arbitrary $f_0 \in {\mathcal{F}}$, and define the loss class ${\mathcal{G}}:= \{ {\ell}_{f_0} - {\ell}_f : f \in {\mathcal{F}}\}$. Define $$\begin{aligned} T_n := \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^n \left( {\ell}_{f_0}(Z_j) - {\ell}_f(Z_j) \right) - \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \sum_{j=1}^n \left( {\ell}_{f_0}(Z_j) - {\ell}_f(Z_j) \right) \right] \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} {\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}}) &\leq 3 \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ T_n \right] + n \eta \sigma^2 \label{eqn:oht-1-first} \\ &\leq 6 n \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ {\mathcal{R}}_n({\mathcal{G}}) \right] + n \eta \sigma^2 . \label{eqn:oht-2-first}\end{aligned}$$ Two remarks are in order. First, we refer to the quantity $\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} [ T_n ]$ as an entropified local complexity, or $H$-local complexity for short. The “local” part of the name stems from how, in the empirical process inside the supremum defining $T_n$, the losses are centered/localized around ${\ell}_{f_0}$; the “entropified” part of the name is due to the fact that the sample is distributed according to $Q_{f_0}$, itself defined via entropification. Second, the attentive reader may have noticed that in the above theorem, the expectation in the Rademacher complexity is relative to the distribution $Q_{f_0}$ for arbitrary $f_0 \in {\mathcal{F}}$, rather than the distribution $P$ generating the data. Moreover, the appearance of $Q_{f_0}$ appears to dampen the utility of ${\mathcal{F}}$ having small $L_2(P)$ diameter. This apparent mismatch will be of no concern due to a technical lemma (Lemma \[lemma:sigma\] in Appendix \[app:opper-haussler-talagrand\]), which relates the $L_2(Q_{f_0})$ and $L_2(P)$ pseudometrics. We now sketch a proof of this theorem in three steps; the first part, , is an immediate consequence of Lemmas \[lemma:opper-haussler\] and \[lemma:mostly-talagrand\] below. The proofs of these results can be found in Appendix \[app:opper-haussler-talagrand\]. #### First step: Relating ${\text{\sc comp}}$ to exponential moment of $T_n$. The following result follows from a straightforward generalization of an argument of [@opper1999worst]: \[lemma:opper-haussler\] Take arbitrary ${\mathcal{F}}$ and fix arbitrary $f_0 \in {\mathcal{F}}$. Then: $$\begin{aligned} {\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}}) \leq \frac{1}{\eta} \log \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ e^{\eta T_n } \right]. \label{eqn:cond-exp-moment-T}\end{aligned}$$ #### Second step: Bounding exponential moment of $T_n$. It remains to bound $\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}[ e^{\eta T_n} ]$. The next lemma does this by leveraging Talagrand’s inequality. \[lemma:mostly-talagrand\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{F}}$ has $L_2(P)$ diameter at most $\epsilon$. Recall that $\sigma = e \, {L}\, \varepsilon$ and ${\mathcal{G}}:= \{ {\ell}_{f_0} - {\ell}_f : f \in {\mathcal{F}}\}$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z^n \sim Q_{f_0}} [ e^{\eta T_n } ] \leq \exp \left( 3 \eta \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z^n \sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ T_n \right] + n \eta^2 \sigma^2 \right) \label{eqn:talagrand-1} \end{aligned}$$ We note that [@opper1999worst] obtained a result similar in form to but under the considerably stronger assumption that the original class has finite $\sup$-norm entropy and, consequently, that the class ${\mathcal{G}}_k$ has $\sup$-norm radius at most $O(\varepsilon)$. Inequality of Theorem \[thm:opper-haussler-talagrand\] now follows. Proving the second part, inequality , is based on the following standard result from empirical process theory. \[lemma:E-sup-rad\] $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z^n \sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ T_n \right] \leq 2 n \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ {\mathcal{R}}_n({\mathcal{G}}) \right] .\end{aligned}$$ This lemma is proved in Appendix \[app:opper-haussler-talagrand\] for completeness. To make the bounds in Theorem \[thm:opper-haussler-talagrand\] useful for general ${\mathcal{F}}$ with possibly large $L_2(P)$ diameter, we first decompose ${\text{\sc comp}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}})$ in terms of the $L_2(P)$ covering numbers at some small, optimally-tuned resolution $\varepsilon$ and the maximal complexity among all Voronoi cells induced by the cover, as in . We then use existing bounds on $H$-local complexity and Rademacher complexity to get sharp bounds on ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}})$ in terms of covering numbers. To this end, let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be arbitrary and let $\{f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_{N_\varepsilon}\}$ form an $(\varepsilon / 2)$-net for ${\mathcal{F}}$ in the $L_2(P)$ pseudometric, with $N_\varepsilon := {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), \varepsilon/2)$, and let ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,1}}, \ldots, {{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,N_\varepsilon}}$ be the corresponding partition of ${\mathcal{F}}$ into Voronoi cells according to the $L_2(P)$ pseudometric. That is, for each $k \in [N_\varepsilon]$, the Voronoi cell ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}}$ is defined as $\bigl\{ f \in {\mathcal{F}}: k = \operatorname{arg\,min}_{i \in [N_\varepsilon]} \\|f - f_i\\|_{L_2(P)} \bigr\}$.[^1] Clearly, each cell ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}}$ has $L_2(P)$ diameter at most $\varepsilon$. For each $k$, fix an arbitrary $f_k \in {{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}}$ and let $T_n^{(k)}$ be defined as $T_n$ above with $f_k$ in the role of $f_0$. Inequality immediately gives the following corollary of Theorem \[thm:opper-haussler-talagrand\]. \[cor:opper-haussler-talagrand\] Let $\sigma := e \, {L}\, \varepsilon$ and, for each $k \in [N_\varepsilon]$, define the loss class ${\mathcal{G}}_k := \{ {\ell}_{f_k} - {\ell}_f : f \in {{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}} \}$. Then $$\begin{aligned} {\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}}) &\leq \frac{\log N_\varepsilon}{\eta} + \max_{k \in [N_\varepsilon]} \left( 3 \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_k}} \left[ T_n^{(k)} \right] + \eta n \sigma^2 \right) \label{eqn:oht-1} \\ &\leq \frac{\log N_\varepsilon}{\eta} + \max_{k \in [N_\varepsilon]} \left( 6 n \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_k}} \left[ {\mathcal{R}}_n({\mathcal{G}}_k) \right] + \eta n \sigma^2 \right) . \label{eqn:oht-2}\end{aligned}$$ From $H$-local complexity and Rademacher complexity to excess risk bounds ------------------------------------------------------------------------- We now show some concrete implications of our link between ${\text{\sc comp}}$, $\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}[ T_n ]$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_n$ for three types of classes: classes of VC-type, classes with polynomial empirical entropy, and sets of classifiers of polynomial $L_2(P)$ entropy with bracketing. Each of these types of classes will be defined in sequence. Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a class of functions over a space ${\mathcal{S}}$. The class ${\mathcal{H}}$ is said to be of VC-type* if, for some $A \in (0, \infty)$ and $V > 0$, for all $\varepsilon > 0$, the empirical covering numbers of ${\mathcal{G}}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{s_1, \ldots, s_n \in {\mathcal{S}}} {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{H}}, L_2(P_n), \varepsilon) \leq \left( A / \varepsilon \right)^V . \label{eqn:vc-type-classes}\end{aligned}$$ Such classes often are called parametric classes. The class ${\mathcal{H}}$ is said to have polynomial empirical entropy if, for some $A \in (0, \infty), \rho \in (0,1)$, for all $\varepsilon > 0$, the empirical entropy of ${\mathcal{H}}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{s_1, \ldots, s_n \in {\mathcal{S}}} \log {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{H}}, L_2(P_n), \varepsilon) \leq \left( A / \varepsilon \right)^{2 \rho} . \label{eqn:poly-classes}\end{aligned}$$ These classes are nonparametric. We say the class ${\mathcal{H}}$ has polynomial $L_1(P)$ entropy with bracketing if, for some $A \in (0, \infty), \rho \in (0,1)$, for all $\varepsilon > 0$, the $L_1(P)$ entropy with bracketing of ${\mathcal{G}}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \log {\mathcal{N}}_{[\cdot]}({\mathcal{H}}, L_1(P), \varepsilon) \leq \left( A^2 / \varepsilon \right)^\rho . \label{eqn:poly-classes-b}\end{aligned}$$ To obtain explicit bounds from Corollary \[cor:opper-haussler-talagrand\], we require suitable upper bounds on either the Rademacher complexity $\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_k}} \left[ {\mathcal{R}}_n({\mathcal{G}}_k) \right]$ or directly on the $H$-local complexity $\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Q_{f_k}} \left[ T_n^{(k)} \right]$ itself in the three cases of interest: VC-type classes, classes of polynomial empirical entropy, and sets of classifiers of polynomial entropy with bracketing. It is simple to obtain such bounds using Dudley’s entropy integral, itself a product of the well-known chaining method from empirical process theory. However, the trick here is that we would like to leverage the fact that ${\mathcal{G}}_k$ has small $L_2(P)$ diameter. By making use of Talagrand’s generic chaining complexity, [@koltchinskii2011oracle] obtained bounds which improve with reductions in the $L_2(P)$ diameter. We restate simplified versions of these bounds here (see equations (3.17) and (3.19) of [@koltchinskii2011oracle]): In the following and all subsequent results, $\lesssim$ indicates inequality up to multiplication by a universal constant. \[thm:small-rad\] Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a class of functions over ${\mathcal{Z}}$, and let $Q \in \Delta({\mathcal{Z}})$. Let $\sup_{h \in {\mathcal{H}}} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim Q} [ h(Z)^2 ] \leq \sigma^2$ and $U := \sup_{h \in {\mathcal{H}}} \\|h\\|_\infty$. Assume that ${\mathcal{H}}$ is of VC-type as in with exponent $V$. Then, for $\sigma^2 \geq \frac{c}{n}$ (for some constant $c$) $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q} \left[ {\mathcal{R}}_n({\mathcal{H}}) \right] \lesssim \max \left\{ \sqrt{\frac{V}{n}} \sigma \sqrt{\log \frac{A}{\sigma}}, \frac{V U}{n} \log \frac{A}{\sigma} \right\} . \label{eqn:vc-rad-bound}\end{aligned}$$ Take ${\mathcal{H}}$, $Q$, $\sigma$, and $U$ as before, but now assume that ${\mathcal{G}}$ is of polynomial empirical entropy as in with exponent $\rho$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q} \left[ {\mathcal{R}}_n({\mathcal{H}}) \right] \lesssim \max \left\{ \frac{A^\rho}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma^{1 - \rho} , \frac{A^{2 \rho / (\rho + 1)} U^{(1 - \rho) / (1 + \rho)}}{n^{1/(1+\rho)}} \right\} . \label{eqn:poly-rad-bound}\end{aligned}$$ For the case of classes of polynomial entropy with bracketing, we appeal to upper bounds on $\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Q_{f_k}} \left[ T_n^{(k)} \right]$. If the class ${\mathcal{G}}_k$ has small $L_1(Q_{f_k})$ diameter and, moreover, if it also has polynomial $L_1(Q_{f_k})$ entropy with bracketing, then Lemma A.4 of [@massart2006risk] provides precisely such a bound. Below, we present a straightforward consequence thereof. \[thm:small-Esup\] Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a class of functions over ${\mathcal{Z}}$, and let $Q \in \Delta({\mathcal{Z}})$. Let $\sup_{h \in {\mathcal{H}}} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim Q} [ \|h(Z)\| ] \leq \sigma^2$ and $\sup_{h \in {\mathcal{H}}} \\|h\\|_\infty \leq 1$. Assume that ${\mathcal{H}}$ is has polynomial entropy with bracketing as in with exponent $\rho$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q} \left[ \sup_{h \in {\mathcal{H}}} \left\{ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n h(Z_j) - \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}[ h(Z) ] \right\} \right] \lesssim \max \left\{ \frac{A^\rho}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma^{1 - \rho} , \frac{A^{2 \rho / (\rho + 1)}}{n^{1/(1+\rho)}} \right\} . \label{eqn:poly-E-sup-bound-b}\end{aligned}$$ The following theorem builds on Corollary \[cor:opper-haussler-talagrand\] and nearly follows by plugging in either or into and tuning $\varepsilon$ in terms of $n$ and $\eta$ (which gives the VC case, ) , and plugging in into and then tuning (which gives the polynomial entropy case, ). The remaining work is to resolve a minor discrepancy between $L_2(P)$ pseudonorms and $L_2(Q_{f_k})$ pseudonorms (or the $L_1$ versions thereof). This theorem will allow us to show optimal rates under Bernstein conditions. \[thm:comp-bound\] If ${\mathcal{F}}$ is of VC-type as in with exponent $V$, then for all $\eta \in (0, 1]$, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}})}{n} \lesssim V \log \frac{A {L}n}{V} \; \cdot \; n^{-1} \cdot \eta^{-1} . \label{eqn:comp-vc}\end{aligned}$$ If ${\mathcal{F}}$ has polynomial empirical entropy as in or is a set of classifiers of polynomial entropy with bracketing as in with exponent $\rho$, [then]{}, for all $0 < \eta < 1$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:comp-poly-newbee} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}})}{n} \lesssim (A {L})^{\frac{2 \rho}{1+\rho}} \cdot n^{-\frac{1}{1 + \rho}} \cdot \eta^{- \frac{1-\rho}{1+\rho}}.\end{aligned}$$ The proof of Theorem \[thm:comp-bound\] can be found in Appendix \[app:comp-bound\]. We will now prepare for our results on the rates of ERM on a class ${\mathcal{F}}$. We considerably generalize these results in the next section, using the concept of ‘ERM-like’ estimators. For now, the reader may skip the following definition and simply equate ERM-like with ‘ERM’. \[def:ermlike\] Consider two models $\bar{{\mathcal{F}}}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}\subseteq \bar{{\mathcal{F}}}$ and let $\hat{f}$ be any deterministic estimator on the larger model $\bar{{\mathcal{F}}}$ and $w: {\mathcal{Z}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+_0$ be a luckiness function. We say that $\hat{f}$ is ERM-like relative to ${\mathcal{F}}$ and $w$ if for some $\tau \geq 0$, for all $\eta > 0$, all $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$, $$\label{eq:ermlike} {\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{\eta}(\bar{{\mathcal{F}}},\hat{f},w,z^n) \lesssim {\text{\sc comp}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}) + \frac{\tau}{\eta}.$$ Note that if we take $\bar{{\mathcal{F}}} = {\mathcal{F}}$ and set $\hat{f}$ to be ERM on ${\mathcal{F}}$, then $\hat{f}$ is indeed ERM-like with $\tau= 0$, since then $R_{\hat{f}}(z^n)\leq 0$. In the following corollary, note that in both cases, the occurrence of the Bernstein exponent $\beta$ (or $\kappa^{-1}$) is consistent with its occurence in the simple finite ${\mathcal{F}}$ setting of . \[cor:ry\] Assume that a $\beta$-Bernstein condition holds for ${\mathcal{F}}$ as in Definition \[def:bernstein\] for some $\beta$ and ${B}$, and impose assumption . Define $\kappa := \beta^{-1}$. Let $\hat{f}$ be a deterministic estimator on a model $\bar{{\mathcal{F}}} \supseteq {\mathcal{F}}$ that is ERM-like relative to ${\mathcal{F}}$ and some luckiness function $w$. Then, further implies, taking $\gamma = \left( {B}\left( \frac{V \log \frac{A {L}n}{V}}{n} + \tau \right) \right)^{\kappa / (2 \kappa - 1)}$ and taking $n$ large enough so that $\frac{V}{n} \log \frac{A {L}n}{V} + \tau \leq {B}^{1 / (1 - \beta)}$, that for all $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{v(\gamma)}(\bar{{\mathcal{F}}},\hat{f},W,z^n)}{n} + \gamma & \lesssim \left( {B}\left(V \log \frac{A {L}n}{V} + \tau \right) \right)^{\frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1}} \cdot n^{- \frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1}} . \label{eqn:kl-comp-bound-vc}\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, under such a Bernstein condition, further implies, taking $\gamma = n^{-\frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1 + \rho}}$ and assuming that $n > (2 {B})^{-\frac{2 \kappa -1 + \rho}{\kappa-1}}$, that for all $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$, [ $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{v(\gamma)}(\bar{\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}, W, z^n)}{n} + \gamma \lesssim \left( ( A L) ^{\frac{2 \rho}{\rho + 1}} +1 +\tau \right) \cdot {B}^{\frac{1 - \rho}{1 + \rho}} n^{-\frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1 + \rho}} . \label{eqn:kl-comp-bound-poly}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} We used the notation $\kappa = \beta^{-1}$ here to make the results easier comparable to [@tsybakov2004optimal] and [@audibert2004PAC]; the result still holds for the case $\beta = 0$ though, if we simply replace $\kappa^{-1}$ by $\beta$ in all exponents above; e.g. $\kappa / (2 \kappa - 1)$ in becomes $1/(2 - \kappa^{-1}) = 1/(2- \beta)$. To see , we begin by upper bounding $\frac{{\text{\sc comp}}_{v(\gamma)}({\mathcal{F}})}{n}$ using with $\eta = v(\gamma) = \min \left\{ \frac{\gamma^{1 - \beta}}{{B}}, 1 \right\}$ (from Lemma \[lemma:bernstein-v-central\]). Tentatively suppose that ${B}\gamma^{-(1-\beta)} \geq 1$; then $v(\gamma)^{-1} \lesssim {B}\gamma^{-(1 - \beta)}$, and hence $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{v(\gamma)}(\bar{{\mathcal{F}}},\hat{f},W,z^n)}{n} + \gamma \lesssim \frac{{B}}{n} \left( V \log \frac{A L n}{V} + \tau \right) \gamma^{-(1 - \beta)} + \gamma .\end{aligned}$$ Tuning $\gamma$ such that it is equal to the first term on the RHS above yields ; it is simple to verify that the supposition ${B}\gamma^{-(1-\beta)} \geq 1$ is ensured by the constraint on $n$ stated in the corollary. We now prove . We first prove the case for $\hat{f}$ ERM on ${\mathcal{F}}$, i.e. with ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}})$ rather than ${\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}(\bar{{\mathcal{F}}})$ on the left. Let $\gamma_n := n^{-\frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1 + \rho}}$ be the value of $\gamma$ used at sample size $n$. We get from the definition of the Bernstein condition and Lemma \[lemma:bernstein-v-central\] that $$\eta_n := v(\gamma_n) = {B}^{-1} \left( n^{- \frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1 + \rho}}\right)^{(\kappa-1)/\kappa} = {B}^{-1} n^{-\frac{\kappa-1}{2 \kappa - 1 + \rho}}$$ for all $n$ for which the RHS above is at most $1$. This will hold whenever $n \geq (1 / {B})^{\frac{2 \kappa -1 + \rho}{\kappa-1}}$. For such $n$, we will also have $\eta_n \leq 1$ and thus can apply , plugging in $\eta = \eta_n = v(\gamma_n)$. The result follows by simple algebra for all $n$ larger than the given bound. To extend the result to ERM-like estimators, we note that from and , using $\rho \geq 0$, we get $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f},W,z^n)}{n} \lesssim \left( (A {L})^{\frac{2 \rho}{1+\rho}} \cdot n^{-\frac{1}{1 + \rho}} + \tau \right) \cdot \eta^{- \frac{1-\rho}{1+\rho}}.\end{aligned}$$ We now proceed as above plugging in $\eta_n$ into the above expression rather than . Recovering Bounds under Bernstein Conditions for Large Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- Let us now see how Lemma \[lemma:kl-renyi\] can recover the known optimal rates under the Tsybakov margin condition and also the best known rates for empirical risk minimization under Bernstein-type conditions. The theorem below works for general deterministic estimators, not just ERM; the (simple) rate implications for ERM are discussed underneath the theorem. While there are other techniques that can achieve the same rates for ERM, we feel that our approach embodies a simpler analysis for the polynomial entropy case; it also leads to some new results for other estimators, which we detail in the next section. \[thm:excess-risk-erm\] Assume that the $\beta$-Bernstein condition holds for ${\mathcal{F}}$ as in Corollary \[cor:ry\] and define $\kappa := \beta^{-1}$. Let $\hat{f}$ be a deterministic estimator on $\bar{{\mathcal{F}}} \supseteq {\mathcal{F}}$ that is ERM-like relative to ${\mathcal{F}}$ (with $\tau$ as in Definition \[def:ermlike\]) and some luckiness function $w$. First suppose ${\mathcal{F}}$ is of VC-type as in with exponent $V$. Then there is a universal constant $C_1$ such that for all $n$ large enough so that $\frac{V}{n} \log \frac{A {L}n}{V} + \tau \leq {B}^{1 / (1 - \beta)}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:vcfinal} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{\hat{f}}}(Z) \right] {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{\psi_1(n)} C_1 \left({B}\left( V \log \frac{A {L}n}{V} + \tau \right) \right)^{\frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1}} \cdot n^{-\frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1}}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_1(n) = \frac{1}{6 {B}} \cdot \left( {B}\left( V \log \frac{A L n}{V} + \tau \right) \right)^{(\kappa - 1) / (2 \kappa - 1)} \, n^{\kappa / (2 \kappa - 1)} \asymp (\log n)^{(\kappa - 1) / (2 \kappa - 1)} \cdot n^{\kappa / (2 \kappa - 1)}$. Analogously, suppose that ${\mathcal{F}}\subseteq \bar{{\mathcal{F}}}$ has polynomial empirical entropy as in or is a set of classifiers of polynomial entropy with bracketing as in with exponent $\rho$. Then there is a $C_2$ such that for all $n$ large enough so that $n > (2 {B})^{-\frac{2 \kappa -1 + \rho}{\kappa-1}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:polyfinal} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{\hat{f}}}(Z) \right] {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{\psi_2(n)} C_2 \left[ \left( (AL) ^{\frac{2 \rho}{\rho + 1}} + 1 + \tau \right) \cdot {B}^{\frac{1-\rho}{1+\rho}} \cdot n^{-\frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1 + \rho}} \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_2(n) = \frac{1}{6} \cdot n^{\frac{\kappa + \rho}{2 \kappa - 1 + \rho}}$. For both results, observe from Corollary \[cor:risk-comp-esi\] and the definition of ${\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}$ that, for all $\gamma > 0$, $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ {{R}_{\hat{f}}}(Z) \right] {\ensuremath{\leqclosed}}_{v(\gamma) \cdot n/6} \frac{3 \, \left({\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{v(\gamma)/2}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}) \right)}{n} + 4 \gamma. \label{eqn:risk-comp-erm-again-for-reader}\end{aligned}$$ The result now follows by plugging in and . Theorem \[thm:excess-risk-erm\] combined with part (ii) of Proposition \[prop:drop\] implies that, with probability at least $1 - \delta$, ERM obtains the rate $$\begin{aligned} n^{-\frac{\kappa}{2 \kappa - 1 + \rho}} + n^{-\frac{\kappa + \rho}{2 \kappa - 1 + \rho}} \cdot \textstyle \log \frac{1}{\delta} .\end{aligned}$$ For sets of classifiers of polynomial entropy with bracketing, the rate $n^{-\kappa / (2 \kappa - 1 + \rho)}$ is known to be optimal and, in particular, matches the results of [@tsybakov2004optimal] (see Theorem 1), [@audibert2004PAC] (see the discussion after Theorem 3.3), and @koltchinskii2006local [p. 36]. Outside the realm of classification, for classes with polynomial empirical entropy, the rate we obtain is to our knowledge the best known for ERM. In particular, if these nonparametric classes are convex and the loss is exp-concave, then $\kappa = \beta = 1$, and the rates we obtain for ERM are known to be minimax optimal [@rakhlin2017empirical Theorem 7]. We note, however, that there are cases where $\beta < 1$ and yet, by using an aggregation scheme, one can obtain a rate as if $\beta = 1$; one such example is in the case of squared loss with a non-convex class [@rakhlin2017empirical; @liang2015learning]. Properties and Applications of ${\text{\sc comp}}$ {#sec:applications} ================================================== Here we provide two applications of the developments in this paper, emphasizing that we do not just recover existing results but also generate new ones. We first provide some general properties of ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi},w,{{z}^n})$ that will be used in the applications. The first property concerns data-independent complexities, i.e. based on constant luckiness functions. Then for any randomized estimator, just as in the deterministic case, ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, {{z}^n})$ is upper bounded by the maximal complexity ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}})$: \[prop:maxcomp\] Let $\hat{\Pi}$ be an arbitrary randomized estimator and let $w(f,z^n) = 1$ for all $f \in{\mathcal{F}}, z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$. Then: $$\label{eq:maxcomprandomized} \sup_{z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, z^n) \leq {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}).$$ The second property is about a decomposition of ${\text{\sc comp}}$ that vastly generalizes . Let ${\mathcal{K}}$ be a countable set and consider a partition $\{ {\mathcal{F}}_k \mid k \in {\mathcal{K}}\}$ of the model ${\mathcal{F}}$. Suppose we have an estimator $\hat{\Pi}$ for ${\mathcal{F}}$. This induces conditional estimators $\hat{\Pi}_{\|k}$ for each ${\mathcal{F}}_k$ in the following way: for each $k$ and $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$, $\hat{\Pi}_{\|k,z^n}$ is a distribution on ${\mathcal{F}}_k$; if $\hat{\Pi}(f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k \mid z^n) > 0$, then $\hat{\Pi}_{\|k,z^n}$ is the distribution of $f$ according to $\hat{\Pi}$ conditioned on both data $z^n$ and $f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k$; for $z^n$ with $\hat{\Pi}(f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k \mid z^n) = 0$, $\hat{\Pi}_{\|k,z^n}$ can be set to an arbitrary distribution on ${\mathcal{F}}_k$ (the choice will not affect the results). Thus, $\hat{\Pi}_{\|k}$ is now well-defined as an estimator that maps ${\mathcal{Z}}^n$ into the set of distributions on ${\mathcal{F}}_k$. For all $k \in {\mathcal{K}}$, let $w_k$ be a luckiness function on ${\mathcal{Z}}^N \times {\mathcal{F}}_k$. The following proposition shows that, for arbitrary such luckiness functions $w_k$ and sub-models ${\mathcal{F}}_k$, we can construct an overall luckiness function $w$ such that the complexity ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, z^n)$ may be decomposed into the sub-complexities [${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}_k , \hat{\Pi}_{\|k}, w_k , z^n)$. ]{} Formally, for each $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$, let $\hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n$ be the marginal distribution on ${\mathcal{K}}$ with probability mass function $\hat{\pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n$ , induced by $\hat{\Pi}$, i.e. $\hat{\pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(k \mid z^n) = \hat{\Pi}(f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k \mid z^n)$. Let $\Pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}$ be a [prior]{} probability measure on ${\mathcal{K}}$ with probability mass function $\pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}$. \[prop:decomposingcomp\] With the definitions above, for $k \in{\mathcal{K}}$, $f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k$, $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$, set the global luckiness function $w$ to: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:compositew} w(z^n,f) := {w_{{k}}(z^n,{f})} \cdot \frac{{\pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(k)}{\hat{\pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}}({k} \mid z^n) }.\end{aligned}$$ Then for each $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:decomposing-comp} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, z^n) \leq \frac{\operatorname{KL}( \; ( \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n) \operatorname{\\|}\Pi_{{\mathcal{K}}})}{\eta} + \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n } \left[ {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}_{{\underline{k}}} , \hat{\Pi}_{\mid {\underline{k}}} , w_{{\underline{k}}} , z^n) \right] .\end{aligned}$$ We note that this result generalizes two of our previous observations. First, it generalizes for the case of countable ${\mathcal{F}}$: the second term of can be retrieved by taking all the ${\mathcal{F}}_k$ to be singletons and $w_k \equiv 1$; note that the second term of then vanishes. Second, it generalizes , which can be retrieved by taking ${\mathcal{K}}$ finite, taking $\hat{\Pi}$ to be an arbitrary deterministic estimator, setting the $w_k$ to be equal to $1$ and then applying Proposition \[prop:maxcomp\]. Two-Part MDL Estimator Achieving Optimal Rate {#sec:twopart} --------------------------------------------- Consider a given (finite or countable) partition $\{ {\mathcal{F}}_k : k \in {\mathcal{K}}\}$ of our model ${\mathcal{F}}$ and let $\hat{f}_k$ represent ERM within ${\mathcal{F}}_k$. Let, for each $k$, $\overline{{\text{\sc comp}}}({\mathcal{F}}_k, \hat{f}_k)$ be any number larger than or equal to ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}_k, \hat{f}_k)$. Fix a ‘prior’ distribution $\pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}$ on ${\mathcal{K}}$. Suppose that there exists a $k^ \in {\mathcal{K}}$ that achieves excess risk $\inf_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}} \inf_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}[ {{R}_{f}}(Z)]$; if there’s more than one ${\mathcal{F}}_k$ achieving the minimum, take $k^$ to be the one with the largest mass $\pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}(k)$; further ties can be resolved arbitrarily. $f^$ denotes the risk minimizer within ${\mathcal{F}}_{k^}$ which, consistently with earlier notation, is then also the risk minimizer within ${\mathcal{F}}$. Consider a two-stage deterministic estimator $\ddot{f}$ that proceeds by first selecting $\ddot{k} \equiv \ddot{k}_{\|Z^n} \in {\mathcal{K}}$ based on data $Z^n$ and then uses [the ERM]{} $\hat{f}_{\ddot{k}}$ within ${\mathcal{F}}_{\ddot{k}}$. From Proposition \[prop:decomposingcomp\], we see that, by choosing the luckiness functions $w$ and $w_k$ appropriately (all $w_k$ are set to $1$ for all $f \in {\mathcal{F}}_k, z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$), we get, with $\ddot{f}_{\|Z^n} := \hat{f}_{\ddot{k}\|Z^n}$ denoting the $f \in {\mathcal{F}}_{\ddot{k}_{\|Z^n}}$ selected by the estimator $\ddot{f}$ upon observing $Z^n$, that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:twoparty} {\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}, \ddot{f}, w, z^n) \leq & - \sum_{i=1}^n {\ell}_{f^}(z_i) + \nonumber \\ & \sum_{i=1}^n {\ell}_{\hat{f}_{\ddot{k} \mid z^n}}(z_i) + \frac{- \log \pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}(\ddot{k}_{\|z^n} )}{\eta} + \overline{{\text{\sc comp}}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}_{\ddot{k}}, \hat{f}_{\ddot{k}}). \end{aligned}$$ For reasons to become clear, we may call the particular choice of estimator $\ddot{k}$ that is defined as minimizing the right-hand side of the second line of the $\eta$-generalized MDL estimator. For this estimator we must then further have, for all $\eta > 0$, using that $\sum_{i=1}^n {\ell}_{\hat{f}_{\ddot{k} \mid z^n}}(z_i) + \frac{- \log \pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}(\ddot{k}_{\|z^n} )}{\eta} \leq \sum_{i=1}^n {\ell}_{\hat{f}_{k^* \mid z^n}}(z_i) + \frac{- \log \pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}(k^)}{\eta} $, that $$\label{eq:later} {\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}, \ddot{f}, W, z^n) \leq \frac{- \log \pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}({k}^)}{ \eta} + \overline{{\text{\sc comp}}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}_{k^}, \hat{f}_{k^}).$$ Let us first consider the case that $\overline{{\text{\sc comp}}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}_{k^}, \hat{f}_{k^}) = {{\text{\sc comp}}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}_{k^}, \hat{f}_{k^})$. In that case, for each $\eta > 0$, the $\eta$-generalized MDL estimator for ${\mathcal{F}}$ has essentially the same complexity bound as does ERM within the optimal submodel ${\mathcal{F}}_{k^}$; indeed it is ERM-like according to Definition \[def:ermlike\]. Thus, by Theorem \[thm:excess-risk-erm\], if a $\beta$-Bernstein condition holds for ${\mathcal{F}}_{k^}$, the two-part MDL estimator achieves the same rate as ERM within the optimal subclass ${\mathcal{F}}_{k^}$ if we choose $\eta = v(\gamma)$ with $\gamma$ set to the same value as we would for ERM relative to the submodel ${\mathcal{F}}_{k^}$. Two-part $v(\gamma)$-MDL thus serves as an optimal model selection criterion, and this holds even if the number of alternatives ${\mathcal{F}}_k$ considered is infinite. However, even setting aside computational issues, there are two obstacles to applying such an MDL principle in practice: first, for each fixed $\eta$, ${{\text{\sc comp}}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}_{k^}, \hat{f}_{k^})$ depends on the unknown distribution $P$, and second, the desired $\eta$, i.e, $\eta= v(\gamma)$ cannot be calculated since it depends on the unknown $\beta$ in the Bernstein condition (and hence also on $P$). The first obstacle is overcome if, for each fixed $\eta$, we base the two-part estimate $\ddot{f}$ on upper bounds of $\overline{{\text{\sc comp}}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}_k, \hat{f}_{k})$ that can be calculated for each $k$ without knowing $P$. If, for example, in the polynomial entropy case, for each $k$ we plug in the upper bound with ${\mathcal{F}}$ set to ${\mathcal{F}}_k$ (which can in principle be calculated), then 2-part MDL will still achieve the optimal rate once we use the right $\eta$; similarly if ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a VC-class and we plug in, for each $k$, . As for the second obstacle, the optimal values of $\eta$ are induced by the best $\beta$ for which a $\beta$-[Bernstein condition]{} holds; [in practice, one can learn it from the data using an algorithm such as the ‘safe Bayes’ algorithm of [@grunwald2012safe].]{} Remarkably, this model selection estimator has, for each fixed $\eta$, an interpretation as minimizing a 2-part codelength of the data: in the first part, one encodes a model index $k$ (using the code with lengths $- \log \pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}(k)$; each prior induces such a code by Kraft’s inequality) and in the second part, one encodes the data using the NML code, i.e. the optimal universal code relative to ${\mathcal{F}}_k$, and one picks the $k$ minimizing the total codelength. In fact, exactly this minimization, for the case of $\eta = 1$ and log-loss, was suggested by [@rissanen1996fisher] in the context of his MDL Principle, and has been much applied since under the name [‘refined MDL’]{} [@grunwald2007the]. Rissanen suggested this method simply because, viewed as a coding strategy, it led to small codelengths (cumulative log loss) of the data, and gave no frequentist justification in terms of convergence rates; we have just shown that, with a correctly set $\eta$, optimal rates for ERM within the optimal subclass can be recovered. For the log-loss case with $\eta=1$, we get ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}_k, \hat{f}_k) = \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}_k, \hat{f}_k)$ and , so the refined MDL estimator will pick the $k$ minimizing [$$\label{eq:simplenml} \sum_{i=1}^n {\ell}_{\ddot{f}_{\ddot{k}\|Z^n}}(Z_i) - \log \pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}(k) + \log \int_{{\mathcal{Z}}^n} \hat{f}_{ \mid {{z}^n}}({{z}^n}) d \nu({{z}^n}),$$ ]{} and thus avoids the problem of ${\text{\sc comp}}$ being uncomputable without knowledge of $P$. Penalized ERM Bounds: Lasso, Ridge and Luckiness NML {#sec:penalized} ---------------------------------------------------- Consider a penalization function $\Gamma: {\mathcal{F}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$. Let $\hat{f}$ be the penalized empirical risk minimizer defined as $$\label{eq:penalized} \hat{f}_{\|z^n} := \arg \min_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \sum_{i=1}^n \ell_f(z_i) + \eta^{-1} \cdot \Gamma(f) = \arg \min_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} R_f(z^n) + \eta^{-1} \cdot \Gamma(f),$$ with ties resolved arbitrarily; we assume that the minimum is always achieved. Obviously, successful estimation procedures such as the lasso (with multiplier $\lambda := \eta^{-1}$) and ridge regression [@HastieTF01] can be expressed in this form. In this subsection we show how our results give tight annealed excess risk bounds for such estimators for arbitrary penalization functions $\Gamma$; these can then be turned into real excess risk bounds using Corollary \[cor:risk-comp-esi\]. The main interest of this fact is that neither of the two already pre-existing specializations of ${\text{\sc comp}}$, i.e. PAC-Bayesian information complexity and Rademacher-type complexity, can easily handle penalized ERM-type methods. In contrast, we can simply define the luckiness function $w(z^n) = \exp(-\Gamma(\hat{f}_{\|z^n}))$. We can then write ${\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{\eta}$ as $$\begin{gathered} {\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}, W, z^n) = R_{\hat{f}_{\|z^n}}(z^n) + \frac{1}{\eta} \cdot \left( \Gamma(\hat{f}_{\|z^n}) + \log {\text{\sc S}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}, w) \right) \\ = \min_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \left( \; R_f(z^n) + \frac{\Gamma(f)}{\eta} \; \right) + \frac{1}{\eta} \log {\text{\sc S}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}, w).\label{eq:penalizedcompnew}\end{gathered}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} {\text{\sc S}}_{\eta}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f}, w) = \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z^n \sim P} \left[ \frac{e^{- ( \eta {{R}_{{\hat{f}_{\|Z^n}}}}({{Z}^n}) + \Gamma(\hat{f}_{\|Z^n}))}}{C(\hat{f}_{\|Z^n})} \right] = \int q_{\hat{f}_{\|z^n}}(z^n) w(\hat{f}_{\|z^n}) d\nu(z^n),\end{aligned}$$ We can now use Corollary \[cor:risk-comp-esi\] of Theorem \[thm:first\] once again to get actual excess risk bounds under the $v$-central condition (recall that the $\beta$-Bernstein condition implies [$v$-central]{} with $v(\gamma) \asymp \gamma^{1-\beta}$), plugging in the above expression . We can expect this risk bound to be tight since is really an equality, and Corollary \[cor:risk-comp-esi\], the link between annealed and actual excess risk for a given $v$-central condition, is also tight up to constant factors. Of course, to make such a risk bound insightful we would have to further bound $\log {\text{\sc S}}_{\eta}$, in a manner similar as was done for ERM-like estimators in Theorem \[thm:comp-bound\]. Penalized empirical risk methods such as the lasso have been thoroughly studied over the last fifteen years, and we do not yet know whether the approach we just sketched will lead to new results; our goal here is mainly to show that penalized ERM and generalized Bayesian (randomized) estimators can both be analyzed using the same technique, which bounds annealed risk in terms of cumulative log-loss differences. #### Cumulative Log-Loss Bounds — Luckiness Regret If the original loss function $\ell$ is log-loss and we take $\eta = 1$, then we can interpret the penalized estimator in terms of ‘minimax luckiness regret’, which features prominently in recent papers on sequential individual sequence prediction with log-loss such as [@kakade2006worst; @bartlett2013horizon], with the ‘luckiness’ terminology introduced by [@grunwald2007the]: for arbitrary probability densities (sequential log-loss prediction strategies) $r$ on ${\mathcal{Z}}^n$, we define the luckiness regret of $r$ on $z^n$ with slack function $\Gamma$ relative to set of densities $\{ p_f : f \in {\mathcal{F}}\}$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:minimax} - \log r(z^n) - \min_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \; \left(\; - \log p_{f}(z^n) + \Gamma(f)\; \right),\end{aligned}$$ i.e. the difference between the log-loss of $r$ and the log-loss achieved by the $\Gamma$-penalized predictor $\hat{f}$ which minimizes the penalized loss in hindsight. Now, if we take luckiness function $w(z^n) := \exp(-\Gamma(\hat{f}(z^n))$ and we take as $r$ in the density $r_w$ for the penalized estimator $\hat{f}$ as in definition (note that $p_f=q_f$, since we work with log-loss), then from and that definition we get that for each $z^n$, the luckiness regret of $r_w$ on $z^n$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} & - \log r_{w}(z^n) - \min_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \left(\; - \log p_{f}(z^n) + \Gamma(f) \; \right) = \\ & - \log p_{\hat{f}_{\|z^n}}(z^n) + \Gamma(\hat{f}_{\|z^n}) + \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f},w) - \min_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \left(\; - \log p_{f}(z^n) + \Gamma(f) \; \right) = \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{f},w),\end{aligned}$$ so that the luckiness regret of $r_w$ is constant over $z^n$. $r_w$ is thus an equalizer strategy, and, as explained by [@grunwald2007the], this implies that $r_w$ minimizes, over all probability densities $r$, the maximum, over all $z^n \in {\mathcal{Z}}^n$, of , thus achieving the minimax luckiness regret. This minimax luckiness regret is then also equal to $\log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}},\hat{f},w)$. #### Reconsidering [@chatterjee2014information] Our first main result, the annealed risk convergence bound of Theorem \[thm:first\], when specialized to log-loss and $\eta = 1/2$, implies a classic result of [@barron1991minimum] that gives nonasymptotic Hellinger convergence rates for two-part MDL estimators for well-specified models, implying that (two-part) data compression implies learning. Such two-part MDL estimators invariably work with a countable discretization of the parameter space. [@chatterjee2014information] sought to use those bounds to prove convergence at the right rate of Lasso-type estimators in a Gaussian regression setting, showing that the $\ell_1$-penalization can be linked to a minimization over a discretized grid of parameter values that allows it to be related to two-part MDL so that the Barron-Cover result can be used to prove rates of convergence. The present development suggests that this can perhaps be done much more generally — there is no need to consider only two-part codes or a probabilistic setting: every $\Gamma$-penalized estimator $\hat{f}$ for every bounded loss function defines a corresponding density $r_w$ with $w(x^n) = \exp(-\Gamma(\hat{f}))$, and hence a code with lengths $-\log r_w(z^n)$ in terms of which one can prove an excess risk bound via Theorem \[thm:first\] and Corollary \[cor:risk-comp-esi\]. Discussion and Future Work {#sec:discussion} ========================== Our strategy for controlling ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}})$ owes much to an ingenious argument of [@opper1999worst]. They analyzed the minimax regret in the individual sequence prediction setting with log loss, where the class of comparators is the set of static experts (i.e. experts that predict according to the same distribution in each round). [@cesa2001worst] obtain bounds in the more general setting where the comparator class consists of arbitrary experts that can predict conditionally on the past (for a further considerable extension within the realm of log loss, see [@rakhlin2015sequential] who use sequential complexities). Whereas the works of [@opper1999worst] and [@cesa2001worst] both operate under some kind of bounded $L_\infty$ metric entropy (the metric entropy in the latter work differs due to the experts’ sequential nature), the present paper operates under the much weaker assumption of bounded $L_2$ metric entropy. We note, however, that unlike the non-i.i.d. setting of [@cesa2001worst], the present paper is restricted to the i.i.d./static experts setting. Yet, the extension to general losses we introduce appears to be completely new. Theorem \[thm:excess-risk-erm\] offers a distribution-dependent bound whose derivation we view as simpler than similar bounds based on local Rademacher complexities. In particular, the strategy adopted in the present paper completely avoids complicated (at least in the view of the authors) fixed point equations that have been used to obtain good excess risk bounds in other works (such as [@koltchinskii1999rademacher; @bartlett2005local; @koltchinskii2006local]). In the case of classes of VC-type, one can obtain optimal rates by decoupling the optimization of the parameters $\varepsilon$ and $\gamma$; thus, one can obtain a suitable bound on ${\text{\sc comp}}$ without considering $\gamma$, leading to a rather easy tuning problem. In the case of larger classes of polynomial empirical entropy or sets of classifiers of polynomial entropy with bracketing, while $\gamma$ and $\varepsilon$ must be tuned jointly to obtain optimal rates, we have shown that an optimal tuning can be obtained without great effort. We note, however, that the bounds in the present paper lack the kind of data-dependence exhibited by previous works leveraging local Rademacher complexities. Indeed, the bound in Theorem \[thm:excess-risk-erm\] is an exact oracle inequality which is distribution-dependent and, consequently, is not computable by a practitioner who does not know the $\beta$ for which a Bernstein condition holds. In contrast, bounds obtained via local Rademacher complexities can be computed without distributional knowledge and have been shown to behave like the correct (but unknown to the practitioner) distribution-dependent bounds asymptotically (see Theorem 4.2 of [@bartlett2005local]). Yet, the present work gives rise to results which allow a different kind of data-dependence: a PAC-Bayesian improvement for situations when the posterior distribution is close to a prior distribution. This improvement (which is also algorithm-dependent) is already apparent from the simplified setting of Proposition \[prop:decomposingcomp\] in which one places a prior over submodels, and we expect that much more can be accomplished by using Theorem \[thm:first\] as a starting point. Theorem \[thm:first\] is also related to the main results of [@audibert2007combining], who provide bounds on the excess risk for bounded loss functions that can involve the generic chaining technique of Fernique and [@talagrand2014upper]; this technique generalizes the standard chaining technique of Dudley and can lead to smaller complexities in some cases. To discuss the connection, first note that, as far as we know, the standard chaining technique is used at some point in all approaches that achieve optimal rates for polynomial entropy classes under Tsybakov or Bernstein conditions, although this sometimes remains hidden[^2]. In our approach, chaining remains completely under the hood, but as mentioned earlier it is present in the proof of Koltchinskii’s ([-@koltchinskii2011oracle]) result linking Rademacher complexities to empirical entropy. Like we do, [@audibert2007combining] provides bounds on excess risk that allow for the use of priors, that can exploit Bernstein conditions, and that lead to optimal rates for large classes. However, whereas in our work chaining remains under the hood, their analogue of our ‘complexity’ (the right-hand side of their deviation bound) involves chaining explicitly, replacing the KL-term by an infinite sum over (roots of) KL terms. This makes it possible to design partitions of ${\mathcal{F}}$ and priors thereon that allow one to use generic chaining. On the other hand, they directly bound the excess risk — there is no ’annealed’ step in between and hence no direct analogue of Theorem \[thm:first\] either — so that it is not clear whether their approach lends itself to the relatively easy fixed-point-free tuning that is possible using our approach; also, the Shtarkov integral and hence the connection to minimax log-loss regret does not appear in their work, making the two approaches somewhat orthogonal. Thus, the aforementioned works go beyond our work in that they either allow data-dependent analogues of Rademacher complexities (turning oracle bounds into empirical bounds) or allow one to use generic chaining; it is at this point unclear (and an interesting open problem) whether our approach can be extended in these directions. We stress, however, that these papers make no connection between excess risk and NML complexity nor between NML complexity and Rademacher complexities; these connections are, as far as we know, completely new. The recently developed notion of offset Rademacher complexity provides a powerful alternative to analyses based on local Rademacher complexities. [@liang2015learning] introduced offset Rademacher complexities for the i.i.d. statistical learning setting to obtain faster rates under squared loss with unbounded noise (and hence unbounded loss); their bounds hold for Audibert’s star estimator [@audibert2008progressive] — an aggregation method — and obtain faster rates even in non-convex situations. The techniques of the present paper, while for general loss functions, notably do not currently handle unbounded losses nor do they leverage aggregation; in light of this latter trait, the rates obtained by Theorem \[thm:excess-risk-erm\] in the case of squared loss with non-convex classes are not minimax optimal as ERM itself fails to be an optimal procedure [@juditsky2008learning]. On the other hand, the rate provided by Theorem \[thm:excess-risk-erm\] is known to tightly characterize the performance of ERM in a number of situations, and it is unclear (to the authors) how to recover such results for ERM from the offset Rademacher complexity-based analysis of [@liang2015learning]. [@zhivotovskiy2016localization] use a combination of offset Rademacher complexities with a shifted empirical process to obtain tight bounds for ERM for the case of classification with VC classes under Massart’s noise condition. While in this setting our bounds are not as tight as those of [@zhivotovskiy2016localization], our analysis applies to the case of general noise, general losses, and large classes. We note that in the case of classification and bounded noise, existing lower bounds imply that classes of infinite VC dimension fail to be learnable. \[glos:sary\] {#app:proofs} This section contains proofs omitted from the main text. Theorem \[thm:first\] --------------------- Let us abbreviate ${\textsc{ann}(f)} = n {\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}^{\textsc{ann},\eta}}_{{\bar{Z}}\sim P} \left[ {{R}_{{f}}}({\bar{Z}}) \right]$. By the definition of ESI we see that the statement in the theorem is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:realthing} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z^n \sim P} \left[ \exp \left( \eta \cdot \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{\| Z^n}} \left[ {\textsc{ann}({\underline{f}})} \right] - {\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w , Z^n) \right) \right) \right] = 1.\end{aligned}$$ Plugging in the definition of ${\text{\sc comp}^{\text{\sc full}}}$ and then ${\text{\sc comp}}$, the left side can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \exp \left( \eta \cdot \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{\| Z^n}} \left[ {\textsc{ann}({\underline{f}})} - R_{{\underline{f}}}(Z^n) \right] - \frac{1}{\eta} \cdot \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid Z^n} \left[ - \log w({\underline{f}}, Z^n) \right] + \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w) \right) \right) \right) \right] = \\ \frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \exp \left( \eta \cdot \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{\| Z^n}} \left[ {\textsc{ann}({\underline{f}})} - R_{{\underline{f}}}(Z^n) \right] - \frac{1}{\eta} \cdot \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid Z^n} \left[ - \log w({\underline{f}}, Z^n) \right] \right)\right)\right]} { \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z^n \sim P} \left[ \exp\left(- \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid z^n} \left[\eta {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}(z^n) + \log C({\underline{f}}) - \log w(z^n, {\underline{f}}) \right] \right) \right] }, \end{aligned}$$ where the denominator is just the definition of ${\text{\sc S}}$. It is thus sufficient to prove that this expression is equal to $1$. But this is immediate from the definition of $C(f)$ and ${\textsc{ann}(\cdot)}$. Proof of second main result, Theorem \[thm:opper-haussler-talagrand\] {#app:opper-haussler-talagrand} --------------------------------------------------------------------- We first prove the results that imply and then prove the result that implies . ### Proof of Inequality from Theorem \[thm:opper-haussler-talagrand\] is a consequence of Lemmas \[lemma:opper-haussler\] and \[lemma:mostly-talagrand\], which we prove in turn. $$\begin{aligned} e^{\eta \cdot {\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}})} = {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}) &= \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \frac{q_f({{Z}^n})}{q_{f_0}({{Z}^n})} \right] \\ &= \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \exp \left( \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \log \frac{q_f({{Z}^n})}{q_{f_0}({{Z}^n})} \right) \right] \\ &\leq \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \exp \left( \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \left\{ \log \frac{q_f({{Z}^n})}{q_{f_0}({{Z}^n})} - \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \log \frac{q_f({{Z}^n})}{q_{f_0}({{Z}^n})} \right] \right\} \right) \right] ,\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows because the second term inside the supremum is a negative KL-divergence. Now, using the definition of $Q_f$ and $Q_{f_0}$, the above is equal to $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \exp \left( \eta \underbrace{\sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^n \left( {\ell}_{f_0}(Z_j) - {\ell}_f(Z_j) \right) - \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \sum_{j=1}^n \left( {\ell}_{f_0}(Z_j) - {\ell}_f(Z_j) \right) \right] \right\} }_{T_n} \right) \right] .\end{aligned}$$ It remains to prove Lemma \[lemma:mostly-talagrand\]. First, from our assumption on the loss and $\eta \leq 1$ together imply that $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{f,g \in {\mathcal{F}}} \operatorname{ess\,sup}\left\{ \eta \left( {\ell}_f(Z) - {\ell}_g(Z) - \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}[ {\ell}_f(Z) - {\ell}_g(Z) ] \right) \right\} \leq 1 .\end{aligned}$$ Our goal now is to be able to apply Talagrand’s inequality. To this end, observe that $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{f,g \in {\mathcal{F}}} \mathsf{Var} \bigl[ \eta \left( {\ell}_f(Z) - {\ell}_g(Z) - \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}[ {\ell}_f(Z) - {\ell}_g(Z) ] \right) \bigr] \leq \eta^2 \sup_{f,g \in {\mathcal{F}}} \\| ( {\ell}_f - {\ell}_g ) \\|_{L_2(Q_{f_0})}^2 .\end{aligned}$$ Now, if* ${\mathcal{F}}$ had a small $L_2(Q_{f_0})$ diameter, then the Lipschitzness of the loss would imply that the above term is also small. However, by assumption, the class ${\mathcal{F}}$ is only known to have small $L_2(P)$ diameter (of at most $\varepsilon$). Lemma \[lemma:sigma\] (stated after this proof) effectively bridges the gap between these two pseudonorms, showing that $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{f,g \in {\mathcal{F}}} \\| {\ell}_f - {\ell}_g \\|_{L_2(Q_{f_0})} \leq e \, {L}\sup_{f,g \in {\mathcal{F}}} \\| f - g \\|_{L_2(P)} , \label{eqn:apply-lemma-sigma}\end{aligned}$$ which is then at most $e \, {L}\, \varepsilon = \sigma$. Bousquet’s version of Talagrand’s inequality (see Theorem 2.3 of [@bousquet2002bennett] or, for a more direct presentation, Theorem 12.5 of [@boucheron2013concentration]) now yields $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Q_{f_0}} [ e^{\lambda \eta T_{n,\eta}^{(k)}} ] \leq \exp \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Q_{f_0}} [ \eta T_n^{(k)} ] + (e^\lambda - (\lambda + 1)) (n \eta^2 \sigma^2 + 2 \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Q_{f_0}} [ \eta T_n^{(k)} ] ) \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Inequality now follows by taking $\lambda = 1$. The following lemma was used to control the complexity of the class ${\mathcal{F}}$. \[lemma:sigma\] For the supervised loss parameterization, $$\begin{aligned} \\| {\ell}_f - {\ell}_g \\|_{L_2(Q_{f_0})} \leq e \cdot {L}\\| f - g \\|_{L_2(P)} . \label{eqn:switch-supervised}\end{aligned}$$ For the direct parameterization, $$\begin{aligned} \\| {\ell}_f - {\ell}_g \\|_{L_2(Q_{f_0})} \leq e \\| f - g \\|_{L_2(P)} . \label{eqn:switch-direct}\end{aligned}$$ We first prove , the supervised loss parameterization result. The Lipschitz assumption on the loss implies that $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{(X,Y) \sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \left( {\ell}_f(X, Y) - {\ell}_g(X, Y) \right)^2 \right] \leq {L}^2 \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{X \sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \left( f(X) - g(X) \right)^2 \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Next, observe that for $\Delta(x) = \frac{q_{f_0}(x)}{p(x)}$ $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{X \sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \left( f(X) - g(X) \right)^2 \right] &= \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{X \sim P} \left[ \Delta(x) \left( f(X) - g(X) \right)^2 \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Since the inside of the expectation is nonnegative, it remains to upper bound $\Delta(x)$. By definition, $$\begin{aligned} \Delta(x) \,=\, \frac{p(x) \int p(y \mid x) e^{-\eta {{R}_{f}}(x,y)} dy} {p(x) \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{(\bar{X},\bar{Y}) \sim P} \left[ e^{-\eta {{R}_{f}}(\bar{X},\bar{Y})} \right]} \,=\, \frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Y \sim P \mid X = x} \left[ e^{-\eta {{R}_{f}}(x,Y)} \right]} {\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{(\bar{X},\bar{Y}) \sim P} \left[ e^{-\eta {{R}_{f}}(\bar{X},\bar{Y})} \right]} \,\leq\, e^\eta \,\leq\, e ,\end{aligned}$$ since $\eta \leq 1$ and the excess loss random variable takes values in $[-1/2, 1/2]$. We now prove the direct parameterization result . Observe that for $\Delta(z) = \frac{q_{f_0}(z)}{p(z)}$ $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim Q_{f_0}} \left[ \left( {\ell}_f(Z) - {\ell}_g(Z) \right)^2 \right] &= \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{Z \sim P} \left[ \Delta(Z) \left( f(Z) - g(Z) \right)^2 \right] ,\end{aligned}$$ where we use the fact that ${\ell}_f = f$ for all $f \in {\mathcal{F}}$ in the direct parameterization. As above, it remains to upper bound $\Delta(z)$. By definition, $$\begin{aligned} \Delta(z) \,=\, \frac{p(z) e^{-\eta {{R}_{f}}(z)}} {p(z) \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\bar{Z}}\sim P} \left[ e^{-\eta {{R}_{f}}({\bar{Z}})} \right]} \,\leq\, e^\eta \,\leq\, e .\end{aligned}$$ ### Proof of Inequality is a consequence of and a standard empirical process theory result, Lemma \[lemma:E-sup-rad\]. For completeness, we provide a proof of this result below. Recall that ${\mathcal{G}}= \{ {\ell}_{f_0} - {\ell}_f : f \in {\mathcal{F}}\}$, and let $\epsilon_1, \ldots \epsilon_n$ be independent Rademacher random variables. In the below, both ${{Z}^n}$ and ${{\bar{Z}}^n}$ are drawn from $Q_{f_0}$. The following sequence of inequalities is a standard use of symmetrization from empirical process theory: $$\begin{aligned} &\operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^n \left( {\ell}_{f_0}(Z_j) - {\ell}_f(Z_j) \right) - \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \sum_{j=1}^n \left( {\ell}_{f_0}({\bar{Z}}_j) - {\ell}_f({\bar{Z}}_j) \right) \right] \right\} \right] \\ &= \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \sup_{g \in {\mathcal{G}}} \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^n g(Z_j) - \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \sum_{j=1}^n g({\bar{Z}}_j) \right] \right\} \right] \\ &\leq \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \sup_{g \in {\mathcal{G}}} \sum_{j=1}^n \left( g(Z_j) - g({\bar{Z}}_j) \right) \right] \\ &= \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \sup_{g \in {\mathcal{G}}} \sum_{j=1}^n \epsilon_j \left( g(Z_j) - g({\bar{Z}}_j) \right) \right] \\ &\leq 2 \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \sup_{g \in {\mathcal{G}}} \sum_{j=1}^n \epsilon_j g(Z_j) \right] \\ &\leq 2 \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}\left[ \sup_{g \in {\mathcal{G}}} \left\| \sum_{j=1}^n \epsilon_j g(Z_j) \right\| \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Proof of Theorem \[thm:comp-bound\] {#app:comp-bound} ----------------------------------- Taking the results of Corollary \[cor:opper-haussler-talagrand\] and dividing by $n$ gives the two inequalities $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}})}{n} \leq \frac{\log {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), \varepsilon/2)}{n \eta} + \frac{3}{n} \max_{k \in [N_\varepsilon]} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_k}} \left[ T_n^{(k)} \right] + \eta \sigma^2 \label{eqn:pre-full-bound-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}})}{n} \leq \frac{\log {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), \varepsilon/2)}{n \eta} + 6 \max_{k \in [N_\varepsilon]} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim Q_{f_k}} \left[ {\mathcal{R}}_n({\mathcal{G}}_k) \right] + \eta \sigma^2 , \label{eqn:pre-full-bound-2}\end{aligned}$$ where we remind the reader that $N_\varepsilon = {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), \varepsilon/2)$. In the below applications of Theorems \[thm:small-rad\] and \[thm:small-Esup\], we make use of the following two observations. First, from Lemma \[lemma:sigma\] (which we previously applied to yield ), it follows that the $L_2(Q_{f_k})$ diameter of ${\mathcal{G}}_k$ is at most $\sigma$. Second, for any distribution $Q \in \Delta({\mathcal{Z}})$, for all $u > 0$, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{G}}_k, L_2(Q), u) = {\mathcal{N}}(\{ {\ell}_f : f \in {{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}} \}, L_2(Q), u) \leq {\mathcal{N}}({{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}}, L_2(Q), u / {L}) \label{eqn:Gk-L2Pn}\end{aligned}$$ and (in the case of sets of classifiers) $$\begin{aligned} N_{[\cdot]}({\mathcal{G}}_k, L_2(Q_{f_k}), u) = {\mathcal{N}}_{[\cdot]}(\{ {\ell}_f : f \in {{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}} \}, L_2(Q_{f_k}), u) &= {\mathcal{N}}_{[\cdot]}({{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}}, L_2(Q_{f_k}), u) \label{eqn:Gk-L2Q-b} \\ &\leq {\mathcal{N}}_{[\cdot]}({{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}}, L_2(P), u/e) ; \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ in both and , the first equality holds because ${\mathcal{G}}_k$ is a shifted version of $\{{\ell}_f : f \in {\mathcal{F}}\}$. In the case of the supervised loss parameterization, the inequality in holds from the Lipschitzness of the loss, and, in the case of the direct parameterization, the inequality is actually equality (recall that $L= 1$ in this case). The second equality of holds because we only consider sets of classifiers with 0-1 loss. Lastly, the inequality in is due to the 1-Lipschitzness of 0-1 loss for sets of classifiers and Lemma \[lemma:sigma\]. From , if ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a VC-type class (and hence so is ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}}$), then ${\mathcal{G}}_k$ also is a VC-type class. Analogously, if ${\mathcal{F}}$ has polynomial empirical entropy, the same property extends to ${\mathcal{G}}_k$. From , if ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a class whose $L_2(P)$ entropy with bracketing is polynomial (and hence so is ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon,k}}$), then ${\mathcal{G}}_k$ is a class whose $L_2(Q_{f_k})$ entropy with bracketing is polynomial with the same exponent. #### VC-type classes. First, Theorem \[thm:L2Pn-to-L2P\] (stated after this proof) implies that, for all $u > 0$, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), u) \leq \left( \frac{2 A}{u} \right)^V .\end{aligned}$$ Starting from , inequality from Theorem \[thm:small-rad\] combined with then implies that (coarsely using $\eta \leq 1$) $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}})}{n} &\lesssim \frac{V \log \frac{4 A}{\varepsilon}}{n \eta} + \max \left\{ \sqrt{\frac{V}{n}} \sigma \sqrt{\log \frac{A {L}}{\sigma}}, \frac{V U}{n} \log \frac{A {L}}{\sigma} \right\} + \eta \sigma^2 \\ &\lesssim \frac{V \log \frac{4 A}{\varepsilon}}{n \eta} + \max \left\{ \sqrt{\frac{V}{n}} {L}\, \varepsilon \sqrt{\log \frac{A}{\varepsilon}}, \frac{V U}{n} \log \frac{A}{\varepsilon} \right\} + ({L}\, \varepsilon)^2 .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, setting $\varepsilon = \frac{4}{{L}} \sqrt{\frac{V}{n}}$ yields (up to a universal multiplicative constant) the bound $$\begin{aligned} \frac{V \log \frac{A \, {L}\, n}{V}}{n \eta} + \max \left\{ \frac{V}{n} \sqrt{\log \frac{A {L}n}{V}}, \frac{V}{n} \log \frac{A {L}n}{V} \right\} + \frac{V}{n} \,\lesssim\, \frac{V \log \frac{A \, {L}\, n}{V}}{n \eta} ,\end{aligned}$$ where we used the assumption that $\eta \leq 1$. This proves . #### Classes of polynomial empirical entropy or polynomial entropy with bracketing. The first order of business is to control $N_\varepsilon = \log {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), \varepsilon/2)$. In the case of classes of polynomial empirical entropy, we again invoke Theorem \[thm:L2Pn-to-L2P\] to conclude that, for all $u > 0$, $$\begin{aligned} \log {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), u) \leq \left( \frac{2 A}{u} \right)^{2 \rho} .\end{aligned}$$ In the case of sets of classifiers of polynomial entropy with bracketing, the $L_2(P)$ entropy can be controlled by the relationship $$\begin{aligned} \log {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), u) \leq \log {\mathcal{N}}_{[\cdot]}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), u) = \log {\mathcal{N}}_{[\cdot]}({\mathcal{F}}, L_1(P), u^2) \leq \left( \frac{A}{u} \right)^{2 \rho} .\end{aligned}$$ Next, for (i) classes of polynomial empirical entropy, we start from and apply inequality from Theorem \[thm:small-rad\] combined with ; or (ii) for classes of polynomial entropy with bracketing, we start from and apply[^3] Theorem \[thm:small-Esup\] combined with ; both cases imply that, for $0 < \eta \leq 1$, using $\rho < 1$, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}})}{n} &\lesssim \frac{1}{n \eta} \left( \frac{2 A}{\varepsilon} \right)^{2 \rho} + \max \left\{ \frac{(A {L})^\rho}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma^{1 - \rho}, \frac{(A {L})^{2 \rho / (\rho + 1)} U^{(1 - \rho) / (1 + \rho)}}{n^{1 / (1 + \rho)}} \right\} + \eta \sigma^2 \nonumber \\ \label{eqn:comp-poly-pre} &\lesssim \frac{1}{n \eta} \left( \frac{A}{\varepsilon} \right)^{2 \rho} + \frac{A^\rho {L}}{\sqrt{n}} \varepsilon^{1 - \rho} + \eta^{\frac{\rho-1}{\rho+1}} \cdot \frac{(A {L})^{2 \rho / (\rho + 1)}}{n^{1 / (1 + \rho)}} + \eta \cdot ({L}\, \varepsilon)^2 .\end{aligned}$$ (the enlargement of the third term will not affect the rates, as will now become clear). We now set $\epsilon := C_0 n^{-\frac{1}{2 (1 + \rho)}} \cdot \eta^{-\frac{1}{1+ \rho}}$ for a constant $C_0 > 0$ to be determined later (this choice for $\epsilon$ was obtained by minimizing the sum of the first and second terms in the last line of by setting the derivative to $0$). With this choice, we get, as a very simple yet tedious calculation shows: $$\begin{aligned} n^{-1} \eta^{-1} \epsilon^{- 2 \rho} & = C_0^{-2 \rho} \cdot n^{-\frac{1}{1 + \rho}} \cdot \eta^{\frac{\rho-1}{\rho+1}} \\ n^{-1/2} \epsilon^{1- \rho} & = C_0^{1- \rho} \cdot n^{-\frac{1}{1 + \rho}} \cdot \eta^{\frac{\rho-1}{\rho+1}} \\ \eta \epsilon^{2} & = C_0^{2} \cdot n^{-\frac{1}{1 + \rho}} \cdot \eta^{\frac{\rho-1}{\rho+1}} \\\end{aligned}$$ so that becomes $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\text{\sc comp}}_\eta({\mathcal{F}})}{n} \lesssim C_{A,C_0,{L}} \cdot n^{-\frac{1}{1 + \rho}} \cdot \eta^{\frac{\rho-1}{\rho+1}}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} C_{A,C_0,{L}} = \left( \frac{2 A}{C_0} \right)^{2 \rho} + {A^\rho {L}^{\rho}} (C_0 \, e )^{1 - \rho} + {(A {L})^{2 \rho / (\rho + 1)}} + (e \, {L}\, C_0)^2.\end{aligned}$$ Plugging in $C_0 =A^{\rho/(\rho+1)} L^{-1/(\rho +1)}$, the four terms become of the same order: $$\begin{aligned} C_{A,C_0,{L}} & \lesssim \left(L^{1/(\rho+1)} A^{1 - \frac{\rho}{\rho+1}} \right)^{2 \rho} + L^{1 - \frac{1-\rho}{1+\rho}} A^{\rho + \frac{\rho (1- \rho)}{\rho+1}} + {(A {L})^{2 \rho / (\rho + 1)}} + (L^{1 - \frac{1}{1+ \rho}} A^{\frac{\rho}{\rho+1}})^2 \\ & \lesssim (A {L})^{2 \rho / (\rho + 1)},\end{aligned}$$ and follows. The above proof made use of the universal $L_2(P)$ metric entropy being essentially equivalent to the universal $L_2(P_n)$ metric entropy. This result extends an analogous result of [@haussler1995sphere] for VC classes (see Corollary 1 therein). \[thm:L2Pn-to-L2P\] Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be a class of functions over a space ${\mathcal{S}}$. Suppose that, for all $\varepsilon > 0$ and all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, there is some function $\psi \colon {\mathbb{R}}_+ \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{s_1, \ldots, s_n \in {\mathcal{S}}} {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P_n), \varepsilon) \leq \psi(\varepsilon) .\end{aligned}$$ Then, for any probability measure $P \in \Delta({\mathcal{S}})$ and any $\varepsilon > 0$, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), \varepsilon) \leq \psi(\varepsilon/2) .\end{aligned}$$ The proof is essentially due to Haussler with little change to the argument for the more general result. Let $d$ be some pseudometric on ${\mathcal{F}}$. We say that $U \subset {\mathcal{F}}$ is $\varepsilon$ separated if, for all $f, g \in U$, it holds that $d(f, g) > \varepsilon$. Let the $\varepsilon$-packing number ${\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{F}}, d, \varepsilon)$ be the maximal size of an $\varepsilon$-separated set in ${\mathcal{F}}$. The packing numbers and covering numbers satisfy the following relationship [@vidyasagar2002learning Lemma 2.2] $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{F}}, d, \varepsilon) \leq {\mathcal{N}}({\mathcal{F}}, d, \varepsilon/2) .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, it is sufficient to bound ${\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), \varepsilon)$. Suppose that ${\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P), \varepsilon) > {\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P_n), \varepsilon)$, and take $U$ to be some $\varepsilon$-separated subset of ${\mathcal{F}}$ in the $L_2(P)$ pseudometric of cardinality $\|U\| > {\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P_n), \varepsilon)$. Next, draw $s_1, \ldots, s_n$ i.i.d. from $P$. Since $U$ is finite, by taking $n$ large enough we can ensure that the event $A_{f,g}$, defined as, $$\begin{aligned} \\|f - g\\|_{L_2(P_n)} = \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n (f(s_j) - g(s_j)) \right)^{1/2} < \varepsilon ,\end{aligned}$$ occurs with probability at most $\frac{1}{\|U\|^2}$. Since ${\|U\| \choose 2} < \|U\|^2$, it follows that the probability that no event $A_{f,g}$ occurs among all $f,g \in U$ is positive. Hence, there exists a set of points $s_1, \ldots, s_n$ for which $U$ is an $\varepsilon$-packing in the $L_2(P_n)$ pseudometric. But then it must be the case that ${\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P_n), \varepsilon) \geq \|U\|$, contradicting our assumption that $\|U\| > {\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{F}}, L_2(P_n), \varepsilon)$. Proofs for Section \[sec:applications\] --------------------------------------- ### Proof of Proposition \[prop:maxcomp\] Using $w(f,z^n) \equiv 1$, we can write: [$$\begin{aligned} {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w,z^n) &= \frac{1}{\eta} \log \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \left[ \exp\left( - \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid Z^n} \left[ \eta {{R}_{{\underline{f}}}}({{Z}^n}) + \log C({\underline{f}}) \right] \right) \right] \\ &\leq \frac{1}{\eta} \log \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \left[ \sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \frac{e^{-\eta {{R}_{{f}}}({{Z}^n})}}{C(f)} \right] ,\end{aligned}$$]{} which is just ${\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}})$. ### Proof of Proposition \[prop:decomposingcomp\] Plugging the definition $w$ into the definition of ${\text{\sc comp}}$, a sequence of straightforward rewritings gives: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:nazomer} & {\text{\sc comp}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w, z^n) \nonumber\\ & = \frac{1}{\eta} \cdot \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid {\underline{k}}, z^n} \left[ \log \frac{ \hat{\pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}}({\underline{k}} \mid z^n) } {\pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}({\underline{k}}) \cdot w_{{\underline{k}}}(z^n,{\underline{f}}) } \right] + \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w) \right) \nonumber \\ & = \frac{1}{\eta} \cdot \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n} \left[ \log \frac{ \hat{\pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}}({\underline{k}} \mid z^n) }{\pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}({\underline{k}})} + \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid {\underline{k}}, z^n} \left[ - \log w_{{\underline{k}}}(z^n, {\underline{f}}) \right] \right] + \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w) \right) \nonumber \\ & = \frac{1}{\eta} \cdot \operatorname{KL}(\; (\hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n) \operatorname*{\\|}\Pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}) + \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n} \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid {\underline{k}}, z^n} \left[ - \log w_{{\underline{k}}}(z^n, {\underline{f}}) \right] + \frac{1}{\eta} \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w) .\end{aligned}$$ If we can further show that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:herfst} \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w) \leq \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n} \left[ \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}_{{\underline{k}}}, \hat{\Pi}_{\|{\underline{k}}}, w_{{\underline{k}}}) \right]\end{aligned}$$ then the result follows by plugging this into the last line of . We thus proceed to show . [Setting $$\begin{aligned} g(k,z'^n) = \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{f}} \sim \hat{\Pi} \mid {k}, z'^n} \left[ \eta R_{{\underline{f}}} + \log C({\underline{f}}) - \log w_{{k}}(z'^n, {\underline{f}}) \right] , \end{aligned}$$]{} we can write: $$\begin{aligned} &\log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}, w) = \log \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \left[ \exp\left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n}\left[ \log \frac {\pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}({\underline{k}})}{ \hat{\pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}}({\underline{k}} \mid z^n) } \right] \right) \cdot \exp\left(- \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n} \left[ g({\underline{k}},Z^n) \right] \right) \right] \\& \leq \log \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \left[ \left( \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n}\left[ \frac {\pi_{{\mathcal{K}}}({\underline{k}})}{ \hat{\pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}}({\underline{k}} \mid z^n) } \right] \right) \cdot \exp\left(- \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n} \left[ g({\underline{k}},Z^n) \right] \right) \right] \\ \\& = \log \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \left[ \exp\left(- \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n} \left[ g({\underline{k}},Z^n) \right] \right) \right] \\ &\leq \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n}\left[ \log \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{{Z}^n}\sim P} \left[ \exp\left(- g({\underline{k}},Z^n) \right) \right] \right] = \operatorname{\mathsf{E}}_{{\underline{k}} \sim \hat{\Pi}_{{\mathcal{K}}} \mid z^n}\left[ \log {\text{\sc S}}({\mathcal{F}}, \hat{\Pi}_{\|{\underline{k}}}, w_{{\underline{k}}}) \right]\end{aligned}$$ where the first and last equalities are just definition chasing, the first inequality is Jensen’s and the lastinequality is Lemma 3.2. from [@audibert2009fast]; the result follows. [^1]: Ties are broken arbitrarily. [^2]: For example, the proofs of [@tsybakov2004optimal] are based on various results of @vandegeer2000empirical [Chapter 5] which are in turn based on chaining. We also note that if one strengthens the Bernstein condition to a two-sided version then, with $0/1$-loss, one can avoid chaining, see [@audibert2004PAC]. [^3]: Note that in classification, for any $Q$, the $L_1(P)$ diameter is equal to the square of the $L_2(P)$ diameter.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'Roman V. Shcherbakov[^1]' - 'Asaf Pe’er' - 'Christopher S. Reynolds' - Roland Haas - Tanja Bode - Pablo Laguna title: Prompt Emission from Tidal Disruptions of White Dwarfs by Intermediate Mass Black Holes --- Introduction {#intro} ============ Two well-known populations of BHs are the stellar mass BHs with mass $M_{BH}<100M_{\rm Sun}$ and supermassive black holes (SMBH) with mass $M_{BH}>10^5M_{\rm Sun}$. A third population of intermediate mass black holes (IMBH) likely exists with masses $100M_{\rm Sun}<M_{BH}<10^5M_{\rm Sun}$. They could live in the centers of galaxies that fail to feed their BHs [@Dong:2007dg] or in globular clusters [@Fabbiano:1997yt; @Fabbiano:2001fr; @Colbert:1999fe; @Matsumoto:2001oi; @Gultekin:2004gh]. IMBH can form as a result of a collapse of a massive star [@Fryer:2001fe; @Madau:2001po; @Schneider:2002dp] or a massive cloud [@Begelman:2006jk] or grow from a stellar mass BH. While the presence of stellar mass BHs and SMBHs is established, only tentative candidates of IMBHs exist [@Gebhardt:2002hj; @Dong:2007dg; @Davis:2011ka] and the debates of the nature of the candidates are ongoing (e.g. [@Baumgardt:2003wd]). More IMBH candidates with qualitatively different observational signatures could help identify those objects. Tidal disruptions of stars by IMBHs could provide such a qualitatively different signature. Soon after the disruption, the isotropic luminosity as well as the intrinsic luminosity from the system may greatly exceed the Eddington limit owing to jet emission. A jet naturally appears in thick magnetized accretion disks, especially those with strong mean poloidal field [@McKinney:2009rt; @McKinney2012]. In this work we briefly summarize how the jet can be launched following a tidal disruption of a WD by an IMBH. We qualitatively describe the radiative signatures of a jet and the temporal behavior. Tidal compression of a WD may lead to thermonuclear ignition. Thus the source may appear as a weak supernova simultaneous with a low-luminosity gamma-ray burst (ll-GRB). The tidal disruptions of MS stars by IMBHs happen more frequently, than disruption of WDs by IMBHs. Nevertheless, significantly larger maximum radiation power from WD-IMBH disruption could make those sources easier to find. We identify GRB060218 and an associated supernova SN2006aj as a WD-IMBH tidal disruption candidate. ![image](tidal_WD) Jets in tidal disruptions {#sec:1} ========================= Jet, a relativistic outflow, is a ubiquitous feature of astrophysical accretion flows. Jets are observed in X-ray binaries [@Remillard:2006] and active galactic nuclei [@Boettcher:2012]. Fast relativistic outflow are inferred in GRBs [@Meszaros:2002re; @Meszaros2006; @Piran2004; @Zhang:2007re]. A tidal disruption event Swift J1644+57 is thought to have a jet [@Bloom11; @Burrows11; @Levan2011; @Zauderer11]. A fundamental question about jets is how to launch them. Two main mechanisms to drive relativistic outflows are magnetic launching and fireball launching. A large-scale poloidal magnetic field is thought to be the main ingredient in magnetic launching scenario [@McKinney:2009rt; @McKinney2012]. Such magnetic field could be brought in by large magnetized clouds. Alternatively, amplification of magnetic field may produce strong poloidal component via dynamo action [@Brandenburg:2005pr]. The small-scale field is generated on the dynamical timescale via magneto-rotational instability (MRI) [@Balbus:1991jk; @Balbus:1998fe]. Exponential amplification by a factor of $10^6$ requires $\sim50$ orbital periods $t_{\rm dyn}$ in a Keplerian MRI-unstable turbulent flow [@Stone:1996ed]. The large-scale field generation via the dynamo action is a process, which operates on a slower resistive timescale [@Brandenburg:2005pr]. Nevertheless, thick magnetized disks could have the viscous timescale on the order of $100t_{\rm dyn}$. Then $200t_{\rm dyn}$ is all it takes to produce a strong large-scale magnetic field. The rotation in the system with large-scale poloidal field creates an outflow. The rotation of the BH leads to jets via Blandford-Znajek process [@Blandford1977], while the accretion disk rotation induces Blandford-Payne mechanism [@Blandford1982]. The fireball model [@Goodman:1986; @Paczynski:1986; @Paczynski1994] was devised in applications to GRBs. The extreme neutrino flux produced in a collapse of a massive stellar core can accelerate a small amount of material to relativistic velocities. However, the neutrino flux from WD-IMBH tidal disruption is small, since temperature and particle density reach only the values of $10^{9.5}$ K and $10^{29}{\rm cm}^{-3}$, respectively [@Haas:2012ak]. Thus, fireball jet launching is not an option for tidal disruptions of WDs. The magnetic field in the fallback debris after WD-IMBH tidal disruption is given approximately by the magnetic field of a WD, since its radius $r_{WD}$ is about the IMBH Schwarzschild radius $r_s$. The typical WD magnetic field is $B\lesssim10^4$ G [@Putney:1999dg], while some objects have a field up to $B\sim10^8$ G [@Angel:1978yt]. The equipartition magnetic field is $B\sim10^{10-11}$ G for accretion rate $\dot{M}\sim10^{4}M_{\odot}{\rm yr}^{-1}$ predicted for WD-IMBH events [@Haas:2012ak]. Even though the equipartition magnetic field is much larger, it may take only $\sim200t_{\rm dyn}$ after the fallback disk starts forming to generate strong large-scale magnetic field and launch the jet. As noted by [@Bloom11], the initial magnetic field following the disruption in Swift J1644+57 could have been substantially weaker than the equipartition value. Then the similar process could have been responsible for magnetic field amplification and production of a strong jet in that source. The jet Lorentz factor has a crucial influence on the emitted radiation. GRB jets have high Lorentz factors of up to $\Gamma\sim 1000$ (see [@Lu:2012de] for the review), while AGN jets in are estimated to move at $\Gamma\sim10$ (see e.g. [@Henri:2006hj]). Different amounts of external pressure support might be responsible for the difference. GRB jets following the collapse of massive stars are found to effectively accelerate matter in a magnetically-dominated outflow with substantial external pressure support from a surrounding star [@Tchekhovskoy2010; @Tchekhovskoy2011]. The pressure support is much weak in other sources, and the Lorentz factor stays low. Since there is no material surrounding the tidal disruption region prior to the event, no substantial pressure support is expected for the resulting jet. Then tidal disruption jet should have a Lorentz factor of $\Gamma\sim10$. The bulk Lorentz factor of $\Gamma=10-20$ estimated from observations of Swift J1644+57 [@Metzger11] is consistent with AGN-like jet. In sum, the material returns back to the IMBH at a super-Eddington fallback rate. After an initial period of strong magnetic field generation, the magnetic stresses ensure that matter loses the angular momentum and accretes onto the black hole. The accretion rate then follows the fallback rate. The jet is launched whenever the strong poloidal large-scale magnetic field is generated. The presence of a relativistic outflow dramatically alters the radiative signature of the disruption. Radiation from the jet {#sec:2} ====================== A variety of jet emission models exist for different types of jets. They can be generally divided into two broad categories based on particle density. At low density the jet is optically thin to Compton scattering and absorption with total optical depth $\tau<1$, while seed photon production in a jet is relatively inefficient. External Comptonization of the accretion disk photons and the reprocessed photons plays a major role. AGN jets including blazar jets are found to operate in a low-density regime [@Ghisellini2009]. At high density the jet is optically thick to Compton scattering and absorption with $\tau>1$. The production of seed photons is more efficient, and the external photons cannot penetrate through the jet. Such high-density jet would have a larger high-energy contribution from Comptonization of its own photons, e.g., via synchrotron-self-Compton (SSC) mechanism. An important other feature would be the presence of a photosphere at a distance $r_{\rm ph}$ from the BH along the jet. The photons at $r<r_{\rm ph}$ can effectively interact with the electrons and thermalize. Thermal black body emission is expected from the photosphere. GRBs are found to operate in a high-density regime [@Meszaros2006]. Thermal photospheric emission was observed in several GRBs [@Peer:2007sd; @Fan:2012th]. The tidal disruption jet would naturally have a high particle density, especially after the disruption of a WD by an IMBH. The low-density model based on external Comptonization might not be immediately applicable to these objects. Instead, tidal disruption jets should resemble GRB jets. However, a larger BH mass and a smaller Lorentz factor modify the prompt emission of WD-IMBH disruption from that of a typical GRB jet. The qualitative features of prompt emission are: 1. [the event duration is given by a large fallback time $t_{\rm fall}=10^3-10^4$ s,]{} 2. [relatively low accretion rate leads to low jet power and, correspondingly, low radiation power,]{} 3. [jet power may be lower than estimated from magnetic field equipartition, since the time to generate the large-scale magnetic field can be comparable to $t_{\rm fall}$,]{} 4. [low jet power leads to lower peak emission frequency, since it is determined by a magnetic field in a jet,]{} 5. [low Lorentz factor leads to softer emission.]{} In sum, WD-IMBH tidal disruption produces soft ll-GRB. The quantitative description of prompt emission is considered in the main paper (Shcherbakov et al., 2012, in prep.). Associated supernova explosion ============================== Early theoretical work found strong compression of a WD before the disruption along the orbital angular momentum axis [@Luminet:1985re; @Luminet:1989th].Such compression can lead to extreme temperature and density causing thermonuclear ignition. Later numerical simulations with simplified nuclear network [@Rosswog:2008ie] confirmed the ignition. They showed that vastly different explosion energies and final nuclear compositions are possible. The explosions of heavy WDs coming close to the BH may appear more similar to Type Ia supernova. Less massive WDs may have lower explosion energy and produce much less iron. Those could be classified as underluminous fast Type Ib/c supernova, since no hydrogen is expected to remain on a WD and the silicon absorption line may be absent as well. The nuclear energy release may be smaller than the release of gravitational energy in a disruption. In such case the trajectories of debris are not strongly affected [@Haas:2012ak] and the maximum expansion velocity can reach $50,000{\rm km~s}^{-1}$. In such WD supernova the ejecta mass should be less than Chandrasekhar mass. However, the ejecta mass estimate depends on the inferred heating mechanism of supernova debris. Candidate sources ================= GRB 060218 ---------- Since its launch in 2004, the Swift satellite became an excellent tool to observe GRBs. Several GRBs studied by the satellite have unusually long and soft emission. GRB 060218 at a redshift $z=0.033$ has the highest peak count rate of the sources with such features. Despite triggering the BAT detector, most of the energy was emitted in soft X-rays [@Campana2006; @Soderberg:2006na] over the event duration $t_{\rm dur}\sim2000$ s. The source is modeled to have a thermal component with temperature about $T=0.2$ keV, less than a typical temperature of a thermal GRB component [@Campana2006; @Butler:2007uy]. The source peak luminosity is $L\sim10^{47}{\rm erg~s}^{-1}$, which makes it very underluminous. The Swift XRT lightcurve is consistent with no fast variability. The source exhibited fast flux decay after $2600$ s followed by the afterglow. GRB 060218 has an associated fast underluminous supernova SN 2006aj, which was classified as Type Ib/c [@Soderberg:2006na; @Maeda:2007gh; @Mazzali:2007as]. All features of the source can be qualitatively explained by a WD-IMBH tidal disruption. Long event duration is consistent with a tidal disruption of a WD by a BH with mass $\sim10^4M_{\rm Sun}$, when the pericenter radius is about the tidal radius. The observed X-rays can be interpreted as the blackbody radiation Comptonized by a thermal distribution of electrons. The efficiency of Comptonization goes down with time. The observed thermal flux and the blackbody temperature imply a Lorentz factor of about several and jet base radius $10^{11}$ cm [@Peer:2007sd], which leads to an independent BH mass estimate to also be $\sim10^4M_{\rm Sun}$. The low luminosity of the source results from a jet with relatively large mass loading or substantially sub-equipartition large-scale magnetic field. The smooth lightcurve is fully consistent with a relatively large size of the central engine. The fast decay cannot be easily explained by the drop of the source flux. Instead, self-obscuration by cooled jet “exhaust” material at late times could be responsible for steep flux decay. The period of steep flux decay smoothly connects to an afterglow, which is produced via the external shock. The external shock is not absorbed by the cooling jet material. The afterglow may be partially powered by the central engine [@Fan:2006ag]. The associated supernova was inferred to have a relatively low energy and ejecta mass $M_{\rm ej}\approx2M_{\rm Sun}$ [@Mazzali:2006na]. The inferred ejecta mass is larger than the possible WD mass, which implies that either the exploding object is a core of a massive star or that $M_{\rm ej}$ was overestimated. We argue that the latter could be the case. Supernova emission is typically powered by the decay of radioactive nickel. The debris have low optical depth to radioactive decay products at the timescale of several days, when flux peaks. Large ejecta mass is needed to intercept the decay products and convert the energy into the optical radiation. The supply of energy from the central source at this late stage can lead to similar optical emission from ejecta with lower mass. Substantial central source activity is expected in tidal disruptions at late times. The evolution of the accretion disk may lead to shallow accretion rate temporal slope $\dot{M}\propto t^{-4/3}$ starting at several hours after the disruption [@Cannizzo2009]. Then the accreted amount per logarithmic time interval behaves as $t^{-1/3}$, which is practically independent of time. Despite the large amount of observational data for GRB060218 and the associated supernova, at least two more explanations were proposed for this source: supernova shock breakout (e.g. [@Campana2006; @Waxman:2007ap]) and jet from a newborn neutron magnetar [@Toma2007; @Fan:2011jk]. We describe those models and compare to our model in the main paper. Can disruptions of main sequence stars by IMBHs be observed? ------------------------------------------------------------ Apart from WDs, the IMBHs can readily disrupt the main sequence (MS) stars. N-body modeling in globular clusters have shown that up to $15\%$ of total disruptions are those of WDs [@Baumgardt2004], while the MS stars constitute the majority of disruptions. Nevertheless, the peak accretion rate is much less for disruptions of MS stars. This leads to much lower peak luminosity and softer spectrum, assuming that jet launching is similar in WD and MS star disruptions. Then WD-IMBH encounters dominate the flux-limited sample of tidal disruptions by IMBHs. Acknowledgements ================ The work is partially supported by NASA Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-51298.01. [60]{} X. [Dong]{}, T. [Wang]{}, W. [Yuan]{}, H. [Shan]{}, H. [Zhou]{}, L. [Fan]{}, L. [Dou]{}, H. [Wang]{}, J. [Wang]{}, H. [Lu]{}, ApJ 657, 700 (2007) G. [Fabbiano]{}, F. [Schweizer]{}, G. [Mackie]{}, ApJ 478, 542 (1997) G. [Fabbiano]{}, A. [Zezas]{}, S.S. [Murray]{}, ApJ 554, 1035 (2001) E.J.M. [Colbert]{}, R.F. [Mushotzky]{}, ApJ 519, 89 (1999) H. [Matsumoto]{}, T.G. [Tsuru]{}, K. [Koyama]{}, H. [Awaki]{}, C.R. [Canizares]{}, N. [Kawai]{}, S. [Matsushita]{}, R. [Kawabe]{}, ApJ 547, L25 (2001) K. [G[ü]{}ltekin]{}, M.C. [Miller]{}, D.P. [Hamilton]{}, ApJ 616, 221 (2004) C.L. [Fryer]{}, S.E. [Woosley]{}, A. [Heger]{}, ApJ 550, 372 (2001) P. [Madau]{}, M.J. [Rees]{}, ApJ 551, L27 (2001) R. [Schneider]{}, A. [Ferrara]{}, P. [Natarajan]{}, K. [Omukai]{}, ApJ 571, 30 (2002) M.C. [Begelman]{}, M. [Volonteri]{}, M.J. [Rees]{}, MNRAS 370, 289 (2006) K. [Gebhardt]{}, R.M. [Rich]{}, L.C. [Ho]{}, ApJ 578, L41 (2002) S.W. [Davis]{}, R. [Narayan]{}, Y. [Zhu]{}, D. [Barret]{}, S.A. [Farrell]{}, O. [Godet]{}, M. [Servillat]{}, N.A. [Webb]{}, ApJ 734, 111 (2011) H. [Baumgardt]{}, J. [Makino]{}, P. [Hut]{}, S. [McMillan]{}, S. [Portegies Zwart]{}, ApJ 589, L25 (2003) J.C. [McKinney]{}, R.D. [Blandford]{}, MNRAS 394, L126 (2009) J.C. [McKinney]{}, A. [Tchekhovskoy]{}, R.D. [Blandford]{}, MNRAS 423, 3083 (2012) R.A. [Remillard]{}, J.E. [McClintock]{}, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astr. 44, 49 (2006) M. [Boettcher]{}, D.E. [Harris]{}, H. [Krawczynski]{}, [Relativistic Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei]{} (Wiley, Berlin, 2012) P. [M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros]{}, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astr. 40, 137 (2002) P. Meszaros, Rep. on Progress in Phys. 69, 2259 (2006) T. Piran, Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1143 (2004) B. [Zhang]{}, Chin. J. of Astron. and Astrophys. 7, 1 (2007) J.S. Bloom et al., Science 333, 203 (2011) D.N. Burrows et al., Nature 476, 421 (2011) A.J. [Levan]{}, N.R. [Tanvir]{}, S.B. [Cenko]{}, D.A. [Perley]{}, K. [Wiersema]{}, J.S. [Bloom]{}, A.S. [Fruchter]{}, A.d.U. [Postigo]{}, P.T. [O’Brien]{}, N. [Butler]{} et al., Science 333, 199 (2011) B.A. Zauderer et al., Nature 476, 425 (2011) A. [Brandenburg]{}, K. [Subramanian]{}, Physics Reports 417, 1 (2005) S.A. [Balbus]{}, J.F. [Hawley]{}, ApJ 376, 214 (1991) S.A. [Balbus]{}, J.F. [Hawley]{}, Reviews of Modern Physics 70, 1 (1998) J.M. [Stone]{}, J.F. [Hawley]{}, C.F. [Gammie]{}, S.A. [Balbus]{}, ApJ 463, 656 (1996) R.D. Blandford, R.L. Znajek, MNRAS 179, 433 (1977) R.D. Blandford, D.G. Payne, MNRAS 199, 883 (1982) J. [Goodman]{}, ApJ 308, L47 (1986) B. [Paczynski]{}, ApJ 308, L43 (1986) B. [Paczynski]{}, G. [Xu]{}, ApJ 427, 708 (1994) R. [Haas]{}, R.V. [Shcherbakov]{}, T. [Bode]{}, P. [Laguna]{}, ApJ 749, 117 (2012) A. [Putney]{}, Magnetic white dwarf stars - a review, in 11th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, edited by S.E.S..E.G. Meistas (1999), Vol. 169 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, p. 195 J.R.P. [Angel]{}, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astr. 16, 487 (1978) J. [L[ü]{}]{}, Y.C. [Zou]{}, W.H. [Lei]{}, B. [Zhang]{}, Q. [Wu]{}, D.X. [Wang]{}, E.W. [Liang]{}, H.J. [L[ü]{}]{}, ApJ 751, 49 (2012) G. [Henri]{}, L. [Saug[é]{}]{}, ApJ 640, 185 (2006) A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, J.C. McKinney, ApJ 711, 50 (2010) A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, J.C. McKinney, ApJ 418, L79 (2011) B.D. [Metzger]{}, D. [Giannios]{}, P. [Mimica]{}, MNRAS 420, 3528 (2012) G. Ghisellini, F. Tavecchio, MNRAS 397, 985 (2009) A. [Pe’er]{}, F. [Ryde]{}, R.A.M.J. [Wijers]{}, P. [M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros]{}, M.J. [Rees]{}, ApJ 664, L1 (2007) Y.Z. [Fan]{}, D.M. [Wei]{}, F.W. [Zhang]{}, B.B. [Zhang]{}, ApJ 755, L6 (2012) J.P. [Luminet]{}, Annales de Physique 10, 101 (1985) J.P. [Luminet]{}, B. [Pichon]{}, Astron. and Astrophys. 209, 85 (1989) S. Rosswog, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, R. Hix, ApJ 695, 404 (2009) S. [Campana]{}, V. [Mangano]{}, A.J. [Blustin]{}, P. [Brown]{}, D.N. [Burrows]{}, G. [Chincarini]{}, J.R. [Cummings]{}, G. [Cusumano]{}, M. [Della Valle]{}, D. [Malesani]{} et al., Nature 442, 1008 (2006) A.M. [Soderberg]{}, S.R. [Kulkarni]{}, E. [Nakar]{}, E. [Berger]{}, P.B. [Cameron]{}, D.B. [Fox]{}, D. [Frail]{}, A. [Gal-Yam]{}, R. [Sari]{}, S.B. [Cenko]{} et al., Nature 442, 1014 (2006) N.R. [Butler]{}, ApJ 656, 1001 (2007) K. [Maeda]{}, K. [Kawabata]{}, M. [Tanaka]{}, K. [Nomoto]{}, N. [Tominaga]{}, T. [Hattori]{}, T. [Minezaki]{}, T. [Kuroda]{}, T. [Suzuki]{}, J. [Deng]{} et al., ApJ 658, L5 (2007) P.A. [Mazzali]{}, R.J. [Foley]{}, J. [Deng]{}, F. [Patat]{}, E. [Pian]{}, D. [Baade]{}, J.S. [Bloom]{}, A.V. [Filippenko]{}, D.A. [Perley]{}, S. [Valenti]{} et al., ApJ 661, 892 (2007) Y.Z. [Fan]{}, T. [Piran]{}, D. [Xu]{}, J. of Cosmology and Astroparticle Phys. 9, 13 (2006) P.A. [Mazzali]{}, J. [Deng]{}, K. [Nomoto]{}, D.N. [Sauer]{}, E. [Pian]{}, N. [Tominaga]{}, M. [Tanaka]{}, K. [Maeda]{}, A.V. [Filippenko]{}, Nature 442, 1018 (2006) J.K. [Cannizzo]{}, N. [Gehrels]{}, ApJ 700, 1047 (2009) E. [Waxman]{}, P. [M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros]{}, S. [Campana]{}, ApJ 667, 351 (2007) K. [Toma]{}, K. [Ioka]{}, T. [Sakamoto]{}, T. [Nakamura]{}, ApJ 659, 1420 (2007) Y.Z. [Fan]{}, B.B. [Zhang]{}, D. [Xu]{}, E.W. [Liang]{}, B. [Zhang]{}, ApJ 726, 32 (2011) H. Baumgardt, J. Makino, T. Ebisuzaki, ApJ 613, 1143 (2004) [^1]:	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We present a detailed study of prisoner’s dilemma game with stochastic modifications on a two-dimensional lattice, in presence of evolutionary dynamics. By very nature of the rules, the cooperators have incentive to cheat and the fear of being cheated. They may cheat even when not dictated by evolutionary dynamics. We consider two variants here. In either case, the agents do mimic the action (cooperation or defection) in the previous timestep of the most successful agent in the neighborhood. But over and above this, the fraction $p$ of cooperators spontaneously change their strategy to pure defector at every time step in the first variant. In the second variant, there are no pure cooperators. All cooperators keep defecting with probability $p$ at every time-step. In both cases, the system switches from coexistence state to an all-defector state for higher values of $p$. We show that the transition between these states unambiguously belongs to directed percolation universality class in $2+1$ dimension. We also study the local persistence. The persistence exponents obtained are higher than ones obtained in previous studies underlining their dependence on details of dynamics.' address: - \| Centre for Modeling and Simulation\ University of Pune\ Ganeshkhind, Pune, 411 007,\ INDIA\ - \| Department of Physics\ Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University\ Campus, Nagpur, 440 033\ INDIA\ author: - M Ali Saif - Prashant M Gade title: 'Dynamic Phase Transition in Prisoner’s Dilemma on a Lattice with Stochastic Modifications.' --- Introduction ============ Cooperation is observed at many levels of biological organization. The evolution of cooperation in these systems has been a subject of extensive debate and studies[@nowak00]. Primarily, five different mechanisms have been proposed to explain how natural selection lead to cooperative behavior. They are kin selection, group selection, direct or indirect reciprocity and network reciprocity [@nowak0]. Kin selection explains the cooperation between genetically close organisms as a tendency to help reproductive success of the relatives even at a cost to themselves [@hamilton]. Cooperation may evolve not only on individuals level but also in groups. Thus, a group of cooperators are more likely to survive and grow than group of defectors. However, some authors believe that, the kin selection models are not different from the group selection models [@lehmann]. Cooperation is also observed between organisms who are not genetically close. Reciprocal altruism is a possible mechanism to explain the cooperation between such agents [@trivers; @axelrod2]. Emergence of sustained cooperation when agents have an incentive to cheat as well as tension of being defected [@macy], has been a topic of extensive investigation. In this case, the benefit is extended to another organism in the hope that it will be reciprocated in future and this strategy is reversed if the act is not reciprocated. Sustaining such strategy is more likely in an iterated or spatial game theoretical model. We would like to mention that the cooperation is not always direct. Sometimes we help strangers, and there is no possibility for direct reciprocation. We would like to also mention that altruism is still an open problem. Among various attempts at constructing a theory of cooperation, game theoretical models have played an important role [@szabo0]. In particular, Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) has emerged as a paradigm for the explanation of cooperative behavior among selfish individuals [@axelrod]. This kind of cooperative behavior observed in real life in systems ranging from biological to economic and social systems [@turner1]. PD has now become a standard model to explain cooperation in these systems [@axelrod2; @turner2; @nowak; @doebeli]. In its original form, PD describes the pairwise interaction between two players. The player either cooperates($C$) or defects($D$) at any confrontation. If both players choose to cooperate (defect), they get a pay-off of magnitude $R$ ($P$) each; if one($D$) chooses to defect, while the other($C$) chooses to cooperate, the defector gets the biggest pay-off $T$, while the other gets $S$. For $T>R>P>S$ and $2R>T+S$, total reward for both players is higher if they cooperate. However, an individual has better payoff if he defects while the other player cooperates. Thus the best choice for any player is to defect irrespective of the opponent’s choice if the game played for one round. However, on a two-dimensional lattice, it was found that a fraction of players keep cooperating with their neighbors with repeated interaction. [[Thus, with repeated interactions and spatial structure, it was found that it is possible to have mixed state where clusters of cooperators coexist with defectors.]{}]{} We must mention that recently other spatial structures have also received a fair share of attention [@abramson; @szabo1; @vukov1; @kim; @vukov2; @cesr]. In the context of ecology, Nowak and May simulated PD game with choice of parameters $R=1.0$, $T=b$ $(1.0<b<2.0)$ and $S=P=0.0$. (Some authors called this game ’weak dilemma’ when $S=0$ [@szabo0; @alonso]. However, Nowak and May [@nowak1] found that their qualitative results does not change when $S<0$, at least for small absolute values of $S$, [[i.e.]{}]{} $\|S\|<<1$. Hence, we work with $S=0$ in this paper. We have studied the case when $S=-0.01,-0.1$ and $S=-0.5$ to demonstrate that our main results do not change for $S<0$.) They believe that, with this choice of parameters most of the interesting behavior is reproduced. They studied PD on a two dimensional array with synchronous updating and explored the asymptotic behavior for various values of the parameter $b$. Players interact with their local neighbors through simple deterministic rules and have no memory of past [@nowak1; @nowak2]. This explanation was debated and robustness of the conclusions was studied under several perturbations of the model. Mukherji [[et al.]{}]{} as well as Huberman and Glance studied the system under introduction of asynchronicity [@mukherji; @huberman; @ali-1st]. Mukherji et al. investigated if cooperation can survive in the spatial PD in the presence of noise in general. They considered some more stochastic variants of this system. Other modifications by Mukherji [[et al.]{}]{} were random introduction of cooperators and defectors at any site and spontaneous conversion of cooperators into defectors with some probability [@mukherji]. Nowak [[et al.]{}]{} replied stating that, their results are robust with respect to these modifications. If one studies the entire parameter regime, cooperation is found to persist in the system even in presence of high values of noise [@nowak3]. We will make a detaied study of one of the cases studied by Mukherji [[et al.]{}]{} in which cooperators turn into defector spontaneously with probability $p$. We call this model as model stochastic prisoner’s dilemma (permanent) (abbreviated as SPD(P)). Mukherji [[et al.]{}]{} simulated SPD(P) on a $100\times100$ lattice, for $500$ generations with an initial condition of $90\%$ cooperators. They found that, the density of cooperators quickly decreases with $p$ and above certain value of $p$ all agents become defor increase up to point where all players become defector[@mukherji]. This variant was criticized by Nowak [[et al.]{}]{} as ‘this assumption is well chosen for attempting to eliminate cooperators’ [@nowak3]. Hence, we will study one more variant, stochastic prisoner’s dilemma (temporary) (SPD(T)). In this model, each cooperator turns into defector [[temporarily]{}]{} with probability $p$ and returns to being cooperator at the next time step. In both models, each agent imitate the best (unconditional imitation) strategy of neighboring agents in last time-step. In this paper, we make an extensive study of SPD(P) and SPD(T) from the viewpoint of dynamic phase transition. In both cases, only one absorbing state is possible, namely, in which all players choose to defect at all times. Coexistence of $D$ and $C$ is considered as active phase or fluctuating phase. For large values of noise $p$, we observe a transition from coexistence state to an all-defector state. This kind of phase transition to absorbing state has attracted much attention recently [@marro; @odor; @lubeck2; @hinrichsen]. We can study this phase transition borrowing tools used extensively for studies in equilibrium systems, We find whether or not transition is continuous and find the several critical exponents. We also find the scaling functions which give a better idea of universality. At the basic level, the critical exponents allow us to classify the system in different universality classes. The concept of the universality is one of the most important concepts in study of phase transitions. It allows us to group different systems to small number of classes and lets us know the essential and not so essential details of the systems. It is generically believed that, all the continuous phase transitions from fluctuating phase to a single absorbing state are in the universality class of directed percolation (DP) [@hinrichsen]. (Most system with multiple absorbing state also fall in the DP class [@marques].) However, under some additional conditions, the systems with absorbing state may not fall under the DP class. The other well known universality class for such systems are parity conserving class [@takayasu; @jensen], the pair contact process with diffusion [@odor2; @hinrichsen2], the conserved lattice gas [@park; @lee1] and Manna class [@manna]. These systems has been studied extensively in past two decades [@lubeck2; @hinrichsen]. The SPD(P) and SPD(T) have an unique absorbing state, no obvious conservation laws, so we expect them to be in the DP universality class. We must mention that, phase transition to DP class has been observed in the PD game in a previous studies [@szabo3; @chiappin; @hauert; @guan]. However, there are a few differences between these works and the present one. The updating rule in these works was different from the updating rule suggested by Nowak and May. Most of earlier studies computed only the static exponent $\beta$. In this work, we have made exhaustive and systematic simulations and found all the three independent exponents of DP class. (In fact, we also find the fourth exponent and explicitly demonstrate time reversal symmetry.) Qualitatively, we have only one possible absorbing state in this system unlike previous studies where there are two absorbing states are possible. Thus there is a stronger ground for Janssen and Grassberger’s, [@hinrichsen] conjecture to hold in this case. In the other hand, these transitions could be discontinuous. In fact, experimentally discontinuous transitions are observed often and unfortunately there are no clear thumb rules on when the transition is continuous and when it is not except in cases where mean field theory is applicable [@Bidaux]. However, the transition in our case is clearly continuous. In this paper, we make a complete study of transition to absorbing state of the above two models and we find that they are indeed in DP class. Furthermore, we study persistence in these systems. Recently, there have been several studies on persistence in dynamic phase transitions. They lead to nontrivial exponents which have no obvious relation with other critical exponents in the system since persistence takes into account time correlations of arbitrary order. We study local persistence in these two models and determine the value of the local persistence exponent. Our studies further support the fact that the conjecture of superuniversality of the exponent [@hinrichsen] made in initial studies is not true. (Superuniversality means having an exponent which is independent of dimension.) In fact, the exponent is not even universal in the sense that different models in same universality class in same dimension yield widely different exponents. The exponents obtained by us are much larger than ones obtained in previous studies for some other systems belonging to DP class. With systematic numerical studies, we will demonstrate that the two variants studied by us are unambiguously in DP universality class. However, they show different persistence exponents. This is not entirely unexpected since then persistence exponent probes a full non-Markovian evolution of the system and is one of the least universal exponents. The dependence of persistence exponent on detailed dynamics of the system has been observed previously in other systems such as spin systems [@cueille]. Our results further demonstrate that, the persistence exponent is very much dependent on the dynamics and having the same exponent in two different systems could simply be a coincidence. Definition of Models and Simulation Results =========================================== We consider evolutionary PD game on the two dimensional lattice of size $L$. Each lattice site can take only two values $s=0$ (defector) or $s=1$ (cooperator). We fix boundary condition and players have no memory of the past. The parameters are chosen to be $R=1$ , $S=P=0$. We study the model under variation of $T=b$. Each player $(i,j)$ interacts with his eight nearest neighbors (Moore neighbors) and himself. The total pay-off of any player $p_{(i,j)}(t)$ is the sum of the pay-offs from all nine interactions (with neighbors and self). In each Monte Carlo step, each player is allowed to update his strategy by adopting the strategy of the most successful neighbor. In SPD(P), after each Monte Carlo step, each cooperator may choose to change his state to defector state with probability $p$. In SPD(T), each cooperator defects with his neighbors with probability $p$, but unlike SPD(P), returns to cooperator status in the next time step even if temporary defection has delivered him a good payoff. If his payoff is lesser than any agent in the neighborhood (except himself), he mimics that neighbor’s strategy [[in previous timestep]{}]{}. If the successful neighbor has cooperated (defected) in previous time step, he becomes cooperator (defector). In both cases, for $p=0$ we recover the PD on the two dimensional lattice where agents are either pure cooperators or pure defectors. Furthermore, in both cases, the only possible absorbing state is an all-defector state for any value of $p\neq 0$ (We have also checked that, both models still show DP phase transition if we make $S<0$ at least when $\|S\|<<0$.) The order parameter in this case is the density of cooperators(active) sites $\rho(t)=\left\langle 1/N\sum_i s_i(t)\right\rangle$ where $N$ is the total number of a lattice sites and $\left\langle ...\right\rangle$ denotes to the ensemble average. Clearly, this parameter has a nonzero value in the mixed state while it is zero in an all-defector state. For both models SPD(P) and SPD(T), we plot a phase diagram for the asymptotic states in the phase space $(p,b)$. We explore the range $0.0<p<1.0$ and $1.0<b<2.0$ for the two parameters. The corresponding phase diagram is shown in Fig.1. As we can see, the system has two different phase all defector phase (absorbing phase) and mixed phase (active phase). For fixed value of $b$, we vary $p$ and study the nature of phase transition in the system. ![\[fig1\]Schematic phase diagram of (a) SPD(P) and (b) SPD(T) when $S=0$. The shaded area corresponds to an active phase and white area corresponds to an all-defector phase. We used lattice size $L=60$ and averaged over $100$ different initial samples after discarding $1000$ time-steps ](figure1.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig1\]Schematic phase diagram of (a) SPD(P) and (b) SPD(T) when $S=0$. The shaded area corresponds to an active phase and white area corresponds to an all-defector phase. We used lattice size $L=60$ and averaged over $100$ different initial samples after discarding $1000$ time-steps ](figure1b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} First, we state results for SPD(P) model. We simulate the system on large enough lattice, [[i.e.]{}]{} on a lattice of size $L=200$. We estimate the steady state of the order parameter $\rho_{sat}$ by simulating system for very long time and confirming that the order parameter has reached its steady state. This procedure is carried out for various values of $p$. Initial condition consists of $30\%$ defectors and $70\%$ cooperators distributed randomly on the lattice sites. For every value of $p$, we average over $100$ different initial configuration after discarding $10^5$ timesteps near the critical point and $10^4$ timesteps far from the critical point. In Fig. 2, we plot the average density of active sites $\rho_{sat}$ as function of the control parameter $p$. It is clear that, the stationary density of the active sites varies continuously with $p$. The system crosses from absorbing phase to active phase at the critical point $p_c$. To determine the critical point $p_c$ accurately, we use different lattice sizes up to $L=512$. In all cases , we calculated the value of $\rho_{sat}$ near the critical point after discarding $10^6$ Monte Carlo steps. The best estimate of the value of a critical point in thermodynamic limit seems to converge to $p_c=0.2708 \pm 0.0005$. ![\[fig2\]The steady state of the density of active sites at various value of parameter $p$ for SPD(P) at $b=1.05$.](figure2.eps){width="70mm" height="60mm"} In order to confirm that, phase transition in these models is in DP class, we numerically determine the values of all the critical exponents. The absorbing phase transitions are characterized by four independent critical exponent $\beta$, $\acute{\beta}$, $\nu_\bot$ and $\nu_\\|$. However, it is well known that, DP class displays a symmetry known as rapidity reversal symmetry. This implies that $\beta=\acute{\beta}$. (We must mention that this statement is easily proven for directed bond percolation. [@hnr] It is not obvious for several other models. Hence we explicitly checked this symmetry by computing all the exponents.) Thus, DP is characterized only by three critical exponent instead of four. All the other exponents can be expressed in terms of these exponents. The so called dynamic exponent $z$ is given by $z={\frac{\nu_\\|}{\nu_\bot}}$. However, the exponents $\delta$, $\alpha$ and $\theta$ are given by $\delta={\frac{\acute{\beta}}{\nu_\\|}}$, $\alpha={\frac{\beta}{\nu_\|}}$ and $\theta=d/z-2\delta$ (for more details see [@lubeck2; @hinrichsen] and the references therein). We would like to emphasize that, in this work we have verified the equality of $\beta$ and $\beta'$ by computing survival probability $P(t)$ as well as density of active sites $\rho(t)$ independently. If $\beta=\beta'$, both would decay with the same exponent. By finding effective exponents for $P(t)$ and $\rho(t)$, and showing that they are equal, we have verified this symmetry for these models (See Fig. 4 and 7.) It is known that, for continuous phase transition, the stationary value of order parameter $\rho_{sat}$ vanishes as the control parameter $p$ approaches a critical value $p_c$ asymptotically according to a power-law as follows: $$\rho_{sat} \sim (p_c-p)^{\beta}$$ The value of exponent $\beta$ can be found by plotting the value of $\rho_{sat}$ as a function of $(p-p_c)$ on a logarithmic scale Fig. 3. The power-law behavior is clear and the best-fit value of the critical exponent is found to be $\beta=0.57\pm 0.01$ which matches very well with value of $\beta=0.58$ in the DP class [@hinrichsen]. The compatibility of this exponent with the DP in the $2+1$ dimension, leads us to conjecture that, SPD(P) belongs to the directed percolation universality class in $2+1$ dimension. ![\[fig3\]Stationary density of active sites $\rho_{sat}$ is plotted as a function of the distance to the phase transition in log-log scale for SPD(P). The linear fit accurately fits to the numerically obtained data with the exponent $\beta=0.57 \pm0.01$.](figure3.eps){width="70mm" height="60mm"} To be sure about the universality class, we extract further critical exponents. Finding the nature of phase transitions is an ‘asymptotic’ game, in the sense that we need to make conjectures about asymptotic behavior of thermodynamic system by systematically simulating systems of finite size for finite time. Fortunately some of the information about nature of transition can be inferred from short time dynamics. Thus it is a simplest numerical method which allows us to estimate some of the critical exponents. We start Monte Carlo simulation with a fully occupied lattice [@hinrichsen; @silva; @lubeck]. At the critical point $p_c$, the order parameter $ \rho(t)$ decays asymptotically according to a power-law $$\rho(t)\sim t^{-\delta}$$ In Fig. 4a and 4b, we plot $\rho(t)$ as a function of time $t$ in a logarithmic scale for both the models. At the critical point, the order parameter $\rho(t)$ shows a power-law decay. The best fit of the critical exponent is $\delta=0.456 \pm0.001$ for SPD(P) and $\delta=0.434 \pm 0.002$ for SPD(T), which again is in good agreement with the value $\delta= 0.451$ in $2+1$ dimensional class [@hinrichsen]. In Fig. 4, we display $\rho(t)$ as a function of $t$ for $p<p_c$ and $p>p_c$ also. As expected, the density of active sites go to zero (absorbing state) for $p>p_c$ while this density saturates to some asymptotic value signaling the presence of coexistence phase for $p<p_c$. ![\[fig4\]The dynamical behavior of the density of active sites as function of time (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T), for lattice size $L=512$. The data averaged over $10^3$ samples ](figure4a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig4\]The dynamical behavior of the density of active sites as function of time (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T), for lattice size $L=512$. The data averaged over $10^3$ samples ](figure4b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} In addition, the nonequilibrium phase transitions are characterized by two independent correlation length, spatial length scale $\xi_\bot$ and a temporal length scale $\xi_\\|$. Close to the transition point, these length scales are expected to diverge as: $$\xi_\bot\sim\left\|p-p_c\right\|^{-\nu_\bot}, \xi_\\|\sim\left\|p-p_c\right\|^{-\nu_\\|}$$ The two correlation lengths are related by $\xi_\\|\propto\xi_\bot^z$ where $z$ is the dynamic exponent. In order to obtain the dynamic exponent and the two correlation exponents, we carry out the off-critical simulations and finite size scaling. For DP, particles density $\rho(t)$ starting from fully occupied lattices is expected to scale with time and lattice size as follows [@hinrichsen]: $$\rho(t)\sim t^{-\beta/\nu_\\|} f(\Delta t^{1/\nu_\\|},t^{d/z}/N)$$ where $\Delta=\left\|p-p_c\right\|$ and $N=L^d$ is the total number of sites. The exponent $\delta$ is given by $\delta=\beta/\nu_\\|$. By plotting the value of $\rho(t) t^\delta$ versus $t\Delta^{\nu_\\|}$ for different values of $\Delta$ we can tune the exponent $\nu_\\|$ such that all curves collapse on single curve. In Fig. 5, we found the best collapse is achieved for $\nu_\\|=1.295 \pm 0.003$ for SPD(P), for the SPD(T) $\nu_\\|=1.295 \pm 0.004$. ![\[fig5\]The off-critical scaling function of the density of active sites (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T). The curves collapse according to the scaling form Eq. (4).](figure5a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig5\]The off-critical scaling function of the density of active sites (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T). The curves collapse according to the scaling form Eq. (4).](figure5b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} In these simulations, our lattices are large enough so that finite size effects are not very prominent. However, as in case of equilibrium scaling, we can carry out finite size scaling in DP to find further a critical exponents. The system size enters here as an additional scaling field. At the critical point, the finite size simulations can yield us the value of dynamic exponent $z$ (See Eq. (4)). We have plotted the $\rho(t) t^{\delta}$ versus $t/N^{\frac{z}{d}}$ for different system size Fig. 6 at $p=p_c$. By tuning the value of exponent $z$, the best collapse is obtained for $z=1.76 \pm 0.03$ for SPD(P) and $z=1.76 \pm 0.02$ for SPD(T) which matches with $z=1.76$ for DP in 2+1 dimensions [@hinrichsen]. Thus three independent exponents $\beta=\delta \nu_{\|\|}$, $\delta$ and $z$ match well with DP in 2+1 dimensions for SPD(P) and SPD(T). Other exponents can be found from these exponents and agree well with values in literature. For example, the exponent $z$ related to the temporal and spatial correlation exponents with that relation $z=\nu_\\|/\nu_\bot$. Thus value of $\nu_\bot=0.7358$ for both models which matches with value quoted in literature. ![\[fig6\]We demonstrate finite-size scaling density of active sites at the critical point for various values of lattice sizes (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T). An excellent collapse is obtained according to the scaling form Eq. (4).](figure6a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig6\]We demonstrate finite-size scaling density of active sites at the critical point for various values of lattice sizes (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T). An excellent collapse is obtained according to the scaling form Eq. (4).](figure6b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} To confirm the results, we make more accurate estimates. These can be obtained by dynamic simulations starting from a configuration which is close to the absorbing state. (In our system, we cannot start from a single active site which will disappear immediately.) We start our simulation from five active sites are located in the center of lattice. We distributed these sites as follows; we put one site in the center of lattice and the other four active sites as the first neighbor of that centered site. In this case, there is a possibility for the sites in centre to survive and grow. We use the time-dependent simulations [@grassberger] to estimate values of $\theta$ and $\delta$ (or $z$) and confirm previous results. We follow the time evolution of this system which is initially very close to the absorbing state [@jensen1; @dickman]. We numerically measure the survival probability $P(t)$ (the probability that the system does not reach the absorbing state till time $t$), the average number of active sites $n(t)$, and the average mean square distance of spreading of active sites from the origin $R^2(t)$. At the critical point these quantities are expected to display asymptotic power-laws: $$P(t)\sim t^{-\delta}$$ $$n(t)\sim t^\theta$$ and $$R^2(t)\sim t^{2/z}$$ To determine the critical exponents more accurately, we adopted the local slope method by introducing the [[effective exponent]{}]{} [@hinrichsen; @grassberger2], as follows: $$-\delta(t)=\frac{\log_{10}(P(t)/P(t/m))}{\log_{10} m}$$ where $m$ is a fit parameter. we can get similar definitions for the effective exponents for the quantities $\theta(t)$ an $2/z(t)$. As $t\rightarrow \infty$ we should get the right value of the critical exponent. We use $L=512$ in our simulations and average over $1.2\times 10^4$ initial conditions. We fix $m=5$. In Figs. 7(a), (b) and (c), we show the values of effective exponents $\delta$, $\theta$ and $2/z$ as a function of $1/t$. For $p\neq p_c$ the values tend to zero or escape to infinity while they tend to a constant value only for $p=p_c$. The estimated values $\delta=0.434 \pm 0.005 $, $\theta=0.232 \pm 0.004$ and $2/z=1.114 \pm 0.003$ are in excellent agreement with the exponents for DP in 2+1 dimensions within the error bars. ![\[fig7\]Time dependent behavior of the effective exponents (a) $\delta(t)$, (b) $\theta(t)$ and (c) $2/z(t)$ as function of $1/t$ for the value of $p=0.2700, 0.2705, 0.2708, 0.2711$ and $0.2714$ (from top to bottom curves) for SPD(P).](figure7a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig7\]Time dependent behavior of the effective exponents (a) $\delta(t)$, (b) $\theta(t)$ and (c) $2/z(t)$ as function of $1/t$ for the value of $p=0.2700, 0.2705, 0.2708, 0.2711$ and $0.2714$ (from top to bottom curves) for SPD(P).](figure7b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig7\]Time dependent behavior of the effective exponents (a) $\delta(t)$, (b) $\theta(t)$ and (c) $2/z(t)$ as function of $1/t$ for the value of $p=0.2700, 0.2705, 0.2708, 0.2711$ and $0.2714$ (from top to bottom curves) for SPD(P).](figure7c.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} A case of $S<0$ --------------- Some authors believe that the case $S=0$ corresponds to weak dilemma and we have prisoner’s dilemma only for $S<0$. We demonstrate that, our main conclusions remain unchanged for $S<0$. In Fig. 8, we present the phase diagram for few negative values of $S$, namely, $S=-0.01, -0.1$ and even $-0.5$ for both models SPD(P) and SPD(T). For $S=-0.01$, the phase diagram does not change in a significant manner from $S=0$. However, as one would expect, the area of parameter space which allows mixed state shrinks with decreasing values of $S$. ![\[fig8\]Schematic phase diagram of (a) SPD(P) and (b) SPD(T) for $S=-0.01, -0.1$ and $-0.5$. The area left to the curves correspond to an active phase whereas the area right to the curves corresponds to an all-defector phase. We used lattice size $L=60$ and averaged over $50$ different initial samples after discarding $1000$ time-steps ](figure8a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig8\]Schematic phase diagram of (a) SPD(P) and (b) SPD(T) for $S=-0.01, -0.1$ and $-0.5$. The area left to the curves correspond to an active phase whereas the area right to the curves corresponds to an all-defector phase. We used lattice size $L=60$ and averaged over $50$ different initial samples after discarding $1000$ time-steps ](figure8b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} For $b=1.05$, we find the critical parameter value of $p$ for different values of $S$. For SPD(P), $p_c= 0.268$ for $S=-0.01$ and $p_c= 0.1318$ for $S=-0.5$. For SPD(T), $p_c= 0.257$ for $S=-0.01$ and $p_c=0.125$ for $S=-0.5$. We have plotted the density of active sites $\rho(t)$ as a function of time at the critical parameter values in Fig. 9. We clearly see a power law decay of active sites for $t>1$. The best fit of the critical exponent for SPD(P) in these cases are $\delta=0.432 \pm 0.001$ for $S=-0.5$ and $\delta=0.431 \pm 0.001$ for $S=-0.01$. For SPD(T) $\delta=0.431 \pm 0.002$ when $S=-0.5$ and $\delta=0.440 \pm 0.001$ when $S=-0.01$. These values match well with the known value of $\delta$ for DP in $2+1$ dimensions. Thus it is clear that the transition remains in DP universality class even for negative values of $S$. ![\[fig9\]The dynamical behavior of the density of active sites as function of time at the critical point when $S=-0.01$ and $S=-0.5$ (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T), for lattice size $L=100$. The data averaged over $3\times10^3$ samples.](figure9a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig9\]The dynamical behavior of the density of active sites as function of time at the critical point when $S=-0.01$ and $S=-0.5$ (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T), for lattice size $L=100$. The data averaged over $3\times10^3$ samples.](figure9b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} 1-D and 3-D case ---------------- PD in 1-D system, when the player $i$ interact with his first two neighbors without self-interaction leads to absorbing state for each value of $T>1$. Hence, there is no phase transition in this case. However, preliminary investigation of SPD(P) and SPD(T) in 3-D suggest that, both of these model indeed have phase transition which falls in the universality class of DP. In Fig.10, we plot the density of active sites $\rho(t)$ as function of time for both models. We use lattice size $L=60$, temptation value $T=1.1$ and each player $i$ interact with his $6$ nearest neighbors without self-interaction. At the critical point, the order parameter $\rho(t)$ displays a power-law decay. The best fit of the critical exponent is $\delta=0.718\pm 0.008$ for SPD(P) and $\delta=0.723\pm 0.005$ for SPD(T) which is in reasonable agreement with the value of $\delta=0.73$ in $3+1$ dimension. We expect the transition to be in DP universality class for higher dimensions as well. ![\[fig4\]The dynamical behavior of the density of active sites as function of time in three dimensional case (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T), for lattice size $L=60$. The data is averaged over $200$ samples ](figure10a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig4\]The dynamical behavior of the density of active sites as function of time in three dimensional case (a) for SPD(P) and (b) for SPD(T), for lattice size $L=60$. The data is averaged over $200$ samples ](figure10b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} Local Persistence ================= Recently, persistence has been a fairly popular topic and has been investigated in great detail in statistical physics. While most of the studies are theoretical [@Majumdar; @Derrida; @Krapivsky; @Derrida1; @Majumdar1; @Lee; @Krug; @Majumdar2; @Kallabis; @Chakraborty], there have been a few experimental studies as well [@Marcos; @Yurke; @Tam]. It has been shown that, the persistence exponent is a rather nontrivial quantity to compute even in the simplest of the cases. One needs to know time correlation at all times and knowing it in the asymptotic limit is not good enough. Various definitions of persistence such as local persistence, global persistence, block persistence etc. have been proposed [@satya]. Though main object of studies has been discrete systems, the definition has been suitably modified and studied also for continuous systems such as coupled maps [@Ray; @Hu-Gade; @Gade-2]. The most widely studied quantity in this context is the local persistence probability $p_l(t)$. It is defined as the probability that a local variable at a given point of space has not changed its state until time $t$ during stochastic evolution. It is observed that, in several systems, at the critical point, the local persistence probability decays algebraically as follows: $$p_l(t)\sim t^{-\theta_l}$$ where $\theta_l$ is the local persistence exponent. This exponent is found to be independent one in the sense that it cannot be obtained from other critical exponents. There are no scaling relations to link it with other exponents. In some cases, different models displaying continuous transition belonging to same universality class show the same exponent. For example, the Domany-Kinzel (DK) automata in one dimension and coupled circle maps in one dimension show transition to absorbing state which is in DP universality class and they show the same exponent [@Ray]. However, in general, since the persistence exponent probes the full evolution of the underlying systems, it may not be the same in different systems. While we have shown above that the systems under study unambiguously display a dynamic phase transition in DP universality class, persistence exponents do not really match the systems studied previously. The definition of persistence has to be appropriately modified for absorbing state transitions. Hinrichsen and Koduvely argued that, the previous definition of local persistence not appropriate for the DP class systems. They define the local persistence $p_l(t)$ as the probability that inactive site does not become active up to time $t$. (The simulations are started from random initial conditions.) The reason for this slightly changed definition is the asymmetry between active and inactive sites in absorbing states models. (The active sites can spontaneously turn into inactive sites. Thus number of active sites which do not become inactive even once till time $t$ decays exponentially. On the other hand, a given inactive site may remain inactive for a very long time [@hinrichsen3] and will stay so unless it comes in contact with an active site.) We follow the same definition for persistence in this work. It is reasonable in our system since cooperators (active sites) keep defecting with probability $p$ leading to exponential decay, while defectors (inactive sites) may stay so for really long time. Local persistence exponent $\theta_l$ in the different DP systems on $1+1$ dimension is found to be approximately $\theta_l=1.5$ [@hinrichsen3; @albano; @fuchs; @menon]. However, in the case of the $2+1$ dimension there is no exact estimate of the value $\theta_l$. In the table I, we tabulate the values of $\theta_l$ for the different systems showing DP transition in $2+1$ dimension.\ [ccccccc]{}\ Model& ZGP & CP & CP & Bond-DP& SPD(P)& SPD(T)\ Ref.& [@albano]& [@fuchs]&[@grass]& [@fuchs]& This work& This work\ d=2& 1.50(1)& $>$1.62&1.611(1)& $>$1.58& 1.73 $\pm$0.02& 2.24 $\pm 0.03$\ \ We carried out simulations at critical point for $L=2000$ and averaged over $100$ independent runs. Initial condition consists of $35\%$ defectors distributed randomly on the lattice sites. In Fig. 11, we clearly observe that the number of persistent sites $p_l(t)$ decays as a power-law at the critical point for both SPD(P) and SPD(T) models for three decades . The best power law fit is obtained for $\theta_l=1.73$ for SPD(P) and $\theta_l=2.24$ for SPD(T). We also plot $p_l(t) t^\theta_l$ as a function of $t$ and the curve is flat for almost three decades or more. We have estimated $\theta_l$ in two more ways. We carried out extensive simulations for $L=1024$. We carry out effective exponent analysis and also scaling for off-critical simulations. The effective exponent analysis is presented in Fig. 12. We make a fit as suggested in original work by Grasberger (eq. 9 of ref. [@grassberger2] ) at the critical point and get an estimate of the value in the limit $1/t \rightarrow 0$. The fluctuations at large times for persistence (due to smaller data and finite size effects) are reflected in in the limit $1/t \rightarrow 0$ for effective exponent. When we make a fit suggested by Grassberger for effective exponent, we obtain $\theta_l=1.72 \pm0.01$ for SPD(P) and $\theta_l=2.25 \pm 0.02$ for SPD(T). ![\[fig10\] The local persistence probability is plotted as a function of $t$ for, (a) SPD(P) model at $p_c$. The best fit for power-law decay at the critical point has a slope $\theta_l=1.73$. (b) SPD(T) model at $p_c$. The best fit for power-law at the critical point has a slope $\theta_l=2.24$. In both cases, the lattice size $L=2000$ and we average over $100$ different initial conditions. ](figure11a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig10\] The local persistence probability is plotted as a function of $t$ for, (a) SPD(P) model at $p_c$. The best fit for power-law decay at the critical point has a slope $\theta_l=1.73$. (b) SPD(T) model at $p_c$. The best fit for power-law at the critical point has a slope $\theta_l=2.24$. In both cases, the lattice size $L=2000$ and we average over $100$ different initial conditions. ](figure11b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![Time dependent behavior of the persistence exponents $\theta_l(t)$ as function of $1/t$ (a) for SPD(P) at the values of $p=0.2620$, $0.2704$ and $0.2740$ (from top to bottom curves) (b) for SPD(T) at the values of $p=0.2400$, $0.2584$ and $0.2600$ (from top to bottom curves).](figure12a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![Time dependent behavior of the persistence exponents $\theta_l(t)$ as function of $1/t$ (a) for SPD(P) at the values of $p=0.2620$, $0.2704$ and $0.2740$ (from top to bottom curves) (b) for SPD(T) at the values of $p=0.2400$, $0.2584$ and $0.2600$ (from top to bottom curves).](figure12b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} The above exponents are confirmed by studying the scaling behavior of the local persistence probability. In analogy to other DP quantities, the local persistence is expected to have a scaling law of the form [@fuchs]: $$p_l(t) \sim t^{-\theta_l} F(t \Delta^{\nu_\\|})$$ where $\Delta=\left\|p-p_c\right\|$ measures the distance from the critical point, F is the off-critical scaling function and $\nu_\\|=1.295$ is the temporal dynamical exponent of DP. In the Fig. 13, we have plotted the value of $p_l(t) \Delta^{-{\theta_l}{\nu_\\|}} $ against $t \Delta^{\nu_\\|}$ for various values of the parameter $p$. The curves shows us a good collapse when the value of $\theta_l = 1.73 \pm 0.02$. Similarly, for SPD(T), the best collapse is obtained for $\theta_l =2.24 \pm 0.03$. Hence, we conclude that the best estimates for persistence exponent are $1.73 \pm 0.02$ for SPD(P) and $2.24 \pm 0.03$ for SPD(T). It could be noted that the values of these exponents are much higher than those obtained in 2-d directed percolation in previous studies. ![\[fig11\]The off-critical scaling function of the local persistence near the critical point for $L=1024$. We average over $100$ different initial conditions. (a) SPD(P) model: the best collapse is obtained when $\theta_l=1.73$ for SPD(P). (b) SPD(T) model: the best collapse is obtained when $\theta_l=2.24$.](figure13a.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} ![\[fig11\]The off-critical scaling function of the local persistence near the critical point for $L=1024$. We average over $100$ different initial conditions. (a) SPD(P) model: the best collapse is obtained when $\theta_l=1.73$ for SPD(P). (b) SPD(T) model: the best collapse is obtained when $\theta_l=2.24$.](figure13b.eps "fig:"){width="70mm" height="60mm"} Conclusions =========== Good models for realistic situations in ecological and social systems require robustness with respect to some degree of noise. The game theoretical models with stochastic modifications are relatively less studied and in this paper we have tried to investigate two such models in detail. We have studied their phase diagrams and also studied the nature of dynamic transition between the two phases observed in these systems. In particular, we have studied two stochastic variants of prisoner’s dilemma (SPD), (SPD(T) and SPD(P)), on a two dimensional lattice. Our investigations indeed confirm that the results from original model, prisoner’s dilemma on a lattice, are reasonably robust with respect to noise. In the models we studied, the cooperators turn defectors temporarily or permanently. While SPD(P) was studied previously, SPD(T) is introduced by us in this work. The difference between these models is the following: In SPD(P) model, the cooperators spontaneously become defectors with probability $p$ and stay so unless a cooperator in vicinity has higher payoff. On the other hand, in SPD(T) the defect temporarily for one timestep. In both the models, depending on value of parameter $p$, the system is found to be in the mixed phase or an all-defector phase. The memory is of one timestep only and the neighboring site does not distinguish between pure defector and a cooperator who has temporarily turned a defector. The phase diagrams are studied in detail and for a higher tendency of cooperators to defect, the mixed systems breaks down and we have an all-defector state. This is clearly an absorbing state transition. We have carried out heavy and systematic computation on this system and a clear evidence has been presented that both SPD(P) and SPD(T) display a transition in the DP universality class. All the DP exponents have been found and a clean scaling behavior is presented in both cases. Of late, persistence in spatially extended dynamical systems has been a topic of intensive studies in nonequilibrium statistical physics. Systems displaying phase transition in universality class of directed percolation have also been studied in this regard and the persistence exponent in two dimensions is found to be in the range $1.5-1.6$. The persistence exponents in our systems are found to be significantly higher and in one of the cases the exponent is well beyond two. This should put any possible speculation about superuniversality of this exponent to rest. In this case, a clean scaling behavior is presented which demonstrates the validity of conventional scaling. To the best of our knowledge such clean scaling of persistence has not been shown in $2+1$ dimensions. As found in spin systems, the persistence exponent is the least universal of critical exponents [@Ray]. For example, let us consider Ising model at finite temperature. Though the persistence probability shows the same behavior whether heat bath algorithm is employed or Glauber algorithm is employed for temperature $T< T_c$, it is very different for temperatures $T\geq T_c$, where $T_c$ is the critical temperature [@cueille]. However, it is an interesting fact that this quantity displays a power law at the critical point. In some cases, the exponent has been found theoretically. However, it is still a puzzle what this exponent means physically. For example, it is not clear which new physical insight is brought by having the information that the persistence exponent 0.1207 for 1-D diffusion, a problem which is fully understood and is exactly solvable [@satya]. There are several other variants which could be an object of studies in future. If we consider cooperation with probability $p$ and defection as two possible strategies and if we impose a condition that the strategies are mimicked and not behavior in previous time step, this variant can have two possible absorbing state and an interesting phase diagram. We will be investigating this variant in future studies. One could also consider dynamic phase transitions in presence of random introduction of defectors and cooperation as well as effect of asynchronicity. Nature of dynamic phase transitions in game-theoretic systems is a rich and unexplored field and it could yield interesting insights. In this work, we have brought out two models which are unambiguously in the universality class of directed percolation. Though their critical exponents match with standard DP exponents in $2+1$ dimensions, they have widely different persistence exponents. Thus having same exponent in two different systems as in coupled map lattice in one dimension and DK automata as pointed out by Menon [[et al.]{}]{} [@menon] could be a coincidence or presence of certain dynamical properties which needs further investigation. Acknowledgment ============== MAS thanks Govt. of Yemen for scholarship and PMG thanks DST for financial support. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [10]{} Nowak M A, 2006 [Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring The Equation of Life]{} (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge) Nowak M A, 2006 Science [314]{} 1560 Hamilton W D, 1963 American Naturalist [97]{} 354 Lehmann L, Keller L, West S and Roze D, 2007 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [104]{} 6736 and references therein Trivers R L, 1971 Q. Rev. Biol. [46]{} 35 Axelrod R and Hamilton W D, Science 1981 [[211]{}]{} 1390 Macy M W and Flache A, 2002 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [99]{} 7229 Szabó G, Fáth G, 2007 Phys. Rep. [446]{} 97 Axelrod R, 1997 [The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based model of competition and collaboration]{} (Princeton, New Jersey,Princeton University Press) Turner P E and Chao L, 2003 Am. Nat. [[161]{}]{} 497 Turner P E and Chao L, 1999 Nature [[398]{}]{} 441 Nowak M A and Sigmund K, 2004 Science [[303]{}]{} 793 Doebeli M and Hauert C, 2005 Ecology Lett. [[8]{}]{} 748 Abramson G and Kuperman M, 2001 Phys. Rev. E [[63]{}]{} 030901 Szabó G, Vukov J and Szolnoki A, 2005 Phys. Rev. E [[72]{}]{} 047107 Vukov J and Szabó G, 2005 Phys. Rev. E [[71]{}]{} 036133 Kim B J, Trusina A, Holme P, Minnhagen P, Chung J S, and Choi M Y, 2002 Phys. Rev E [[66]{}]{} 021907 Vukov J, Szabó G and Szolnoki A, 2006 Phys. Rev. E [[73]{}]{} 067103 Wang S, Szalay M S, Zhang C and Csermely P, 2008 PloS ONE [3]{} e1917 Alonso J, Fernández A and Fort H, 2006 J. Stat. Mech.: The. Exp. [6]{} 06013 Nowak M A and May R M, 1992 Nature [[359]{}]{} 826 Nowak M A, Bonhoeffer S and May R M, 1994 Int. J. Bif. Chaos [[4]{}]{} 33 Mukherji A, Rajan V and Slagle J R, 1996 Nature [[379]{}]{} 125 Huberman B A and Glance N S, 1993 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [[90]{}]{} 7716 Saif M A and Gade P M, 2009 J. Stat. Mech.: The. Exp. P07023 Nowak M A, Bonhoeffer S and May R M, 1996 Nature [[379]{}]{} 126 Marro J and Dickman R, 1999 [[Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models]{}]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England) Ódor G, 2004 Rev. Mod. Phys. [[76]{}]{} 663 Lübeck S, 2004 Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [[18]{}]{} 3977 Hinrichsen H, 2000 Adv. Phys. [[49]{}]{} 815 and references therein. Marques M C and Mendes J F F, 1999 Eur. Phys. J. B [[12]{}]{} 123 Takayasu H and Tretyakov A Y, 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. [[68]{}]{} 3060 Jensen I, 1994 Phys. Rev. E [[50]{}]{} 3623 Ódor G, 2000 Phys. Rev. E [[62]{}]{} R3027 Hinrichsen H, 2001 Phys. Rev. E [[63]{}]{} 036102 Park K, Kang S and Kim I M, 2005 Phys. Rev. E [[71]{}]{} 066129 Lee S -G and Lee S B, 2008 Phys. Rev. E [[77]{}]{} 021113 Manna S S, 1991 J. Phys. A [[24]{}]{} L363 Szabó G and Toke C, 1998 Phys. Rev. E [58]{} 69 Chiappin J R N and Oliveira M J de, 1999 Phys. Rev. E [59]{} 6419 Hauert C and Szabó G, 2005 Am. J. Phys [73]{} 405 Guan J Y, Huang Z X, Xu X J and Wang Y H, 2006 Eurphys. Lett. [76]{} 1214 Monetti R A, 2001 Phys. Rev. E [65]{} 016103; Bidaux R, Boccara N and Chaté H, 1989 Phys. Rev. A [39]{} 3094 Cueille S and Sire C, 1999 Euro. Phys. J. B [7]{} 111 H. Hinrichsen , 2006 Physica A [369]{} 1 Silva R da, Dickman R and Felício J R D de, 2004 Phys. Rev. E [[70]{}]{} 067701 Lübeck S, cond-mat/0501259v1 (2005). Grassberger P and Torre A de la, 1979 Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) [[122]{}]{} 373 Jensen I, 1991 Phys. Rev. A [[43]{}]{} 3187 Dickman R, 1996 Phys. Rev. E [[53]{}]{} 2223 Grassberger P, 1989 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [[22]{}]{} 3673 Majumdar S N, Sire C, Bray A J, and Cornell S J, 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. [77]{} 2867 Derrida B, Bray A J, and Godrèche C, 1994 J. Phys. A [27]{} L357 Krapivsky P L, Ben-Naim E and Redner S, 1994 Phys. Rev. E [50]{} 2474 Derrida B, Hakim V, and Pasquier V, 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. [75]{} 751 Majumdar S N and Sire C, 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. [77]{} 1420 Lee B P and Rutenberg A D, 1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. [79]{} 4842 Krug J, Kallabis H, Majumdar S N, Cornell S J, Bray A J and Sire C, 1997 Phys. Rev. E [56]{} 2702 Majumdar S N and Bray A J, 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett [81]{} 2626 Kallabis H and Krug J, 1999 Europhys. Lett. [45]{} 20 Chakraborty D and Bhattacharjee J K, 2007 Phys. Rev. E [75]{} 011111 Marcos-Martin M, Beysens D, Bouchand J-P, Godrèche C, and Yekutieli I, 1996 Physica D [214]{} 396 Yurke B, Pargellis A N, Majumdar S N, and Sire C, 1997 Phys. Rev. E [56]{} R40 Tam W Y, Zeitak R, Szeto K Y and Stavans J, 1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. [78]{} 1588 Majumdar S, 1999 Current Science [77]{} 370 Ray P, 2004 Phase Transitions [77]{}, 563 Gade P M and Chin-Kun Hu, 2006 Phys. Rev. E [73]{} 036212 Gade P M, Senthilkumar D V, Barve S and Sinha S, 2007 Phys. Rev. E [75]{} 066208 Hinrichsen H and Koduvely H M, 1998 Eur. Phys. J. B [[5]{}]{} 257 Albano E V and Munoz M A, 2001 Phys. Rev. E [[63]{}]{} 031104 Fuchs J, Schelter J, Ginelli F and Hinrichsen H, 2008 J. Stat. Mech. :The. Exp. P04015 Grassberger P, 2009 J. Stat. Mech. :The. Exp. P08021 Menon G I, Sinha S and Ray P, 2003 Europhys. Lett. [61]{} 27	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
How Noise and Coupling Induce Bursting Action Potentials in Pancreatic $\boldsymbol{\beta}$-cells Junghyo Jo,$^{\star}$ Hyuk Kang,$^{\star}$ Moo Young Choi,$^{\star \dagger}$ and Duk-Su Koh$^{\ddagger}$ $^{\star}$Department of Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-747, Korea; $^{\dagger}$Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 130-722, Korea; and $^{\ddagger}$Department of Physics, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang 790-784, Korea E-mail: [email protected] Corresponding author’s present address: Department of Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-747, Korea; and Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 130-722, Korea Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Bursting action potentials, which are characterized by rapid firing interspersed with quiescent periods in pancreatic $\beta$-cells, play a central role in the secretion of insulin, the hormone for glucose homeostasis. It has been reported that isolated $\beta$-cells actually show continuous spikes or fast and irregular bursts [@Falke; @Kinard; @Smith] while $\beta$-cells in a cluster or in an intact islet produce regular bursting action potentials [@Andreu; @Dean; @Sanchez-Andres; @Valdeolmillos]. As for the correlations between the electrical activity on the cell membrane and insulin secretion [@Henquin], the robust bursts appear more effective in maintaining glucose homeostasis than continuous spikes, since coupled $\beta$-cells can control insulin release better than isolated $\beta$-cells [@Bosco; @Halban; @Pipeleers]. However, the question as to whether bursting is an endogenous property of individual $\beta$-cells or of a cluster still remains to be answered, which has attracted a number of investigations. Among proposed explanations is the channel-sharing hypothesis, which postulates that current fluctuations arising from channel gating stochasticity prevent single cells, originally capable of bursting, from bursting, but when they are electrically coupled, the perturbing effects are shared by neighbors and the regular bursting is recovered [@Aguirre; @Chay1; @Sherman1]. In contrast to this hypothesis of negative effects of noise, recent research [@Lee; @Longtin; @Pei; @Pikovsky; @Zaikin] has established that noise can play a constructive role in many biological systems including $\beta$-cell bursting [@Vries1]. The heterogeneity hypothesis, providing another explanation, was also postulated by the same group. According to it, when heterogeneous cells, each of which produces continuous spikes or bursts depending upon such cell parameters as the size, channel density, etc., are coupled, those cells in the cluster exhibit more pronounced bursts. This gives a useful insight into the functioning of heterogeneous cell populations [@Smolen]. In this study, we expand the concept of heterogeneity and probe how such general heterogeneity enhances bursting. It is proposed that noise induces heterogeneity in otherwise homogeneous individual $\beta$-cells, which in turn assists the $\beta$-cells to produce robust bursts when they are coupled. Existing studies have mostly focused on the synchronizing role of coupling [@Sherman2; @Vries3]; the slow dynamics, which has a period about 10 to 60 seconds, is synchronized successfully between adjacent cells. In contrast, we focus here on the fact that rapid firing in the active phase of bursting is asynchronous between neighbors [@Sherman3] and these fluctuating currents through the gap junction act like noise, enhancing the robust bursting action potential. It is also presented that various action potentials of single $\beta$-cells are embodied with optimal noise induced by thermal fluctuations or by ionic channel gating stochasticity. In particular, noise stimulates occasionally itself to produce [fast bursts]{} in a single cell. There are four sections in this paper: In the second section the mathematical model for $\beta$-cells is introduced and the simulation method is described. The third section is devoted to the effects of random noise in currents and of voltage-dependent noise in single cells while the fourth section examines how coupling between cells influences the electrical activity of a cell. Finally, main results are summarized and discussed in the last section. Model and Methods {#model-and-methods .unnumbered} ================= Mathematical model for a $\beta$-cell {#mathematical-model-for-a-beta-cell .unnumbered} ------------------------------------- As the Hodgkin-Huxley model [@Hodgkin] describes the electrical activity on the cell membrane with ion channels, a few mathematical models for $\beta$-cells, based on the electrophysiological data [@Ashcroft; @Gopel; @Rorsman] of the ion channels in $\beta$-cells, have been proposed. Although there are simple models using two-dimensional maps [@Vries2; @Rulkov1; @Rulkov2], we consider the Sherman model, which allows direct physical interpretation [@Vries1; @Sherman4]. The model is described by the current balance equation between capacitive and ionic currents: $$\begin{aligned} C_M \frac{dV}{dt} &=& - I_{Ca}(V) - I_K(V,N) - I_{K(ATP)}(V,P)\nonumber \\ && - I_S(V,S), \label{V}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_M$ and $V$ denote the membrane capacitance and the membrane potential, respectively. The activation variable $N$ and the slow variable $S$ are governed by $$\begin{aligned} \label{N} \tau_N \frac{dN}{dt} & = & N_{\infty}(V) - N \nonumber \\ \tau_{S} \frac{dS}{dt} & = & S_{\infty}(V) - S\end{aligned}$$ with appropriate relaxation times $\tau_N$ and $\tau_S$, which are taken to be constants for simplicity. The fraction $P$ of open K(ATP) channels may also be regarded as a constant for the moment \[see Eq. \[P\]\]. Ionic currents here are fast voltage-dependent L-type Ca$^{2+}$ current $I_{Ca}$, delayed-rectifier K$^+$ current $I_K$, ATP-blockable K$^+$ current $I_{K(ATP)}$, and very slow inhibitory potassium current $I_S$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{I} I_{Ca}(V) & = & g_{Ca} M_{\infty}(V)(V - V_{Ca}) \nonumber\\ I_K(V, N) & = & g_K N (V - V_K) \nonumber \\ I_{K(ATP)}(V, P) & = & g_{K(ATP)} P (V - V_K) \\ I_S(V, S) & = & g_S S (V - V_K).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $I_{Ca}$ and $I_K$ are responsible for generating action potentials; $I_{Ca}$ is assumed to respond instantaneously to a change in the membrane potential, whereas $I_K$ is governed by the dynamics of the activation variable $N$ via Eq. \[N\]. $I_{K(ATP)}$ is the background current with voltage-independent conductance $g_{K(ATP)}$; this determines the plateau fraction, i.e., the ratio of the active phase duration to the burst period. For example, as $g_{K(ATP)}$ decreases under high glucose concentration, there are only active phases without silent phases. $I_S$ is a phenomenological current representing slow dynamics in the bursting action potential. This model thus assumes that single $\beta$-cells originally contain the slow dynamics, which works just under the appropriate condition. Biological candidates for such slow dynamics include slow free Ca$^{2+}$ dynamics [@Chay2] and ATP metabolism [@Keizer]. Finally, $M_{\infty}$, $N_{\infty}$, and $S_{\infty}$ of the voltage-dependent activation are defined to be $$X_{\infty}(V) = \frac{1}{1 + \exp{[(V_X - V) / \theta_X]}},$$ where $X$ denotes $M$, $N$, or $S$. This set of coupled nonlinear differential equations in Eqs. \[V\] - \[I\] has been analyzed in detail [@Keener; @Rinzel]. There it is noted that $S$ responds on a much slower time scale than $V$ and $N$ because $\tau_S$ has the time scale of several seconds compared with the milli-second time scale in firing. Then $S$ is regarded just as a parameter, and the dynamics of the fast subsystem on the two-dimensional phase space of $V$ and $N$ is analyzed. Furthermore, after eliminating one degree of freedom by substituting $N_{\infty}$ to $N$, the whole behavior of this model may be analyzed approximately with fast variable $V$ and slow variable $S$. Numerical details {#numerical-details .unnumbered} ----------------- Integration of differential equations including noise demands some caution, and is commonly achieved via the Euler method. For better efficiency, we employ the Euler method for integrating the noise term, combined with the second-order Runge-Kutta method for other terms. In order to be concrete, we consider the one-variable problem $$\frac{dx}{dt} = f(x) + \xi(t),$$ where $f(x(t))$ is a (nonlinear) function of $x$, the variable of concern, and $\xi(t)$ is the white noise with zero mean and delta-function correlations $$\begin{aligned} \langle \xi(t)\rangle & = & 0, \nonumber \\ \label{GWN} \langle \xi(t) \xi(t')\rangle & = & 2 D\delta(t-t').\end{aligned}$$ Taking the time step of size $\Delta t$, we obtain from the equation of motion the value of $x$ at time $t+\Delta t$: $$x(t+\Delta t) = x(t) + \frac{f(x(t)) + f(\bar{x})}{2} \Delta t + \xi(t){\Delta t},$$ where $\bar{x} \equiv x(t) + f(x(t)) \Delta t + \xi(t){\Delta t}$ [@Batrouni]. Although there is no gurantee that this algorithm should converge in general, it works fine here since the noise term does not depend on the variable $x$ [@Kloeden]. The white noise $\xi$ of variance $D$ is produced by the gaussian random numbers with the variance $\sigma^2$ determined by $$\langle\xi(t)^2\rangle = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\xi \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma} e^{-\xi^2/2\sigma^2} \xi^2 = \frac{2D}{\Delta t},$$ where the Dirac delta function has been represented by ${\Delta t}^{-1}$ within the numerical accuracy. We thus have the relation $\sigma =\sqrt{2 D/\Delta t}$. In our simulations, we take $\Delta t = 1$ms, which turns out to be small enough, and integrate the set of equations for current balance. This gives the time evolution of the action potential, from which the power spectrum is computed through the use of the fast Fourier transform technique. Results and Discussion {#results-and-discussion .unnumbered} ====================== Noise effects {#noise-effects .unnumbered} ------------- Before explaining the coupling effects, we first probe the role of noise, either the usual (additive) random noise or the (multiplicative) voltage-dependent one. Comparison of the effects of such noise helps us to understand better the coupling effects. ### Random noise {#random-noise .unnumbered} Among many kinds of noise on the cell membrane, the simplest case is the random noise, which may come from thermal fluctuations (see below). When such random current fluctuations are present on the membrane, the current balance equation in Eq. \[V\] is generalized to $$\begin{aligned} \label{V2} C_M \frac{dV}{dt} & = & - I_{ion}(V,N,S) - \xi(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{ion}$ represents all the ionic currents on the right-hand side in Eq. \[V\], and the noise current $\xi (t)$ satisfies Eq. \[GWN\] with the variance denoted by $D_{\xi}$. Figure \[Fig:rd\_noise\] exhibits the solution of the set of coupled differential equations in Eqs. \[N\] and \[V2\] under various strengths of the random noise. It is observed that single $\beta$-cells produce various electrical activities according to the value of $\tau_N$ in Eq. \[N\], which lies in the narrow range 4 to 11ms depending on the membrane potential (27). When the time constant $\tau_N$ of delayed-rectifier K$^+$ channel activity exceeds 11.0ms, the $\beta$-cell produces regular spiking action potentials in Fig. \[Fig:rd\_noise\] A, while for $\tau_N$ below 10.0ms faster repolarization does not allow enough time for the slow variable $S$ to decrease, yielding bursting action potentials \[see Fig. \[Fig:rd\_noise\] C\]. In the intermediate regime of $\tau_N$=10.2ms, Fig. \[Fig:rd\_noise\] B shows that spiking action potentials are generated but the bursting property is resident. As an appropriate amount of noise comes into play, in particular, the regular spikes in Figs. \[Fig:rd\_noise\] A and B and bursts in C change into fast bursts in E, irregular spikes in G, or irregular bursts in H and I. To explain these phenomena, we note two thresholds of the slow variable $S$: One is the upper threshold above which the membrane potential is falling into the resting potential; the other is the lower threshold above which the membrane potential begins to fire. At the moment that fluctuations take negative values, they may assist the repolarizing membrane potential to remain above the lower threshold before the membrane repolarizes completely and then, depolarizes slowly to the lower threshold. This induces occasionally consecutive firing in Fig. \[Fig:rd\_noise\] G or even fast bursts in Fig. \[Fig:rd\_noise\] E for the $\beta$-cell in the critical parameter range, i.e., $\tau_N$=10.2ms. Such consecutive firing raises the average membrane potential for a while, compared with the case of regular spikes. Hence the value of $S_{\infty}$ becomes large, and consequently $S$ grows with the delay represented by the time constant $\tau_S$. When it goes over the upper threshold, the membrane potential returns to the resting potential. At the same time, $S_{\infty}$ now becomes small and $S$ reduces to the lower threshold. During this period of $S$ varying from the upper threshold to the lower one, the membrane potential stays in the silent phase. When $S$ comes to the lower threshold, the membrane potential starts to depolarize and fire. Repetition of these processes simply constitutes the fast bursts. As the noise level is raised further, the slow variable $S$ may start to increase before it reaches the lower threshold, assisted by the fluctuations taking negative values. Similarly it may start to decrease before it reaches the upper threshold due to positive fluctuations. In consequence, irregular bursts in Figs. \[Fig:rd\_noise\] H and I can thus be induced. When fluctuations become sufficiently strong and dominant, such a role of noise, turning on the slow dynamics of $S$, is concealed and the membrane potential appears noisy. Here it is notable that under optimal fluctuations, there exists the critical parameter range in which the difference between the upper and lower thresholds is small and the dramatic effect of fast bursts is produced; similar results were obtained in a recent study [@Aguirre]. It is revealing to examine the power spectra of the obtained action potentials, computed through the use of the fast Fourier transform technique for various noise levels and displayed in Fig. \[Fig:rd\_power\]. In particular, Figure \[Fig:rd\_power\] B manifests that the regular spiking action potential of frequency 2Hz in the absence of noise has changed into fast bursts containing oscillations of 0.2Hz and 5Hz at moderate noise levels. To characterize the positive/negative role of noise in bursting, we define the bursting tendency according to $\cal{B} \equiv \log [\cal{P}($$f$$_B)/\cal{P}($$0)]$, where $\cal{P}($$f_B)$ is the power spectrum at the bursting frequency $f_B$ and $\cal{P}($$0)$ is the background intensity at 0Hz. Figure \[Fig:rd\_summary\] shows the behavior of the bursting tendency $\cal{B}$ with the noise level, manifesting the noise effects on bursting. Finally, one may ask whether thermal fluctuations known to generate white noise are enough to induce the fast bursts, irregular bursts or spikes, observed in our simulations. In simulations, the variance $D_{\xi}$ is taken in the range $10^{-29}$J/$\Omega$ $\sim$ $10^{-27}$J/$\Omega$. In reality, noise currents due to thermal fluctuations can be estimated via the fluctuation-dissipation theorem: $D_{\xi} = {k_B T}/{R}$. This gives $D_{\xi} \sim 10^{-29}$J/$\Omega$ when $R$ is taken to be a few giga ohms (G$\Omega$) or less. Accordingly, thermal fluctuations alone may not be enough to induce irregular spikes or bursts. Nevertheless, it appears possible that thermal fluctuations actually expedite the emergence of fast bursts when the cell lies in the critical parameter regime. ### Voltage-dependent noise {#voltage-dependent-noise .unnumbered} As another simple type of noise, one can consider the voltage-dependent fluctuations, which are closely related to the channel gating stochasticity (see below). In the presence of such multiplicative noise, the current balance condition in Eq. \[V\] takes the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{V3} C_M \frac{dV}{dt} & = & - I_{ion}(V,N,S) -\eta(t)(V-V_K),\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{ion}$ also represents all the ionic currents in Eq. \[V\], and $\eta(t)$ is the Gaussian white noise, again satisfying Eq. \[GWN\] with variance $D_{\eta}$. Solving numerically the coupled differential equations given by Eqs. \[N\] and \[V3\] at various noise levels with $\tau_N$ set equal to 11ms, we obtain the results, which are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:vd\_noise\]. Note the overall similarity to the case of random (additive) noise shown in Figs. \[Fig:rd\_noise\] D and G. When the voltage-dependent noise stimulates the cell membrane, irregular spikes arise, similarly to the case of random noise, if its amplitude multiplied by the voltage difference $(V{-}V_K)$ is comparable to the amplitude of random noise. In fact, voltage-dependent noise may be regarded simply as the noise weighted more in the active phase of the membrane potential than in the silent phase. When taking negative values, therefore, fluctuations boost firing more effectively in the active phase and contribute less to the erratic evolution of the resting potential in the silent phase. Such voltage-dependent (multiplicative) noise may arise from ion channel gating stochasticity, since currents through channels depend upon the membrane potential difference. If the number of channels is sufficiently large, the channel stochasticity can be described by a Langevin equation [@DeFelice; @Fox1; @Fox2]. Specifically, the stochasticity of K(ATP) channels has been considered [@Vries1]. In the expression for the ATP-dependent $K^+$ current, $I_{K(ATP)} = g_{K(ATP)} P (V - V_K)$, the opening ratio $P$, which is no more constant, evolves according to $$\begin{aligned} \label{P} \frac{dP}{dt} = \frac{\gamma_1}{\tau_{P}} (1 - {P}) - \frac{\gamma_2}{\tau_{P}} P + \bar{\xi} (t),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\gamma_1}/{\tau_{P}}$ and ${\gamma_2}/{\tau_{P}}$ represent the rates for a closed channel to switch to the open state and vice versa, respectively. Note that $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ thus determine the equilibrium ratio between the open state and the closed one. Fluctuations in the opening ratio are described by the Gaussian white noise $\bar{\xi}(t)$ satisfying Eq. \[GWN\] with the variance $$D_{\bar{\xi}} = \frac{\gamma_1 (1 - P) + \gamma_2 P}{2 \tau_{P} N_{K(ATP)}} \approx \frac{\gamma_1 \gamma_2}{\tau_{P} N_{K(ATP)} (\gamma_1 + \gamma_2)}, \label{Dbarxi}$$ where $N_{K(ATP)}$ is the total number of ATP-dependent $K^+$ channels in a $\beta$-cell [@Fox1]. Solving Eq. \[P\], we obtain that $P$ fluctuates around the equilibrium value $P_0$, taken to be $0.5$ in our simulations: $P(t) = P_0 + \bar{\eta}(t)$. Here $\bar{\eta}(t)$ is colored noise, characterized by the variance $$\begin{aligned} \langle\bar{\eta}(t)\bar{\eta}(t')\rangle = D_{\bar{\eta}} [{\gamma}e^{-\gamma \|t-t'\|} - {\gamma}e^{-\gamma (t +t')}]\end{aligned}$$ with $\gamma \equiv (\gamma_1 + \gamma_2)/\tau_p$ and $D_{\bar{\eta}} \equiv D_{\bar{\xi}}/\gamma^2$ (see Appendix for details). Note that the firing time scale is comparable to the correlation time $\gamma^{-1}$ of the noise $\bar{\eta}(t)$ (see Fig. \[Fig:corr\]). Consequently this colored noise is more effective to induce several consecutive firings, which resemble irregular burst, than the white noise. In particular, the modules of several spikes are observed to become longer as the correlation time $\gamma^{-1}$ is increased. Figure \[Fig:co\_noise\] shows the behaviors in the presence of the channel-gating noise $\bar{\xi}(t)$ for two different channel numbers. In this case of multiplicative colored noise, modules of spikes arise more efficiently than in the case of mutiplicative white noise shown in Fig. \[Fig:vd\_noise\]. Further, it is also found that stronger gating fluctuations from less channels ($N_{K(ATP)}$=500) in Fig. \[Fig:co\_noise\] B give rise to modules of more rapid spikes, compared with the case $N_{K(ATP)}$=2500 in Fig. \[Fig:co\_noise\] A. Similar results can be obtained with fluctuations in the Ca$^{2+}$ channels and in the delayed-rectifier K$^+$ channels although they act somewhat differently from the fluctuations in the ATP-blockable K$^+$ channels (data not shown). It is thus concluded that noise generates diverse firing patterns in single $\beta$-cells. In a real (physiological) islet, however, $\beta$-cells are not isolated but coupled with each other, making it desirable to consider coupled $\beta$-cells and to investigate effects of noise together with those of coupling. This will be the subject of the next section. Coupling effects {#coupling-effects .unnumbered} ---------------- We consider two cells coupled with each other via a gap junction. With the coupling incorporated, Eq. \[V\] is extended to the coupled equations: $$\begin{aligned} \label{V4} C_{M} \frac{dV_1}{dt}&=& - I_{ion}(V_1,N_1,S_1,P_1) -g_C (V_1 - V_2) \nonumber \\ C_{M} \frac{dV_2}{dt}&=& - I_{ion}(V_2,N_2,S_2,P_2) -g_C (V_2 - V_1),\end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts $1$ and $2$ are the cell indices, $I_{ion}$ again denotes all the ionic currents, and $g_C$ is the coupling conductance. Note that the heterogeneity between both cells is accommodated in the K(ATP) channel opening ratio $P$. Namely, the noise associated with channel gating stochasticity induces continuously heterogeneity between the cells. We thus have eight coupled differential equations, which consist of Eqs. \[N\] and \[P\] for each cell and Eq. \[V4\], for eight variables ($V, N, S$, and $P$ for each cell). Integration of these coupled equations yields the results displayed in Fig. \[Fig:couple\], for the channel-gating noise of variance $D_{\bar{\xi}}= 4 \times 10^{-4}$s$^{-1}$ given by Eq. \[Dbarxi\] and for three values of the coupling conductance: $g_C = 50$pS, $110$pS, and $200$pS. Revealed is the optimal coupling strength for longer bursting periods: While weak coupling is not enough to couple individual cells and to generate consecutive firing, too strong coupling tends to make the cluster behave as a single large cell [@Sherman2]. Robust bursts emerge as a consequence of the competition between heterogeneity and coupling [@Vries3]. On one hand, the coupling term in Eq. \[V4\] helps the two cells to act synchronously; on the other hand, it also plays the role of stimulating noise, which acts strongly on the two cells with asynchronous phases. The perfect asynchrony results from the harmony of coupling to be similar and heterogeneity to be different (see Fig. \[Fig:phase\]). Namely, the coupling currents between asynchronous neighboring cells give rise to consecutive firing; this in turn increases the upper threshold of the slow variable $S$ above which firing disappears. As $S$ grows up toward the increased upper threshold, it takes longer to reduce down to the lower threshold. This larger rising and falling divides more clearly the active and silent phases in the membrane potential, and accordingly induces robust bursting action potentials with periods longer than 20s. Note that in the absence of coupling we have not been able to observe bursting periods longer than 10s (see Figs. \[Fig:rd\_noise\]-\[Fig:co\_noise\]) (Parameter values different from those in Table I may yield bursting periods somewhat longer than 10s even in a single cell. In this case, the coupling gives rise to robust bursting of even longer periods, say, 30s, still demonstrating its crucial role in generating regular bursts.) In the two-cell model here the optimal value of the coupling conductance is observed to be $g_C = 110$pS. As the number of cells is increased, however, more heterogeneity is introduced, which should be matched by stronger coupling to generate robust bursts with longer periods. Although the detailed investigation is beyond our computing capacity, we have performed multi-cell simulations, which indeed confirms such an increase of the optimal coupling conductance. For example, the optimal conductance in the system of 1000 cells turns out to be 100 to 300pS (data not shown), which coincides with experimental results of the gap junctional conductance [@Perezarmendariz]. These features of the coupled cells do not change much in the presence of the voltage-dependent noise instead of the channel-gating noise, except that the channel-gating noise is more efficient for robust bursting than the voltage-dependent one, as shown in Fig. \[Fig:couple\_vd\] for $D_{\eta}= 10^{-24}$J/$\Omega\cdot$V$^2$ and $D_{\bar{\xi}}=0$. Note also that the coupled cells depicted in Figs. \[Fig:couple\] and \[Fig:couple\_vd\] do not burst in the absence of noise-induced heterogeneity. Recall that in the emergence of robust bursts, the asynchrony from the heterogeneity induced by noise plays an important role, which has also been addressed in a very recent study [@Pedersen]. Similar to such noise-induced heterogeneity, the cell-to-cell heterogeneity associated with variations of the cell parameters among the cells is also expected to play for robust bursts [@Smolen]. To check this, we allowed variations of the membrane capacitance $C_M$ related to the cell size as well as of the channel conductance $g_{K(ATP)}$ and examine the resulting behavior: Shown in Fig. \[Fig:hetero\] A and B are bursts generated in the case of 20% variation of $C_M$ (5.0pF, 6.3pF) and in the case of 10% variation of $g_{K(ATP)}$ (1000pS, 1100pS), respectively. Specifically, a spiking cell (with $C_M =6.3$pF) is coupled with a bursting cell (with $C_M =5.0$pF) in Fig. \[Fig:hetero\] A, which results in that both cells are bursting synchronously with a longer bursting period than that of a single cell (5.0pF). In Fig. \[Fig:hetero\] B, on the other hand, two spiking cells (with $g_{K(ATP)}=1000$pS and $1100$pS) are coupled with each other, and both are bursting. Therefore heterogeneity is in general important for bursting in coupled cells, no matter whether it is cell-to-cell heterogeneity or induced by noise. Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered} =========== We have probed whether noise and coupling serve as an appropriate stimulus for inducing the bursting action potential in pancreatic $\beta$-cells, and found that they effectively call into action the inherent slow dynamics in individual cells. Fast bursts, irregular spikes or bursts in single $\beta$-cells have been observed as the results of the noise effects. In particular the emergence of regular bursts assisted by an appropriate amount of noise \[see Figs. \[Fig:rd\_noise\] E and \[Fig:rd\_power\] B\] is reminiscent of [coherence resonance]{} [@Lee; @Longtin; @Pei; @Pikovsky; @Zaikin]. In view of physiology, the consecutive firing induced by fluctuations gives rise to relative depolarization for a while, which is followed by the activation of the slow potassium channel lasting until the slow variable reaches the upper threshold. At this time the slow $K^+$ channel opens fully, and the outflux of cytosolic potassium ions gets very large, thus hindering depolarization. Accordingly, the membrane potential is compelled to stay in the silent phase, and the slow $K^+$ channel in turn starts to be inactivated. In consequence, the membrane can become depolarized as the outflux of $K^+$ ions reduces. Finally, firing occurs again, and consecutive firing also happens by the help of appropriate stimulation. As candidates for the stimulus, both the (additive) random noise coming from fluctuating currents and the (multiplicative) voltage-dependent noise from the channel gating stochasticity have been considered. In particular, coupling between cells has turned out essential for attaining regular bursts with longer periods compared with the fast bursts. The coupling term, proportional to the potential difference between two cells, operates in a similar manner to the voltage-dependent noise: It increases with the potential difference and thus becomes large for the cells in active phases, stimulating the cells like noise. On the other hand, it is small for perfectly synchronized cells in silent phases. The coupling also increases the upper threshold of $S$ and induces robust regular bursts. In the analysis, the heterogeneity has been found to play an important role in inducing strong fluctuations during active phases, which may cause robust bursts. Namely, bursting in general results from the interplay of coupling and heterogeneity. This allows us to interpret the fact that large cell clusters (up to the critical size) show more regular bursts [@Vries1; @Sherman2]: Assuming a cubic islet, we have considered $\beta$-cells arranged into an $L^3$ cube, under free boundary conditions. Adopting physiological gap junction conductance, $g_C=200$pS (42), we have found that the bursting period and duration first increases with the size $L$ but tends to saturate beyond $L=5$ (data not shown). Such saturation behavior may be explained as follows: Via the coupling through gap junctions, the number of nearest neighbors in the three-dimensional space is limited, e.g., to six or so; this suggests that the cluster above some critical size can get no more advantage of the heterogeneity from neighboring cells through given coupling strength. The Langerhans islet, however, consists of several endocrine cells in addition to $\beta$-cells. Other endocrine cells in an islet have been studied recently [@Kanno; @Nadal], and it will be of interest to study the coupling effects between originally different $\alpha$-, $\beta$-, and $\delta$-cells, coupled via hormones or neurotransmitters [@Moriyama]. This might give a clue to understanding the size of a Langerhans islet in the pancreas, which is left for further study. Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered} ======== Equation \[P\] can be solved to give the time evolution of the opening ratio $P$: $$P(t) = P_0 + [ P(0) - P_0 ] e^{-\gamma t} + \int_{0}^{t} e^{-\gamma (t-t')} \bar{\xi}(t') dt' \nonumber$$ with $P_0 \equiv \gamma_1 / (\gamma_1 + \gamma_2 )$ and $\gamma \equiv (\gamma_1 + \gamma_2)/\tau_p$, where $P(0)$ is the initial value of $P$. After sufficiently long time, we thus have $P$ fluctuating around the equilibrium ratio $P_0$: $P(t) = P_0 + \bar{\eta}(t)$, where the noise $\bar{\eta}(t)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\eta}(t) \equiv \int_{0}^{t} e^{-\gamma (t-t')} \bar{\xi}(t') dt'. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From the above definition of the noise $\bar{\eta}(t)$, it is straightforward to derive its characteristics: $$\begin{aligned} \langle\bar{\eta}(t)\bar{\eta}(t')\rangle &=& \int_0^t d\tau e^{\gamma(\tau-t)} \int_0^{t'} d\tau' e^{\gamma(\tau' -t')} \langle \bar{\xi}(\tau) \bar{\xi}(\tau') \rangle \\ &=& 2D_{\bar{\xi}} e^{-\gamma (t+t')} \int_0^{\bar{t}} d\tau e^{2\gamma\tau},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the relation $\langle \bar{\xi}(\tau) \bar{\xi}(\tau') \rangle = 2D_{\bar{\xi}} \delta (\tau -\tau')$ and $\bar{t}$ denotes the smaller one between $t$ and $t'$. We thus obtain the correlations of the noise $\bar{\eta}$ at different times $$\langle\bar{\eta}(t)\bar{\eta}(t')\rangle = D_{\bar{\eta}} [{\gamma}e^{-\gamma \|t-t'\|} - {\gamma}e^{-\gamma (t +t')}]$$ with $D_{\bar{\eta}} \equiv D_{\bar{\xi}}/\gamma^2$, which manifests the colored nature. This work was supported in part by KOSEF through Grant No. 01-2002-000-00285-0 and by the MOST (KOSEF) through National Core Research Center for Systems Bio-Dynamics, as well as by the BK21 Program. Helpful reprints from the Laboratory of Biological Modeling in NIDDK of NIH are also gratefully acknowledged. [46]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{} Falke, L. C., K. D. Gillis, D. M. Pressel, and S. Misler. 1989. ‘Perforated patch recording’ allows long-term monitoring of metabolite-induced electrical activity and voltage-dependent Ca$^{2+}$ currents in pancreatic islet $\beta$-cells. FEBS Lett. 251:167–172. Kinard, T. A., G. de Vries, A. Sherman, and L. S. Satin. 1999. Modulation of the bursting properties of single mouse pancreatic $\beta$-cells by artificial conductances. Biophys. J. 76:1423–1435. Smith, P. A., F. M. Ashcroft, and P. Rorsman. 1990. Simultaneous recordings of glucose dependent electrical activity and atp-regulated K$^+$-currents in isolated mouse pancreatic $\beta$-cells. FEBS Lett. 261:187–190. Andreu, E., B. Soria, and J. V. Sánchez-Andrés. 1997. Oscillation of gap junction electrical coupling in the mouse pancreatic islets of langerhans. J. Physiol. 498:753–761. Dean, P. M., and E. K. Matthews. 1968. Electrical activity in pancreatic islet cells. Nature 219:389–390. Sánchez-Andrés, J. V., A. Gomis, and M. Valdeolmillos. 1995. The electrical activity of mouse pancreatic $\beta$-cells recorded in vivo shows glucose-dependent oscillations. J. Physiol. 486:223–228. Valdeolmillos, M., A. Gomis, and J. V. Sánchez-Andrés. 1996. In vivo synchronous membrane potential oscillations in mouse pancreatic $\beta$-cells: lack of co-ordination between islets. J. Physiol. 493:9–18. Henquin, J. C., and H. P. Meissner. 1984. Significance of ionic fluxes and changes in membrane potential for stimulus-secretion coupling in pancreatic $\beta$-cells. Experientia 40:1043–1052. Bosco, D., L. Orci, and P. Meda. 1989. Homologous but not heterologous contact increases the insulin secretion of individual pancreatic $\beta$-cells. Exp. Cell Res. 184:72–80. Halban, P. A., C. B. Wollheim, B. Blondel, P. Meda, E. N. Niesor, and D. H. Mintz. 1982. The possible importance of contact between pancreatic islet cells for the control of insulin release. Endocrinology 111:86–94. Pipeleers, D., P. I. Veld, E. Maes, and M. V. D. Winkel. 1982. Glucose-induced insulin release depends on functional cooperation between islet cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79:7322–7325. Aguirre, J., E. Mosekilde, and M. A. F. Sanjuán. 2004. Analysis of the noise-induced bursting-spiking transition in a pancreatic $\beta$-cell model. Phys. Rev. E 69:041910. Chay, T. R., and H. S. Kang. 1988. Role of single-channel stochastic noise on bursting clusters of pancreatic $\beta$-cells. Biophys. J. 54:427–435. Sherman, A., J. Rinzel, and J. Keizer. 1988. Emergence of organized bursting in clusters of pancreatic $\beta$-cells by channel sharing. Biophys. J. 54:411–425. Lee, S. G., A. Neiman, and S. Kim. 1998. Coherence resonance in a hodgkin-huxley neuron. Phys. Rev. E 57:3292–3297. Longtin, A. 1997. Autonomous stochastic resonance in bursting neurons. Phys. Rev. E 55:868–876. Pei, X., L. Wilkens, and F. Moss. 1996. Noise-mediated spike timing precision from aperiodic stimuli in an array of hodgkin-huxley-type neuron. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77:4679–4682. Pikovsky, A. S., and J. Kurths. 1997. Coherence resonance in a noise-driven excitable system. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78:775–778. Zaikin, A., J. García-Ojalvo, R. Báscones, E. Ullner, and J. Kurths. 2003. Doubly stochastic coherence via noise-induced symmetry in bistable neural models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90:03061. de Vries, G., and A. Sherman. 2000. Channel sharing in pancreatic $\beta$-cells revisited: enhancement of emergent bursting by noise. J. Theor. Biol. 207:513–530. Smolen, P., J. Rinzel, and A. Sherman. 1993. Why pancreatic islets burst but single beta cells do not. the heterogeneity hypothesis. Biophys. J. 64:1668–1680. Sherman, A., and J. Rinzel. 1991. Model for synchronization of pancreatic $\beta$-cells by gap junction coupling. Biophys. J. 59:547–559. de Vries, G., and A. Sherman. 2001. From spikers to bursters via coupling: help from heterogeneity. Bull. Math. Biol. 63:371–391. Sherman, A., and J. Rinzel. 1992. Rhythmogenic effects of weak electrotonic coupling in neuronal models. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89:2471–2474. Hodgkin, A. L., and A. F. Huxley. 1952. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J. Physiol. 117:500–544. Ashcroft, F. M., and P. Rorsman. 1989. Electrophysiology of the pancreatic $\beta$-cell. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 54:87–143. Göpel, S., T. Kanno, S. Barg, J. Galvanovskis, and P. Rorsman. 1999. Voltage-gated and resting membrane currents recorded from $\beta$-cells in intact mouse pancreatic islets. J. Physiol. 521:717–728. Rorsman, P., and G. Trube. 1986. Calcium and delayed potassium currents in mouse pancreatic $\beta$-cells under voltage-clamp conditions. J. Physiol. 374:531–550. de Vries, G. 2001. Bursting as an emergent phenomenon in coupled chaotic maps. Phys. Rev. E 64:051914. Rulkov, N. F. 2001. Regularization of synchronized chaotic bursts. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86:183–186. Rulkov, N. F. 2002. Modeling of spiking-bursting neural behavior using two-dimensional map. Phys. Rev. E 65:041922. Sherman, A. 1996. Contributions of modeling to understanding stimulus-secretion coupling in pancreatic $\beta$-cells. Am. J. Physiol. 271:362–372. Chay, T. R., and J. Keizer. 1983. Minimal model for membrane oscillations in the pancreatic beta-cell. Biophys. J. 42:181–190. Keizer, J., and G. Magnus. 1989. ATP-sensitive potassium channel and bursting in the pancreatic beta cell. a theoretical study. Biophys. J. 56:229–242. Keener, J., and J. Sneyd. 1998. Mathematical Physiology. Springer-Verlag, New York, 188–215. Rinzel, J. 1987. A formal classification of bursting mechanisms in excitable systems. In Mathematical Topics in Population Biology, Morphogenesis, and Neurosciences, E. Teramoto, and M. Yamaguti, editors. Springer-Verlag, New York, 267–281. Batrouni, G. G., G. R. Katz, A. S. Kronfeld, G. P. Lepage, B. Svetitsky, and K. G. Wilson. 1985. Langevin simulations of lattice field theories. Phys. Rev. D 32:2736. Kloeden, P. E., E. Platen, and H. Schurz. 1994. Numerical Solution of SDE through Computer Experiments. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 151. DeFelice, L. J., and A. Isaac. 1992. Chaotic states in a random world: relationship between the nonlinear differential equations of excitability and the stochastic properties of ion channels. J. Stat. Phys. 70:339–354. Fox, R. F., and Y. N. Lu. 1994. Emergent collective behavior in large numbers of globally coupled independently stochastic ion channels. Phys. Rev. E 49:3421–3431. Fox, R. F. 1997. Stochastic versions of the hodgkin-huxley equations. Biophys. J. 72:2068–2074. Pérez-Armendariz, M., C. Roy, D. C. Sparay, and M. V. L. Bennett. 1991. Biophysical properties of gap junctions between freshly dispersed pairs of mouse pancreatic beta cells. Biophys. J. 59:76–92. Pedersen, M. G. 2005. A comment on noise enhanced bursting in pancreatic $\beta$-cells. J. Theor. Biol. 235:1–3. Kanno, T., S. O. Göpel, P. Rorsman, and M. Wakui. 2002. Cellular function in multicellular system for hormone-secretion: electrophysiological aspect of studies on $\alpha$-, $\beta$- and $\delta$-cells of the pancreatic islet. Neurosci. Res. 42:79–90. Nadal, A., I. Quesada, and B. Soria. 1999. Homologous and heterologous asynchronicity between identified alpha-, beta- and delta-cells within intact islets of langerhans in the mouse. J. Physiol. 517:85–93. Moriyama, Y., and M. Hayashi. 2003. Glutamate-mediated signaling in the islets of langerhans: a thread entangled. TRENDS in Pharmacol. Sci. 42:511–517. Table {#table .unnumbered} ===== ------------------------------- ----------------------- $C_M = 6.3$pF $g_{Ca} = 3000$pS $g_{K} = 4000$pS $g_{K(ATP)} = 1000$pS $g_{S} = 3000$pS $g_C = 110$pS $V_{Ca} = 25$mV $V_{K} = -75$mV $V_{M} = -20$mV $\theta_{M} = 12$mV $V_{N} = -17$mV $\theta_{N} = 5.6$mV $V_{S} = -22$mV $\theta_{S} = 8.0$mV $\tau_N = 1.1\times 10^{-2}$s $\tau_S = 20$s $\tau_P = 0.50$s $N_{K(ATP)} = 2500$ $\gamma_1 = 1$ $\gamma_2 = 1$ ------------------------------- ----------------------- : Standard parameter values \[tab:table1\] Figure Legends {#figure-legends .unnumbered} ============== ### Figure \[Fig:rd\_noise\]. {#figurefigrd_noise. .unnumbered} Action potential $V$ and slow channel activity $S$ in single $\beta$-cells at the noise level $D_{\xi}=0, 10^{-29}$, and $10^{-27}$J/$\Omega$ under several values of time constant $\tau_N$ of delayed-rectifier K$^+$ channel activity $N$. All simulations have been performed under the standard parameter values in Table I except $\tau_N$, the values of which are given above. ### Figure \[Fig:rd\_power\]. {#figurefigrd_power. .unnumbered} Power spectra of the action potentials for the random noise levels in Fig. \[Fig:rd\_noise\]. The time constant $\tau_N$ of the activation variable $N$ is (A) 11.0ms and (B) 10.2ms. Observed in the power spectra are main peaks together with their harmonics. The peak at 1Hz, indicated by the asterisk in (B), reflects the tendency to form dimerization of spikes. Each power spectrum has been obtained from the average over 1000 samples, each having a time sequence of $132$ seconds. ### Figure \[Fig:rd\_summary\]. {#figurefigrd_summary. .unnumbered} Bursting tendency $\cal{B}$ of $\beta$-cells versus the noise level for several values of $\tau_N$, corresponding to different firing patterns in the absence of noise. ### Figure \[Fig:vd\_noise\]. {#figurefigvd_noise. .unnumbered} Action potential $V$ and slow channel activity $S$ in single $\beta$-cells at two values of the voltage-dependent noise. Again parameter values in Table I have been used. ### Figure \[Fig:corr\]. {#figurefigcorr. .unnumbered} Correlations between the action potential and multiplicative colored noise due to channel-gating stochasticity. The correlation time $\gamma^{-1}$ is taken to be (A) 25ms, (B) 250ms, and (C) 2500ms. Note that each figure has a different time scale. Their corresponding power spectra are shown in (D). Parameter values in Table I have been used except $\tau_P$. ### Figure \[Fig:co\_noise\]. {#figurefigco_noise. .unnumbered} Action potential $V$ and slow channel activity $S$ in single $\beta$-cells at two values of the channel gating stochasticity: (A) and (B) correspond to the channel number $N_{K(ATP)}= 2500$ and $500$, respectively. Note that Figs. \[Fig:corr\] B and \[Fig:co\_noise\] A represent the same sample path, but with different variables plotted. Other parameter values have been taken from Table I. ### Figure \[Fig:couple\]. {#figurefigcouple. .unnumbered} Figure \[Fig:phase\]. Enlarged view of the interval between 10s to 11s in Fig. \[Fig:couple\] B, disclosing the detailed behavior of the two membrane potentials $V_1$ (solid line) and $V_2$ (dashed line). ### Figure \[Fig:couple\_vd\]. {#figurefigcouple_vd. .unnumbered} Bursting action potential induced by cell coupling via the gap junction of conductance $g_C =110$pS under the voltage-dependent noise of strength $D_{\eta}=10^{-24}$J/$\Omega\cdot$V$^2$. Parameter values in Table I have been used. ### Figure \[Fig:hetero\]. {#figurefighetero. .unnumbered} Bursting action potential induced by cell coupling, with the cell-to-cell heterogeneity due to variations of the membrane capacitance $C_M$ and of the ATP-blockable K$^+$ channel conductance $g_{K(ATP)}$: (A) 20% variation of $C_M$ (5.0pF, 6.3pF); (B) 10% variation of $g_{K(ATP)}$ (1000pS, 1100pS). Other parameter values have been taken from Table I. ![[]{data-label="Fig:rd_noise"}](fig1){width="120.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig:rd_power"}](fig2){width="120.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig:rd_summary"}](fig3){width="60.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig:vd_noise"}](fig4){width="120.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig:corr"}](fig5){width="120.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig:co_noise"}](fig6){width="120.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig:couple"}](fig7){width="120.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig:phase"}](fig8){width="60.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig:couple_vd"}](fig9){width="60.00000%"} ![[]{data-label="Fig:hetero"}](fig10){width="120.00000%"}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Quasiperiodicity in strings was introduced almost 30 years ago as an extension of string periodicity. The basic notions of quasiperiodicity are cover and seed. A cover of a text $T$ is a string whose occurrences in $T$ cover all positions of $T$. A seed of text $T$ is a cover of a superstring of $T$. In various applications exact quasiperiodicity is still not sufficient due to the presence of errors. We consider approximate notions of quasiperiodicity, for which we allow approximate occurrences in $T$ with a small Hamming, Levenshtein or weighted edit distance. In previous work Sip et al. (2002) and Christodoulakis et al. (2005) showed that computing approximate covers and seeds, respectively, under weighted edit distance is NP-hard. They, therefore, considered restricted approximate covers and seeds which need to be factors of the original string $T$ and presented polynomial-time algorithms for computing them. Further algorithms, considering approximate occurrences with Hamming distance bounded by $k$, were given in several contributions by Guth et al. They also studied relaxed approximate quasiperiods that do not need to cover all positions of $T$. In case of large data the exponents in polynomial time complexity play a crucial role. We present more efficient algorithms for computing restricted approximate covers and seeds. In particular, we improve upon the complexities of many of the aforementioned algorithms, also for relaxed quasiperiods. Our solutions are especially efficient if the number (or total cost) of allowed errors is bounded. We also show NP-hardness of computing non-restricted approximate covers and seeds under Hamming distance. Approximate covers were studied in three recent contributions at CPM over the last three years. However, these works consider a different definition of an approximate cover of $T$, that is, the shortest exact cover of a string $T'$ with the smallest Hamming distance from $T$. author: - Aleksander Kdzierski - Jakub Radoszewski bibliography: - 'approx\_quasi\_arxiv.bib' title: '$k$-Approximate Quasiperiodicity under Hamming and Edit Distance' --- Introduction ============ Quasiperiodicity was introduced as an extension of periodicity [@DBLP:journals/tcs/ApostolicoE93]. Its aim is to capture repetitive structure of strings that do not have an exact period. The basic notions of quasiperiodicity are cover (also called quasiperiod) and seed. A cover of a string $T$ is a string $C$ whose occurrences cover all positions of $T$. A seed of string $T$ is a cover of a superstring of $T$. Covers and seeds were first considered in [@DBLP:journals/ipl/ApostolicoFI91] and [@DBLP:journals/algorithmica/IliopoulosMP96], respectively, and linear-time algorithms computing them are known; see [@DBLP:journals/ipl/Breslauer92; @DBLP:journals/algorithmica/IliopoulosMP96; @DBLP:journals/algorithmica/LiS02; @DBLP:journals/ipl/MooreS94; @DBLP:journals/ipl/MooreS95] and [@10.1145/3386369]. A cover is necessarily a border, that is, a prefix and a suffix of the string. A seed $C$ of $T$ covers all positions of $T$ by its occurrences or by left- or right-overhangs, that is, by suffixes of $C$ being prefixes of $T$ and prefixes of $C$ being suffixes of $T$. In order to avoid extreme cases one usually assumes that covers $C$ of $T$ need to satisfy $\|C\|<\|T\|$ and seeds $C$ need to satisfy $2\|C\| \le \|T\|$ (so a seed needs to be a factor of $T$). Seeds, unlike covers, preserve an important property of periods that if $T$ has a period or a seed, then every (sufficiently long) factor of $T$ has the same period or seed, respectively. The classic notions of quasiperiodicity may not capture repetitive structure of strings in practical settings; it was also confirmed by a recent experimental study [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1909-11336]. In order to tackle this problem, further types of quasiperiodicity were studied that require that only a certain number of positions in a string are covered. This way notions of enhanced cover, partial cover and partial seed were introduced. A partial cover and partial seed are required to cover a given number of positions of a string, where for the partial seed overhangs are allowed, and an enhanced cover is a partial cover with an additional requirement of being a border of the string. ${\mathcal{O}}(n \log n)$-time algorithms for computing shortest partial covers and seeds were shown in [@DBLP:journals/algorithmica/KociumakaPRRW15] and [@DBLP:journals/tcs/KociumakaPRRW16], respectively, whereas a linear-time algorithm for computing a proper enhanced cover that covers the maximum number of positions in $T$ was presented (among other variations of the problem) in [@DBLP:journals/tcs/FlouriIKPPST13]. Further study has lead to approximate quasiperiodicity in which approximate occurrences of a quasiperiod are allowed. In particular, Hamming, Levenshtein and weighted edit distance were considered. A $k$-approximate cover of string $T$ is a string $C$ whose approximate occurrences with distance at most $k$ cover $T$. Similarly one can define a $k$-approximate seed, allowing overhangs. These notions were introduced by Sip et al. [@SimParkKimLee] and Christodoulakis et al. [@DBLP:journals/jalc/ChristodoulakisIPS05], respectively, who showed that the problem of checking if a string $T$ has a $k$-approximate cover and $k$-approximate seed, respectively, for a given $k$ is NP-complete under weighted edit distance. (Their proof used arbitrary integer weights and a constant-sized—12 letters in the case of approximate seeds—alphabet.) Therefore, they considered a restricted version of the problem in which the approximate cover or seed is required to be a factor of $T$. Formally, the problem is to compute, for every factor of $T$, the smallest $k$ for which it is a $k$-approximate cover or seed of $T$. For this version of the problem, they presented an ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$-time algorithm for the Hamming distance and an ${\mathcal{O}}(n^4)$-time algorithm for the edit distance[^1]. The same problems under Hamming distance were considered by Guth et al. [@DBLP:conf/itat/GuthMB08] and Guth and Melichar [@Guth2010]. They studied a $k$-restricted version of the problems, in which we are only interested in factors of $T$ being $\ell$-approximate covers or seeds for $\ell \le k$, and developed ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3(\|\Sigma\|+k))$-time and ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\|\Sigma\|k)$-time automata-based algorithms for $k$-restricted approximate covers and seeds, respectively. Experimental evaluation of these algorithms was performed by Guth [@guththesis]. Recently, Guth [@GUTH2019] extended this study to $k$-approximate restricted enhanced covers under Hamming distance. In this problem, we search for a border of $T$ whose $k$-approximate occurrences cover the maximum number of text positions. In another variant of the problem, which one could see as approximate partial cover problem, we only require the approximate enhanced cover to be a $k$-approximate border of $T$, but still to be a factor of $T$. Guth [@GUTH2019] proposed ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$-time and ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3(\|\Sigma\|+k))$-time algorithms for the two respective variants. We improve upon previous results on restricted approximate quasiperiodicity. We introduce a general notion of $k$-coverage of a string $S$ in a string $T$, defined as the number of positions in $T$ that are covered by $k$-approximate occurrences of $S$. Efficient algorithms computing the $k$-coverage for factors of $T$ are presented. We also show NP-hardness for non-restricted approximate covers and seeds under the Hamming distance. A detailed list of our results is as follows. 1. The Hamming $k$-coverage for every prefix and for every factor of a string of length $n$ can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(nk^{2/3}\log^{1/3}n\log k)$ time (for a string over an integer alphabet) and ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ time, respectively. (See Section \[sec:Hamming\].) With this result we obtain algorithms with the same time complexities for the two versions of $k$-approximate restricted enhanced covers that were proposed by Guth [@GUTH2019] and an ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2k)$-time algorithm computing $k$-restricted approximate covers and seeds. Our algorithm for prefixes actually works in linear time assuming that a $k$-mismatch version of the ${\mathsf{PREF}}$ table [@Jewels] is given. Thus, as a by-product, for $k=0$, we obtain an alternative linear-time algorithm for computing all (exact) enhanced covers of a string. (A different linear-time algorithm for this problem was given in [@DBLP:journals/tcs/FlouriIKPPST13]). The complexities come from using tools of Kaplan et al. [@DBLP:conf/swat/KaplanPS06] and Flouri et al. [@DBLP:journals/ipl/FlouriGKU15], respectively. 2. The $k$-coverage under Levenshtein distance and weighted edit distance for every factor of a string of length $n$ can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ time and ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n \log n})$ time, respectively. (See Section \[sec:edit\].) We also show in Section \[sec:edit\] how our approach can be used to compute restricted approximate covers and seeds under weighted edit distance in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n \log n})$ time, thus improving upon the previous ${\mathcal{O}}(n^4)$-time algorithms of Sip et al. [@SimParkKimLee] and Christodoulakis et al. [@DBLP:journals/jalc/ChristodoulakisIPS05]. Our algorithm for Levenshtein distance uses incremental string comparison [@DBLP:journals/siamcomp/LandauMS98]. 3. Under Hamming distance, it is NP-hard to check if a given string of length $n$ has a $k$-approximate cover or a $k$-approximate seed of a given length $c$. This statement holds even for strings over a binary alphabet. (See Section \[sec:NPhard\].) This result extends the previous proofs of Sip et al. [@SimParkKimLee] and Christodoulakis et al. [@DBLP:journals/jalc/ChristodoulakisIPS05] which worked for the weighted edit distance. A different notion of approximate cover, which we do not consider in this work, was recently studied in [@DBLP:conf/cpm/AmirLLLP17; @DBLP:journals/algorithmica/AmirLLLP19; @DBLP:conf/cpm/AmirLLP17; @DBLP:journals/tcs/AmirLLP19; @DBLP:conf/cpm/AmirLP18]. This work assumed that the string $T$ may not have a cover, but it is at a small Hamming distance from a string $T'$ that has a proper cover. They defined an approximate cover of $T$ as the shortest cover of a string $T'$ that is closest to $T$ under Hamming distance. Interestingly, this problem was also shown to be NP-hard [@DBLP:journals/algorithmica/AmirLLLP19] and an ${\mathcal{O}}(n^4)$-time algorithm was developed for it in the restricted case that the approximate cover is a factor of the string $T$ [@DBLP:journals/tcs/AmirLLP19]. Our work can be viewed as complementary to this study as “the natural definition of an approximate repetition is not clear” [@DBLP:journals/tcs/AmirLLP19]. Preliminaries ============= We consider strings over an alphabet $\Sigma$. The empty string is denoted by $\varepsilon$. For a string $T$, by $\|T\|$ we denote its length and by $T[0],\ldots,T[\|T\|-1]$ its subsequent letters. By $T[i,j]$ we denote the string $T[i]\ldots T[j]$ which we call a factor of $T$. If $i=0$, it is a prefix of $T$, and if $j=\|T\|-1$, it is a suffix of $T$. A string that is both a prefix and a suffix of $T$ is called a border of $T$. For a string $T=XY$ such that $\|X\|=b$, by ${\mathsf{rot}}_b(T)$ we denote $YX$, called a cyclic shift of $T$. For equal-length strings $U$ and $V$, by ${\mathit{Ham}}(U,V)$ we denote their Hamming distance, that is, the number of positions where they do not match. For strings $U$ and $V$, by ${\mathit{ed}}(U,V)$ we denote their edit distance, that is, the minimum cost of edit operations (insertions, deletions, substitutions) that allow to transform $U$ to $V$. Here the cost of an edit operation can vary depending both on the type of the operation and on the letters that take part in it. In case that all edit operations have unit cost, the edit distance is also called Levenshtein distance and denoted here as ${\mathit{Lev}}(U,V)$. For two strings $S$ and $T$ and metric $d$, we denote by $${\mathsf{Occ}}_k^d(S,T) = \{[i,j]\,:\,d(S,T[i,j]) \le k\}$$ the set of approximate occurrences of $S$ in $T$, represented as intervals, under the metric $d$. We then denote by $${\mathsf{Covered}}_k^d(S,T) = \|\bigcup {\mathsf{Occ}}_k^d(S,T)\|$$ the $k$-coverage of $S$ in $T$. In case of Hamming or Levenshtein distances, $k \le n$, but for the weighted edit distance $k$ can be arbitrarily large. Moreover, by ${\mathsf{StartOcc}}_k^d(S,T)$ we denote the set of left endpoints of the intervals in ${\mathsf{Occ}}_k^d(S,T)$. Let $d$ be a metric and $T$ be a string. We say that string $C$, $\|C\| < \|T\|$, is a $k$-approximate cover of $T$ under metric $d$ if ${\mathsf{Covered}}_k^d(C,T) = \|T\|$. We say that string $C$, $2\|C\| \le \|T\|$, is a $k$-approximate seed of $T$ if it is a $k$-approximate cover of some string $T'$ whose factor is $T$. Let $\diamondsuit$ be a wildcard symbol that matches every other symbol of the alphabet. Strings over $\Sigma \cup \{\diamondsuit\}$ are also called partial words. In order to compute $k$-approximate seeds, it suffices to consider $k$-approximate covers of $\diamondsuit^{\|T\|} T \diamondsuit^{\|T\|}$. The main problems in scope can now be stated as follows. [ ]{} [ ]{} [ ]{} Algorithmic Toolbox for Hamming Distance ---------------------------------------- For a string $T$ of length $n$, by ${\mathsf{lcp}}_k(i,j)$ we denote the length of the longest common prefix with at most $k$ mismatches of the suffixes $T[i,n-1]$ and $T[j,n-1]$. Flouri et al. [@DBLP:journals/ipl/FlouriGKU15] proposed an ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$-time algorithm to compute the longest common factor of two strings $T_1$, $T_2$ with at most $k$ mismatches. Their algorithm actually computes the lengths of the longest common prefixes with at most $k$ mismatches of every two suffixes $T_1[i,\|T_1\|-1]$ and $T_2[j,\|T_2\|-1]$ and returns the maximum among them. Applied for $T_1=T_2$, it gives the following result. \[lem:Flouri\] For a string of length $n$, values ${\mathsf{lcp}}_k(i,j)$ for all $i,j=0,\ldots,n-1$ can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ time. We also use a table ${\mathsf{PREF}}_k$ such that ${\mathsf{PREF}}_k[i]={\mathsf{lcp}}_k(0, i)$. LCP-queries with mismatches can be answered in ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ time after linear-time preprocessing using the kangaroo method [@DBLP:journals/tcs/LandauV86]. In particular, this allows to compute the ${\mathsf{PREF}}_k$ table in ${\mathcal{O}}(nk)$ time. Kaplan et al. [@DBLP:conf/swat/KaplanPS06] presented an algorithm that, given a pattern $P$ of length $m$, a text $T$ of length $n$ over an integer alphabet $\Sigma \subseteq \{1,\ldots,n^{{\mathcal{O}}(1)}\}$, and an integer $k$, finds in ${\mathcal{O}}(nk^{2/3}\log^{1/3}m\log k)$ time for all positions $j$ of $T$, the index of the $k$-th mismatch of $P$ with the suffix $T[j,n-1]$. Applied for $P=T$, it gives the following result. \[lem:PREFk\] The ${\mathsf{PREF}}_k$ table of a string of length $n$ over an integer alphabet can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(nk^{2/3}\log^{1/3}n\log k)$ time. We say that strings $U$ and $V$ have a $k$-mismatch prefix-suffix of length $p$ if $U$ has a prefix $U'$ of length $p$ and $V$ has a suffix $V'$ of length $p$ such that ${\mathit{Ham}}(U',V') \le k$. Algorithmic Toolbox for Edit Distance ------------------------------------- For $x,y \in \Sigma$, let $c(x,y)$, $c(\varepsilon,x)$ and $c(x,\varepsilon)$ be the costs of substituting letter $x$ by letter $y$ (equal to 0 if $x=y$), inserting letter $x$ and deleting letter $x$, respectively. They are usually specified by a penalty matrix $c$; it implies a metric if certain conditions are satisfied (identity of indiscernibles, symmetry, triangle inequality). The classic dynamic programming solution to the edit distance problem (see [@WF]) for strings $T_1$ and $T_2$ uses the so-called $D$-table such that $D[i,j]$ is the edit distance between prefixes $T_1[0,i]$ and $T_2[0,j]$. Initially $D[-1,-1]=0$, $D[i,-1]=D[i-1,-1]+c(T_1[i],\varepsilon)$ for $i \ge 0$ and $D[-1,j]=D[-1,j-1]+c(\varepsilon,T_2[j])$ for $j \ge 0$. For $i,j \ge 0$, $D[i,j]$ can be computed as follows: $$D[i,j] = \min(D[i-1,j-1]+c(T_1[i],T_2[j]),\,D[i,j-1]+c(\varepsilon,T_2[j]),\,D[i-1,j]+c(T_1[i],\varepsilon)).$$ Given a threshold $h$ on the Levenshtein distance, Landau et al. [@DBLP:journals/siamcomp/LandauMS98] show how to compute the Levenshtein distance between $T_1$ and $bT_2$, for any $b \in \Sigma$, in ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ time using previously computed solution for $T_1$ and $T_2$ (another solution was given later by Kim and Park [@DBLP:journals/jda/KimP04]). They define an $h$-wave that contains indices of the last value $h$ in diagonals of the $D$-table. Let $L^h(d) = \max \{ i : D[i, i+d] = h\}$. Formally an $h$-wave is: $$L^h = [ L^h(-h), L^h(-h+1),\ldots,L^h(h-1), L^h(h) ].$$ Landau et al. [@DBLP:journals/siamcomp/LandauMS98] show how to update the $h$-wave when string $T_2$ is prepended by a single letter in ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ time. This method was introduced to approximate periodicity in [@DBLP:journals/tcs/SimIPS01]. Computing $k$-Coverage under Hamming Distance {#sec:Hamming} ============================================= Let $T$ be a string of length $n$ and assume that its ${\mathsf{PREF}}_k$ table is given. We will show a linear-time algorithm for computing the $k$-coverage of every prefix of $T$ under the Hamming distance. In the algorithm we consider all prefix lengths $\ell=1,\ldots,n$. At each step of the algorithm, a linked list ${\mathcal{L}}$ is stored that contains all positions $i$ such that ${\mathsf{PREF}}_k[i] \ge \ell$ and a sentinel value $n$, in an increasing order. The list is stored together with a table $A({\mathcal{L}})[0..n-1]$ such that $A({\mathcal{L}})[i]$ is a link to the occurrence of $i$ in ${\mathcal{L}}$ or nil if $i \not\in {\mathcal{L}}$. It can be used to access and remove a given element of ${\mathcal{L}}$ in ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ time. Before the start of the algorithm, ${\mathcal{L}}$ contains all numbers $0,\ldots,n$. If $i \in {\mathcal{L}}$ and $j$ is the successor of $i$ in ${\mathcal{L}}$, then the approximate occurrence of $T[0,\ell-1]$ at position $i$ accounts for $\min(\ell,j-i)$ positions that are covered in $T$. A pair of adjacent elements $i<j$ in ${\mathcal{L}}$ is called overlapping if $j-i < \ell$ and non-overlapping otherwise. Hence, each non-overlapping adjacent pair adds the same amount to the number of covered positions. All pairs of adjacent elements of ${\mathcal{L}}$ are partitioned in two data structures, ${\mathcal{D}}_o$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_{no}$, that store overlapping and non-overlapping pairs, respectively. Data structure ${\mathcal{D}}_{no}$ stores non-overlapping pairs $(i,j)$ in buckets that correspond to $j-i$, in a table $B({\mathcal{D}}_{no})$ indexed from 1 to $n$. It also stores a table $A({\mathcal{D}}_{no})$ indexed 0 through $n-1$ such that $A({\mathcal{D}}_{no})[i]$ points to the location of $(i,j)$ in its bucket, provided that such a pair exists for some $j$, or nil otherwise. Finally, it remembers the number ${\mathit{num}}({\mathcal{D}}_{no})$ of stored adjacent pairs. ${\mathcal{D}}_o$ does not store the overlapping adjacent pairs $(i,j)$ explicitly, just the sum of values $j-i$, as ${\mathit{sum}}({\mathcal{D}}_o)$. Then $$\label{eq:covered1} {\mathsf{Covered}}_k^{{\mathit{Ham}}}(T[0,\ell-1],T) = {\mathit{sum}}({\mathcal{D}}_o) + {\mathit{num}}({\mathcal{D}}_{no}) \cdot \ell.$$ Now we need to describe how the data structures are updated when $\ell$ is incremented. In the algorithm we store a table $Q[0..n]$ of buckets containing pairs $({\mathsf{PREF}}_k[i],i)$ grouped by the first component. When $\ell$ changes to $\ell+1$, the second components of all pairs from $Q[\ell]$ are removed, one by one, from the list ${\mathcal{L}}$ (using the table $A({\mathcal{L}})$). Let us describe what happens when element $q$ is removed from ${\mathcal{L}}$. Let $q_1$ and $q_2$ be its predecessor and successor in ${\mathcal{L}}$. (They exist because $0$ and $n$ are never removed from ${\mathcal{L}}$.) Then each of the pairs $(q_1,q)$ and $(q,q_2)$ is removed from the respective data structure ${\mathcal{D}}_o$ or ${\mathcal{D}}_{no}$, depending on the difference of elements. Removal of a pair $(i,j)$ from ${\mathcal{D}}_o$ simply consists in decreasing ${\mathit{sum}}({\mathcal{D}}_o)$ by $j-i$, whereas to remove $(i,j)$ from ${\mathcal{D}}_{no}$ one needs to remove it from the right bucket (using the table $A({\mathcal{D}}_{no})$) and decrement ${\mathit{num}}({\mathcal{D}}_o)$. In the end, the pair $(q_1,q_2)$ is inserted to ${\mathcal{D}}_o$ or to ${\mathcal{D}}_{no}$ depending on $q_2-q_1$. Insertion to ${\mathcal{D}}_o$ and to ${\mathcal{D}}_{no}$ is symmetric to deletion. When $\ell$ is incremented, non-overlapping pairs $(i,j)$ with $j-i=\ell$ become overlapping. Thus, all pairs from the bucket $B({\mathcal{D}}_{no})[\ell]$ are removed from ${\mathcal{D}}_{no}$ and inserted to ${\mathcal{D}}_o$. This concludes the description of operations on the data structures. Correctness of the resulting algorithm follows from . We analyze its complexity in the following theorem. Let $T$ be a string of length $n$. Assuming that the ${\mathsf{PREF}}_k$ table for string $T$ is given, the $k$-coverage of every prefix of $T$ under the Hamming distance can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ time. There are up to $n$ removals from ${\mathcal{L}}$. Initially ${\mathcal{L}}$ contains $n$ adjacent pairs. Every removal from ${\mathcal{L}}$ introduces one new adjacent pair, so the total number of adjacent pairs that are considered in the algorithm is $2n-1$. Each adjacent pair is inserted to ${\mathcal{D}}_o$ or to ${\mathcal{D}}_{no}$, then it may be moved from ${\mathcal{D}}_{no}$ to ${\mathcal{D}}_o$, and finally it is removed from its data structure. In total, ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ insertions and deletions are performed on the two data structures, in ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ time each. This yields the desired time complexity of the algorithm. Let us note that in order to compute the $k$-coverage of all factors of $T$ that start at a given position $i$, it suffices to use a table $[{\mathsf{lcp}}_k(i,0),\ldots,{\mathsf{lcp}}_k(i,n-1)]$ instead of ${\mathsf{PREF}}_k$. Together with Lemma \[lem:Flouri\] this gives the following result. Let $T$ be a string of length $n$. The $k$-coverage of every factor of $T$ under the Hamming distance can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ time. Computing $k$-Coverage under Edit Distance {#sec:edit} ========================================== Let us state an abstract problem that, to some extent, is a generalization of the $k$-mismatch ${\mathsf{lcp}}$-queries to the edit distance. [ ]{} Having the table $P_k^d$, one can easily compute the $k$-coverage of a factor $T[a,b]$ under metric $d$ as: $$\label{eq:CovEd} {\mathsf{Covered}}_k^d(T[a,b],T)\,=\,\left\|\bigcup_{a'=0}^{n-1} [a',P_k^d[a,b,a']]\right\|,$$ where an interval of the form $[a',b']$ for $b'<a'$ is considered to be empty. The size of the union of $n$ intervals can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ time, which gives ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ time over all factors. In Section \[subsec:Lev\] and \[subsec:ed\] we show how to compute the tables $P_k^{{\mathit{Lev}}}$ and $P_k^{{\mathit{ed}}}$ for a given threshold $k$ in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ and ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n\log n})$ time, respectively. Then in Section \[subsec:Costas\] we apply the techniques of Section \[subsec:ed\] to obtain an ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n\log n})$-time algorithm for computing restricted approximate covers and seeds under the edit distance. Longest Approximate Prefix under Levenshtein Distance {#subsec:Lev} ----------------------------------------------------- Let $H_{i,j}$ be the $h$-wave for strings $T[i, n-1]$ and $T[j, n-1]$ and $h=k$. Then we can compute $P_k^{{\mathit{Lev}}}$ with Algorithm \[algo:Lev\]. The algorithm basically takes the rightmost diagonal of $D$-table in which the value in row $b-a+1$ is less than or equal to $k$. The while-loop can run up to $2k$ times for given $a$ and $a'$. Computing $H_{n-1,a'}$ takes ${\mathcal{O}}(k^2)$ time and updating $H_{a,a'}$ takes ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ time. It makes the algorithm run in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ time. Together with Equation this yields the following result. Let $T$ be a string of length $n$. The $k$-coverage of every factor of $T$ under the Levenshtein distance can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ time. A similar method could be used in case of constant edit operation costs, by applying the work of [@DBLP:journals/jda/HyyroNI15]. In the following section we develop a solution for arbitrary costs. Longest Approximate Prefix under Edit Distance {#subsec:ed} ---------------------------------------------- For indices $a,a' \in [0,n]$ we define a table $D_{a,a'}$ such that $D_{a,a'}[b,b']$ is the edit distance between $T[a,b]$ and $T[a',b']$, for $b \in [a-1,n-1]$ and $b' \in [a'-1,n-1]$. For other indices we set $D_{a,a'}[b,b']=\infty$. The $D_{a,a'}$ table corresponds to the $D$-table for $T[a,n-1]$ and $T[a',n-1]$ and so it can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ time. We say that pair $(d,b)$ (Pareto-)dominates pair $(d',b')$ if $(d,b) \ne (d',b')$, $d \le d'$ and $b \ge b'$. Let us introduce a data structure $L_{a,a'}[b]$ being a table of all among pairs $(D_{a,a'}[b,b'],b')$ that are maximal in this sense (i.e., are not dominated by other pairs), sorted by increasing first component. Using a folklore stack-based algorithm (Algorithm \[algo2\]), this data structure can be computed from $D_{a,a'}[b,a'-1],\ldots,D_{a,a'}[b,n-1]$ in linear time. $Q:=\,$empty stack $L_{a,a'}[b]:=Q$ Every multiple of $M=\floor{\sqrt{n / \log n}}$ will be called a special point. In our algorithm we first compute the following data structures: (a) \[it:a\] all $L_{a,a'}[b]$ lists where $a$ or $a'$ is a special point, for $a,a' \in [0,n-1]$ and $b \in [a-1,n-1]$ (if $a\ge n$ or $a'\ge n$, the list is empty); and (b) \[it:b\] all cells $D_{a,a'}[b,b']$ of all $D_{a,a'}$ tables for $a,a' \in [0,n]$ and $-1 \le b-a,b'-a' < M-1$. Computing part takes ${\mathcal{O}}(n^4/M) = {\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n\log n})$ time, whereas part can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^4/M^2) = {\mathcal{O}}(n^3\log n)$ time. The intuition behind this data structure is shown in the following lemma. \[lem:special\] Assume that $b-a \ge M-1$ or $b'-a' \ge M-1$. Then there exists a pair of positions $c$, $c'$ such that the following conditions hold: - $a \le c \le b+1$ and $a' \le c' \le b'+1$, and - $c-a,c'-a' < M$, and - ${\mathit{ed}}(T[a,b],T[a',b']) = {\mathit{ed}}(T[a,c-1],T[a',c'-1]) + {\mathit{ed}}(T[c,b],T[c',b'])$, and - at least one of $c$, $c'$ is a special point. Moreover, if $c$ ($c'$) is the special point, then $c \le b$ ($c'\le b'$, respectively). By the assumption, at least one of the intervals $[a,b]$ and $[a',b']$ contains a special point. Let $p \in [a,b]$ and $p' \in [a',b']$ be the smallest among them; we have $p-a,p'-a' < M$ provided that $p$ or $p'$ exists, respectively (otherwise $p$ or $p'$ is set to $\infty$). Let us consider the table $D_{a,a'}$ and how its cell $D_{a,a'}[b,b']$ is computed. We can trace the path of parents in the dynamic programming from $D_{a,a'}[b,b']$ to the origin ($D_{a,a'}[a-1,a'-1]$). Let us traverse this path in the reverse direction until the first dimension of the table reaches $p$ or the second dimension reaches $p'$. Say that just before this step we are at $D_{a,a'}[q,q']$. If $q+1=p$ and $q'<p'$, then we set $c=q+1$ and $c'=q'+1$. Indeed $c=p$ is a special point, $${\mathit{ed}}(T[a,b],T[a',b']) = {\mathit{ed}}(T[a,c-1],T[a',c'-1]) + {\mathit{ed}}(T[c,b],T[c',b'])$$ and $c-a,c'-a' < M$. Moreover, $q' \in [a'-1,b']$, so $c' \in [a',b'+1]$. The opposite case (that $q'+1=p'$) is symmetric. If $P_k^{{\mathit{ed}}}[a,b,a']-a' < M-1$, then it can be computed using one the $M \times M$ prefix fragments of the $D_{a,a'}$ tables. Otherwise, according to the statement of the lemma, one of the $L_{c,c'}[b]$ lists can be used, where $c-a,c'-a' < M$, as shown in Algorithm \[alg:weighted\]. The algorithm uses a predecessor operation ${\mathit{Pred}}(x,L)$ which for a number $x$ and a list $L=L_{c,c'}[b]$ returns the maximal pair whose first component does not exceed $x$, or $(\infty,\infty)$ if no such pair exists. This operation can be implemented in ${\mathcal{O}}(\log n)$ time via binary search. ${\mathit{res}}:=-1$ $s:=a+((-a)\bmod M)$; $s':=a'+((-a')\bmod M)$\[ll6\] $P_k^{{\mathit{ed}}}[a,b,a']:={\mathit{res}}$ \[thm:3\] Let $T$ be a string of length $n$. The $k$-coverage of every factor of $T$ under the edit distance can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n\log n})$ time. We want to show that Algorithm \[alg:weighted\] correctly computes $P_k^{{\mathit{ed}}}[a,b,a']$. Let us first check that the result $b'={\mathit{res}}$ of Algorithm \[alg:weighted\] satisfies $D_{a,a'}[b,b'] \le k$. It is clear if the algorithm computes $b'$ in line \[ll5\]. Otherwise, it is computed in line \[ll10\]. This means that $L_{c,c'}[b]$ contains a pair $(D_{c,c'}[b,b'],b')$ such that $$k\ \ge\ D_{c,c'}[b,b'] + D_{a,a'}[c-1,c'-1]\ \ge\ D_{a,a'}[b,b'].$$ Now we show that the returned value ${\mathit{res}}$ is at least $x=P_k^{{\mathit{ed}}}[a,b,a']$. If $b-a < M-1$ and $x-a'<M-1$, then the condition in line \[ll4\] holds for $b'=x$, so indeed ${\mathit{res}}\ge x$. Otherwise, the condition of Lemma \[lem:special\] is satisfied. The lemma implies two positions $c,c'$ such that at least one of them is special and that satisfy additional constraints. If $c$ is special, then the constraints $a \le c$ and $c-a<M$ imply that $c=s$, as defined in line \[ll6\]. Additionally, $a' \le c' \le a'+M-1$, so $(c,c')$ will be considered in the loop from line \[ll7\]. By the lemma and the definition of $x$, we have $$\label{eq:dddd} D_{c,c'}[b,x]\ =\ D_{a,a'}[b,x] - D_{a,a'}[c-1,c'-1]\ \le\ k - D_{a,a'}[c-1,c'-1].$$ The list $L_{c,c'}[b]$ either contains the pair $(D_{c,c'}[b,x],x)$, or a pair $(D_{c,c'}[b,x'],x')$ such that $D_{c,c'}[b,x'] \le D_{c,c'}[b,x]$ and $x'>x$. In the latter case by we would have $$k\ \ge\ D_{a,a'}[c-1,c'-1] + D_{c,c'}[b,x]\ \ge\ D_{a,a'}[c-1,c'-1] + D_{c,c'}[b,x']\ \ge\ D_{a,a'}[b,x']$$ and $x'>x$. In both cases the predecessor computed in line \[ll8\] returns a value ${\mathit{res}}$ such that ${\mathit{res}}\ge x$ and ${\mathit{res}}\ne \infty$. The case that $c'$ is special admits an analogous argument. Combining Algorithm \[alg:weighted\] with Equation , we obtain correctness of the computation. As for complexity, Algorithm \[alg:weighted\] computes $P_k^{{\mathit{ed}}}[a,b,a']$ in ${\mathcal{O}}(M \log n) = {\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{n\log n})$ time and the pre-computations take ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n\log n})$ total time. Restricted Approximate Covers and Seeds under Edit Distance {#subsec:Costas} ----------------------------------------------------------- The techniques that were developed in Section \[subsec:ed\] can be used to improve upon the ${\mathcal{O}}(n^4)$ time complexity of the algorithms for computing the restricted approximate covers and seeds under the edit distance [@DBLP:journals/jalc/ChristodoulakisIPS05; @SimParkKimLee]. We describe our solution only for restricted approximate covers; the solution for restricted approximate seeds follows by considering the text $\diamondsuit^{\|T\|} T \diamondsuit^{\|T\|}$. Let us first note that the techniques from the previous subsection can be used as a black box to solve the problem in scope in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n\log n} \log (nw))$ time, where $w$ is the maximum cost of an edit operation. Indeed, for every factor $T[a,b]$ we binary search for the smallest $k$ for which $T[a,b]$ is a $k$-approximate cover of $T$. A given value $k$ is tested by computing the tables $P_k^{{\mathit{ed}}}[a,b,a']$ for all $a'=0,\ldots,n-1$ and checking if ${\mathsf{Covered}}_k^d(T[a,b],T)=n$ using Equation . Now we proceed to a more efficient solution. Same as in the algorithms from [@DBLP:journals/jalc/ChristodoulakisIPS05; @SimParkKimLee] we compute, for every factor $T[a,b]$, a table $Q_{a,b}[0..n]$ such that $Q_{a,b}[i]$ is the minimum edit distance threshold $k$ for which $T[a,b]$ is a $k$-approximate cover of $T[i,n-1]$. In the end, all factors $T[a,b]$ for which $Q_{a,b}[0]$ is minimal need to be reported as restricted approximate covers of $T$. We will show how, given the data structures and of the previous section, we can compute this table in ${\mathcal{O}}(n M \log n)$ time. A dynamic programming algorithm for computing the $Q_{a,b}$ table, similar to the one in [@DBLP:journals/jalc/ChristodoulakisIPS05], is shown in Algorithm \[alg:n2\]. Computing $Q_{a,b}$ takes ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ time provided that all $D_{a,b}$ arrays, of total size ${\mathcal{O}}(n^4)$, are available. The algorithm considers all possibilities for the approximate occurrence $T[i,j]$ of $T[a,b]$. $Q_{a,b}[n]:=0$ During the computation of $Q_{a,b}$, we will compute a data structure for on-line range-minimum queries over the table. We can use the following simple data structure with ${\mathcal{O}}(n \log n)$ total construction time and ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$-time queries. For every position $i$ and power of two $2^p$, we store as ${\mathit{RM}}[i,p]$ the minimal value in the table $Q_{a,b}$ on the interval $[i,i+2^p-1]$. When a new value $Q_{a,b}[i]$ is computed, we compute ${\mathit{RM}}[i,0]=Q_{a,b}[i]$ and ${\mathit{RM}}[i,p]$ for all $0 < p \le \log_2 (n-i)$ using the formula ${\mathit{RM}}[i,p] = \min({\mathit{RM}}[i,p-1],{\mathit{RM}}[i+2^{p-1},p-1])$. Then a range-minimum query over an interval $[i,j]$ of $Q_{a,b}$ can be answered by inspecting up to two cells of the ${\mathit{RM}}$ table for $p$ such that $2^p \le j-i+1 < 2^{p+1}$. Let us note that the variable ${\mathit{minQ}}$, which denotes the minimum of a growing segment in the $Q_{a,b}$ table, can only decrease. We would like to make the second argument of $\max$ in line \[l7\] non-decreasing for increasing $j$. The values ${\mathit{ed}}(T[a,b],T[i,j]) = D_{a,i}[b,j]$ may increase or decrease as $j$ grows. However, it is sufficient to consider only those values of $j$ for which $(D_{a,i}[b,j],j)$ is not (Pareto-)dominated (as in Section \[subsec:ed\]), i.e., the elements of the list $L_{a,i}[b]$. For these values, $D_{a,i}[b,j]$ is indeed increasing for increasing $j$. The next observation follows from this monotonicity and the monotonicity of $\min Q_{a,b}[i+1..j+1]$. Let $(D_{a,i}[b,j'],j')$ be the first element on the list $L_{a,i}[b]$ such that $$\min Q_{a,b}[i+1..j'+1] \le D_{a,i}[b,j'].$$ If $j'$ does not exist, we simply take the last element of $L_{a,i}[b]$. Further let $(D_{a,i}[b,j''],j'')$ be the predecessor of $(D_{a,i}[b,j'],j')$ in $L_{a,i}[b]$ (if it exists). Then $j \in \{j',j''\}$ minimizes the value of the expression $\max(\min Q_{a,b}[i+1..j+1], D_{a,i}[b,j])$. If we had access to the list $L_{a,i}[b]$, we could use binary search to locate the index $j'$ defined in the observation. However, we only store the lists $L_{a,i}[b]$ for $a$ and $i$ such that at least one of them is a special point. We can cope with this issue by separately considering all $j$ such that $j < i + M-1$ and then performing binary search on every of ${\mathcal{O}}(M)$ lists $L_{c,c'}[b]$ where $a \le c < a+M$, $i \le c' < i+M$ and at least one of $c$, $c'$ is a special point, just as in Algorithm \[alg:weighted\]. A pseudocode of the resulting algorithm is given as Algorithm \[alg:fullps\]. $Q_{a,b}[n]:=0$ Let us summarize the complexity of the algorithm. Pre-computation of auxiliary data structures requires ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n\log n})$ time. Then for every factor $T[a,b]$ we compute the table $Q_{a,b}$. The data structure for constant-time range-minimum queries over the table costs only additional ${\mathcal{O}}(n \log n)$ space and computation time. When computing $Q_{a,b}[i]$ using dynamic programming, we may separately consider first $M-1$ indices $j$, and then we perform a binary search in ${\mathcal{O}}(M)$ lists $L_{c,c'}[b]$. In total, the time to compute $Q_{a,b}[i]$ given $a$, $b$, $i$ is ${\mathcal{O}}(M \log n) = {\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{n \log n})$. Let $T$ be a string of length $n$. All restricted approximate covers and seeds of $T$ under the edit distance can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3\sqrt{n\log n})$ time. The work of [@DBLP:journals/jalc/ChristodoulakisIPS05; @SimParkKimLee] on approximate covers and seeds originates from a study of approximate periods [@DBLP:journals/tcs/SimIPS01]. Interestingly, while our algorithm improves upon the algorithms for computing approximate covers and seeds, it does not work for approximate periods. NP-hardness of General Hamming $k$-Approximate Cover and Seed {#sec:NPhard} ============================================================= We make a reduction from the following problem. [ ]{} The following fact is known. \[fct:Frances\] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hamming String Consensus</span> is NP-complete even for the binary alphabet. Let strings $S_1,\ldots,S_m$ of length $\ell$ over the alphabet $\Sigma=\{0,1\}$ and integer $k$ be an instance of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hamming String Consensus</span>. We introduce a morphism $\phi$ such that $$\phi(0)=0^{2k+4}\,1010\,0^{2k+4},\quad \phi(1)=0^{2k+4}\,1011\,0^{2k+4}.$$ We will exploit the following simple property of this morphism. \[obs:phi\] For every string $S$, every length-$(2k+4)$ factor of $\phi(S)$ contains at most three ones. Let $\gamma_i = 1^{2k+4}\phi(S_i)$ and let $\psi(U)$ be an operation that reverses this encoding, i.e., $\psi(\gamma_i) = S_i$. Formally, it takes as input a string $U$ and outputs $U[4k+12-1]U[2\cdot(4k+12)-1]\ldots U[(\ell-1)(4k+12)-1]$. \[lem:NP\_cover\] Strings $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma_j$, for any $i,j \in \{1,\ldots,m\}$, have no $2k$-mismatch prefix-suffix of length $p \in \{2k+4,\ldots,\|\gamma_i\|-1\}$. We will show that the prefix $U$ of $\gamma_i$ of length $p$ and the suffix $V$ of $\gamma_j$ of length $p$ have at least $2k+1$ mismatches. Let us note that $U$ starts with $1^{2k+4}$. The proof depends on the value $d=\|\gamma_i\|-p$; we have $1 \le d \le \|\gamma_i\|-2k-4$. Let us start with the following observation that can be readily verified. For $A,B \in \{1010,1011\}$, the strings $A0^4$ and $0^4B$ have no 1-mismatch prefix-suffix of length in $\{5,\ldots,8\}$. If $1 \le d \le 4$, then $U$ and $V$ have a mismatch at position $2k+4$ since $V$ starts with $1^{2k+4-d}0$. Moreover, they have at least $2\ell$ mismatches by the observation (applied for the prefix-suffix length $d+4$). In total, ${\mathit{Ham}}(U,V) \ge 2\ell+1 \ge 2k+1$. If $4 < d < 2k+4$, then every block $1010$ or $1011$ in $\gamma_i$ and in $\gamma_j$ is matched against a block of zeroes in the other string, which gives at least $4\ell$ mismatches. Hence, ${\mathit{Ham}}(U,V) \ge 4\ell \ge 2k+1$. Finally, if $2k+4 \le d \le \|\gamma_i\|-2k-4$, then $U$ starts with $1^{2k+4}$ and every factor of $V$ of length $2k+4$ has at most three ones (see Observation \[obs:phi\]). Hence, ${\mathit{Ham}}(U,V) \ge 2k+1$. We set $T=\gamma_1 \ldots \gamma_m$. The following lemma gives the reduction. \[lem:Hamming\_cover\_NP\] If <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hamming String Consensus</span> for $S_1,\ldots,S_m$, $\ell$, $k$ has a positive answer, then the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">General $k$-Approximate Cover</span> under Hamming distance for $T$, $k$, and $c=\|\gamma_i\|$ returns a $k$-approximate cover $C$ such that $S=\psi(C)$ is a Hamming consensus string for $S_1,\ldots,S_m$. By Lemma \[lem:NP\_cover\], if $C$ is a $k$-approximate cover of $T$ of length $c$, then every position $a \in {\mathsf{StartOcc}}_k^H(C,T)$ satisfies $c \mid a$. Hence, ${\mathsf{StartOcc}}_k^H(C,T) = \{0,c,2c,\ldots,(m-1)c\}$. If <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hamming String Consensus</span> for $S_1,\ldots,S_m$ has a positive answer $S$, then $1^{2k+4}\phi(S)$ is a $k$-approximate cover of $T$ of length $c$. Moreover, if $T$ has a $k$-approximate cover $C$ of length $c$, then for $S = \psi(C)$ and for each $i=1,\ldots,m$, we have that $${\mathit{Ham}}(C,T[(i-1)c,ic-1]) \ge {\mathit{Ham}}(S,S_i),$$ so $S$ is a consensus string for $S_1,\ldots,S_m$. This completes the proof. Lemma \[lem:Hamming\_cover\_NP\] and Fact \[fct:Frances\] imply that computing $k$-approximate covers is NP-hard. Obviously, it is in NP. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">General $k$-Approximate Cover</span> under the Hamming distance is NP-complete even over a binary alphabet. A lemma that is similar to Lemma \[lem:Hamming\_cover\_NP\] can be shown for approximate seeds. Let $$T' = \gamma_1\gamma_1 \ldots \gamma_m 1^{2k+4} \gamma_m 1^{2k+4}.$$ \[lem:Hamming\_seed\_NP\] If <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hamming String Consensus</span> for $S_1,\ldots,S_m$, $\ell$, $k$ has a positive answer, then the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">General $k$-Approximate Seed</span> under Hamming distance for $T'$, $k$, and $c=\|\gamma_1\|+2k+4$ returns a $k$-approximate seed $C$ such that $S=\psi(C')$ is a Hamming consensus string for $S_1,\ldots,S_m$, for some cyclic shift $C'$ of $C$. Assume that $C$ is a $k$-approximate seed of $T'$ of length $c$ and let us consider the approximate occurrence of $C$ that covers position $c-1$ in $T'$. Note that it has to be a full occurrence. It follows from the next claim that the position of this occurrence is in $\{0,\ldots,2k+3\} \cup \{\|\gamma_1\|-2k-4,\ldots,\|\gamma_1\|+2k-3\}$. Let $X$ be any length-$c$ factor of $\phi(S_1) 1^{2k+4} \phi(S_1)$ and $Y$ be any length-$c$ factor of $(\gamma_m 1^{2k+4})^2$. Then ${\mathit{Ham}}(X,Y) > 2k$. Let us note that the string $(\gamma_m 1^{2k+4})^2$ contains a middle block $1^{4k+8}$. If $Y$ contains this whole block, then certainly ${\mathit{Ham}}(X,Y) \ge 2k+1$, since every factor of $X$ of length $4k+8$ contains at most $2k+7$ ones (see Observation \[obs:phi\]). Otherwise, $$Y\,=\,1^{2k+4+b} \phi(S_m) 1^{2k+4-b} \quad\text{or}\quad Y\,=\,1^{2k+4-b} \phi(S_m) 1^{2k+4+b}$$ for some $b \in \{0,\ldots,2k+3\}$. In particular, $Y$ has $1^{2k+4}$ as a prefix or as a suffix. By comparing lengths we see that the length-$(2k+4)$ prefix and suffix of $X$ are factors of $\phi(S_1)$. Hence, each of them contains at most three ones (see Observation \[obs:phi\]) and ${\mathit{Ham}}(X,Y) \ge 2k+1$. We have established that $C$ has to match, up to at most $k$ mismatches, a string of the form $$1^b \phi(S_1) 1^{2k+4} 0^{2k+4-b} \quad\mbox{or}\quad 0^b 1^{2k+4} \phi(S_1) 1^{2k+4-b}$$ for some $b \in \{0,\ldots,2k+4\}$. We consider the second case; a proof for the first case is analogous (using strings $\gamma'_i = \phi(S_i) 1^{2k+4}$ instead of $\gamma_i$). In the second case, ${\mathit{Ham}}(C,0^b \gamma_1 1^{2k+4-b}) \le k$. Applying Lemma \[lem:NP\_cover\] for $\gamma_1$ and every $\gamma_j$, we get that the starting position $p$ of an occurrence of $C$ in $T'$ that covers the first zero of $\gamma_j$ in the factor $\gamma_1 \ldots \gamma_m$ of $T'$ has to satisfy $p \equiv -b \bmod {\|\gamma_1\|}$. If <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hamming String Consensus</span> for $S_1,\ldots,S_m$ has a positive answer $S$, then the string $1^{2k+4}\phi(S)1^{2k+4}$ is a $k$-approximate cover (hence, $k$-approximate seed) of $T'$ of length $c$. Moreover, if $T'$ has a $k$-approximate seed $C$ of length $c$ such that ${\mathit{Ham}}(C,0^b \gamma_1 1^{2k+4-b}) \le k$, then for a cyclic shift $C'={\mathsf{rot}}_b(C)$, $S = \psi(C')$ and for each $i=1,\ldots,m$, we have that $${\mathit{Ham}}(C,\,T[i\|\gamma_1\|-b,(i+1)\|\gamma_1\|+2k+4-b]) \ge {\mathit{Ham}}(S,S_i),$$ so $S$ is a consensus string for $S_1,\ldots,S_m$. This completes the proof. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">General $k$-Approximate Seed</span> under the Hamming distance is NP-complete even over a binary alphabet. Conclusions =========== We have presented several polynomial-time algorithms for computing restricted approximate covers and seeds and $k$-coverage under Hamming, Levenshtein and weighted edit distances and shown NP-hardness of non-restricted variants of these problems under the Hamming distance. It is not clear if any of the algorithms are optimal. The only known related conditional lower bound shows hardness of computing the Levenshtein distance of two strings in strongly subquadratic time [@DBLP:journals/siamcomp/BackursI18]; however, our algorithms for approximate covers under edit distance work in $\Omega(n^3)$ time. An interesting open problem is if restricted approximate covers or seeds under Hamming distance, as defined in [@DBLP:journals/jalc/ChristodoulakisIPS05; @SimParkKimLee], can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^{3-\epsilon})$ time, for any $\epsilon>0$. Here we have shown an efficient solution for $k$-restricted versions of these problems. [^1]: In fact, they consider relative Hamming and Levenshtein distances which are inversely proportional to the length of the candidate factor and seek for an approximate cover/seed that minimizes such distance. However, their algorithms actually compute the minimum distance $k$ for every factor of $T$ under the standard distance definitions.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This paper concerns the reconstruction of the absorption and scattering parameters in a time-dependent linear transport equation from knowledge of angularly averaged measurements performed at the boundary of a domain of interest. We show that the absorption coefficient and the spatial component of the scattering coefficient are uniquely determined by such measurements. We obtain stability results on the reconstruction of the absorption and scattering parameters with respect to the measured albedo operator. The stability results are obtained by a precise decomposition of the measurements into components with different singular behavior in the time domain.' author: - 'Guillaume Bal and Alexandre Jollivet [^1]' bibliography: - '../../bibliography.bib' title: \| Time-dependent angularly averaged inverse transport\ (extended version) --- Introduction ============ Inverse transport theory has many applications in e.g. medical and geophysical imaging. It consists of reconstructing optical parameters in a domain of interest from measurements of the transport solution at the boundary of that domain. The optical parameters are the total absorption (extinction) parameter $\sigma(x)$ and the scattering parameter $k(x,v',v)$, which measures the probability of a particle at position $x\in X\subset\R^n$ to scatter from direction $v'\in\S^{n-1}$ to direction $v\in\S^{n-1}$, where $\S^{n-1}$ is the unit sphere in $\R^n$. The domain of interest is probed as follows. A known flux of particles enters the domain and the flux of outgoing particles is measured at the domain’s boundary. Several inverse theories may then be envisioned based on available data. In this paper, we assume availability of time dependent measurements that are angularly averaged. Also the source term used to probe the domain is not resolved angularly in order to e.g. save time in the acquisition of data. More precisely, the incoming density of particles $\phi(t,x,v)$ as a function of time $t$, at position $x\in\partial X$ at the boundary of the domain of interest, and for incoming directions $v$, is of the form $\phi_S(t,x,v)=\phi(t,x)S(x,v)$, where $\phi(t,x)$ is arbitrary but $S(x,v)$ is fixed. This paper is concerned with the reconstruction of the optical parameters from such measurements. We show that the attenuation coefficient is uniquely determined and that the spatial structure of the scattering coefficient can be reconstructed provided that scattering vanishes in the vicinity of the domain’s boundary (except in dimension $n=2$ and when $X$ is a disc, where our theory does not require $k$ to vanish in the vicinity of $\partial X$). For instance, when $k(x,v',v)=k_0(x)g(v',v)$ with $g(v',v)$ known a priori, then $k_0(x)$ is uniquely determined by the measurements. Similar results were announced in [@B-PISA-08] when measurements are available in the modulation frequency variable, which is the dual (Fourier) variable to the time variable. Several other regimes have been considered in the literature. The uniqueness of the reconstruction of the optical parameters from knowledge of angularly resolved measurements both in the time-dependent and time-independent settings was proved in [@CS-CPDE-96; @CS-OSAKA-99]; see also [@S-IO-03] for a review. Stability in the time-independent case has been analyzed in dimension $n=2,3$ under smallness assumptions for the optical parameters in [@Rom-JIIPP-97; @R-MT-98] and in dimension $n=2$ in [@SU-MAA-03]. Stability results in the presence of full, angularly resolved, measurements have been obtained in [@BJ-IPI-08; @BJ-SIMA-09; @W-AIHP-99]. The intermediate case of angularly averaged measurements with angularly resolved sources was considered in [@L-IP-08]. The lack of stability of the reconstruction in the time independent setting with angularly averaged measurements and isotropic sources is treated in [@BLM-IPI-08]. See also [@B-IP-09] for a recent review of results in inverse transport theory. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:albedo\] recalls known results on the transport equation and the decomposition of the albedo operator. In section \[sec:albedoaveraged\] we define and decompose the averaged albedo operator (Proposition \[prop:kernelA\]) and we study its distributional kernel (Theorems \[theorem:normesimplescat\]–\[theorem:limH2\]). Our main results on uniqueness and stability are presented in section \[sec:stab\] (Theorems \[theorem:stabH1\]–\[theorem:stabH2\], Theorems \[cor\_ball\]–\[cor\] and Corollary \[cor2\]). We show that the absorption coefficient and the spatial structure of the scattering coefficient (the phase function describing scattering from $v$ to $v'$ has to be known in advance) can be reconstructed stably from angularly averaged time dependent data. The reconstruction of the scattering coefficient requires invertion of a weighted Radon transform in the general case. In the specific case of a spherical geometry (measurements are performed at the boundary of a sphere), then the scattering coefficient may be obtained by inverting a [ classical]{} Radon transform. In section \[proof\_thm\_H1H2\] we prove Theorems \[theorem:limH1\]–\[theorem:limH2\]. In section \[proof\_thm\_stabH1H2\_cor\] we prove Theorems \[theorem:stabH1\]–\[theorem:stabH2\], Theorem \[cor\] and Theorem \[cor\_ball\] . In section \[proof\_thm\_normesimplescat\] we prove Theorem \[theorem:normesimplescat\]. In section \[proof\_thm\_normemultiplescat\] we prove Theorem \[theorem:normemultiplescat\]. In section \[proof\_N\] we prove Lemmas \[lem:prep\]–\[lem:n=3nulaubord\] that are used in section \[proof\_thm\_normemultiplescat\]. In section \[proof\_kernelA\] we prove Proposition \[prop:kernelA\]. The derivation of the results is fairly technical and is based on a careful analysis of the temporal behavior of the decomposition of the albedo operator into components that are multi-linear in the scattering coefficient. Our results are based on showing that the ballistic and single scattering components may be separated from the rest of the data. These two components are then used to obtain our uniqueness and stability results. It turns out that the structure of single scattering is different depending on whether $k$ vanishes on $\partial X$ or not. When $k$ does not vanish on $\partial X$, the main singularities of the single scattering component do not allow us to “see inside” the domain as they only depend on values of $k$ at the domain’s boundary in dimension $n\geq3$. The singular structure of single scattering and the resulting stability estimates are presented in detail when both $k$ vanishes and does not vanish on $\partial X$. This is the extended version of a submitted paper [@BJ-IPShort-09]. The forward problem and albedo operator {#sec:albedo} ======================================= The linear Boltzmann transport equation --------------------------------------- We now introduce notation and recall some known results on the linear transport equation. Let $X$ be a bounded open subset of $\R^n$, $n\ge 2$, with a $C^1$ boundary $\pa X$. Let $\nu(x)$ denote the outward normal unit vector to $\pa X$ at $x\in \pa X$. Let $\Gamma_{\pm}=\{(x,v)\in \pa X\times \S^{n-1}\ \|\ \pm\nu(x)\cdot v>0\}$ be the sets of incoming and outgoing conditions. For $(x,v)\in \bar X\times \S^{n-1}$ we define $\tau_\pm (x,v)$ and $\tau(x,v)$ by $\tau_{\pm}(x,v):=\inf\{s\in (0,+\infty)\ \|\ x\pm sv \not \in X\}$ and $\tau(x,v):=\tau_-(x,v)+\tau_+(x,v)$. For $x\in \pa X$ we define $\S_{x,\pm}^{n-1}:=\{v\in \S^{n-1}\ \|\ \pm \nu(x)\cdot v>0\}$. Consider $\sigma:X\times\S^{n-1}\to \R$ and $k:X\times \S^{n-1}\times \S^{n-1}\to \R$ two nonnegative measurable functions. We assume that $(\sigma,k)$ is admissible when $$\label{eq:hyp1p} \begin{array}{l} 0\le \sigma\in L^{\infty}(X\times\S^{n-1}),\\ 0\le k(x,v',.)\in L^1(\S^{n-1})\textrm{ for a.e. } (x,v')\in X\times \S^{n-1}, \\ \sigma_p(x,v')={\displaystyle\int}_{\S^{n-1}}k(x,v',v)dv\textrm{ belongs to } L^{\infty}(X\times \S^{n-1}). \end{array}$$ Let $T>\eta>0$. We consider the following linear Boltzmann transport equation $$\label{eq:B1} \begin{array}{rcl} && {\dfrac{\partial{u}}{\partial{t}}}(t,x,v)+v\cdot\nabla_xu(t,x,v)+\sigma(x,v)u(t,x,v) \\ &&= {\displaystyle\int}_{\S^{n-1}}k(x,v',v)u(t,x,v')dv',\ (t,x,v)\in (0,T)\times X\times\S^{n-1},\\[3mm] &&u_{\|(0,T)\times \Gamma_-}(t,x,v)=\phi(t,x,v),\\[3mm] &&u(0,x,v)=0, \ (x,v)\in X\times \S^{n-1}, \end{array}$$ where $\phi\in L^1((0,T),L^1(\Gamma_-,d\xi))$ and ${\rm supp}\phi\subseteq [0,\eta]$. Here, $d\xi(x,v)=\|v\cdot \nu(x)\|dv d\mu(x)$, where $d\mu$ is the surface measure on $\partial X$ and $dv$ is the surface measure on $\S^{n-1}$. In other words, we assume that the initial condition is concentrated in the $\eta$-vicinity of $t=0$ and measurements are performed for time $T$, which we will choose sufficiently large so that particles have the time to travel through $X$ and be measured. Semigroups and unbounded operators {#semi} ---------------------------------- We introduce the following space $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal Z}&:=&\{f\in L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})\ \|\ v\cdot\nabla_xf\in L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})\},\label{B2a}\\ \\|f\\|_{\mathcal Z}&:=&\\|f\\|_{L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})}+\\|v\cdot\nabla_x f\\|_{L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})};\label{B2b}\end{aligned}$$ where $v\cdot \nabla_x$ is understood in the distributional sense. It is known (see [@C-CRAS-1984; @C-CRAS-1985]) that the trace map $\gamma_-$ from $C^1(\bar X\times \S^{n-1})$ to $C(\Gamma_-)$ defined by $$\gamma_-(f)=f_{\|\Gamma_-}$$ extends to a continuous operator from ${\mathcal Z}$ onto $L^1(\Gamma_-, \tau_+(x,v)d\xi(x,v))$ and admits a continuous lifting. Note that $L^1(\Gamma_-,d\xi)$ is a subset of the spaces $L^1(\Gamma_-, \tau_+(x,v)d\xi(x,v))$. We introduce the following notation $$\begin{aligned} A_1f=-\sigma f,\ A_2f=\int_{\S^{n-1}}k(x,v',v)f(x,v')dv'.\label{B2c}\end{aligned}$$ As $(\sigma,k)$ is admissible, the operators $A_1$ and $A_2$ are bounded operators in $L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})$. Consider the following unbounded operators $$\begin{aligned} &&T_1f=-v\cdot \nabla_xf+A_1f,\ D(T_1)=\{f\in {\mathcal Z}\ \|\ f_{\|\Gamma_-}=0\},\label{B3}\\ &&Tf=T_1f+A_2 f,\ D(T)=D(T_1).\end{aligned}$$ It is known that the unbounded operators $T_1$ and $T$ are generators of strongly continuous semigroups in $L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})$ $U_1(t)$, $U(t)$ respectively (see for example [@dlen6 Proposition 2 pp 226]). In addition $U_1(t)$ and $U(t)$ preserve the cone of positive functions, and $U_1(t)$ is given explicitly by the following formula $$U_1(t)f=e^{-\int_0^t\sigma(x-sv,v)ds}f(x-tv,v)\Theta(x,x-tv),\textrm{ for a.e. }(x,v)\in X\times \S^{n-1},\label{B4}$$ for $f\in L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})$, where $$\Theta(x,y)= \left\lbrace \begin{matrix} 1\textrm{ if }x+p(y-x)\in X \textrm{ for all } p\in (0,1],\\ 0\textrm{ otherwise}, \end{matrix} \right.\label{B4.0}$$ for $(x,y)\in \R^n\times \R^n$. We recall the Dyson-Phillips formula $$U(t)=\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}H_m(t)\label{E1}$$ for $t\ge 0$, where $$\begin{aligned} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!H_m(t)&:=&\int\limits_{s_1\ge 0,\ldots,s_m\ge0\atop s_1+\ldots+s_m\le t}U_1(t-s_1-\ldots-s_m)A_2U_1(s_1)\ldots A_2U_1(s_m)ds_1\ldots ds_m,\ m\ge 1,\label{E1a}\\ \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!H_m(t)&=&\int_0^tH_{m-1}(t-s)A_2U_1(s)ds,\ m\ge 1, \label{E1b}\\ \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!H_0(t)&:=&U_1(t).\label{E1c}\end{aligned}$$ Trace results ------------- We introduce the following space $${\mathcal W}:=\{u\in L^1((0,T)\times X\times \S^{n-1})\ \|\ \left({\pa \over \pa t}+v\cdot\nabla_x\right)u\in L^1((0,T)\times X\times \S^{n-1})\},\label{B22a}$$ $$\\|u\\|_{\mathcal W}:=\\|u\\|_{L^1((0,T)\times X\times \S^{n-1})}+\left\\|\left({\pa\over \pa t}+v\cdot\nabla_x\right)u\right\\|_{L^1((0,T)\times X\times \S^{n-1})};\label{B22b}$$ where ${\pa \over \pa t}$ and $v\cdot\nabla_x$ are understood in the distributional sense. It is known (see [@C-CRAS-1984; @C-CRAS-1985]) that the trace map $\gamma_-$ (respectively $\gamma_+$) from $C^1([0,T]\times \bar X\times \S^{n-1})$ to $C(X\times \S^{n-1})\times C((0,T)\times \Gamma_\pm)$ defined by $$\gamma_-(\psi)=(\psi(0,.), \psi_{\|(0,T)\times \Gamma_-})\textrm{ (respectively }\gamma_+(\psi)= (\psi(T,.),\psi_{\|(0,T)\times \Gamma_+}{\rm )}$$ extends to a continuous operator from ${\cal W}$ onto $L^1(X\times \S^{n-1}, \tau_+(x,v)dx dv)\times L^1((0,T)\times \Gamma_-, \min(T-t,\tau_+(x,v))dtd\xi(x,v))$ (respectively $L^1(X\times \S^{n-1},\tau_-(x,v)dxdv)\times L^1((0,T)\times \Gamma_+,$ $\min(t,\tau_-(x,v))dtd\xi(x,v))$). In addition $\gamma_{\pm}$ admits a continuous lifting. Note that $L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})$ is a subset of $L^1(X\times \S^{n-1}, \tau_+(x,v)dx dv)$. Note also that $L^1((0,T)\times \Gamma_-,dt d\xi)$ (resp. $L^1((0,T)\times \Gamma_+,dt d\xi)$) is a subset of $L^1((0,T)\times \Gamma_-, \min(T-t,\tau_+(x,v))dtd\xi(x,v))$ (resp. $L^1((0,T)\times \Gamma_+, \min(t,$ $\tau_-(x,v))dtd\xi(x,v))$). We now introduce the space $$\tilde{\mathcal W}:=\{u\in {\mathcal W}\ \|\ \gamma_-(u)\in L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})\times L^1((0,T)\times \Gamma_-,dt d\xi)\}.\label{B33}$$ We recall the following trace results (owed to [@C-CRAS-1984; @C-CRAS-1985] in a more general setting). \[lem:traceW\] The following equality is valid $$\tilde{\mathcal W}=\{u\in {\mathcal W}\ \|\ \gamma_+(u)\in L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})\times L^1((0,T)\times \Gamma_+,dt d\xi)\}.\label{B4a}$$ In addition the trace maps $$\gamma_{\pm}:\tilde{\mathcal W}\to L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})\times L^1((0,T)\times \Gamma_\pm,dt d\xi)\textrm{ are continuous, onto, and admit continuous lifting.}\label{B4b}$$ Solution to equation --------------------- We identify the space $L^1((0,r),L^1(\Gamma_\pm,d\xi))$ with the space $L^1((0,r)\times\Gamma_\pm,dtd\xi)$ for any $r>0$. We extend by $0$ on $\R$ outside the interval $(0,\eta)$ any function $\phi\in L^1((0,\eta), L^1(\Gamma_-,d\xi))$. Let $\phi\in L^1((0,\eta),L^1(\Gamma_-,d\xi))$. Then we consider the lifting $G_-(t)\phi\in \tilde{\mathcal W}$ of $(0,\phi)$ defined by $$G_-(t)\phi(x,v):=e^{-\int_0^{\tau_-(x,v)}\sigma(x-sv,v)ds}\phi_-(t-\tau_-(x,v),x-\tau_-(x,v)v,v),\textrm{ for a.e. }(t,x,v)\in (0,T)\times X\times \S^{n-1}.\label{B5}$$ Note that $G_-(.)\phi$ is a solution in the distributional sense of the equation $({\pa \over \pa t}+v\cdot\nabla_x)u+\sigma u=0$ in $(0,T)\times X\times \S^{n-1}$ and $$\\|G_-(.)\phi\\|_{\mathcal W}\le (1+\\|\sigma\\|_{\infty})\\|G_-(.)\phi\\|_{L^1((0,T)\times X\times \S^{n-1})}\le (1+\\|\sigma\\|_{\infty})T\\|\phi_-\\|_{L^1((0,\eta)\times\Gamma_-,dt d\xi)}.\label{B6}$$ To prove this two latter statements, one can use the following change of variables (see [@CS-OSAKA-99]). \[lemchar\] We have $$\int_{X\times \S^{n-1}}f(x,v)dxdv=\int_{\Gamma_\mp}\int_0^{\tau_\pm(x,v)}f(x\pm tv)dtd\xi(x,v),\label{eq:lemchar}$$ for $f\in L^1(X\times V)$. From we obtain that the map $i:L^1((0,\eta), L^1(\Gamma_-,d\xi))\to \tilde{\mathcal W}$ defined by $$i(\phi)=G_-(.)\phi,\ \phi\in L^1((0,\eta), L^1(\Gamma_-,d\xi)),\label{B7}$$ is continuous. The following result holds (see [@dlen6 Theorem 3 p. 229]). \[lem:sol\] The equation admits a unique solution $u$ in $\tilde {\mathcal W}$ which is given by $$u(t)=G_-(t)\phi+\int_0^tU(t-s)A_2G_-(s)\phi ds.\label{B8}$$ where $U(t)$ is the strongly continuous semigroup in $L^1(X\times \S^{n-1})$ introduced in subsection \[semi\]. Using and the Dyson-Phillips expansion we obtain that the solution $u$ of may be decomposed as $$u(t)=G_-(t)\phi+\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^tH_m(t-s)A_2G_-(s)\phi ds,\label{DP}$$ for $t\ge 0$ and $\phi\in L^1((0,\eta)\times \pa X, dt d\mu(x))$. The first term in the above series $G_-(t)\phi$ is the ballistic part of $u(t)$ while the term corresponding to $m\geq1$ is $m$-linear in the scattering kernel $k$. The term corresponding to $m=1$ is the single scattering term. From , Lemma \[lem:sol\] and , we also obtain the existence of the albedo operator. \[lem:albedo\] The albedo operator $A$ given by the formula $$A\phi=u_{\|(0,T)\times \Gamma_+}, \textrm{ for } \phi\in L^1((0,\eta),L^1(\Gamma_-,d\xi))\textrm{ where }u\textrm{ is given by }\eqref{B8},$$ is well-defined and is a bounded operator from $L^1((0,\eta),L^1(\Gamma_-,d\xi))$ to $L^1((0,T),L^1(\Gamma_+,d\xi))$. We refer the reader to [@CS-CPDE-96] for the reconstruction of the optical parameters when the full albedo operator is known. We assume here that only partial knowledge of the albedo operator is available from measurements. The operator $A_{S,W}$ and its distributional kernel {#sec:albedoaveraged} ==================================================== Angularly averaged measurements ------------------------------- We now define more precisely the type of measurements we consider in this paper. The directional behavior of the source term is determined by a fixed function $S(x,v)$, which is bounded and continuous on $\Gamma_-$. We assume that the incoming conditions have the following structure $$\phi_S(t',x',v')=S(x',v')\phi(t',x'),\ t'\in (0,\eta),\ (x',v')\in \Gamma_-, \label{B9c}$$ where $\phi(t,x)$ is an arbitrary function in $L^1((0,\eta)\times \pa X)$. We model the detectors by the kernel $W(x,v)$, which we assume is a continuous and bounded function on $\Gamma_+$. The available measurements are therefore modeled by the availability of the averaged albedo operator $A_{S,W}$ from $L^1((0,\eta)\times \pa X,dt d\mu(x))$ to $L^1((0,T)\times \pa X,dtd\mu(x))$ and defined by $$A_{S,W}\phi(t,x)=\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}A(\phi_S)(t,x,v)W(x,v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)dv, \textrm{ for a.e. }(t,x)\in (0,T)\times \pa X.\label{B9a}$$ The functions $S$ and $W$ are fixed throughout the paper. The case $W\equiv1$ corresponds to measurements of the current of exiting particles at the domain’s boundary. The decomposition of the transport solution translates into a similar decomposition of the albedo operator of the form $$A_{S,W}\phi(t,x) =\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}A_{m,S,W}\phi(t,x),\label{E2a}$$ for $(t,x)\in (0,T)\times \pa X$, where we have defined $$A_{0,S,W}\phi(t,x)=\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}\hspace{-.0cm} (\nu(x)\cdot v) W(x,v)\left(G_-(.)\phi_S\right)_{\|(0,T)\times \Gamma_+} (t,x,v)dv,\label{E2b.1}$$ $$A_{m,S,W}\phi(t,x)=\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}(\hspace{-.0cm} \nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v)\left(\int_{-\infty}^t \hspace{-.2cm} H_{m-1}(t-s) A_2G_-(s)\phi_Sds\right)_{\|(0,T)\times \Gamma_+} \hspace{-1cm}(t,x,v)dv,\label{E2b}$$ for a.e. $(t,x)\in(0,T)\times \pa X$ where $\phi_S$ is defined by . The kernels of the operators $A_{m,S,W}$ can be written explicitly. Distributional kernel of the operators $A_{m,S,W}$ -------------------------------------------------- Consider the nonnegative measurable $E$ from $\pa X\times\pa X\to \R$ defined by $$E(x_1,x_2)= \left\lbrace \begin{matrix} e^{-\int_0^{\|x_1-x_2\|}\sigma(x_1-s{x_1-x_2\over \|x_1-x_2\|},{x_1-x_2\over\|x_1-x_2\|})ds}\textrm{ if }x_1+p(x_2-x_1)\in X \textrm{ for all } p\in (0,1),\\ 0\textrm{ otherwise},\label{paXtimespaX_N1} \end{matrix}\right.$$ for a.e. $(x_1,x_2)\in \pa X\times \pa X$. For $m\ge 3$, we also define the nonnegative measurable real function $E(x_1,\ldots,x_m)$ by the formula $$E(x_1,\ldots, x_m)=e^{-\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}\int_0^{\|x_i-x_{i+1}\|}\sigma(x_i-s{x_i-x_{i+1}\over \|x_i-x_{i+1}\|},{x_i-x_{i+1}\over\|x_i-x_{i+1}\|})ds}\Theta(x_m,x_{m-1})\Pi_{i=1}^{m-2}\Theta(x_i,x_{i+1}),\label{bar N2}$$ for a.e. $(x_1,\ldots,x_m)\in \pa X\times(\R^n)^{m-2}\times\pa X$, where $\Theta$ is defined by . The function $E(x_1,\ldots,x_m)$ measures the total attenuation along the broken path $(x_1,\ldots,x_m)\in \pa X\times \R^{m-2}\times\pa X$ provided $(x_2,\ldots, x_{m-1})\in X^{m-2}$. For $m\in \N$, $m\ge 1$ and for any subset $U$ of $\R^m$ we denote by $\chi_U$ the characteristic function from $\R^m$ to $\R$ defined by $\chi_U(y)=1$ when $y\in U$ and $\chi_U(y)=0$ otherwise. Using –, and – we then obtain the following result on the structure of the kernels of the albedo operator. \[prop:kernelA\] We have $$A_{m,S,W}(\phi)(t,x)=\int_{(0,\eta)\times \pa X} \gamma_m(t-t',x,x')\phi(t',x')dt'd\mu(x'),\label{E8}$$ for $m\ge 0$ and for a.e. $(t,x)\in (0,T)\times \pa X$, where $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_0(\tau,x,x')&:=&{E(x,x')\over \|x-x'\|^{n-1}}\left[W(x,v)S(x',v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)\|\nu(x')\cdot v\|\right]_{v={x-x'\over \|x-x'\|}}\delta(\tau-\|x-x'\|),\label{E8.0}\\ \gamma_1(\tau,x,x')&:=&\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\tau-\|x'-x\|)\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}(\nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v) \left[E(x,x-sv,x')k(x-s v,v',v)\right.\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times \left. \chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,v))}(s)S(x',v')\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\|\right]_ {\big\|v'={x-x'-sv\over \|x-x'-sv\|}\,;\,s={\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2\over 2(\tau-v\cdot (x-x'))}} {2^{n-2}(\tau-(x-x')\cdot v)^{n-3}\over \|x-x'-\tau v\|^{2n-4}} dv,\label{E8a}\end{aligned}$$ for $(\tau,x,x')\in\R\times \partial X\times\partial X$ and where $\gamma_m$ for $m\geq2$ admits a similar, more complex, expression given in Section \[proof\_thm\_normemultiplescat\] (see –). Because the above formulas are central in our uniqueness and stability results, we briefly present their derivation and refer the reader to Section \[proof\_kernelA\] for the rest of the proof of Proposition \[prop:kernelA\]. From and the definition of $G_-$, we obtain $A_{0,S,W}\phi(t,x)=\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}(\nu(x)\cdot v) W(x,v)E(x,x-\tau_-(x,v)v)S(x-\tau_-(x,v)v,v)\phi(t-\tau_-(x,v),x-\tau_-(x,v)v)dv$, $(t,x)\in (0,T)\times\pa X$ and for $\phi\in L^1((0,\eta)\times\pa X)$. Therefore, performing the change of variables “$x'$”$=x-\tau(x,v)v$ ($dv={\|\nu(x')\cdot v\|\over \|x-x'\|^{n-1}}d\mu(x')$ and $\tau(x,v)=\|x-x'\|$), we obtain . From the definition of $A_2$ and $G_-$ we note that $A_2G_-(s)\phi_S(z,w):=\int_{\S^{n-1}}k(z,v',w) E(z,z-\tau_-(z,v')v')S(z-\tau_-(z,v')v',v') \phi(s-\tau_-(z,v'),z-\tau_-(z,v')v')dv',$ for a.e. $(z,w)\in X\times \S^{n-1}$ and for $\phi\in L^1((0,\eta)\times\pa X)$. Performing the change of variables “$x'=z-\tau_-(z,v')v'$”, we obtain the equality $\left(A_2G_-(s)\phi_S\right)(z,w)=\int_{\pa X}\left[k(z,v',w)S(x',v')\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\| \right]_{v'={z-x'\over \|z-x'\|}}{E(z,x')\over \|z-x'\|^{n-1}}\phi(s-\|z-x'\|,x')d\mu(x')$, for a.e. $(z,w)\in X\times \S^{n-1}$ and $\phi\in L^1((0,\eta)\times\pa X)$. Using also the definition of $A_{1,S,W}$ (see for $m=1$) we obtain the following equality for any $\phi\in L^1((0,\eta)\times\pa X)$ and for a.e. $(t,x)\in (0,T)\times\pa X$ $$\begin{aligned} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!A_{1,S,W}(\phi)(t,x)=\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}\int_{-\infty}^t \int_{\pa X}\left[k(x-(t-s)v,v',v)S(x',v')\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\|\right]_{v'={x-(t-s)v-x'\over \|x-(t-s)v-x'\|}}(\nu(x)\cdot v)\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times{E(x,x-(t-s)v,x')\over \|x-(t-s)v-x'\|^{n-1}}\Theta(x,x-(t-s)v)\phi(s-\|x-(t-s)v-x'\|,x')W(x,v)d\mu(x')ds dv.\label{E11a} \end{aligned}$$ Then performing the changes of variables “$s$”$=t-s$ and “$t'$”$=t-s-\|x-sv-x'\|$ ($s={(t-t')^2-\|x-x'\|^2\over 2(t-t'-v\cdot (x-x'))}$, ${dt'\over ds}={2((t-t')-(x-x')\cdot v)^2\over \|x-x'-(t-t')v\|^2}$), we obtain . To simplify notation, we define the multiple scattering kernels $$\label{eq:msop} \Gamma_k = {\displaystyle\sum}_{m=k}^\infty \gamma_m.$$ Regularity of the albedo kernels -------------------------------- The reconstruction of the optical parameters is based on an analysis of the behavior in time of the kernels of the albedo operator. Our first result in this direction is the following. \[theorem:normesimplescat\] Assume that $k\in L^\infty(X\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1})$. Then the following holds: $$\begin{aligned} \label{A6b} \sqrt{\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2}\gamma_1(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X) && \mbox{ when } n=2; \\ \label{A6c} {\tau\|x-x'\|\over \ln\left({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over \tau-\|x-x'\|}\right)}\gamma_1(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X) && \mbox{ when }n=3; \\ \tau\|x-x'\|^{n-2}\gamma_1(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X) && \mbox{ when } n\geq4 \label{A6d}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, assume that $k\in L^\infty(X\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1})$ and that there exists $\delta>0$ such that ${\rm supp}k\subseteq\{y\in X\ \|\ \inf_{x\in \pa X}\|x-y\|\ge \delta\}$, i.e., the scattering coefficient vanishes in the vicinity of $\partial X$. Then, the following holds $$(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{{3-n\over 2}}\gamma_1(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times \pa X\times \pa X) \qquad \mbox{ when } n\ge 2.\label{A6e}$$ Theorem \[theorem:normesimplescat\] is proved in Section \[proof\_thm\_normesimplescat\]. The results and of Theorem \[theorem:normesimplescat\] correspond to singularities of the single scattering contribution that depend on the values of $k$ on $\partial X$. The above theorem shows that the structure of the single scattering coefficient is quite different depending on whether $k$ vanishes on $\partial X$ or not. The following result describes some regularity properties of the multiple scattering. It is because multiple scattering is [more regular]{} than single scattering, in an appropriate sense, that we can reconstruct the scattering coefficient in a stable manner. \[theorem:normemultiplescat\] Assume that $k\in L^\infty(X\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1})$. Then the following holds: $$\begin{aligned} \label{A6b-} \Gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X), && \mbox{ when } n=2; \\ {\tau \|x-x'\|\Gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\over (\tau-\|x-x'\|)\left(1+\ln\left({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over \tau-\|x-x'\|}\right)\right)^2}\in L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X),\label{A6c-} && \mbox{ when } n= 3; \\ {\tau\|x-x'\|^{n-2}\over \tau-\|x-x'\|}\Gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X\times \pa X), && \mbox{ when } n\geq4.\label{A6d-}\end{aligned}$$ In addition, assume that $k\in L^\infty(X\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1})$ and that there exists $\delta>0$ such that ${\rm supp}k\subseteq\{y\in X\ \|\ \inf_{x\in \pa X}\|x-y\|\ge \delta\}$. Then the following holds: $$(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{-1}\left(1+\ln\left({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over \tau-\|x-x'\|}\right)\right)^{-1}\Gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times \pa X\times \pa X),\ \mbox{ when } n=3;\label{A6e-3}$$ $$(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{{1-n\over 2}}\Gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times \pa X\times \pa X),\ \mbox{ when } n\geq4 .\label{A6e-}$$ Theorem \[theorem:normemultiplescat\] is proved in Section \[proof\_thm\_normemultiplescat\]. These results quantify how “smoother” multiple scattering is compared to the single scattering contribution considered in Theorem \[theorem:normesimplescat\]. Asymptotics of the single scattering term ----------------------------------------- In this subsection we assume that $X$ is also convex. We give limits for the single scattering term in two configurations given by: $$\begin{array}{l} \textrm{the nonnegative function }\sigma \textrm{ is bounded and continuous on }X\times \S^{n-1},\\ \textrm{the nonnegative function }k \textrm{ is continuous on }\bar X\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}; \end{array} \label{H1}$$ or $$\begin{array}{l} \textrm{there exists a convex open subset }Y\subseteq X\textrm{ with } C^1\textrm{ boundary such that } \sigma(x,v)=0 \\\textrm{for }(x,v)\in (X\b Y)\times\S^{n-1}\textrm{ and } \textrm{the nonnegative function } \sigma\textrm{ is bounded and}\\\textrm{continuous on } Y\times\S^{n-1}; \textrm{ and } \textrm{there exists a convex open subset }Z\subseteq Y\subseteq X \\ \textrm{with }C^1\textrm{ boundary such that } \delta:=\inf_{(x,z)\in \pa X\times Z}\|x-z\|>0 \textrm{ and }k(x,v',v)=0 \\ \textrm{for }(x,v',v)\in (X\b Z)\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}, \textrm{ and the nonnegative function }k \\ \textrm{is bounded and continuous on }Z\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}, \end{array} \label{H2}$$ When either or is satisfied, we want to analyze the behavior of the function $\gamma_1(\tau,x,x')$ given by the right hand side of for all $(\tau,x,x')\in \R\times \pa X\times\pa X$. We need to introduce some notation. Let $\vartheta_0:\S^{n-1}\times X\to \R$ be the function defined by $$\vartheta_0(v,x)=(\tau_-(x,v)\tau_+(x,v))^{-{n-1\over 2}},\ (v,x)\in \S^{n-1}\times X,\label{poids1.0}$$ and consider the weighted X-ray transform $P_{\vartheta_0}$ defined by $$P_{\vartheta_0}f(v,x)=\int_{\tau_-(x,v)}^{\tau_+(x,v)}\vartheta_0(v,tv+x)f(tv+x)dt,\label{poids1}$$ for a.e. $(v,x)\in \S^{n-1}\times \pa X$ and $f\in L^2(X,\sup_{v\in \S^{n-1}}\vartheta_0(v,x)dx)$. The first result analyzes the behavior of $\gamma_1$ under hypothesis . \[theorem:limH1\] Assume that the open subset $X$ of $\R^n$ with $C^1$ boundary is convex. Let $(x,x_0')\in \pa X^2$ be such that $x+s(x-x_0')\in X$ for some $s\in (0,1)$. Set $v_0={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}$ and $t_0=\|x-x_0'\|$. Then under condition , we have the following results. When $n=2$, then $$\begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle\gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0')=&\displaystyle {1\over \sqrt{\tau-t_0}}{\sqrt{2}W(x,v_0)S(x_0',v_0)(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\| E(x,x_0')\over \sqrt{t_0}}\\ &\displaystyle\times P_{\vartheta_0}k_{v_0}(v_0,x)+o\Big({1\over\sqrt{\tau-t_0}}\Big),\ \textrm{ as }\tau\to t_0^+, \end{array}\label{A7b}$$ where $P_{\vartheta_0}$ is defined by and $k_{v_0}(y):=k(y,v_0,v_0)$ for $y\in X$.\ When $n=3$, then $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0')&=&\ln({1\over \tau-t_0}){\pi\over t_0^2}W(x,v_0)S(x_0',v_0)(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\|E(x,x_0')\nonumber\\ &&\times\left(k(x,v_0,v_0)+k(x_0',v_0,v_0)\right)+o\Big(\ln({1\over \tau-t_0})\Big),\textrm{ as }\tau\to t_0^+.\label{A7c}\end{aligned}$$ When $n\ge 4$, then $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0')&=&t_0^{1-n}E(x,x_0')\left[S(x_0',v_0)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\|\int_{\S_{x,+}^{n-1}} \dfrac{W(x,v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)k(x,v_0,v)}{1-v\cdot v_0} dv \right. \nonumber\\ &&\left.+W(x,v_0)(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\int_{\S_{x_0',-}^{n-1}} \dfrac{k(x_0',v',v_0)S(x_0',v')\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v'\|}{1-v'\cdot v_0} dv'\right]\nonumber\\ &&+o(1),\ \textrm{as }\tau\to t_0^+. \label{A7d}\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \[theorem:limH1\] is proved in Section \[proof\_thm\_H1H2\]. Note that $\gamma_1$ depends on the value of $k$ on $\partial X$ in dimension $n\geq3$. Under hypothesis , i.e., when the scattering coefficient vanishes in the vicinity of where measurements are collected, we have the quite different behavior: \[theorem:limH2\] Assume that the open subset $X$ of $\R^n$ with $C^1$ boundary is also convex and assume that condition is fulfilled. Let $(x,x_0')\in \pa X^2$ be such that $x_0'+s(x-x_0')\in Z$ for some $s\in (0,1)$. Set $v_0={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}$ and $t_0=\|x-x_0'\|$. Then we have the following. When $n=2$, then still holds. When $n\ge3$, then $$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{l} \displaystyle\gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0')=(\tau-t_0)^{n-3\over 2} (2t_0)^{{1-n\over 2}}{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})S(x_0',v_0)W(x,v_0)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\|(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\\[3mm] \displaystyle\times E(x,x_0')P_{\vartheta_0}k_{v_0}(v_0,x)+o((\tau-t_0)^{n-3\over 2}), \ \textrm{as }\tau\to t_0^+, \end{array}\label{A7e}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{\vartheta_0}$ is defined by and $k_{v_0}(y):=k(y,v_0,v_0)$ for $y\in X$. Theorem \[theorem:limH2\] is proved in Section \[proof\_thm\_H1H2\]. Theorem \[theorem:limH2\] may remain valid under different conditions from those stated in . For instance, when $\sigma$ is bounded and continuous on $X$ and $k$ is continuous on $X\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}$ and $k(x,.,.)$ decays sufficiently rapidly as $x$ get closer and closer to the boundary $\pa X$ for any $x\in X$, then the same asymptotics of $\gamma_1$ holds. Uniqueness and stability results {#sec:stab} ================================ We denote by $\gamma:=\Gamma_0=\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\gamma_m$ the distributional kernel of $A_{S,W}$. Then $\gamma-\gamma_0=\Gamma_1$ denotes the distributional kernel of the multiple scattering of $A_{S,W}$. For the rest of the paper, we assume that the duration of measurement $T>\diam:=\sup_{(x,y)\in X^2}\|x-y\|$ so that the singularities of the ballistic and single scattering contributions are indeed captured by the available measurements. Let $(\tilde \sigma,\tilde k)$ be a pair of absorption and scattering coefficients that also satisfy . We denote by a superscript $\tilde {}$ any object (such as the albedo operator $\tilde A$ or the distributional kernels $\tilde \gamma$ and $\tilde \gamma_0$) associated to $(\tilde \sigma,\tilde k)$. Moreover if $(\sigma,k)$ satisfies for some $(Y,Z)$ and $(\tilde\sigma, \tilde k)$ also satisfies for some $(\tilde Y, \tilde Z)$, then we always make the additional assumption $Y=\tilde Y$ and $Z=\tilde Z$. Let $\\|.\\|_{\eta,T}:=\\|.\\|_{{\cal L}(L^1((0,\eta)\times \pa X)), L^1((0,T)\times \pa X))}$. Stability estimates under condition or --------------------------------------- \[theorem:stabH1\] Assume that the open subset $X$ of $\R^n$ with $C^1$ boundary is also convex. Let $(\sigma,k)$ and $(\tilde \sigma, \tilde k)$ satisfy condition . Let $x_0'\in \pa X$. Then we have: $$\int_{\pa X}\left[{\|E-\tilde E\|(x,x_0')\over \|x-x_0'\|^{n-1}} W(x,v_0)S(x',v_0)(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\|\right]_{t_0= \|x-x_0'\|\atop v_0={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! d\mu(x)\le\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}.\label{stab1.a}$$ Let $x\in \pa X$ be such that $px_0'+(1-p)x\in X$ for some $p\in(0,1)$. Set $v_0={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}$ and $t_0=\|x-x_0'\|$. When $n=2$, we have $$\begin{aligned} &&W(x,v_0)S(x_0',v_0)(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\| \left\|E(x,x_0')P_{\vartheta_0}k_{v_0}(v_0,x)-\tilde E(x,x_0')P_{\vartheta_0}\tilde k_{v_0}(v_0,x)\right\|\nonumber\\ &&\le {1\over 2}\left\\|\sqrt{\tau^2-\|z-z'\|^2} (\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty},\label{stab1.b}\end{aligned}$$ where $\\|\cdot\\|_{L^\infty} := \\|\cdot \\|_{L^\infty((0,T)\times \pa X\times\pa X)}$, $P_{\vartheta_0}$ is defined by and $k_{v_0}(y):=k(y,v_0,v_0)$ for $y\in X$ ($\tilde k_{v_0}$ is defined similarly). When $n=3$, then $$\begin{aligned} &&\left\|E(x,x_0')(k(x,v_0,v_0)+k(x_0',v_0,v_0))-\tilde E(x,x_0') (\tilde k(x,v_0,v_0)+ \tilde k(x_0',v_0,v_0))\right\|\nonumber\\ &&\times W(x,v_0)S(x_0',v_0)(\nu(x)\cdot v_0) \|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\| \le {1\over \pi}\left\\|{\tau\|z-z'\|\over \ln\left({\tau+\|z-z'\|\over \tau-\|z-z'\|}\right)} (\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z')\right\\| _{L^\infty}.\label{stab1.c}\end{aligned}$$ When $n\ge 4$, then $$\begin{aligned} &&S(x_0',v_0)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\|\left\|\int_{\S_{x,+}^{n-1}}{W(x,v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)\over 1-v\cdot v_0}\right.\left(E(x,x_0')k(x,v_0,v)-\tilde E(x,x_0')\tilde k(x,v_0,v)\right)dv \nonumber\\ &&+W(x,v_0)(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\left.\int_{\S_{x_0',-}^{n-1}}{S(x_0',v')\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v'\|\over 1-v'\cdot v_0} \left(E(x,x_0')k(x_0',v',v_0)-\tilde E(x,x_0')\tilde k(x_0',v',v_0)\right)dv'\right\| \nonumber\\ &&\le\left\\|\tau \|z-z'\|^{n-2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1) (\tau,z,z')\right\\|_{L^\infty}.\label{stab1.d}\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \[theorem:stabH1\] is proved in Section \[proof\_thm\_normesimplescat\]. It shows that the spatial structure of $k$ may be stably reconstructed at the domain’s boundary. More interesting is the following theorem, which provides some stability of the reconstruction of the scattering coefficient when it vanishes in the vicinity of the boundary $\partial X$. \[theorem:stabH2\] Assume that the open subset $X$ of $\R^n$ with $C^1$ boundary is also convex. Assume also that $\inf_{(x',v')\in \Gamma_-}S(x',v')>0$ and $\inf_{(x,v)\in \Gamma_+}W(x,v)>0$. Let $(\sigma,k)$ and $(\tilde \sigma,\tilde k)$ satisfy condition . Let $x_0'\in \pa X$. Then there exist constants $C_1=C_1(S,W,X,Y)$ and $C_2=C_2(S,W,X,Z)$ such that $$\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x_0',-}}\|E-\tilde E\|(x_0'+\tau_+(x_0',v_0)v_0,x_0')\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\|dv_0\le C_1\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T},\label{stab2.a}$$ $$\left\|E(x,x_0')P_{\vartheta_0}k_{v_0'}(v_0',x_0')-\tilde E(x,x_0') P_{\vartheta_0}\tilde k_{v_0'}(v_0',x_0') \right\| \le C_2\left\\|(\tau-\|z-z'\|)^{3-n\over 2} (\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty},\label{stab2.b}$$ for $x\in \pa X$ such that $px_0'+(1-p)x\in Z$ for some $p\in (0,1)$ where $v_0'={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}$, $P_{\vartheta_0}$ is defined in , and $k_{v_0'}(y):=k(y,v_0',v_0')$ for $y\in X$ ($\tilde k_{v_0'}$ is defined similarly). Theorem \[theorem:stabH2\], which is one of the main results of this paper, is proved in Section \[proof\_thm\_normemultiplescat\]. The case when $X$ is a ball of $\R^n$ ------------------------------------- When $X$ is an open Euclidean ball of $\R^n$, which is important from the practical point of view in medical imaging as it is relatively straightforward to place sources and detectors on a sphere, we are able to invert the weighted X-ray transform $P_{\vartheta_0}f$, $f(x,v):=f(x)\in L^2(X,\sup_{v\in \S^{n-1}}\vartheta_0(v,x)dx)$ using the classical inverse X-ray transform (inverse Radon transform in dimension $n=2$). In the next subsection we shall consider a larger class of domains $X$, which requires one to solve more complex weighted X-ray transforms. Up to rescaling, we assume $X=B_n(0,1)$, the ball in $\R^n$ centered at $0$ of radius $1$. Consider the X-ray transform $P$ defined by $$Pf(v,x)=\int_{\tau_-(x,v)}^{\tau_+(x,v)}f(sv+x)ds\textrm{ for a.e. }(v,x)\in \S^{n-1}\times \pa X,\label{x-ray}$$ for $f\in L^2(X)$ (we extend $f$ by 0 outside $X$). We have the following Proposition \[linkx-ray\]. \[linkx-ray\] When $X=B_n(0,1)$ we have $$P_{\vartheta_0}f(v,x)=P(\varrho f)(v,x), \textrm{ for a.e. }(v,x)\in \S^{n-1}\times \pa X,\label{link}$$ for $f\in L^2(X,\sup_{v\in \S^{n-1}}\vartheta_0(v,x)dx)$ where $\varrho(y):=(1-\|y\|^2)^{-{n-1\over 2}}$, $y\in X$. It is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned} \tau_\pm(tv+qv^\bot,v)&=&\sqrt{1-q^2}\mp t,\label{ball1}\\ \vartheta_0(v,x)&=&(1-q^2-t^2)^{-{n-1\over2}}=(1-\|x\|^2)^{-{n-1\over 2}}, \label{ball2}\end{aligned}$$ for $(t,q)\in \R^2$, $t^2+q^2\le 1$ and for $(v,v^\bot)\in \S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}$, $v\cdot v^\bot=0$, where $x=tv+qv^\bot$ (we remind that $\vartheta_0$ is defined by ). Then Proposition \[linkx-ray\] follows from the definition . Assume that $(\sigma,k)$ satisfies condition when $n=2$ or when $n\ge 2$. Assume also that $k(x,v,v')=k_0(x)g(v,v')$ for a.e. $(x,v,v')\in X\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}$ where $g$ is a given continuous function on $\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}$, $\inf_{v\in \S^{n-1}}g(v,v)>0$, and where $k_0\in L^\infty(X)$. Then from the decomposition of the angularly averaged albedo operator $A_{S,W}$ (Proposition \[prop:kernelA\]) and from Theorems \[theorem:normesimplescat\], \[theorem:normemultiplescat\], \[theorem:limH1\] and \[theorem:limH2\], and from Proposition \[linkx-ray\] and methods of reconstruction of a function from its X-ray transform, it follows that $(\sigma, k_0)$ can be reconstructed from the asymptotic expansion in time of $A_{S,W}$ provided that $\sigma=\sigma(x)$ and $\inf_{(x',v')\in \Gamma_-}S(x',v')>0$ and $\inf_{(x,v)\in \Gamma_+}W(x,v)>0$. In addition we have the following stability estimates. \[cor\_ball\] Assume $X=B_n(0,1)$ and $\inf_{(x',v')\in \Gamma_-}S(x',v')>0$ and $\inf_{(x,v)\in \Gamma_+}W(x,v)>0$. Let $(\sigma,k)$ and $(\tilde \sigma,\tilde k)$ satisfy either condition or . Assume that $\sigma$, $\tilde \sigma$ do not depend on the velocity variable ($\sigma(x,v)=\sigma(x)$) and ${\rm supp}\sigma\cup{\rm supp}\tilde \sigma\subseteq Y$, where $Y\subseteq X$ is a convex open subset of $\R^n$ with $C^1$ boundary, and let $M=\max(\\|\sigma\\|_{L^\infty(Y)},\\|\tilde \sigma\\|_{L^\infty(Y)})$. Assume $k(x,v,v')=k_0(x)g(v,v')$ and $\tilde k(x,v,v')=\tilde k_0(x)g(v,v')$, $g(v,v)>0$, for $(x,v,v')\in X\times \S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}$ where $g$ is an a priori known continuous function on $\S^{n-1}\times \S^{n-1}$. Then there exists $C_3=C_3(S,W,X,Y,M)$ such that $$\\|\sigma-\tilde\sigma\\|_{H^{-{1\over 2}}(Y)}\le C_3\\|\sigma-\tilde\sigma\\|_{L^\infty(Y)}^{1\over 2}\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}^{1\over 2}.\label{eq:cor1}$$ When $n\ge 2$ and $(\sigma,k)$ satisfies , there exists $C_{4,1}=C_{4,1}(S,W,X,Y,Z,M,g)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \\|\varrho(k_0-\tilde k_0)\\|_{H^{-{1\over 2}}(Z)}&\le& C_{4,1}\\|k_0-\tilde k_0\\|_\infty^{1\over 2}\left(\\|\tilde k_0\\|_\infty\\|A_{S,W} -\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}\right.\label{eq:cor2H2}\\ &&\left.+\left\\|(\tau-\|z-z'\|)^{3-n\over 2} (\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty}\right)^{{1\over 2}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ When $n=2$ and $(\sigma,k)$ satisfies , there exists $C_{4,2}=C_{4,2}(S,W,X,M,g)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \\|\varrho(k_0-\tilde k_0)\\|_{H^{-{1\over 2}}(X)}&\le& C_{4,2}\\|k_0-\tilde k_0\\|_\infty^{3\over 4}\left(\\|\tilde k_0\\|_\infty\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}\right.\label{eq:cor2H1}\\ &&\left.+\left\\|\sqrt{\tau^2-\|z-z'\|^2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty}\right)^{{1\over 4}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \[cor\_ball\] can be proved by mimicking the proof of Theorem \[cor\] given below for a larger class of domains $X$. However we give a proof of estimate in Section \[proof\_thm\_stabH1H2\_cor\]. Note that the left-hand side $\\|\varrho(k_0-\tilde k_0)\\|_{H^{-{1\over 2}}(Z)}$ of can be replaced by $\\|k_0-\tilde k_0\\|_{H^{-{1\over 2}}(Z)}$ since $\varrho^{-1}\in C^\infty(\bar Z)$ and the operator $f\to \varrho^{-1}f$ is bounded in $H^{-{1\over 2}}(Z)$ for any open convex subset $Z$ (with $C^1$ boundary) of $X$ which satisfies $\bar Z\subseteq X$. Under the assumptions of Theorem \[cor\_ball\] and additional regularity assumptions on $(\sigma,k)$ one obtains stability estimates similar to those given in Corollary \[cor2\] given below for a larger class of domains $X$. Uniqueness and stability estimates for more general domains $X$ --------------------------------------------------------------- \[cor\] Assume that the open subset $X$ of $\R^n$ is convex with a real analytic boundary and that $\inf_{(x',v')\in \Gamma_-}S(x',v')>0$ and $\inf_{(x,v)\in \Gamma_+}W(x,v)>0$. Let $(\sigma,k)$ and $(\tilde \sigma,\tilde k)$ satisfy condition . Assume also that $\sigma$, $\tilde \sigma$ do not depend on the velocity variable ($\sigma(x,v)=\sigma(x)$) and $k(x,v,v')=k_0(x)g(x,v,v')$ and $\tilde k(x,v,v')=\tilde k_0(x)g(x,v,v')$, $g(x,v,v')>0$, for $(x,v,v')\in X\times \S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}$ where $g$ is an a priori known real analytic function on $X\times \S^{n-1}\times \S^{n-1}$ and where ${\rm supp}k_0\cup{\rm supp}\tilde k_0\subseteq \bar Z$, $(k_0,\tilde k_0)\in L^\infty(Z)$. Then estimate still holds and there exists $C_4=C_4(S,W,X,Y,Z,M,g)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \\|k_0-\tilde k_0\\|_{H^{-{1\over 2}}(Z)}&\le& C_4\\|k-\tilde k\\|_\infty^{1\over 2}\left(\\|\tilde k\\|_\infty\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}\right.\label{eq:cor2}\\ &&\left.+\left\\|(\tau-\|z-z'\|)^{3-n\over 2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty}\right)^{{1\over 2}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $M=\max(\\|\sigma\\|_{L^\infty(Y)},\\|\tilde \sigma\\|_{L^\infty(Y)})$. Theorem \[cor\] is proved in Section \[proof\_thm\_stabH1H2\_cor\]. Assume that $X$ is convex with a real analytic boundary and that $\inf_{(x',v')\in \Gamma_-}S(x',v')>0$ and $\inf_{(x,v)\in \Gamma_+}W(x,v)>0$. Let $Y$ and $Z$ be open convex subsets of $X$, $\bar Z\subset X$, $Z\subseteq Y\subseteq X$, with a $C^1$ boundary. Let $g$ be an a priori known real analytic function on $X\times \S^{n-1}\times \S^{n-1}$, $g(x,v,v')>0$ for $(x,v,v')\in X\times \S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}$. Let $r_1>0$, $r_2>0$. Consider the class $$\begin{aligned} N&:=&\big\{(\sigma, k) \in H^{{n\over 2}+r_1}(Y)\times L^\infty(Z\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}) \ \|\ \\|\sigma\\|_{H^{{n\over 2}+r_1}(Y)}\le M_1,\nonumber\\ &&k=k_0g,\ {\rm supp}k_0\subseteq\bar Z,\ \\|k_0\\|_{H^{{n\over 2}+r_2}(Z)}\le M_2\big\}.\label{eq:cor4}\end{aligned}$$ Note that there exist a function $D_1:\N\times(0,+\infty)\to (0,+\infty)$ such that $$\begin{array}{l} \\|\sigma\\|_{L^\infty(Y)}\le D_1(n,r_1)\\|\sigma\\|_{H^{{n\over 2}+r_1}(Y)}\le D_1(n,r_1)M_1,\\ \\|k_0\\|_{L^\infty(Z)}\le D_1(n,r_2)\\|k_0\\|_{H^{{n\over 2}+r_2}(Z)}\le D_1(n,r_2)M_2,\\ \\|k\\|_{L^\infty(Z)}\le \\|g\\|_{L^\infty(Z)}\\|k_0\\|_{L^\infty(Z)}\le D_1(n,r_2)M_2\\|g\\|_{L^\infty(Z)}, \end{array} \label{eq:cor4b}$$ for $(\sigma,k)\in N$. We also use the interpolation formula $$\\|f\\|_{H^s(O)}\le \\|f\\|_{H^{s_1}(O)}^{s_2-s\over s_2-s_1}\\|f\\|_{H^{s_2}(O)}^{s-s_1\over s_2-s_1},\label{eq:cor4c}$$ for $s_1<s<s_2$ and for $(O,s_1,s_2)\in \{(Y,-{1\over 2},{n\over 2}+r_1),\ (Z,-{1\over 2},{n\over 2}+r_2)\}$. Using Theorem \[cor\] and , and applying on $f=\sigma-\tilde \sigma$ and $f=k_0-\tilde k_0$ we obtain the following result. \[cor2\] Let $(\sigma, k)$, $(\tilde \sigma,\tilde k)\in N$. Then, for $-{1\over 2}\le s\le {n\over 2}+r_1$ and for $0<r<r_1$, there exists $C_5=C_5(S,W,X,Y,M_1,r_1,s)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \\|\sigma-\tilde\sigma\\|_{H^s(Y)}&\le& C_5\\|\sigma-\tilde\sigma \\|_{L^\infty(Y)}^{\kappa\over 2}\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}^{\kappa\over 2},\label{eq:cor5}\\ \\|\sigma-\tilde\sigma\\|_{H^{{n\over 2}+r}(Y)}&\le& C_6\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}^{\kappa'\over 2-\kappa'},\label{eq:cor5b}\end{aligned}$$ where $(\kappa,\kappa')=\left({n+2(r_1-s)\over n+1+2r_1},{2(r_1-r)\over n+1+2r_1}\right)$ and $C_6=C_5^{2\over 2-\kappa'}D_1(n,r)^{\kappa'\over 2-\kappa'}$ ($D_1(n,r)$ is defined by ). In addition, there exists $C_7=C_7(S,W,X,Y,Z,g,M_1,r_1,M_2,r_2,s)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \\|k_0-\tilde k_0\\|_{H^s(Z)}&\le& C_7\\|k_0-\tilde k_0\\|_{L^\infty(Z)}^{\kappa\over 2}\left(\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T} \right. \label{eq:cor6} \\ &&\left. +\left\\|(\tau-\|z-z'\|)^{3-n\over 2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty}\right)^{\kappa\over 2},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\\|k_0-\tilde k_0\\|_{H^{{n\over 2}+r}(Z)}\le C_8\left(\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T} \label{eq:cor6b} +\left\\|(\tau-\|z-z'\|)^{3-n\over 2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty}\right)^{\kappa'\over 2-\kappa'},$$ for $-{1\over 2}\le s\le {n\over 2}+r_2$ and $0<r<r_2$, where $(\kappa,\kappa')=\left({n+2(r_2-s)\over n+1+2r_2},{2(r_2-r)\over n+1+2r_2}\right)$ and $C_8=C_7^{2\over 2-\kappa'}D_1(n,r)^{\kappa'\over 2-\kappa'}$ ($D_1(n,r)$ is defined by ). \[rem:cor2\] (i.) Theorem \[cor\] and Corollary \[cor2\] remain valid when: $X$ is only assumed to be convex with $C^2$ boundary; the weight $\vartheta_o$ defined by (resp. the function $g$ which appears in the assumptions of Theorem \[cor\] and Corollary \[cor2\]) is sufficiently close (in the $C^2$ norm) to an analytic weight $\theta_{0,a}$ on the vicinity of $\bar Z\times \S^{n-1}$ (resp. an analytic function $g_a$ on the vicinity of $\bar Z\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}$); see proof of Theorem \[cor\] and [@FSU-JGA-08 Theorem 2.3]. (ii.) When $n=3$ then under hypothesis , we have $$\begin{aligned} \left\\|(\tau-\|z-z'\|)^{3-n\over 2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty} =\left\\|\sum_{m=1}^\infty (A_{m,S,W}-\tilde A_{m,S,W})\right\\|_{{\cal L}(L^1((0,\eta)\times\pa X),L^{\infty}((0,T)\times\pa X))}.\end{aligned}$$ where the distributional kernel of the bounded operator $\sum_{m=1}^{+\infty}(A_{m,S,W}-\tilde A_{m,S,W})$ from $L^1((0,\eta)\times\pa X)$ to $L^1((0,T)\times \pa X)$ is given by $\Gamma_1-\tilde\Gamma_1$. Therefore when $n=3$ and under condition , the right-hand side of the stability estimates and can be expressed with operator norms only (instead of using a norm on the distributional kernel of the multiple scattering). Proof of Theorems \[theorem:limH1\], \[theorem:limH2\] {#proof_thm_H1H2} ====================================================== For the sake of simplicity and without loss of generality we assume $v_0=(1,0,\ldots,0)$. Assume that condition is satisfied. For $n\ge 2$ consider the following open subset of $(0,+\infty)\times \S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1}$ $${\cal D}:=\{(s,v,v')\in (0,+\infty)\times \S^{n-1}_{x,+}\times \S^{n-1}_{x_0',-}\ \|\ s\in (0,\tau_-(x,v))\}.\label{1.9a}$$ Then we introduce the bounded function $\Psi_n$ on ${\cal D}$ defined by $$\Psi_n(s,v,v')=2^{n-2}W(x,v)(\nu(x)\cdot v) E(x,x-s v,x_0')k(x-s v,v',v)S(x_0',v')\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v'\|,\label{1.9b}$$ for $(s,v,v')\in {\cal D}$. Note that from convexity of $X$ it follows that $\tau_{\pm}$ is continuous on $\Gamma_{\mp}$ and $E(x,x-sv,x_0')=e^{-\int_0^s\sigma(x-pv,v)dp-\int_0^{\|x-x_0'-sv\|}\sigma(x-sv-p{x-x_0'-sv\over \|x-x_0'-sv\|},{x-x_0'-sv\over \|x-x_0'-sv\|})dp}$ for $v\in \S^{n-1}_{x,+}$ and $0<s<\tau_-(x,v)$. Under we obtain that $$\begin{array}{l} \Psi_n(s,v,v')=0\textrm{ for }(s,v,v')\in (0,+\infty)\times\S_{x,+}^{n-1}\times\S_{x_0',-}^{n-1}\textrm{ such that }x-sv\not\in \bar Z,\\ \textrm{and the function }\Psi_n \textrm{ is continuous at any point }(s,v,v')\in {\cal D} \textrm{ such that }x-sv\in Z. \end{array} \label{limH2.1}$$ We first prove for $n=2$. Let $\tau>t_0$. From , , it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0')&=&\int_{-\alpha_0}^{\pi-\alpha_0}{1\over \tau-t_0\cos(\Omega)}\left[\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,v))}(s)\Psi_2(s,v,v')\right]_{{v=(\cos \Omega,\sin\Omega)\atop v'={t_0(1,0)-sv \over \tau-s}} \atop s={\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0\cos(\Omega))}} d\Omega\nonumber\\ &=&\gamma_{1,1}(\tau,x,x_0')+\gamma_{1,2}(\tau,x,x_0'),\label{1.9c}\end{aligned}$$ where $\S^{n-1}_{x,+}=\{(\cos\Omega,\sin \Omega)\ \| \ -\alpha_0<\Omega<\pi -\alpha_0\}$ ($0<\alpha_0<\pi$) and $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_{1,1}(\tau,x,x_0')&=&\int_0^{\pi}{\chi_{(0,\pi-\alpha_0)}(\Omega)\over \tau-t_0\cos(\Omega)}\left[\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,v))}(s)\Psi_2(s,v,v')\right]_{{v=(\cos\Omega,\sin \Omega) \atop v'={t_0(1,0)-sv \over \tau-s}} \atop s={\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0\cos(\Omega))}}d\Omega,\label{1.9d}\\ \gamma_{1,2}(\tau,x,x_0')&=&\int_{-\pi}^0{\chi_{(-\alpha_0,0)}(\Omega)\over \tau-t_0\cos(\Omega)}\left[\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,v))}(s)\Psi_2(s,v,v')\right]_{{v=(\cos\Omega,\sin \Omega) \atop v'={t_0(1,0)-s v\over \tau-s}} \atop s={\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0\cos(\Omega))}}d\Omega.\label{1.9e}\end{aligned}$$ We shall prove that $$\begin{aligned} &&\sqrt{\tau-t_0}\gamma_{1,i}(\tau,x,x_0')\to {W(x,v_0)S(x_0',v_0)(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\|E(x_0',x)\over \sqrt{2t_0}} \int_0^{t_0}{k(x-s v_0,v_0,v_0)\over \sqrt{s(t_0-s)}}ds,\nonumber\\ &&{\rm as}\ \tau\to t_0^+,\label{1.9f}\end{aligned}$$ for $i=1,2$. Then adding for $i=1$ and $i=2$, we obtain . We only prove for $i=1$ since the proof for $i=2$ is similar. Let $\tau>t_0$. Using the change of variables $s={\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0\cos(\Omega))}-{\tau-t_0\over 2}$, we obtain $$\gamma_{1,1}(\tau,x,x_0')={1\over \sqrt{\tau^2-t_0^2}}\int_0^{t_0}\chi_{(0,\pi-\alpha_0)}(\Omega(s,\tau)){\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,v(s,\tau)))}(s+{\tau-t_0\over 2}) \Psi_2(s,v(s,\tau),v'(s,\tau))\over\sqrt{s(t_0-s)}}d\tau,\label{1.11}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{l} \displaystyle v(s,\tau)=(\cos\Omega(s,\tau),\sin\Omega(s,\tau)),\ \Omega(s,\tau)={\rm arccos}\left({\tau-{\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2s+\tau-t_0}\over t_0}\right),\\ \displaystyle v'(s,\tau)={t_0(1,0)-\left(s+{\tau-t_0\over 2}\right) v(s,\tau)\over {\tau+t_0\over 2}-s}. \end{array} \label{1.10}\end{aligned}$$ Let $s\in (0,t_0)$. From , it follows that $$v(s,\tau)\to (1,0)\ {\rm as}\ \tau\to t_0^+,\ v'(s,\tau)\to (1,0)\ {\rm as}\ \tau\to t_0^+.\label{1.11b}$$ Note that using the definition of $v_0$ and using the assumption $x_0'+\ep (x-x_0')\in X$ for some $\ep\in (0,1)$ we obtain $t_0=\tau_-(x,v_0)$. Note also that the function $s\mapsto {1\over \sqrt{s(t_0-s)}},$ $s\in (0,t_0)$, is integrable in $(0,t_0)$. Therefore, using , the boundedness of $\Psi_2$ on ${\cal D}$ and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we obtain . This proves when $n=2$. Let $n\ge 3$ and prove . From and , it follows that $$\gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0') =\int_{\S^{n-1}}{(\tau -t_0v_0\cdot v)^{n-3}\over \|t_0v_0-\tau v\|^{2n-4}}\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\nu(x)\cdot v)\Psi_n(s,v,v')_{v'={t_0v_0-s v\over \tau-s}\atop s={\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0v\cdot v_0)}}dv, \label{11.2}$$ for $\tau>\|x-x_0'\|$. Let $\Phi(\Omega, \omega)=(\sin \Omega, \cos(\Omega)\omega_1,\ldots,\cos(\Omega)\omega_{n-1})$ for $\Omega\in (-{\pi\over 2}, {\pi \over 2})$ and $\omega=(\omega_1,\ldots, \omega_{n-1})\in \S^{n-2}$. Using spherical coordinates we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0') &=&\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\cos(\Omega)^{n-2}{(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega))^{n-3}\over (t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega))^{n-2}}\label{11.4}\\ &&\int_{\S^{n-2}}\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\nu(x)\cdot\Phi(\Omega,\omega))\Psi_n(s,\Phi(\Omega,\omega),v')_{v'={t_0v_0-s\Phi(\Omega,\omega)\over \tau-s}\atop s={\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega))}}d\omega d\Omega, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $\tau>t_0$. Performing the change of variables “$r={\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega))}-{\tau-t_0\over 2}$” on the first integral on the right-hand side of , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0') &=&2^{2-n}t_0^{2-n}(\tau^2-t_0^2)^{n-3\over 2}\int_0^{t_0}{\sqrt{r(t_0-r)}^{n-3}\over ({\tau-t_0\over 2}+r)^{n-2}({\tau+t_0\over 2}-r)^{n-2}}\label{6.5}\\ &&\int_{\S^{n-2}}\left[\chi(\Phi(\Omega,\omega))\Psi_n(r+{\tau-t_0\over 2},\Phi(\Omega,\omega),v')\right]_{{\Omega={\rm arcsin} (t_0^{-1}(\tau-{(\tau^2-t_0^2)\over 2(r+{\tau-t_0\over 2})})) \atop s=r+{\tau-t_0\over 2}}\atop v'={t_0v_0-s\Phi(\Omega,\omega)\over \tau-s}}d\omega dr. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore using , and and using Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we obtain . This concludes the proof of Theorem \[theorem:limH2\]. For the sake of simplicity and without loss of generality we assume $v_0=(1,0,\ldots,0)$. Assume that condition is satisfied. We consider the measurable function $\Psi_n$ defined by for all $(s,v,v')\in {\cal D}$ where ${\cal D}$ is defined by . Under we obtain that $$\begin{array}{l} \displaystyle\textrm{the function }\Psi_n \textrm{ is continuous at any point }(s,v,v')\in {\cal D}\\ \displaystyle (\textrm{i.e. for any }(s,v,v')\in (0,+\infty)\times\S_x^{n-1}\times\S_{x_0'}^{n-1},\ x-sv\in X), \end{array} \label{limH1.1}$$ The proof of under condition is actually similar to the proof of under condition . Note that – still hold so that we have to prove that still holds for $i=1,2$. Again we only sketch the proof of for $i=1$. Note also that – still hold. Then using –, and and using Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we obtain for $i=1$. This proves . Let $n\ge 3$. Formula still holds. Now assume that $n=3$. We shall prove . Let $\tau>t_0$. Using the change of variables “$\ep={\ln(t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega))-\ln ((\tau-t_0)^2)\over\ln((\tau+t_0)^2)-\ln((\tau-t_0)^2)}$”, the equality gives $$\gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0')={\ln\left({\tau+t_0\over \tau-t_0}\right)\over 2t_0\tau}(\gamma_{1,1}(\tau,x,x_0')+\gamma_{1,2}(\tau,x,x_0'))\label{11.3.1}$$ where $$\gamma_{1,1}(\tau,x,x_0')=\int_0^{1\over 2}\int_{\S^1}\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\nu(x)\cdot\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\ep),\omega))\Psi_3(s(\tau,\ep),\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\ep),\omega),v'(\tau,\omega,\ep)) d\omega d\ep \label{11.3.2a}$$ $$\gamma_{1,2}(\tau,x,x_0')=\int_{1\over 2}^1\int_{\S^1}\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\nu(x)\cdot\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\ep),\omega))\Psi_3(s(\tau,\ep),\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\ep),\omega),v'(\tau,\omega,\ep)) d\omega d\ep \label{11.3.2b}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \Omega(\tau,\ep)&:=&{\rm arcsin}\left({\tau^2+t_0^2-(\tau-t_0)^{2(1-\ep)}(\tau+t_0)^{2\ep}\over 2t_0\tau}\right),\label{11.3.3a}\\ s(\tau,\ep)&:=&{\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega(\tau,\ep)))},\label{11.3.3b}\\ v'(\tau,\omega,\ep)&:=&{t_0v_0-s(\tau,\ep)\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\ep),\omega)\over \tau-s(\tau,\ep)},\label{11.3.3c}\end{aligned}$$ for $0<\ep<1$, $\omega\in \S^1$. We shall give some properties of $\Omega(\tau,\ep)$, $s(\tau,\ep)$ and $v'(\tau,\omega,\ep)$ for $0<\ep<1$ and $\omega\in \S^{n-1}$. From , it follows that $$\Omega(\tau,\ep)\to {\pi\over 2},\textrm{ as }\tau\to t_0^+, \textrm{ for all }\ep\in (0,1).\label{11.3.4}$$ From and , it follows that $$s(\tau,\ep)={\tau(t_0+\tau)(\tau-t_0)^{2\ep-1}\over (t_0+\tau)(\tau-t_0)^{2\ep-1}+(\tau+t_0)^{2\ep}},\ s(\tau,\ep)={\tau(t_0+\tau)\over t_0+\tau+(\tau-t_0)^{1-2\ep}(\tau+t_0)^{2\ep}} \label{11.3.5b}$$ for $\ep\in(0,1)$. From it follows that $$s(\tau,\ep)\to 0^+ \textrm{ as }\tau\to t_0^+, \textrm{ when }\ep\in(1/2,1),\ s(\tau,\ep)\to t_0^- \textrm{ as }\tau\to t_0^+, \textrm{ when }\ep\in(0,1/2).\label{11.3.6b}$$ In addition, from –, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} v'(\tau,\omega,\ep)&=&\left({-\tau(\tau+t_0)^2(\tau-t_0)^{2\ep}+2t_0^2\tau(\tau+t_0)^{2\ep}+\tau(\tau+t_0)^{1+2\ep}(\tau-t_0)\over 2t_0\tau^2(\tau+t_0)^{2\ep}},\right.\nonumber\\ &&\sqrt{-(\tau-t_0)^{4\ep}(\tau+t_0)^2-(\tau-t_0)^2(\tau+t_0)^{4\ep}+2(\tau^2+t_0^2)(\tau-t_0)^{2\ep}(\tau+t_0)^{2\ep}}\nonumber\\ &&\times\left.{(\tau+t_0+(\tau-t_0)^{1-2\ep}(\tau+t_0)^{2\ep})\over2t_0\tau(\tau+t_0)^{2\ep}} \omega\right)\label{11.3.7a}\end{aligned}$$ for $0<\ep<1$. Therefore $$v'(\tau,\omega,\ep)\to v_0= (1,0,0)\textrm{ as }\tau\to t_0^+,\label{11.3.8}$$ for $0<\ep<1$. Using , , , and Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_{1,1}(\tau,x,x_0')&\underset{\tau\to t_0^+}{\to}&\int_0^{1\over 2}\int_{\S^1}\lim_{s\to t_0^-}\Psi_3(s,v_0,v_0)d\omega d\ep\nonumber\\ &=&2\pi E(x_0',x)W(x,v_0)S(x_0',v_0)(\nu(x_0')v_0)(\nu(x)v_0)k(x_0',v_0,v_0)\label{11.3.9a}\end{aligned}$$ (we also used ). Similarly, using , , , and Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we obtain $$\gamma_{1,2}(\tau,x,x_0')\to 2\pi E(x_0',x)W(x,v_0)S(x_0',v_0)(\nu(x_0')v_0)(\nu(x)v_0)k(x,v_0,v_0),\textrm{ as }\tau\to t_0^+.\label{11.3.9b}$$ Statement follows from and –.\ Let $n\ge 4$. We shall prove . From it follows that $$\gamma_1(\tau,x,x_0')=\gamma_{1,1}(\tau,x,x_0')+\gamma_{1,2}(\tau,x,x_0'),\label{11.56}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_{1,1}(\tau,x,x_0')&=&\int_{-{\pi\over2}}^{\pi\over 2}\chi_{\left(-{\pi\over 2},\arcsin\left(t_0\over \tau\right)\right)}(\Omega)\cos(\Omega)^{n-2} {(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega))^{n-3}\over (t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega))^{n-2}}\label{11.57a}\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times\int_{\S^{n-2}}\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\Phi(\Omega,\omega)\cdot \nu(x))\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,\Phi(\Omega,\omega))))}(s) \Psi_n(s,\Phi(\Omega,\omega),v')_{v'={t_0v_0-s\Phi(\Omega,\omega)\over \tau-s}\atop s={\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega))}}d\omega d\Omega,\nonumber\\ \gamma_{1,2}(\tau,x,x_0')&=&\int_{\arcsin\left(t_0\over \tau\right)}^{{\pi\over 2}}\cos(\Omega)^{n-2}{(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega))^{n-3}\over (t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega))^{n-2}} \label{11.57b}\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times\int_{\S^{n-2}}\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\nu(x)\cdot\Phi(\Omega,\omega))\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,\Phi(\Omega,\omega))))}(s) \Psi_n(s,\Phi(\Omega,\omega),v')_{v'={t_0v_0-s\Phi(\Omega,\omega)\over \tau-s}\atop s={\tau^2-t_0^2\over 2(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega))}}d\omega d\Omega.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ First we study $\gamma_{1,1}$. Note that $${\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega_1)\over t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega_1)}<{\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega_2)\over t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega_2)},\label{11.58}$$ for $-{\pi\over 2}\le \Omega_1<\Omega_2\le {\pi\over 2}$ and for $\tau>t_0$. Therefore using also the estimate $\cos(\Omega)\le 1$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\cos(\Omega)^{n-2}{(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega))^{n-3}\over (t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega))^{n-2}}\nonumber\\ &&\le\cos(\Omega)^{n-4}{\cos(\Omega)^2\over t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega)} \left({\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega)\over t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega)}\right)^{n-3} \le{C_0^2\over 2t_0\tau^{n-2}},\label{11.59}\end{aligned}$$ for $\Omega\in (-{\pi\over 2}, {\pi\over 2})$ and $\sin(\Omega)\le {t_0\over \tau}$ (we used with “$\Omega_1$”$=\Omega$ and “$\Omega_2$”$={t_0\over \tau}$, and we used the estimate $t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega)\ge 2t_0\tau(1-\sin(\Omega))$), where $$C_0:=\sup_{\varphi\in (0,2\pi)}{\sin^2(\varphi)\over 1-\cos(\varphi)}=\sup_{\Omega\in (-{3\pi\over 2},{\pi\over 2})}{\cos^2(\Omega)\over 1-\sin(\Omega)}.\label{P3}$$ Using , , and Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\gamma_{1,1}(\tau,x,x_0')\underset{\tau\to t_0^+}{\longrightarrow}2^{2-n}t_0^{1-n}\int_{-{\pi\over2}}^{\pi\over 2}{\cos(\Omega)^{n-2}\over 1-\sin(\Omega)} \int_{\S^{n-2}}\chi(\nu(x)\cdot\Phi(\Omega,\omega))\lim_{s\to 0^+}\Psi_n(s,\Phi(\Omega,\omega),v_0)d\omega d\Omega\nonumber\\ &&=2^{2-n}t_0^{1-n}\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}{1\over 1-v\cdot v_0}\lim_{s\to 0^+}\Psi_n(s,v,v_0)dv\nonumber\\ &&=t_0^{1-n}E(x_0',x)S(x_0',v_0)(\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0)\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}{1\over 1-v\cdot v_0}W(x,v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)k(x,v_0,v)dv.\label{11.60}\end{aligned}$$ Now we shall study $\gamma_{1,2}$ defined by . Note that using the convexity of $X$ we obtain $v'={x-sv-x'_0\over \|x-sv-x_0'\|}\in \S_{x_0',-}^{n-1}$ whenever $v\in \S_{x,+}^{n-1}$ and $s\in (0,\tau_-(x,v))$. Therefore using the change of variables “$\sin(\Omega')={2\tau t_0-(\tau^2+t_0^2)\sin(\Omega)\over \tau^2+t_0^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega)}$”, $\Omega\in (-{\pi\over 2},{\pi\over 2})$ (“$\cos(\Omega){d\Omega\over d\Omega'}={(\tau^2-t_0^2)^2\cos(\Omega')\over (\tau^2+t_0^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega'))^2}$”), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\gamma_{1,2}(\tau,x,x_0'):=\int_{-{\pi\over 2}}^{\arcsin\left(t_0\over \tau\right)}\!\!\!\!\!\cos(\Omega')^{n-2}{(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega'))^{n-3}\over (t_0^2+\tau^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega'))^{n-2}}\label{11.9}\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\int_{{\omega\in\S^{n-2}\atop \nu(x)\cdot\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\Omega'),\omega)>0}\atop -\nu(x_0')\cdot\Phi(\Omega',-\omega)>0}\!\!\!\!\!\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\Omega'),\omega)))}(s(\tau,\Omega'))\Psi_n(s(\tau,\Omega'),\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\Omega'),\omega),v')_{v'=\Phi(\Omega',-\omega)}d\omega d\Omega',\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Omega(\tau,\Omega')={\arcsin}\left({2\tau t_0-(\tau^2+t_0^2)\sin(\Omega')\over \tau^2+t_0^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega')}\right),\ s(\tau,\Omega')={\tau^2+t_0^2-2t_0\tau\sin(\Omega')\over 2(\tau-t_0\sin(\Omega'))},\label{11.9b}$$ for $\Omega'\in (-{\pi\over 2},{\pi\over 2})$. Note that $$\begin{aligned} \Omega(\tau,\Omega')&\underset{\tau\to t_0^+}{\to}&{\pi\over 2},\ \Phi(\Omega(\tau,\Omega'),\omega)\underset{\tau\to t_0^+}{\to}v_0,\label{12b}\\ s(\tau,\Omega')&\underset{\tau\to t_0^+}{\to}&t_0,\label{12c}\end{aligned}$$ for $(\Omega',\omega)\in (-{\pi\over 2},{\pi\over 2})\times\S^{n-2}$. Note also that from , it follows that at fixed $v'=\Phi(\Omega',-\omega)\in \S_{x_0',-}^{n-1}$ the condition $\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\Omega'),\omega)))} (s(\tau,\Omega'))=1$ (which is equivalent to $x-s(\tau,\Omega')\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\Omega'),\omega)\in X$ due to convexity of $X$) for $\Phi(\Omega(\tau,\Omega'),\omega)\in \S_{x,+}^{n-1}$ is satisfied when $\tau-t_0>0$ is sufficiently small. Therefore from (with “$\Omega$” replaced by “$\Omega'$”) and from and Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\gamma_{1,2}(\tau,x,x_0')\underset{\tau\to t_0^+}{\longrightarrow}2^{2-n}t_0^{1-n}\int_{-{\pi\over2}}^{\pi\over 2}{\cos(\Omega')^{n-2}\over 1-\sin(\Omega')} \int_{\S^{n-2}}\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(-\nu(x_0')\cdot\Phi(\Omega',-\omega))\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times\lim_{s\to t_0^-}\Psi_n(s,v_0,\Phi(\Omega',-\omega))d\omega d\Omega'=2^{2-n}t_0^{1-n}\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x_0',-}}{1\over 1-v'\cdot v_0}\lim_{s\to t_0^-}\Psi_n(s,v_0,v')dv'\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=t_0^{1-n}E(x_0',x)W(x,v_0)(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x_0',-}}{1\over 1-v'\cdot v_0}S(x_0',v')\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v'\|k(x,v',v_0)dv'.\label{11.60b}\end{aligned}$$ Statement follows from , and . Theorem \[theorem:limH1\] is proved. Proof of Theorems \[theorem:stabH1\], \[theorem:stabH2\], \[cor\] and Theorem \[cor\_ball\] {#proof_thm_stabH1H2_cor} ============================================================================================ We now prove . Let $x_0'\in \pa X$. For $\ep=(\ep_1,\ep_2)\in (0,+\infty)^2$ and $\ep_3\in (0,+\infty)$ let $(f_{\ep_1},g_{\ep_2})\in C^1(\pa X)\times C^1(\R)$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned} &&g_{\ep_2}\ge 0, f_{\ep_1}\ge 0, \ {\rm supp}g_{\ep_2}\subseteq (0,\min(\ep_2,\eta)),\label{PH6a}\\ &&{\rm supp}f_{\ep_1}\subseteq\{x'\in \pa X\ \|\ \|x'-x_0'\|<\ep_1\},\label{PH6b}\\ &&\int_0^\eta g_{\ep_2}(t')dt'=1,\ \int_{\pa X}f_{\ep_1}(x')d\mu(x')=1,\label{PH6c}\end{aligned}$$ for $\ep=(\ep_1,\ep_2)\in (0,+\infty)^2$. Therefore $\phi_\ep :=g_{\ep_2} f_{\ep_1}$ is an approximation of the delta function at $(0,x_0')\in \R\times\pa X$ for $\ep:=(\ep_1,\ep_2)\in (0,+\infty)^2$. Let $\psi_{\ep_3}\in L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X)$ be defined by $$\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x)=\chi_{(-\ep_3,\ep_3)}(t-\|x-x_0'\|)(2\chi_{(0,+\infty)}((E-\tilde E)(x,x_0'))-1),\ (t,x)\in (0,T)\times\pa X,\label{PH11}$$ for $\ep_3>0$. From and it follows that $$\begin{aligned} &&\int_{(0,T)\times\pa X}\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x)(A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W})\phi_\ep(t,x)dt d\mu(x)=I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)\nonumber\\ &&+\int_{(0,T)\times \pa X\times (0,\eta)\times\pa X}\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x)\phi_{\ep}(t',x')(\Gamma_1-\tilde\Gamma_1)(t-t',x,x')dt d\mu(x) dt'd\mu(x'),\label{PH3}\end{aligned}$$ for $\ep=(\ep_1,\ep_2)\in(0,+\infty)$ and $\ep_3\in (0,+\infty)$, where $$\begin{aligned} I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)&=&\int_{(0,T)_t\times\pa X_x\times \pa X_{x'}\atop \|x-x'\|<t}\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x)\phi_\ep(t-\|x-x'\|,x') {E(x,x')-\tilde E(x,x')\over \|x-x'\|^{n-1}}\nonumber\\ &&\times\left[W(x,v)S(x',v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)\|\nu(x')\cdot v\|\right]_{v={x-x'\over \|x-x'\|}}dtd\mu(x)d\mu(x').\label{PH2}\end{aligned}$$ From , , and it follows that $$(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{3-n\over 2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X).\label{PH2.4}$$ Combining and the equality $\\|\phi_\ep\\|_{L^1((0,\eta)\times \pa X)}=1$ and the estimate $\\|\psi_{\ep_3}\\|_{L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X)}\le 1$ and we obtain $$I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)\le \\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}+C\Delta_1(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep), \label{PH2.5}$$ for $\ep=(\ep_1,\ep_2)\in (0,+\infty)$ and $\ep_3\in (0,+\infty)$, where $C=\\|(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{3-n\over 2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde\Gamma_1)(\tau,x,x')$ $\\|_{L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X_x\times\pa X_{x'})}$ and $$\Delta_1(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)=\int_{(0,T)_t\times\pa X_x\times (0,\eta)_{t'}\times \pa X_{x'}\atop \|x-x'\|<t-t'}\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x)\phi_\ep(t',x')(t-t'-\|x-x'\|)^{n-3\over 2}dt d\mu(x)dt'd\mu(x'). \label{PH2.5b}$$ Note that the function $\Phi_{1,\ep_3}:[0,\eta)\times\pa X \to \R$ defined by $$\Phi_{1,\ep_3}(t',x'):=\int_{(0,T)_t\times\pa X_x\atop \|x-x'\|<t-t'}\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x)(t-t'-\|x-x'\|)^{n-3\over 2}dt d\mu(x),\ (t',x')\in [0,\eta)\times\pa X,\label{PH2.7}$$ is continuous on $[0,\eta)\times\pa X$ for $\ep_3\in (0,+\infty)$. Therefore from – and the equality $\Delta_1(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_{\ep})=\int_{(0,\eta)\times\pa X}\phi_{\ep}(t',x')\Phi_{1,\ep_3}(t',x')dt'd\mu(x')$ it follows that $$\lim_{\ep_3\to0^+}\lim_{\ep_2\to 0^+}\lim_{\ep_1\to 0^+}\Delta_1(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)=\lim_{\ep_3\to0^+}\Phi_{1,\ep_3}(0,x_0')=0\label{PH2.13}$$ (we also used , and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem to prove that $\lim_{\ep_3\to 0^+}\Phi_{1,\ep_3}(0,x_0')=0$). Note that under condition the function $\Phi_{0,\ep_2,\ep_3}:\pa X\to \R$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_{0,\ep_2,\ep_3}(x')&=&\int_{(0,T)_t\times\pa X_x\atop \|x-x'\|<t}\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x)g_{\ep_2}(t-\|x-x'\|) {E(x,x')-\tilde E(x,x')\over \|x-x'\|^{n-1}}\nonumber\\ &&\times\left[W(x,v)S(x',v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)\|\nu(x')\cdot v\|\right]_{v={x-x'\over \|x-x'\|}}dtd\mu(x),\label{PH2.9}\end{aligned}$$ is continuous on $\pa X$, for $(\ep_2,\ep_3)\in (0,+\infty)^2$. Therefore from the equality $I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)= \int_{\pa X}\Phi_{0,\ep_2,\ep_3}(x')$ $\times f_{\ep_1}(x')d\mu(x')$ (see ) it follows that $$\lim_{\ep_1\to 0^+}I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)=\Phi_{0,\ep_2,\ep_3}(x_0'), \textrm{ for }(\ep_2,\ep_3)\in (0,+\infty)^2.\label{PH2.10}$$ Therefore using the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem and we obtain $$\lim_{\ep_3\to0^+}\lim_{\ep_2\to 0^+}\lim_{\ep_1\to 0^+}I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)=\int_{\pa X_x}\!\!\!\!\!\! {\left\|E(x,x_0')-\tilde E(x,x_0')\right\|\over \|x-x_0'\|^{n-1}}\left[W(x,v)S(x_0',v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v\|\right]_{v={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}} d\mu(x).\label{PH2.12}$$ Combining , and we obtain the formula . Using and the estimates $\inf_{(x',v')\in \Gamma_-}S(x',v')>0$ and $\inf_{(x,v)\in\Gamma_+}W(x,v)>0$ and the change of variables $x=x_0'+\tau_+(x_0',v_0)v_0$ (${\nu(x)\cdot v_0\over \|x-x_0'\|^{n-1}}d\mu(x)=dv_0$) we obtain where the constant $C_1$ which appears on the right-hand side of is given by $C_1=\left(\inf_{(x',v')\in \Gamma_-}S(x',v')\inf_{(x,v)\in\Gamma_+}W(x,v)\right)^{-1}$. We now prove . Let $x\in \pa X$ be such that $px_0'+(1-p)x\in Z$ for some $p\in (0,1)$. We set $t_0=\|x-x_0'\|$ and $v_0={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}$. From , , and it follows that $$\begin{aligned} &&(\tau-\|x-x_0'\|)^{3-n\over 2}\|\gamma_1-\tilde \gamma_1\|(\tau,x,x_0')\le (\tau-\|x-x_0'\|)^{3-n\over 2}\|\Gamma_2-\tilde\Gamma_2\|(\tau,z,z') \label{pstabh2.2}\\ &&+\\|(s-\|z-z'\|)^{3-n\over 2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde\Gamma_1)(s,z,z') \\|_{L^\infty((0,T)_s\times\pa X_z\times\pa X_{z'})} ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $\tau>\|x-x_0'\|$. From , – it turns out that $\lim_{\tau\to\|x-x_0'\|^+}(\tau-\|x-x_0'\|)^{3-n\over 2}\|\Gamma_2-\tilde\Gamma_2\|(\tau,z,z')=0$. Therefore applying and on the left-hand side of we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&2^{1-n\over 2}\|x-x_0'\|^{-{n-1\over 2}}C_nS(x_0',v_0)W(x,v_0)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\|(\nu(x)\cdot v_0)\nonumber\\ &&\times \left\|\int_0^{t_0}{e^{-\int_0^{t_0}\sigma(x_0'+sv_0,v_0)ds}k(x-pv_0,v_0,v_0)-e^{-\int_0^{t_0}\tilde \sigma(x_0'+sv_0,v_0)ds}\tilde k(x-pv_0,v_0,v_0)\over p^{n-1\over 2}(t_0-p)^{n-1\over 2}} dp \right\|\nonumber\\ &&\le \\|(s-\|z-z'\|)^{3-n\over 2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde\Gamma_1)(s,z,z'))\\|_{L^\infty((0,T)_s\times\pa X_z\times\pa X_{z'})},\label{pstabh2.3}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_n=2$ if $n=2$ and $C_n={\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})$ if $n\ge 3$. Then note that $C_X:=\inf_{x_1\in \pa X,\ z\in \bar Z}\nu(x_1)\cdot {x_1-z\over \|x_1-z\|}>0$ since $X$ is a bounded convex subset of $\R^n$ with $C^1$ boundary and $\bar Z\subset X$. Therefore follows from where the constant $C_2$ which appears on the right-hand side of is given by $C_2={2^{n-1\over 2}\diam^{n-1\over 2}\over C_nC_X^2\inf_{(x',v')\in \Gamma_-}S(x',v')\inf_{(x_1,v_1)\in \Gamma_+}W(x_1,v_1)}$. Theorem \[theorem:stabH2\] is proved. We prove . Let $x_0'\in \pa X$. For $\ep=(\ep_1,\ep_2)\in (0,+\infty)^2$ and $\ep_3\in (0,+\infty)$ let $(f_{\ep_1},g_{\ep_2})\in C^1(\pa X)\times C^1(\R)$ satisfy – and $\psi_{\ep_3}$ be defined by . First note that – still hold. From Theorems \[theorem:normesimplescat\] and \[theorem:normemultiplescat\] it follows that $$\|x-x'\|^{n-{7\over 4}}(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{3\over 4}(\Gamma_1-\tilde\Gamma_1)(\tau,x,x')\in L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X).\label{PH4}$$ Combining , and the equality $\\|\phi_\ep\\|_{L^1((0,\eta)\times \pa X)}$ and the estimate $\\|\psi_{\ep_3}\\|_{L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X)}\le 1$ we obtain $$I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)\le \\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}+C\Delta_2(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep), \label{PH5}$$ for $\ep=(\ep_1,\ep_2)\in (0,+\infty)$, $\ep_3\in (0,+\infty)$, where $C=\\|\|x-x'\|^{n-{7\over 4}}(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{3\over 4}(\Gamma_1-\tilde\Gamma_1)(\tau,x,x')$ $\\|_{L^\infty((0,T)\times\pa X_x\times\pa X_{x'}}$ and $$\Delta_2(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)=\int_{(0,T)_t\times\pa X_x\times (0,\eta)_{t'}\times \pa X_{x'}\atop \|x-x'\|<t-t'} {\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x)\phi_\ep(t',x')\over \|x-x'\|^{n-{7\over 4}}(t-t'-\|x-x'\|)^{3\over 4}}dt d\mu(x)dt'd\mu(x'). \label{PH5b}$$ Note that the function $\Phi_{1,\ep_3}:[0,T)\times\pa X \to \R$ defined by $$\Phi_{3,\ep_3}(t',x'):=\int_{(0,T)_t\times\pa X_x\atop \|x-x'\|<t-t'}{\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x) \over \|x-x'\|^{n-{7\over 4}}(t-t'-\|x-x'\|)^{3\over 4}}dt d\mu(x),\ (t',x')\in [0,\eta)\times\pa X,\label{PH7}$$ is continuous on $[0,\eta)\times\pa X$. Therefore using , – and using the equality $\Delta_2(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)=\int_{(0,\eta)_{t'}\times \pa X_{x'}}\Phi_{3,\ep_3}(t',x')\phi_{\ep}(t',x')dt'd\mu(x')$ we obtain $$\lim_{\ep_3\to0^+}\lim_{\ep_2\to 0^+}\lim_{\ep_1\to 0^+}\Delta_2(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)=\lim_{\ep_3\to 0^+}\Phi_{3,\ep_3}(0,x_0')=0.\label{PH13}$$ (we also used , and Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem to prove $\lim_{\ep_3\to 0^+}\Phi_{3,\ep_3}(0,x_0')=0$). Note that under condition the function $\Phi_{4,\ep_3,\ep_2}:\pa X\to \R$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_{4,\ep_3,\ep_2}(x')&=&\int_{(0,T)_t\times\pa X_x\atop \|x-x'\|<t}\psi_{\ep_3}(t,x)g_{\ep_2}(t-\|x-x'\|) {E_{\pa X\times\pa X}(x,x')-\tilde E_{\pa X\times\pa X}(x,x')\over \|x-x'\|^{n-1}}\nonumber\\ &&\times\left[W(x,v)S(x',v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)\|\nu(x')\cdot v\|\right]_{v={x-x'\over \|x-x'\|}}dtd\mu(x),\label{PH9}\end{aligned}$$ is continuous on $\pa X$. Therefore from – and the equality $I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)=\int_{\pa X}f_{\ep_1}(x')\Phi_{4,\ep_3,\ep_2}(x')d\mu(x')$ (see ) it follows that $$\lim_{\ep_1\to 0^+}I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)=\Phi_{4,\ep_3,\ep_2}(x_0'),\ \textrm{for }(\ep_2,\ep_3)\in (0,+\infty).\label{PH10}$$ Then using Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem and we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\ep_3\to 0^+}\lim_{\ep_2\to 0^+}\lim_{\ep_1\to 0^+}I_0(\psi_{\ep_3},\phi_\ep)&=&\int_{\pa X_x} {\left\|E_{\pa X\times\pa X}(x,x_0')-\tilde E_{\pa X\times\pa X}(x,x_0')\right\|\over \|x-x_0'\|^{n-1}}\label{PH12}\\ &&\times\left[W(x,v)S(x_0',v)(\nu(x)\cdot v)\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v\|\right]_{v={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}} d\mu(x).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Combining , and we obtain . We prove –. Let $x\in \pa X$ be such that $px_0'+(1-p)x\in X$ for some $p\in (0,1)$. Let $\beta_n:\{(\tau,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X\ \|\ z\not=z',\ \tau>\|z-z'\|\}\to \R$ be defined by $$\beta_n(\tau,z,z')= \left\lbrace \begin{array}{l} \sqrt{\tau^2-\|z-z'\|^2}, \textrm{ if }n=2,\\ {\tau\|z-z'\|\over \ln\left({\tau+\|z-z'\|\over \tau-\|z-z'\|}\right)},\textrm{ if }n=3,\\ \tau\|z-z'\|^{n-2}, \textrm{ if }n\ge 4, \end{array} \right.\label{pstab1}$$ for $(\tau,z,z') \in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X$, $z\not=z'$, $\tau>\|z-z'\|$. From – and – it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \beta_n(\tau,x,x_0')\|(\gamma_1-\tilde \gamma_1)(\tau,x,x_0')\|&\le& \beta_n(\tau,x,x_0')\|(\Gamma_2-\tilde\Gamma_2)(\tau,z,z')\| \label{pstab2}\\ &&+\\|\beta_n(s,z,z')(\Gamma_1-\tilde\Gamma_1)(s,z,z')\\|_{L^\infty((0,T)_s\times\pa X_z\times\pa X_{z'})}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From and – it turns out that $\lim_{\tau\to\|x-x_0'\|^+}\beta_n(\tau,x,x_0')\|(\Gamma_2-\tilde\Gamma_2)(\tau,z,z')\|=0$. Therefore applying (resp. , ) on the left-hand side of we obtain (resp. , ). Theorem \[theorem:stabH1\] is proved. We first prove . We extend $\sigma$ and $\tilde\sigma$ by $0$ outside $Y$. For a bounded and continuous function $f$ on $Y$ consider the X-ray transform $Pf:\S^{n-1}\times \R^n\to \R$ defined by (we extend $f$ by $0$ outside $Y$). We recall the following estimate $$\\|f\\|_{H^{-{1\over 2}}(Y)}\le \left(\int_{\S^{n-1}}\int_{\Pi_v}\|Pf(v,x)\|^2dx dv\right)^{1\over 2},\label{x-raystab}$$ where $\Pi_v:=\{x\in \R^n\ \|\ v\cdot x=0\}$ for $v\in \S^{n-1}$. Note that using the estimate $\\|\sigma\\|_\infty\le M$, we obtain $$\int_0^{\tau_+(x_0',v)}\sigma(x_0'+sv,v)ds\le M\tau_+(x_0',v)\le M\diam,\textrm{ for }(x_0',v)\in \Gamma_-.\label{pcor1}$$ Replacing $\sigma$ by $\tilde \sigma$ on the left-hand side of we obtain an estimate similar to for $\tilde\sigma$. Therefore using the estimate $\|e^{t_1}-e^{t_2}\|\ge e^{-M\diam}\|t_1-t_2\|$ for $(t_1,t_2)\in [0,+\infty)^2$, $\max(t_1,t_2)\le M\diam$, we obtain $$\left\|e^{-\int_0^{\tau_+(x_0',v)}\sigma(x_0'+sv,v)ds}-e^{-\int_0^{\tau_+(x_0',v)}\tilde \sigma(x_0'+sv,v)ds}\right\|\ge e^{-M\diam}\left\|P(\sigma-\tilde \sigma)(v,x_0')\right\|, \label{pcor2}$$ for $(x_0',v)\in \Gamma_-$. Integrating the left-hand side of over $\pa X$ and using , we obtain $$\int_{\Gamma_-}\left\|P(\sigma-\tilde \sigma)(v,x_0')\right\|d\xi(v,x_0')\le e^{M\diam}{\rm Vol}(\pa X)C_1\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T},\label{pcor3}$$ where $C_1$ is the constant that appears on the right-hand side of . Note that using that $X$ is a convex open subset of $\R^n$ with $C^1$ boundary we obtain $\int_{\Gamma_-}\left\|P(\sigma-\tilde \sigma)(v,x_0')\right\|d\xi(v,x_0')=\int_{\S^{n-1}}\int_{\Pi_v}\|P(\sigma-\tilde\sigma)(v,x)\|dx dv$. Therefore using and the estimate $\|P(\sigma-\tilde\sigma)(v,x)\|^2\le \\|\sigma-\tilde\sigma\\|_{L^\infty(Y)}\diam\|P(\sigma-\tilde\sigma)(v,x)\|$ for $(v,x)\in T\S^{n-1}$ (see and the estimates $\sigma\ge 0$, $\tilde\sigma\ge 0$) we obtain $$\left(\int_{\S^{n-1}}\int_{\Pi_v}\|P(\sigma-\tilde\sigma)(v,x)\|^2dx dv\right)^{1\over 2}\le C_3 \\|\sigma-\tilde\sigma\\|_{\infty}^{1\over 2}\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}^{1\over 2}.\label{pcor4}$$ where $C_3=\left(\diam e^{M\diam}{\rm Vol}(\pa X)C_1\right)^{1\over 2}$. Combining and we obtain . We now prove . Let $f\in L^2(X)$, ${\rm supp}f\subseteq \bar Z$. We consider the weighted X-ray transform of $f$, $P_{\vartheta}f$, defined by $$P_{\vartheta}f(x,v)=\int_0^{\tau_+(v,x)}f(pv+x)\vartheta(pv+x,v)dp,\textrm{ for a.e. }(x,v)\in \Gamma_-,\label{pcor5}$$ where $\vartheta:X\times\S^{n-1}\to (0,+\infty)$ is the analytic function given by $$\vartheta(x,v)=(\tau_-(x,v)\tau_+(x,v))^{-{n-1\over 2}}g(x,v,v), \textrm{ for }(x,v)\in X\times \S^{n-1}.\label{pcor6}$$ From [@FSU-JGA-08 theorem 2.2] and from [@Rullgard-IP04 theorem 4] we obtain $$\\|f\\|_{H^{-{1\over 2}}(Z)}\le C\\|P_\vartheta f\\|_{L^2(\Gamma_-,d\xi)},\label{pcor7}$$ where $C=C(X,Z,g)$ is a constant that does not depend on $f$. Let $x_0'\in \pa X$ and let $x\in \pa X$ such that $px_0'+(1-p)x\in Z$ for some $p\in (0,1)$ where $v_0={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}$ and $t_0=\|x-x_0'\|$. Note that using (since $\tilde k \in L^\infty(Z)$ and ${\rm supp}\tilde k\subseteq \bar Z\subseteq\{x\in X\ \|\ \inf_{x'\in \pa X}\|x-x'\|\ge \delta\}$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \int_0^{\tau_+(x_0,v_0')}{\tilde k(x_0'+p v_0',v_0',v_0')\over p^{n-1\over 2}(\tau_+(x_0',v_0')-p)^{n-1\over 2}}dp &\le& \\|\tilde k\\|_{L^\infty(Z)}\int_{\delta}^{\tau_+(x_0,v_0')-\delta}{1\over p^{n-1\over 2}(\tau_+(x_0',v_0')-p)^{n-1\over 2}}dp\nonumber\\ \le\,\,\,\\|\tilde k\\|_{L^\infty(Z)}\delta^{-(n-1)}\tau_+(x_0',v_0') &\le& \\|\tilde k\\|_{L^\infty(Z)}\delta^{-(n-1)}\diam.\label{pcor8}\end{aligned}$$ We use the estimate $$\begin{aligned} \|P_\vartheta(k_0-\tilde k_0)(x_0',v_0')\|&\le&e^{P\sigma(v_0',x_0')}\|P_\vartheta\tilde k_0(x_0',v_0')\|\left\|e^{-P\sigma(v_0',x_0')}-e^{-P\tilde\sigma(v_0',x_0')}\right\| \label{pcor9}\\ &&+e^{P\sigma(v_0',x_0')}\left\|e^{-P\sigma(v_0',x_0')}P_\vartheta k_0(x_0',v_0')-e^{-P\tilde\sigma(v_0',x_0')}P_\vartheta\tilde k_0(x_0',v_0')\right\|.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Integrating both sides of inequality over $v_0'\in\S_{x_0',-}^{n-1}$ and using the estimate $e^{P\sigma(v_0',x_0')}\le e^{M\diam}$, and using , –, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x_0',-}}\|P_\vartheta(k_0-\tilde k_0)\|(x_0',v_0')\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v\|dv\le\delta^{-(n-1)}\diam e^{M\diam}C_1\\|\tilde k\\|_\infty\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T} \nonumber\\ &&+{{\rm Vol}(\S^{n-1})e^{M\diam}C_2\over 2} \left\\|(\tau-\|z-z'\|)^{n-3\over 2}(\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty((0,T)\times \pa X\times\pa X)},\label{pcor10}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are the constants that appear on the right-hand side of and . From the estimate $\|P_\vartheta (k_0-\tilde k_0)(v_0',x_0')\|\le \\|k-\tilde k\\|_{L^\infty(Z)} \delta^{-(n-1)}\diam$ for a.e. $(x_0',v_0')\in \Gamma_-$ (see ), it follows that $$\\|P_\vartheta(k_0-\tilde k_0)\\|_{L^2(\Gamma_-,d\xi)}^2\le \\|k-\tilde k\\|_{L^\infty(Z)} \delta^{-(n-1)}\diam\int_{\pa X}\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x_0',-}}\|P_\vartheta(k_0-\tilde k_0)(x_0',v_0')\|\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v\|dvd\mu(x_0').\label{pcor11}$$ Combining – and we obtain . We first prove given below. Note that from –, it follows that $$\|P_{\vartheta_0}f(v,x)\|\le \\|f\\|_\infty\int_0^{\tau_+(x,v)}{1\over \sqrt{t(\tau_+(x,v)-t)}}dt=C\\|f\\|_\infty,\label{1/4.1}$$ for $(v,x)\in \Gamma_-$ and for $f\in C(X)\cap L^\infty(X)$, where $C=\int_0^1{1\over \sqrt{t(1-t)}}dt$. Note that $\nu(x)=x$ and $\nu(x)\cdot (x-x_0')=\|\nu(x_0')\cdot (x-x_0')\|$ for $(x,x_0')\in \pa X=\S^1$. Therefore from , it follows that $$\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0'\|^2 \left\|E(x,x_0')P_{\vartheta_0}k_0(v_0',x)-\tilde E(x,x_0')P_{\vartheta_0}\tilde k_0'(v_0',x)\right\| \le C'\left\\|\sqrt{\tau^2-\|z-z'\|^2} (\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty},\label{1/4.2}$$ for $(x,x_0')\in \pa X^2$, $x\not=x_0'$ and $v_0'={x-x_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|}$ (we also used $P_{\vartheta_0}k_{v_0}(v_0,x)=g(v_0,v_0)P_{\vartheta_0}k_0(v_0,x)$ and the similar identity for $\tilde k$), where $C'={1\over 2\inf_{\Gamma_-}S\inf_{\Gamma_+}W\inf_{v\in \S^{n-1}}g(v,v)}$. In addition, from , (with $P_{\vartheta_0}$ in place of “$P_\vartheta$”), and from and (with $\tilde k_0$ in place of $f$), it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0'\|^2\|P_{\vartheta_0}(k_0-\tilde k_0)(x_0',v_0')\|&\le&e^{M\diam}C\\|\tilde k_0\\|_\infty\left\|e^{-P\sigma(v_0',x_0')}-e^{-P\tilde\sigma(v_0',x_0')}\right\| \|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0\| \nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! +e^{M\diam}\left\|e^{-P\sigma(v_0',x_0')}P_\vartheta k_0(x_0',v_0')-e^{-P\tilde\sigma(v_0',x_0')}P_\vartheta\tilde k_0(x_0',v_0')\right\|\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0'\|^2.\label{1/4.3}\end{aligned}$$ for $(x_0',v_0')\in \Gamma_-$ (we also used the estimate $\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0'\|\le 1$). Performing the change of variables “$x=x_0'+\tau_+(x_0',v_0')v_0'$” (${\nu(x)\cdot v_0'\over \|x-x_0'\|^{n-1}}d\mu(x)=dv_0'$) on the left-hand side of , we obtain that the estimate still holds. Using , and (and ), we obtain that there exists a constant $C''$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\S_{x_0'}^{n-1}}\|\nu(x_0')\cdot v_0'\|^2\|P(\rho (k_0-\tilde k_0))(x_0',v_0')\|dv_0' &\le& C''\left(\\|\tilde k_0\\|_\infty\\|A_{S,W}-\tilde A_{S,W}\\|_{\eta,T}\right.\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+ \left.\left\\|\sqrt{\tau^2-\|z-z'\|^2} (\Gamma_1-\tilde \Gamma_1)(\tau,z,z') \right\\|_{L^\infty}\right)\label{1/4.4}\end{aligned}$$ for $x_0'\in \pa X$. Moreover, using (with $k_0-\tilde k_0$ in place of “$f$”) and Cauchy-Bunyakovski-Schwarz estimate, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\left(\int_{\Gamma_-}\|P(\rho(k_0-\tilde k_0))\|^2(v_0,x_0')d\xi(x_0',v_0)\right)^{1\over 2}\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\le C\\|k_0-\tilde k_0\\|_{\infty}^{3\over 4}\left(\int_{\pa X}\int_{\S_{x_0',-}^1}\left(\|P(\rho(k_0-\tilde k_0))\|(v_0,x_0')\|v_0\cdot \nu(x_0')\|^2\right)^{1\over 2}dv_0'd\mu(x_0') \right)^{1\over 2}\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\le C\\|k_0-\tilde k_0\\|_{\infty}^{3\over 4}\sqrt{2}\pi\left(\int_{\pa X}\int_{\S_{x_0',-}^1}\|P(\rho(k_0-\tilde k_0))\|(v_0,x_0')\|v_0\cdot \nu(x_0')\|^2dv_0'd\mu(x_0') \right)^{1\over 4}.\label{1/4.5}\end{aligned}$$ Finally combining –, (and the identity $\int_{\Gamma_-}\left\|P(\rho(k_0-\tilde k_0)(v,x_0')\right\|^2d\xi(v,x_0')=\int_{\S^{n-1}}\int_{\Pi_v}\|P(k_0-\tilde k_0)(v,x)\|^2dx dv$), we obtain . Proof of Theorem \[theorem:normesimplescat\] {#proof_thm_normesimplescat} ============================================ For $0<b<a$ we remind that $$\int_0^{2\pi}{1\over a-b\sin(\Omega)}d\Omega={2\pi\over \sqrt{a^2-b^2}}.\label{P1}$$ We will use the following Lemma \[lem:normeN\] to prove Theorem \[theorem:normesimplescat\] , and . \[lem:normeN\] Let $n\ge 2$. Let $N$ denote the nonnegative measurable function from $(0,T)\times \pa X \times\R^n$ to $[0,+\infty[$ defined by $$N(\tau,x,x')=\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\tau-\|x-x'\|)\int_{\S^{n-1}}{(\tau-(x-x')\cdot v)^{n-3}\over \|x-x'-\tau v\|^{2n-4}}dv,\label{l9.3.1}$$ for $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times \pa X\times \R^n$. When $n=2$, then $$N(\tau,x,x')=\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\tau-\|x-x'\|){2\pi\over \sqrt{\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2}},\label{l9.3.2a}$$ for $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times \R^n$. When $n=3$, then $$N(\tau,x,x')=2\pi{\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\tau-\|x-x'\|)\over \tau\|x-x'\|}\ln\left({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over \tau-\|x-x'\|}\right),\label{l9.3.2b}$$ for $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^n$. When $n\ge 4$, then $$\sup_{(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^n}\tau\|x-x'\|^{n-2}N(\tau,x,x')<\infty.\label{l9.3.2}$$ Let $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times \R^n$. We first prove . Let $n=2$. Note that $$N(\tau,x,x')=\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\tau-\|x-x'\|) \int_0^{2\pi}{1\over \tau-\|x-x'\|\sin(\Omega)}d\Omega.$$ Therefore using we obtain . We prove . Let $n=3$. Note that $$N(\tau,x,x')=2\pi{\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\tau-\|x-x'\|)\over 2\tau\|x-x'\|} \int_{-{\pi\over 2}}^{\pi\over 2}{d\over d\Omega}\ln\left(\tau^2+\|x-x'\|^2-2\tau\|x-x'\|\sin(\Omega)\right)d\Omega,$$ which gives . We prove . Let $n\ge 4$ and let $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times \pa X\times\R^n$ be such that $\tau>\|x-x'\|$ (we remind that $N(\tau,x,x')=0$ if $\tau\le \|x-x'\|$). Using spherical coordinates, we obtain $$N(\tau,x,x')={\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2}) \int_{-{\pi\over 2}}^{\pi\over 2}{(\tau-\|x-x'\|\sin (\Omega))^{n-3}\over \left(\|x-x'\|^2+\tau^2-2\tau\|x-x'\| \sin(\Omega)\right)^{n-2}}\cos(\Omega)^{n-2}d\Omega. \label{l9.3.3}$$ Performing the change of variables “$r={\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2\over 2(\tau-\|x-x'\|\sin(\Omega))}-{\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2}$”, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} N(\tau,x,x')&=&{{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})(\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2)^{n-3\over 2}\over \|x-x'\|^{n-2}} \int_0^{\|x-x'\|}{\sqrt{r(\|x-x'\|-r)}^{n-3}\over({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2}+r)^{n-2}({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over 2}-r)^{n-2}}dr\nonumber\\ &=&{2{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})(\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2)^{n-3\over 2}\over \|x-x'\|^{n-2}} \int_0^{\|x-x'\|\over 2}{\sqrt{r(\|x-x'\|-r)}^{n-3}\over({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2}+r)^{n-2}({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over 2}-r)^{n-2}}dr\nonumber\\ &\le&{2{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\|(\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2)^{n-3\over 2}\over \|x-x'\|^{n-2}} \int_0^{\|x-x'\|\over 2}{1\over({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2}+r)^{n-1\over 2}({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over 2}-r)^{n-1\over 2}}dr\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} &\le&{2{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})(\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2)^{n-3\over 2}\over \|x-x'\|^{n-2}}{\tau\over 2}^{1-n\over 2} \int_0^{\|x-x'\|\over 2}{1\over({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2}+r)^{n-1\over 2}}dr\nonumber\\ &\le&{2^{n-1}\over n-3}{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\|x-x'\|^{2-n}\left({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over 2\tau}\right)^{n-3\over 2}\tau^{-1}\nonumber\\ &\le&{2^{n-1}\over n-3}{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\|x-x'\|^{2-n}\tau^{-1},\label{l9.3.4}\end{aligned}$$ which proves . We are ready to prove Theorem \[theorem:normesimplescat\]. First we give an estimate on the simple scattering term. From it follows that $$\|\gamma_1(\tau,x,x')\|\le2^{n-2}\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}I_1(\tau,x,x')\label{S_0.1}$$ for a.e. $(\tau,x,x')\in \R\times\pa X\times \pa X$, where $$\begin{aligned} I_1(\tau,x,x')&=&\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\tau-\|x-x'\|)\int_{\S^{n-1}}\chi_{{\rm supp}k}(x-sv)_{\|s={\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2\over 2(\tau-v\cdot (x-x'))}}\nonumber\\ &&\times {(\tau-(x-x')\cdot v)^{n-3}\over \|x-x'-\tau v\|^{2n-4}} dv.\label{S_0.2}\end{aligned}$$ Let $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times \pa X$ be such that $x\not=x'$ and $\tau>\|x-x'\|$. Assume without loss of generality $x'-x=\|x'-x\|(1,0\ldots 0)$. First we prove –. From and , it follows that $$I_1(\tau,x,x')\le N(\tau,x,x').\label{S_0.4b*}$$ Combining (respectively , ) with and , we obtain (respectively , ). Now assume that $k\in L^\infty(X\times\S^{n-1}\times\S^{n-1})$ and $${\rm supp}k\subseteq \{x\in X\ \|\ \inf_{y\in \pa X}\|y-x\|\ge \delta\}\textrm{ for some }0<\delta<\infty.\label{l9.1.0}$$ Let $v\in \S^{n-1}$ and $s:={\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2\over 2(\tau-(x-x')\cdot v)}$. Straightforward computations give $s+\|x-x'-sv\|=\tau$. Using we obtain that $$\textrm{if }\tau<\delta \textrm{ or }s>\tau-\delta, \textrm{ then }x-sv\not\in {\rm supp}k.\label{l9.1.1}$$ Using and , we obtain $$\textrm{if }\tau<\delta \textrm{ then }I_1(\tau,x,x')=0.\label{S_0.4a}$$ We prove for $n=2$. Using , we obtain that $I_1(\tau,x,x')\le{2\pi\over \sqrt{\delta}\sqrt{\tau-\|x-x'\|}}$ for $\tau\ge \delta$. Combining with this latter estimate and , we obtain for $n=2$. We now prove for $n\ge 3$. Let $n\ge 3$ and $\tau\ge \delta$ (the case $\tau <\delta$ is already considered in ). Performing the change of variables “$r={\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2\over 2(\tau-\|x-x'\|\sin(\Omega))}-{\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2}$” with “$v=\Phi(\Omega,\omega):=(\sin (\Omega),\cos(\Omega) \omega)$, $\Omega\in (-{\pi\over 2}, {\pi\over 2})$, $\omega\in \S^{n-2}$” on the right-hand side of , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} I_1(\tau,x,x') &=&2^{2-n}{(\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2)^{n-3\over 2}\over \|x-x'\|^{n-2}}\int_0^{\|x-x'\|}{\sqrt{r(\|x-x'\|-r)}^{n-3}\over ({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2}+r)^{n-2}({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over 2}-r)^{n-2}}\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int_{\S^{n-2}}\left[\chi_{{\rm supp}k}(x-sv)\right]_{{\Omega={\rm arcsin} (\|x-x'\|^{-1}(\tau-{(\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2)\over 2(r+{\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2})})) \atop s=r+{\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2}}\atop v=\Phi(\Omega,\omega)} d\omega dr. \label{S_0.6}\end{aligned}$$ Now assume $\tau>{\delta\over 2}+\|x-x'\|$. Then $$\begin{aligned} &&\|x-x'\|^{2-n}\int_0^{\|x-x'\|}{\sqrt{r(\|x-x'\|-r)}^{n-3}\over ({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2}+r)^{n-2}({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over 2}-r)^{n-2}}dr\\ &&\le \left({\delta\over 4}\right)^{4-2n}\|x-x'\|^{2-n}\int_0^{\|x-x'\|}\sqrt{r(\|x-x'\|-r)}^{n-3}dr= \left({\delta\over 4}\right)^{4-2n}\int_0^1\sqrt{r(1-r)}dr\le\left({\delta\over 4}\right)^{4-2n}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore using we obtain $$(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{-{n-3\over 2}}I_1(\tau,x,x') \le 2^{n-2}{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})(T+\diam)^{n-3\over 2}\left({\delta\over 2}\right)^{4-2n}.\label{S_0.8b}$$ Finally assume $\delta\le\tau\le{\delta\over 2}+\|x-x'\|$ and $\|x-x'\|<\tau\le T$. From , it follows that $$(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{-{n-3\over 2}}I_1(\tau,x,x')\le{{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})(T+\diam)^{n-3\over 2}\over 2^{n-2}\|x-x'\|^{n-2}}\int\limits_{r_-(\tau,x,x')}^{r_+(\tau,x,x')}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! {\sqrt{r(\|x-x'\|-r)}^{n-3}\over ({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2} +r)^{n-2}({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over 2}-r)^{n-2}}dr,\label{S_0.9}$$ where $$r_-(\tau,x,x'):={\|x-x'\|+\delta-\tau\over 2},\ r_+(\tau,x,x'):={\tau-\delta+\|x-x'\|\over 2}.\label{S_0.10b}$$ Note that $$\int_{r_-(\tau,x,x')}^{r_+(\tau,x,x')}{\sqrt{r(\|x-x'\|-r)}^{n-3}\over ({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2} +r)^{n-2}({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over 2}-r)^{n-2}}dr =2\int_{r_-(\tau,x,x')}^{\|x-x'\|\over 2}{\sqrt{r(\|x-x'\|-r)}^{n-3}\over ({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2} +r)^{n-2}({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over 2}-r)^{n-2}}dr$$ $$\le 2\left({\tau\over 2}\right)^{2-n}\|x-x'\|^{n-3}\int_{r_-(\tau,x,x')}^{\|x-x'\|\over 2}{1\over ({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2} +r)^{n-2}}dr=2^{n-1}\tau^{2-n}\|x-x'\|^{n-3}\int_{r_-(\tau,x,x')}^{\|x-x'\|\over 2}{1\over ({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2} +r)^{n-2}}dr.\label{S_0.11}$$ Using we obtain $$\int_{r_-(\tau,x,x')}^{\|x-x'\|\over 2}{1\over ({\tau-\|x-x'\|\over 2} +r)^{n-2}}dr=C(n,\tau):=\left\lbrace \begin{matrix} \ln\left({\tau\over \delta}\right),\textrm{ if }n=3,\\ {1\over n-3}\left(\left({\delta\over 2}\right)^{3-n}-\left({\tau\over 2}\right)^{3-n}\right) \textrm{ otherwise.} \end{matrix} \right. \label{S_0.12}$$ From , , and the estimates $\delta\le \tau<{\delta\over 2}+\|x-x'\|$, it follows that $$(\tau-\|x-x'\|)^{-{n-3\over 2}}I_1(\tau,x,x')\le2^n{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\delta^{-(n-1)}(T+\diam)^{n-3\over 2}C(n,T),\label{S_0.13}$$ where the constant $C(n,T)$ is defined in . Combining with , and , we obtain for $n\ge 3$. $\Box$ Proof of Theorem \[theorem:normemultiplescat\] {#proof_thm_normemultiplescat} =============================================== We shall use the following Lemmas \[lem:prep\], \[lem:tildeJ\], \[lem:vol\] and \[lem:n=3nulaubord\]. Lemmas \[lem:prep\], \[lem:tildeJ\], \[lem:vol\] and \[lem:n=3nulaubord\] are proved in Section \[proof\_N\]. We introduce some notation first. Let $m\ge 1$ and $z',z\in \R^n$ such that $z\not= z'$. Let $\mu \ge 0$. We denote by ${\cal E}_{m,n}(\mu,z,z')$ the subset of $(\R^n)^m$ defined by $${\cal E}_{m,n}(\mu,z,z')=\{(y_1,\ldots,y_m)\in (\R^n)^m\ \|\ \|y_1\|+\ldots +\|y_m\|+\|z-z'-y_1-\ldots -y_m\|< \mu\}.\label{ellipse}$$ When $\mu \le \|z-z'\|$, then ${\cal E}_{m,n}(\mu,z,z')=\emptyset$. \[lem:prep\] Let $J_2$ be the function from $(0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^n$ defined by $$J_2(\mu,z,z')=\int_{{\cal E}_{1,n}(\mu,z,z')}{1\over \|y\|^{n-1}}N(\mu-\|y\|,z,z'+y)dy,\label{l7.1.1}$$ where $N$ is defined by . Then the following statements are valid: $$\sup_{(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^n\atop \mu>\|z-z'\|}J_2(\mu,z,z')<\infty,\ \mbox{when}\ n=2;\label{l7.1.2}$$ $$\sup_{(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^n\atop \mu>\|z-z'\|}(\mu-\|z-z'\|)^{-1}\mu\|z-z'\|\left(1+\ln\left({\mu+\|z-z'\|\over \mu-\|z-z'\|}\right)\right)^{-2}J_2(\mu,z,z')<\infty, \ \mbox{when}\ n=3;\label{l7.1.3}$$ $$\sup_{(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^n\atop \mu>\|z-z'\|}(\mu-\|z-z'\|)^{-1}\mu\|z-z'\|^{n-2}J_2(\mu,z,z')<\infty, \ \mbox{when}\ n\ge 4.\label{l7.1.4}$$ \[lem:tildeJ\] Let $m\ge 3$ and let $\tilde J_m$ be the function from $\{(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n\ \|\ 0<\|x-x'\|<\tau\}$ to $\R$ defined by $$\tilde J_m(\tau,x,x')=\int_{{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')}{dy_2\ldots dy_{m-1}\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_{m-1}\|^{n-2}},\label{th3.2pr8b}$$ for $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times \R^n\times\R^n$, $0<\|x-x'\|<\tau$. When $n=3$, then there exists a constant $\tilde C$ which does not depend on $m$ such that $$\tilde J_m(\tau,x,x')\le \tilde C{\tau-\|x-x'\|\over\|x-x'\|}\left(1+\ln\left({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over \tau-\|x-x'\|}\right)\right){m^{n-1}\left({\rm Vol}_{n-1}(\S^{n-1})\tau\right)^{m-3}\over (m-3)!},\label{th3.2pr9a}$$ for $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n$, $0<\|x-x'\|<\tau$. When $n\ge 4$, then there exists a constant $\tilde C$ which does not depend on $m$ such that $$\tilde J_m(\tau,x,x')\le \tilde C(\tau-\|x-x'\|)\|x-x'\|^{2-n}{m^{n-1}\left({\rm Vol}_{n-1}(\S^{n-1})\tau\right)^{m-3}\over (m-3)!},\label{th3.2pr9b}$$ for $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n$, $0<\|x-x'\|<\tau$. \[lem:vol\] Let $n\ge 2$. Let $(\tau,x,x')\in \R\times \R^n\times\R^n$ be such that $\tau>\|x-x'\|>0$, the following estimate is valid: $${\rm Vol}_{n}({\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,x,x'))\le{{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\pi(\tau+\|x-x'\|)\over 4} \left({\sqrt{\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2}\over 2}\right)^{n-1},\label{lA1b}$$ where ${\cal E}_{1,n}$ is defined by . \[lem:n=3nulaubord\]Let $B$ be the function from $\{(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times \pa X\times \R^3\ \|\ \mu>\|z-z'\|>0\}$ to $\R$ defined by $$B(\mu,z,z'):= \int_{{\cal E}_{1,3}(\mu,z,z')}\ln\left({\mu-\|y\|+\|z-z'-y\|\over \mu-\|y\|-\|z-z'-y\|}\right)dy = \int_{{\cal E}_{1,3}(\mu,t_0(1,0,0),0)}\ln\left({\mu-\|y\|+\|(t_0,0,0)-y\|\over \mu-\|y\|-\|(t_0,0,0)-y\|}\right)dy,\label{lemp1}$$ for $(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times \R^n$ where $t_0=\|z-z'\|$, $z\not= z'$, $\mu>\|z-z'\|$. Then we have: $$\sup_{(\mu,z,z')\in(0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^3 \atop \mu>\|z-z'\|>0}(\mu-\|z-z'\|)^{-1}\left(1+\ln\left({\mu+\|z-z'\|\over \mu-\|z-z'\|}\right)\right)^{-1}B(\mu,z,z')<\infty.\label{lemp0}$$ We also need the explicit expression of $\gamma_m$, $m\ge 2$, to prove Theorem \[theorem:normemultiplescat\] $$\begin{aligned} &&\gamma_2(\tau,x,x'):=\int_{y\in {\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau, x,x')\atop x'+y\in X}\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}(\nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v)\left[E(x,x-(\tau-\|y\|-s_1)v,x'+y,x')\right.\nonumber\\ &&\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,v))}(\tau-\|y\|-s_1)k(x-(\tau-s_1-\|y\|)v,v_1,v)k(x'+y,v',v_1)S(x',v')\nonumber\\ &&\left.\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\|\right]_{{s_1={\|x-x'-y-(\tau-\|y\|)v\|^2\over 2(\tau-\|y\|-(x-x'-y)\cdot v)}\atop v_1={x-x'-y-(\tau-s_1-\|y\|)v\over s_1}}\atop v'={y\over \|y\|}} {2^{n-2}(\tau-\|y\|-(x-x'-y)\cdot v)^{n-3}\over \|x-x'-y-(\tau-\|y\|)v\|^{2n-4}\|y\|^{n-1}} dy dv,\label{E8b}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} &&\gamma_m(\tau,x,x'):= \int_{(y_2,\ldots,y_m)\in {\cal E}_{m-1,n}(\tau,x,x')\atop (x'+y_m,\ldots,x'+y_m+\ldots+y_2)\in X^{m-1}}\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}(\nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v)\nonumber\\ &&\times {2^{n-2}\left(\tau-\|y_2\|-\ldots-\|y_m\|-(x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_m)\cdot v\right)^{n-3}\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots\|y_m\|^{n-1}\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_m- (\tau-\|y_2\|-\ldots-\|y_m\|)v\|^{2n-4}}\nonumber\\ &&\times \left[\chi_{(0,\tau_-(x,v))}(\tau-s_1-\|y_2\|-\ldots-\|y_m\|)E(x,x-(\tau-s_1-\|y_2\|-\ldots-\|y_m\|)v,\right.\nonumber\\ &&x'+y_m\ldots+y_2,\ldots, x'+y_m,x') k(x-(\tau-s_1-\|y_2\|-\ldots-\|y_m\|)v,v_1,v)\nonumber\\ &&\times k(x'+y_m+\ldots+y_2,v_2,v_1)\ldots k(x'+y_m+\ldots+y_{i+1},v_{i+1},v_i)\ldots \nonumber\\ &&k(x'+y_m+y_{m-1},v_{m-1},v_{m-2})k(x'+y_m,v',v_{m-1})S(x',v')\nonumber\\ &&\left.\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\| \right]_{{{v_1={x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_m-(\tau-s_1-\|y_2\|-\ldots-\|y_m\|)v\over s_1}\atop s_1={\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_m-(\tau-\|y_2\|-\ldots-\|y_m\|)v\|^2\over 2(t-\|y_2\|- \ldots-\|y_{m-1}\|-(x-x'-y_2-\ldots y_{m-1})\cdot v)}}\atop v'={y_m\over \|y_m\|}}\atop v_i={y_i\over \|y_i\|},\ i=2\ldots m-1} dy_2\ldots dy_m dv,\label{E8d}\end{aligned}$$ for $\tau \in \R$ and a.e. $(x,x')\in \pa X\times\pa X$ and for $m\ge 3$. We are ready to prove Theorem \[theorem:normemultiplescat\]. We prove , and . Let $\tau\in (0,T)$ and let $x\in \pa X$, $x'\in \pa X$ and $x\not=x'$. Set $t_0=\|x-x'\|$. We first look for an upper bound on $\|\gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\|$. Using and the fact that $\sigma$ is a nonnegative function, we obtain $$\|\gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\|\le2^{n-2}\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}^2J_2(\tau,x,x'),\label{th3.2pr1}$$ where $J_2$ and ${\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,x,x')$ are defined by and . From and – it follows that there exists a real constant $C$ such that $$\|\gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\|\le C\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}^2\sup_{(s,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n\atop s>\|z-z'\|}J_2(s,z,z'),\textrm{ when } n=2,\label{th3.2pr2a}$$ and $${\tau\|x-x'\|\over(\tau-\|x-x'\|)\left(1+\ln\left({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over \tau-\|x-x'\|}\right)\right)^2}\|\gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\| \le C\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}^2, \textrm{ when }n=3, \label{th3.2pr2b}$$ and $${\tau\|x-x'\|^{n-2}\over \tau-\|x-x'\|}\|\gamma_2(\tau,x,x')\|\le C\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}^2, \textrm{ when }n\ge 4.\label{th3.2pr2c}$$ Let $m\ge 3$. Using we obtain $$\|\gamma_m(\tau,x,x')\|\le 2^{n-2}\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}^{m}J_m(\tau,x,x'),\label{th3.2pr3}$$ where $$J_m(\tau,x,x')=\int_{{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')}{J_2(\tau(\bar y), w(\bar y),0)\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}}dy_2\ldots dy_{m-1}\label{th3.2pr4},$$ and $J_2$ (resp. ${\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')$) is defined by (resp. ) and where $\bar y=(y_2,\ldots, y_{m-1})$, $\tau(\bar y)=\tau-\|y_2\|-\ldots-\|y_{m-1}\|$, $t_0(\bar y)=\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_{m-1}\|$ and $w(\bar y)=x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_{m-1}$ for $\bar y\in (\R^n)^{m-2}$. Assume $n=2$. Then using , and spherical coordinates (and ), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} J_m(\tau,x,x')&\le&\sup_{(s,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n\atop s>\|z-z'\|}J_2(s,z,z')\int_{{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')}{1\over \|y_2\|\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|}d\bar y\nonumber\\ &\le&(2\pi)^{m-2}\sup_{(s,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n\atop s>\|z-z'\|}J_2(s,z,z')\int_{s_2+\ldots+s_{m-1}\le \tau\atop s_i\ge 0,\ i=2\ldots m-1}ds_2\ldots ds_{m-1}\nonumber\\ &=&(2\pi)^{m-2}{\tau^{m-2}\over (m-2)!}\sup_{(s,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n\atop s>\|z-z'\|}J_2(s,z,z').\label{th3.2pr5}\end{aligned}$$ Finally combining and , we obtain $$\|\gamma_m(\tau,x,x')\|\le(2\pi)^{m-2}\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}^{m}{\tau^{m-2}\over (m-2)!}\sup_{(s,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n\atop s>\|z-z'\|}J_2(s,z,z'),\label{th3.2pr6}$$ Statement follows from , . Assume $n\ge 3$. Note that $${\mu-\|z-z'\|\over \mu}=1-{\|z-z'\|\over \mu}\le 1, \label{th3.2pr7a}$$ and $${\mu-\|z-z'\|\over \mu}\left(1+\ln\left({\mu+\|z-z'\|\over \mu-\|z-z'\|}\right)\right)^2\le \sup_{s\in (0,1)}(1-s)\left(1+\ln\left({1+s\over 1-s}\right)\right)^2,\label{th3.2pr7b}$$ for $(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n$ such that $\|z-z'\|<\mu$. From , and , and , it follows that there exists a real constant $C$ such that $$J_m(\tau,x,x')\le C\tilde J_m(\tau,x,x'),\label{th3.2pr8a}$$ where $\tilde J_m$ is defined by . Assume $n=3$. Combining , , , we obtain that there exists a real constant $C'$ (which does not depend on $\tau$, $x$, $x'$ and $m$) such that $$\|\gamma_m(\tau,x,x')\|\le C'\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}^{m}{\tau-\|x-x'\|\over \|x-x'\|}\left(1+\ln\left({\tau+\|x-x'\|\over \tau-\|x-x'\|}\right)\right) {m^{n-1}\left({\rm Vol}_{n-1}(\S^{n-1})\tau\right)^{m-3}\over (m-3)!}.\label{th3.2pr10a}$$ Statement follows from and . Now assume $n\ge 4$. Combining , , , we obtain that there exists a real constant $C'$ (which does not depend on $\tau$, $x$, $x'$ and $m$) such that $$\|\gamma_m(\tau,x,x')\|\le C'\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}^{m}(\tau-\|x-x'\|)\|x-x'\|^{2-n}{m^{n-1}\left({\rm Vol}_{n-1}(\S^{n-1})\tau\right)^{m-3}\over (m-3)!}. \label{th3.2pr10ab}$$ Statement follows from and . We now prove –. Let $n\ge 3$ and $m\ge 2$. From the expression of $\gamma_m$ (see –), it follows that $$\|\gamma_m(\tau,x,x')\|\le 2^{n-2}\\|W\\|_{\infty}\\|S\\|_{\infty}\\|k\\|_{\infty}^mI_m(\tau,x,x')\label{9.1}$$ where $$I_m(\tau,x,x'):=\int\limits_{(y_2,\ldots,y_m)\in{\cal E}_{m-1,n}(\tau,x,x_0')\atop (x'+y_m,\ldots,x'+ \sum_{i=2}^m y_i)\in ({\rm supp}k)^{m-1}}{N(\tau-\sum_{i=2}^m\|y_i\|,x,x'+\sum_{i=2}^my_i)dy_m\ldots dy_2\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_m\|^{n-1}},\label{9.1b}$$ where $N$ and ${\cal E}_{m-1,n}(\tau,x,x')$ are defined by and . Note that $$\begin{aligned} &&\|y_m\|\ge \delta \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \tau-\sum_{i=2}^m\|y_i\|\ge\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_m\|\ge \delta,\label{9.2b}\end{aligned}$$ for $(y_2,..,y_m)\in {\cal E}_{m-1,n}(\tau,x,x')$ such that $x'+y_m\in {\rm supp}k$ and $x'+y_2+\ldots +y_m\in {\rm supp}k$ since ${\rm supp}k\subseteq \{z\in X\ \|\ \inf_{y\in \pa X}\|y-z\|\ge \delta\}$. We prove . Assume $n=3$. Using –, and we obtain $$I_2(\tau,x,x')\le 2\pi\delta^{-4}B(\tau,x,x').\label{9.8}$$ Therefore using and we obtain $$\sup_{(s,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X\atop s>\|z-z'\|>0}(s-\|z-z'\|)^{-1}\left(1+\ln\left({s+\|z-z'\|\over s-\|z-z'\|}\right)\right)^{-1}I_2(s,z,z')<\infty.\label{9.9}$$ Now assume $m\ge 3$. Using , we obtain $$I_m(\tau,x,x')\le \int\limits_{(y_3,\ldots,y_m)\in{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x_0')\atop (x'+\sum_{i=3}^m y_i,x'+y_m)\in ({\rm supp} k)^2} {J_2(\tau-\sum_{i=3}^m\|y_i\|,x,x'+\sum_{i=3}^my_i)dy_m\ldots dy_3\over \|y_3\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_m\|^{n-1}}, \label{9.10}$$ where $J_2$ is defined by . Using and and the estimate $\sup_{r\in (0,1)}r(1-\ln(r))^2<\infty$ we obtain $$I_m(\tau,x,x')\le D \int\limits_{(y_3,\ldots,y_m)\in{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x_0')\atop (x'+\sum_{i=3}^m y_i,x'+y_m)\in ({\rm supp} k)^2} {(\|x-x'-y_3-\ldots-y_m\|+\tau-\sum_{i=3}^m\|y_i\|)dy_m\ldots dy_3\over \|y_3\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_m\|^{n-1}(\tau-\sum_{i=3}^m\|y_i\|)\|x-x'-y_3-\ldots-y_m\|}, \label{9.10bis}$$ where $D:=\sup_{r\in (0,1)}r(1-\ln(r))^2\sup_{(s,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\pa X\atop s>\|z-z'\|>0}(s-\|z-z'\|)^{-1}s\|z-z'\|\left(1+\ln\left({s+\|z-z'\|\over s-\|z-z'\|}\right)\right)^{-2}$ $J_2(s,z,z')$. If $m= 3$, then using with “$(y_2,\ldots,y_m)$” replaced by “$(y_3,\ldots,y_m)$”, we obtain $$I_3(\tau,x,x')\le 2\tau\delta^{-4} D{\rm Vol}({\cal E}_{1,3}(\tau,x,x'))\label{9.11a}$$ (we also used the estimate $\|x-x'-y_3\|+\tau-\|y_3\|\le 2\tau$ for $y_3\in {\cal E}_{1,3}(\tau,x,x')$). If $m\ge 4$, then using with “$(y_2,\ldots,y_m)$” replaced by “$(y_3,\ldots,y_m)$”, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} I_m(\tau,x,x')&\le& 2\tau\delta^{-4} D{\rm Vol}({\cal E}_{1,3}(\tau,x,x'))\int\limits_{(y_3,\ldots,y_{m-1})\in {\cal E}_{m-3,3}(\tau,x,x')} {dy_3\ldots dy_{m-1}\over \|y_3\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}}\nonumber\\ &\le& 2\tau\delta^{-4} D{\rm Vol}({\cal E}_{1,3}(\tau,x,x')){\rm Vol}(\S^{n-1})^{m-3}\int_{(s_3,\ldots,s_{m-1})\in (0,+\infty)^{m-3}\atop s_3+\ldots +s_{m-1}<\tau}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!ds_3\ldots ds_{m-1}\nonumber\\ &=&2\tau\delta^{-4} D{\rm Vol}(\S^{n-1})^{m-3}{\tau^{m-3}\over (m-3)!}{\rm Vol}({\cal E}_{1,3}(\tau,x,x') \label{9.11b}\end{aligned}$$ (we also used the estimate $\|x-x'-y_3-\ldots-y_m\|+\tau-\|y_3\|-\ldots-\|y_m\|\le 2\tau$ for $(y_3,\ldots,y_m)\in {\cal E}_{m-2,3}(\tau,x,x')$ and we performed the changes of variables $y_i=s_i\omega_i$, $(s_i,\omega_i) \in (0,+\infty)\times\S^{n-1}$). Statement follows from , and – (and ). We prove . Let $n\ge 4$. Using and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&I_m(\tau,x,x')\le\\|s\|z-z'\|^{n-2}N(s,z,z')\\|_{L^\infty(\R_s\times\pa X_z\times\R^n_{z'})}\nonumber\\ &&\times\int\limits_{{(y_2,\ldots,y_m)\in{\cal E}_{m-1,n}(\tau,x,x_0')\atop x'+y_m\in {\rm supp}k} \atop x'+\sum_{i=2}^my_i\in {\rm supp}k}{dy_m\ldots dy_2\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_m\|^{n-1}\|x-x'-\sum_{i=2}^my_i\|^{n-2}(\tau-\sum_{i=2}^m\|y_i\|)}.\label{9.3b}\end{aligned}$$ Assume $m=2$. Using and , we obtain $$I_m(\tau,x,x')\le\delta^{-2n+2}\\|s\|z-z'\|^{n-2}N(s,z,z')\\|_{L^\infty(\R_s\times\pa X_z\times\R^n_{z'})}{\rm Vol}({\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,x,x')).\label{9.3}$$ Therefore using , we obtain $$\footnotesize I_m(\tau,x,x')\le\delta^{-2n+2}\\|s\|z-z'\|^{n-2}N(s,z,z')\\|_{L^\infty(\R_s\times\pa X_z\times\R^n_{z'})}{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\pi (\tau+\|x-x'\|) \left({\sqrt{\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2}\over 2}\right)^{n-1}\!\!\!.\label{9.4}$$ Assume $m\ge 3$. Using and , we obtain $$I_m(\tau,x,x')\le\delta^{-2n+2}\\|s\|z-z'\|^{n-2}N(s,z,z')\\|_{L^\infty(\R_s\times\pa X_z\times\R^n_{z'})} \hspace{-1cm}\int\limits_{{(y_2,\ldots,y_m)\in{\cal E}_{m-1,n}(\tau,x,x')}}\hspace{-1cm}{dy_m\ldots dy_2\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}}.\label{9.5}$$ Note that $\|y_m\|+\|x-x'-y_m\|\le \|y_2\|+\ldots+\|y_m\|+\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_m\|$ for $(y_2,\ldots, y_m)\in (\R^n)^{m-1}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned} &&\|y_2\|+\ldots +\|y_{m-1}\|< \tau-\|y_m\|\qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad \|y_m\|+\|x-x'-y_m\|<\tau,\label{9.6b}\end{aligned}$$ for $(y_2,\ldots,y_m)\in{\cal E}_{m-1,n}(\tau,x,x')$ (see ). Therefore $$\begin{aligned} &&I_m(\tau,x,x')\le\delta^{-2n+2}\\|s\|z-z'\|^{n-2}N(s,z,z')\\|_{L^\infty(\R_s\times\pa X_z\times\R^n_{z'})} \nonumber\\ &&\times\int_{y_m\in {\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,x,x')}\int_{\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}\|y_i\|<\tau-\|y_m\|}{dy_m\ldots dy_2\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}}\nonumber\\ &&=\delta^{-2n+2}{\rm Vol}(\S^{n-1})^{m-2}\\|s\|z-z'\|^{n-2}N(s,z,z')\\|_{L^\infty(\R_s\times\pa X_z\times\R^n_{z'})} \int_{y_m\in {\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,x,x')}{(\tau-\|y_m\|)^{m-2}\over (m-2)!}dy_m\nonumber\\ &&\le\delta^{-2n+2}{\rm Vol}(\S^{n-1})^{m-2}\\|s\|z-z'\|^{n-2}N(s,z,z')\\|_{L^\infty(\R_s\times\pa X_z\times\R^n_{z'})} {\rm Vol}({\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,x,x')){\tau^{m-2}\over (m-2)!}\nonumber\\ &&=\delta^{-2n+2}{\rm Vol}(\S^{n-1})^{m-2}\\|s\|z-z'\|^{n-2}N(s,z,z')\\|_{L^\infty(\R_s\times\pa X_z\times\R^n_{z'})} {\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\pi (\tau+\|x-x'\|)\nonumber\\ &&\times \left({\sqrt{\tau^2-\|x-x'\|^2}\over 2}\right)^{n-1}{\tau^{m-2}\over (m-2)!}.\label{9.7}\end{aligned}$$ Statement follows from , and .$\Box$ Proof of Lemmas \[lem:prep\], \[lem:tildeJ\], \[lem:vol\] and \[lem:n=3nulaubord\] {#proof_N} ================================================================================== We remind the following change of variables for the proof of Lemmas \[lem:prep\], \[lem:tildeJ\], \[lem:vol\] and \[lem:n=3nulaubord\]. $$\begin{aligned} &&\int_{{\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,t_0v,0))}f(y)dy\nonumber\\ &&=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{l} \displaystyle\int_{(0,2\pi)\times(t_0,\tau)}f\left({t_0+s\cos(\varphi)\over 2},{\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over 2}\sin\varphi\right)\\ \displaystyle\times{(s^2-t_0^2\cos^2(\varphi))\over 4\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}}ds d\varphi,\textrm{ if }n= 2,\\ \displaystyle\int_{\S^{n-2}\times(0,\pi)\times(t_0,\tau)}f\left({t_0+s\cos(\varphi)\over 2},{\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over 2}\sin\varphi\omega\right)\\ \displaystyle\times\left({\sin(\varphi)\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over 2}\right)^{n-2} {s^2-t_0^2\cos^2(\varphi)\over 4\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}}d\omega ds d\varphi,\textrm{ if }n\ge 3, \end{array} \right. \label{P2}\end{aligned}$$ for $f\in L^1(\R^n)$ and $(\tau,t_0,v)\in (0,+\infty)\times(0,+\infty)\times\S^{n-1}$ such that $\tau>t_0$. We prove . Let $(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^2$ be such that $\mu>\|z-z'\|$. From and it follows that $$\begin{aligned} J_2(\mu,z,z')&=&\int_{{\cal E}_{1,2}(\mu,z,z')}{2\pi\over \|y\|\sqrt{(\mu-\|y\|)^2-\|z-z'-y\|^2}}dy\nonumber\\ &=&\int_{{\cal E}_{1,2}(\mu,t_0(1,0),0)}{2\pi\over \|y\|\sqrt{(\mu-\|y\|)^2-\|t_0(1,0)-y\|^2}}dy,\label{th3.2.50}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_0=\|z-z'\|$. Using the change of variables $y={t_0\over 2}(1,0)+(s\cos(\varphi),{\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over 2}\sin(\varphi))$ (see ), $\varphi\in (0,2\pi)$, $s\in (t_0,\mu)$, we obtain $$J_2(\mu,z,z')=4\pi\int_{t_0}^\mu\int_0^{2\pi}J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)d\varphi ds,\label{th3.2.51}$$ where $$J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)={s-t_0\cos(\varphi)\over \sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\sqrt{\mu-s}\sqrt{\mu-t_0\cos(\varphi)}}, \label{th3.2.52a}$$ for $\varphi\in (0,2\pi)$ and $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. We give an estimate on $J_{2,1}$. From and the estimates $\mu-t_0\cos(\varphi)\ge s-t_0\cos(\varphi)$, $s+t_0\ge s-t_0\cos(\varphi)$, it follows that $$J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)\le{1\over \sqrt{s-t_0}\sqrt{\mu-s}},\label{th3.2.53a}$$ for $\varphi\in(0,{\pi\over 2})$ and $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. Performing the change of variables $s=t_0+\ep(\mu-t_0)$ we have $$\int_{t_0}^\mu{1\over\sqrt{s-t_0}\sqrt{\mu-s}}ds=\int_0^1{1\over \sqrt{\ep(1-\ep)}}d\ep<+\infty,\label{P4}$$ for $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. Combining , , , we obtain $$\sup_{(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^2\atop \mu>\|z-z'\|}J_2(\mu,z,z')\le 8\pi^2\int_0^1{1\over \sqrt{\ep(1-\ep)}}d\ep<\infty.\label{th3.2.54}$$ Statement follows from .\ We prove . Let $(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^3$ be such that $\mu>\|z-z'\|$. Set $t_0=\|z-z'\|$. From , and , it follows that $$\begin{aligned} J_2(\mu,z,z')&\le& \int_{{\cal E}_{1,3}(\mu,z,z')}{2\pi\ln\left({\mu-\|y\|+\|z-z'-y\|\over \mu-\|y\|-\|z-z'-y\|}\right)\over \|y\|^2(\mu-\|y\|)\|z-z'-y\|}dy\nonumber\\ &=&\int_{{\cal E}_{1,3}(\mu,t_0(1,0,0),0)}{2\pi\ln\left({\mu-\|y\|+\|t_0(1,0,0)-y\|\over \mu-\|y\|-\|t_0(1,0,0)-y\|}\right)\over \|y\|^2(\mu-\|y\|)\|t_0(1,0,0)-y\|}dy\nonumber\\ &=&8\pi^2\int_{t_0}^\mu\int_0^{\pi}J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)d\varphi ds,\label{l7ii2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)&=&{\sin(\varphi)\ln\left({\mu-t_0\cos(\varphi)\over \mu-s}\right)\over (s+t_0\cos(\varphi))(2\mu-s-t_0\cos(\varphi))}\nonumber\\ &=&{\ln\left({\mu-t_0\cos(\varphi)\over \mu-s}\right)} \left({\sin(\varphi)\over 2\mu (s+t_0\cos(\varphi))}+{\sin(\varphi)\over 2\mu(2\mu-s-t_0\cos(\varphi))}\right),\label{l7ii3b}\end{aligned}$$ for $\varphi\in (0,\pi)$ and $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. From and the estimates $2\mu-s-t_0\cos(\varphi)\ge \mu-t_0\cos(\varphi)$, $0\le \ln\left({\mu-t_0\cos(\varphi)\over \mu-s}\right)\le\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right)$, it follows that $$J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)\le{\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right)} \left({\sin(\varphi)\over 2\mu (s-t_0\cos(\varphi))}+{\sin(\varphi)\over 2\mu (\mu-t_0\cos(\varphi))}\right),$$ for $\varphi\in (0,\pi)$ and $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} \int_0^{\pi}J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)d\varphi&\le& {\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right)\over 2\mu t_0} \left(\ln \left({s+t_0\over s-t_0}\right)+\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-t_0}\right)\right)\nonumber\\ &\le&{\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right)\over 2\mu t_0} \left(\ln \left({\mu+t_0\over s-t_0}\right)+\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-t_0}\right)\right). \label{l7ii4b}\end{aligned}$$ We remind the following integral value $$\int_{t_0}^\mu\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right)ds=(\mu-t_0)\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-t_0}\right)+\mu-t_0.\label{P5}$$ Using the estimate $\ln \left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right)\le \ln\left({2(\mu+t_0)\over \mu-t_0}\right)$ for $s\in (t_0,{t_0+\mu\over 2})$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\int_{t_0}^\mu \ln\left(\mu+t_0\over s-t_0\right)\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right)ds =2\int_{t_0}^{t_0+\mu\over 2} \ln\left(\mu+t_0\over s-t_0\right)\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right)ds\nonumber\\ &&\le 2 \ln\left({2(\mu+t_0)\over \mu-t_0}\right)\int_{t_0}^{t_0+\mu\over 2} \ln\left(\mu+t_0\over s-t_0\right)ds\nonumber\\ &&\le 2 (\mu-t_0)\left(\ln\left({(\mu+t_0)\over \mu-t_0}\right)+\ln(2)\right)\left(\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-t_0}\right)+1\right).\label{l7ii7}\end{aligned}$$ Combining – and , we obtain $$J_2(\mu,z,z')\le 4\pi^2 {\mu-t_0\over \mu t_0}\left(3\ln\left({(\mu+t_0)\over \mu-t_0}\right)+2\ln(2)\right)\left(\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-t_0}\right)+1\right).\label{l7ii8}$$ Statement follows from .\ We prove . Let $n\ge 4$. Let $(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^n$ be such that $\mu>\|z-z'\|$. From and it follows that $$J_2(\mu,z,z')\le C\int_{{\cal E}_{1,n}(\mu,z,z')}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\|y\|^{1-n}(\mu-\|y\|)^{-1}\|z-z'-y\|^{2-n}dy =C\int_{{\cal E}_{1,n}(\mu,t_0(1,0\ldots 0),0)}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\|y\|^{1-n}(\mu-\|y\|)^{-1}\|t_0(1,0,0)-y\|^{2-n}dy,\label{l7iii1}$$ where $t_0=\|z-z'\|$ and $C=\sup_{(\tilde\mu,\tilde z,\tilde z')\in (0,T)\times \pa X\times\R^n}\tilde \mu\|\tilde z-\tilde z'\|^{n-2}N(\tilde \mu, \tilde z,\tilde z')$. Using the change of variables $y={t_0\over 2}(1,0)+(s\cos(\varphi),{\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over 2}\sin(\varphi)\omega)$ (see ), $\varphi\in (0,\pi)$, $s\in (t_0,\mu)$, $\omega\in \S^{n-2}$, we obtain $$J_2(\mu,z,z')\le C'\int_{t_0}^\mu\int_0^{\pi}J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)d\varphi ds,\label{l7iii2}$$ where $C'=2^{n-2}{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})C$ and $$J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)={(s^2-t_0^2)^{n-3\over 2}\sin^{n-2}(\varphi)\over (s+t_0\cos(\varphi))^{n-2}(2\mu-s-t_0\cos(\varphi))(s-t_0\cos(\varphi))^{n-3}}, \label{l7iii3b}$$ for $\varphi\in (0,2\pi)$ and $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. We give estimates on $J_{2,1}$. Let $\varphi\in (0,{\pi\over 2})$ and $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. From and the estimates $s+t_0\cos(\varphi)\ge s$, $\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\sin(\varphi)\le s-t_0\cos(\varphi)$ and the estimate $2\mu-s-t_0\cos(\varphi)\ge s-t_0\cos(\varphi)$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)&\le& {\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\sin^2(\varphi)\over s^{n-2}(s-t_0\cos(\varphi))^2}\nonumber\\ &\le&C_0{\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over s^{n-1}(s-t_0\cos(\varphi))},\label{a}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_0$ is defined by (we also used the estimate $s-t_0\cos(\varphi)\ge s(1-\cos(\varphi))$). Let $\varphi\in ({\pi\over 2},\pi)$ and $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. From and the estimates $s-t_0\cos(\varphi)\ge s$, $\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\sin(\varphi)\le s+t_0\cos(\varphi)$ and the estimate $2\mu-s-t_0\cos(\varphi)\ge s$, it follows that $$J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)\le {\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\sin^2(\varphi)\over s^{n-2}(s+t_0\cos(\varphi))^2} \le C_0{\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over s^{n-1}(s+t_0\cos(\varphi))},\label{b}$$ where $C_0$ is defined by (we also used the estimate $s+t_0\cos(\varphi)\ge s(1+\cos(\varphi))$). Combining and and , we obtain $$\int_0^{\pi}J_{2,1}(\mu,s,\varphi)d\varphi \le {2\pi C_0\over s^{n-1}},\textrm{ for }s\in (t_0,\mu).\label{c}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned} \int_{t_0}^\mu{1\over s^{n-1}}ds&=&{1\over n-2}\left({\mu^{n-2}-t_0^{n-2}\over t_0^{n-2}\mu^{n-2}}\right)={\mu-t_0\over n-2}\sum_{i=0}^{n-3}{\mu^{-1-i}t_0^{i+2-n}} \nonumber\\ &\le&{\mu-t_0\over \mu t_0^{n-2}}.\label{l7iii5}\end{aligned}$$ (we used the estimate $t_0<\mu$ which gives $\mu^{-1-i}t_0^{i+2-n}\le \mu^{-1} t_0^{n-2}$ for $i=0\ldots n-3$). Combining , –, we obtain $$J_2(\mu,z,z')\le C'{\mu-t_0\over \mu t_0^{n-2}}.\label{l7iii6}$$ where $C'$ does not depend on $\mu$ and $z$, $z'$. Statement follows from . Let $(\tau,x,x')\in (0,T)\times\R^n\times\R^n$ such that $\tau>\|x-x'\|>0$. Set $t_0=\|x-x'\|$. Let $(y_2,\ldots, y_{m-1})\in {\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')$. Then $t_0\le \|y_2\|+\ldots +\|y_{m-1}\|+\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots y_{m-1}\|$. Therefore either $\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_{m-1}\|\ge{t_0\over m-1}$ or $\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_{m-1}\|<{t_0\over m-1}$ and there exists $j\in \N$, $j=1\ldots n$ such that $\|y_j\|\ge {t_0\over m-1}$. Therefore using we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \tilde J_m(\tau,x,x')&\le& \sum_{j=2}^{m-1}\int_{{(y_2,\ldots,y_{m-1})\in{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')\atop \|x-x'-\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}y_i\|<{t_0\over m-1}}\atop \|y_j\|\ge {t_0\over m-1}} {dy_2\ldots dy_{m-1}\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}\|x-x'-\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}y_i\|^{n-2}}\nonumber\\ &&+\tilde J_{m,0}(\tau,x,x')\nonumber\\ &=&(m-2)\tilde J_{m,1}(\tau,x,x')+\tilde J_{m,0}(\tau,x,x'),\label{th3.2pr12}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\tilde J_{m,0}(\tau,x,x')&=&\int_{(y_2,\ldots,y_{m-1})\in{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')\atop \|x-x'-\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}y_i\|>{t_0\over m-1}} {dy_2\ldots dy_{m-1}\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}\|x-x'-\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}y_i\|^{n-2}},\label{th3.2pr13a}\\ \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\tilde J_{m,1}(\tau,x,x')&=&\int_{{(y_2,\ldots,y_{m-1})\in{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')\atop \|x-x'-\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}y_i\|<{t_0\over m-1}}\atop \|y_2\|\ge {t_0\over m-1}} {dy_2\ldots dy_{m-1}\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}\|x-x'-\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}y_i\|^{n-2}}.\label{th3.2pr13b}\end{aligned}$$ We first reduce the estimate of $\tilde J_{m,0}$ and $\tilde J_{m,1}$ to an estimate on $$P_m(\tau,x,x'):=\int_{(y_2,\ldots,y_{m-1})\in{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')} {dy_2\ldots dy_{m-1}\over \|y_2\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}}.\label{th3.2pr14}$$ From and the estimate $\|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_{m-1}\|>{t_0\over m-1}$ it follows that $$\tilde J_{m,0}(\tau,x,x')\le \left({m-1\over t_0}\right)^{n-2}P_m(\tau,x,x').\label{th3.2pr15}$$ From and the estimates $\|y_2\|\ge {t_0\over m-1}\ge \|x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_{m-1}\|$ it follows that $$\tilde J_{m,1}(\tau,x,x')\le \int_{{(y_2,\ldots,y_{m-1})\in{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')\atop \|x-x'-\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}y_i\|<{t_0\over m-1}}\atop \|y_2\|\ge {t_0\over m-1}} {dy_2\ldots dy_{m-1}\over \|y_2\|^{n-2}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}\|x-x'-\sum_{i=2}^{m-1}y_i\|^{n-1}}.\label{th3.2pr16}$$ Therefore performing the change of variables “$y_2$”$=x-x'-y_2-\ldots-y_{m-1} $ we obtain $$\tilde J_{m,1}(\tau,x,x')\le \tilde J_{m,0}\le \left({m-1\over t_0}\right)^{n-2}P_m(\tau,x,x').\label{th3.2pr17}$$ Now we estimate $P_3(\tau,x,x')$. From and it follows that $$P_3(\tau,x,x')={\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\int_0^\pi\int_{t_0}^\tau{\sin^{n-2}(\varphi)\left(s^2-t_0^2\right)^{n-3\over 2}(s-t_0\cos(\varphi))\over 2(s+t_0\cos(\varphi))^{n-2}}ds d\varphi.\label{th3.2pr18}$$ Let $n=3$. Then using the estimate $\cos(\varphi)\ge -1$ (and the fact that ${s-t_0\cos(\varphi)\over s+t_0\cos(\varphi)}={s-t_0\over s+t_0\cos(\varphi)}+{t_0(1-\cos(\varphi))\over s+t_0\cos(\varphi))}\le 1+{2t_0\over s+t_0\cos(\varphi)}$) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} P_3(\tau,x,x')&\le&\pi\int_{t_0}^\tau\int_0^\pi\left(\sin(\varphi)-2{d\over d\varphi}\ln (s+t_0\cos(\varphi)\right) d\varphi ds\nonumber\\ &=&2\pi\left(\tau-t_0+\int_{t_0}^\tau\ln (s+t_0)ds-\int_{t_0}^\tau\ln(s-t_0)ds\right)\nonumber\\ &=&2\pi(\tau-t_0)\left(2+\ln\left({\tau+t_0\over\tau-t_0}\right)\right)\label{th3.2pr19}\end{aligned}$$ (we used the estimate $\ln(s+t_0)\le \ln(\tau+t_0)$ for $s\in (t_0,\tau)$ and we used the integral value ). Let $n\ge 4$. Using and using the estimates $\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\sin(\varphi)\le s+t_0\cos(\varphi)$, $s+t_0\cos(\varphi)\ge s(1+\cos(\varphi))$ and $s-t_0\cos(\varphi)\le s+t_0\le 2s$ for $(s,\varphi)\in (t_0,\tau)\times(0,\pi)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!P_3(\tau,x,x')&\le&{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\int_0^\pi\int_{t_0}^\tau{\sin^{2}(\varphi)\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}(s-t_0\cos(\varphi))\over 2(s+t_0\cos(\varphi))^2}ds d\varphi\nonumber\\ \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&\le&C_0{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\int_{t_0}^{\tau}\int_{0}^\pi{\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over s+t_0\cos(\varphi)} d\varphi ds\le\pi C_0{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})(\tau-t_0), \label{th3.2pr20}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_0$ is defined by (we also used ). Finally let $m\ge 4$ then $$(y_2,\ldots,y_{m-1})\in{\cal E}_{m-2,n}(\tau,x,x')\Rightarrow \left(y_2\in {\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,x,x') \textrm{ and }\sum_{i=3}^{m-1}\|y_i\|<\tau\right).\label{th3.2pr21}$$ Therefore using , spherical coordinates (“$y_i$”$=s_i\omega_i$, $s_i\in (0,+\infty)$, $\omega_i\in \S^{n-1}$ for $i=3,\ldots, m-1$) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!P_m(\tau,x,x')\le P_3(\tau,x,x')\int_{\|y_3\|+\ldots+\|y_{m-1}\|<\tau}{dy_3\ldots dy_{m-1}\over \|y_3\|^{n-1}\ldots \|y_{m-1}\|^{n-1}}\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\le P_3(\tau,x,x'){\rm Vol}_{n-1}(\S^{n-1})^{m-3}\int_{s_3+\ldots+s_{m-1}<\tau\atop 0<s_i,\ i=3,\ldots, m-1}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\Pi_{i=3}^{m-1}ds_i =P_3(\tau,x,x'){\rm Vol}_{n-1}(\S^{n-1})^{m-3}{\tau^{m-3}\over (m-3)!}.\label{th3.2pr22}\end{aligned}$$ Finally statement follows from , , , and , and statement follows from , , , and . Let $n\ge 2$. Using a rotation and , we have $${\rm Vol}_n({\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,x,x'))={\rm Vol}_{n}({\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,t_0e_1,0)),\label{L1.0}$$ where $t_0=\|x-x'\|$ and $e_1=(0,\ldots,0)\in \R^n$. From , it follows that $${\rm Vol}_n({\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,t_0e_1,0))={\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\int_{t_0}^{\tau}\int_0^\pi\left({\sin(\varphi)\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over 2} \right)^{n-2}{s^2-t_0^2\cos^2(\varphi)\over 4\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}}ds d\varphi. \label{L3}$$ From and the estimate $\sin(\varphi)\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\le \sqrt{\tau^2-t_0^2}$ for $s\in (t_0, \tau)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\rm Vol}_n({\cal E}_{1,n}(\tau,t_0e_1,0))&\le& {\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\left({\sqrt{\tau^2-t_0^2}\over 2}\right)^{n-2} \int_{t_0}^{\tau}\int_0^\pi{s^2-t_0^2\cos^2(\phi)\over 4\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}}ds d\varphi\nonumber\\ &\le& {1\over 2}{\rm Vol}_{n-2}(\S^{n-2})\left({\sqrt{\tau^2-t_0^2}\over 2}\right)^{n-2}{\rm Vol}({\cal E}_{1,2}(\tau, t_0e_1,0)). \label{L4}\end{aligned}$$ We remind that ${\rm Vol}({\cal E}_{1,2}(\tau, t_0e_1,0))={\pi(t_0+\tau)\sqrt{\tau^2-t_0^2}\over 4}$. Therefore follows from . Lemma \[lem:vol\] is proved. Let $(\mu,z,z')\in (0,T)\times\pa X\times\R^3$ be such that $\mu>\|z-z'\|>0$. Using the change of variables $y={t_0\over 2}(1,0)+(s\cos(\varphi),{\sqrt{s^2-t_0^2}\over 2}\sin(\varphi)\omega)$ (see ), $\varphi\in (0,\pi)$, $s\in (t_0,\mu)$, $\omega\in \S^1$, we obtain $$B(\mu,z,z')={\pi \over 4}\int_{t_0}^\mu\int_0^{\pi}B_1(\mu,s,\varphi)d\varphi ds,\label{lemp2}$$ where $$B_1(\mu,s,\varphi)=(s^2-t_0^2\cos^2(\varphi))\sin(\varphi)\ln\left({\mu-t_0\cos(\varphi)\over \mu-s}\right),\label{lemp3a}$$ for $\varphi\in (0,2\pi)$ and $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. Using and the estimates $\ln\left({\mu-t_0\cos(\varphi)\over \mu-s}\right)\le\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right)$, $s^2-t_0^2\cos^2(\varphi)\le \mu^2$, we obtain $$\int_0^\pi B_1(\mu,s,\varphi)d\varphi\le \mu^2\int_0^\pi\sin(\varphi)d\varphi\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-s}\right), \label{lemp4b}$$ for $s\in (t_0,\mu)$. Combining , and we obtain $$B(\mu,z,z')\le {\mu^2\pi\over 2}(\mu-t_0)\left(\ln\left({\mu+t_0\over \mu-t_0}\right)+1\right),\label{lemp5}$$ which proves . The distributional kernel of the operators $H_m$ and the proof of Proposition \[prop:kernelA\] {#proof_kernelA} ============================================================================================== Before we prove Proposition \[prop:kernelA\] we shall introduce and prove Proposition \[prop:kernelH\] given below, which gives the distributional kernel of the operators $H_m$ defined by . Let $\bar E$ denotes the nonnegative mesurable function from $\R^n\times\R^n$ to $\R$ defined by $$\bar E(x_1,x_2)=e^{-\int_0^{\|x_1-x_2\|}\sigma(x_1-s{x_1-x_2\over\|x_1-x_2\|},{x_1-x_2\over \|x_1-x_2\|})ds}\Theta(x_1,x_2),\textrm{ for a.e. }(x_1,x_2)\in \R^n\times\R^n,\label{N1}$$ where $\Theta$ is defined by . For $m\ge 3$, we define recursively the nonnegative measurable real function $\bar E(x_1,\ldots,x_m)$ by the formula $$\bar E(x_1,\ldots, x_m)=\bar E(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})\bar E(x_{m-1},x_m),\label{N2}$$ for $(x_1,\ldots,x_m)\in (\R^n)^m$. Concerning the distributional kernel of the $H_m$, $m\ge 2$, we have the following result. \[prop:kernelH\] We have $$H_m(t)\phi(x,v)=\int_{X\times \S^{n-1}}\beta_m(t,x,v,x',v')\phi(x',v')dx'dv',\label{E3}$$ for $t\in (0,T)$ and a.e. $(x,v)\in X\times \S^{n-1}$ and for $m\ge 2$, where $$\begin{aligned} \beta_2(t,x,v,x',v')&=&\int_0^t\chi_{(0,t-s_2)}(\|x'-(x-s_2v')\|){2^{n-2}\left(t-s_2-(x-s_2v'-x')\cdot v\right)^{n-3}\over\left\|x-s_2v'-x'-(t-s_2)v\right\|^{2n-4}}\nonumber\\ &&\times\left[\bar E(x,x-(t-s_1-s_2)v,x'+s_2v',x')k(x-(t-s_1-s_2)v,v_1,v)\right.\nonumber\\ &&\left.\times k(x'+s_2v',v',v_1) \right]_{v_1={x-s_2v'-x'-(t-s_1-s_2)v\over s_1}\atop s_1={\|x-s_2v'-x'-(t-s_2)v\|^2\over 2(t-s_2-(x-x'-s_2v')\cdot v)}}ds_2,\label{E4}\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in (0,T)$ and a.e. $(x,v,x',v')\in X\times\S^{n-1}\times X\times\S^{n-1}$, and where $$\begin{aligned} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\beta_m(t,x,v,x',v')= \int_{\left(\S^{n-1}\right)^{m-2}}\int_{s_2+\ldots+s_m\le t\atop s_i\ge 0,\ i=2\ldots m}\chi_{(0,t-s_m-\ldots-s_2)}(\|x'+s_mv'+\ldots+s_2v_2-x\|)\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times {2^{n-2}\left(t-s_2-\ldots-s_m-(x-x'-s_2v_2-\ldots-s_{m-1}v_{m-1}-s_mv')\cdot v\right)^{n-3}\over \|x-x'-s_2v_2-\ldots-s_{m-1}v_{m-1}-s_mv'- (t-s_2-\ldots-s_m)v\|^{2n-4}}\left[\bar E(x,x-(t-s_1-\ldots-s_m)v,\right.\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \left.x'+s_mv'+s_{m-1}v_{m-1}+\ldots+s_2v_2,x'+s_mv'+s_{m-1}v_{m-1}+\ldots+s_3v_3,\right.\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\ldots, x'+s_mv',x') k(x-(t-s_1-\ldots-s_m)v,v_1,v)k(x'+s_mv'+s_{m-1}v_{m-1}+\ldots+s_2v_2,v_2,v_1)\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\ldots k(x'+s_mv'+s_{m-1}v_{m-1}+\ldots+s_{i+1}v_{i+1},v_{i+1},v_i)\ldots \nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\left.k(x'+s_mv',v',v_{m-1}) \right]_{v_1={x-x'-s_2v_2-\ldots-s_{m-1}v_{m-1}-s_mv'-(t-s_1-\ldots-s_m)v\over s_1} \atop s_1={\|x-x'-s_2v_2-\ldots-s_{m-1}v_{m-1}-s_mv'-(t-s_2-\ldots-s_m)v\|^2\over 2(t-s_2-\ldots-s_m-(x-x'-s_2v_2-\ldots s_{m-1}v_{m-1}-s_mv')\cdot v)}} ds_2\ldots ds_mdv_2\ldots dv_{m-1},\label{E7b}\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in (0,T)$ and a.e. $(x,v,x',v')\in X\times\S^{n-1}\times X\times\S^{n-1}$, $m\ge 3$. Note that $$\begin{aligned} H_2(t)\phi(x,v)&=&\left(\int_0^t\int_0^{t-s_1}U_1(t-s_1-s_2)A_2U_1(s_1)A_2 U_1(s_2)\phi ds_2ds_1\right)(x,v)\\ &=&\left(\int_0^t\left(\int_0^{t-s_2} U_1(t-s_1-s_2)A_2U_1(s_1)A_2ds_1\right)U_1(s_2)\phi ds_2\right)(x,v)\\ &=&\int_0^t\int_0^{t-s_2}\bar E(x,x-(t-s_1-s_2)v)\int_{\S^{n-1}}k(x-(t-s_1-s_2)v,v_1,v)\\ &&\times\bar E(x-(t-s_1-s_2)v,x-(t-s_1-s_2)v-s_1v_1)\\ &&\times\int_{\S^{n-1}}k(x-(t-s_2-s_1)v-s_1v_1,v_2,v_1)\\ &&\times\bar E(x-(t-s_1-s_2)v-s_1v_1,x-(t-s_1-s_2)v-s_1v_1-s_2v_2)\\ &&\times\phi(x-(t-s_1-s_2)v-s_1v_1-s_2v_2,v_2)dv_2dv_1ds_1ds_2,\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in (0,T)$ and $(x,v)\in X\times\S^{n-1}$, where functions $\bar E$ are defined by –. Using the change of variables “$y(s_1,v_1)=(t-s_2-s_1)v+s_1v_1$” we obtain $$\begin{aligned} H_2(t)\phi(x,v)&=&\int_0^t\int_{\S^{n-1}}\left[\bar E(x,x-(t-s_1-s_2)v,x-y,x-y-s_2v_2)k(x-(t-s_1-s_2)v,v_1,v)\right.\\ &&\times \left.k(x-y,v_2,v_1) \right]_{v_1={y-(t-s_1-s_2)v\over s_1}\atop s_1={\|y-(t-s_2)v\|^2\over 2(t-s_2-y\cdot v)}}\\ &&\times {2^{n-2}\left((t-s_2)-y\cdot v\right)^{n-3}\over\left\|y-(t-s_2)v\right\|^{2n-4}}\phi(x-y-s_2v_2,v_2)dy dv_2ds_2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence we obtain . Note that $$\begin{aligned} (H_3(t)\phi)(x,v)&=&\int_0^tH_2(t-s_3)A_2U_1(s_3)\phi ds_3\\ &=&\int_0^t\int_{X\times \S^{n-1}}\beta_2(t-s_3,x,v,x_2,v_2)(A_2U_1(s_3))\phi(x_2,v_2)dx_2dv_2ds_3\\ &=&\int_{X\times \S^{n-1}}\int_0^t\beta_2(t-s_3,x,v,x_2,v_2)\int_{\S^{n-1}}k(x_2,v',v_2) \bar E(x_2,x_2-s_3v')\\ &&\times \phi(x_2-s_3v',v')dv'ds_3dx_2dv_2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$(H_3(t)\phi)(x,v)=\int_{X\times \S^{n-1}}\beta_3(t,x,v,x',v')\phi(x',v')dx'dv',\label{E5}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \beta_3(t,x,v,x',v')&=&\int_{\S^{n-1}}\int_0^t\int_0^{t-s_3}\chi_{(0,t-s_3-s_2)}(\|x'+s_3v'-x+s_2v_2\|)\nonumber\\ &&\times {2^{n-2}\left(t-s_2-s_3-(x-s_2v_2-x'-s_3v')\cdot v\right)^{n-3}\over \|x-x'-s_2v_2-s_3v'- (t-s_2-s_3)v\|^{2n-4}}\nonumber\\ &&\times\left[\bar E(x,x-(t-s_1-s_2-s_3)v,x'+s_2v_2+s_3v',x'+s_3v',x')\right.\nonumber\\ &&\times k(x-(t-s_3-s_2-s_1)v,v_1,v)k(x'+s_2v_2+s_3v',v_2,v_1)\nonumber\\ &&\times\left.k(x'+s_3v',v',v_2) \right]_{v_1={x-x'-s_2v_2-s_3v'-(t-s_1-s_2-s_3)v\over s_1}\atop s_1={\|x-x'-s_2v_2-s_3v'-(t-s_2-s_3)v\|^2\over 2(t-s_2-s_3-(x-x'-s_2v_2-s_3v')\cdot v)}} ds_2ds_3dv_2.\label{E6}\end{aligned}$$ The proof of follows by induction from and . We recall that $$\left(A_2G_-(s)\phi_S\right)(z,w)=\int_{\pa X}\left[k(z,v',w)S(x',v')\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\| \right]_{v'={z-x'\over \|z-x'\|}}{E(z,x')\over \|z-x'\|^{n-1}}\phi(s-\|z-x'\|,x')d\mu(x'),\label{E9}$$ for a.e. $(z,w)\in X\times \S^{n-1}$ and $\phi\in L^1((0,\eta)\times\pa X)$ (see the derivation of and given in Section \[sec:albedoaveraged\]). Let $m=2$. Then from and it follows that $$\begin{array}{l} \displaystyle A_{2,S,W}(\phi)(t,x)=\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}(\nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v)\int_{-\infty}^t\int_0^{t-s}\int_{\S^{n-1}} \int_{\pa X}\left[k(x-(t-s-s_1)v,v_1,v)\right.\\ \displaystyle\times \left.k(x-(t-s-s_1)v-s_1v_1,v',v_1)S(x',v')\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\|\right]_{v'={x-(t-s-s_1)v-s_1v_1-x'\over \|x-(t-s-s_1)v-s_1v_1-x'\|}}E(x,x-(t-s-s_1)v,\\ \displaystyle x-(t-s-s_1)v-s_1v_1,x'){\phi(s-\|x-(t-s-s_1)v-s_1v_1-x'\|,x')\over \|x-(t-s-s_1)v-s_1v_1-x'\|^{n-1}}d\mu(x')dv_1ds_1dsdv. \end{array}$$ Performing the change of variables $y(s_1,v_1)=(t-s-s_1)v+s_1v_1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&A_{2,S,W}(\phi)(t,x)=\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}\times \pa X\times \R^n}(\nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v)\int_{-\infty}^t\chi_{(0,t-s)}(\|y\|)\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times \left[E(x,x-(t-s-s_1)v,x-y,x')k(x-(t-s-s_1)v,v_1,v)k(x-y,v',v_1)S(x',v')\right.\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times\left.\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\|\right]_{{s_1={\|(t-s)v-y\|^2\over 2(t-s-y\cdot v)}\atop v_1={y-(t-s-s_1)v\over s_1}}\atop v'={x-y-x'\over \|x-y-x'\|}} {2^{n-2}(t-s-y\cdot v)^{n-3}\phi(s-\|x-y-x'\|,x')\over \|(t-s)v-y\|^{2n-4}\|x-y-x'\|^{n-1}}ds dy d\mu(x')dv.\label{E12}\end{aligned}$$ Performing the change of variables “$y$”$=x-x'-y$ and $t'=s-\|y\|$ we obtain . Let $m=3$. Then from , and it follows that $$\begin{aligned} &&A_{3,S,W}(\phi)(t,x)=\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}(\nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v)\int_{-\infty}^t\int_{X\times \S^{n-1}}\beta_2(t-s,x,v,x_2,v_2)\label{E13}\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int_{\pa X}\left[k(x_2,v',v_2)S(x',v')\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\|\right]_{v'={x_2-x'\over \|x_2-x'\|}}{E(x_2,x')\over \|x_2-x'\|^{n-1}}\phi(s-\|x_2-x'\|,x')d\mu(x') dx_2dv_2dsdv,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in (0,T)$ and $x\in \pa X$. From and we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!A_{3,S,W}(\phi)(t,x)=\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}(\nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v)\int_{X\times \S^{n-1}\times \pa X}\int_{-\infty}^t\int_0^{t-s}\chi_{(0,t-s-s_2)}(\|x_2-(x-s_2v_2)\|)\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!{2^{n-2}\left(t-s-s_2-(x-s_2v_2-x_2)\cdot v\right)^{n-3}\over\|x_2-x'\|^{n-1}\left\|x-s_2v_2-x_2-(t-s-s_2)v\right\|^{2n-4}}\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times\left[E(x,x-(t-s_1-s_2)v,x_2+s_2v_2,x_2,x')k(x-(t-s_1-s_2)v,v_1,v)k(x_2+s_2v_2,v_2,v_1)\right.\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\left.k(x_2,v',v_2)S(x',v')\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\| \right]_{{v_1={x-s_2v_2-x_2-(t-s-s_1-s_2)v\over s_1}\atop s_1={\|x-s_2v_2-x_2-(t-s-s_2)v\|^2\over 2(t-s-s_2-(x-x_2-s_2v_2)\cdot v)}}\atop v'={x_2-x'\over \|x_2-x'\|}}\phi(s-\|x_2-x'\|,x')ds_2dsdx_2dv_2d\mu(x')dv. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Performing the change of variables $y_2=s_2v_2$ and $y_3=x_2-x'$ we obtain for “$m=3$”. Let $m\ge 3$. From , , and it follows that $$\begin{aligned} A_{m+1,S,W}(\phi)(t,x)&=&\int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}\int_{\pa X}(\nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v)\int_X\int_{(-\infty,t-\|x_m-x'\|)\times \S^{n-1}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\beta_m(t-t'-\|x_m-x'\|,x,v,x_m,v_m)\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\left[k(x_m,v',v_m)S(x',v')\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\|\right]_{v'={x_m-x'\over \|x_m-x'\|}}{E(x_m,x')\over \|x_m-x'\|^{n-1}}\phi(t',x')d\mu(x') dt'dx_mdv_mdv\nonumber\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=\int_{(0,\eta)\times \pa X}\gamma_{m+1}(t-t',x,x')\phi(t',x')dt'd\mu(x'),\label{E10}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} &&\gamma_{m+1}(\tau,x,x'):= \int_{\S^{n-1}_{x,+}}(\nu(x)\cdot v)W(x,v)\int_{X\times \S^{n-1}}\chi_{(0,+\infty)}(\tau-\|x_m-x'\|)\nonumber\\ &&\int_{\left(\S^{n-1}\right)^{m-2}}\int_{s_2+\ldots+s_m\le \tau-\|x_m-x'\|\atop s_i\ge 0,\ i=2\ldots m} \chi_{(0,\tau-\|x_m-x'\|-s_m-\ldots-s_2)}(\|x_m+s_mv_m+\ldots+s_2v_2-x\|)\nonumber\\ &&\times {2^{n-2}\left(\tau-\|x_m-x'\|-s_2-\ldots-s_m-(x-x_m-s_2v_2-\ldots-s_mv_m)\cdot v\right)^{n-3}\over \|x_m-x'\|^{n-1}\|x-x_m-s_2v_2-\ldots-s_mv_m- (\tau-\|x_m-x'\|-s_2-\ldots-s_m)v\|^{2n-4}}\nonumber\\ &&\times \left[E(x,x-(\tau-\|x_m-x'\|-s_1-\ldots-s_m)v,x_m+s_mv_m\ldots+s_2v_2,x_m+s_mv_m+\ldots+s_3v_3, \ldots,\right.\nonumber\\ &&x_m+s_mv_m,x_m,x') k(x-(\tau-\|x_m-x'\|-s_1-\ldots-s_m)v,v_1,v)k(x_m+s_mv_m+\ldots+s_2v_2,v_2,v_1)\nonumber\\ &&\ldots k(x_m+s_mv_m+\ldots+s_{i+1}v_{i+1},v_{i+1},v_i)\ldots \nonumber\\ &&\left.k(x_m+s_mv_m,v_m,v_{m-1})k(x_m,v',v_m)S(x',v')\|\nu(x')\cdot v'\| \right]_{{v_1={x-x_m-s_2v_2-\ldots-s_mv_m-(\tau-\|x_m-x'\|-s_1-\ldots-s_m)v\over s_1}\atop s_1={\|x-x_m-s_2v_2-\ldots-s_mv_m-(\tau-\|x_m-x'\|-s_2-\ldots-s_m)v\|^2\over 2(t-s_2-\ldots-s_m-(x-x'-s_2v_2-\ldots s_mv_m)\cdot v)}}\atop v'={x_m-x'\over \|x_m-x'\|}}\nonumber\\ &&ds_2\ldots ds_mdv_2\ldots dv_{m-1}dx_m dv_m dv.\label{E11}\end{aligned}$$ Performing the change of variables $y_i=s_iv_i$, $i=2\ldots m$, and $y_{m+1}=x_{m+1}-x'$, we obtain for “$m\ge 4$”. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== This paper was funded in part by grant NSF DMS-0554097. The authors would like to thank Ian Langmore and François Monard for stimulating discussions on the inverse transport problem. [^1]: Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York NY, 10027; [email protected] and [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The production of two meson electromagnetic bound states and free meson pairs $\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^+K^-$, $\pi^+ K^{\mp}$ in relativistic collisions has been considered. It is shown that making use of the exact Coulomb wave function for dimesoatom (DMA) allows one to calculate the yield of any $n$S state with desired accuracy. The relative probabilities of production of DMA and meson pairs in the free state are estimated. The amplitude of DMA transition from 1S to 2P state, which is essential for the pionium Lamb shift measurements, has been obtained.' author: - 'L. Afanasyev, S. Gevorkyan, O. Voskresenskaya' title: 'Dimesoatoms production in high energy collisions' --- Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Moscow Region, 141980 Russia Introduction ============ More than fifty years ago it was shown that the low energy scattering properties of strongly interacting charged particles are related to the hadronic properties of hydrogenlike atoms formed by such particles [@uretsky61]. In particular, the investigation of the ground state lifetime $\tau_0$ of hadronic atoms and their Lamb shifts allows one to determine scattering lengthes of meson-meson scattering [@nemenov85]. There were considered all details of experiment on observation and study of such atoms produced in inclusive high-energy interactions. An approach for DMA ground state lifetime determination based on description of DMA as a multilevel system propagating and interacting in a target was developed in [@afan96]. For the first time, experiment on the $\pi^+\pi^-$ atoms study was done at Protvino at U-70 accelerator [@afan93] and then continued at Proton Synchrotron at CERN [@dirac95], where the lifetime of the DMA ground state $\tau_0$ has been obtained [@adeva11]. This lifetime is dominated by the annihilation process $\pi^+\pi^-\to\pi^0\pi^0$ and predicted very accurately in the Chiral Perturbation Theory [@Wein79; @gasser83; @Gasser85; @Colan01NP]. Recently, new data on production of $\pi^+ K^{\mp}$ atoms [@adeva14] and first observation of long-lived pionium atoms have been reported [@adeva15]. The facts mentioned above have stimulated us to consider in detail the production of bound and unbound states for any mesons. We start (in Sec. 2) from a consideration of the bound and unbound meson pairs creation in inclusive processes and obtain an expression, which connects the inclusive production cross sections of bound and unbound states of the interacting meson pair with the double inclusive production cross section of noninteracting pair at zero relative momentum. We also compare the probability of meson pairs production in discrete and continuous states (Sec. 3) and estimate the accuracy of “zero radius” approximation, which widely exploited in such type considerations (Sec. 4). Then, in Sec. 5, we derive an amplitude and a relevant differential cross section for DMA transition from 1S to 2P state in an analytic form. This transition is the main source of the 2P states that is crucial for the Lamb shift measurements [@nemenov01; @nemenov02] in experiments with dimesoatoms. Finally, in Sec. 6, we summarize our results. The Appendix contains some details of the evaluation of integral (\[eq:int\]). Dimesoatoms creation in inclusive processes =========================================== Let us consider a process of producing a pair of two oppositely charged mesons $h^+,h^-$ in the inclusive process $$a+b\to h^+ + h^- + X\,, \label{eq:react}$$ where $X$ are particles whose momenta distribution is not essential in the later on consideration. in the further consideration The matrix element of the process (\[eq:react\]) $$M\left(\vec p_+,\vec p_-\,;\{\vec p_x\}\right)$$ is a function of $h^+, h^-$, momenta $p_+,p_-$, and the momenta of accompanying particles [$p_x$]{}. The invariant distribution of hadrons $h^+, h^-$ has a usual form $$\begin{aligned} &&(2\pi)^6\,2E_+\cdot 2E_-\frac{d\sigma}{d\vec p_+d\vec p_-} = \frac{1}{4\sqrt{(p_ap_b)^2-m_a^2m_b^2}}\nonumber\\ &&\times \int \left\| M(\vec p_+,\vec p_-\,;\{\vec p_x\})\right\|^2 (2\pi)^4\delta^{4}(p_a+p_b-p_+-p_--{p_x})d\Phi_x\,, \nonumber\\ \label{eq:cs}\end{aligned}$$ where the phase space volume reads $$d\Phi_x=\prod^{N(X)}_{i=1} \frac{d^3\,\vec p_i}{(2\pi)^3\,2E(\vec p_i)}\,.$$ Introducing the total and relative momenta of hadrons $h^+, h^-$ $$\begin{aligned} \vec P&=&\vec p_++ \vec p_-\,,\nonumber\\ \vec p&=&\frac{\mu}{m_+}\vec p_+ -\frac{\mu}{m_-}\vec p_-\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu=m_+ m_-/(m_+ +m_-)$ is the reduced mass of $h^+, h^-$, the invariant matrix element can be rewritten through new independent variables: $$M\left(\vec p_+,\vec p_-\,;\{\vec p_x\}\right)\rightarrow M(\vec P,\vec p\,;\{\vec p_x\})\,.$$ In the rest frame of $h^+h^-$ pair the total momentum [$\vec{P}=0 $]{} and the amplitude $M(\vec{P},\vec{p};\{\vec{p}_x\})$ would be a monotone function of relative momentum $p$ if the interaction in the $h^+h^-$ pair is absent. The interaction in the final state (in particular, the coulomb attraction between $h^+$ and $h^-$) violate the monotone behavior of the matrix element at small relative momenta $p\leq \alpha \mu$ ($\alpha=e^2/4\pi=1/137$ is the fine structure constant) and leads to creation of coupled states of $h^+h^-$ system ($h^+h^-$ atoms). To obtain the production amplitude of the $h^+h^-$ system in any certain state $f$, one has to project the amplitude of the pair of noninteracting hadrons $M_0(\vec P\,,\vec p\,;$ $\{\vec p_x\})$ on this state $$R_f=\int M_0\left(\vec 0,\vec p\,;\{\vec p_x\}\right)\psi_f(\vec p)d^{\,3} p\,,$$ where $\psi_f(\vec p)$ is a wave function of the state $\|f\rangle$ in the momentum representation. The wave function in the coordinate representation can be obtained by Fourier transformation $$\psi_f(\vec p)= \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int \psi_f(\vec r)e^{i\vec p\,\vec r}d^{\,3}r$$ with the normalization $$\int \psi_{f^{\prime}}(\vec r)\psi_{f}(\vec r)d^{\,3} r=\delta_{ff^{\prime}}\,.$$ The Kronecker symbol $\delta_{ff^{\prime}}$ would be interpreted as a product $\delta_{ff^{\prime}}=\delta_{nn^{\prime}}\delta_{l\,l^{\,\prime}}\delta_{mm^{\prime}}$ when the states $\|f\rangle$, $\|f^{\prime}\rangle$ belong to the discrete spectra with a set of quantum numbers $n, l, m $ (main, orbital, and magnetic quantum numbers, respectively) or as a product $\delta_{ff^{\prime}}=\delta(k-k^{\prime})\delta_{l\,l^{\,\prime}}\delta_{mm^{\prime}}$ when the states $\|f\rangle$, $\|f^{\prime}\rangle$ belong to continuous spectra with the wave number $k$ instead of the main quantum number. The analysis of the $R_f$ dependence on quantum numbers of state $\|f\rangle$ is more transparent in a coordinate representation. Introducing the relevant amplitude for the production of noninteracting hadrons in the final state $$M_0(\vec r)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int M_0(\vec p) e^{i\vec p\:\vec r}d^{\,3} p\,,$$ where $M_0(\vec p)\equiv M_0(\vec 0,\vec p\,;\{\vec p_x\})$, one gets $$R_f=\int M_0(\vec r)\psi_f(\vec r)d^{\,3} r\,. \label{eq:rf}$$ Since the production of $h^+h^-$ pairs is a result of strong interaction which decreases exponentially, the amplitude $M_0(\vec r)$ is nonzero only at small distances $r\leq 1/m $. As for the distances, where the wave function $\psi_f(\vec r)$ changes essentially, they are of the order of Bohr radius $r_B=1/\mu\alpha$ for bound state and of the order of $1/k$ for continuous states in the case of pure electromagnetic interactions. Thus, we can take out the slowly varying wave function at $\vec r=0$ and put it in front of the integral (\[eq:rf\]). So we obtain $$R_f=\psi_f(\vec r=0)\int M_0(\vec r)d^3 r=(2\pi)^{3/2}\psi_f(\vec r=0) M_0(\vec p=0)\,. \label{eq:rf2}$$ This relation takes place not only for bound states but also for the creation of $h^+h^-$ pair in the continuous state if $kr_s\ll 1$. The amplitude $R_f$ is normalized by the relation $$(2\pi)^32E_f\frac{d\sigma}{d\vec p_f}\Biggr\|_{\vec p_f=0}=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{(p_+ p_-)^2-m_+^2m_-^2}} \int \frac{\left\| R_f\right\|^2\Delta f}{2\mu(2\pi)^3}d\Phi_x\,,$$ where $\Delta f=1$ for discrete states and $\Delta f=k^2\Delta k/2\pi^2$ in the continuous case. Substituting the approximate relation (\[eq:rf2\]) in this expression and making use of the definition (\[eq:cs\]) of the double differential cross section, one gets $$2E_f\frac{d\sigma}{d\vec p_f}\Biggr\|_{\vec p_f=0}= \frac{(2\pi)^3\,\left\| \psi_f(\vec r=0)\right\|^2\Delta f}{\mu}E_+E_-\frac{d\sigma_0}{d\vec p_+d\vec p_-}\biggl\|_{\vec p_+=\vec p_-=0}\,, \label{eq:2ef}$$ where $\frac{d\sigma_0}{d\vec p_+d\vec p_-}\biggl\|_{\vec p_+=\vec p_-=0}$ is the double differential pair production cross section without the final state interaction. As the combinations $$E_f\frac{d\sigma}{d\vec p_f},\quad E_+ E_-\frac{d\sigma_0}{d\vec p_+d\vec p_-}$$ are relativistic invariant, it follows from (\[eq:2ef\]) that in any reference frame $$\label{eq:cs} 2E_f\frac{d\sigma}{d\vec p_f}=\frac{(2\pi)^3\,\left\| \psi_f(\vec r=0)\right\|^2\Delta f}{\mu} E_+ E_- \frac{d\sigma_0}{d\vec p_+d\vec p_-} \Biggr\|_{\vec p_+=\alpha_+\vec p_f;\:\vec p_-=\alpha_-\vec p_f}\,,$$ where $\alpha_+=m_+/(m_++m_-)$, $\alpha_-=1-\alpha_+=m_-/(m_++m_-)$. This expression connects in the closed form the inclusive production cross sections of bound and unbound states of the interacting meson pair with the double inclusive production cross section of noninteracting pair at zero relative momentum. For the case of bound states it was obtained by L. Nemenov [@nemenov85]. This expression allows one to calculate, in common approach, the relative probabilities of meson pairs production in bound and free states, which is a key point for the DMA lifetime measurement [@adeva11]. Relative probability of the bound and unbound meson pairs production ==================================================================== The dimesoatoms lifetime measurement in experiments DIRAC at CERN based on evaluation of a DMA breakup probability in the target, which is a ratio between measured number the broken atoms in the target to the number of produced atoms. The latter is extracted from the number of observed pairs in the free state using the ratio between pairs production in bound and free states [@afan99]. Let us reconsider this ratio using equation (\[eq:cs\]). A first conclusion is that the relative probability of pairs production in different states is determined solely by a two-meson wave function in the appropriate state. Accounting that the two-meson wave function with relative orbital momenta $L$ behaves at small relative distances $r$ as $\psi (r)\sim r^L $ only pairs in the S-state should be taken into account. The Coulomb wave functions of discrete $n$S and continuous $k$S states at zero relative distance reads [@LL] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:psi0} \|\psi_{nS}(\vec r=0)\|^2 &=& \frac{1}{\pi}\left(\frac{\mu\alpha}{n}\right)^{3}\,,\nonumber\\ \|\psi_{kS}(\vec r=0)\|^2 &= &C^2(k)=\frac{\pi\xi}{sh(\pi\xi)}e^{\pi\xi}=\frac{2\pi\xi}{1-e^{-2\pi\xi}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ At large relative momentum $k\gg \mu\alpha$ $(\xi =\mu\alpha/k)$ the distribution of interacting and noninteracting pairs coincides as $C(k)\to 1$. From the other hand, at small momentum $k\leq \mu\alpha$ $(\xi \geq 1)$ one can neglect the exponential term in (\[eq:psi0\]) with the result: $$\|C(k)\|^2\simeq 2\pi\xi=\frac{2\pi\mu\alpha}{k}\,.$$ Thus, for small relative momenta the Coulomb interaction in the final state modifies significantly the distribution for the opposite charged hadrons compared to noninteracting one changing it from relative momentum independence to pole behavior: $$\frac{d^3\sigma}{d^3\,k}\Biggr\|_{\mid\vec k\mid\to 0}\to \frac{const}{\|\vec k\|}\,.$$ The production of unbound pairs with small relative momenta $r\leq k_0= 2\mu\alpha$ is the main background in extraction of DMA signal from experimental data. The Coulomb interaction in continuous spectra leads to the huge value of this background as compared with the production of noninteracting meson pairs: $$R_c=\frac{\int\limits_{0}^{k_0}C^2(k)k^2dk}{\int\limits_{0}^{k_0}k^2dk}\simeq \frac{6\pi\mu\alpha}{k_0}\simeq 10\, .$$ Making use the above equations, one can estimate the relative probabilities of DMA production in different $n$S states and the relative probability of unbound pairs production in comparison with the dimesoatom production in the ground state: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:ns} \frac{w_{nS}}{w_{1S}}&=&\frac{\left\| \psi_{nS}(\vec r=0)\right\|^2} {\left\| \psi_{1S}(\vec r=0)\right\|^2}= \frac{1/\pi\left(\mu\alpha/n\right)^3} {1/\pi\left(\mu\alpha/1\right)^3}=\frac{1}{n^3}\,, \\ \label{eq:ratio} \frac{dw_{kS}}{w_{1S}}&=&\frac{\left\| \psi_{kS}(\vec r=0)\right\|^2} {\left\| \psi_{1S}(\vec r=0)\right\|^2}\cdot \frac{k^2dk}{2\pi^2}= \frac{kdk}{(\mu\alpha)^2\left(1-\exp(-2\pi\mu\alpha/k)\right)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The latter expression coincides with the well-known Gamov–Sommerfeld–Sakharov factor [@GAMO28; @SOMM31; @SAKH91] derived for production of different pairs of oppositely charged particles. For the case of the charged meson pairs production such formulas was obtained in [@nemenov85]. Accuracy of the “zero radius” approximation =========================================== Thus far we exploit the fact that the DMA wave function is a slow varying function in comparison with the pair production amplitude managed by a short range strong interaction. To estimate the accuracy of this approximation, let us consider the amplitude of DMA production in the ground state $$\label{eq:rs} R_{1S}=\int M_0(\vec r)\psi_{1S}(\vec r)d^{\,3} r=4\pi\int M_0(\vec r)\psi_{1S}(\vec r)r^2dr\, .$$ Making use the Coulomb wave function for the ground state $$\psi_{1S}(\vec r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\left(\mu\alpha\right)^{3/2} \exp\left(-\mu\alpha r\right)$$ and choosing the Yukava type representation [@dirac95] for the amplitude of the free pairs creation[^1] $$M_0(\vec r)=\sqrt{2\pi}M_0(\vec p=0)\kappa^2e^{-\kappa r}/r\,,$$ the amplitude (\[eq:rs\]) can be calculated with the result: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:rs1} R_{1S}(\kappa)=4\sqrt{2}\pi(\mu\alpha)^{3/2}M_0(\vec p=0)\frac{\kappa^2}{(\kappa+\mu\alpha)^2}\, .\end{aligned}$$ The “zero radius” approximation corresponds to the limit $\kappa\to\infty$. Choosing the parameter $\kappa$ from the interval [@dirac95] 80 MeV $\leq\kappa\leq$ 140 MeV, one obtains the estimation for the ratio of the DMA production probability calculated with exact expression (\[eq:rs1\]) to the approximate one calculated using “zero radius” approximation: $$\frac{R^2_{1S}(\kappa)}{R^2_{1S}(\infty)}= \left(\frac{\kappa}{\kappa+\mu\alpha}\right)^4=0.950\div 0.975.$$ Thus, the account of corrections on finite radius of strong interaction can reduce the DMA production cross section on $2.5\div 5.0\%$. The above consideration is the way to estimate the influence of the strong interaction on the accuracy of the cross sections in the form (\[eq:cs\]). However, for the ratio (\[eq:ratio\]) used for the experimental data analysis, the relative effect of this influence is of order of $10^{-3}$ only [@afan99]. Let us generalize the above consideration to the case of any $n$S states. The DMA wave function for any $n$S state reads [@LL] $$\psi_{nS}(\vec r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\left(\frac{\mu\alpha}{n}\right)^{3/2} \exp\left(-\frac{\mu\alpha}{n} r\right) F\left(1-n,2, \frac{2\mu\alpha}{n}r\right)\,,$$ where $ F\left(1-n,2, 2\mu\alpha r/n\right)$ is the confluent hypergeometric function. To determine the probability of DMA production to any $n$S state one should calculate the relevant amplitude $$\label{eq:rns} R_{nS}(\kappa)=\int M_0(\vec r)\psi_{nS}(\vec r)d^{\,3} r\,.$$ To calculate this amplitude, one should compute the integral $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:int} I&=&\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\lambda r}r F(1-n,2,\omega r)dr\,,\\ \lambda&=&\kappa+\mu\alpha/n,\quad \omega=2\mu\alpha/n \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The general form of this integral is cited in the Appendix with the result $$I=\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\left (1-\frac{\omega}{\lambda}\right )^{n-1}\,.$$ The amplitude (\[eq:rns\]) for any $n$S state production can be presented in the form $$\begin{aligned} R_{nS}(\kappa)=4\sqrt{2}\pi(\frac{\mu\alpha}{n})^{3/2}M_0(\vec p=0)\frac{\kappa^2}{(\kappa+\mu\alpha/n)^2}\left(\frac{\kappa n-\mu\alpha}{\kappa n+\mu\alpha}\right )^{n-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$ This expression allows one to estimate the corrections to the “zero radius” approximation for any $n$S state production in proton-proton collisions. Amplitude of DMA transition from 1S to 2P state =============================================== Let us consider the inelastic transition from the DMA ground state 1S to the first bound state with nonzero orbital, i.e. 2P state. The selection rules allow only transitions to the states with $\|m\|=1$ (transition to the state with $m=0$ is forbidden). The amplitude for such a transition reads $$\begin{aligned} A_{fi}(\vec q)&=&\int d^2s f(\vec q,\vec s)h_{fi}(\vec s)\,, \nonumber\\ f(\vec q,\vec s)&=&\frac{i}{2\pi}\int d^2b\left[1-e^{i\Delta\chi(\vec b,\vec s)}\right] e^{i\vec q\vec b}\,,\nonumber\\ h_{fi}(\vec s)&=&\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dz\psi_f^{\ast}(\vec r)\psi_i(\vec r)\,, \quad \vec r=(\vec s,z) \label{eq:hfi}\end{aligned}$$ with the wave functions $\psi_{i(f)}(\vec r)$ of the initial $(\|i\rangle =\|1S\rangle$ and final $\|f\rangle=\|2P^{(\pm 1)}\rangle)$ states: $$\begin{aligned} \psi_i(\vec r)&=&\frac{(\mu\alpha)^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\pi}} e^{-\mu\alpha r}\,,\nonumber\\ \psi_f(\vec r)&=&\frac{(\mu\alpha)^{5/2}\vec\epsilon_+ \vec r}{4\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\mu\alpha r/2}\,, \quad \vec \epsilon_\pm=\vec e_x\pm i\vec e_y\,.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting these expressions in (\[eq:hfi\]), we obtain $$h_{fi}(\vec s)=\frac{(\mu\alpha)^{4}} {2\sqrt{2}\pi}(\vec \epsilon_+\vec s)sK_1(\tilde \mu s)\,,\quad \tilde \mu=\frac{3\mu\alpha}{2}\,.$$ On the other hand, due to wave functions orthogonality we have $$\int h_{fi}(\vec s)d^2s=0\,.$$ At small transfer momenta $q^2\ll \tilde \mu^2$ only single photon exchange is essential. In this case the integration in (\[eq:hfi\]) can be done with the result $$\begin{aligned} A_{fi}(\vec q)&=&A_{fi}^{1B}(\vec q)\left\{1+O\left[\frac{q^2}{\tilde\mu^2} \ln\left(\frac{\tilde\mu^2}{q^2}\right)(Z\alpha)^2\right] \right\}\,,\nonumber\\ A_{fi}^{1B}(\vec q)&=&i\alpha Z\sqrt{2}(\mu\alpha)^4 \frac{(\vec \epsilon_{\mp}\vec q)}{q^2} \cdot\tilde \mu\left(\tilde\mu^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tilde\mu}\right)^2 \frac{1}{\tilde\mu^{2}+q^2/4}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In this expression the factor $(\vec \epsilon_{\mp}\vec q)/q^2$ appears as we neglect the screening effect considering the transition $(1S\to 2P^{\pm 1})$ at transfer momentum $q$ much larger than the inverse Born radius of the target atoms $ \lambda_B=1/R_{sc}\approx m_e \alpha Z^{1/3}$. The Born amplitude generalized to take into account the screening effect takes the form $$\begin{aligned} A_{fi}^{1B}(\vec q)&=&i\alpha Z\sqrt{2}(\mu\alpha)^4\frac{(\vec\epsilon_{\mp}\vec q)}{q^2+\lambda_B^2} \mu\left(\tilde\mu^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tilde\mu}\right)^2 \frac{1}{\tilde\mu^{2}+q^2/4}\nonumber\\ &=&i\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{4} (4\mu\alpha)^5 Z\frac{(\vec\epsilon_{\mp}\vec q)}{(q^2+\lambda_B^2)((3\mu\alpha)^2+q^2)^3}\,. \label{eq:aif1b}\end{aligned}$$ The differential cross section of the dimesoatom transition from 1S to 2P state is connected with the relevant amplitude (\[eq:hfi\]) by a standard relation $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d\sigma}{d^2q}=\| A_{fi}(\vec q)\|^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the inverse Born radius of the target atoms in (\[eq:aif1b\]) and summing the square of Born amplitude (\[eq:aif1b\]) by final state polarization we obtain the dimesoatoms transition cross section as a function of transfer momenta in Born approximation (single photon exchange) $$\begin{aligned} d\sigma=\frac{9}{8}Z^2(4\mu\alpha)^{10}\frac{q^2d^2q}{\left(q^2+(m_e\alpha Z^{1/3})^2\right)^2\left(q^2+(3\mu\alpha)^2\right)^6}\,.\end{aligned}$$ As mentioned above, this expression is valid in the wide interval of transfer momenta giving the main contribution in the yield of 2P states of dimesoatoms, as a result of 1S state dimesoatoms interaction with atoms of the target. Summary ======= In this paper we consider the production of oppositely charged meson pairs in collision of relativistic particles and obtain general expressions for amplitudes and cross sections for the creation of any bound states (dimesoatoms) and continuous states accounting for the electromagnetic interaction in the final state. We derive the general expression for such type production using a coordinate representation for relevant wave functions and amplitudes. We obtain the expressions which allow one to estimate the relative probability of bound and continuous states production for any mesons pair. The amplitude for any bound state production beyond the widely used in the literature “zero radius” approximation has been obtained. Finally, we obtain the analytical expression for the cross section of dimesoatom transition from 1S to 2P state that is essential for the pionium Lamb shift measurements. Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered} ======== To calculate the integral $ I=\int\nolimits_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\lambda r}r^{b-1}F(a,b;\omega r)dr\,,$ it is convenient to use the representation of the confluent hypergeometric function in the form of contour integral $$F(a,b;z)=-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{\Gamma(1-a)\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(b-a)}\oint\limits_{C}e^{tz}(-t)^{a-1}(1-t)^{b-a-1}dt\,.$$ The contour C begin at $t=1$, bypass the point $t=1$ counterclockwise and return at point $t=1$. This representation allows one to carry on the integration with the result $$\begin{aligned} I=-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{\Gamma(1-a)\Gamma(b)^2}{\Gamma(b-a)\lambda^{b}}\oint\limits_{C} \frac{(-t)^{a-1}(1-t)^{b-a-1}}{(1-\omega t/\lambda)^{b}}dt\nonumber\\ =\frac{\Gamma(b)^2}{\lambda^{b}}~_2F_1\left(a,b;b;\frac{\omega}{\lambda}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the hypergeometric Gauss function $_2F_1(a,b;c;z)$ is determined by the series $$\begin{aligned} _2F_1(a,b;c;z)&\equiv & F(a,b;c;z)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{(a)_j\cdot (b)_j}{(c)_j\cdot j!}z^j\,,\nonumber\\ (a)_j&=&\frac{\Gamma(a+j)}{\Gamma(a)}=a(a+1)\ldots(a+j-1)\,,\nonumber\\ (b)_j&=&\frac{\Gamma(a+j)}{\Gamma(b)}=b(b+1)\ldots(b+j-1)\,,\nonumber\\ (c)_k&=&\frac{\Gamma(a+j)}{\Gamma(c)}=c(c+1)\ldots(c+j-1)\,,\nonumber\\ (a)_0&=&(b)_0=(c)_0=1\,,\end{aligned}$$ or with the representation through the contour integral $$\label{43} F(a,b;c;z)=-\frac{1}{2\pi i} \frac{\Gamma(1-a)\Gamma(c)}{\Gamma(c-a)} \oint\limits_{C}(-t)^{a-1}(1-t)^{c-a-1}(1-tz)^{-b}dt\,.$$ The contour $C$ in (\[43\]) is the same as in the definition of the confluent hypergeometric function. Substitution $t\to t/(1-z+zt)$ in the integral (\[43\]) leads to the relation between the hypergeometric functions at different values of variables $z$ and $z/(z-1)$: $$F(a,b;c;z)=(1-z)^{-a}F\left(a,c-b;c;\frac{z}{z-1}\right)\,.$$ Applying this relation to the hypergeometric function, one obtains $$F\left(a,c;c;\frac{\omega}{\lambda}\right)= \left(1-\frac{\omega}{\lambda}\right)^{-a}F\left(a,0;c; \frac{\omega}{\omega-\lambda}\right)\,,$$ where $F(a,0;c;z)=1$ as $(b)_j=0$ at $j\ne 0$ and $b=0$ in definition of hypergeometric function by series. [99]{} J. Uretsky and J. Palfrey, Phys. Lett. 121, 1798 (1961). L. Nemenov, Yad. Fiz. 41, 980 (1985); Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41, 629 (1985). L. G. Afanasyev and A. V. Tarasov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 59, 2130 (1996). L. G. Afanasyev et al., Phys. Lett. B 308, 200 (1993). B. Adeva et al. (DIRAC Collab.), Lifetime measurement of $\pi^+\pi^-$ atoms to test low energy QCD predictions (Proposal to the SPSLC, CERN/SPSLC 95–1, SPSLC/P 284, Geneva, 1995). B. Adeva et al. (DIRAC Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 704, 24 (2011). S. Weinberg, Physica A 96, 327 (1979). J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B 125, 325 (1983). J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B 250, 465 (1985). G. Colangelo et al., Nucl. Phys. B 603, 125 (2001). B. Adeva et al. (DIRAC Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 735, 288 (2014). B. Adeva et al. (DIRAC Collab.), Phys. Lett. B [751]{}, 12 (2015); arXiv:1508.04712. L. Nemenov and V. Ovsiannikov, Phys. Lett. B 514, 247 (2001). L. Nemenov, V. Ovsiannikov, and E. Tchaplyguine, Nucl. Phys. A 710, 303 (2002). L. Afanasyev and O. Voskresenskaya, Phys. Lett. B 453, 302 (1999); arXiv:hep-ph/9810248. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1977). G. Gamov, Z. Phys. 51, 204 (1928). A. Sommerfeld, Atombau und Spektrallinien (F. Vieweg und Sohn, Braunshweig, 1931). A. D. Sakharov, Sov. Phys. Usp. 34, 375 (1991). [^1]: In the momentum space this parametrization corresponds to pole - like dependence: $M_0(p)=M_0(0)\frac{\kappa^2}{\kappa^2+p^2}$, where $\kappa$ is a free parameter.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We report density functional calculations of the electronic structure, Fermi surface, phonon spectrum and electron–phonon coupling for newly discovered superconductor LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$. Significant similarity between LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$ and LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ is found, i.e. there is a strong Fermi surface nesting at ($\pi $,$\pi $,0), which results in unstable phonon branches. Combining the frozen phonon total energy calculations and an anharmonic oscillator model, we find that the quantum fluctuation prevents the appearance of static long–range order. The calculation shows that LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ is highly anisotropic, and same as LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$, this compound is also a conventional electron-phonon coupling induced superconductor.' author: - 'Yanqing Feng,$^{1}$ Hang-Chen Ding,$^{2}\ $Yongping Du,$^{1}\ $Xiangang Wan,$^{1\ast }$ Bogen Wang,$^{1}\ $Sergey Y. Savrasov$^{3}$ and Chun-Gang Duan$^{2,4}$' date: - - title: 'Electron-Phonon Superconductivity in LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$' --- INTRODUCTION ============ In 2012, a new superconductor Bi$_{4}$O$_{4}$S$_{3}$ has been found.[Bi4O4S3]{} This material has a layered structure composed of a stacking of rock-salt-type BiS$_{2}$ layers and Bi$_{4}$O$_{4}$(SO$_{4}$)$_{1-x}$ blocking layers.[@Bi4O4S3] The stacking structure of the superconducting and blocking layer is analogous to those of high-$T_{c}$ cuprates,[@HTC] and iron pnictides.[@Fe-based] Thus the discovery of Bi$_{4}$O$_{4}$S$% _{3}$ has immediately triggered a wave of extensive studies.[Bi4O4S3,LaOFBiS2,NdOBiS2,Bi4O4S3-2,LaO0.5F0.5BiS2,Singh,Bi4O4S3-3,Se-doping,PrO0.5F0.5BiS2,LnOBiS2,LaMOBiS2,SrLaBiS2,s-wave-2,s-wave,lattice vibrations,Wen-HH-2,Wen-HH-3,NdOBiS2-single-crystal,Minimal electronic models,Wan,Yildirim,Xing,SpinExc,Dagoto-RPA,QH-Wang,Hong-Yao,JP-Hu,SL-Liu,SrLaBiS2-2]{} In addition to Bi$_{4}$O$_{4}$S$_{3}$, several new BiS$_{2}$-based superconductors had been synthesized: LnO$_{1-x}$F$_{x}$BiS$_{2}$ (Ln=La, Nd, Ce, Pr and Yb),[LaOFBiS2,NdOBiS2,Bi4O4S3-2,LaO0.5F0.5BiS2,PrO0.5F0.5BiS2,LnOBiS2]{} Sr$_{1-x}$La$_{x}$FBiS$_{2}$[@SrLaBiS2; @SrLaBiS2-2] and La$_{1-x}$M$_{x}$OBiS$_{2}$ (M=Ti, Zr, Hf and Th).[@LaMOBiS2] The common feature for these compounds is that they all have the same superconducting BiS$_{2}$ layer. Understanding the mediator of pairing as well as the pairing symmetry for this new layered superconductor is therefore a fundamental issue, and attracts a lot of research attention.[s-wave-2,s-wave,Wen-HH-2,Wen-HH-3,lattice vibrations,Minimal electronic models,Wan,Yildirim,Xing,SpinExc,Dagoto-RPA,QH-Wang,Hong-Yao,JP-Hu,SL-Liu,NdOBiS2-single-crystal]{} Several theoretical works have been reported, especially for LaO$_{0.5}$F$% _{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$,[@LaOFBiS2] the compound that posses the highest $T_{c}$ among known BiS$_{2}$ based materials and whose structure is similar to superconducting iron arsenides LaFeO$_{1-x}$F$_{x}$As.[@Fe-based] It has been found that the bands crossing Fermi level are Bi-6p states and a two p bands electronic model has been proposed based on band structure calculation.[@Minimal; @electronic; @models] Due to the quasi-one-dimensional nature of the conduction bands, a good Fermi–surface nesting with wave vector $\mathbf{k}$=($\pi ,\pi ,0)$ has been found.[Minimal electronic models]{} The lattice dynamics and electron-phonon interaction of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$ have also been studied using density functional theory based calculations[@Wan; @Yildirim; @Xing]. It has been suggested that due to the Fermi surface nesting a charge-density-wave (CDW) instability around $M$ point is essential.[@Wan] An ferroelectric-like soft phonon mode have also been proposed.[@Yildirim] Basically all the density-functional linear response calculations give a large electron-phonon coupling constant ($\lambda \sim 0.8$), and suggest LaO$_{1-x}$F$_{x}$BiS$_{2}$ as a strong electron-phonon coupled conventional superconductor.[@Wan; @Yildirim; @Xing] In contrast to the band structure calculation, there are also works emphasizing the importance of electron-electron interaction and the possibility of unconventional superconductivity.[Dagoto-RPA,SpinExc,QH-Wang,Hong-Yao,JP-Hu]{} Starting from the two-orbital model, the spin/charge fluctuation mediated pairing interactions had been studied by using random-phase approximation,[@Dagoto-RPA; @SpinExc] and an extend s-wave or d-wave pairing had been proposed.[Dagoto-RPA]{} With the assumption that the pairing is rather short range interaction, Liang et al. find that the extended s-wave pairing symmetry is very robust.[@JP-Hu] Possible triplet pairing and weak topological superconductivity had been suggested based on renormalization-group numerical calculation.[@QH-Wang] It had also been proposed that BiS$_{2}$ based superconductor possess type-II two-dimensional Van Hove singularities, and the logarithmically divergent density of states may induce unconventional superconductivity.[@Hong-Yao] There are also debates about the pairing symmetry experimentally. The temperature dependence of magnetic penetration depth have been measured by tunnel diode oscillator technique, and it had been suggested that BiS$_{2}$ layered superconductors are conventional s-wave type superconductor with fully developed gap.[@s-wave-2] Muon-spin spectroscopy measurements ($\mu $SR) shows a marked two-dimensional character with a dominant s-wave temperature behavior.[@s-wave] On the other hand, both the experimental upper critical field, which exceeds the Pauli limit, and the large ratio $2\Delta /T_{c}\sim 16.6$ imply that the superconductivity is unconventional.[@Wen-HH-2] Recently, NdO$_{1-x}$F$_{x}$Bi$_{1-y}$S$_{2}$ single crystals had been grown.[@NdOBiS2-single-crystal; @Wen-HH-3] Resistivity and magnetic measurements reveal that the superconductivity is really derived from the materials intrinsically.[@Wen-HH-3] Moreover, a giant superconducting fluctuation and anomalous semiconducting normal state have been found for the single crystal sample, suggesting that the superconductivity in this newly discovered superconductor may not be formatted into the BCS theory[@Wen-HH-3]. Very recently, a new superconductor LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ had been discovered.[@BiSe2] LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ has similar structure of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$ yet with a lower T$_{c}\ $($\sim $2.6 K).[@BiSe2] In order to shed light on the superconducting nature of this family, it is essential to investigate LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$. Here we report our theoretical studies of the electronic structure and lattice dynamic properties for LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$. Our first-principles calculation shows that the band structure of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ is quite similar as that of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$, there is also a strong Fermi surface nesting at $k=(\pi ,\pi ,0)$ (i.e. $M$ point), which leads to imaginary harmonic phonons at this $k$ point associated with in-plane displacements of Se atoms. Although the $\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2}% \times 1$ supercell frozen phonon calculations confirm a double well related to the soft-mode located at $M$ point, our effective model reveals that the double well is too shallow, consequently the CDW structural phase transition indeed will not happen. Replacing S by Se will reduce the Deybe frequency $\omega _{D}$ as well as the electron-phonon coupling constant $% \lambda $, which explains the decrease of $T_{c}$. COMPUTATIONAL METHOD ==================== Our electronic structure calculations are performed based on the Quantum ESPRESSO package (QE)[@pwscf] and ultrasoft pseudopotentials[@the; @ultrasoft; @pseudopotential] and the generalized gradient approximation of Perdew, Burke, and Ernzerhof (PBE).[@GGA] The basis set cutoff for the wave functions was 60 Ry while 600 Ry cutoff was used for the charge density. A dense 18$\times $ 18$\times $ 6 k–point mesh had been used in the irreducible Brillouin zone (IBZ) for self–consistent calculations. For structural optimization, the positions of ions were relaxed towards equilibrium until the Hellman–Feynman forces became less than 2 meV/Å. Same as LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$,[@Wan; @Yildirim] we find that for LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$, spin-orbital coupling (SOC) plays only a marginal role on the electronic states near Fermi level ($E_{F}$) and lattice dynamic properties. Thus we neglect it and adopt the scalar relativistic version of QE.[@pwscf] RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ======================= Site Cal. Exp. ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- a([Å]{}) [4.1594]{} [4.1753]{} c([Å]{}) [14.0156]{} [14.2634]{} z La (2c) [0.0943]{} [ 0.0947]{} z Bi (2c) [0.6204]{} [ 0.6136]{} z Se1 (2c) [0.3847]{} [ 0.3933]{} z Se2 (2c) [0.8115]{} [ 0.8155]{} : The calculated lattice parameters and Wyckoff positions of LaO$% _{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$. Experimental results are also listed for comparison[@BiSe2]. LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ has a layered crystal structure with a space group P4/nmm[@BiSe2]. This material is formed by alternatively stacking of BiSe$_{2}$ layers and the blocking layer Bi$_{4}$O$_{4}$(SO$_{4}$)$_{1-x}$. La, Se and Bi locate at 2c position, while O/F take the 2a site. Being embedded into LaO plane, it had been found that the substitution O by F has only small effect on the BiS$_{2}$ layer in LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$[@Wan], and the main influence of F substitution is a carrier doping[@Wan]. Thus we simulate LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ by replacing half of the Oxygen 2a-sites by F orderly, despite the substitution may be random in reality. We perform the full structural optimization including the lattice parameters and atomic positions, the optimized lattice parameters and Wyckoff positions are shown in Table I, together with available experimental data [@BiSe2]. Our numerical lattice parameters and internal coordinates are in good agreement with the experiment as shown in Table I. For LaO$_{0.5}$Bi$_{0.5}$Se$_{2}$, Bi and Se1 form a nearly perfect plane, while for LaO$_{0.5}$Bi$_{0.5}$S$_{2}$, the experimental and theoretical height of S1 has a large difference[Wan,Yildirim]{}, and the importance of buckling of S-atoms have been discussed.[@Yildirim] Based on theoretical lattice structure, we perform band structure calculation, and find that the electronic structure of LaO$_{0.5}$Bi$_{0.5}$Se$_{2}$ is similar with that of LaO$_{0.5}$Bi$_{0.5}$S$_{2}.$[@Minimal; @electronic; @models; @Wan; @Yildirim] As shown in Fig.1, the dispersion along $% \Gamma $ to $Z$ line is quite small, clearly implying a two dimensional character of the band structure and the negligible interlayer hybridization. La states, which appear considerably above the $E_{F}$, has almost no contribution around $E_{F}$. O/F 2p states are almost fully occupied and mainly located between -5.0 and -2.0 eV. Hybridized with Bi 6p states, Se2 4p states have wider bandwidth, but this state is also located primarily below the $E_{F}$, has negligible contribution around the $E_{F}$. Bi and Se1 form a layer, consequently these states have strong hybridization. The bands around the $E_{F}$ basically come from Bi 6p with also small contribution from Se1 4p as shown in Fig.1. The density of state at $E_{F}$ is equal to N($E_{F}$)=1.97 eV$^{-1}$ per unit cell. This corresponds to a bare Sommerfeld specific heat coefficient $\gamma _{bare}$=2.42 mJ$/$mol K$^{2}$, which is just slightly smaller than the numerical value ($\sim $3.0 mJ$/$mol K$^{2}$) of LaO$_{0.5}$Bi$_{0.5}$S$_{2}$.[@Xing] The calculated bare plasma frequencies are $\hbar \omega _{p,xx}=\hbar \omega _{p,yy}=5.99\ eV$ and $% \hbar \omega _{p,zz}=0.12\ eV$, which corresponds to a very large anisotropy $\sigma _{xx}/\sigma _{zz}\sim 2500$ in the assumption of constant scattering time. This huge anisotropy may be detected via optical or transport measurement for single crystal sample. ![(Color online) Calculated band structure and density of state of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$. ](band_structure.eps){width="3.5in"} ![(Color online) Calculated Fermi surface of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$% _{2}$: cross section for k$_{z}$=0.[]{data-label="Fig-FS"}](NON-SOC.eps){width="3.5in"} We also calculate the Fermi surface and show the results in Fig.2. Very similar to LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$,[@Minimal; @electronic; @models; @Wan] the Fermi surface of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ are also two dimensional-like and there is a Fermi surface nesting at wavevector near $% \mathbf{k}=(\pi ,\pi ,0)$. Density functional linear response approach has been proven to be very successful in the past to describe electron–phonon interactions and superconductivity in metals [@EPI], including its applications to Plutonium, [@Pu] MgB$_{2}$, [@MgB2] and many other systems. Here we apply this first-principles linear response phonon calculation [Linear-response]{} as implemented in QE[@pwscf] to study LaO$_{0.5}$F$% _{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$. An 18$\times $18$\times $6 grid was used for the integration over the IBZ. We show the calculated phonon spectrum along major high symmetry lines of the IBZ in Fig.3. Same as LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$% _{2},$[@Wan; @Yildirim; @Xing] the phonon modes have only a little dispersion along $\Gamma $-Z direction, which again indicates the smallness of the interlayer coupling. The phonon dispersions are extend up to 350 cm$% ^{-1}$, which is smaller than that of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$[Wan,Yildirim]{}. There are basically two panels in the phonon spectrum. The top six branches above 180 cm$^{-1}$ are almost completely contributed by O and F, while the Bi-Se vibration dominate in the low frequency region. Comparing with LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2},$[@Wan; @Yildirim; @Xing], LaO$% _{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ has more branches locate at low frequency region. Analyzing the evolution of the phonon eigenvectors in the IBZ reveals that there is clear separation between the xy and z polarized vibrations, and the phonon modes with large dispersion mainly comes from the Bi-Se1 in-plane vibration. ![(Color online) Calculated phonon dispersions and phonon density of state of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$.](phonon-dispersion.eps){width="4.0in"} There are also unstable modes located around $M$ point as shown in Fig.3. We associate it with the strong Fermi surface nesting. The number of soft modes in LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ is two, while LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$% _{2} $ has four unstable modes around $M$ point[@Wan; @Yildirim]. From the analysis of the calculated polarization vectors, we find that these two unstable modes are mainly contributed by the Se1 in-plane vibrations. ![(Color online) Calculated double well potential (red line) for the unstable phonon mode using the frozen phonon method. The probability plot (black dot line) of the ground state atomic wave function is also shown.](double-well.eps){width="3.5in"} We then perform a frozen phonon calculation by using a $\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{% 2}\times 1$ supercell with respect to its original unit cell to adapt the lattice distortions due to the possible CDW instability associated with the soft phonon mode located at $M$ point. The atomic motions in the frozen phonon calculation is chosen according to the eigenvectors of the unstable phonon modes at the $M$ point, which basically is Se1 in-plane displacement. The results of these calculations reveal essentially anharmonic interatomic potentials, and a shallow double well potential ($\sim -6\ meV$ per unit cell) where the Se1 atoms shift about 0.03 Å away from the original high symmetry position as show in Fig.4. The depth of the double well is less than half of that in LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}.$[@Wan] For LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$ it had been found that the displacements of S atom are dynamic.[@Wan; @Yildirim] To check if the quantum zero-point motions also prevent the structural distortion of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$, we therefore extend the equilibrium position analysis by solving numerically Schrödinger’s equation for the anharmonic potential well found from frozen-phonon calculations, as shown in the red line of Fig. 4. Indeed, our numerical atomic ground-state wave function is centered at the high symmetry position, as demonstrated by the probability curve shown in black dot line of Fig. 4. It is therefore clear that the Se1 displacement is dynamic, and the unstable phonon modes at $M$ point are not related to a statically distorted structure of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$. Experimentally the resistivity changes smoothly from 300 K to about 3 K, and there is not abnormal behavior due to the gap opening associated with CDW phase transition[@BiSe2]. This experimental observation is consistent with our above model calculation. Finally, we check the linewidth $\lambda _{\nu }(\mathbf{q})$ of all stable phonons to see the contribution from different modes. Calculation shows that the O/F modes have negligible contribution to electron-phonon coupling. With strong hybridization, the coupling, however, is relatively strong for the BiSe based modes. Counting the contribution only from the stable modes results in a coupling constant ($\lambda =0.47$) calculated using 4$\times $4$\times $2 q-mesh. To find the contribution from the anharmonic modes, we follow the expression introduced by Hui and Allen which generalizes zero-temperature electron-phonon coupling to the anharmonic case. [@Hui] We make an essential approximation by assuming that the unstable mode is not coupled to the other modes. The phonon-phonon interactions and finite-temperature effects are also neglected in this treatment. Basically we need all phonon excited states.[@Hui; @Meregalli] Fortunately, it had been found the convergency in the sum over the virtual phonon states is fast.[Hui,Meregalli]{} By taking the harmonic dipole matrix elements, and interpreting the first excitation energy from solving the Schrödinger’s equation for the anharmonic atomic potential well as the phonon energy,[Hui]{} we estimate the electron-phonon coupling for the two anharmonic modes at the $M$ point. Our numerical $\lambda $ value from this two modes is about 0.04. Adding this value with the contribution from all stable modes gives us a total coupling constant of 0.51, which is about half of that of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}.$[@Wan] The estimated Deybe temperature ($% \omega _{D}=220\ K$) is also smaller than that of LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$% _{2}.$[@Wan] With these values and taking the Coulomb parameter $\mu ^{\ast }\simeq 0.1$, McMillan formula yields values of $T_{c}\simeq 2.40\ K$ in reasonable agreement with the experiment.[@BiSe2] CONCLUSIONS =========== We have studied the electronic structure, lattice dynamics and electron–phonon interaction of the newly found superconductor LaO$_{0.5}$F$% _{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ using density functional theory and linear response approach. Same as in the case of its cousin LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiS$_{2}$, a strong Fermi surface nesting is also found at ($\pi $,$\pi $,0), which results in phonon softening, and we find that the quantum fluctuation prevents the appearance of static long-range order. Considering both harmonic and anharmonic contributions to electron-phonon coupling, we obtain a coupling constant $\lambda \sim 0.51$, which is capable of producing the experimental $T_{c}$ value and suggesting LaO$_{0.5}$F$_{0.5}$BiSe$_{2}$ as a electron–phonon superconductor. X.G.W acknowledges useful conversations with Prof. H.H. Wen, J.X. Li, Q.H. Wang, Donglai Feng and Dawei Shen. This work was supported by the National Key Project for Basic Research of China (Grants No. 2011CB922101, 2010CB923404, 2013CB922301 and 2014CB921104), NSFC under Grants No. 91122035, 11174124, 11374137, 61125403), PAPD, Program of Shanghai Subject Chief Scientist, PCSIRT. Computations were performed at the ECNU computing center. $^{\ast }[email protected] [99]{} Y. Mizuguchi, H. Fujihisa, Y. Gotoh, K. Suzuki, H. Usui, K. Kuroki, S. Demura, Y. Takano, H. Izawa and O. Miura, Phys. Rev. B 86, 220510 (2012). W. E. Pickett, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 433 (1989). Y. Kamihara, T. Watanabe, M. Hirano, and Hideo Hosono, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 3296 (2008). Y. Mizuguchi, S. Demura, K. Deguchi, Y. Takano, H. Fujihisa, Y. Gotoh, H. Izawa and O. Miura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81 114725 (2012). S. Demura, Y. Mizuguchi, K. Deguchi, H. Okazaki, H. Hara, T. Watanabe, S. J. Denholme, M. Fujioka, T. Ozaki, H. Fujihisa, Y. Gotoh, O. Miura, T. Yamaguchi, H. Takeya and Y. Takano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 82, 033708(2013). S. Li, H. Yang, J. Tao, X. Ding and H. H. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 86, 214518 (2012). V. P. S. Awana, A. Kumar, R. Jha, S. Kumar, J. Kumar, A. Pal, Shruti, J. Saha, S. Patnaik, Solid State Commun. 157, 31 (2013); R. Jha, H. Kishan, and V. P. S. Awana, J. Appl. Phys. 115, 013902 (2014). R. Jha, A. Kumar, S. K. Singh, V. P. S. Awana, J. Sup. and Novel Mag. 26, 499 (2013); R. Jha, A. Kumar, S. K. Singh, V.P.S. Awana, J. Appl. Phys. 113, 056102 (2013). D. Yazici, K. Huang, B. D. White, A. H. Chang, A. J. Friedman, M. B. Maple, Philosophical Magazine 93, 673 (2012). X. Lin, X. Ni, B. Chen, X. Xu, X. Yang, J. Dai, Y. Li, X. Yang, Y. Luo, Q. Tao, G. Cao, Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 87, 020504 (2013). H. Lei, K. Wang, M. Abeykoon, E. S. Bozin, C. Petrovic, Inorg. Chem. 52, 10685 (2013). D. Yazici, K. Huang, B. D. White, I. Jeon, V. W. Burnett, A. J. Friedman, I. K. Lum, M. Nallaiyan, S. Spagna, and M. B. Maple, Phys. Rev. B 87, 174512 (2013). Shruti, P Srivastava and S Patnaik, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25 312202 (2013). G. Lamura, T. Shiroka, P. Bonf, S. Sanna, R. De Renzi, C. Baines, H. Luetkens, J. Kajitani, Y. Mizuguchi, O. Miura, K. Deguchi, S. Demura, Y. Takano, and M. Putti, Phys. Rev. B 88, 180509 (2013). S. Li, H. Yang, D. Fang, Z. Wang, J. Tao, X. Ding, H.-H. Wen, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 56, 2019 (2013). M. Nagao, S. Demura, K. Deguchi, A. Miura, S. Watauchi, T. Takei, Y. Takano, N. Kumada, I. Tanaka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 82, 113701, (2013). J. Liu, D. Fang, Z. Wang, J. Xing, Z. Du, X. Zhu, H. Yang, H.-H. Wen, arXiv:1310.0377 (2013). J. Lee, M. B. Stone, A. Huq, T. Yildirim, G. Ehlers, Y. Mizuguchi, O. Miura, Y. Takano, K. Deguchi, S. Demura, and S.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 87, 205134 (2013). H. Usui, K. Suzuki and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B 86, 220501 (2012). X. Wan, H.-C. Ding, S. Y. Savrasov, C.-G. Duan, Phys. Rev. B 87, 115124 (2013). T. Yildirim, Phys. Rev. B 87, 020506 (2013). B. Li, Z. W. Xing and G. Q. Huang, EPL 101, 47002 (2013). T. Zhou and Z. D. Wang, J. Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 26, 2735 (2013). G. B. Martins, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 87, 081102 (2013). Y. Liang, X. Wu, W.-F. Tsai, J. P. Hu, arXiv:1211.5435 (2013). Y. Yang, W.-S. Wang, Y.-Y. Xiang, Z.-Z. Li, and Q.-H. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 88, 094519 (2013). H. Yao, F. Yang, arXiv:1312.0077 (2013). S.L. Liu, J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 26, 3411 (2013). S. K. Singh, A. Kumar, B. Gahtori, Shruti, G. Sharma, S. Patnaik, V. P. S. Awana, J. Am. Chem. Soc 134, 16504 (2012). S. G. Tan, L. J. Li, Y. Liu, P. Tong, B. C. Zhao, W. J. Lu, Y. P. Sun, Physica C, 483, 94 (2012). R. Jha, V. P. S. Awana, arXiv:1311.0161 (2013). A. Krzton-Maziopa, Z. Guguchia, E. Pomjakushina, V. Pomjakushin, R. Khasanov, H. Luetkens, P.K. Biswas, A. Amato, H. Keller, K. Conder, arXiv:1310.8131 (2013). Quantum-ESPRESSO is a community project for high-quality quantum-simulation software, based on density-functional theory, and coordinated by Paolo Giannozzi. See http://www.quantum-espresso.org D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 41, 7892 (1990). J. P. Perdew, K.Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996). S. Baroni, S. de Gironcoli, A. Dal Corso, and P. Giannozzi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 515 (2001). S. Y. Savrasov and D. Y. Savrasov, Phys. Rev. B 54, 16487 (1996). X. Dai, S. Y. Savrasov, G. Kotliar, A. Migliori, H. Ledbetter, E. Abrahams, Science 300, 953 (2003). Y. Kong, O. V. Dolgov, O. Jepsen, and O. K. Andersen, Phys Rev. B 64, 020501 (2001). J.C.K. Hui, and P.B. Allen, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 4, L42 (1974). V. Meregalli and S. Y. Savrasov, Phys. Rev. B 57, 14453 (1998).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We use the algebraic nested Bethe ansatz to solve the eigenvalue and eigenvector problem of the supersymmetric $SU_q(n\|m)$ model with open boundary conditions. Under an additional condition that model is related to a multicomponent supersymmetric t-J model. We also prove that the transfer matrix with open boundary condition is $SU_q(n\|m)$ invariant.' author: - \| [Rui-Hong Yue$^a$[^1] ,Heng Fan$^{b,c}$,Bo-yu Hou$^c$]{}\ $^a$ Physikalisches Institut der Universität Bonn\ Nussallee 12, 53115 Bonn, Germany\ $^b$ CCAST(World Laboratory)\ P.O.Box 8730,Beijing 100080,China\ $^c$ Institute of Modern Physics,Northwest University\ P.O.Box 105,Xian,710069,China title: 'Exact diagonalization of the quantum supersymmetric $SU_q(n\|m)$ model ' --- =-1.2cm=-3mm =16truecm =22truecm [Bonn-TH-9523\ ]{} PACS: 7510J, 0520,0530 Keywords: supersymmetric quantum group, diagonalization, Bethe Ansatz Introduction ============ The integrability of two-dimensional lattice models with periodic boundary condition is a consequence of the Yang-Baxter equation\[1,2\], $$\begin{aligned} R_{12}(u-v)R_{13}(u)R_{23}(v)=R_{23}(v)R_{13}(u)R_{12}(u-v)\end{aligned}$$ where the R-matrix is the Boltzmann weight of the two-dimensional vertex model. As usual, $R_{12}(u)$, $R_{13}(u)$ and $R_{23}(u)$ act in $C^n\otimes C^n\otimes C^n$ with $R_{12}(u)=R(u)\otimes 1$,$R_{23}(u)=1\otimes R(u)$,etc. During the last years, much more attention has been paid on the investigation of integrable systems with nontrivial boundary conditions, which was initiated by Cherednik\[3\] and Sklyanin\[4\]. They have introduced a systematic approach to handle the boundary problem in which the reflection equations appear. In addition with the Yang-Baxter equation, the reflection equations ensure the integrability of open models. Using this approach, Sklyanin \[4\], Destri and de Vega \[5\] solved the spin- $1\over 2$ XXZ model with general boundary conditions by generalizing quantum inverse scattering method. Under a particular choice of boundary conditions, the Hamiltonian is $U_q[sl(2)]$ invariant \[6\]. In \[4\], Sklyanin assumed that the R-matrix is $P-$ and $T-$symmetric. Furthermore, the R-matrix satisfies unitarity and cross-unitarity properties. Because only few models satisfy these properties, Mezincescu and Nepomechie \[7\] extended Sklyanin’s formalism to the $PT$-invariant systems. Thus, all trigonometric R matrices listed by Bazhanov \[8\] and Jimbo \[9\] can be related to 1-dimensional quantum spin chains in this formulism. Using the unitarity and cross-unitarity properties of Belavin’s $Z_n$ elliptic R-matrix, we have constructed the open boundary transfer matrix with one parameter \[10,11\]. On the other hand, the study of open boundary conditions in 2-dimentional field theory is related to the Sine-Gorden, Affine Toda and O(N) Sigma models \[12,13,14,15\]. Sklyanin generalized the hamiltonian to the case nonlinear partial differential equations with local boundary conditions \[15\]. The reflection matrix is consistent with the integrability of the systems. Recently, Foerster and Karowski have used the nested Bethe ansatz method to find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the supersymmetric t-J model with open boundary conditions and proved its $spl_q(2,1)$ invariance \[16\]. Gonzalez-Ruiz also solved this problem with the general diagonal solutions of the reflection equation \[17\]. The investigated model is a graded 15-vertex model characterized by two bosons and one fermion. De Vega and Gonzalez-Ruiz have also generalized the nested Bethe ansatz to the case of $SU_q(n)$-invariant chains\[18\]. The graded veretx model was first proposed by Perk and Schultz \[19\]. In this model all variables take $m+n$ different values and the weights favor ferroelectric or antiferroelectric configurations. In the references \[20\] and \[21\], the Bethe Ansatz equations and the exact free energy and excited expectrum of this model with periodic boundary condition are found. The finit size correction shows the central charge of the model being $m+n-1$ (replacing $n$ in ref \[20\] by $m+n-1$ ). In fact, the supersymmetric t-J model is a special Perk-Schultz model ($m=2,n=1$). Under an appropiate boundary condition, the model enjoys beautiful structure as quantum group symmetry. This motives us to consider the general graded vertex model with open boundary condition. In this paper, we use the nested Bethe ansatz method to find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the transfer matrix for a graded vertex model with open boundary conditions. The transfer matrix with fixed boundary conditions is proved to be $SU_q(n\|m)$ invariant. When $m=1$, the model reduces into the q-deformed version of the generalized supersymmetric t-J model with $n$ components. The hamiltonian contains a spin hopping term, the nearest neighbour spin-spin interaction and the contribution of boundary magnetic fields (see equation (24) ). Now, we outline the contents of this paper. In sect.2 we introduce the $SU_q(n\|m)$ vertex model. We find the matrices $K^{\pm }$ which define boundary conditions and nontrivial boundary terms in the hamiltonian. The relation between the transfer matrix and the hamiltonian of the generalized supersymmetric t-J model is also discussed as an example. Sect.3 covers to the diagonalization and the energy spectrum of the model with open boundary conditions in frame work of the nested Bethe Ansatz. In sect.4 we show that the vertex model is a realization of the quantum supergroup $SU_q(n\|m)$. A proof that the transfer matrix with open boundary conditions is $SU_q(n\|m)$ invariant is given. In sect.5 the summary of our main results is presented and some further problems are discussed. The appendix contains some detailed calculation. The vertex model and integrable open boundary conditions ======================================================== Our starting point is a graded vertex model which was introduced by Perk and Schultz \[19\]. The thermodynamics of the model with periodic boundary condition was studied in \[20,21\]. Some interesting application of this model in quantum field theory was considered by Babelon, de Vega and Viallet \[22\]. The model is defined by vertex weights $R(u)$, whose non-zero elements are $$\begin{aligned} R^{aa}_{aa}(u)&=&sin(\eta +(-1)^{\epsilon _a}u),\nonumber \\ R^{ab}_{ab}(u)&=&sin(u)(-1)^{\epsilon_a\epsilon_b},a\not= b\nonumber \\ R^{ab}_{ba}(u)&=&sin({\eta })e^{iusign(a-b)}, a\not= b.\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon _a=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, &a=1,\cdots ,m\\ 1, &a=m+1,\cdots ,m+n,\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ $\eta $ is an anisotropy parameter, $a,b$ are indices running from 1 to $m+n$. For convenience, we denote $$\begin{array}{rclcrcl} a(u)&=&sin(u+\eta )&,& b(u)&=&sin(u),\\ w(u)&=&sin(\eta -u)&,&c_{\pm}(u)&=&sin({\eta })e^{\pm iu}. \end{array}$$ This model is an $m+n$ state vertex model characterized by $m$ bosons and $n$ fermions. If $m=2$, $n=1$, this model reduces to the one studied by Foerster, Karowski \[16\] and Gonzalez-Ruiz \[17\]. The $A_{m-1}$ vertex model studied by de Vega and Gonzalez-Ruiz \[18\] is just special case $n=0$. When $m=n=2$, we can get a new electronic strong interaction model which is a generalization of the model proposed by Essler, Korepin and Schoutens \[22\]. The R-matrix defined by (2,3) is a trigonometric solution of the Yang-Baxter equation (1). The local transition matrix which is the operator representation of Yang-Baxter equation is the $(m+n)\times (m+n)$ matrix $L(u)$ satisfying the following equation \[19,20,21\]: $$\begin{aligned} R_{12}(u-v)L_1(u)L_2(v)=L_2(v)L_1(u)R_{12}(u-v)\end{aligned}$$ where $L_1(u)=L(u)\otimes 1$, $L_2(u)=1\otimes L(u)$. The standard row-to-row monodromy matrix for an $N\times N$ square lattice is defined by $$\begin{aligned} T(u)&=&L_N(u)\cdots L_1(u)\nonumber \\ &=&R_{0N}(u)\cdots R_{01}(u),\end{aligned}$$ Throughout the paper, $L(u)$ is assumed to be in the fundamental representation. $T(u)$ also fulfills the Yang-Baxter equation $$\begin{aligned} R_{12}(u-v)T_1(u)T_2(v)=T_2(v)T_1(u)R_{12}(u-v).\end{aligned}$$ The operator $T$ is an $(m+n)\times (m+n)$ matrix of the operators acting in the quantun space $V_{n+m}^{\otimes N}$. We can see that the R-matrix does not satisfy the Sklyanin’s $P$- and $T$-symmetry, but fulfills $PT$ invariance $$\begin{aligned} P_{12}R_{12}(u)P_{12}=R_{12}^{t_1t_2}(u).\end{aligned}$$ It also obeys the unitarity and cross-unitarity properties $$\begin{aligned} R_{12}(u)R_{21}(-u)=sin(u+\eta )sin(\eta -u)\cdot id,\\[5mm] R_{12}^{t_1}(u)M_1R_{12}^{t_2}(-u-d\eta )M_1^{-1}=-sin(u) sin(u+d\eta )\cdot id.\end{aligned}$$ where $d=m-n$ and $M$ is a $(m+n)\times (m+n)$ matrix $$\begin{aligned} M_{bc}&=&\delta _{bc}M_b, \nonumber \\[5mm] M_b&=&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} {\epsilon _d}e^{i2\eta (b-1)},&b\leq m\\[3mm] {\epsilon _d}e^{i2\eta (2m-b)}. &b>m \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ This can be verified by straightforward calculation. One can also verify that $M$ is a symmetry matrix of the R-matrix: $$\begin{aligned} [M\otimes M,R_{12}(u)]=0\end{aligned}$$ Now, we can use Mezincescue and Nepomechie’s generalized formalism to construct integrable systems with open boundary conditions. In our case, the reflection equations take the following form \[7\]: $$R_{12}(u-v)K_1^-(u)R_{21}(u+v)K_2^-(v)=K_2^-(v)R_{12}(u+v)K_1^-(u) R_{21}(u-v)$$ $$\begin{aligned} R_{12}(-u+v)K_1^+(u)^{t_1}M_1^{-1}R_{21}(-u-v-d\eta ) M_1K_2^+(v)^{t_2}\nonumber\\[2mm] = K_2^+(v)^{t_2}M_1R_{12}(-u-v-d\eta )M_1^{-1}K_1^+(u)^{t_1}R_{21}(-u+v)\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, there is an isomorphism between $K^+(u)$ and $K^-(u)$. $$\begin{aligned} \phi:K^-(u)\rightarrow K^+(u)=K^-(-u-{d\eta \over 2})^tM\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, given a solution $K^-(u)$ of equation (13), we can also find a solution $K^+(u)$ of equation (14). But in a transfer matrix of an integrable lattice, $K^-(u)$ and $K^+(u)$ need not satisfy equation (15). In this paper, we will take equation (15) to define $K^+$. After a long calculation, we find a solution of the reflection equation (13) $$K^-(u)=id$$ Correspondingly, $$K^+(u)=M$$ Taking Sklyanin’s formalism, the double-row monodromy matrix is defined as: $$\begin{aligned} U(u)=T(u)K^-(u)T^{-1}(-u)\end{aligned}$$ where $T^{-1}(u)$ is the inverse of $T(u)$ in the auxiliary and quantum spaces, which explicitly is: $$\begin{aligned} T^{-1}(u)&=&L_1^{-1}(u)\cdots L_N^{-1}(u)\nonumber \\ &=&R_{01}^{-1}(u)\cdots R_{0N}^{-1}(u)\end{aligned}$$ With the help of the Yang-Baxter equation (7) and the reflection equation (13), one can prove that the double-row monodromy matrix satisfes the reflection equation $$\begin{aligned} R_{12}(u-v)U_1(u)R_{21}(u+v)U_2(v)=U_2(v)R_{12}(u+v)U_1(u)R_{21}(u-v)\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the transfer matrix is defined as: $$\begin{aligned} t(v)=trK^+(v)U(v).\end{aligned}$$ Using the reflection equations (14,20) and the properties of the R-matrix (8-12), one can prove $$[t(u),t(v)]=0.$$ So the transfer matrix constitutes a one-parameter commutative family which ensures the integrability of the model. As indicated by Sklyanin, the transfer matrix is related to the hamiltonian of the quantum chain with nearest neighbour interaction and boundary terms $$\begin{aligned} t'(0)=2trK^+(o)\frac1{sin(\eta) }H-2Ncot{\eta }\end{aligned}$$ From equation (21), one can derive the explicit expression of the hamiltonian, which is omitted here because it is not used in the following discussion. In order to compare it with the $SU_q(2\|1)$ supersymmetric t-J model, we give the hamiltonian under $m=1$, which is defined: $$\begin{aligned} H&=&P\{ {\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}}{\sum_s}(c^{\dagger }_{j,s}c_{j+1,s} +c^{\dagger }_{j+1,s}c_{j,s})\} P\nonumber \\[2mm] & &+\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}cos\eta\left(\sum_{a=1}^m n_{j,a}n_{j+1,a}+cos\eta\cdot(n_j+n_{j+1})- cos\eta\cdot(n_jn_{j+1})\right) \nonumber \\[2mm] & &+\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\left(\sum_{\alpha\in \Delta_+}(S_j^{\alpha}S_{j+1}^{-\alpha} +S_j^{-\alpha}S_{j+1}^{\alpha})+isin\eta\cdot(n_j-n_{j+1})\right)\nonumber \\[2mm] & &+\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}isin\eta\cdot(\sum_{a<b}n_{j,a}n_{j+1,b}-\sum_{a>b}n_{j,a}n_{j+1,b}),\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{js}^{\dagger }$ ($c_{js}$) creates (annihilates) an electron with spin component $s$,$s=1,2,\cdots ,n+m-1$ located j-th site. $n_j$ is the density operator,$S_j$ is the spin matrix at site $j$. $\Delta_+$ denotes the set of positive roots of the $su(m)$ algebra. $P$ is a operator projecting out doubly occupied states. The constraint is that more than one electron on each site is strictly prohibited. As we know \[16,17\], this hamiltonian is not hermitean, but it possesses real eigenvalues. We will show the hamiltonian to be $SU_q(n\|m)$ invariant. Nested Bethe ansatz for open boundary conditions ================================================ The graded vertex model with periodic boundary condition was investigated by de Vega and Lopes \[20,21\]. Based upon the Yang-Baxter equation, they obtain the Bethe Ansatz equations by using the nested Bethe ansatz method (periodic case). In this section, we want to generalize the nested Bethe ansatz method to solve the eigenvalue problem of the transfer matrix (21). In this case, the operator commutative relations are ruled by the reflection equation instead of the Yang-Baxter equation. As we know, the double-row monodromy matrix satisfies the reflection equation. It is convenient to denote $u_-=u-v$, $u_+=u+v$. We rewrite the equation (20) in the component form: $$\begin{aligned} R_{12}(u_-)^{a_1a_2}_{c_1c_2}U(u)_{c_1d_1}R_{21}(u_+)^{d_1c_2}_{b_1d_2} U(v)_{d_2b_2}\nonumber \\[4mm] =U(v)_{a_2c_2}R_{12}(u_+)^{a_1c_2}_{c_1d_2}U(u)_{c_1d_1} R_{21}(u_-)^{d_1d_2}_{b_1b_2}\end{aligned}$$ where the repeated indices sum over 1 to $m+n$. Next, we introduce a set of notations for convenience: $$\begin{aligned} A(v)&=&U(v)_{11},\nonumber \\ B_a(v)&=&U(v)_{1a},\nonumber \\ C_a(v)&=&U(v)_{a1},\nonumber \\ D_{ab}(v)&=&U(v)_{ab}, 2\leq a,b\leq m+n.\end{aligned}$$ From equation (25) we will find the commutation relations. In order to simplify these relations, we introduce new operators: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{D}_{ab}(v)=D_{ab}(v)-{\delta _{ab}}\frac {R_{12}(2v)^{a1}_{1a}} {R_{12}(2v)^{11}_{11}}A(v)\end{aligned}$$ Considering the vertex model defined by equations (2,3), we rewrite equation (27) in an explicit form: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{D}_{ab}(v)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} D_{ab}(v)-\delta _{ab}\displaystyle\frac {c_+(2v)}{a(2v)}A(v),&m\not=0.\\[3mm] D_{ab}(v)-\delta _{ab}\displaystyle\frac {c_+(2v)}{w(2v)}A(v),&m=0. \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ After some tedious calculation, we have found the commutation relations between $A(v)$, $\tilde{D}_{ab}(v)$ and $B_a(u)$ $(a,b=2, \cdots,m+n)$. The final results take the form (see Appendix A) $$\begin{aligned} A(v)B_b(u)&=&\frac {a(u-v)b(u+v)}{a(u+v)b(u-v)}B_b(u)A(v)\nonumber \\[3mm] & &-\frac {c_+(u-v)b(2u)}{a(2u)b(u-v)}B_b(v)A(u)\nonumber \\[3mm] & &-\frac {c_-(u+v)}{a(u+v)}B_c(v)\tilde{D}_{cb}(u),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{D}_{a_1b_1}(u)B_{b_2}(v) &=&\,\,{\frac{R_{12}(u+v+\eta )^{a_1c_2}_{c_1d_2}}{b(u-v)b(u+v+\eta)}} R_{21}(u-v)^{d_1d_2}_{b_1b_2} B_{c_2}(v)\tilde{D}_{c_1d_1}(u)\nonumber \\[3mm] & &-{\frac {c_+(u-v)}{b(2u+\eta )b(u-v)}}R_{12}(2u+\eta )^{a_1d_1}_{d_2b_1} B_{d_1}(u)\tilde{D}_{d_2b_2}(v)\nonumber \\[3mm] & &+{1\over {b(2u+\eta )}}{\frac {c_+(u+v)b(2v)}{a(u+v)a(2v)}} R_{12}(2u+\eta )^{a_1d_2}_{b_2b_1}B_{d_2}(u)A(v).\end{aligned}$$ All indices take values fron 2 to $m+n$, and the repeated indices sum over 2 to $m+n$. The commutation relations presented above are only applicable to the cases $m\geq 1$. If m=0, the commutation relations change to the following form: $$\begin{aligned} A(v)B_b(u)&=&{\frac {w(u-v)b(u+v)}{w(u+v)b(u-v)}}B_b(u)A(v)\nonumber \\[3mm] & &-\frac {c_+(u-v)b(2u)}{w(2u)b(u-v)}B_b(v)A(u)\nonumber \\[3mm] & &-\frac {c_-(u+v)}{w(u+v)}B_c(v)\tilde{D}_{cb}(u)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{D}_{a_1b_1}(u)B_{b_2}(v) &=&\,\,{\frac{R_{12}(u+v-\eta )^{a_1c_2}_{c_1d_2}}{b(u-v)b(u+v-\eta)}} R_{21}(u-v)^{d_1d_2}_{b_1b_2}B_{c_2}(v) \tilde{D}_{c_1d_1}(u)\nonumber \\[3mm] & &-{\frac {c_+(u-v)}{b(2u-\eta )b(u-v)}}R_{12}(2u-\eta )^{a_1d_1}_{d_2b_1} B_{d_1}(u)\tilde{D}_{d_2b_2}(v)\nonumber \\[3mm] & &+{1\over b(2u-\eta )}{\frac {c_+(u+v)b(2v)}{w(u+v)w(2v)}} R_{12}(2u-\eta )^{a_1d_2}_{b_2b_1}B_{d_2}(u)A(v)\end{aligned}$$ The rule for indices is the same as the one in equations (29,30). It is easy to find the so-called local vacuum $e_i^+$. We call the direct product of local vacuum a reference state or vacuum state. It takes the form: $$\begin{aligned} \|vac>=\prod^{\otimes N} (1,0,\cdots ,0)^t,\end{aligned}$$ where $t$ denotes the transposition. One can find $$\begin{aligned} A(u)\|vac>&=&\alpha (u)\|vac>,\nonumber \\ C_a(u)\|vac>&=&0,\nonumber \\ B_a(u)\|vac>&\ne &0,\nonumber \\ \alpha (u)&=&[R(u)^{11}_{11}]^N[R^{-1}(-u)^{11}_{11}]^N.\end{aligned}$$ Next, let us calculate the action of $\tilde{D}_{ab}(u)$ on the vacuum state. We first recall the definition of $D_{ab}(u)$, and find $$\begin{aligned} D_{ab}(u)\|vac>=T(u)_{a1}T^{-1}(-u)_{1b}\|vac>+T(u)_{ac}T^{-1}(-u)_{cb}\|vac>.\end{aligned}$$ The contribution of the first term can not be calculated directly. We will use the following method to find it. Taking $v=-u$ in the Yang-Baxter equation, we can get: $$\begin{aligned} T_2^{-1}(-u)R_{12}(2u)T_1(u)=T_1(u)R_{12}(2u)T^{-1}_2(-u)\end{aligned}$$ Taking special indices in this relation and applying both sides of this relation to the vacuum state, we find: $$\begin{aligned} T(u)_{a1}T^{-1}(-u)_{1b}\|vac>={\frac {c_+(2u)}{R(2u)^{11}_{11}}} \left( \delta _{ab}\alpha (u)-T(u)_{ac}T^{-1}(-u)_{cb}\right) \|vac>.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this relation to eq.(35), we have the result: $$\begin{aligned} D_{ab}(u)\|vac>=\delta _{ab}\{ {\frac {c_+(2u)}{R(2u)_{11}^{11}}}\alpha (u) +\left( 1-{\frac {c_+(2u)}{R(2u)^{11}_{11}}}\right) b^N(u)\tilde{b}^N(-u)\} \|vac>.\end{aligned}$$ So we have $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{D}_{ab}(u)\|vac>=\delta _{ab}\left( 1-{\frac {c_+(2u)} {R(2u)^{11}_{11}}}\right) b^N(u)\tilde{b}^N(-u)\|vac>,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{b}(u)=R^{-1}(u)^{ab}_{ab}, a\ne b.$ In conclusion, the results of the action of $A,B_a,C_a$ and $\tilde{D}_{ab}$ on the vacuum state are listed as: $$\begin{aligned} A(u)\|vac>&=&[R(u)^{11}_{11}]^N[R^{-1}(-u)^{11}_{11}]^N\|vac> =\alpha (u)\|vac>\nonumber \\ \tilde{D}_{ab}(u)\|vac> &=&\delta _{ab}\left( 1-{\frac {c_+(2u)}{R(2u)^{11}_{11}}} \right) b^N(u)\tilde{b}^N(-u)\|vac>=\delta _{ab}\beta (u)\|vac>\nonumber \\ C_a(u)\|vac>&=&0\nonumber \\ B_a(u)\|vac>&\ne &0.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the action of $B_a(u)$ on the vacuum state is not proportional to the vacuum state. We show that the eigenvectors of transfer matrix $t(u)$ can be constructed by repeatedly applying operators $B_{b_i}(v_i)$ on the vacuum state $$\begin{aligned} \Psi (v_1,\cdots ,v_L)=B_{b_1}(v_1)\cdots B_{b_L}(v_L)\|vac>F^{b_1\cdots b_L}\end{aligned}$$ Before using the Bethe ansatz method, let us introduce a set of notatons that will be used in the following. We denote $$R_{21}(u)^{ab}_{cd}/R(u)^{11}_{11}=\tilde{R}_{21}(u)^{ab}_{cd}.$$ So from Appendix A, the commutation relations between B’s take the form $$\begin{aligned} B_{b_1}(u_1)B_{b_2}(u_2)=\tilde{R}_{12}(u_1-u_2)^{d_2d_1}_{b_2b_1} B_{d_2}(u_2)B_{d_1}(u_1).\end{aligned}$$ By repeatedly using this relation, we can commute $B(v_k)$ with $B(v_{k-1}), \cdots ,B(v_1)$, respectively. $$\begin{aligned} & &B_{b_1}(v_1)\cdots B_{b_L}(v_L)\|vac>\nonumber \\ &=&S(v_k, \{ v_i\} )^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}B_{d_1}(v_k) B_{d_2}(v_1)\cdots B_{d_k}(v_{k-1})B_{d_{k+1}}(v_{k+1})\cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\|vac>\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} & &S(v_k, \{ v_i\} )^{d_1\cdot d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}\nonumber \\ &=&\prod_{j=1+k}^{L} \delta _{b_jd_j}\tilde{R}_{12}(v_1-v_k)^{d_1d_2}_{c_2b_1} \tilde{R}_{12}(v_2-v_k)^{c_2d_3}_{c_3b_2}\cdots \tilde{R}_{12}(v_{k-1}-v_k)^{c_{k-1}d_k}_{b_kb_{k-1}}\end{aligned}$$ Here $d_1$ and $b_k$ are considered as the “auxiliary space” indices, $b_1,\cdots,b_{k-1},b_{k+1},\cdots ,b_L$ and $d_2,\cdots ,d_L$ are the “quantum space” indices. Notice that in the six vertex model, the B’s are commutable with each other. So one can use the symmetric argument that $v_k$ and $v_1$ are equivalent to each other. Now, we know that the B’s are not commutable with each other, but the relation (44) ensures that we can also use something like the symmetric argument. Actually, we can see from this relation that $v_k$ and $v_1$ are in an equivalent position if we omit the function $S$. In the following, we deal with the case of $R(u)^{11}_{11}=a(u)$. It is convenient to introduce the notation: $$\begin{aligned} L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_1,\tilde{v}_i)^{a_1b_1}_{a_2b_2}= R_{12}(\tilde{v}_1+\tilde{v}_i)^{a_1b_1}_{a_2b_2},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} [L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_1,\tilde{v}_i)^{-1}]^{a_1b_1}_{a_2b_2}= {\frac {R_{21}(-\tilde{v}_1-\tilde{v}_i)^{a_1b_1}_{a_2b_2}} {a(v_1+v_i)a(-v_1-v_i)}},\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} & &R_{12}(\tilde{v}_1+\tilde{v}_L)^{c_{L-1}d_L}_{q_Lp_L} R_{21}(\tilde{v}_1-\tilde{v}_L)^{q_Lp_L}_{q_{L-1}b_L} \beta _{q_L}(v_1)\nonumber \\ &=&{\frac 1{a(\tilde{v}_1-\tilde{v}_L)a(\tilde{v}_L-\tilde{v}_1)}} [L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_1,\tilde{v}_L)\beta (\tilde{v}_1) L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_1,\tilde{v}_L)^{-1}]^{c_{L-1}d_L}_{q_{L-1}b_L}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the unitarity properties of R matrix, and $\tilde{v}_i=v_i+\eta /2$, $\left( \beta(\tilde{v}_1)\right) _{ab} =\delta _{ab}\beta(\tilde{v}_1)$. Now, let us evaluate the action of $A(u)$ on $\Psi $. Following the algebraic Bethe ansatz method, many terms will appear when we move $A(u)$ from the left hand side to the right hand side of $B_a$’s. They can be classified in two types: wanted and unwanted terms. The wanted terms in $A(u)\Psi $ can be obtained by repeatedly using the first term in relation (29), the unwanted terms arise from the second and third terms in relation (29), they are the types that $v_k$ is replaced by $u$. One unwanted term where $B(v_1)$ is replaced by $B(u)$ can be obtained by using first the second and third terms in relation (29), then repeatedly using the first terms in relation (29) and (30). Using this results we can obtain the general unwanted term where $B(v_k)$ is replaced by $B(u)$. So we can find the action of $A(u)$ on $\Psi $ $$\begin{aligned} & & A(u)B_{b_1}(v_1)\cdots B_{b_L}(v_L)\|vac>F^{b_1\cdots b_L}\nonumber \\[3mm] &=& \,\,{\prod _{j=1}^{L}}{\frac {a(v_j-u)b(v_j+u)}{b(v_j-u)a(v_j+u)}} \alpha (u)\cdot B_{b_1}(v_1)\cdots B_{b_L}(v_L)\|vac> F^{b_1\cdots b_L}\nonumber \\[3mm] & & +\,{\sum_{k=1}^L}{\frac {-c_+(v_k-u)b(2v_k)}{a(2v_k)b(v_k-u)}} {\prod _{j=1,\ne k}^L}{\frac {a(v_j-v_k)b(v_j+v_k)}{a(v_j+v_k)b(v_j-v_k)}} \alpha (v_k)F^{b_1\cdots b_L}\nonumber \\[3mm] & & \cdot B_{d_1}(u)B_{d_2}(v_1)\cdots B_{d_k}(v_{k-1})B_{d_{k+1}}(v_{k+1}) \cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\|vac> S(v_k,\{ v_i\} )^{d_1 \cdots d_L}_{b_1 \cdots b_L}\nonumber \\[3mm] & &+\,{\sum _{k=1}^L}{\frac {c_-(v_k+u)}{a(v_k+u)}} {\prod _{j=1,\ne k}^L}{\frac {a(v_j-v_k)a(v_k-v_j)}{b(v_j+v_k+\eta ) b(v_k-v_j)}}\beta(v_k)S(v_k,\{ v_i\} )^{c_1\cdots c_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L} \\[3mm] & & \,\,[L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_1) \cdots L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_{k-1}) L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_{k+1})\cdots L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_L)\nonumber \\[3mm] & & \,\,\cdot L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_L)^{-1}\cdots L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_{k-1})^{-1}L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k, \tilde{v}_{k+1})^{-1}\cdots L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_L)^{-1}] ^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{c_1\cdots c_L}\nonumber \\[3mm] & & \,\,\cdot B_{d_1}(u)B_{d_2}(v_1)\cdots B_{d_k}(v_{k-1})B_{d_{k+1}}(v_{k+1}) \cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\|vac> F^{b_1\cdots b_L}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Recalling the definition of the transfer matrix, we rewrite the transfer matrix as: $$\begin{aligned} t(u)&=&{\sum _{a=1}^{m+n}}K^+_a(u)U(u)_{aa}\nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{a=2}^{m+n}K^+_a(u)\tilde{D}_{aa}(u)+ +\left\{\sum_{a=2}^{m+n}K^+_a(u)\frac{c_+(2u)}{a(2u)}+K^+_1(u)\right\}A(u)\nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{a=2}^{m+n}K^+_a(u)\tilde{D}_{aa}(u)+\frac{sin(2u+d\eta)} {sin(2u+\eta)}e^{i(d-1)\eta}A(u)\end{aligned}$$ Before calculating the action of the transfer matrix on $\Psi$, we should evaluate the action of $K^+_a(u)\tilde{D}_{aa}(u)$ on it, which reads $$\begin{aligned} & &\sum_{a=2}^{m+n}K^+_a(u)\tilde{D}_{aa}(u) B_{b_1}(v_1)\cdots B_{b_L}(v_L)\|vac>F^{b_1\cdots b_L}\nonumber \\ &=&\sum _{a=2}^{m+n}K^+_a(u)F^{b_1\cdots b_L}\beta(u) \prod _{j=1}^L {\frac 1{b(u-v_j)b(u+v_j+\eta )}}\nonumber \\ & &\cdot R_{12}(u+v_1+\eta )^{ad_1}_{p_1q_1}R_{21}(u-v_1)^{s_1q_1}_{ab_1} R_{12}(u+v_2+\eta )^{p_1d_2}_{p_2q_2}R_{21} (u-v_2)^{s_2q_2}_{s_1b_2}\nonumber \\ & &\cdots R_{12}(u+v_L+\eta )^{p_{L-1}d_L}_{p_Lq_L}R_{21}(u- v_L)^{s_Lq_L}_{s_{L-1}b_L}\nonumber \\ & &B_{d_1}(v_1)B_{d_2}(v_2)\cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\delta_{p_ns_n}\|vac>+ u.t.\end{aligned}$$ where $u.t.$ stands for unwanted term. Using the definition of $L^{(1)}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v}_i)$ and its inverse, we rewrite relation (49) as: $$\begin{aligned} \cdots&=&\sum_{a=2}^{m+n}K^+_a(u)F^{b_1\cdots b_L}\prod_{j=1}^L \frac{a(u-v_j)a(v_j-u)}{b(u-v_j)b(u+v_j+\eta)}\beta(u)\nonumber \\ & &\left\{\left(T^{(1)}(\tilde{u},\{\tilde{v}_i\})T^{(1)}(-\tilde{u},\{\tilde{v}_i\})^{-1} \right)^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}\right\}_{aa}\nonumber \\ & &\cdot B_{d_1}(v_1)B_{d_2}(v_2)\cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\|vac> + u.t.\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned} & &\left\{ \left( T^{(1)}(\tilde{u},\{ \tilde{v}_i\} ) T^{(1)}(-\tilde{u},\{ \tilde{v}_i\} )^{-1} \right) ^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}\right\} _{aa}\nonumber \\ &=&\left\{ \left( L^{(1)}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v}_1)\cdots L^{(1)}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v}_L)L^{(1)}(-\tilde{u},\tilde{v}_L)^{-1} \cdots L^{(1)}(-\tilde{u},\tilde{v}_1)^{-1}\right)^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}\right\}_{aa}\end{aligned}$$ As mentioned above $a$ is the index of the auxiliary space and $b_i,d_i$ are the indices of the quantum space. The unwanted terms in equation (49) take two forms. After some long tedious calculation based upon the similar considerations as in the $A(u)$ case, we can get the following expression After long tedious calculation $$\begin{array}{rcl} u.t. &=& \sum^{L}_{k=1}S(u_k,\{v_i\})^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}F^{b_1\cdots b_L} \cdot \alpha(v_k) e^{id\eta} \\[5mm] & &\,\displaystyle\frac{c_+(u+v_k)b(2v_k)b(2u+d\eta)}{a(u+v_k)a(2v_k)b(2u+\eta)} \prod_{j=i,\neq k}^L \frac{a(v_j-v_k)b(v_j+v_k)}{a(v_j+v_k)b(v_j-v_k)}\\[5mm] & &\,\cdot B_{d_1}(u)B_{d_2}(v_1)\cdots B_{d_k}(v_{k-1})B_{d_{k+1}}(v_{k+1}) \cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\|vac>\\[5mm] & & + \sum^{L}_{k=1}S(u_k,\{v_i\})^{c_1\cdots c_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}F^{b_1\cdots b_L} \cdot \beta(v_k) e^{id\eta}\\[5mm] & &\,\displaystyle\frac{-c_+(u-v_k)b(2u+d\eta)}{b(u-v_k)b(2u+\eta)} \prod_{j=i,\neq k}^L \frac{a(v_j-v_k)a(v_k-v_j)}{b(v_k-v_j)b(v_j+v_k+\eta)}\\[5mm] & & \,\left(L^{(1)} (\tilde{v}_k,\tilde(v)_1) \cdots L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_{k-1}) L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_{k+1})\cdots\right. \\[5mm] & & \cdots L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_L) L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_L)^{-1} \cdots L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_{k+1})^{-1}\\[5mm] & &\left. L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k, \tilde{v}_{k-1})^{-1}\cdots L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_1)^{-1}\right) ^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{c_1\cdots c_L}\\[5mm] & & \,B_{d_1}(u)B_{d_2}(v_1)\cdots B_{d_k}(v_{k-1})B_{d_{k+1}}(v_{k+1}) \cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\|vac>. \end{array}$$ In order to simplify equations (47) and (52), we need an important relation $$\begin{aligned} & & \left\{L^{(1)} (\tilde{v}_k,\tilde(v)_1)\cdots L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_{k-1}) L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_{k+1})\cdots \cdots L^{(1)}(\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_L)\right. \nonumber \\ & & \cdot L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_L)^{-1} \cdots L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_{k+1})^{-1} L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k, \tilde{v}_{k-1})^{-1}\cdots \nonumber \\ & &\left.\cdot L^{(1)}(-\tilde{v}_k,\tilde{v}_1)^{-1}\right\}^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{c_1\cdots c_L} S(v_k,\{v_i\})^{c_1\cdots c_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}\nonumber \\ & =&\, \frac{sin(\eta)}{sin(2v_k+d\eta)}e^{-id\eta}S(v_k,\{v_i\})^{c_1\cdots c_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L} \tau^{(2)}(\tilde{v_k},\{\tilde{v_i}\})^{c_1\cdots d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} & &\,\, \tau^{(2)}(u,\{\tilde{v}_i\})^{c_1\cdots d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L} \nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{a=2}^{m+n}K^+_a(u)\left\{\left( L^{(1)} (u,\tilde{v}_1)\cdots L^{(1)}(u,\tilde{v}_L)\right.\right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.\left.\cdot L^{(1)}(-u,\tilde{v}_L)^{-1} \cdots L^{(1)}(-u,\tilde{v}_{1})^{-1} \right)_{b_1\cdots b_L}^{c_1\cdots c_L}\right\}_{aa} \nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{a=2}^{m+n}K^+_a(u)\left\{\left( T^{(1)} (u,\{\tilde{v}_i\})T^{(1)}(-u,\{\tilde{v}_i\})^{-1}\right) _{b_1\cdots b_L}^{c_1\cdots c_L}\right\}_{aa}\end{aligned}$$ Using the equations (48) and (53), we then obtain the action of $t(u)$ on $\Psi$ $$\begin{array}{rcl} t(u)\Psi&=&\displaystyle\alpha(u)e^{i(d-1)\eta}\frac{sin(2u+d\eta)}{sin(2u+\eta)} \prod_{j=1}^L\frac{a(v_j-u)b(v_j+u)}{b(v_j-u)a(v_j+u)}\\[5mm] & & F^{b_1\cdots b_L}B_{b_1}(v_1)\cdots B_{b_L}(v_L)\|vac> \\[5mm] & &\displaystyle+ \prod_{j=1}^L\frac{a(v_j-u)a(u-v_j)}{b(u-v_j)b(v_j+u+\eta)}\beta(u) \tau^{(2)}(\tilde{u},\{\tilde{v}_i\})^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}\\[5mm] & & F^{b_1\cdots b_L} B_{d_1}(v_1)\cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\|vac> \\[5mm] & &\displaystyle+\sum_{k=1}^L\left(\frac{-c_+(v_k-u)}{b(v_k-u)}e^{-i\eta} +\frac{c_+(v_k+u)}{a(v_k+u)}\right)\frac{sin(2u+d\eta)b(2v_k)}{sin(2u+\eta)a(2v_k)}e^{id\eta} \\[5mm] & &\displaystyle\cdot\prod_{j=1,\neq k}^{L} \frac{a(v_j-v_k)b(v_j+v_k)}{b(v_j-v_k)a(v_j+v_k)}\alpha(v_k)S(v_k,\{v_i\})^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L}F^{b_1\cdots b_L}\\[5mm] & &\displaystyle\,\cdot B_{d_1}(u)b_{d_2}(v_1)\cdots B_{d_k}(v_{k-1})B_{d_{k+1}}(v_{k+1}) \cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\|vac>\\[5mm] & &\displaystyle-\sum_{k=1}^L\left(\frac{c_-(u+v_k)}{a(u+v_k)}e^{-i\eta}+\frac{c_+(u-v_k)} {b(u-v_k)}\right)\frac{sin(2u+d\eta)}{sin(2u+\eta)}\\[5mm] & &\displaystyle\frac{sin(\eta)}{sin(2v_k+\eta)}\prod_{j=1,\neq k}^L\frac{a(v_k-v_j)a(v_j-v_k)} {b(v_k-v_j)b(v_j+v_k+\eta)}\\[5mm] & & S(v_k,\{v_i\})^{d_1\cdots d_L}_{c_1\cdots c_L} \tau^{(2)}(\tilde{v}_k,\{\tilde{v}_i\})^{c_1\cdots c_L}_{b_1\cdots b_L} F^{b_1\cdots b_L} \\[2mm] & &B_{d_1}(u)b_{d_2}(v_1)\cdots B_{d_k}(v_{k-1})B_{d_{k+1}}(v_{k+1}) \cdots B_{d_L}(v_L)\|vac> \end{array}$$ From the above equation, one can see that the function $\Psi$ is not the eigenstate of $t(u)$ unless $F$’s are the eigenstates of $\tau^{(2)}$ and the sum of the third and the fourth term in the above equation is zero, which will give a restriction on the $L$ spectrum parameters $\{v_i\}$. So, we have the following results: If $F$ is the eigenstate of $\tau^{(2)}$ with the eigenvalue $\Lambda^{(2)}$ satisfing equation (57), then $\Psi$ is the eigenstate of $t(u)$ with the eigenvalue $\Lambda^{(1)}$, $$\begin{array}{rcl} \Lambda^{(1)}(u)&=&\displaystyle\alpha(u)e^{i(d-1)\eta}\frac{sin(2u+d\eta)}{sin(2u+\eta)} \prod_{j=1}^L\frac{a(v_j-u)b(v_j+u)}{b(v_i-u)a(v_j+u)} \\[2mm] & &\displaystyle\,+ \beta(u) \prod_{j=1}^L\frac{a(v_j-u)a(u-v_j)}{b(u-v_j)b(v_j+u+\eta)} \Lambda^{(2)}(u,\{v_i\}) \end{array}$$ where $$\begin{array}{rcl} \tau^{(1)}(u,\{v_i\})F&=&\Lambda^{(2)}(u,\{v_i\})F\\[2mm] \Lambda^{(2)}(v_j,\{v_i\})&=&\displaystyle\frac{\alpha(v_k)b(2v_k)sin(2v_k+d\eta)} {\beta(v_k)a(2v_k)sin(\eta)} e^{i(d-1)\eta}\prod_{j=1,\neq k}^L\frac{b(v_j+v_k)}{a(v_k-v_j)} \end{array}$$ Therefore, the diagonalization of $t(u)$ is reduced to finding the eigenvalue of $\tau^{(2)}$. The explicit expression of $\tau^{(2)}$ (see equation (55)) implies that $\tau^{(2)}$ can be considered as the transfer matrix of an $L$-sites quantum chain, in which every spin takes $m+n-1$ values. The related Yang-Baxter equation is the same as the one of $t(u)$, exception $R$ being an $(m+n-1)^2\times (m+n-1)^2$ matrix. Hence, we can use the same method to find the eigenvalue of $\tau^{(2)}$. Repeating the procedure $m$ times, one can reduce to a subsystem $\tau^{(m+1)}$ which is an $n\times n$ matrix in auxiliary space. The related Yang-Baxter equation is also defined by equation (2), but one should notice that in this case all $\epsilon_a=-1$ due to $m=0$. In order to diagonalize $\tau^{(m+1)}$, we need the definition of $\tilde{D}$ by the second equation (28). The elements of $T^{(m)}$ satisfy equations (31) and (32). Following the same procedure, one can further reduce the $\tau^{(m+1)}$ into the $\tau^{(m+2)}$ subsystem. The late has the same structure as the former. In this case one finaly obtains the eigenvalue of $\tau^{(m+n-1)}$. This is the well-known nested Bethe Ansatz. Because the wave-functions are not needed in this paper, we omit them here. The eigenvalue and the constraint on the spectral parameters read as $$\begin{array}{rcl} \Lambda^{(k)}(u,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\},\{v_i^{(k)}\})&=&\displaystyle\alpha^{(k)}(u,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})e^{i(d+k-2)\eta} \frac{sin(2u+d\eta)}{sin(2u+k\eta)}\\[5mm] & & \displaystyle\cdot \prod_{j=1}^{P_k}\frac{a(v_j^{(k)}-u)b(u+v_j^{(k)}+(k-1)\eta)} {b(v_j^{(k)}-u)a(u+v_j^{(k)}+(k-1)\eta)} \\[5mm] & &+\displaystyle \beta^{(k)}(u,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\}) \prod_{j=1}^{P_k} \frac{a(v_j^{(k)}-u)a(u-v_j^{(k)})}{b(u-v_j^{(k)})b(u+v_j^{(k)}+k\eta)} \\[2mm] & & \cdot \Lambda^{(k+1)}(u,\{v_i^{(k)}\},\{v_i^{(k+1)}\}) \\[5mm] & & ( 1\leq k \leq m) \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{rcl} \Lambda^{(k)}(u,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\},\{v_i^{(k)}\}) &=&\displaystyle\alpha^{(k)}(u,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})e^{i(d+2m-k)\eta} \frac{sin(2u+d\eta)}{sin(-2u+(k-2m)\eta)}\\[5mm] & &\cdot \displaystyle \prod_{j=1}^{P_k}\frac{w(v_j^{(k)}-u)b(u+v_j^{(k)}+(2m-k+1)\eta)} {b(v_j^{(k)}-u)w(u+v_j^{(k)}+(2m-k+1)\eta)} \\[5mm] & &\displaystyle\,+ \beta^{(k)}(u,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\}) \prod_{j=1}^{P_k} \frac{a(v_j^{(k)}-u)a(u-v_j^{(k)})}{b(u-v_j^{(k)})b(u+v_j^{(k)}+(2m-k)\eta)} \\[5mm] & &\cdot \Lambda^{(k+1)}(u,\{v_i^{(k)}\},\{v_i^{(k-1)}\}) \\[5mm] & & ( m+1\leq k \leq n) \end{array}$$ and $$\begin{array}{rcl} \Lambda^{(k+1)}(v_l^{(k)},\{v_i^{(k)}\},\{v_i^{(k+1)}\}) &=&\displaystyle\frac{\alpha^{(k)}(v^{(k)}_l,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})}{\beta^{(k)}(v^{(k)}_l,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})} \frac{sin(2v^{(k)}_l+d\eta)}{sin(\eta)} e^{i(d+k-2)\eta}\\[5mm] & &\cdot \displaystyle\frac{sin(2v^{(k)}_l+(k-1)\eta)}{sin(2v^{(k)}_l+k\eta)} \prod_{j=1,\neq l}^{P_k}\frac{sin(v^{(k)}_l+v^{(k)}_j+(k-1)\eta)} {sin(v^{(k)}_j-v^{(k)}_l-\eta)} \\[5mm] & & ( 1\leq k \leq m) \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{rcl} \Lambda^{(k+1)}(v_l^{(k)},\{v_i^{(k)}\},\{v_i^{(k+1)}\}) &=&\displaystyle\frac{\alpha^{(k)}(v^{(k)}_l,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})}{\beta^{(k)}(v^{(k)}_l,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})} e^{i(d+2m-k)\eta} \\[5mm] & & \displaystyle \frac{sin(2v^{(k)}_l+d\eta)sin(2v^{(k)}_l+(2m-k+1)\eta)} {sin(\eta)sin(2v^{(k)}_l+(2m-k)\eta)} \\[5mm] & &\displaystyle \cdot\prod_{j=1,\neq l}^{P_k}\frac{sin(v^{(k)}_l+v^{(k)}_j+(2m-k+1)\eta)} {sin(v^{(k)}_l-v^{(k)}_j+\eta)} \\[2mm] & & ( m+1\leq k \leq m+n-1) \end{array}$$ where $$\begin{array}{rcl} \alpha^{(k)}(u,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})&=&\left\{\begin{array}{cc} \displaystyle \prod_{j=1}^{P_{k-1}}\frac{sin(u+v_j^{(k-1)}+k\eta)}{sin(v_j^{(k-1)}-u+\eta)},& 1\leq k\leq m\\[5mm] \displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{k-1}}\frac{sin(u+v_j^{(k-1)}+(2m-k)\eta)}{sin(v_j^{(k-1)}-u-\eta)},& m+1\leq k\leq n \end{array} \right. \\[5mm] \beta^{(k)}(u,\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})&=&\left\{\begin{array}{r} \displaystyle \prod_{j=1}^{P_{k-1}}\frac{sin(u+v_j^{(k-1)}+(k-1)\eta)sin(u-v_j^{(k-1)})} {sin(v_j^{(k-1)}-u+\eta)sin(u-v_j^{(k-1)}+\eta)}\\[5mm] \displaystyle\cdot\frac{sin(2u+(k-1))\eta)}{sin(2u+k\eta)}e^{-i\eta}, ~~1\leq k\leq m \\[5mm] \displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{k-1}}\frac{sin(u+v_j^{(k-1)}+(2m-k+1)\eta)sin(u-v_j^{(k-1)})} {sin(v_j^{(k-1)}-u+\eta)sin(u-v_j^{(k-1)}+\eta)}\\[5mm] \displaystyle\cdot\frac{sin(2u+(2m-k+1))\eta)}{sin(2u+(2m-k)\eta)} e^{-i\eta}, ~~m+1\leq k\leq n \end{array} \right. \end{array}$$ In the above representation, we have assumed $v_j^{(1)}=v_j, v_j^{(0)}=0$, $P_o=N,P_1=L$ and $\Lambda^{(m+n+1)}=1$. Notice that $\beta^{(k)}(u,\{v_i^{k-1}\})$ vanishes at the special points $v_i^{(k-1)}$ due to the factor $sin(u-v_i^{(k-1)})$ appearing in $\beta^{(k)}$. Taking $u=v_i^{(k-1)}$ in formulae (58) and (59), we can get another kind of constraints on $\Lambda^{(k)}$ $$\begin{array}{rcl} \Lambda^{(k)}(v_l^{(k-1)},\{v_i^{(k-1)}\},\{v_i^{(k)}\}) &=&\displaystyle\alpha^{(k)}(v_l^{(k-1)},\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})e^{i(d+k-2)\eta} \frac{sin(2v_l^{(k-1)}+d\eta)}{sin(2v_l^{(k-1)}+k\eta)}\\[5mm] & &\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_k}\frac{sin(v_j^{(k)}-v_l^{(k-1)}+\eta)sin(v_j^{(k)}+v_l^{(k-1)}+(k-1)\eta)} {sin(v_j^{(k)}-v_l^{(k-1)})sin(v_j^{(k)}+v_l^{(k-1)}+k\eta)}\\[5mm] & &1\leq k\leq m \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{rcl} \Lambda^{(k)}(v_l^{(k-1)},\{v_i^{(k-1)}\},\{v_i^{(k)}\}) &=&-\displaystyle\alpha^{(k)}(v_l^{(k-1)},\{v_i^{(k-1)}\})e^{i(d+2m-k)\eta} \frac{sin(2v_l^{(k-1)}+d\eta)}{sin(2v_l^{(k-1)}+(2m-k)\eta)}\\[5mm] & &\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_k} \frac{sin(v_j^{(k)}-v_l^{(k-1)}-\eta)sin(v_j^{(k)}+v_l^{(k-1)}+(2m-k+1)\eta)} {sin(v_j^{(k)}-v_l^{(k-1)})sin(v_j^{(k)}+v_l^{(k-1)}+(2m-k)\eta)}\\[5mm] & &m+1\leq k\leq m+n \end{array}$$ Now, changing the index $k$ into $k+1$ in the above formulae, we can obtain constrains on $\Lambda^{(k+1)}$. Comparing these with equations (60) and (61), one can derive out the following Bethe ansatz equations $$\begin{array}{l} \displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{k-1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k-1)}+\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k-1)}+k\eta)} {sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k-1)})sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k-1)}+(k-1)\eta)}\\[5mm] \cdot\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{k+1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k+1)}-\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k+1)}+k\eta)} {sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k+1)})sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k+1)}+(k+1)\eta)}\\[5mm] =\displaystyle\prod_{j=1,\neq l}^{P_k} \frac{sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k)}-\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k)}+(k-1)\eta)} {sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k)}+\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k)}+(k+1)\eta)}\\[5mm] ~~~~~(1\leq k\leq m-1) \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l} \displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{m-1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(m)}-v_j^{(m-1)}+\eta)sin(v_l^{(m)}+v_j^{(m-1)}+m\eta)} {sin(v_l^{(m)}-v_j^{(m-1)})sin(v_l^{(m)}+v_j^{(m-1)}+(m-1)\eta)}\\[5mm] ~\cdot\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{m+1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(m)}-v_j^{(m+1)})sin(v_l^{(m)}+v_j^{(m+1)}+(m-1)\eta)} {sin(v_l^{(m)}-v_j^{(m+1)}+\eta)sin(v_l^{(m)}+v_j^{(m+1)}+m\eta)}\\[5mm] =1 \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l} \displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{k-1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k-1)}-\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k-1)}+(2m-k)\eta)} {sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k-1)})sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k-1)}+(2m-k+1)\eta)}\\[5mm] \cdot\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{k+1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k+1)})sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k+1)}+(2m-k-1)\eta)} {sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k+1)}+\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k+1)}+(2m-k)\eta)}\\[5mm] =\displaystyle\prod_{j=1,\neq l}^{P_k} \frac{sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k)}-\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k)}+(2m-k-1)\eta)} {sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k)}+\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k)}+(2m-k+1)\eta)}\\[5mm] ~~~~~(m+1\leq k\leq m+n-1) \end{array}$$ The above Bethe ansatz equations are very complicted, but they can be simplified by introducing the following new variables $$v_j^{(k)}=\left\{ \begin{array}{rc} w_i^{(k)}-k\eta/2,& 1\leq k\leq m\\[5mm] w_i^{(k)}-(2m-k)\eta/2,& m+1\leq k\leq m+n \end{array} \right.$$ The Bethe Ansatz equations then take the form $$\begin{array}{l} \displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{k-1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k-1)}-\eta/2)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k-1)}-\eta/2)} { sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k-1)}+/2\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k-1)}+\eta/2)}\\[5mm] \cdot\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{k+1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k+1)}-\eta/2)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k+1)}-\eta/2)} { sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k+1)}+\eta/2)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k+1)}+\eta/2)}\\[5mm] =\displaystyle\prod_{j=1,\neq l}^{P_k} \frac{sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k)}-\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k)}-\eta)} { sin(v_l^{(k)}-v_j^{(k)}+\eta)sin(v_l^{(k)}+v_j^{(k)}+\eta)}\\[5mm] ~~~~~(1\leq k\leq m+n-1, k\neq m) \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l} \displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{m-1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(m)}-v_j^{(m-1)}-\eta/2)sin(v_l^{(m)}+v_j^{(m-1)}-\eta/2)} { sin(v_l^{(m)}-v_j^{(m-1)}+/2\eta)sin(v_l^{(m)}+v_j^{(m-1)}+\eta/2)}\\[5mm] \cdot\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^{P_{m+1}} \frac{sin(v_l^{(m)}-v_j^{(m+1)}+\eta/2)sin(v_l^{(m)}+v_j^{(m+1)}+\eta/2)} { sin(v_l^{(m)}-v_j^{(m+1)}-\eta/2)sin(v_l^{(m)}+v_j^{(m+1)}-\eta/2)}\\[5mm] =1 \end{array}$$ The function $\Lambda^{(1)}(u,\cdots)$ must not be singular at $u=v_j^{(k)}$ ($1\leq j\leq p_k$, $1\leq k\leq m+n-1$) since the transfer matrix $t(u)$ is an analytic function of $u$. In fact, the equation (57) comes from the condition under which the unwanted term vanishes. One can understand this constraint from another point of view: From equation (56), we know that $u=v_j=v_j^{(1)}$ is a pole of $\Lambda^{(1)}(u)$. In order to keep the analyticity of $\Lambda^{(1)}(u)$, one should need the residuce of $\Lambda^{(1)}(u)$ at $v_j$ vanishing, which also gives the constraint (57). So, $\Lambda^{(1)}(u)$ is analytic at $v_j$. Similarly, equations (69) ensure the analyticity of $\Lambda^{(1)}(u)$ at all $v_j^{(k)}$. Therefore, the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix are analytic functions if the previous Bethe ansatz equations are satisfied. The energy spectrum of 1-dimensional quantum system defined by equation (23) can be derived fron $\Lambda^{(1)}(u)$. It is $$E=-\sum_{k=1}^{P_1=L}\frac{1}{cos(\eta+2v_k)-cos(\eta)}+\frac{sin[(d-1)\eta]}{4sin^3(\eta)}$$ In order to comparing our results with the Bethe Ansatz equations given in references \[20,21\], we introduce new varibles $$\begin{aligned} \lambda_j^k&=&\left\{\begin{array}{cc} v^{(k)}_j~, & 1\leq j\leq P_k \\ -v^{(k)}_{2P_k-j+1}~,& P_k+1\leq j \leq 2P_k \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ Then equations (69) and (70) deduce to the Bethe Ansatz equations (see, for example, equation (4) in ref. \[20\]) up to a phase. In this sense, the Bethe Ansatz equations for the system with quantum group symmetry is the duble of the ones for the same system with periodic boundary condition. One should note the constrain in the right hand side of equation (69), which will contribute a non-zero term to the free energy. Quantum group structure of the model ==================================== In this section we will show that the vertex model under consideration is a realization of quantum supergroup $SU_q(n\|m)$, and we will also prove that the transfer matrix for open boundary conditions is $SU_q(n\|m)$ invariant. Firstly, denoting $x=e^{iv}$, $q=e^{i\eta }$, the Yang-Baxter equation becomes $$R_{12}(x/y)T_1(x)T_2(y)=T_2(y)T_1(x)R_{12}(x/y).$$ We write the R-matrix as $$\begin{aligned} R(x)=xR_+-x^{-1}R_-,\end{aligned}$$ similaryly, the $L$ operators can be written as $$\begin{aligned} L(x)=xL_+-x^{-1}L_-.\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of R-matrix, $L_{\pm }$ can be written in the following form. $$\begin{aligned} {L_+}^i_i=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} q^{w_i}, &i\leq m,\\ \sigma _iq^{-w_i}, &m<i\leq m+n,\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} {L_+}^{i+1}_i=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (q-q^{-1})q^{-{1\over 2}\sum_{j\not= i,i+1}w_j}f_i, &i<m,\\ (q-q^{-1})q^{-{1\over 2}\sum_{j\not= m,m+1}w_j-w_{m+1}}\sigma _mf_m, &i=m,\\ (q-q^{-1})q^{{1\over 2}\sum_{j\not= i,i+1}w_j}\sigma _if_i, &m<i\leq m+n, \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} {L_-}^i_i=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} q^{-w_i}, &i\leq m,\\ \sigma _iq^{w_i}, &i>m, \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} {L_-}^i_{i+1}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} -(q-q^{-1})e_iq^{{1\over 2}\sum _{j\not= i,i+1}w_j}, &i<m,\\ -(q-q^{-1})e_mq^{{1\over 2}\sum _{j\not= m,m+1}w_j+w_{m+1}}, &i=m\\ -(q-q^{-1})\sigma _ie_iq^{-{1\over 2}\sum _{j\not= i,i+1}w_j}, &i>m. \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ Here $L_{\pm }$ are lower and upper triangular matrices with ${L_+}^i_j={L_-}^j_i=0$, if $i<j$, $w_i$,$i=1,\cdots ,m+n$; $e_i, f_i$, $i=1,\cdots ,m+n-1$, are the generators of the $SU(n\|m)$ superalgebra in the graded Cartan-Chevalley basis; the definition of the matrices $\sigma _i$ and the details of the classical simple Lie algebra $SU(n\|m)$ are given in Appendix B. Recall the definition of the monodromy matrix $T(x)$: In the limit $x\rightarrow \infty ,0$, we find the leading terms $T_{\pm }$ of the monodromy matrix $T(x)$ to take the form, $$\begin{aligned} {T_+}^i_i=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} q^{-N/2}q^{w_i}, &i\leq m,\\ q^{-N/2}\sigma _iq^{-W_i}, &m<i\leq m+n, \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} {T_+}^{i+1}_i=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \alpha _-q^{-{1\over 2}\sum_{j\not= i,i+1}W_j}F_i, &i<m,\\ \alpha _-q^{-{1\over 2}\sum_{j\not= m,m+1}W_j-W_{m+1}}\tilde{\sigma }_mF_m, &i=m,\\ q^{-N}\alpha _+q^{{1\over 2}\sum _{j\not=i,i+1}W_j}\tilde{\sigma }_i F_i, &i>m, \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} {T_-}^i_i=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} q^{N/2}q^{-W_i}, &i\leq m,\\ q^{N/2}\sigma _iq^{W_i}, &m<i\leq m+n, \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} {T_-}^i_{i+1}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} -\alpha _+E_iq^{{1\over 2}\sum_{j\not= i,i+1}W_j}, &i\leq m,\\ -\alpha _+E_mq^{{1\over 2}\sum_{j\not= m,m+1}W_j+W_{m+1}}, &i=m,\\ -q^N\alpha _-\tilde{\sigma }_iE_iq^{-{1\over 2}\sum_{j\not =i,i+1}W_j}, &m<i\leq m+n. \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Here $T_{\pm }$ are lower and upper triangular matrices with ${T_+}^i_j={T_-}^j_i=0$, if $i<j$, $\alpha _{\pm }=q^{\pm 1/2}(q-q_{-1})$, and $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\sigma }_i&=&\sigma _i\otimes \sigma _i\otimes \cdots \otimes \sigma _i, i=m+1,\cdots ,m+n,\nonumber \\ q^{\pm W^i}&=&q^{\pm w_i}\otimes \cdots \otimes q^{\pm w_i}, i=1,\cdots ,m+n, \nonumber \\ X_i&=&\sum_{j=1}^{N}q^{-h_i/2}\otimes \cdots \otimes q^{-h_i/2} \otimes x_i^{j_{th}}\otimes q^{h_i/2}\otimes \cdots \otimes q^{h_i/2}, i<m, \\ X_m&=&\sum_{j=1}^{N}q^{-h_m/2}\otimes \cdots \otimes q^{-h_m/2} \otimes x_m^{j_{th}}\otimes (\sigma _{m+1}q^{h_m/2}) \otimes \cdots \otimes (\sigma _{m+1}q^{h_m/2}),\nonumber \\ X_i&=&\sum_{j=1}^Nq^{h_i/2}\otimes \cdots \otimes q^{h_i/2} \otimes x_i^{j_{th}}\otimes (\sigma _{m+1}\sigma _{m+2}\cdots \sigma _{i+1}q^{-h_i/2})\nonumber \\ & &\otimes \cdots \otimes (\sigma _{m+1} \sigma _{m+2}\cdots \sigma _{i+1}q^{-h_i/2}), m<i\leq m+n.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $X_i=E_i,F_i$, $x_i=e_i,f_i$ , respectively. $h_i=w_i-w_{i+1}$, $i\not= m$, and $h_m=w_m+w_{m+1}$. In the case of $N=2$, these formulae define the coproduct of a Hopf algebra. From this point of view, the equation (83) can be written as $$\begin{aligned} X_i=\Delta ^{N-1}(x_i)=(\Delta \otimes id)\Delta ^{N-2}(x_i)\end{aligned}$$ In the following we will discuss the algebraic relations of ($q^{w_i}, X_i$). Taking the appropriate limits of the R-matrix and the row-to-row monodromy matrix $T$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{x \to 0}xR(x/y)&=&-yR_-\\ \lim_{x \to \infty }x^{-1}R(x/y)&=&{1\over y}R_+\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{x \to }x^NT(x)&=&-T_-\\ \lim_{x \to \infty }x^{-N}T(x)&=&T_+\end{aligned}$$ In the limits $x\rightarrow 0,\infty $, the Yang-Baxter equation gives: $$R_{\pm }T_{1\pm }T_2(y)=T_2(y)T_{1\pm }R_{\pm }$$ and $$R_{\pm }T_{1\pm }T_{2\varepsilon }=T_{2\varepsilon }T_{1\pm }R_{\pm }$$ with $\varepsilon =\{+,-\}$. These spectral-parameter-indepedent Yang-Baxter relations govern q-(anti)commutation rules and q-Serre relations for the quantum supergroup $SU_q(n\|m)$. Substituting the definition of $R_{\pm},T_{\pm}$ into equation (90), we get $$\begin{aligned} q^{H_i}q^{H_j}&=&q^{H_j}q^{H_i},\nonumber \\ q^{H_i}F_jq^{-H_i}&=&q^{a_{ij}}F_j,\nonumber \\ q^{H_i}E_jq^{-H_i}&=&q^{-a_{ij}}E_j,\nonumber \\ \left [F_i,E_i\right ]&=&\frac {q^{H_i}-q^{-H_i}}{q-q^{-1}}, i\ne m,\nonumber \\ \left[ F_m,E_m\right] _+&=&\frac {q^{H_m}-q^{-H_m}}{q-q^{-1}}\nonumber \\ E_m^2=F_m^2=0, [F_i,E_j]&=&0, i\ne j, \nonumber \\ (F_i)^2F_{i\pm 1}-(q+q^{-1})F_iF_{i\pm 1}F_i+F_{i\pm 1}(F_i)^2&=&0,\nonumber \\ (E_i)^2E_{i\pm 1}-(q-q^{-1})E_iE_{i\pm 1}E_i+E_{i\pm 1}(E_i)^2&=&0.\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $H_i=W_i-W_{i+1}$, if $i\ne m$, $H_m=W_m+W_{m+1}$, and $a_{ij}$ is a component of the Cartan matrix which is given in Appendix B. The generators $H_i,E_i, F_i$, $i=1,\cdots ,m+n-1$, and relations listed above provide a definition of the quantum supergroup $SU_q(n\|m)$. In the remaining part of this section, we will verify that the transfer matrix $t(y)$ with open boundary conditions is $SU_q(n\|m)$ invariant. The entries of lower and uper triangular matrix $T_{\pm }$ are elements of $SU_q(n\|m)$. So, it is not necessary to compute commutators of $t(y)$ with individual $SU_q(n\|m)$ generators. If the relation $$[t(y), T_{\pm }]=0$$ is correct, we are led to the conclusion that the transfer matrix $t(u)$ is $SU_q(n\|m)$ invariant. From eq. (89) we have the result $$\begin{aligned} [R_{\pm }T_{1\pm }, T_2(y)T^{-1}_2(y^{-1})]=0\end{aligned}$$ Recall the relation (12), we have $$[R_{\pm }, M_1M_2]=0$$ Similary, from the unitarity and cross-unitarity relations (9,10), with the help of $PT$ invariance of R-matrix, we find $$\begin{aligned} R_{\pm }R^{t_1t_2}_{\mp }&=&1\nonumber \\ R^{t_1}_{\pm }M_1R_{\mp }^{t_2}M_1^{-1}&=&1\end{aligned}$$ So we have the identity $R^{t_1}_{\mp }=(R_{\pm }^{-1})^{t_2}$ which implies that the following relation $$M^{-1}_1(R^{-1}_{\pm })^{t_2}M_1R_{\pm }^{t_2}=1$$ is correct. Notice that we choose $K_-=1$ in this paper, so the transfer matrix can be written as $t(y)=trMT(y)T^{-1}(y^{-1})$. Now, let us prove relation (92) $$\begin{aligned} T_{1\pm }t(y)&=&tr_2T_{1\pm }M_2T_2(y)T^{-1}_2(y^{-1})\nonumber \\ &=&tr_2M_2R_{\pm }^{-1}R_{\pm }T_{1\pm }T_2(y)T^{-1}_2(y^{-1})\end{aligned}$$ here we have added an identity $R_{\pm }^{-1}R_{\pm }$ in the relation, then using the relations (95) and (96), we find $$\begin{aligned} \cdots&=&tr_2M_1^{-1}R_{\pm }^{-1}M_1(M_2T_2(y)T_2^{-1}(y^{-1}))R_{\pm } T_{1\pm }\nonumber \\ &=&tr_2\{ M_1^{-1}R^{-1}_{\pm }M_1\} ^{t_2}\{ (M_2T_2(y) T^{-1}_2(y^{-1}))R_{\pm }T_{1\pm }\} ^{t_2}\nonumber \\ &=&tr_2M_2T_2(y)T^{-1}_2(y^{-1})T_{1\pm } \nonumber \\ &=&t(y)T_{1\pm }.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have proved that the transfer matrix with a particular choice of open boundary conditions is quantum supergroup $SU_q(n\|m)$ invariant. Summary ======= In this paper, we have diagonalized the graded vertex model with open boundary condition by using the generalized algebraic Bethe ansatz method. In order to get the energy spectrum of 1-dimensional quantum system defined by equation (23), we assume $v_j^{(0)}$ to be zero in equations (58) and (60). However, one would as will assume $v_j^{(0)}\neq 0$. In this case, equations (56), (69) and (70) lead to the solution of inhomogeneous graded vertex model. Formally, one can also define a 1-dimensional quantum system by equation (23). Generally, the hamiltonian is not represented in the nearest neighbour interaction form. We also show the $SU_q(m\|n)$ invariance of the quantum spin chain (equivalent to a graded vertex model). Thus, the generators of $SU_q(m\|n)$ commute with the infinite number of conserved quantityies. The Hilbert space of the system can be classified according to the irreducible representations of $SU_q(m\|n)$. We hope that it will be help to solve the Bethe ansatz equations. In order to find the free energy of the system, one should to solve the Bethe ansatz equations. Following the method given in reference \[18\], we can deduce the Bethe ansatz equations into those of the periodic case on $2N$ sites with an additional source factor (see ref. \[20\]). The free energy contains two terms. One is the known bulk free energy, another is the surface free energy which is the correction of the open boundary conditions (that keeps the quantum group symmetry). This was pointed by de Vega and Gonzalez-Ruiz in $SU(n)$ case. [Acknowlegements]{} R. Yue was supported by Alexander von Humboldt Fundation. He would like to thank Prof. Werner Nahm for the hospitality and encouragement. We also thank Prof. K.Shi and Dr. Z.Yang for useful discussions. Appendix A ========== The starting point for commutation relations is reflection equation (25). Let $a_1=a_2=b_2=1$, $b_1=b\not= 1$, we find: $$\begin{aligned} A(v)B_b(u)&=&\frac {R_{12}(u_-)^{11}_{11}R_{21}(u_+)^{b1}_{b1}} {R_{12}(u_+)^{11}_{11}R_{21}(u_-)^{b1}_{b1}}B_b(u)A(v)\nonumber \\ & &-\frac {R_{12}(u_+)^{1b}_{1b}R_{21}(u_-)^{1b}_{b1}} {R_{12}(u_+)^{11}_{11}R_{21}(u_-)^{b1}_{b1}}B_b(v)A(u)\nonumber \\ & &-\frac {R_{12}(u_+)^{1c}_{c1}}{R_{12}(u_+)^{11}_{11}}B_c(v)D_{cb}(u)\end{aligned}$$ Due to eq.(27), it can be checked that the following relation is always true for $R(u)^{11}_{11}=sin(\eta \pm u)$. $$\begin{aligned} A(v)B_b(u)&=&\frac {R_{12}(u_-)^{11}_{11}R_{21}(u_+)^{b1}_{b1}} {R_{12}(u_+)^{11}_{11}R_{21}(u_-)^{b1}_{b1}}B_b(u)A(v)\nonumber \\ & &-\frac {R_{12}(u_-)^{b1}_{1b}R_{12}(2u)^{1b}_{1b}} {R_{12}(2u)^{11}_{11}R_{12}(u_-)^{1b}_{1b}}B_b(v)A(u)\nonumber \\ & &-\frac {R_{12}(u_+)^{1c}_{c1}}{R_{12}(u_+)^{11}_{11}}B_c(v) \tilde{D}_{cb}(u)\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, commutation relations (29,31) can be obtained from (100). Next, let $a_2=1$, $a_1,b_1,b_2\not= 1$, one can get: $$\begin{aligned} D_{a_1b_1}(u)B_{b_2}(v)&=&\frac {R_{12}(u_+)^{a_1c_2}_{c_1d_2} R_{21}(u_-)^{d_1d_2}_{b_1b_2}}{R_{12}(u_-)^{a_11}_{a_11} R_{21}(u_+)^{b_11}_{b_11}}B_{c_2}(v)D_{c_1d_1}(u)\nonumber \\ & &-\frac {R_{12}(u_-)^{a_11}_{1a_1}R_{21}(u_+)^{d_1a_1}_{b_1d_2}} {R_{12}(u_-)^{a_11}_{a_11}R_{21}(u_+)^{b_11}_{b_11}} B_{d_1}(u)D_{d_2b_2}(v).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (27) to (A.3), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{D}_{a_1b_1}(u)B_{b_2}(v)&=&{1\over {R_{12}(u_-)^{a_11}_{a_11} R_{21}(u_+)^{b_11}_{b_11}}}\{ R_{12}(u_+)^{a_1c_2}_{c_1d_2} R_{21}(u_-)^{d_1d_2}_{b_1b_2}B_{c_2}(v)\tilde{D}_{c_1d_1}(u)\nonumber \\ & &-R_{12}(u_-)^{a_11}_{1a_1}R_{21}(u_+)^{d_1a_1}_{b_1d_2}B_{d_1}(u) \tilde{D}_{d_2b_2}(v)\} \nonumber \\ & &+{1\over {R_{12}(u_-)^{a_11}_{a_11}R_{21}(u_+)^{b_11}_{b_11}}}F\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} F&=&R_{12}(u_+)^{a_1c_2}_{c_1d_2}R_{21}(u_-)^{c_1d_2}_{b_1b_2} {\frac {R_{12}(2u)^{c_11}_{1c_1}}{R_{12}(2u)^{11}_{11}}} B_{c_2}(v)A(u)\nonumber \\ & &-R_{12}(u_-)^{a_11}_{1a_1}R_{21}(u_+)^{d_1a_1}_{b_1b_2} {\frac {R_{12}(2v)^{b_21}_{1b_2}}{R_{12}(2v)^{11}_{11}}} B_{d_1}(u)A(v)\nonumber \\ & &-(R_{12}(u_-)^{a_11}_{a_11}R_{21}(u_+)^{b_11}_{b_11} {\frac {R_{12}(2u)^{a_11}_{1a_1}}{R_{12}(2u)^{11}_{11}}}\nonumber \\ & &+R_{12}(u_-)^{a_11}_{1a_1}R_{21}(u_+)^{1a_1}_{a_11}) \delta _{a_1b_1}A(u)B_{b_2}(v)\nonumber \\ & &+R_{12}(u_+)^{a_11}_{1a_1}R_{21}(u_-)^{d_1a_1}_{b_1b_2}A(v)B_{d_1}(u)\end{aligned}$$ In the following we will calculate the function $F$ for the case of $R(u)^{11}_{11}=a(u)=sin(u+\eta )$. The results can be written in a simple form, the main calculation results are as follows. Case 1: $a_1\not= b_1$ $$\begin{aligned} F&=&\delta _{a_1b_2}{\frac {sin\eta e^{i(u+v)}sin(2v)sin(u+v)sin(u-v)} {sin(u+v+\eta )sin(2v+\eta )}}B_{b_1}(u)A(v)\nonumber \\ & &-\delta _{a_1b_2}{\frac {sin^2(\eta )sin(u-v)}{sin(u+v+\eta )}} B_c(v)\tilde D_{cb_1}(u)\end{aligned}$$ Case 2: $a_1=b_1=b_2=a$ $$\begin{aligned} F&=&{\frac {sin(\eta )e^{i(u+v)}sin(u+v)sin(u-v)sin(2v)sin(\eta + \epsilon _a(2u+\eta ))}{sin(2u+\eta )sin(2v+\eta )sin(u+v+\eta )}} B_a(u)A(v)\nonumber \\ & &-{\frac {sin^2(\eta )sin(\eta +\epsilon _a(u-v))}{sin(u+v+\eta )}} B_c(v)\tilde{D}_{ca}(u)\nonumber \\ & &+{\frac {sin(u-v+\eta )sin^2(\eta )e^{i(u-v)}} {sin(2u+\eta )}}B_c(u)\tilde{D}_{ca}(v)\end{aligned}$$ Case 3: $a_1=b_1\not= b_2$ $$\begin{aligned} F&=&{\frac {sin(\eta )e^{i(u+v)}sin(u+v)sin(u-v)sin(2v) R(2u+\eta )^{a_1b_2}_{b_2a_1}}{sin(2v+\eta )sin(2u+\eta )sin(u+v+\eta )}} B_{b_2}(u)A(v)\nonumber \\ & &-{\frac {sin^2(\eta )R_{21}(u-v)^{b_2a_1}_{a_1b_2}} {sin(u+v+\eta )}}B_c(v)\tilde{D}_{cb_2}(u)\nonumber \\ & &+{\frac {sin(u-v+\eta )sin^2(\eta )e^{i(u-v)}} {sin(2u+\eta )}}B_c(u)\tilde{D}_{cb_2}(v)\end{aligned}$$ Correspondingly, in the case of $R(u)^{aa}_{aa}=sin(\eta -u)=w(u), a=1,\cdots ,n$, the main calculation results are presented in the following form. Case 1: $a_1\not= b_1$ $$\begin{aligned} F&=&\delta _{a_1b_2}{\frac {sin(\eta )e^{i(u+v)}sin(2v)sin(v+v)sin(u-v)} {sin(\eta -u-v)sin(\eta -2v)}}B_{b_1}(u)A(v)\nonumber \\ & &-\delta _{a_1b_2}{\frac {sin^2(\eta )sin(u-v)}{sin(\eta -u-v)}}B_c(v) \tilde{D}_{cb_1}(u)\end{aligned}$$ Case 2: $a_1=b_1=b_2=a$ $$\begin{aligned} F&=&{\frac {sin(\eta )e^{i(u+v)}sin(u+v)sin(2v)sin(2u-2\eta )sin(u-v)} {sin(\eta -2v)sin(\eta -2u)sin(\eta -u-v)}}B_a(u)A(v)\nonumber \\ & &-{\frac {sin^2(\eta )sin(\eta -u+v)}{sin(\eta -u-v}} B_c(v)\tilde{D}_{ca}(u)\nonumber \\ & &+{\frac {sin^2(\eta )e^{i(u-v)}sin(\eta -u+v)} {sin(\eta -2u)}}B_c(u)\tilde{D}_{ca}(v)\end{aligned}$$ Case 3: $a_1=b_1\not =b_2$ $$\begin{aligned} F&=&{\frac {sin(u+v)sin(u-v)sin(2v)sin(\eta )e^{i(u+v)} R_{12}(2u-\eta )^{a_1b_2}_{b_2a_1}}{sin(2u-\eta )sin(\eta -2v) sin(\eta -u-v)}}B_{b_2}(u)A(v)\nonumber \\ & &-{\frac {sin^2(\eta )R_{21}(u-v)^{b_2a_1}_{a_1b_2}} {sin(\eta -u-v)}}B_c(v)\tilde{D}_{cb_2}(u)\nonumber \\ & &+{\frac {sin(\eta -u+v)sin^2(\eta )e^{i(u-v)}} {sin(2u-\eta )}}B_c(u)\tilde{D}_{cb_2}(v)\end{aligned}$$ Though we have already simplified the results, they still seem to be too complicated to be dealt with. Fortunately, we have found that the results (104-109) can be summarized as a concise form which indicates the commutation rules between $\tilde{D}_{a_1b_1}(u)$ and $B_{b_2}(v)$. The explicit commutation relations are written in sect.3. One can prove it by expanding relations (30,32) according to different cases mentioned above. Thus, we have obtained the commutation relations (29-32). It is also necessary to calculate the commutaion relations between $B_a(u)$ and $B_b(v)$. Let $a_1=a_2=1$, $b_1, b_2\ne 1$, we have the results: $$\begin{aligned} B_{b_1}(u)B_{b_2}(v)=\frac {R_{12}(u_+)^{1c_2}_{1c_2} R_{21}(u_-)^{d_1c_2}_{b_1b_2}}{R_{12}(u_-)^{11}_{11} R_{21}(u_+)^{b_11}_{b_11}}B_{c_2}(v)B_{d_1}(u)\end{aligned}$$ Appendix B ========== The classical simple graded Lie algebra $SU(n\|m)$ is defined by generators $h_i,e_i,f_i, i=1,\cdots, m+n-1$ and the following relations $$\begin{aligned} \left [h_i,h_j\right ]&=&0,\nonumber \\ \left [h_i,f_j\right ]&=&a_{ij}f_j, [h_i,e_j]=-a_{ij}e_j,\nonumber \\ \left [f_i,e_i\right ]&=&h_i,i\ne m,\nonumber \\ \left [f_m,e_m\right ]_+&=&h_m,\nonumber \\ \left [f_i,e_j\right ]&=&0,i\ne j,\nonumber \\ f_m^2=e_m^2&=&0,\nonumber \\ f_i^2f_{i\pm 1}-2f_if_{i\pm 1}f_i+f_{i\pm 1}f_i^2&=&0\nonumber \\ e_i^2e_{i\pm 1}-2e_ie_{i\pm 1}e_i+e_{i\pm 1}e_i^2&=&0\end{aligned}$$ The last two relations are the so called Serre relations, which are compatible conditions for $SU(n\|m)$, $a_{ij}$ is the component of the graded Cartan matrix A defined by: $$\begin{aligned} a_{ii}&=&2,i\ne m,\nonumber \\ a_{mm}&=&0,\nonumber \\ a_{i+1,i}&=&-1\nonumber \\ a_{i,i+1}&=&-1, i\ne m \nonumber \\ a_{m,m+1}&=&1\end{aligned}$$ the other elements being equal to zero. We define $\sigma _i$ as: $$\sigma _i=diag(1,1,\cdots ,1,-1,1,\cdots ,1)$$ where -1 is th $i$th element. The fundamental representation of the generators takes the form $$\begin{aligned} w_i&=&E_{i,i},i=1,\cdots ,m+n,\nonumber \\ f_i&=&E_{i,i+1}, i=1,\cdots ,m+n-1,\nonumber \\ e_i&=&E_{i+1,i}, i=1, \cdots ,m+n-1, \nonumber \\ h_i&=&w_i-w_{i+1}, i\ne m,\nonumber \\ h_m&=&w_m+w_{m+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_{ij}$ are $(m+n)\times (m+n)$ matrices with the element in $i$-row $j$-column equal to 1, all other elements being zero. [25]{} R.J.Baxter, Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics, Academic Press, New York.1982. C.N.Yang, Phys.Rev.Lett.19(1967)1312. I.V.Cherednik, Theor.Math.Phys. 17(1983)77;61(1984)911. E.K.Sklyanin, J.Phys.A21(1988)2375. C.Destri, H.J.de Vega, Nucl.Phys.B361(1992);B374(1992)692. P.P.Kulish, E.K.Sklyanin, J.Phys.A24(1991)L435-L439. L.Mezincescue, R.I.Nepomechie, J.Phy.A24(1991)L19;\ Int.J.Mod.Phys.Lett.A6(1991)2497. V.V.Bazhanov,Phys.Lett.B159(1985)321; Commun.Math.Phys.113(1987)471 M.Jimbo,Commun.Math.Phys.102(1986)537. H.Fan, B.Y.Hou, K.J.Shi, Z.X.Yang, to appear in Phys.Lett.A. R.H.Yue, Y.X.Chen J. Phys. A26(1993)2989; S.Ghoshel, A.B.Zamolodchikov, Int.J.Mod.Phys.A9(1994)3841; E.Corrigan, P.E.Dorey, R.H.Rietdijk, R.Sasaki, Phys.Lett.B333(1994)83; S.Ghoshel, Phys.Lett.B334(1994)363; E.K.Sklyanin, Funct.Anal.Appl.21(1987)164; A.Foerster, M.Karowski, Nucl.Phys.B396(1993)611;Nucl.Phys.B408(1993)\[FS\]512. A.Gonzalez-Ruiz, Nucl.Phys.B424(1994)\[FS\]468. H.J.de Vega, A.Gonzalez-Ruiz,Nucl.Phys.B417(1994)553. J.H.Perk, C.L.Schultz. Phys.Lett.A84(1981)407. H.J.de Vega, E.Lopes, Phys.Rev.Lett.67(1991)489. E.Lopes, Nucl.Phys.B370(1992)636. O.Babelon, H.J.de Vega, C.M.Viallet, Nucl.Phys.B200(1982)\[FS\]266. F.H.Essler, V.E.Korepin, K.Schoutens, Phys.Rev.Lett.68(1992)2960. H.J.de Vega, Int.J.Mod.Phys.A4(1989)2317. [^1]: email address: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'HET Optical spectra covering the evolution from about 6 days before to about 5 weeks after maximum light and the ROTSE-IIIb unfiltered light curve of the “Branch-normal” Type Ia Supernova SN 2005hj are presented. The host galaxy shows region lines at redshift of $z=0.0574$, which puts the peak unfiltered absolute magnitude at a somewhat over-luminous $-19.6$. The spectra show weak and narrow lines, and for a period of at least 10 days beginning around maximum light these profiles do not change in width or depth and they indicate a constant expansion velocity of $\approx 10,600$ km s$^{-1}$. Our observations indicate that Si is confined to a relatively narrow velocity region. We analyzed the observations based on detailed radiation dynamical models in the literature. The models considered include delayed detonations, deflagrations, pulsating delayed detonations, and tamped detonation/merger scenarios. Whereas the first two classes of models have been used to explain the majority of SNe Ia, they do not predict a long velocity plateau in the minimum with an unvarying line profile. Pulsating delayed detonations and merger scenarios form shell-like density structures with properties mostly related to the mass of the shell, $M_{shell}$, and we discuss how these models may explain the observed line evolution; however, these models are based on spherical calculations and other possibilities may exist. SN 2005hj is consistent with respect to the onset, duration, and velocity of the plateau, the peak luminosity and, within the uncertainties, with the intrinsic colors for models with $M_{shell}=0.2 M_\odot$. Our analysis suggests a distinct class of events hidden within the Branch-normal SNe Ia. If the predicted relations between observables are confirmed, they may provide a way to separate these two groups. We discuss the implications of two distinct progenitor classes on cosmological studies employing SNe Ia, including possible differences in the peak luminosity to light curve width relation.' author: - 'Robert Quimby, Peter Höflich, J. Craig Wheeler' title: 'SN 2005hj: Evidence for Two Classes of Normal-Bright SNe Ia and Implications for Cosmology' --- Introduction ============ Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) are thought to be thermonuclear disruptions of white dwarf (WD) stars [@hf60], but the details remain uncertain. One possibility for the progenitors is the single degenerate model in which main sequence stars or post main sequence red giants transfer mass to a WD through Roche Lobe overflow or a common envelope and the WD grows close to the Chandrasekhar mass $M_{Ch}$. Due to compression, the thermonuclear runaway starts near the center leading to the explosion of the WD and a rapidly expanding envelope with a mass close to $M_{Ch}$. A second possibility is the double degenerate model in which a pair of WDs merge and lead to an explosion. In most such cases, the resulting mass of the rapidly expanding envelope will be different from $M_{Ch}$. Residual material from these mergers surrounding the explosions will get swept up by the ejecta forming dense, shell-like structures. Although the explosion of single WDs seems to be favored for the majority of objects, we may expect mergers to contribute to the SNe Ia population (see §\[obs\]). The possibility of different progenitor channels, the population of which may vary with redshift, may pose a challenge for the use of SNe Ia in cosmological studies that rely on a single parameterization, such as a light curve width to peak luminosity relation, LWR, to reduce the intrinsic scatter in the peak magnitudes and render them standard candles [@phillips1993; @perlmutter1997]. To first order, the LWR relation can be understood as a result of different amounts of $^{56}$Ni produced during the explosion [@hoeflich1996; @umeda99]. There may be some spread and an offset in LWR introduced by one of the channels if the masses of the envelope differ from $M_{Ch}$, and/or the density structures differ. This can lead to a systematic shift of LWR with redshift if the evolutionary time scales of the progenitor systems differ. Even if the different progenitor scenarios obey the same LWR, differences in the color could introduce systematic errors in cosmological studies because SNe Ia are known to suffer to some degree from reddening in their respective host galaxies which has to be taken into account. To correct for this, the maximum light color excess (usually $E_{B-V}$) and an average reddening law are used to determine the amount of absorption. SNe Ia that are intrinsically redder as compared to the average local sample will thus be over-corrected in this fashion to a higher luminosity. Similarly to the two distinct progenitor channels, qualitative variations in the explosion physics may lead to various classes of SNe Ia even within the single degenerate scenarios. Standard explosion models include delayed detonations (DD) and deflagrations. In these scenarios, burning during the deflagration phase leads to an unbound WD. In DD models, the deflagration turns into a detonation in an expanding envelope. Because the density structure of the WD declines monotonically with radius, the resulting density structure in the expanding envelope also smoothly declines with mass and radius. A variation of DD models are the pulsating delayed detonation models (PDD; @khokhlov1993 [@hoeflich1995]). In these models, the total energy production during the deflagration phase is, by construction, lower and insufficient to unbind the WD. This results in large amplitude pulsations. Because the fall-back time increases with distance, the inner regions contract and leave a shell behind at larger distances. Due to infall driven compression, a detonation is triggered, the material behind the burning front is accelerated, and this expanding material runs into the low-velocity material left at larger distances. Similar to the merger scenario, a shell-like structure is formed with very similar light curve and spectroscopic properties, but with a total mass close to $M_{Ch}$ [@hoflich_khokhlov1996]. These two groups, consisting of DD and deflagration models such as W7 [@nomoto1984], which lack shells, and the models with shells (mergers and PDDs), can be differentiated by their predictions for the photospheric evolution and maximum light colors [@khokhlov1993; @hoflich_khokhlov1996]. For the former group, the photospheric velocities, $v_{ph}$, smoothly decline with time and the models show a blue color at maximum light, $B-V \approx 0^m$; in the latter group, $v_{ph}$ shows a plateau in the evolution as the photosphere recedes through the shell. These models are intrinsically redder and slightly over-luminous because of the lower expansion rate in the inner region. As shown in @khokhlov1993 the color, length and velocity of the plateau are correlated with the mass of the shell, and this potentially allows the two groups to be distinguished even for similar brightnesses. Indeed, there is a growing sample of SNe Ia showing photospheric velocity plateaus (e.g. 1990N; @leibundgut1991 [@mueller_hoeflich1994]; 1991T, 1999aa; @garavini2004; 1999ee; @hamuy2002; 2000cx; @li2001; see also @benetti2005 ). Many of these SNe Ia have been reported as having a red color $B-V$ at maximum, but this is typically attributed to reddening along the line of sight. Alternatively, this sample may suggest the contribution of events with shell-like density structures in the observed population. These events may be understood in terms of mergers or PDDs; however, the inhomogeneities and incompleteness of individual data sets in the literature preclude definite conclusions. To address this problem and others, we started the Texas Supernovae Search (TSS; Quimby et al. in prep.) with the goal of providing a homogeneous set of quality data for several supernovae beginning well before maximum light. In this paper, we present our observations of SN 2005hj and analysis of the data. In §[\[obs\]]{} we describe the discovery and give the details for both the photometric and spectroscopic follow-up. In §\[models\] we discuss generic properties of explosion models and suggest a secondary parameter to separate models with and without shells, and analyze the peculiarities of SN 2005hj. Conclusions and discussion are presented in §[\[conclusions\]]{}. Observations {#obs} ============ SN 2005hj was discovered on October 26.13 UT in the field of Abell 194 as part of the TSS. The TSS uses the wide field ($1\fdg85 \times 1\fdg85$) 0.45m ROTSE-IIIb telescope [@akerlof03] at the McDonald Observatory in Texas to scan nearby galaxy clusters nightly for transients with a modified version of the PSF-matched image subtraction code from the Supernova Cosmology Project. SN 2005hj was found at an unfiltered magnitude (calibrated against the USNO-B1.0 R2) of $C_R=17.4$ and is located at $\alpha=01^h26^m48\fs27$, $\delta=-01\arcdeg14\arcmin16\farcs8$. The foreground reddening at this location is $E_{B-V}=0.039 ^m$ [@schlegel1998]. Examination of ROTSE-IIIb images from Oct. 20 and Oct. 22 shows the SN was detected prior to discovery, but not significantly well to pass the search pipeline’s automatic cuts. Figure \[lc\] shows the ROTSE-IIIb light curve for SN 2005hj through 40 days after maximum light. To construct the light curve, we co-added images taken on a given night (usually 6) excluding any frames of significantly lower quality due to passing clouds or wind sheer, and then subtracted the reference image convolved to the same PSF. Magnitudes were determined by fitting the local PSF (derived from the co-added nightly images) to the location of the SN on the subtracted frame using custom software and the DAOPHOT PSF-fitting routines (@stetson87 ported to IDL by @landsman89). The unfiltered CCD response of ROTSE-IIIb has an approximate full width of $\sim 4000$ Å centered in the $R$-band around 6000 Å. Because we do have some sensitivity in the blue and since the $B-V$ colors of SNe Ia typically grow $\sim 1.0$ mag redder in the 30 days after maximum [@phillips1999; @krisciunas2003], there is a blue deficit at later times that causes our unfiltered magnitudes to decline more rapidly than the true $R$-band fading. Note that $V-R$ colors of SNe Ia are close to zero at maximum light. We therefore limit the light curve fitting to data taken before 10 days after maximum (determined through several iterations of the fit), during which the color evolution is minimal. The best fit $R$-band template from @knop2003 is also shown in Figure \[lc\]. The date of maximum light determined from the fit is Nov. 1.6 with a formal error of 0.7 days (note the template phases are relative to the $B$-band maximum). The best fit stretch factor [@perlmutter1997] for the light curve width is $s=1.2 \pm 0.1$. The preliminary measurement of the observed $B-V$ color at $V$ maximum from the Carnegie Supernova Project is $0.07^m \pm 0.05$ after removal of the host light but before any extinction or $k$-corrections are applied (M. M. Phillips, private communication). Near real-time photometric analysis combined with target of opportunity (ToO) time on the neighboring 9.2m Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) allowed us to obtain optical spectra just 4 hours after the discovery images were taken and every few days over the next 6 weeks. These observations are detailed in Table \[spec\]. The instrumental response is such that very little second order light is expected blue of 8900 Å even with the GG385 blocking filter. The data were reduced in the optimal manner using IRAF[^1] and custom IDL scripts. The wavelength scale was calibrated against Cd and Ne lamps and its accuracy was verified by comparing night sky lines to the spectral atlas of @hanuschik2003. Because the HET pupil size varies for different tracks, absolute flux calibration cannot reliably be achieved; however, we used the standard stars of @massey1988 and @massey_gronwall1990, which were observed using the same setups, to achieve [relative]{} spectrophotometric calibration and to remove strong telluric features. The redshift of the host galaxy was derived from narrow emission lines around 7000 Å (observed), which we attribute to H-$\alpha$, \[\], and \[\] in the host galaxy. We combined all the spectra and simultaneously fit these lines with Gaussians to determine the line centers. The line redshifts are best fit by $z=0.0574 \pm 0.0002$, and we adopt this value for the SN. This gives SN 2005hj an absolute peak magnitude of $-19.6$ in our unfiltered band pass (assuming H$_{0}$=71 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}=0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$), and places the host well behind Abell 194 ($z=0.0180$; @struble_rood1999). The brightness and broad light curve shape suggest that SN 2005hj is a slightly over-luminous SN Ia. The unfiltered ROTSE-IIIb reference image shows that the host for SN 2005hj is relatively bright ($C_R = 17.8$) and compact, and is therefore likely a significant contaminant to our spectra. Thus, we have to subtract the galaxy contribution (see Fig. \[spec0\]). Lacking an observed spectrum for the host galaxy excluding the SN light, we constrained the galaxy SED using archival Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) $ugriz$ observations and obtained a template galaxy spectrum (N. Drory 2005, private communication). The relative amounts of SN and galaxy light in the spectral apertures will vary not only with the changing SN brightness, but also with the seeing, slit width and positioning. Also plotted in figure \[spec0\] is a spectrum of SN 1999aa (blue curve) constructed via a linear interpolation of the $-7$ day and $-3$ day spectra presented by @garavini2004. Noting the similarity of the spectral features of SN 1999aa and SN 2005hj, we assume that we can model our observed spectra as a linear combination of our galaxy template and the SN 1999aa spectra interpolated to the same phase as the SN 2005hj observations. We perform a least squares fit to determine the relative contributions of each component. The red line in figure \[spec0\] shows the derived contribution of galaxy light in the $-6$ day spectrum. Aside from a few small differences (most noticeably in the $\lambda$4481 triplet), some of which may be explained by calibration errors, the combined SN 1999aa + host spectrum (purple curve) is a good fit. The over all fit is improved if we interpolate the SN 1999aa spectra to $-5$ days instead of $-6$, especially in the 5400 Å to 6500 Å range, which could imply a $\sim$1 day error in the date of maximum light or different time scales for the spectral evolutions of the two SNe. We repeated this process for all the SN 2005hj spectra, each time using the same galaxy template and the SN1999aa spectra (interpolated to the appropriate phase) as reference to determine the relative amount of galaxy light. In general, the galaxy template added to the SN 1999aa spectra does an excellent job of reproducing the observed SN 2005hj spectra. The galaxy light typically dominates the flux red of 7000 Å. Figure \[spec\] shows the spectral evolution of SN 2005hj recorded by the HET between days $-6$ and $+34$ with the derived galaxy contribution subtracted. Spectral Characteristics of SN 2005hj {#spec_char} ------------------------------------- Overall, SN 2005hj shows spectra with lines dominated by intermediate mass and iron group elements as is typical for SNe Ia. While the lines show normal expansion velocities, the absorption components are more narrow and, for the early phases, weaker than typically observed, as exemplified by the $\lambda$6355 line (see Fig. \[spec1\]). SN 2005hj also shows an atypical velocity evolution of these features over time. Line minima are useful diagnostic indicators of the ejecta structure as they give the abundances and velocities of the material. The actual measurement of the velocity at the minimum of the line profile is complicated by the presence of the continuum, other blended lines, and some uncertainty in the true line profile shape. Detailed modeling is required to accurately sort out all the components and how they relate to the photospheric layer to reveal the velocity distribution of the ejecta[^2]. Such models have shown that the absorption minima approximate the photospheric expansion velocities to within about 1000 km s$^{-1}$ at maximum light [@hoeflich1995; @marion2006]. Thus, simple line fitting can lead to a rough description of the ejecta velocities, and allows a useful comparison to discriminate between different models. At late times the photosphere will recede below the Si rich layer and so the velocities derived from the $\lambda$6355 line will become increasingly discrepant with the photospheric velocity. For deflagration and classical detonation models, this departure will begin to set in 1-2 weeks after maximum light [@hoflich_khokhlov1996]. The strength of the $\lambda$6355 line and its persistence from at least 2 weeks before to 4 weeks after maximum light make it a valuable tool for probing the ejecta. Its evolution with time is shown in figure \[SiII\] for the case of SN 2005hj. To determine the velocity, we smooth the spectra by Fourier Transform filtering, divide by the estimated continuum, and then select the lowest point using spline interpolation over a selected range. The continuum is represented by a medium order (6th - 7th) polynomial fit to regions of the spectra that are not strongly affected by lines. To smooth the spectra, we use a Fourier Transform to convert the data into a power spectrum, and then multiply this by a filter to remove high frequency variations. We then apply a reverse FT to the filtered power spectrum to recover the smoothed spectrum. The filter has the functional form $$\Phi(\nu) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \rm{for}\; -\nu_{c} \le \nu \le \nu_{c}\\ \exp[-(\nu-\nu_c)^2/2\sigma^2] & \rm{otherwise} \end{array} \right.$$ The filter cutoff frequency, $\nu_{c}$, and attenuation scale, $\sigma$, were determined as follows: 1) the spectra were converted into a power spectrum, $P(\nu)$, via Fourier Transform; 2) the slope of $\log(P)$ is fit over the noise dominated high frequencies and interpolated through the low frequencies to determine the noise spectrum; 3) $\nu_{c}$ is taken as the frequency at which $\log(P)$ drops to within three times the dispersion about the noise spectrum; 4) $\sigma$ is chosen such that the slope of $\log[P(\nu_{c}+2\sigma)]$ is twice the noise spectrum slope (i.e.. $\nu=\nu_{c}+2\sigma$ is the frequency above which noise is clearly the dominate component). For this analysis, only the spectral bins with signal to noise above 25 were considered (note the peak throughput for HET/LRS is near the $\lambda$6355 line). For consistency, we adopt a single filter for all our analysis, choosing the results from our nosiest data, $\nu_{c}=0.0066$ Å$^{-1}$ and $\sigma=0.0053$ Å$^{-1}$, which removes noise in the data but also some real information related to “sharp” features in the spectra such as the narrow core to the $\lambda$6355 absorption in the day $+10$ spectrum. Using the relativistic Doppler formula and the $gf$-weighted $\lambda$6355 rest velocity in the host galaxy frame, we convert the wavelengths of the line profile minima into expansion velocities. For each spectrum we conducted 250,000 Monte Carlo simulations in which normally distributed noise based on the statistical flux errors was added to the data and the FT smoothed minimum was found. The peak of the distribution and the interval containing 68% of the simulation results were used to calculate the velocity of the minimum and its error, respectively. We also measured the relative shift in the region lines over all epochs and found the scatter to be 80 km s$^{-1}$, which we add in quadrature to the individual errors. The results are given in table \[linedata\] and plotted in figure \[linevel\]. We find that the data points are at 10,600 $\pm$ 150 km s$^{-1}$ between maximum light and $+18$ days, somewhat faster prior to maximum, and significantly slower on day $+25$. By day $+34$, the $\lambda$6355 absorption has all but completely disappeared. From maximum light through day $+10$, the $\lambda$6355 line profile shows little change in both depth and width in addition to maintaining a constant absorption minimum velocity. Of specific relevance is the blue wing of the absorption profile; this section of the line is formed by the material at the greatest distance from the photosphere and at the highest velocities, and as such it should be the first to vanish as the photosphere recedes. The consistency of this blue wing from maximum light through day $+10$ suggests the photosphere falls within the Si enriched layers for at least this period. By day $+18$ the blue wing has shifted significantly to the red, while the red wing remains constant except for the effects of an blend around 6250 Å. Other features begin to appear or strengthen at this phase as well. This behavior could be a signal that the Si layers are becoming detached from the photosphere by day $+18$. The day $+25$ spectra show a double minimum at the location of the $\lambda$6355 feature (see figure \[day25\]). Telluric absorption is weak in this wavelength range, and the line profile is clearly seen in each of the three individual exposures, which support the reality of this feature. A possible explanation for this feature is contamination from the host that is not removed by the template subtraction; however, galaxy spectra do not typically exhibit features in this range that could cause such interference, and even if such were the case, we would expect to see similar behavior in the $+34$ day spectra. A second possibility is contamination from lines. Using the spectral analysis tool SYNOW [@jeffery_branch1990; @fisher1997; @fisher1999], and the example of SN 1994D as a starting place [@branch2005], we find that while likely produces the absorption dips $\sim 100$ Å away on either side of the $\lambda$6355 line, it is unlikely responsible for the double minimum. The third possibility, which we favor, is that this double minimum simply appears because we are resolving the $\lambda$6355 doublet. This result implies that the seen in the $+25$ day spectra is confined to a very narrow region of velocity space ($\Delta v \approx 1,500$ km s$^{-1}$). If accurate, the true minimum of the $\lambda$6355 doublet would be about 100-200 km s$^{-1}$ faster than indicated in figure \[linevel\] and table \[linedata\], but still significantly below the plateau velocity. The emergence of this thin layer may also be responsible for the appearance of the narrow core in the $+10$ day spectrum as well as the apparent double minimum to the $+18$ day data. Some remnant of the blue component to the doublet may persist to the $+34$ day spectrum. Figure \[day25\] also shows the spectra of several other SNe Ia taken around 25 days after maximum light. While the distinctly double minimum appears unique to SN 2005hj, the width and depth of the feature is roughly consistent with the others. SN 2005hj clearly belongs to the low velocity gradient (LVG) group in the classification scheme of @benetti2005, but moreover the velocity derivative from maximum light through day $+18$, $\dot{v}=3 \pm 7$ km s$^{-1}$ day$^{-1}$, is consistent with no change[^3]. From the line profile evolution (table \[linedata\], figures \[SiII\] and \[linevel\]) we can deduce a plateau phase starting at $-2.5 \pm 2.5$ days which lasts no more than 30 days. Noting the change in the $\lambda$6355 line profile in the $+18$ day spectrum, we conservatively mark the end of the plateau phase as day $17.5 \pm 7.5$ days, which gives the plateau phase a total duration of $20 \pm 10$ days. The $\lambda$6355 velocity evolution derived from the minima of FT smoothed spectra of several selected SNe Ia is plotted in figure \[linevels\]. The velocity plateau of SN 2005hj is similar to that of other over-luminous SNe Ia such as SN 1999aa [@garavini2004] and SN 2000cx [@li2001], but it is distinct from normal SNe Ia such as SN 1994D [@patat1996] and SN 1992A [@kirshner1993] that do not show a plateau phase[^4]. Physical Constraints from Explosion Models {#models} ========================================== There is general agreement that SNe Ia result from some process involving the combustion of a degenerate C/O white dwarf [@hf60]. Within this general picture, two classes of models are most likely. The first is an explosion of a C/O-WD with a mass close to the Chandrasekhar limit ($M_{Ch}$) that accretes matter through Roche-lobe overflow from an evolved companion star [@Whelan73]. In this case, the explosion is triggered by compressional heating near the WD center. Alternatively, the SN could be an explosion of a rotating configuration formed from the merging of two low-mass WDs, after the loss of angular momentum [@it84; @pac85]. Candidate progenitor systems have been observed for both scenarios: WD binary systems with the correct period to merge in an appropriate time scale with an appropriate total mass [@max2000]; and supersoft X-ray sources [@greiner91; @vdh92; @rap94; @kah97] showing accretion onto the WD from an evolved companion. There are still open questions about the details of both the merging and accretion processes [e.g. @nomoto82; @benz90; @piersanti2003; @nomoto03]. From the observed spectral and light curve properties, the first scenario appears to be the most likely candidate for the majority of normal SNe Ia. In particular, delayed detonation (DD) models [@khokhlov1991; @yamaoka92; @woosley_weaver1994] have been found to reproduce the majority of the observed optical/infrared light curves (LC) and spectra of SNe Ia reasonably well [@hoeflich1995b; @fisher95; @hoflich_khokhlov1996; @lentz2001; @hoflich2002; @marion2003; @marion2006]. In the DD scenario, a slow deflagration front turns into a detonation. The WD pre-expands during the deflagration and undergoes complete burning during the detonation phase. Similarly, the classical deflagration models W7 [@nomoto1984] show similar behavior to DDs but only by neglecting instabilities due to the deflagration fronts [@gamezo2003]. For recent reviews see @branch1998 [@hillebrandt2000; @hoeflich2006b]. Despite the success of classical DD and W7 models, both lack the basic features seen in SN 2005hj. Neither predicts a long plateau in velocity; they instead show a smooth decline of the photospheric velocity[^5] as a function of time (Fig. \[modelvel\]). This happens because in expanding envelopes the photosphere recedes in mass and, because of the homologous expansion, in velocity as well. This behavior results from the smoothly declining density structure of the WD and the fact that variations in the specific energy production are small. In contrast, shell-like density structures will produce velocity plateaus in a natural way because the photosphere remains in the shell for some time as shown by @khokhlov1993 [@hoflich_khokhlov1996]. To form a shell-like structure requires interaction of rapidly expanding material with a surrounding envelope. Various mechanisms have been suggested to supply this surrounding matter: the pulsating delayed detonation scenario [@hoeflich1996], mergers or tamped detonation models. Shells may also form by the interaction of an exploding single WD within the progenitor system [@gerardy2004; @quimby2006]. We analyzed the observations of SN 2005hj based on detailed, spherical models for supernovae published in the literature. The models are based on detailed calculations for the explosion, light curve and spectra. The models considered include delayed detonations, deflagrations, pulsating delayed detonations and tamped detonation/merger scenarios. In figure \[modelvel\], we show the photospheric velocities as a function of time for these models along with the Branch-normal SNe Ia to illustrate the formation of a plateau in the models that naturally form a shell. Note for lower shell masses, this “plateau” is more accurately described as a period of slowly declining velocities. In classical delayed detonation models and for normal-bright SNe Ia, Si is present over a wide range in mass, spanning about $ 0.4 $ to $0.5 M_\odot$, which corresponds to velocities from about 8,000 to 9,000 km s$^{-1}$ to more than 20,000 km s$^{-1}$. The Si layer is thick (in the mass frame) because explosive oxygen burning occurs over a wide range of temperatures. The density gradient is smooth and Si is mostly in , so initially the velocity derived from the minimum of the $\lambda$6355 line smoothly declines with the receding photosphere governed by the geometrical dilution of the expanding envelope. Eventually, the photosphere begins to recede below the Si layer at which point the evolution of the $\lambda$6355 line profile will show the following behavior: 1) the optical depth of the highest velocity material at the largest radii will begin to decline below 1 and as such the blue wing of the line profile will start to drift toward the red; 2) as the optical depth decreases, the strength of the line as measured from the line depth will decrease; 3) the line minimum may continue to slow, but it will grow increasingly discrepant with the photospheric velocity. This phase typically begins 1-2 weeks after maximum light for normal SNe Ia and is heralded by the appearance of lines. While this behavior is commensurate with observations of normal-bright SNe Ia such as SN 1994D, this behavior is not consistent with the observations of SN 2005hj. The $\lambda$6355 line seen in SN 2005hj is narrow, and during the plateau phase the wings do not change, the depth does not change, and the velocity of the minimum does not change to within the errors. The data require a narrow distribution of in velocity space, and we suggest this may be explained by an interaction that compresses the Si rich layers as predicted by merger and pulsating delayed detonation models. The shell models are also consistent with the velocity drop seen after the plateau because a significant amount of Si is located below the shell [@khokhlov1993; @hoflich_khokhlov1996]. In Fig. \[modelprop\], we show general properties of these models. As discussed in the papers above, to first order, the observational signatures of the shell depend on the mass of the shell $M_{shell}$. Almost the entire WD is burned, and momentum conservation determines the amount of high velocity matter that can pile up in the expanding shell. With increasing shell mass, more material of the SN envelope is slowed down. As a consequence, the velocity of the shell $v_{shell}$ decreases with $M_{shell}$. Because it will take longer for the photosphere to recede into the lower velocity matter, the time until the beginning of the plateau phase, $t_0$, increases with $M_{shell}$. The optical depth increases with $M_{shell}$, duration of the plateau, $\Delta t_{shell}$, also increases, the temperature gradient becomes steeper, and the photosphere becomes cooler (i.e. $B-V$ increases) with increasing $M_{shell}$ [@khokhlov1993; @hoflich_khokhlov1996]. The duration of the plateau, $\Delta t_{shell}$, is defined by the velocity spread $\delta v $ around $v_{Shell}$ with $\delta v = 500$ km s$^{-1}$, which puts the end of the plateau phase safely into the parts of a rapidly declining $v_{ph}$. We choose a larger value than in the observations to avoid ambivalences due to discreetness, which, in some of the models, is of the order of $\approx 100$ km s$^{-1}$. By increasing $\delta v $ from 200 to 500 km s$^{-1}$ the nominal duration is increased by $\approx 1$ day. However, we also note that the actual width depends on the velocity spread in the shell (see §\[conclusions\]). Given the model predictions, we can use different observational indicators to test which $M_{shell}$ is consistent with SN 2005hj (Fig. \[modelprop\]). All three parameters, $v_{shell}$, $t_{shell}$, and $t_0$ suggest $M_{shell} \approx 0.2 M_\odot$, with the allowed ranges specifically bracketed by 0.15-0.6, 0.1-0.25, and 0.1-0.25 $M_\odot$ for the plateau length, shell velocity, and plateau onset, respectively, taking the observed errors into account. The comparison between the $B-V$ color as a function of $v_{shell}$, $t_{shell}$, or $t_0$, however, shows only marginal consistency between the observations and the models if we assume only foreground redding by the Galaxy. We note, that the intrinsic $B-V$ color of the models is uncertain by about 0.05 to $0.1^m$ at maximum light. The two best-fitting models, [pdd3]{} and [det2env2]{}, show a peak brightness, $M_{V}$, of $ -19.42^m$ and $-19.41^m$, respectively, with an uncertainty of $\approx 0.1 ^m$ [@hoflich_khokhlov1996] vs. a typical DD model with $-19.2^m$ [@hoflich2002], i.e. they are brighter by about 20 % mostly due lower escape probablity of $\gamma$-rays that results when the $^{56}$Ni layers are slowed down because of the interaction [@hoflich1991]. Discussion and Conclusions {#conclusions} ========================== We have presented photometric and spectroscopic data for SN 2005hj, a slightly over-luminous Type Ia. The most striking feature is an apparent plateau in the expansion velocity evolution, which we derive from the $\lambda$6355 line. The velocities remain at about $10,600$ km s$^{-1}$ for about 3 weeks starting slightly before maximum light, and this plateau is bracketed by preceding and succeeding decelerations. We find that Si is confined to a relatively narrow velocity region. Analysis of the detailed observations in concert with published models suggest there may be some physical distinction between SN 2005hj and other normal-bright SNe Ia that may systematically affect their use as distance indicators if not properly taken into account. The models considered include delayed detonations, deflagrations, pulsating delayed detonations and tamped detonation/merger scenarios. In order to explain the narrow $\lambda$6355 line and its plateau in velocity, we suggest an early interaction that forms a dense shell as predicted by merger and PDD models. The spectral and photometric peculiarities are consistent with respect to the velocity, duration, and onset of the plateau, and marginally consistent with the maximum light color, for models that have shells of about $0.2 M_\odot$. As indicated by earlier works [@khokhlov1993; @hoflich_khokhlov1996], the mass of the interacting shell has been found to be the parameter that dominates the details of these observational signatures independent of how this shell may form. The tight predicted relation between each of $v_{shell}$, $t_{shell}$, and $t_0$ may provide a stable means to separate SN 2005hj like events from regular Branch-normal SNe Ia. Although the agreement between the shell models and the observations is good, the predictions are not necessarily unique and other possibilities may exist. For example, we have not considered 3-D models such as the detonation from a failed deflagration scenario recently examined by @kasen_plewa2006. For SN 2005hj then the agreement of the plateau velocity and its duration to that predicted by shell models may simply be a fluke, and in such case this concordance should then not hold for other SNe with similar $\lambda$6355 evolution. Given the data and models considered, we suggest either PDDs or merger events are responsible for SN 2005hj, and this implies the existence of two different progenitor channels. It is important to understand how these two progenitor channels, which may occur in relatively varying fractions as a function of redshift, will impact studies using SNe Ia as distance indicators. @li2000 estimate that 20% of SNe Ia in their sample are either 1991T-like or 1999aa-like. These SNe show spectral features and a velocity plateau similar to SN 2005hj. @branch2001 found 5 1999aa-like events in the @li2000 sample out of 20 total SNe Ia that were observed early enough to show 1999aa-like spectral features, and one that was 1991T-like; however, in the pre-LOSS sample they do not classify any of the 7 SNe Ia with early spectra as 1999aa-like. These nearby samples are constructed from targeted galaxy searches that have different selection biases than the deep cosmological surveys, but we will assume a uniform 2005hj-like rate of 25% for all SNe Ia. SNe Ia that appear spectroscopically similar to SN 2005hj in a single epoch could none the less arise from different progenitors, and the mass of the low-density envelope around PDDs or mergers may effect their peak magnitudes and/or light curve shapes, but we will further assume that all such events deviate uniformly from the LWR of Branch normal SNe Ia. @hoeflich1996 calculated the relation between peak $V$ band magnitudes, $M_V$, and the fading between maximum light and +20 days, $dM_V(20)$, for a variety of theoretical models and found that shell models produced $dM_V(20)$ that were 0.2 to 0.3 mag smaller than for (in vacuum) delayed detonations reaching the same peak magnitude. Therefore using the same LWR for shell models will result in corrected peak magnitudes systematically offset by 0.1 to 0.2 mag. Also, the observed peak magnitudes of SNe Ia are usually corrected for absorption along the line of sight using the observed $B-V$ color at maximum light and a reddening law. For events that are intrinsically red, this will increase the estimated peak magnitude above its already over-luminous intrinsic value. Cosmological studies may therefore need to remove or at least separately handle SN 2005hj-like events to avoid systematic errors in distance. As a case for the importance of separating different progenitors, let us consider SN 1999ee. Very similar to SN 2005hj, SN 1999ee shows a plateau with $v_{shell}=10,500$ km sec$^{-1}$, a duration of $14\pm 3 $ days, and an onset at day $-3 \pm 1 $ relative to maximum (@hamuy2002; see Fig. \[linevels\]). The $B-V$ color of SN 1999ee was also quite red at maximum light; $+0.28^m \pm 0.04$ after correction for galactic extinction [@stritzinger2002; @krisciunas2004]. Based on the standard brightness decline relation and the corresponding colors, @hamuy2002 derived reddening in the host galaxy of $0.28 \pm 0.04$ which implies an absolute brightness of $M_V=-19.95^m$ similar to SNLS-03D3bb which @howell2006 attributed to a super-Chandrasekhar mass WD. Taking into account the spectroscopic information about the velocity plateau, its length and onset, we attribute a portion of the red color to the intrinsic properties of the supernova. We find that the duration of the velocity plateau, its onset and size are consistent with a shell mass of $0.2 M_\odot$ which suggests an intrinsic color $B-V$ of $0.15^m \pm 0.02$ (see Fig. \[modelprop\]). This reduces the reddening in the host galaxy to $\approx 0.13^m$ and the absolute brightness $M_V$ to $-19.53^m$, which compares favorably to the model predictions of $-19.42^m$ and $-19.41^m$ for [pdd3]{} and [detenv2]{}, respectively, within the model uncertainties. Note that there is an interstellar sodium line in the spectra that implies some degree of reddening within the host. There are some apparent spectral differences when compared to SN 2005hj, namely SN 1999ee has a slightly broader blue wing in and stronger absorption around 4900 Å. This may either hint toward different explosions scenarios (i.e. pulsations versus mergers), or different viewing angles of asymmetric envelopes. This brings us to the limitation of our studies. Except for the color, SN 2005hj fits remarkably well with the merger and PDD model predictions but, still, it is a single event and the good agreement may be coincidental. We need a large, well-observed sample of similar objects to test and verify or falsify the models and to determine the shell mass distribution. Moreover, 3D effects have been neglected. In reality, we must expect some dispersion. Though pulsating delayed detonation models may be expected to be rather spherical, mergers may be asymmetric with directionally dependent luminosities and colors. In fact, both classes may be realized in nature. As mentioned above, the duration of the plateau, $\Delta t_{shell}$, is defined by the velocity spread around $v_{Shell}$. The physical width of the shell depends, to first order, on the distance at which the interaction occurs and the density distribution of the interacting expanding media and shell during the hydrodynamical phase of the interaction [@gerardy2004]. For obvious reasons, asymmetries of the shell will increase the velocity gradient seen over the shell. The observations of SN 2005hj indicate a very flat plateau that, in principle, may further constrain the properties of the shell. For SN 2005hj, this may already indicate a rather spherical shell and hint toward the PDD scenario or mergers with an intermediate disk of very large scale heights. However, additional information needs to be taken into account such as detailed line profiles and statistical properties to break this degeneracy between mergers and PDDs. As a next step, detailed models for the explosion, light curves and spectra tailored toward individual events need to be constructed. Whereas the mean velocity of the shell for a given mass is dictated by momentum conservation, the thickness of the shell is limited by the distance of the shell material, the distance sound can travel during the interaction, and the specific density profile within the shell. With increasing distance of the shell, the relative size (and corresponding velocity spread) becomes smaller because the sound speed remains about the same. The intrinsic color will be sensitive to the optical depth of the shell, which is governed by the magnitude of the density jump and thus depends on the distance of the interacting shell from the WD [@gerardy2004]. The blue $B-V$ color for SN 2005hj may hint of a need to modify the distance and structure of the shell. Precise analysis of such “non-stable” features requires detailed model fitting beyond the scope of this paper. In the recent past, both the scenarios leading to shell-like structures have been discounted. PDD models have been dismissed because 3D deflagration models showed that the WD becomes unbound and thus pulsations would not occur [@roepke2003; @hillebrandt2000]. However, it has recently been shown that this solution depends mainly on the ignition conditions, namely the number and locations of ignition points leading to single or multiple bubble solutions, and mixture of bubble solutions leading to Raleigh-Taylor instabilities. As a result, solutions with fewer bubbles are likely to result in a reduced amount of burning, thus only slightly unbinding the WD and increasing the possibility of PDDs [@livne2005; @plewa2004]. Similarly, the merging scenario has been dismissed because the WD may undergo burning during the merger and result in an accretion induced collapse [@nomoto1991], and also on the basis of the long merging time scale. However both of these results depend sensitively on the initial conditions, and new pathways to the actual merging may effect the results [@lu2006]. In light of our results, the predicted death of both of these scenarios may be premature, and further studies are needed. We would like to thank the staff of the Hobby-Eberly Telescope and McDonald Observatory for their support and the ROTSE collaboration. We give specific thanks to J. Caldwell, S. Odewahn, V. Riley, B. Roman, S. Rostopchin, M. Shetrone, E. Terrazas, and M. Villarreal for their skilled observations with the HET, and to F. Castro, P. Mondol, and M. Sellers for their efforts in screening potential SN candidates. This work made use of the SUSPECT on-line database of SNe spectra ([http://bruford.nhn.ou.edu/\$\\sim\$suspect/index1.html](http://bruford.nhn.ou.edu/$\sim$suspect/index1.html)). This research is supported, in part, by NASA grant NAG 5-7937 (PH) and NSF grants AST0307312 (PH) and AST0406740 (RQ & JCW). [76]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{} , C. W., [Kehoe]{}, R. L., [McKay]{}, T. A., [et al.]{} 2003, , 115, 132 , S., [Cappellaro]{}, E., [Mazzali]{}, P. A., [et al.]{} 2005, , 623, 1011 , W., [Cameron]{}, A. G. W., [Press]{}, W. H., & [Bowers]{}, R. L. 1990, , 348, 647 , D. 1998, , 36, 17 —. 2001, , 113, 169 , D., [Baron]{}, E., [Hall]{}, N., [Melakayil]{}, M., & [Parrent]{}, J. 2005, , 117, 545 , D., [Drucker]{}, W., & [Jeffery]{}, D. J. 1988, , 330, L117+ , N., [Benetti]{}, S., [Cappellaro]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2006, , 369, 1880 , A., [Branch]{}, D., [Hatano]{}, K., & [Baron]{}, E. 1999, , 304, 67 , A., [Branch]{}, D., [Höflich]{}, P., & [Khokhlov]{}, A. 1995, , 447, L73+ , A., [Branch]{}, D., [Nugent]{}, P., & [Baron]{}, E. 1997, , 481, L89+ , V. N., [Khokhlov]{}, A. M., [Oran]{}, E. S., [Chtchelkanova]{}, A. Y., & [Rosenberg]{}, R. O. 2003, Science, 299, 77 , G., [Folatelli]{}, G., [Goobar]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2004, , 128, 387 , C. L., [H[" o]{}flich]{}, P., [Fesen]{}, R. A., [et al.]{} 2004, , 607, 391 , J., [Hasinger]{}, G., & [Kahabka]{}, P. 1991, , 246, L17 , M., [Maza]{}, J., [Pinto]{}, P. A., [et al.]{} 2002, , 124, 417 , R. W. 2003, , 407, 1157 , W. & [Niemeyer]{}, J. C. 2000, , 38, 191 , P. 1995, , 443, 89 , P. 2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 579 , P., [Gerardy]{}, C. L., [Fesen]{}, R. A., & [Sakai]{}, S. 2002, , 568, 791 , P. & [Khokhlov]{}, A. 1996, , 457, 500 , P., [Khokhlov]{}, A., [Wheeler]{}, J. C., [et al.]{} 1996, , 472, L81+ , P., [Khokhlov]{}, A. M., & [Wheeler]{}, J. C. 1995, , 444, 831 —. 1995, , 444, 831 , P., [Mueller]{}, E., & [Khokhlov]{}, A. 1991, , 248, L7 , D. A., [Sullivan]{}, M., [Nugent]{}, P. E., [et al.]{} 2006, , 443, 308 , F. & [Fowler]{}, W. A. 1960, , 132, 565 , Jr., I. & [Tutukov]{}, A. V. 1984, , 54, 335 , D. J. & [Branch]{}, D. 1990, in Supernovae, Jerusalem Winter School for Theoretical Physics, ed. J. C. [Wheeler]{}, T. [Piran]{}, & S. [Weinberg]{}, 149–+ , S., [Garnavich]{}, P. M., [Kirshner]{}, R. P., [et al.]{} 1999, , 125, 73 , P. & [van den Heuvel]{}, E. P. J. 1997, , 35, 69 , D. & [Plewa]{}, T. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints , A., [Mueller]{}, E., & [Höflich]{}, P. 1993, , 270, 223 , A. M. 1991, , 245, 114 , R. P., [Jeffery]{}, D. J., [Leibundgut]{}, B., [et al.]{} 1993, , 415, 589 , R. A., [Aldering]{}, G., [Amanullah]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2003, , 598, 102 , K., [Phillips]{}, M. M., [Suntzeff]{}, N. B., [et al.]{} 2004, , 127, 1664 , K., [Suntzeff]{}, N. B., [Candia]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2003, , 125, 166 , W. B. 1989, , 21, 784 , B., [Kirshner]{}, R. P., [Filippenko]{}, A. V., [et al.]{} 1991, , 371, L23 , E. J., [Baron]{}, E., [Branch]{}, D., & [Hauschildt]{}, P. H. 2001, , 547, 402 , D. C., [Filippenko]{}, A. V., [Gates]{}, E. L., [et al.]{} 2002, , 114, 35 , W., [Filippenko]{}, A. V., [Gates]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2001, , 113, 1178 , W., [Filippenko]{}, A. V., [Treffers]{}, R. R., [et al.]{} 2001, , 546, 734 , E., [Asida]{}, S. M., & [H[ö]{}flich]{}, P. 2005, , 632, 443 , G., [Yungelson]{}, L., & [Han]{}, Z. 2006, , 372, 1389 , G. H., [H[" o]{}flich]{}, P., [Vacca]{}, W. D., & [Wheeler]{}, J. C. 2003, , 591, 316 , G. H., [H[ö]{}flich]{}, P., [Wheeler]{}, J. C., [et al.]{} 2006, , 645, 1392 , P. & [Gronwall]{}, C. 1990, , 358, 344 , P., [Strobel]{}, K., [Barnes]{}, J. V., & [Anderson]{}, E. 1988, , 328, 315 , P. F. L., [Marsh]{}, T. R., & [North]{}, R. C. 2000, , 317, L41 , E. & [Höflich]{}, P. 1994, , 281, 51 , K. 1982, , 253, 798 , K. & [Kondo]{}, Y. 1991, , 367, L19 , K., [Thielemann]{}, F.-K., & [Yokoi]{}, K. 1984, , 286, 644 , K., [Uenishi]{}, T., [Kobayashi]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2003, in From Twilight to Highlight: The Physics of Supernovae, ed. W. [Hillebrandt]{} & B. [Leibundgut]{}, 115–+ , B. 1985, in ASSL Vol. 113: Cataclysmic Variables and Low-Mass X-ray Binaries, ed. D. Q. [Lamb]{} & J. [Patterson]{}, 1–12 , F., [Benetti]{}, S., [Cappellaro]{}, E., [et al.]{} 1996, , 278, 111 Perlmutter, S., Deustua, S., Gabi, S., [et al.]{} 1997, in NATO ASIC Proc. 486: Thermonuclear Supernovae, ed. P. [Ruiz-Lapuente]{}, R. [Canal]{}, & J. [Isern]{}, 749–+ , M. M. 1993, , 413, L105 , M. M., [Lira]{}, P., [Suntzeff]{}, N. B., [et al.]{} 1999, , 118, 1766 , L., [Gagliardi]{}, S., [Iben]{}, I. J., & [Tornamb[é]{}]{}, A. 2003, , 598, 1229 , T., [Calder]{}, A. C., & [Lamb]{}, D. Q. 2004, , 612, L37 , R., [H[ö]{}flich]{}, P., [Kannappan]{}, S. J., [et al.]{} 2006, , 636, 400 , S., [Chiang]{}, E., [Kallman]{}, T., & [Malina]{}, R. 1994, , 431, 237 , F. K., [Niemeyer]{}, J. C., & [Hillebrandt]{}, W. 2003, , 588, 952 , D. J., [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P., & [Davis]{}, M. 1998, , 500, 525 , P. B. 1987, , 99, 191 , M., [Hamuy]{}, M., [Suntzeff]{}, N. B., [et al.]{} 2002, , 124, 2100 , M. F. & [Rood]{}, H. J. 1999, , 125, 35 , H., [Nomoto]{}, K., [Kobayashi]{}, C., [Hachisu]{}, I., & [Kato]{}, M. 1999, , 522, L43 , E. P. J., [Bhattacharya]{}, D., [Nomoto]{}, K., & [Rappaport]{}, S. A. 1992, , 262, 97 , J. & [Iben]{}, I. J. 1973, , 186, 1007 , S. E. & [Weaver]{}, T. A. 1994, , 423, 371 , H., [Nomoto]{}, K., [Shigeyama]{}, T., & [Thielemann]{}, F.-K. 1992, , 393, L55 [cccccc]{} Oct 26.30 & 53669.30 & -6 & 2x600 & GG385 & 2.0\ Oct 27.20 & 53670.20 & -5 & 4x600 & OG590 & 1.5\ Oct 27.28 & 53670.28 & -5 & 2x600 & GG385 & 1.5\ Nov 1.27 & 53675.27 & 0 & 2x600 & GG385 & 1.5\ Nov 1.29 & 53675.29 & 0 & 2x550 & OG515 & 1.5\ Nov 3.27 & 53677.27 & 2 & 2x480 & GG385 & 1.5\ Nov 4.26 & 53678.26 & 3 & 2x600 & OG515 & 1.5\ Nov 6.17 & 53680.17 & 5 & 2x600 & GG385 & 1.5\ Nov 6.18 & 53680.18 & 5 & 2x600 & OG515 & 1.5\ Nov 11.25 & 53685.25 & 10 & 3x600 & OG515 & 1.5\ Nov 19.22 & 53693.22 & 18 & 4x600 & OG515 & 1.5\ Nov 26.20 & 53700.20 & 25 & 2x600 & OG515 & 1.5\ Dec 5.18 & 53709.18 & 34 & 3x600 & OG515 & 2.0\ \[specobs\] [rrrrr]{} $-6$ & 10820 & 140 & 0.38 & 140\ $-5$ & 10800 & 110 & 0.32 & 120\ 0 & 10640 & 90 & 0.52 & 110\ 2 & 10440 & 100 & 0.60 & 110\ 3 & 10640 & 90 & 0.57 & 110\ 5 & 10680 & 80 & 0.57 & 110\ 10 & 10530 & 100 & 0.60 & 100\ 18 & 10550 & 120 & 0.48 & 90\ 25 & 9850 & 90 & 0.25 & 60\ 34 & & & &\ \[linedata\] [^1]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. [^2]: In general, lines form above the photosphere and velocities measured from such absorption minima can be 1000 to 2000 km s$^{-1}$ larger than those measured from weak lines. However, for shell models the steep density gradients cause even strong lines to from very close (in radius) to the actual photosphere. [^3]: As defined by @benetti2005, $\dot{v}$ is the average daily rate of decrease in the expansion velocity from maximum light through the last available spectrum before the $\lambda$6355 line disappears; therefore, including the day $+25$ spectrum, SN 2005hj formally has $\dot{v}=27 \pm 4$ km s$^{-1}$ day$^{-1}$, but with a $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom of 3.2 [^4]: We removed the data point at day $-3$ from the SN 1999aa curve because all spectral features in these data seem to be frequency shifted including the telluric features. [^5]: Although the $\lambda$6355 line is an imperfect tracer of the photospheric velocity as mentioned in §\[spec\_char\], the observed SNe Ia population typically exhibits a 1000-3000 km s$^{-1}$ decrease in the measured line velocities between 1 week before maximum light to 2 weeks after[@branch1988; @benetti2005], and the deflagration and classical delayed detonation models employed to explain these events have shown a correspondingly large decrease in photospheric velocities over the same period [@khokhlov1993]. These models are inconsistent with the corresponding $\approx 300$ km s$^{-1}$ shift measured for SN 2005hj.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We describe a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experiment which implements an efficient one-to-two qubit phase-covariant cloning machine(QPCCM). In the experiment we have achieved remarkably high fidelities of cloning, $0.848 $ and $0.844$ respectively for the original and the blank qubit. This experimental value is close to the optimal theoretical value of $0.854$. We have also demonstrated how to use our phase-covariant cloning machine for quantum simulations of bit by bit eavesdropping in the four-state quantum key distribution protocol.' author: - Jiangfeng Du - Thomas Durt - Ping Zou - 'L.C. Kwek' - 'C.H. Lai' - 'C.H. Oh' - Artur Ekert title: 'Experimental demonstration of an efficient quantum phase-covariant cloning and its possible applications to simulating eavesdropping in quantum cryptography' --- The “no-cloning" result [@Wootters; @Ghirardi] asserts that due to the linearity of quantum mechanics unknown quantum states cannot be copied perfectly. This notwithstanding one can design approximate quantum cloning machines and address their optimality. The most notable example is the universal quantum cloner (UQC) proposed by Bužek and Hillery [@buzek]. It has been studied in great details [@UQCM] and a number of experimental implementations of a $1\rightarrow2$ qubit UQC have been proposed [@Cummins; @Antia; @Fasel; @huang]. Another important example is the optimal quantum phase-covariant cloning machine (QPCCM) [@FGGNP; @NG; @bruss]. Unlike the UQC, it clones only subsets of states for which we have some a priori information. In the special case of the QPCCM operating on qubits it has been shown that a class of states $\left\vert \psi\right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \left\vert 0\right\rangle +e^{i\varphi}\left\vert 1\right\rangle \right) $, called equatorial states, can be cloned up to the fidelity $0.854$. As expected this value is slightly higher than the optimal fidelity of the UQC ($0.833$). This is because even partial information about the original state allows to optimize the cloning process and to obtain higher fidelities of the clones. The phase-covariant cloners, which are the subject of this paper, are of significant importance in quantum cryptography as they provide the optimal eavesdropping technique for a large class of attacks on the four state protocol (BB84) [@BB84]. The properties of the QPCCM have been extensively studied from the theoretical perspective [@QPCCM; @thomas], however, on the experimental side, apart from an interesting recent optical proposal by Fiurasek [@Jaromir], no actual realization of the QPCCM has been reported. Here we describe the first experimental implementation of the QPCCM. We use the NMR technology to implement a modified two qubit network originally designed by Niu and Griffiths [@NG] (see Fig. 1). The simplicity of the network allows to reduce the effects of decoherence and to obtain remarkably high fidelities of the clones. This is in contrast with earlier approaches which were based on more complicated three qubit networks [@FGGNP]. If the complexity of related three qubits experiments is of any guidance here, e.g. the NMR implementation of the UQC [@Cummins] , then substantial losses due to inhomogeneities of the magnetic field and decoherence cannot be avoided with the current state of the art technology. This, together with the stringent precision requirements, lowers the fidelity (to about inconclusive $58\%$ in [@Cummins]). A three qubit network for for the $1\rightarrow2$ QPCCM, for example the one proposed by Fuchs et al. [@FGGNP], would face similar problems. Our version of the network is shown in Fig. 1. The net unitary operator has the form $$U\left( \theta\right) =\left( \begin{array} [c]{cccc}1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & \cos\theta & \sin\theta & 0\\ 0 & -\sin\theta & \cos\theta & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right) .$$ When $\theta=\frac{\pi}{4}$, this unitary transform defined as $U^{opt}$ corresponds to an efficient optimal QPCCM. In fact, $U^{opt}$ is just a 2-qubit square root of SWAP gate. Consider now an equatorial state of $a$ qubit, i.e., a state with a definite spin in the direction $n=\left( \cos\varphi,\sin\varphi,0\right) $. This state has the form $\left\vert n\right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \left\vert 0\right\rangle +e^{i\varphi}\left\vert 1\right\rangle \right) $, whereas the $b$ qubit is in the state $\left\vert 0\right\rangle $. $U^{opt}$ transforms the input state to $\rho_{ab}^{out}=U^{opt}\left\vert n\right\rangle \left\vert 0\right\rangle \left\langle 0\right\vert \left\langle n\right\vert U^{opt+}$. The reduced density matrix of two copies can be calculated (by tracing out another qubit) as$$\rho_{a}^{out}=\rho_{b}^{out}=\left( \begin{array} [c]{cc}3/4 & \sqrt{2}e^{-i\varphi}/4\\ \sqrt{2}e^{i\varphi}/4 & 1/4 \end{array} \right) .$$ Note that the two copies are in fact symmetric. We use the fidelity $F=\left\langle n\right\vert \rho^{out}\left\vert n\right\rangle $ to define the quality of the copies. As expected, the optimal fidelity for $1\rightarrow2$ QPCCM is $F_{QPCCM}^{opt}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{8} =0.854$, which is higher than the optimal value $F_{QUCM}^{opt}=0.833$. This quantum circuit of QPCCM is realized by using a two-qubit NMR quantum computer, based on $^{13}C$ and the $^{1}H$ nuclei in Carbon-13 labelled chloroform (Cambridge Isotopes) dissolved in d$_{6}$ acetone. The $^{13}C$ nucleus was used as qubit $a$, and $^{1}H$ as qubit $b$. The reduced Hamiltonian of the 2-spin ensemble is given by $H=\omega_{a}I_{z}^{a}+\omega_{b}I_{z}^{b}+2\pi JI_{z}^{a}I_{z}^{b}$, where the first two terms describe the free procession of spin $a$ ($^{13}C$) and $b$($ ^{1}H$) around the static magnetic field with frequencies $100$Mhz and $400$ Mhz. $I_{z}^{a}\left( I_{z}^{b}\right) $ is the angular moment operator of $a $ ($b$) in direction $\widehat{z}$, and the third term is the $J$ coupling of the two spins with $J=214.5$Hz. $^{13}C$ nucleus’s $T_{1}$ relaxation time is $17.2$s and it’s $T_{2}$ relaxation time is $0.35$s. $^{1}H$ nucleus’s $T_{1}$ relaxation time is $4.8$s and it’s $T_{2}$ relaxation time is $3.3$s. In the following, we describe how we experimentally realize the optimal $1\rightarrow2$ QPCCM shown in Fig. 1. (E1) Prepare the initial state: Initially the two qubits are in thermal equilibrium with the environment and their state is described by the density operator $\rho_{th}\propto\sigma_{z}^{a}+4\sigma_{z}^{b}$. We use the spatial averaging technique [@cory] to create the effective pure state $\|\uparrow\rangle_{a}\otimes\|\uparrow\rangle_{b}$, or, in the density operator form, $\mbox{$\textstyle\frac{1}{2}$}(1+\sigma_{z}^{a})\otimes\mbox {$\textstyle\frac{1}{2}$}(1+\sigma_{z}^{b})$. The sequence of operations leading to this state is shown in Fig. 2(a). We then perform a single hard $\frac{\pi}{2}$ radio frequency ($rf$) pulse on $a$ qubit to generate one of the desired equatorial state $\left\vert n\left( \varphi\right) \right\rangle _{a}^{in}=(\cos\varphi,\sin\varphi,0)$ with $ \varphi=\cos (n\pi/12)$, $n=\{0,1,\cdots,23\}$. ![NMR pulse sequences. The white and black boxes are $90^{o}$ and $180^{o}$ pulses, while the grey boxes are pulses with other flip angles shown above each box; pulse phases and gradient directions are shown below each pulse. All $rf$ pulses are hard pulses with regtangular shape and $5us$ pulse width. Delay times are $\tau _{1}=1/(4J)$ and $\tau_{2} =\theta\cdot\tau_{1}/\pi$. In the QPCCM experiment we take $\theta=\pi/4$ and change the value of $\theta\in\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $.](Fig2.eps){width="\columnwidth"} (E2) Clone the input equatorial state: The quantum circuit of optimal $1\rightarrow2$ QPCCM is described in Fig. 1 by fixing $\theta=\frac{\pi}{4}$. This corresponds to a 2-qubit square root of SWAP gate. NMR pulse sequences are developed by replacing this operation with an idealized sequence of NMR pulses and delays. The resulting sequences are then simplified by combining $rf$ pulses appropriately. Figure 2(b) shows the final pulse sequence to demonstrate the optimal $1\rightarrow2$ QPCCM. All the $rf$ pulses are hard pulses which hardly affect the state of $b$ qubit due to the heteronuclear sample we used. (E3) Measure and analyze: In principle, the quality of the copies, defined as fidelity, can be calculated by $F=\left\langle n\right\vert \rho_{a\left( b\right) }^{out}\left\vert n\right\rangle $, where $\rho_{a\left( b\right) }^{out}$ is the reduced density matrix of a single qubit and can be obtained from the density matrix $\rho_{ab}^{out}$. In NMR, one can use state tomography technique to get $\rho_{ab}^{out}$ by applying a set of readout pulses, but this has the disadvantage of requiring separate experiments. In our experiment, we use a simpler method described in Ref.[@Cummins]: we measure the two spectra of two output qubits individually, here the receiver phase are set with the same phase as that of the input qubit measurement. Therefore, the tracing out process can be implemented by integrating the entire multiplet in each spectrum, comparing to the integration of the input state spectrum, we can obtain the relative length of the output state vector $r_{a(b)}^{\prime}$ in the same orientation as its input state vector, so the fidelity between the input and output state can be calculated as $F_{a(b)}=\frac{1}{2}(1+r_{a(b)}^{\prime}) $. Figure 3 shows the experimental results from cloning the input equatorial state $\left\vert n\left( 0\right) \right\rangle _{a}^{in}=(1,0,0) $. There are three spectra, corresponding to the observable NMR signals of one input state and its two copies, that are measured by setting the same receiver phase experimentally. The spectra do have similar expected form (in-phase absorption signals at the outmost positions of each multiplet). ![Experimental spectra of cloning the input state $\left\| n\left( 0\right) \right\rangle _{a}^{in}=(1,0,0)$. The left and middle spectra are the carbon spectra corresponding to the input and output state of $a$ qubit, where the vertical scales are in the same arbitrary units. The right spectrum is for the hydrogen nucleus representing the output of $b$ qubit, where the vertical scale does not share the same arbitrary units with those of the carbon spectra. From the integration of the each multiplet, we obtain the fidelities of the two copies, $F_{a}=0.842$ and $F_{b}=0.839$.](Fig3.eps){width="\columnwidth"} An important feature of QPCCM is that all equatorial states are cloned equally well and so it is necessary to study the behavior of pulse sequence when applied to a wide range of states on equator. We have prepared a total of $24$ input equatorial states $\left\vert n\left( \varphi\right) \right\rangle _{a}^{in}=(\cos\varphi,\sin\varphi,0)$ by changing the value $\varphi$ with a spacing of $15{{}^\circ}$ as shown in (E1). For each input state, we measure its spectrum and denote it as a reference to calculate the quality of the two copies after the cloning transformation described in (E2). Finally we measure each copy and calculate the fidelity. Experimentally, we get the mean fidelity of this phase-covariant cloning are $F_{a}=0.848\pm0.015$ for $a$ qubit and $F_{b}=0.844\pm0.015$ for $b$ qubit, which are both close to the optimal theoretical value $0.854$. Compared to the low fidelity of the NMR experiment for UQCM [@Cummins], our near-optimal fidelity arises from the following reasons: (1) Less decoherence effect – the time used for cloning in our experiment is about $5.3ms$, which is well within the decoherence time (about $350ms$ for $^{13}C$ nucleus and $3.3s$ for $^{1}H$ nucleus); while the time used for UQCM in Ref. [@Cummins] was estimated about $400ms$, which is close to the decoherence time with the value $720ms$ for two $^{1}H$ nuclei; (2) Simplicity – it is simpler to realize our economic 2-qubit QPCCM than to realize the 3-qubit UQCM in Ref. [@Cummins]; (3) Pulses – in our experiment all the $rf$ pulses are hard pulses, which are more perfect than selective pulses, this is simply achieved by using heteronuclear sample. In our experiments, small errors arise as a result of the inhomogeneity of the static with $rf$ magnetic fields as well as the variability of the measurement. One important application of our efficient QPCCM is the quantum simulator of a bit by eavesdropping on the four-state protocol of quantum cryptography [@NG; @scarani]. (The UQCM plays the same role for the six-state protocols [@bruss6states]). The four-state protocol (also known as BB84) uses four quantum states, say $\left\| \pm\right\rangle _{x}=\frac {1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \left\| 0\right\rangle \pm\left\| 1\right\rangle \right) $ and $\left\| \pm\right\rangle _{y}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \left\| 0\right\rangle \pm i\left\| 1\right\rangle \right) $, that constitute two maximally conjugate bases. Alice chooses one of these four states in her qubit (denoted by $a$) at random, then sends it to Bob. Whatever the state is, Eve approximately clone two copies of this input state by inserting a $1\rightarrow2$ QPCCM in the quantum channel. She then sends one copy to Bob and stores another copy in her qubit $b$. Thereafter, Bob measures qubit $a$ in one of the two bases chosen at random. Finally Alice announces publicly the basis she used for transmission of the signal, and in those cases in which Bob measures in the same bases (these cases are useful, the others are discarded by Alice and Bob). Eve, who now knows the bases Alice employed, measures $b$ qubit in order to estimate which signal Alice sent. Experimentally, we realize the above process of eavesdropping attack as following: (1) Prepare one of four BB84 states by using the same method that we described in (E1); (2) Perform the quantum $1\rightarrow2$ QPCCM described in Fig. 1. The pulse sequence to realize the network is shown in Fig. 2(b). Note that $\theta$ is not fixed to $\pi/4$ as in the previous optimal $1\rightarrow2$ QPCCM realization, we set various rotation angles $\theta \in\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $ of the pulse \[marked as grey box in Fig.2(b)\] with a space of $\pi/12$; (3) For each experiment, we perform two measurements of the NMR observable signals $\left\langle \sigma_{i}\right\rangle $ for Bob and Eve individually, here $i\in\left[ x,y\right] $ is the same base as that of the input state. Recall another measurement for the input state which is used as reference spectra, there are 3 measurements. Totally, we perform $4\times24\times3=288$ experiments distinguished by $4$ BB84 states and $24$ rotation angles $\theta\in\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $ and $3$ measurements. Theoreically, if Alice sends the state $\left\| \pm\right\rangle _{x}$, Bob measures $\left\langle \sigma_{x}^{Bob}\right\rangle =\pm\frac{\cos\theta}{2}$ and Eve measures $\left\langle \sigma_{x}^{Eve}\right\rangle =\pm\frac {\sin\theta}{2}$ in X-base; if Alice send state $\left\| \pm\right\rangle _{y}$, Eve measures $\left\langle \sigma_{y}^{Eve}\right\rangle =\pm\frac {\sin\theta}{2}$ while Bob measures $\left\langle \sigma_{y}^{Bob}\right\rangle =\pm\frac{\cos\theta}{2}$ in Y-base. Both the theoretical and experimental results are plotted in Fig. 3, where the symmetry between $\left\| +\right\rangle $ and $\left\| -\right\rangle $ in each base is clearly seen. ![The normalized observable NMR signals $\left\langle \sigma\right\rangle $ versus the rotation angle $\theta$ of the phase-covariant cloning machine, for two bases, $X$-base(at Left) and $Y$-base(at right). The lines correspond to theoretical calculation. The filled and empty boxes (circles) correspond to the experimental measurement from $a$ qubit ($b$ qubit), while the filled (empty) circles and boxes correspond to the input state is $\left\| +\right\rangle $ ($\left\| -\right\rangle $).](Fig4.eps){width="\columnwidth"} A main concern of the eavesdropping is to determine how much information an eavesdropper can obtain from a given level of noise. For the above optimal eavesdropping attack, regardless of the input BB84 state, Bob guesses correctly the state sent by Alice with probability $F_{Bob}=\frac{1}{2}+\langle\sigma_{i}^{Bob}\rangle$ and makes an error $D_{Bob}=1-F_{Bob}=\frac{1}{2}-\langle\sigma_{i}^{Bob}\rangle$, where $i\in\{x,y\}$ is one of the maximally conjugate bases; while Eve guesses correctly the state sent by Alice with probability $F_{Eve}=\frac{1}{2}+\langle\sigma_{i}^{Eve}\rangle$ and makes an error $D_{Eve}=\frac{1}{2}-\langle\sigma_{i}^{Eve}\rangle$. As we know, the mutual information is defined as $I=\frac{1}{2}+D\log_{2}D+\left( 1-D\right) \log_{2}\left( 1-D\right) $. From our experimental dates shown in Fig. 4, we extract the Alice-Bob and Alice-Eve mutual information as a function of the value of noise (QBER) defined as $QBER=\frac{1-\cos\theta}{2}$. Here $\theta\in\left[ 0,\pi/2\right] $ characterize the strength of Eve’s attack. The experimental results are shown in Fig. 5. We show the relation between the mutual information and QBER, in agreement with the theoretical results. In summary, we provide the first experimental demonstration of an efficient and nearly optimal $1\rightarrow2$ QPCCM by using a 2-qubit NMR quantum computer. Our approach cannot be extended to the UQC as it is known that a 3-qubit $1\rightarrow2$ UQC cannot be reduced to an efficient 2-qubit network [@thomas]. However, our efficient QPCCM has potential applications as a simulator of eavesdropping techniques in quantum key distributions. This project was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grants. No. 10075041 and No. 10075044) and Funded by the National Fundamental Research Program (2001CB309300). We also thank supports from the ASTAR Grant No. 012-104-0040 and Temasek Project in Quantum Information Technology (Grant No. R-144-000-071-305). T.D. thanks supports from the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research, the Inter-University Attraction Pole Program of the Belgian government under grant V-18, the Concerted Research Action Photonics in Computing, and the research council (OZR) of the VUB. [9]{} W.K. Wootters and W.H. Zurek, Nature (London) 299, 802. G.C. Ghirardi and T. Weber, Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. B 78, 9 (1983). The impossibility of Exact cloning was first mentioned in a report by G.C. Ghirardi (1981) in response to a paper submitted to Found. Phys. V. Bužek and M. Hillery, 54, 1844 (1996). N. Gisin and S. Massar, 79, 2153 (1997); D. Bruss et al., 81, 2598 (1998); L.M. Duan and G.C. Guo, 80, 4999 (1998); C. Simon et al., 84, 2993 (2000); V. Bužek and M. Hillery, 81, 5003 (1998); S.L. Braunstern, N.J. Cerf et al., 86, 4938 (2001); G.M. D’Ariano et al., 86, 914 (2001). H.K. Cummins et al., 88, 187901 (2002). A. Lamas-Linares et al., Science 296, 712 (2002). S. Fasel et al., 89, 107901 (2002). Y. F. Huang, 64, 012315 (2001). C. A. Fuchs et al., 56, 1163 (1997); R. B. Griffiths and C.-S. Niu, 56, 1173 (1997). C-S. Niu and R.B. Griffiths, 60, 2764 (1999). D. Bruss et al., 62 012302 (2000). G. M. D’Ariano and C. Macchiavello, 64 042308 (2001); H. Fan et al., 65 012304 (2002). T. Durt and J. Du, e-print quant-ph/0309072. J. Fiurasek, 67, 052314 (2003). N. Gisin et al., 74, 145 (2002). C.H. Bennett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India (IEEE, New York, 1984) p. 175. V. Scarani and N. Gisin, 87, 117901 (2001) D. Bruss, 81, 3018 (1998); H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci and N. Gisin 59, 4238 (1999). D.G. Cory et al., Physica D 120, 82 (1998); J. Du et al., 91, 100403 (2003).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We report on the validation of two planets orbiting the nearby ($36 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{pc}}}$) M2 dwarf TOI-1266 observed by the TESS mission. The inner planet is sub-Neptune-sized ($R=2.46 \pm 0.08 R_\oplus$) with an orbital period of 10.9 days. The outer planet has a radius of $1.67_{-0.11}^{+0.09} R_\oplus$ and resides in the exoplanet Radius Valley—the transition region between rocky and gaseous planets. With an orbital period of 18.8 days, the outer planet receives an insolation flux of 2.4 times that of Earth, similar to the insolation of Venus. Using precision near-infrared radial velocities with the Habitable-zone Planet Finder Spectrograph, we place upper mass limits of $15.9 M_\oplus$ and $6.4 M_\oplus$ at 95% confidence for the inner and outer planet, respectively. A more precise mass constraint of planet c, achievable with current RV instruments given the host star brightness (V=12.9, J=9.7), will yield further insights into the dominant processes sculpting the exoplanet Radius Valley.' author: - Gudmundur Stefansson - Ravi Kopparapu - Andrea Lin - Suvrath Mahadevan - 'Caleb I. Cañas' - Shubham Kanodia - 'Joe P. Ninan' - 'William D. Cochran' - Michael Endl - Leslie Hebb - John Wisniewski - Arvind Gupta - Mark Everett - 'Chad F. Bender' - 'Scott A. Diddams' - 'Eric B. Ford' - Connor Fredrick - Samuel Halverson - Fred Hearty - Eric Levi - Marissa Maney - 'Andrew J. Metcalf' - Andrew Monson - 'Lawrence W. Ramsey' - Paul Robertson - Arpita Roy - Christian Schwab - 'Ryan C. Terrien' - 'Jason T. Wright' bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: 'A Mini-Neptune and a Venus-Zone Planet in the Radius Valley Orbiting the Nearby M2-dwarf TOI-1266: Validation with the Habitable-zone Planet Finder' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ One of the key findings from the Kepler mission [@borucki2010] is that planets with radii between Earth ($1 R_\oplus$) and Neptune ($4 R_\oplus$)—which are not known to exist in the Solar System—are prevalent [e.g., @howard2012; @fressin2013; @batalha2013; @petigura2013; @dressing2015]. In this grouping of planets, Kepler data further showed convincing evidence that there is a dip in the radius distribution of Kepler planets at 1.5-2.0 Earth radii [@owen2013; @fulton2017; @vaneylen2018]. This gap, or ‘Radius Valley’, has been interpreted as the transition between predominantly rocky planets (super-Earths) populating the space below the gap, and planets rich in volatiles or ices residing above the gap (sub-Neptunes). Subsequent studies have found evidence of the Radius Valley in the K2 mission [@hardegree2020], and have also explored how it varies as a function of stellar type [e.g., @cloutier2020]. The astrophysical origin of the Radius Valley has been explored by a number of groups [see e.g., @owen2013; @lee2014; @owen2017; @lopez2018]. Different theoretical models predict that the location of the rocky-to-gaseous transition radius should depend on the planet orbital period. Among these, photoevaporation [@lopez2012; @owen2013; @lopez2013; @owen2017]—where a planet’s primordial atmosphere is stripped by XUV photons from the host star—predicts that the rocky-to-gaseous transition radius should decrease with orbital period (as $\sim$$P^{-0.15}$). Second, internally-driven thermal atmospheric escape models via the core-powered mass loss mechanism [@ginzburg2016; @ginzburg2018; @gupta2019] also predict that the location of the Radius Valley should decrease with orbital period (as $\sim$$P^{-0.13}$). Third, giant impacts can also provide a way to sculpt the atmospheric properties of small planets and strip large primordial envelopes down to a few percent by mass [@inamdar2015; @liu2015]. Conversely, models assuming formation at later times in a gas-poor environment [@lee2014; @lee2016; @lopez2018] predict that the location of the Radius Valley should increase with period (as $\sim$$P^{0.11}$). Knowledge of planetary bulk densities—and thus planetary compositions—as a function of orbital period, offers a direct observational test of the predictions of the different hypotheses mentioned above. However, the current number of planets with precise bulk density constraints are insufficient to robustly identify the dominant formation pathway of the Radius Valley [@cloutier2020]. The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite [TESS; @Ricker2014], which is surveying the night sky for transiting exoplanets around the nearest and brightest stars, is finding more planets amenable to precise mass measurements. We report on the discovery and ground-based validation of two small exoplanets orbiting the nearby M-dwarf TOI-1266 observed in four Sectors of TESS data. The inner planet has a period of $P=10.9$ days and radius of $R=2.46 \pm 0.08 R_\oplus$, and likely has a gaseous envelope. The outer planet has a period of $P=18.8$ days and radius of $R=1.67_{-0.11}^{+0.09} R_\oplus$, and thus resides in the exoplanet Radius Valley, and could either have retained a small gaseous envelope or have a predominantly rocky composition. Receiving insolation fluxes of $4.7_{-0.7}^{+1.0}S_\oplus$, and $2.42_{-0.22}^{+0.23}S_\oplus$, both planets reside in the exoplanet ’Venus-Zone’—the region between the runaway greenhouse boundary defined by [@kopparapu2013] and $25 S_\oplus$ [@kane2014; @ostberg2019]—where the outer planet has an insolation flux similar to that of Venus of $1.91S_\oplus$. The detailed characterization of systems in the Venus-Zone, including mass and atmospheric compositions, will increase our understanding of the limits of habitable environments. Using precise radial velocities from the Habitable-zone Planet Finder Spectrograph, we place upper limits on the mass of both planets. Both planets are amenable for mass constraints with additional RV observations. A mass constraint of the outer planet will allow its composition to be determined, and will be a valuable data point in discerning between competing models explaining the emergence of the Radius Valley. This paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:obs\] describes the observations and data reduction. In Section \[sec:stellarparams\], we describe the key parameters of the host star, and in Section \[sec:planetparams\] we describe our constraints on parameters of the planets. In Section \[sec:validation\], we statistically validate both planets. In Section \[sec:discussion\], we place the TOI-1266 system in context with other exoplanet systems, and we conclude in Section \[sec:summary\] with a summary of our key findings. Observations and Data Reduction {#sec:obs} =============================== ![image](fig01.pdf){width="\textwidth"} TESS Photometry --------------- TOI-1266 was observed by TESS in 4 sectors in Sector 14 (Camera 4; July 18, 2019 – August 15, 2019), Sector 15 (Camera 4; August 15, 2019 – September 11, 2019), Sector 21 (Camera 3; January 21, 2020 – February 18, 2020), and Sector 22 (Camera 3; February 18, 2020 – March 18, 2020). TOI-1266 is listed as TIC 467179528 in the TESS Input Catalog [TIC; @stassun2018; @stassun2019]. Pixel data in a $11 \times 11$ array surrounding TOI-1266 were averaged into 2-minute stacks, which were reduced to lightcurves by the Science Processing Operations Center (SPOC) at NASA Ames [@jenkins2016]. We analyzed the Presearch Data Conditioning Single Aperture Photometry (PDCSAP) lightcurve, which contains systematics-corrected data using the algorithms originally developed for the Kepler data analysis pipeline. The PDCSAP lightcurve uses pixels chosen to maximize the SNR of the target and has removed systematic variability by fitting out trends common to many stars [@smith2012; @stumpe2014]. Figure \[fig:fov\] highlights the TESS apertures for the different TESS Sectors and nearby stars detected by Gaia. From Figure \[fig:fov\], we see that two stars partially overlap the TESS apertures for TOI-1266 (Tmag=11.0) in some sectors: TIC 467179527 (Tmag=15.6; separation of $36\arcsec$), and TIC 467179526 (Tmag=18.338, separation of $36\arcsec$), both of which are significantly fainter ($\Delta$Tmag=4.6, and $\Delta$Tmag=7.3) than TOI-1266. The faintness and the separation of the two stars results in minimal dilution of the TESS light curve. Analysis by the TESS Science Processing Operations Center identified two possible planetary signals, and human vetting of the data reports [@twicken2018; @li2019] resulted in the announcement of planet candidates TOI-1266.01 and TOI-1266.02, available on the TESS alerts website[^1]. The SPOC data validation reports [@twicken2018; @liu2019] note no significant centroid offsets for either planet candidate. To clean the available TESS data, we removed all points with non-zero quality flags (4844 in total) which indicate known problems [e.g., @tenenbaum2018]. We removed additional 12 points that we identified as 4 sigma outliers, leaving a total of 68891 points that we used for the fitting, with a median errorbar of 2270ppm. The median-normalized TESS $\mathrm{PDCSAP}$ light curve is shown in Figure \[fig:transits\]. We retrieved the data using the `lightkurve` package [@lightkurve]. ![image](fig02.pdf){width="\textwidth"} Ground-based Photometry with the 0.4m Perkin Telescope ------------------------------------------------------ We observed a transit of TOI-1266b (Figure \[fig:transits\]) on the night of March 21, 2020 using the 0.43m (17“) Richard S. Perkin telescope at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. The telescope is a 17” PlaneWave Corrected Dall-Kirkham (CDK) telescope on a Paramount equatorial mount with an SBIG 8300 M camera with $3326 \times 2504$ pixels that are $5.4 \times 5.4 \micron$ square. The plate scale of the camera in the $1 \times 1$ binning mode we used is $0.38{\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{\arcsec/pixel}}}$, resulting in a Field-of-View (FOV) of $21 \times 16^\prime$. We obtained 106 images over $\sim$5 hours centered on the target in the Sloan $r^\prime$ filter, where all images were taken above an airmass of 1.5. To improve the observing efficiency, we defocused moderately, which allowed us to use an exposure time of 180 seconds. The guiding was stable throughout the observations. We processed the observations using AstroImageJ [@collins2017] using standard bias, dark, and flat-field frames. For flat-field calibrations, we used a median combined flat created from 28 sky-flat images at the beginning of the observations. We performed aperture photometry using AstroImageJ [@collins2017] on the calibrated images. We systematically tested a number of different apertures from 15 to 30 pixels. Ultimately, we settled on an aperture of 18 pixels ($6.8\arcsec$) in radius with inner and outer sky annuli of 35 pixels ($13.3\arcsec$) and 45 pixels ($17.1\arcsec$), respectively, which showed the lowest scatter in the final light curve. We experimented with detrending with different parameters (e.g., airmass, centroid offsets), but we observed no significant improvement in the resulting photometry. Diffuser-assisted Photometry with the 3.5m ARC Telescope -------------------------------------------------------- We observed a transit of TOI-1266c (Figure \[fig:transits\]) on the night of January 28, 2020 using the the Astrophysical Research Consortium Telescope Imaging Camera (ARCTIC) Imager [@huehnerhoff2016] on the 3.5m Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) 3.5m Telescope at Apache Point Observatory (APO). The target rose from an airmass of 1.44 at the start of the observations to a minimum airmass of 1.19, and ended at a slightly lower airmass of 1.21. We observed the transit using the Engineered Diffuser available on ARCTIC, which we designed specifically to enable precision photometric observations from the ground on nearby bright stars [see e.g., @stefansson2017; @stefansson2018a; @stefansson2018b; @stefansson2020]. The observations were performed using the SDSS $i^\prime$ filter with an exposure time of $25 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{s}}}$ in the quad-readout mode with $4 \times 4$ on-chip binning. In this mode, ARCTIC has a gain of $2.0 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{e/ADU}}}$, and a plate scale of $0.44 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{\arcsec/pixel}}}$, and a short readout time of $2.7 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{s}}}$. We processed the data using AstroImageJ [@collins2017] using standard bias and dark frames. We did observe a linear trend in the data, which through visual inspection could effectively be removed using a combination of detrending with a simultaneous line + airmass detrend. We experimented reducing the photometry both with and without a flat field calibration, but neither removed the observed trend. We saw a slight improvement in the resulting photometry without using the flat field, and as such, elected to present the data without the flat-field calibration. As discussed below, for our final parameter estimation, we fit for the transit model simultaneously with a Gaussian-Process model using a Matern 3/2 kernel to account for this red-noise component observed in the transit data. Clear outliers, either due to cosmic rays or charged-particle events were removed using AstroImageJ. To arrive at the final photometric reduction, we experimented extracting the data using a number of different apertures, and selected an aperture of 18 pixels ($8\arcsec$) with an inner sky annulus of 20 pixels ($9\arcsec$) and outer sky annulus of 50 pixels ($22\arcsec$), as this setting showed the overall lowest scatter in the final light curve. Habitable-zone Planet Finder ---------------------------- We obtained high resolution spectra of TOI-1266 with the Habitable-zone Planet Finder (HPF) Spectrograph to place upper limits on the masses of both planets and to obtain precise spectroscopic parameters of the host star. HPF is a fiber-fed near-infrared (NIR) spectrograph on the 10m Hobby-Eberly Telescope [@mahadevan2012; @mahadevan2014] at McDonald Observatory in Texas, covering the $z$, $Y$, and $J$ bands from 810${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{nm}}}$-1260${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{nm}}}$ at a resolution of $R=55,000$. To enable precision radial velocities in the NIR, HPF is temperature stabilized at the milli-Kelvin level [@stefansson2016]. The HET is a fully queue scheduled telescope [@shetrone2007], and all observations were executed as part of the HET queue. In total we obtained 46 spectra in 22 different HET tracks[^2] with two 969${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{s}}}$ exposures taken on average in each HET track. The 46 different spectra had a median SNR of 135 per extracted 1D pixel evaluated at 1 micron, and a median RV errorbar of 10.3${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{m/s}}}$. After binning to the 22 different individual tracks, the median RV errorbar is 7.4${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{m/s}}}$. We used the binned RVs for all subsequent analysis. HPF has a NIR Laser Frequency Comb (LFC) calibrator to provide a precise wavelength solution and track instrumental drifts, which has been shown to enable $\sim$20${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{cm/s}}}$ RV calibration precision in 10 minute bins [@metcalf2019]. Following [@stefansson2020], we elected not to use the simultaneous LFC calibration during the observations to minimize the risk of contaminating the science spectrum from scattered light from the LFC. Instead, we perform the RV drift correction by extrapolating the wavelength solution from LFC frames taken as part of standard evening/morning calibrations and from LFC calibration frames taken periodically throughout the night. This methodology has been shown to enable precise wavelength calibration at the $\sim$$30 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{cm/s}}}$ level, much smaller than the RV errorbar of the observations discussed here. The HPF 1D spectra were reduced using the HPF pipeline, following the procedures in [@ninan2018], [@kaplan2018], and [@metcalf2019]. Following the 1D spectral extraction, we reduced the HPF radial velocities using an adopted version of the `SERVAL` (SpEctrum Radial Velocity Analyzer) pipeline [@zechmeister2018], which is described in [@stefansson2020]. In short, `SERVAL` uses the template matching algorithm to derive RVs, which has been shown to be particularly effective at producing precise radial velocities for M-dwarfs [@anglada2012]. `SERVAL` uses the `barycorrpy` package [@kanodia2018] which uses the methodology of [@wright2014] to calculate accurate barycentric velocities. Following [@metcalf2019] and [@stefansson2020], we only use the 8 HPF orders that are cleanest of tellurics, covering the wavelength regions from 8540-8890Å, and 9940-10760Å. We subtracted the estimated sky-background from the stellar spectrum using the dedicated HPF sky fiber. Again following the methodology described in [@metcalf2019] and [@stefansson2020], we explicitly masked out telluric lines and sky-emission lines to minimize their impact on the RV determination. Table \[tab:rvs\] in the Appendix lists the RVs from HPF used in this work. ![Contrast limits from our NESSI speckle imaging data shown in two different bands centered around 562nm (blue) and 832nm (red). The insets show reconstructed images from the two bandpasses. No secondary sources are detected.[]{data-label="fig:nessi"}](fig03.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Speckle Imaging --------------- To rule out nearby companions, on the night of December 5 2019, we obtained speckle observations of TOI-1266 using the NASA Exoplanet Star and Speckle Imager [NESSI; @scott2018] on the 3.5m WIYN Telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona. We reduced the data following the methodologies outlined in [@howell2011]. NESSI provides a resolution of $\sim$$0.04\arcsec$ in two bands centered around $562 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{nm}}}$ (width of $44 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{nm}}}$) and $832 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{nm}}}$ [width of $40 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{nm}}}$; @scott2018]. Figure \[fig:nessi\] shows the resulting contrast curves and reconstructed $256 \times 256$ images for the two bands. No secondary sources were detected in the reconstructed images, and from the contrast curve, we place a limit of $\Delta$mag$\sim$4 for nearby companions between $0.2\arcsec$ and $1.2\arcsec$. Stellar Parameters {#sec:stellarparams} ================== To obtain spectroscopic constraints on the effective temperature $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, stellar surface gravity $\log g$, and metallicity $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$, we use the empirical spectral matching algorithm described in [@stefansson2020]. In short, this algorithm closely follows the methodology in [@yee2017], where the target spectrum is compared to a library of high S/N as-observed spectra using a $\chi^2$ metric. From our analysis of the HPF spectra, we obtain the following spectroscopic values: $T_{\mathrm{eff}} = 3563 \pm 77 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{K}}}$, $\log g = 4.785 \pm 0.05$, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -0.121 \pm 0.13$. From the spectral matching analysis, the two best matching stars are GJ 2066 and GJ 393, both of which have literature spectral types of M2.0 (see @floriano2015, and @lepine2013, respectively), which we adopt for TOI-1266. To obtain model-dependent constraints on the stellar mass, radius, effective temperature, and age, we fit the Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) of TOI-1266 using the `EXOFASTv2` package [@eastman2019] using as inputs a) the available literature photometry, b) the Gaia distance from [@bailer-jones2018], and c) the spectroscopic values discussed above as Gaussian priors. We adopt a uniform prior for the visual extinction where the upper limit is determined from estimates of Galactic dust by [@Green2019] (Bayestar19) calculated at the distance determined by [@bailer-jones2018]. We adopt the $R_{v}=3.1$ reddening law from [@Fitzpatrick1999] to convert the Bayestar19 extinction to a visual magnitude extinction. `EXOFASTv2` uses the BT-NextGen Model grid of theoretical spectra [@Allard2012], and the MESA Isochrones and Stellar Tracks [MIST; @dotter2016; @choi2016] to fit the SED and derive model dependent stellar parameters. Table \[tab:stellarparam\] lists the resulting model dependent stellar parameters derived from the SED analysis, which agree well with the spectroscopically derived parameters. We calculate the galactic $U$, $V$, and $W$ velocities of TOI-1266 using the `GALPY` [@bovy2015] package (see Table \[tab:stellarparam\]), and we note that [@carrillo2020] calculate membership probabilities of 97.2%, 0.0%, 2.8% for TOI-1266 to be a member of the galactic thin-disk, thick-disk, and galactic halo populations, respectively. From the spectral matching analysis we also obtain a limit on the projected stellar rotational velocity of $v \sin i < 2 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{km/s}}}$, suggestive of a slow rotator. This is in agreement with the the fact that we do not see clear rotational modulation in the TESS photometry at short periods. As a further test, we analyzed available ground-based photometry from the All-Sky Automated Survey for SuperNovae [ASAS-SN; @kochanek2017] and the Zwicky Transient Facility [ZTF; @masci2019]. We see no significant rotation signals that occur in both datasets by studying their Lomb-Scargle periodograms of these datasets. In addition, in Subsection \[sec:activity\], we discuss periodograms of activity indicators from the HPF spectra, which show no clear evidence of activity (e.g., no clear variability seen in the Calcium II Infrared Triplet or differential line widths). As such, without clear indication of photometric modulation in neither the TESS, ground-based photometry, or signs of activity from the HPF spectra, we conclude that TOI-1266 is an inactive star with a moderate or long rotation period. [llcc]{}\ TIC & - & 467179528 & TIC\ TOI & - & 1266 & TIC\ 2MASS & - & J13115955+6550017 & TIC\ \ $\alpha_{\mathrm{J2000}}$ & Right Ascension (RA) & 13:11:59.18 & Gaia\ $\delta_{\mathrm{J2000}}$ & Declination (Dec) & +65:50:01.31 & Gaia\ $\mu_{\alpha}$ & Proper motion (RA, [$\, \mathrm{mas\ yr^{-1}}$]{}) & $-150.652 \pm 0.041$ & Gaia\ $\mu_{\delta}$ & Proper motion (Dec, [$\, \mathrm{mas\ yr^{-1}}$]{}) & $-25.368 \pm 0.039$ & Gaia\ Spectral Type & - & M2 & This Work\ \ $B$ & APASS Johnson B mag & $14.578 \pm 0.048$ & APASS\ $V$ & APASS Johnson V mag & $12.941 \pm 0.049$ & APASS\ $g^{\prime}$ & APASS Sloan $g^{\prime}$ mag & $13.811 \pm 0.050$ & APASS\ $r^{\prime}$ & APASS Sloan $r^{\prime}$ mag & $12.297 \pm 0.070$ & APASS\ $i^{\prime}$ & APASS Sloan $i^{\prime}$ mag & $11.246 \pm 0.150$ & APASS\ TESS-mag & TESS magnitude & $11.040 \pm 0.007$ & TIC\ $J$ & 2MASS $J$ mag & $9.706 \pm 0.023$ & 2MASS\ $H$ & 2MASS $H$ mag & $9.065 \pm 0.030$ & 2MASS\ $K_S$ & 2MASS $K_S$ mag & $8.840 \pm 0.020$ & 2MASS\ $WISE1$ & WISE1 mag & $8.715 \pm 0.022$ & WISE\ $WISE2$ & WISE2 mag & $8.612 \pm 0.019$ & WISE\ $WISE3$ & WISE3 mag & $8.504 \pm 0.024$ & WISE\ $WISE4$ & WISE4 mag & $8.233 \pm 0.207$ & WISE\ \ $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ & Effective temperature in [$\, \mathrm{K}$]{} & $3563 \pm 77$ & This work\ $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$ & Metallicity in dex & $-0.121 \pm 0.13$ & This work\ $\log(g)$ & Surface gravity in cgs units & $4.785 \pm 0.05$ & This work\ \ $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ & Effective temperature in [$\, \mathrm{K}$]{} & $3573_{-38}^{+35}$ & This work\ $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$ & Metallicity in dex & $-0.08_{-0.10}^{+0.13}$ & This work\ $\log(g)$ & Surface gravity in cgs units & $4.826_{-0.021}^{+0.020}$ & This work\ $M_$ & Mass in $M_{\odot}$ & $0.437 \pm 0.021$ & This work\ $R_$ & Radius in $R_{\odot}$ & $0.4232_{-0.0079}^{+0.0077}$ & This work\ $\rho_$ & Density in ${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{g\:cm^{-3}}}}$ & $8.13_{-0.46}^{+0.47}$ & This work\ Age & Age in Gyrs & $7.9_{-5.2}^{+4.2}$ & This work\ $L_$ & Luminosity in $L_\odot$ & $0.02629_{-0.00075}^{+0.00071}$ & This work\ $A_v$ & Visual extinction in mag & $0.015_{-0.010}^{+0.011}$ & This work\ $d$ & Distance in pc & $36.011_{-0.030}^{+0.029}$ & Gaia, Bailer-Jones\ $\pi$ & Parallax in mas & $27.769_{-0.022}^{+0.023}$ & Gaia\ \ $v \sin i_$ & Stellar rotational velocity in [$\, \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$]{} & $<2$ & This work\ $RV$ & Absolute radial velocity in [$\, \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$]{} ($\gamma$) & $-41.58 \pm 0.26$ & This work\ $U$. & Galactic $U$ Velocity (km/s) & $-5.8\pm0.2$ & This work\ $V$ & Galactic $V$ Velocity (km/s) & $-40.3\pm0.4$ & This work\ $W$ & Galactic $W$ Velocity (km/s) & $-27.9\pm0.6$ & This work\ Planet Parameters {#sec:planetparams} ================= Search for Additional Planets {#sec:activity} ----------------------------- We looked for additional transiting planets in the TESS data using the Box-Least-Squares (BLS) algorithm [@kovacs2002] as implemented in the `lightkurve` package. Figure \[fig:bls\] shows the BLS power spectra of the available TESS photometry after iteratively masking out transits of planets b and c (in a region 1.5 times as wide as the transit duration for each planet centered around the transit midpoints), showing no significant evidence for further transiting planets in the system. We additionally looked for evidence of Transit Timing Variations [TTVs; @holman2005; @agol2005] using the `TTVOrbit` fitting tools in the `exoplanet` code [@exoplanet2020]. In doing so, we see no evidence for significant TTVs, with all individual transit times fully consistent with a linear ephemeris, which suggests that there are no massive planets in the system orbiting at or close to orbital resonances with planets b or c. ![Box-Least-Square (BLS) power spectra as a function of orbital period: a) BLS power spectrum of all available TESS photometry shows a clear peak at a period of $P=10.89$days (planet b, blue vertical line); b) BLS power spectrum of the TESS photometry after masking out transits of planet b shows a clear peak at $P=18.80$days (planet c, red vertical line); BLS power spectrum after masking out both transits of planet b and c shows no further clear peaks.[]{data-label="fig:bls"}](fig04.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} We additionally looked for signs of non-transiting planets in the HPF RVs. Figure \[fig:periodograms\] shows Generalized Lomb-Scargle (LS) periodograms of the HPF RVs, along with a number of activity indicators measured from the HPF spectra, including the Differential Line Width (dLW), the Chromatic Index (CRX), and line indices of the three Calcium II Infrared Triplet (Ca II IRT) lines. To calculate the activity indicators, we follow the definition and procedures in the `SERVAL` pipeline [@zechmeister2018], and we note that their use for HPF spectra, including listing the exact wavelength ranges used to calculate the Ca II IRT indices, are further discussed in Stefansson et al. 2020 (submitted). We calculate the Generalized LS periodograms using the `astropy.timeseries` package, and we calculated the False Alarm Probabilities[^3] using the `bootstrap` method implemented in the same package. In Figure \[fig:periodograms\], we additionally show the Window Function (WF) of our RV observations. All of the periodograms in Figure \[fig:periodograms\] are normalized using the formalism in [@zechmeister2009], except the window function is normalized such that the highest peak has a power of 1. Table \[tab:rvs\] in the appendix lists the values of the RVs and the activity indicators. From Figure \[fig:periodograms\], we see no significant peaks (with $\mathrm{FAP}<0.1\%$), with no clear peaks seen at the known planet periods. We attribute the latter due the expected RV amplitude of the planets (3.3m/s and 1.6m/s for planets b and c, respectively) being below the median HPF RV precision of 7.4m/s (see Subsection \[sec:mr\]). We note that we see a hint of two peaks at 1.779days and its 1-day alias of 2.230days in the RVs (Figure \[fig:periodograms\]a), although both peaks have a low significance with a $\mathrm{FAP}>1\%$. Although there remains a possibility that there are other planets in the system which could contribute additional variability to the RVs, further data is required to confidently rule out or confirm their presence. In the absence of strong evidence for more planets in the system, we fit the available datasets (photometry and RVs) assuming the two known transiting planets in the system. ![Lomb-Scargle periodograms of the HPF RVs along with different activity indicators. The periods of planets b and c are highlighted with the dashed blue and red lines, respectively. False Alarm Probabilities (FAP) of 1% and 0.1% calculated using a bootstrap method are denoted with the grey solid and grey dashed lines, respectively. a) HPF RVs; b) Differential line width (dLW) activity indicator; c) Chromatic Index activity indicator (CRX); d-f) Ca II IRT indices for the three Ca II IRT lines; g) The window function of the HPF RVs, showing a clear sampling peak at 1 day. The power in a-f) is normalized using the formalism in [@zechmeister2009], and g) is normalized so that the highest peak is unity.[]{data-label="fig:periodograms"}](fig05.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} Transit, RV, and Gaussian Process Modeling ------------------------------------------ We jointly model the available photometry from TESS and the two ground-based transits along with the radial velocities using the `juliet` code [@Espinoza2018]. In `juliet`, we used the `dynesty` package [@speagle2019] to perform dynamic nested sampling for parameter estimation. `juliet` uses the `batman` package [@kreidberg2015] for the transit model—which uses the transit prescription from [@mandel2002]—and uses the `radvel` package [@fulton2018] for the RV model. Following the implementation in `juliet`, we parameterize the transit in terms of the radius ratio ($p = \mathrm{R_p/R_}$) and the impact parameter $b$. Due to the lack of nearby bright stars in the TESS aperture, and the resulting minimal dilution in the TESS data, we fix the dilution factor $D$ in `juliet` for the TESS and ground-based photometry to $D=0$. As both the ground-based and TESS transits were observed in similar band-passes (TESS bandpass, and in the SDSS $r^\prime$ and SDSS $i^\prime$ filters), we assume the transit depth in the TESS and ground-based transits are identical. We use a quadratic limb-darkening law to describe the transits, where we elect to use the $q_1$ and $q_2$ limb-darkening parameterization from [@kipping2013], and to minimize biases in the resulting planet parameter constraints, we follow the suggestion in [@espinoza2015] and place uniform priors on the limb darkening parameters from 0 to 1. To check if both transits recovered consistent stellar densities, we first performed a fit assuming circular orbits for both planets without an explicit prior on the stellar density. In doing so, we recover a stellar density of $\rho_* = 9.2 \pm 1.4 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{g/cm^3}}}$ and $\rho_* = 7.0_{-3.9}^{+5.0} {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{g/cm^3}}}$ from the transits of planets b and c, respectively. From this, we see that both values are consistent with the model-dependent stellar density from Table \[tab:stellarparam\] of $\rho_* = 8.13 \pm 0.48 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{g/cm^3}}}$, suggesting that the two planets indeed transit TOI-1266. This consistency between the transit-derived stellar density assuming circular orbits and the model-dependent stellar density further suggests that both planets have low eccentricities, which conforms with the trend that multi-transiting systems generally show low eccentricities [@vaneylen2015]. As such, without strong evidence suggesting non-circular orbits, for our final parameter estimation, we assumed that both planets have circular orbits. We further place a Gaussian prior on the stellar density of $\rho_* = 8.13 \pm 0.48 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{g/cm^3}}}$ to accurately constrain the orbital distance ($a/R_$) of both planets. In total, we fit for 36 parameters. Table \[tab:priors\] summarizes the priors we used. [llc]{}\ $P$ & Orbital Period (days) & $\mathcal{N}(10.895411,0.01)$\ $T_C$ & Transit Midpoint - 2458000 $(\mathrm{BJD_{TDB}})$ & $\mathcal{U}(690.95,691.05)$\ $R_{p}/R_{}$ & Scaled Radius & $\mathcal{U}(0,1)$\ $a/R_$ & Scaled Semi-major axis & $\mathcal{J}(1,200)$\ $b$ & Impact Parameter & $\mathcal{U}(0,1)$\ $K$ & RV semi-amplitude (${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{m/s}}}$) & $\mathcal{U}(0,100)$\ \ $P$ & Orbital Period (days) & $\mathcal{N}(18.79545,0.01)$\ $T_C$ & Transit Midpoint - 2458000 $(\mathrm{BJD_{TDB}})$ & $\mathcal{U}(689.90,690.00)$\ $R_{p}/R_{}$ & Scaled Radius & $\mathcal{U}(0,1)$\ $a/R_$ & Scaled Semi-major axis & $\mathcal{J}(1,200)$\ $b$ & Impact Parameter & $\mathcal{U}(0,1)$\ $K$ & RV semi-amplitude (${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{m/s}}}$) & $\mathcal{U}(0,100)$\ \ $\rho_$ & Stellar density (${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{g\:cm^{-3}}}}$) & $\mathcal{N}(8.13,0.48)$\ \ $q_1^{a}$ & Limb-darkening parameter & $\mathcal{U}(0,1)$\ $q_2^{a}$ & Limb-darkening parameter & $\mathcal{U}(0,1)$\ $\sigma_{\mathrm{phot}}$$^b$ & Photometric jitter (${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{ppm}}}$) & $\mathcal{J}(1,5000)$\ $\mu_{\mathrm{phot}}$$^b$ & Photometric baseline & $\mathcal{N}(0,0.1)$\ $\sigma_{\mathrm{HPF}}$ & HPF RV jitter (m/s) & $\mathcal{J}(0.01,100)$\ $\gamma$ & HPF RV offset (m/s) & $\mathcal{U}(-50,50)$\ \ $P_{\mathrm{GP}}$ & GP Period (days) & $\mathcal{J}(0.1,1000)$\ $B$ & GP Amplitude (${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{ppm^2}}}$) & $\mathcal{J}(10^{-6},1)$\ $C$ & GP Additive Factor & $\mathcal{J}(10^{-3},10^{3})$\ $L$ & GP Length Scale (days) & $\mathcal{J}(1, 10^{3})$\ \ $\sigma_{\mathrm{GP}}$ & GP Amplitude (ppm) & $\mathcal{J}(0.1, 10^4)$\ $\tau$ & Timescale of exp. kernel (days) & $\mathcal{J}(0.01, 10^{5})$\ $\rho$ & Timescale of Matern kernel (days) & $\mathcal{J}(0.01, 10^{5})$\ \ $\sigma_{\mathrm{GP}}$ & GP Amplitude (ppm) & $\mathcal{J}(0.1, 10^4)$\ $\tau$ & Timescale of exp. kernel (days) & $\mathcal{J}(0.01, 10^{5})$\ $\rho$ & Timescale of Matern kernel (days) & $\mathcal{J}(0.01, 10^{5})$\ To account for correlated noise in the photometric datasets, we use a Gaussian Process noise model, where we choose different kernels for the different datasets to best reflect the characteristic noise structures seen in the data as a function of time. For the TESS data, to account for any possible low-level photometric modulations, we use the quasi-periodic kernel from the `celerite` package [@Foreman-Mackey2017], with a kernel function of the form, $$k(x_l,x_m) = \frac{B}{2 + C} e^{-\tau/L} \left[ \cos \left( \frac{2 \pi \tau}{P_\mathrm{GP}} \right) + (1 + C) \right], \label{eq:kernelperiodic}$$ where $\tau = \|x_l - x_m\|$, and where $B$, $C$, $L$, and $P_{\mathrm{rot}}$ are the hyperparameters of the kernel. $B$ and $C$ tune the weight of the exponential decay component of the kernel with a decay constant of $L$ (in days), and $P_{\mathrm{GP}}$ corresponds to the periodicity of the quasi-periodic oscillations which we interpret as the stellar rotation period. For the ground-based datasets, we follow Stefansson et al. 2020 (submitted), and use the Approximate Matern-3/2 kernel multiplied by an exponential kernel available in `juliet`. This kernel has covariance properties that are better matched to shorter-term instrumental and/or atmospheric red-noise structures often seen in ground-based datasets [see e.g., @pepper2017; @Espinoza2018]. As implemented in `juliet`, this kernel has the following form (see also [@Foreman-Mackey2017]), $$k(x_l,x_m) = \sigma_{\mathrm{GP}}^2 e^{-\tau/L} \left[ (1 + 1/\epsilon) e^{-1(1-\epsilon)s} + (1 - 1/\epsilon) e^{-1(1+\epsilon)s} \right], \label{eq:kernelmat32}$$ where $s = \sqrt{3} \tau / \rho$, and $\tau = \|x_l - x_m\|$, with hyperparameters $\sigma_{\mathrm{GP}}$ (photometric amplitude in $\mathrm{ppm}$), $L$ (length scale of the exponential component in days), and $\rho$ (length scale of the Matern-3/2 kernel in days), and with $\epsilon = 0.01$, where we note that as $\epsilon$ approaches 0 the factor inside the brackets converges to a Matern 3/2 kernel [@Foreman-Mackey2017; @Espinoza2018]. For the RV dataset, given the few number of RV points available and the low activity of the star, we do not use a Gaussian Process model and rather adopt a white-noise model to account for potential systematics and/or stellar jitter effects. Derived Planet Parameters ------------------------- Figure \[fig:transits\] shows the TESS transits and ground-based transits, along with our best-fit model. Figure \[fig:rvs\] shows the RVs from HPF, showing the unbinned RVs as a function of time, as well as the RVs phased around each planet. Table \[tab:planetparams\] shows the resulting planet parameters from our joint fit of the photometry and the radial velocities. To cross-check the parameters reported by `juliet` which uses nested sampling, we performed a separate fit using the `exoplanet` code [@exoplanet2020], which uses the `PyMC3` Markov Chain Monte-Carlo package for parameter estimation [@exoplanet:pymc3]. The `exoplanet` package builds on the `theano` package [@exoplanet:theano] for the numerical infrastructure and uses the `starry` package [@luger2019] for the light-curve generation. This test resulted in fully consistent parameters (within $1\sigma$) to the parameters reported by `juliet`. For brevity, we adapt the parameters from `juliet` in Table \[tab:planetparams\]. ![image](fig06.pdf){width="\textwidth"} [llcccc]{} $T_{C}$ $(\mathrm{BJD_{TDB}})$ & Transit Midpoint & $2458691.005_{-0.0011}^{+0.0011}$ & $2458689.9589_{-0.0050}^{+0.0060}$\ $P$ (days) & Orbital period & $10.894879_{-0.00007}^{+0.00007}$ & $18.80152_{-0.00067}^{+0.00054}$\ $R_p/R_$ & Radius ratio & $0.0532_{-0.0012}^{+0.0015}$ & $0.0363_{-0.0022}^{+0.0017}$\ $R_{p} (R_\oplus)$ & Planet radius (Earth radii) & $2.458_{-0.073}^{+0.083}$ & $1.673_{-0.110}^{+0.087}$\ $R_{p} (R_{\mathrm{J}})$ & Planet radius (Jupiter radii) & $0.2193_{-0.0066}^{+0.0074}$ & $0.1492_{-0.0095}^{+0.0077}$\ $\delta_{p, \mathrm{K2}}$ & Transit depth & $0.00283_{-0.00013}^{+0.00016}$ & $0.00132_{-0.00016}^{+0.00013}$\ $a/R_$ & Normalized orbital radius & $37.9_{-3.5}^{+2.2}$ & $52.66_{-0.73}^{+0.97}$\ $a$ (AU) & Semi-major axis (from $a/R_$ and $R_$) & $0.0745_{-0.0069}^{+0.0046}$ & $0.1037_{-0.0025}^{+0.0026}$\ $\rho_{\mathrm{,transit}}$ ($\mathrm{g/cm^{3}}$) & Density of star & $8.7_{-2.2}^{+1.6}$ & $7.81_{-0.32}^{+0.44}$\ $i$ $(^{\circ})$ & Transit inclination & $89.36_{-0.33}^{+0.20}$ & $89.225_{-0.043}^{+0.060}$\ $b$ & Impact parameter & $0.43_{-0.12}^{+0.16}$ & $0.714_{-0.050}^{+0.035}$\ $e$ & Eccentricity &\ $\omega$ ($^{\circ}$) & Argument of periastron &\ $T_{\mathrm{eq}}$ (K) & Equilibrium temp. (assuming $a=0.3$) & $410.0_{-15.0}^{+21.0}$ & $347.1_{-8.0}^{+7.9}$\ $T_{\mathrm{eq}}$ (K) & Equilibrium temp. (assuming $a=0.0$) & $287.0_{-11.0}^{+15.0}$ & $243.0_{-5.6}^{+5.6}$\ $S$ ($S_{\oplus}$) & Insolation Flux & $4.72_{-0.66}^{+1.0}$ & $2.42_{-0.22}^{+0.23}$\ $T_{14}$ (days) & Transit duration & $0.0879_{-0.0016}^{+0.0017}$ & $0.0853_{-0.0036}^{+0.0046}$\ $T_{23}$ (days) & Transit duration & $0.0767_{-0.0021}^{+0.0019}$ & $0.0735_{-0.0045}^{+0.0056}$\ $\tau$ (days) & Ingress/egress duration & $0.00537_{-0.00060}^{+0.0014}$ & $0.00589_{-0.00064}^{+0.00053}$\ $K$ (m/s) & RV Semi-amplitude & $3.5_{-2.0}^{+2.7}$ & $0.8_{-0.53}^{+0.97}$\ $m_p$ ($M_\oplus$) & Planet mass & $<15.9$ at 95% confidence & $<6.4$ at 95% confidence\ $\sigma_{\mathrm{w,HPF}}$ (m/s) & HPF RV jitter &\ $\gamma$ (m/s) & HPF RV offset &\ Statistical Validation {#sec:validation} ====================== To estimate the probability that the transits we observed were due to astrophysical false positives, we used the statistical techniques of [@morton2012vespa] implemented in the Validation of Exoplanet Signals using a Probabilistic Algorithm (`VESPA`) package [@morton2015vespa]. `VESPA` calculates the false positive probability (FPP) of transiting planet candidates by simulating and determining the likelihood of a range of astrophysical false positive scenarios that could replicate the observed light curves, including background eclipsing binaries, eclipsing binaries, and hierarchical eclipsing binaries. As inputs to `VESPA`, we used a) the phase-folded TESS transit in a 2x transit duration window around the center of each transit, b) the position of the target in the sky, c) the 2MASS $J$, $H$, $K$, SDSS $g^\prime$, $r^\prime$, $i^\prime$, and TESS magnitudes, d) the Gaia parallax, e) the host star stellar effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity, and f) the maximum visual extinction from estimates of Galactic dust extinction [@Green2019]. These values are listed in Table \[tab:stellarparam\]. In addition to the inputs above, `VESPA` requires two additional constraints. First, as we have ground-based transit observations of both planets recovering fully consistent transits with the TESS transits but at a finer pixel scale, we set the maximum separation for a background eclipsing object equal to the aperture radius used for the ground-based photometric extractions for planet b ($7\arcsec$ from Perkin) and c ($8\arcsec$ from APO), respectively. Second, we set the maximum depth of secondary eclipse equal to the RMS of the unbinned TESS lightcurve (2262 ppm). Assuming the more conservative approach that the transits of planets b and c are independent, we obtain a FPP rate of $8\times10^{-6}$ and $1.9\times10^{-3}$ for planets b and c, respectively. Although already showing low FPP values, we argue that the real false positive probabilities are even lower accounting for that false positive scenarios are less likely in multi-planet systems [e.g., @latham2011; @lissauer2012]. We consider both planets statistically validated. Discussion {#sec:discussion} ========== Mass and Bulk Composition Constraints {#sec:mr} ------------------------------------- From the HPF RVs, we obtain formal mass constraints of $6.9_{-4.0}^{+5.5} M_\oplus$ and $1.9_{-1.3}^{+2.3} M_\oplus$ for planets b and c, respectively, which we use to place upper mass constraints of $15.9 M_\oplus$ and $6.4 M_\oplus$ at 95% confidence ($2\sigma$) for the two planets, respectively. The corresponding 99.7% percentile constraints are $22.3M_\oplus$ and $11.3M_\oplus$, respectively. We compared these mass constraints with the predicted masses calculated with the mass-radius relations in the `Forecaster` [@chen2017] and the `MRExo` [@kanodia2019] mass-radius packages. `Forecaster` uses a broken power-law mass-radius relation to predict exoplanet masses from their radii derived from a sample of exoplanets across different spectral types, while the `MRExo` package uses a non-parametric relation specifically trained on current M-dwarf planet systems with well measured masses and radii [@kanodia2019]. From `Forecaster`, we predict a mass of $6.6_{-2.8}^{+5.0} M_\oplus$ and $3.8_{-1.4}^{+2.6}M_\oplus$ for planets b and c, translating to expected RV semi-amplitudes of $3.3_{-1.4}^{+2.5} {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{m/s}}}$, and $1.6_{-0.6}^{+1.0} {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{m/s}}}$, respectively. From `MRExo`, we predict masses of $6.2^{+6.7}_{-3.2} M_\oplus$ and $2.9^{+5.1}_{-1.7}M_\oplus$ for planets b and c, respectively. We see that our current mass constraints are fully consistent with the predicted mass estimates. Using our formal mass constraints, in Figure \[fig:mr\], we explored the most likely composition of the two planets by comparing our posteriors to the composition models of [@zeng2019]. From Figure \[fig:mr\], we can see that both planets are consistent with non-rocky compositions, favoring either a water-rich world (e.g., the 100% H$_{2}$O model) and/or a rocky core enveloped by a H/He atmosphere[^4]. For planet b, if we assume the two-component model of [@lopez2014] consisting of a rocky core enveloped by a predominantly H/He atmosphere, we estimate a gas composition mass fraction of $1.5-2.0\%$. For planet c, although our current RVs currently only show a marginal non-zero detection of the low-RV amplitude signal, our current RV constraints suggesting a mass $<6.4 M_\oplus$ at 95% confidence hint at a non-Earth-like composition, tilting towards a water-rich or rocky world enshrouded by a H/He atmosphere. Further RVs are required to confirm and better constrain the composition of both planets—in particular for planet c. As TOI-1266 is a relatively nearby and bright ($V=12.9$, $J=9.7$) early M-dwarf, an accurate mass measurement of both planets is within reach of current high precision spectrographs. To estimate the number of additional visits needed to measure the masses for transiting planets with known periods, we used the methodology of [@plavchan2015]. Assuming the RV semi-amplitudes expected from `Forecaster`, we estimate that we would need 10-20 more HPF visits to measure the mass of planet b at 99.7% confidence ($3\sigma$), but measuring the mass of planet c is currently infeasible in <100 visits with HPF. However, as TOI-1266 is a relatively bright early M-dwarf, the RV information content is better matched for red-optical Doppler spectrographs such as NEID [@schwab2016], CARMENES [@quirrenbach2018], ESPRESSO [@pepe2018], KPF [@gibson2016], or MAROON-X [@seifahrt2016]. With NEID, assuming a 2.8m/s RV precision in 30minute bins, we estimate to be able to measure the masses of planets b and c in $\sim$6 and $\sim$30 visits at $3\sigma$, respectively. ![Current radius and mass constraints of TOI-1266b and c from our joint 2-planet fit. The contours show our $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ posterior contours for planets b and c. The shaded grey region indicates planets with iron content exceeding the maximum value predicted from models of collisional stripping [@marcus2010]. The solid lines show different composition models from [@zeng2019]. Earth and Venus are denoted by blue squares. Further RV observations are needed to more precisely constrain the masses of both planets.[]{data-label="fig:mr"}](fig07.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} TOI-1266c Resides in the Radius Valley -------------------------------------- Close-in exoplanets display a gap or a valley in the radius distribution around 1.5-2.0 Earth radii [@owen2013; @fulton2017; @vaneylen2018; @cloutier2020], which has been interpreted as the transition radius between rocky and gaseous planets. A number of theoretical models have arisen to explain the emergence of the Radius Valley, which predict that the location of the rocky-to-gaseous transition radius, $r_{\mathrm{transition}}$, depends on the orbital period of the planet. The photoevaporation model, where the atmosphere of small planets can be stripped by high energy XUV photons leaving behind bare planetary cores [@lopez2012; @owen2013; @lopez2013; @owen2017; @lopez2018], predicts that the transition radius should decrease* with orbital period as $r_{\mathrm{transition}} \propto P^{-0.15}$. Second, the core-powered mass-loss mechanism [@ginzburg2016; @ginzburg2018; @gupta2019], where the luminosity of the cooling planetary core provides the energy for atmospheric loss, predicts that the transition radius should also decrease with orbital period as $r_{\mathrm{transition}} \propto P^{-0.13}$. Third, in the gas-poor formation scenario, where super-Earths represent a distinct population of planets forming in a gas-poor environment after the protoplanetary disk has dissipated [@lee2014; @lee2016; @lopez2018], the prediction is instead that the transition radius should increase with orbital period as $r_{\mathrm{transition}} \propto P^{0.11}$. To distinguish between these scenarios, previous studies have empirically measured the location of the Radius Valley as a function of orbital period. [@martinez2019] used data from Kepler and the California Kepler Survey (CKS) to show that the location of the Radius Valley decreases as $r_{\mathrm{transition,M19}} \propto P^{-0.11 \pm 0.03}$ around Solar-type stars, consistent with mechanisms of photoevaporation and core-powered mass loss. This is in good agreement with the dependence of $r_{\mathrm{transition,VE18}} \propto P^{-0.09_{-0.04}^{+0.02}}$ measured by [@vaneylen2018] using a sample of planets orbiting solar-type stars with accurately determined stellar parameters from asteroseismology. Recently, [@cloutier2020] constrained the location of the Radius Valley for later type stars (mid-K to mid-M; $T_{\mathrm{eff}} < 4700 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{K}}}$) using data from Kepler and K2, obtaining $r_{\mathrm{transition,CM20}} \propto P^{0.058\pm0.022}$. Their measurement has a power-law slope with the opposite sign to the power-law slope measured by [@martinez2019] around Sun-like stars, and is more consistent with models predicting that small planets represent a population of planets that form late in a gas-poor environment [@lee2014; @lee2016; @lopez2018]. [@cloutier2020] interpret this that either planet formation is governed by a separate process around M-dwarfs (i.e., gas-poor formation) or that the efficiency of atmospheric post-processing (such as photoevaporation) is weakened for planets orbiting low-mass stars. In Figure \[fig:rp\], we show planet radius as a function of orbital period for small ($R<4R_\oplus$) M-dwarf planets with mass measurements better than $50\%$[^5], which we compare to the Radius Valley locations as measured by [@martinez2019] around Sun-like stars, and by [@cloutier2020] for M-dwarfs. Following, [@cloutier2020], in Figure \[fig:rp\], we plot the Radius Valley location of [@martinez2019] after scaling to the M-dwarf mass regime. Specifically, we plot the radius valley location in $r$-$P$ space, as given by Equations 10 and 11 in [@cloutier2020], as, $$r_{\mathrm{transition,M19}} = -0.48 \log_{10}(P) + 2.32, \label{eq:M19}$$ for solar type stars, and, $$r_{\mathrm{transition,CM20}} = 0.11 \log_{10}(P) + 1.52, \label{eq:CM19}$$ for M-dwarf stars. From Figure \[fig:rp\], with a period of $P=18.8$ days and radius of $1.67 R_\oplus$, we see that TOI-1266c lands in the transition region as predicted by both [@cloutier2020] for late K and M-dwarf systems (Equation \[eq:CM19\]), and by [@martinez2019] for Sun-like stars (Equation \[eq:M19\]). As such, TOI-1266c could have a rocky composition or a predominantly non-rocky composition (e.g., a water rich world or could have retained a few percent H/He atmosphere). The inset in Figure \[fig:rp\] further highlights the position of TOI-1266c and two other M-dwarf planets also residing in the transition region: K2-3c and LHS 1140b, which interestingly show different bulk compositions. K2-3c has a radius of $1.72 \pm 0.22 R_\oplus$ [@crossfield2015k2_3c], and a mass of $2.1 \pm 1.0M_\oplus$ [@kosiarek2019], and thus has a bulk density of $\rho \sim 3 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{g/cm^3}}}$, suggestive of a non-rocky composition. However, LHS 1140 b [@dittmann2017; @ment2019] has a radius of $1.727 \pm 0.032 R_\oplus$, a mass of $7.0 \pm 0.9 M_\oplus$, and bulk density of $\rho \sim 7.5 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{g/cm^3}}}$, consistent with a rocky composition. From Figure \[fig:rp\], we also note that both LHS 1140b, and TOI-1235b—a planet recently discovered and characterized by [@cloutier2020toi1235] and [@bluhm2020]—both have densities consistent with rocky compositions, but both reside above the line measured by [@cloutier2020], where we would have predicted them to have a non-rocky composition. This could suggest that the transition region could lie slightly higher than measured in [@cloutier2020]. Another explanation would be that the efficiency of different processes sculpting planetary compositions varies for planets in the transition region, resulting in a continuum of possible compositions. This would be compatible with the trend noted by [@fultonpetigura2018] and [@cloutier2020], that the Radius Valley is not completely void of planets, and gets increasingly filled with decreasing stellar masses. As mentioned by [@cloutier2020], this trend has not been firmly tested yet. A precise mass constraint of TOI-1266c, along with other planets residing in the Radius Valley, can directly help place further constraints on this trend. ![Planet radius for small M-dwarf planets ($R<4R_\oplus$) as a function of orbital period. TOI-1266b and c are shown with the black points. Planets with better than 50% mass constraints have their bulk density highlighted with the color gradient. The solid black line shows the location of the rocky-to-gaseous transition radius $r_\mathrm{transition}$ for planet host stars with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} < 4700 {\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{K}}}$ as measured by [@cloutier2020], consistent with the predictions of gas-poor formation. The dashed line shows $r_\mathrm{transition}$ as a function of orbital period as measured by [@martinez2019] around solar-type stars (scaled to the low-mass regime), consistent with the predictions of photoevaporation or core-powered mass loss models. TOI-1266c lies in the transition region as predicted by [@cloutier2020] and [@martinez2019], and could thus have either a predominantly rocky or non-rocky composition. The inset highlights the position of TOI-1266c and two other M-dwarf planets also residing in the Radius Valley: K2-3c and LHS 1140b, which are observed to be gaseous and rocky, respectively. Data obtained from the NASA Exoplanet Archive on May 20, 2020 [@akeson2013].[]{data-label="fig:rp"}](fig08.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} TOI-1266 c: A Potential Super-Venus? ------------------------------------ With a radius of $R=1.67 R_\oplus$ and an incident stellar flux 2.4 times that of Earth, if TOI-1266c has a rocky composition, it could potentially be a ‘Super-Venus’ [@kane2014]. Venus itself receives 1.91 times more flux and is $95\%$ the size of the Earth. [@kane2014] define Venus analogs as predominantly rocky planets residing in the ‘Venus-Zone’, where planets receive insolation fluxes between $\sim$0.95-25 times that of Earth[^6]. Future studies attempting to identify atmospheric abundances of small rocky planets will face the challenge of distinguishing between possible Venus and Earth surface conditions [@kane2014]. There is a need to discover more planets that may have evolved into a post-runaway greenhouse state so that we can target their atmospheres for characterization with future facilities such as JWST. As discussed in Subsection \[sec:mr\] and in Figure \[fig:mr\], it is also possible that TOI-1266c could have retained a H/He atmosphere, and/or have a higher water fraction than Earth. If TOI-1266c is determined to be a water-rich world, it remains to be seen how much of it is retained due to the high luminosity pre-main-sequence evolution of its M-dwarf host star [@lugerbarnes2015], and any historical stellar activity. We note that TOI-1266c lies firmly on the side of the “cosmic shoreline” where the gravitational binding of the atmosphere to the planet is high compared to the insolation-driven escape [see Figure 1 in @ZC2017], hinting that TOI-1266c could retain a water atmosphere. Interestingly, TOI-1266c also lies very close to or on top of the “H$_{2}$O greenhouse runaway” region in @ZC2017. Depending upon on the age of the system, stellar UV activity and the initial water content accumulated at the early stages of the system evolution, and considering the insolation on the planet, TOI-1266c could host a hot/moist water-vapor atmosphere. Such an atmosphere has recently been detected around the mini-Neptune K2-18b [@paper12019; @paper22019]. Detecting further such atmospheres would provide a valuable data point in capturing systems that are undergoing moist or runaway greenhouse climates, and provide clues to atmospheric evolutionary history similar to that of the evolution of our own terrestrial planets in the solar system. It would also have implications on initial volatile compound inventories for models of planet formation. We estimated the applicability of performing transmission spectroscopy on both planets using the Transmission Spectroscopy Metric (TSM) as defined in [@kempton2018]. We obtain a fairly large spread of possible TSMs of $53_{-19}^{+51}$ for planet b using our current mass constraint. Although the median value of 53 is formally below the TSM>90 prioritization threshold for mini-Neptune planets with radii larger than $1.5R_\oplus$ recommended by [@kempton2018], a further precise mass constraint is needed to discern the exact value of the TSM. For planet c, the TSM will depend strongly on if the planet has retained a H/He atmosphere or if the planet is predominantly rocky with a minimal atmosphere. In their definition of the TSM, [@kempton2018] define the transition between predominantly rocky planets and gaseous mini-Neptunes at $1.5 R_\oplus$. If we assume TOI-1266c to be a characteristic mini-Neptune, we obtain a TSM of $30_{-15}^{+19}$; if we assume it to be rocky, we obtain a TSM of $5_{-2}^{+3}$. As such, the favorability of TOI-1266c for atmospheric characterization depends strongly if it is determined to be predominantly rocky or non-rocky. Summary {#sec:summary} ======= We have presented the discovery and validation of two small planets orbiting the nearby M2 dwarf TOI-1266. The inner planet has a radius of $2.5 R_\oplus$ and an orbital period of 10.9 days. The outer planet has a smaller radius of $R=1.67 R_\oplus$ and period of 18.8 days, residing in the Radius Valley—the transition region between rocky and gaseous planets. From the available photometry and RVs, we see no clear evidence of other planets in the system. We validate the planetary nature of the two planets using high contrast imaging observations from NESSI/WIYN, along with ground-based transit photometry—including precision diffuser-assisted photometry of the outer planet using the Engineered Diffuser on the ARC 3.5m Telescope at Apache Point Observatory. Using precision near-infrared RVs from the Habitable-zone Planet Finder, we obtain an upper mass limit of $15.9 M_\oplus$ and $6.4 M_\oplus$ at 95% confidence for planets b and c, respectively. Our current mass constraints hint that planet c could have a predominantly non-rocky composition, which could indicate that planet c is either water-rich and/or could have retained an atmosphere despite its small size, although further precise RV observations are needed to more precisely constrain its composition. Given the brightness of the host star, both planets are amenable for a precise mass constraint with current and upcoming RV instruments. A precise mass estimate of planet c will further constrain models explaining the emergence of the Radius Valley, and the processes that sculpt the compositions and atmospheres of small planets receiving insolations similar to Venus. We thank Josh Winn for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by funding from the Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds. The Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds is supported by the Pennsylvania State University, the Eberly College of Science, and the Pennsylvania Space Grant Consortium. This work was supported by NASA Headquarters under the NASA Earth and Space Science Fellowship Program through grants 80NSSC18K1114. We acknowledge support from NSF grants AST-1006676, AST-1126413, AST-1310885, AST-1517592, AST-1310875, AST-1910954, AST-1907622, AST-1909506, the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI; NNA09DA76A), and PSARC in our pursuit of precision radial velocities in the NIR. Computations for this research were performed on the Pennsylvania State University’s Institute for Computational & Data Sciences (ICDS). These results are based on observations obtained with the Habitable-zone Planet Finder Spectrograph on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope. We thank the Resident astronomers and Telescope Operators at the HET for the skillful execution of our observations of our observations with HPF. The Hobby-Eberly Telescope is a joint project of the University of Texas at Austin, the Pennsylvania State University, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, and Georg-August Universität Gottingen. The HET is named in honor of its principal benefactors, William P. Hobby and Robert E. Eberly. The HET collaboration acknowledges the support and resources from the Texas Advanced Computing Center. The WIYN Observatory is a joint facility of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Indiana University, Yale University, the NSF Optical Infrared Research Lab, the University of Missouri, Purdue University, Penn State University, and the University of California at Irvine. Some of the observations in the paper made use of the NN-EXPLORE Exoplanet and Stellar Speckle Imager (NESSI). NESSI was funded by the NASA Exoplanet Exploration Program and the NASA Ames Research Center. NESSI was built at the Ames Research Center by Steve B. Howell, Nic Scott, Elliott P. Horch, and Emmett Quigley. These results are based on observations obtained with the Apache Point Observatory 3.5-meter telescope which is owned and operated by the Astrophysical Research Consortium. We wish to thank the APO 3.5m telescope operators in their assistance in obtaining these data. Some observations were obtained with the Samuel Oschin 48-inch Telescope at the Palomar Observatory as part of the ZTF project. ZTF is supported by the NSF under Grant No. AST-1440341 and a collaboration including Caltech, IPAC, the Weizmann Institute for Science, the Oskar Klein Center at Stockholm University, the University of Maryland, the University of Washington, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron and Humboldt University, Los Alamos National Laboratories, the TANGO Consortium of Taiwan, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. Operations are conducted by COO, IPAC, and UW. We acknowledge the use of TESS Alert data, from pipelines at the TESS Science Office and at the TESS Science Processing Operations Center. This research has made use of the Exoplanet Follow-up Observation Program website, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program. This paper includes data collected by the TESS mission, which are publicly available from the Multimission Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST). Support for MAST for non-HST data is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science via grant NNX09AF08G and by other grants and contracts. This research made use of Lightkurve, a Python package for Kepler and TESS data analysis (Lightkurve Collaboration, 2018). This research made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program. This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission [Gaia]{} (<https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia>), processed by the [Gaia]{} Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, <https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium>). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the [Gaia]{} Multilateral Agreement. HPF Radial Velocities ===================== Table \[tab:rvs\] lists the RVs from HPF and associated activity indicators derived from the HPF spectra used in this work. BJD RV \[${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{m\:s^{-1}}}}$\] dLW \[${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{m^{2}\:s^{-2}}}}$\] CRX \[${\ensuremath{\, \mathrm{m\:s^{-1}\:Np^{-1}}}}$\] Ca II IRT 1 Ca II IRT 2 Ca II IRT 3 --------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- 2458854.02373 $-8.7 \pm 8.1$ $69.5 \pm 18.9$ $-205.6 \pm 86.9$ $0.550 \pm 0.003$ $0.308 \pm 0.002$ $0.329 \pm 0.002$ 2458859.02978 $-7.9 \pm 9.2$ $-7.2 \pm 21.9$ $290.1 \pm 148.0$ $0.570 \pm 0.003$ $0.308 \pm 0.003$ $0.327 \pm 0.003$ 2458861.02062 $1.5 \pm 10.8$ $-4.1 \pm 25.4$ $-178.4 \pm 157.4$ $0.551 \pm 0.004$ $0.298 \pm 0.004$ $0.320 \pm 0.003$ 2458868.00484 $-14.9 \pm 5.9$ $21.0 \pm 13.8$ $67.8 \pm 77.1$ $0.570 \pm 0.003$ $0.307 \pm 0.002$ $0.328 \pm 0.002$ 2458870.04313 $1.1 \pm 11.8$ $52.6 \pm 27.8$ $211.7 \pm 175.4$ $0.549 \pm 0.004$ $0.306 \pm 0.004$ $0.321 \pm 0.004$ 2458882.99010 $17.6 \pm 12.5$ $-29.0 \pm 29.3$ $21.7 \pm 212.2$ $0.562 \pm 0.004$ $0.302 \pm 0.004$ $0.329 \pm 0.004$ 2458893.92190 $-8.4 \pm 7.4$ $26.1 \pm 17.6$ $48.1 \pm 77.6$ $0.553 \pm 0.002$ $0.307 \pm 0.002$ $0.336 \pm 0.002$ 2458894.92423 $3.8 \pm 7.4$ $19.4 \pm 17.6$ $196.0 \pm 121.2$ $0.562 \pm 0.002$ $0.303 \pm 0.002$ $0.330 \pm 0.002$ 2458939.79500 $12.2 \pm 7.1$ $30.4 \pm 16.9$ $-93.4 \pm 93.8$ $0.557 \pm 0.002$ $0.303 \pm 0.002$ $0.327 \pm 0.002$ 2458940.82880 $-14.2 \pm 10.6$ $18.7 \pm 25.2$ $-227.9 \pm 66.2$ $0.557 \pm 0.003$ $0.303 \pm 0.003$ $0.339 \pm 0.003$ 2458941.80403 $5.9 \pm 6.3$ $23.4 \pm 15.1$ $24.4 \pm 94.6$ $0.557 \pm 0.002$ $0.300 \pm 0.002$ $0.331 \pm 0.002$ 2458967.72965 $-4.2 \pm 7.1$ $-13.6 \pm 17.0$ $-217.5 \pm 107.5$ $0.556 \pm 0.002$ $0.297 \pm 0.002$ $0.327 \pm 0.002$ 2458969.73789 $-5.0 \pm 6.9$ $21.7 \pm 16.7$ $227.4 \pm 62.2$ $0.554 \pm 0.002$ $0.303 \pm 0.002$ $0.319 \pm 0.002$ 2458971.73516 $9.3 \pm 7.7$ $46.1 \pm 18.3$ $-58.6 \pm 118.2$ $0.557 \pm 0.002$ $0.298 \pm 0.002$ $0.317 \pm 0.002$ 2458974.75218 $-5.0 \pm 6.9$ $36.8 \pm 16.5$ $45.2 \pm 111.3$ $0.561 \pm 0.002$ $0.300 \pm 0.002$ $0.322 \pm 0.002$ 2458975.72176 $15.0 \pm 7.9$ $17.5 \pm 18.9$ $54.5 \pm 113.7$ $0.557 \pm 0.002$ $0.296 \pm 0.002$ $0.326 \pm 0.002$ 2458976.71658 $2.2 \pm 7.4$ $39.3 \pm 17.8$ $-40.4 \pm 108.5$ $0.559 \pm 0.002$ $0.305 \pm 0.002$ $0.336 \pm 0.002$ 2458978.70378 $9.0 \pm 6.4$ $42.5 \pm 15.3$ $12.6 \pm 89.4$ $0.558 \pm 0.002$ $0.300 \pm 0.002$ $0.337 \pm 0.002$ 2458979.69504 $-5.9 \pm 6.4$ $-12.0 \pm 15.5$ $-54.6 \pm 118.5$ $0.561 \pm 0.002$ $0.299 \pm 0.002$ $0.333 \pm 0.002$ 2459001.64772 $-0.4 \pm 6.7$ $2.6 \pm 16.2$ $-85.6 \pm 45.3$ $0.553 \pm 0.002$ $0.294 \pm 0.002$ $0.316 \pm 0.002$ 2459002.67916 $-12.0 \pm 7.5$ $3.6 \pm 18.0$ $90.5 \pm 106.1$ $0.549 \pm 0.002$ $0.292 \pm 0.002$ $0.312 \pm 0.002$ 2459003.64601 $8.1 \pm 6.7$ $-5.4 \pm 16.1$ $65.3 \pm 73.3$ $0.555 \pm 0.002$ $0.293 \pm 0.002$ $0.313 \pm 0.002$ : HPF RVs used in this work along with the Differential Line Width (dLW), Chromatic Index (CRX), and the line indices for the three Ca II IRT triplet lines (Ca II IRT 1, 2 and 3), along with associated errors. \[tab:rvs\] [^1]: <https://tev.mit.edu/data/> [^2]: HET is a fixed-altitude telescope and can only observe a given target at certain times or ’tracks’. [^3]: Although the False Alarm Probability is a commonly used in periodogram analysis in radial velocity data it has known limitations [see e.g., discussion in @fischer2016]. [^4]: In general, from exoplanet masses and radii alone we can not discern between such solutions, as there are degeneracies in the composition models of small planets [see e.g., @adams2008; @zeng2019]. [^5]: We note here that imposing a mass constraint introduces an observational bias as lower mass planets are less likely to have good fractional mass precision. [^6]: The exact bounding values of the Venus-Zone are dependent on the effective temperature of the host star, see Figure 3 in [@kane2014]. We have focused here on the bounding values [@kane2014] report for M-dwarf systems.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
-1cm \ \ [Neutralino mass bounds at the upgraded LEP collider]{}\ \[3 ex\] [F. Franke[^1], S. Hesselbach[^2]\ \[2 ex\] Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Würzburg\ D-97074 Würzburg, Germany]{} [Abstract]{} Assuming that no supersymmetric signature will be found at the upgraded LEP collider we derive lower bounds on the masses of the four neutralinos $\tilde{\chi}_i^0$ in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). We consider the recently published results from the search for the light chargino $\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ and the next-to-lightest neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ at LEP1.5 and study the consequences of possible future lower $\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ mass limits between 65 and 95 GeV. For a chargino mass bound of 66.8 GeV at LEP1.5, a massless neutralino is not excluded for $\tan\beta<1.2$. If either $\tan\beta > 2.3$ or the gluino mass $m_{\tilde{g}}>160$ GeV, we find $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} > 28$ GeV. A possible chargino bound $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} > 95$ GeV at LEP2 would raise this bound to 31 GeV (for all $\tan\beta$) or 44 GeV ($\tan\beta > 2$). May 1996 Introduction ============ The upgrading of the LEP collider which has already started with an increase of the available center-of-mass energy from $\sqrt{s} \approx m_Z$ (LEP1) to 136 GeV (LEP1.5) and will continue up to $\sqrt{s}\approx 190$ GeV (LEP2) in 1997 opens fascinating opportunities for precision tests of the standard model (SM) as well as for detecting first signatures of new physics. It is widely acknowledged that supersymmetry (SUSY) [@susy] is the most likely theory beyond the SM. Therefore the search for supersymmetric particles plays a fundamental role at the present and future high-energy colliders and also in the program of the upgraded LEP [@lep2rep]. Until now, however, no direct evidence for SUSY has been found. Therefore the experiments at LEP and TEVATRON resulted in lower mass limits for SUSY particles. At the upgraded LEP, one expects either the spectacular identification of a SUSY particle or the lower mass bounds will increase. Under the assumption that the production of SUSY particles is kinematically allowed, there exist several channels for the detection of a supersymmetric signature. Among the most promising processes is the pair production of neutralinos or charginos, the mass eigenstates of the fermionic partners of the gauge and Higgs bosons. In the present paper we use the [Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model]{} (MSSM) [@mssm] as framework for the calculation of the neutralino mass reach to be probably covered at the upgraded LEP collider. In the MSSM one of the charged superpartners is expected to be the first SUSY particle to be detected or excluded up to a mass of $\sim\sqrt{s}/2$. Mainly the light chargino $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and a light scalar top quark $\tilde{t}_1$ are discussed to be the lightest visible supersymmetric particle [@lep2rep]. In order to estimate the chances for a supersymmetric signature one has to analyze carefully the possible decay channels. Due to R-parity conservation in the MSSM, all decay products contain the invisible lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is assumed to be the lightest neutralino $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. In the case of stop and chargino production, there are also charged quarks or leptons in the final state which could lead to a clear signature identifying or ruling out the respective SUSY particle. The production cross sections for stops [@bartlstops] and charginos [@bartlchar] and their branching ratios as a function of the supersymmetric parameters are well-known for LEP2 energies and form the theoretical basis for the experimental search at LEP. Therefore the first results of the LEP1.5 run with $\sqrt{s}=136$ GeV [@lep15; @delphi15; @aleph15; @l315; @opal15] all contain a discussion of the chargino search. Since no supersymmetric signature was found, the LEP collaborations have reported a lower limit on the mass of the light chargino $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} > 65$ GeV with some dependence on the chargino mixing, the sneutrino mass and the mass difference to the LSP. The DELPHI collaboration [@delphi15] has set a preliminary limit of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} > 66.8 \: \mbox{GeV}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} - m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} > 10$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} > 63.8 \: \mbox{GeV}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} - m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} = 5$ GeV and a sneutrino mass of 1 TeV, while ALEPH [@aleph15] found a lower mass bound of 67.8 GeV for gaugino-like charginos and the sneutrino heavier than 200 GeV, or 65 GeV for a higgsino-like chargino when the mass difference to the LSP is larger than 10 GeV. Finally OPAL [@opal15] derived lower chargino mass bounds between 60.7 (58.7) GeV for the smallest possible universal scalar mass $m_0$ and 65.4 (65.6) GeV for $m_0>1$ TeV and $\tan\beta=1.5\; (35)$, again with the mass difference condition $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} - m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} > 10$ GeV. Another candidate for the lightest visible supersymmetric particle is the second lightest neutralino $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ which can be identified by its decay into the LSP. The dominant decay channels, however, significantly depend on the neutralino mixing and vary within different regions of the parameter space [@ambrosanio]. With the results of the LEP1.5 run, the ALEPH and OPAL collaborations have set limits on the cross sections $\sigma (e^+e^- \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_1^0 \tilde{\chi}_2^0)$ as a function of the neutralino masses [@aleph15; @opal15]. For a higgsino-like $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_2^0}-m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} > 10$ GeV ALEPH found a lower mass bound for the second lightest neutralino of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_2^0} > 69 \: \mbox{GeV}$. The most detailed neutralino mass bounds at LEP1.5 are derived by the OPAL collaboration. Their $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ ($\tilde{\chi}_2^0$) bounds range from 12.0 (45.3) GeV for a minimal universal scalar mass $m_0$ and $\tan\beta=1.5$ to 35.2 (67.5) GeV for $m_0=1$ TeV and $\tan\beta=35$ with a mass difference between the two light neutralinos larger than 10 GeV. But also OPAL does not yet study precisely the dependence on $\tan\beta$. In this paper, however, we consider general neutralino mixing, scan over a wide theoretically acceptable parameter range and do not impose any restrictions on the mass difference to the LSP or mixing types. We mainly pursue two aims: First we want to analyze the lower mass bounds for all four neutralinos derived from the LEP1.5 results. Here, we also consider the effect of the TEVATRON constraints on the gluino mass bounding the SUSY parameter $M$. Second, we want to study the development of the bounds on the way to LEP2 if no neutralino or chargino is found. Therefore we consider possible future chargino mass bounds up to 95 GeV and also the consequences of such a bound for the second lightest neutralino. Similar studies for LEP1 were performed e.g. in [@roszkowski]. In our analysis we have to take into account that the masses and mixings of charginos [@bartlchar] and neutralinos [@bartlneu] are strongly correlated. Both mixing matrices depend on the same parameters, namely the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ gaugino masses $M'$ and $M$, which are connected by the usual GUT relation $M'/M=5/3\tan^2\theta_W$, the $\mu$ parameter in the superpotential and the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the Higgs doublets $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$. Therefore new chargino mass bounds also result in lower mass bounds for the neutralinos even without considering experimental constraints in the neutralino sector. In fact it turns out that the constraints from negative chargino search represent the by far stronger criterium for the exclusion of a parameter region. Only a small domain is additionally excluded by neutralino constraints. In view of the further increase of the LEP energy towards LEP2 we therefore study the consequences for the neutralino mass bounds as a function of the chargino bounds. In a second step we also include in our analysis possible new lower limits on the mass of the second lightest neutralino up to 95 GeV which may arise by the neutralino search at LEP2. Our results make it possible to determine neutralino mass bounds immediately when new chargino bounds are announced from a LEP run with increased energy. The paper begins with a short analysis of the parameter domain excluded by LEP1.5 in combination with the neutralino and chargino mass contour lines in the $(M, \mu)$ plane needed for the interpretation of the following figures. Then we present lower mass limits for the four neutralinos as a function of $\tan\beta$ and of prospective new mass bounds for the light chargino and the second lightest neutralino. Finally we explicitly give the neutralino mass limits for the cases of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} > 66.8$ GeV (LEP1.5) and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} > 95$ GeV (LEP2). All results are compared with the corresponding neutralino bounds from LEP1 [@lep1]. Parameter constraints ===================== In this paper, we start with the conservative LEP1.5 chargino bound of the DELPHI collaboration [@delphi15] $$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} \ge 66.8 \: \mbox{GeV} \label{charbound}$$ and discuss the case that this bound may be raised up to 95 GeV by LEP2. Furthermore we consider the neutralino constraints from LEP1 [@lep1] and LEP1.5 [@aleph15]. In particular, we use 1. the limit on the total $Z$ width $$\Delta \Gamma _Z \leq 23.1 \; \mbox{MeV}, \label{total}$$ where $$\Delta \Gamma _Z = \Gamma (Z \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^0_i \tilde{\chi}^0_j )+ \Gamma (Z \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^\pm_k \tilde{\chi}^\mp_l), \hspace{0.5cm} i,j =1,\ldots 4; \; k,l=1,2;$$ 2. the limit on the invisible $Z$ width $$\Delta \Gamma_{\mbox{inv}} \leq 8.4 \; \mbox{MeV}, \label{inv}$$ where $$\Delta \Gamma_{\mbox{inv}} = \Gamma (Z \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1);$$ 3. the limits from direct neutralino search at the $Z$-resonance $$\begin{aligned} BR (Z \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_j ) < 2 \times 10^{-5} & & \hspace{1cm} j=2,\ldots 4, \\ BR (Z \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^0_i \tilde{\chi}^0_j ) < 5 \times 10^{-5} & & \hspace{1cm} i,j=2,\ldots 4; \label{direct}\end{aligned}$$ 4. the limit on the cross section from direct neutralino search at LEP1.5 $$\begin{aligned} \sigma (e^+e^- \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2) < 5, \: 3, \: 1.8, \: 1.4 \; \mbox{pb} \label{sigma}\end{aligned}$$ as a function of the masses of the lightest and next-to-lightest neutralino as given in ref. [@aleph15]. In our calculations, we apply this limit to all neutralino pair production channels with at least one visible neutralino. In fact one has to take into account the results from both LEP1 and LEP1.5 since the LEP1.5 bounds of eqs. (\[charbound\]) and (\[sigma\]) do not totally cover the LEP1 constraints of eqs. (\[total\]) – (\[direct\]). We will discuss the excluded parameter space and the neutralino mass bounds in detail for the lowest possible value $\tan\beta=1$, a small value of $\tan\beta=2$ and a larger $\tan\beta=10$, but we will also analyze the dependence of the neutralino mass bounds on $\tan\beta$ with the LEP1.5 and the possible LEP2 results. Generally, the computed mass bounds do not significantly change for a further increased $\tan\beta>10$. With $\tan\beta = 1$ we explicitly want to study the light neutralino window which allowed massless neutralinos for $\tan\beta < 1.7$ at LEP1. The excluded parameter domain in the $(M,\mu)$ plane for $\tan\beta=1,2,10$ from the $Z$ width measurements and the direct neutralino and chargino search at LEP1 and LEP1.5 is shown in Fig. 1. For all our calculations of mass bounds in this paper we consider the SUSY parameter range $0<M<400$ GeV and $-500$ GeV $< \mu<500$ GeV of Fig. 1. The parameter regions that are excluded by the negative chargino search at LEP1.5 and that may be covered at LEP2 are marked by the contour lines for a chargino mass of 66.8 GeV and 95 GeV, respectively. The values of $\tan\beta$ in Fig. 1 represent the three different cases how this parameter domain is extended by direct neutralino searches at LEP1 and LEP1.5. For $\tan\beta = 1$ direct neutralino searches at both LEP energies lead to exclusively excluded parameter regions additionally to the chargino search (Fig. 1a). Nevertheless massless neutralinos remain allowed for small parameters $\|\mu\|$ and $M$. This light neutralino window depending on $\tan\beta$ will be discussed in Sec. 3. The situation is different for increasing $\tan\beta$ where for $\tan\beta = 2$ a small parameter region with small negative $\mu$ is excluded only by the direct neutralino search at LEP1, while the LEP1.5 limit of eq. (\[sigma\]) does not extend the parameter domain excluded by chargino search (Fig. 1b). For the large value $\tan\beta=10$ (Fig. 1c), the chargino bound alone determines the excluded parameter space, since it is stronger than the neutralino bounds from both LEP1 and LEP1.5 over the whole $(M,\mu)$ plane. Therefore one may use for the calculation of the lower neutralino mass bounds only the chargino bounds if $\tan\beta>2$, while for smaller $\tan\beta$ also the results from the direct neutralino search at LEP1 and LEP1.5 have to be included. A LEP2 chargino bound of 95 GeV, however, would definitely improve all parameter constraints from neutralino search at LEP1 and LEP1.5 for all values of $\tan\beta$. In the following section we will discuss the neutralino masses which are compatible with the allowed parameter domains. The contour lines for the mass of the lightest neutralino shown in Fig. 1 may help to explain the lower mass bound for the lightest neutralino. For LEP1.5 and thereafter, this bound is mainly determined by the chargino mass limit with the exceptions described above. Neutralino mass bounds ====================== In Fig. 2 the lower neutralino mass bounds are shown as a function of $\tan\beta$ for the new chargino bound $m_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1} > 66.8$ GeV of LEP1.5 (Fig. 2a) and for a prospective bound $m_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1} > 95$ GeV after LEP2 (Fig. 2b). Note that we do not consider any assumptions on the mixing type or on the mass difference between a visible neutralino and the LSP. Therefore our bound on $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ is significantly lower than the LEP1.5 bound published by ALEPH [@aleph15]. Generally, the experimental results from LEP1.5 raise the neutralino mass limits by 5 – 10 GeV compared to the bounds from LEP1 [@lep1]. But even LEP1.5 does not totally exclude a massless neutralino for small $\tan\beta < 1.2$, while it was allowed up to $\tan\beta <1.7$ at LEP1. One would need a lower chargino mass bound of about 78 GeV in order to rule out a massless neutralino at LEP for all $\tan\beta$. If no chargino will be found at LEP2, a lower bound $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} > 31$ GeV can be expected independently of $\tan\beta$. A lower bound on the gluino mass $m_{\tilde{g}}$, however, can raise these LEP1.5 neutralino bounds. The CDF gluino mass limits significantly depend on the squark mass [@cdf]. Assuming a heavy squark $m_{\tilde{q}}> 400$ GeV, the moderate bound $$m_{\tilde{g}}>160 \: \mbox{GeV}$$ restricts the parameter $M$ using the GUT relation $$M=\frac{\alpha_2}{\alpha_3} \: m_{\tilde{g}} \approx 0.3 \: m_{\tilde{g}},$$ where $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_3$ are the gauge coupling constants of the $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ gauge groups, respectively. We show in Fig. 2a also the lower neutralino mass bounds taking into account this restriction $$M>50 \: \mbox{GeV}.$$ In this case there exists a lower neutralino mass bound of 28 GeV for all values of $\tan\beta$, a massless neutralino can be ruled out. Generally, the LEP1.5 mass bounds for all four neutralinos are raised compared to LEP1 for small $\tan\beta$ with this gluino mass limit, while it has no effect for $\tan\beta>2.5$. In order to have also any influence on the prospective neutralino bounds at LEP2, a gluino mass limit of at least 300 GeV is necessary (see Fig. 1). Therefore we do not discuss such a limit in Fig. 2b but study in Figs. 2b and 3 the impact of an experimental lower bound for the lightest visible neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ of the same size as the chargino bound. This $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ bound serves as a rough estimate for the possible results from direct neutralino search at LEP2 which cannot yet be determined in detail. Just with the chargino limit $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}>95$ GeV (solid lines), the lightest visible neutralino $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ is heavier than 54 GeV ($\tan\beta=1$) or 95 GeV ($\tan\beta=10$). Now by supposition this bound on $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ is always 95 GeV in Fig. 2b (dashed lines). Then the mass bound on $\tilde{\chi}_4^0$ is significantly higher for small $\tan\beta < 8$ by as much as 25 GeV. The bounds on $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_3^0$ are raised by about 3 – 5 GeV only for small $\tan\beta < 1.5$, for larger $\tan\beta$ they remain practically unaffected by the additional $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ bound. Now we give an outlook on the possible increase of the neutralino mass limits when new chargino mass bounds and additional bounds on the lightest visible neutralino arise during the further upgrading of LEP. In Fig. 3 the neutralino bounds are depicted as a function of the chargino limit for the two values $\tan\beta=2,10$. For $\tan\beta=2$ the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ ($\tilde{\chi}_2^0$) mass limit increases from 25 (48) GeV with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} > 65$ GeV to 44 (77) GeV with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm} > 95$ GeV. Larger values of $\tan\beta$ lead to a further increase of the lower mass limits between 8 GeV for the lightest neutralino and 60 GeV for $\tilde{\chi}_4^0$. The dashed lines in Fig. 3 show the lower limits on the masses of $\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,3,4}$ if additionally to a lower chargino mass bound also the same mass limit for the lightest visible neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ is derived by direct neutralino search. Here for small $\tan\beta$ a similar increase of the $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_4^0$ bounds occurs as already discussed in Fig. 2, while the other neutralino mass bounds for $\tan\beta=2$ and all bounds for $\tan\beta=10$ remain nearly unaffected. Thus for large values of $\tan\beta$ it is the chargino mass limit alone that determines the lower neutralino mass limits at LEP2. The neutralino bounds of Figs. 2 and 3 are summarized in Table 1 which can easily be compared with the results of LEP1 (for the most recent analysis of the LEP1 data see Table 3 in [@lep1], earlier results can be found in [@lep1old]). Except for the heaviest neutralino, there is a significant raise of the lower neutralino mass limits for $\tan\beta>1.2$. Already now after LEP1.5 the lightest neutralino $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ must be heavier than 25 GeV compared to 20 GeV after LEP1 if $\tan\beta>2$. If LEP2 sets a lower chargino mass bound of 95 GeV, the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass is larger than at least 31 GeV (all $\tan\beta$) or 44 GeV ($\tan\beta>2$) and a massless neutralino is excluded. Experimental results from direct neutralino search at LEP2 may further improve these bounds. Including the CDF bound on the gluino mass $m_{\tilde{g}}>160$ GeV, we obtain with the LEP1.5 results lower mass bounds of 28 and 35 GeV for the lightest and next-to-lightest neutralino, respectively, independently of the value for $\tan\beta$. Conclusion ========== We have derived lower limits on the masses of the four neutralinos if the experiments at the upgraded LEP collider yield new chargino mass bounds between 65 and 95 GeV. The preliminary limit $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}>66.8$ GeV announced by the LEP collaborations does not yet exclude massless neutralinos for $\tan\beta<1.2$. A future chargino mass bound $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}>78$ GeV, however, would definitely rule out the existence of massless neutralinos for all values of $\tan\beta$. For $\tan\beta>2$, the lower limit on the mass of the lightest neutralino is found to be 25 GeV for the new LEP1.5 chargino mass limit. With the additional constraint on the gluino mass $m_{\tilde{g}}>160$ GeV ($M>50$ GeV) suggested by the TEVATRON results this bound is raised to $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} > 28$ GeV for all values of $\tan\beta$. If no chargino is discovered at LEP2 and a chargino mass bound $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}>95$ GeV is established, one gets lower $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ ($\tilde{\chi}^0_2$) limits of 31 (54) GeV for all values of $\tan\beta$. Therefore LEP2 will definitely find or exclude massless neutralinos in the MSSM, which are still allowed after LEP1.5 if the gaugino mass parameter $M$ is not constrained. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We would like to thank H. Fraas and A. Bartl for the careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under contract no. FR 1064/2-1. [99]{} Y.A. Gol’fand and E.P Likhtman, JETP Lett. [13]{} (1971) 323;\ D.V. Volkov and V.P. Akulov, Phys. Lett. [B 46]{} (1973) 109;\ J. Wess and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. [B 70]{} (1974) 39; Phys. Lett. [B 49]{} (1974) 52; Nucl. Phys. [B 78]{} (1974) 1 G.F. Giudice et al., in “Physics at LEP2”, eds. G. Altarelli, T. Sjöstrand and F. Zwirner, CERN 96-01, p. 463 H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, Phys. Rep. [117]{} (1985) 75 A. Bartl, H. Eberl, S. Kraml, M. Majerotto and W. Porod, UWThPh-1996-18, HEPHY-PUB 642/96, hep-ph/9603410, to appear in Z. Phys. C A. Bartl, H. Fraas, W. Majerotto and B. Mösslacher, Z. Phys. [C 55]{} (1992) 257 L. Rolandi, H. Dijkstra, D. Strickland and G. Wilson, representing the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL collaborations, Joint Seminar on the First Results from LEP1.5, CERN, December 12th, 1995 DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Phys. Lett. [B 382]{} (1996) 323 ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic et al., Phys. Lett. [B 373]{} (1996) 246 L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al., Phys. Lett. [B 377]{} (1996) 289 OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander et al., Phys. Lett. [B 377]{} (1996) 181 S. Ambrosanio and B. Mele, Phys. Rev. [D 52]{} (1995) 3900; [D 53]{} (1996) 2541 L. Roszkowski, Phys. Lett. [B 252]{} (1990) 471;\ M. Drees and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. [D 43]{} (1991) 2971;\ H. Baer, X. Tata and J. Woodside, Phys. Rev. [D 44]{} (1991) 207;\ K. Hidaka, Phys. Rev. [D 44]{} (1991) 927 A. Bartl, H. Fraas, W. Majerotto and N. Oshimo, Phys. Rev. [D 40]{} (1989) 1594 L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al., Phys. Lett. [B 350]{} (1995) 109 CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [76]{} (1996) 2006 ALEPH Collaboration, D. Decamp et al., Phys. Lett. [B 244]{} (1990) 541; Phys. Rep. [216]{} (1992) 253;\ DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Phys. Lett. [B 247]{} (1990) 157;\ OPAL Collaboration, M.Z. Akrawy et al., Phys. Lett. [B 248*]{} (1990) 211 ------------ -------------------- ------ ------------------------- ------ ----------------- Chargino Neutralino $m_{\tilde{g}}>160$ GeV mass bound $>1$ $>2$ $>3$ all $\tan\beta$ 66.8 $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ 0 25 31 28 $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ 0 48 54 35 $\tilde{\chi}^0_3$ 75 84 89 83 $\tilde{\chi}^0_4$ 91 115 128 106 95 $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ 31 44 46 31 $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ 54 77 86 54 $\tilde{\chi}^0_3$ 99 109 113 99 $\tilde{\chi}^0_4$ 106 137 159 106 ------------ -------------------- ------ ------------------------- ------ ----------------- : Lower neutralino mass limits for two lower chargino mass bounds in GeV. (10.5,10.5) (1.5,9.4)[(a)]{} (8.3,9.4)[$\tan\beta=1$]{} (-0.9,-3.1) (5.2,0)[$\mu/$GeV]{} (0,4.7) $M/$GeV (1.35,5.85)[$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}/$GeV]{} (1.35,1.77)[20]{} (1.35,3.08)[50]{} (1.35,5.33)[100]{} (8.9,6.15)[$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}/$GeV]{} (9.7,2.78)[66.8]{} (9.9,3.47)[95]{} Figure 1a: Contour lines for the mass of the lightest neutralino (dashed; 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 GeV) and chargino (solid; 66.8 and 95 GeV) and the excluded parameter space from LEP1 (dark: $Z$ width measurements, gray: direct neutralino search) and LEP1.5 (bright shaded) in the ($M,\mu$) plane for $\tan\beta=1$. (10.5,10.5) (1.5,9.4)[(b)]{} (8.3,9.4)[$\tan\beta=2$]{} (-0.9,-3.1) (5.2,0)[$\mu/$GeV]{} (0,4.7) $M/$GeV (1.35,5.9)[$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}/$GeV]{} (1.35,1.77 )[20]{} (1.35,3.1)[50]{} (1.35,5.35)[100]{} (8.9,6.05)[$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}/$GeV]{} (9.7,2.71)[66.8]{} (9.9,3.4)[95]{} Figure 1b: Contour lines for the mass of the lightest neutralino (dashed; 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 GeV) and chargino (solid; 66.8 and 95 GeV) and the excluded parameter space from LEP1 (dark: $Z$ width measurements, gray: direct neutralino search) and LEP1.5 (bright shaded) in the ($M,\mu$) plane for $\tan\beta=2$. (10.5,10.5) (1.5,9.4)[(c)]{} (8.3,9.4)[$\tan\beta=10$]{} (-0.9,-3.1) (5.2,0)[$\mu/$GeV]{} (0,4.7) $M/$GeV (1.35,6)[$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}/$GeV]{} (1.35,1.95)[20]{} (1.35,3.2)[50]{} (1.35,5.45)[100]{} (8.9,5.9)[$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}/$GeV]{} (9.7,2.55)[66.8]{} (9.9,3.25)[95]{} Figure 1c: Contour lines for the mass of the lightest neutralino (dashed; 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 GeV) and chargino (solid; 66.8 and 95 GeV) and the excluded parameter space from LEP1 (dark: $Z$ width measurements, gray: direct neutralino search) and LEP1.5 (bright shaded) in the ($M,\mu$) plane for $\tan\beta=10$. (14,17.8) (-1.4,2.6) (1.8,16.9)[(a)]{} (10.0,10.4)[$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}>66.8$ GeV]{} (7.0,9.4)[$\tan\beta$]{} (0,11.1) Neutralino mass bounds \[GeV\] (-1.4,-6.8) (1.8,7.5)[(b)]{} (10.0,1.0)[$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}>95$ GeV]{} (7.0,0)[$\tan\beta$]{} (0,1.7) Neutralino mass bounds \[GeV\] (14,17.8) (-1.4,2.6) (1.8,16.9)[(a)]{} (11.3,10.5)[$\tan\beta=2$]{} (4.9,9.3)[Chargino mass bound \[GeV\]]{} (0,11.1) Neutralino mass bounds \[GeV\] (-1.4,-6.8) (1.8,7.5)[(b)]{} (11.3,1.1)[$\tan\beta=10$]{} (4.9,-0.1)[Chargino mass bound \[GeV\]]{} (0,1.7) Neutralino mass bounds \[GeV\] [^1]: email: [email protected] [^2]: email: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Chirality plays an important role in physics, chemistry, biology, and other fields. It describes an essential symmetry in structure. However, chirality invariants are usually complicated in expression or difficult to evaluate. In this paper, we present five general three-dimensional chirality invariants based on the generating functions. And the five chiral invariants have four characteristics:(1) They play an important role in the detection of symmetry, especially in the treatment of “false zero” problem. (2) Three of the five chiral invariants decode an universal chirality index. (3) Three of them are proposed for the first time. (4) The five chiral invariants have low order $(\leq4)$, brief expression, low time complexity $(O(n))$ and can act as descriptors of three-dimensional objects in shape analysis. The five chiral invariants give a geometric view to study the chiral invariants. And the experiments show that the five chirality invariants are effective and efficient, they can be used as a tool for symmetry detection or features in shape analysis.' author: - bibliography: - 'interacttfosample.bib' title: Fast and Efficient Calculations of Structural Invariants of Chirality --- Chirality; invariant; moment; symmetry detection; shape analysis Introduction ============ Reflection and rotation are two kinds of generally symmetry, which consists in many fields, such as physics, chemistry, biology, art and so on. The reflection symmetry means that the object is divided by a plane or a line into two parts, and one part is the mirror image of another. The rotation symmetry means that the object coincides with itself after rotation. However, most objects in the world do not have the features above. Chirality is a concept which is used to express the geometric property of an object, it indicates that an object could not be superimposed on its mirror image by translation, scaling and rotation operation. Otherwise, the object is achiral [@ruch1977chiral]. The chiral object and its mirror image are called enantiomorph. It is natural for us to think about how to determine if an object is chiral with an efficient and simple method. Obviously, it is essential to find some metrical expressions that could be used to give a label to the object, for example, achiral or chiral. Furthermore, it is very important for us to discriminate the enantiomorph if the object is not achiral, because the function of the chiral object and its mirror object maybe different even opposite. For example, molecules in chemistry are divided into two types, achiral or chiral, and the handedness of chiral object could be measured with prescriptive resolutions. Actually there are many different methods to measure the chirality in different disciplines [@buda1992quantifying; @petitjean2003chirality]. An intuitionistic thinking is to compare the two objects and quantify if they are enantiomorph. However, this kind of way ignores the fact that it is usually complex to find the mirror plane which is indispensable in the process of comparison. It makes the problem hard because this kind of way needs us to seek out all possible mirror plane in advance, which is generally time-consuming when the scale of objects is large. This could be understood as that finding out all solutions is usually harder than confirming a solution. It is usually complex and time-consuming to discriminate chirality although many different ideas have been reported, such as searching possible reflective symmetry plane [@podolak2006planar], using general moment [@martinet2006accurate] and some other methods [@shen1999symmetry; @hel1991characterization; @loy2006detecting; @mitra2006partial; @xu2009partial; @sun19973d]. And the idea of solving spherical harmonic expression [@martinet2006accurate] makes an improvement in three-dimensional situations. The concept of geometric invariant cores was proposed in [@xu2008geometric], the construction method could be valid in any degree and any order. Recently, two generating functions, which could re-express the moment invariants and give us a geometric view to consider the inner structure in shape analysis, were shown in [@li2017shape]. Furthermore, the study of chiral moment invariant of three-dimensional objects [@osipov1995new; @hattne2011moment; @li2017reflection] gives us another way to judge the chirality of objects. Osipov et al. gave the expression of universal chirality index $G_{0}$ in [@osipov1995new] with the integration of four points, and the complexity of $G_{0}$ is $O(n^4)$. By choosing $a=0$, $b=-2$, a chiral invariant (CI) was given in [@hattne2011moment] with the complexity is $O(n)$. In order to simplify the expression $G_{0}$ and then find more essential expressions in particular case, and find out more chiral invariants that are fast and efficient in practice, we decode three chiral invariants from the expression $G_{0}$ and find two other chiral invariants, inspired by the generating functions in [@li2017shape] and the propositions in [@li2017reflection]. In this paper, we will show five chiral invariants, whose degree and order are no more than 4, with the complexity is $O(n)$. The experiments show that the five chiral invariants are efficient in the discrimination of chirality in three-dimensional situations. Low order moment chiral invariants ================================== 3-D Moments ----------- Given the density function $\rho(x,y,z)$ of the 3-D object and the order $l+m+n$, the Riemann integral expression defines the 3-D moments as below. $$M_{lmn}=\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }{x^{l}y^{m}z^{n}\rho(x,y,z)dxdydz}.$$ The moments of all order, which are determined by $\rho(x,y,z)$, exist if the density function is bounded and piecewisely continuous in a finite region of 3-D Euclidean space [@sadjadi1980three]. The centroid of the 3-D object could be determined by the zeroth and first-order moments as below. $$\overline{x}=\frac{M_{100}}{M_{000}},\overline{y}=\frac{M_{010}}{M_{000}},\overline{z}=\frac{M_{001}}{M_{000}}.$$ The definition of central moments is $$\mu_{lmn}=\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }{(x-\overline{x})^{l}(y-\overline{y})^{m}(z-\overline{z})^{n}\rho(x,y,z)dxdydz}.$$ The central moments are invariants under the translation operation. Assuming that the centroid of the 3-D object has been moved to the origin of 3-D Euclid space and the object is scaled with $\lambda$, the expressions of central moments of the scaled object and the original object satisfy: $$\mu_{lmn}^{'}=\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }{x^{l}y^{m}z^{n}\rho(\frac{x}{\lambda},\frac{y}{\lambda},\frac{z}{\lambda})dxdydz}=\lambda^{l+m+n+3}\mu_{lmn}.$$ Furthermore, dividing the central moments by the $\mu_{000}$ with designated order when the calculations of the central moments finish, the result we get would be invariable under uniform scaling for 3-D objects [@lo19893], it is $$\eta_{lmn}=\frac{\mu_{lmn}}{\mu_{000}^{1+(l+m+n)/3}}.$$ Now we know that the expression (5) is an invariant under translation and uniform scaling. It maybe natural for us to think about what is the form of moment invariant under the rotation which is an important part in similarity transformation, but we will skip this step and take the form of chiral invariant into consideration directly, since we could choose the mirror plane in any direction. 3-D Invariants and Generating functions --------------------------------------- Four invariant geometric primitives for invariants under translation and rotation in 3-D Euclidean space were proposed in [@xu2008geometric], they are the distance $D(i,j)$, the area $A(i,j,k)$, the dot product $D_{p}(i,j,k)$ and the signed volume $V(i,j,k,l)$. The dot-product function $f(i,j)$ and the cross-product function $g(i,j,k)$ were shown in [@li2017shape] as the generating functions in 3-D Euclidean space. The expressions of them are $$f(i,j)=(x_{i},y_{i},z_{i})\cdot(x_{j},y_{j},z_{j})=x_{i}x_{j}+y_{i}y_{j}+z_{i}z_{j},$$ $$\begin{aligned} g(i,j,k)=\left\|\begin{array}{cccc} x_{i}&y_{i}&z_{i}\\ x_{j}&y_{j}&z_{j}\\ x_{k}&y_{k}&z_{k} \end{array}\right\|=&x_{i}y_{j}z_{k}+x_{j}y_{k}z_{i}+x_{k}y_{i}z_{j}\\&-x_{i}y_{k}z_{j}-x_{j}y_{i}z_{k}-x_{k}y_{j}z_{i}, \end{aligned}$$ where (6) is the dot-product of two vectors and (7) is the determinant of matrix which constructed by three vectors. By combining different (6) and (7) and choosing multiple integrals carefully, we could get the moment invariants with their expression are the multiple integrals of the multiplication of generating functions. And the composite expressions of (6) and (7) is called the primitive invariants (PIs). For example, the expressions of invariants proposed in [@sadjadi1980three] are as follows. $$\begin{aligned} J_{1}&=\mu_{200}+\mu_{020}+\mu_{002}\\ J_{2}&=\mu_{200}\mu_{020}\mu_{002}+2\mu_{110}\mu_{101}\mu_{011}-\mu_{011}^{2}\mu_{200}-\mu_{110}^{2}\mu_{002}--\mu_{101}^{2}\mu_{020}\\ J_{3}&=\mu_{020}\mu_{002}-\mu_{011}^{2}+\mu_{200}\mu_{002}-\mu_{101}^{2}+\mu_{200}\mu_{020}-\mu_{110}^{2} \end{aligned}$$ The relationship between the expressions and the generating functions of 3-D Euclidean space are shown as bellows. $$\begin{aligned} J_{1}&\Leftrightarrow f(1,1)\\ J_{2}&\Leftrightarrow g(1,2,3)^2\\ J_{3}&\Leftrightarrow f(1,1)f(2,2)-f(1,2)^2 \end{aligned}$$ Assuming that the centroid of the 3-D object has been moved to the origin of 3-D Euclidean space and taking $J_{1}$ for instance, the first expression in (9) means that $$\begin{aligned} &\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }f(1,1)\rho(x,y,z)dxdydz\\ =&\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }(x_{1}x_{1}+y_{1}y_{1}+z_{1}z_{1})\rho(x,y,z)dxdydz\\ =&\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }x_{1}^{2}\rho(x,y,z)dxdydz+\\ &\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }y_{1}^{2}\rho(x,y,z)dxdydz+\\ &\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }\int_{ - \infty }^{ + \infty }z_{1}^{2}\rho(x,y,z)dxdydz\\ =&\mu_{200}+\mu_{020}+\mu_{002}\\ =&J_{1}. \end{aligned}$$ Chiral Invariants ----------------- The expression of universal chirality index $G_{0}$, which is the integration of four points, was given by Osipov et al. in [@osipov1995new], and the complexity of $G_{0}$ is $O(n^4)$. The expression of $G_{0}$ is as bellows. $$G_{0}=\int\frac{(\mathbf r_{12}\times \mathbf r_{34}\cdot \mathbf r_{14})(\mathbf r_{12}\cdot \mathbf r_{23})(\mathbf r_{23}\cdot \mathbf r_{34})}{(r_{12}r_{23}r_{34})^{a}r_{14}^{b}}\rho(r_{1})\rho(r_{2})\rho(r_{3})\rho(r_{4})dr_{1}dr_{2}dr_{3}dr_{4}$$ And $\mathbf r_{1}$, $\mathbf r_{2}$, $\mathbf r_{3}$ and $\mathbf r_{4}$ are four points in 3-D Euclid space, $\mathbf r_{ij}=\mathbf r_{i}-\mathbf r_{j}$, $r_{ij}=\Arrowvert \mathbf r_{ij}\Arrowvert$, $a$ and $b$ are arbitrary integers. Actually there are many different choices of $a$ and $b$, and different choices lead to different results. For example, $G_{0}$ would be a scale invariant by choosing $a=2$ and $b=1$ [@osipov1995new], and the expression would be zero if chose $a=0$ and $b=0$. Hattne and Lamzin showed a chiral invariant in [@hattne2011moment] by choosing $a=0$, $b=-2$ in $G_{0}$, and the complexity of the chiral invariant is $O(n)$. The choice of $a$ and $b$ in [@hattne2011moment] could be considered as a balance between computational efficiency and robustness. With choosing $a=0$ and $b=-2$, we expand the expression $$\frac{(\mathbf r_{12}\times \mathbf r_{34}\cdot \mathbf r_{14})(\mathbf r_{12}\cdot \mathbf r_{23})(\mathbf r_{23}\cdot \mathbf r_{34})}{(r_{12}r_{23}r_{34})^{a}r_{14}^{b}}.$$ The result is a combination of 192 monomials, each of which is composed by 3 $f(i,j)$s and 1 $g(i,j,k)$. We convert the 192 monomials into the expressions that composed by $\mu_{lmn}$, just like the process in (10), the result shows that some of them are equal to zero and some of them are equal or opposite to other monomials. Moreover, some of them contain the $\mu_{lmn}$ which is zero in the context of central moments. We remove the monomials with the above characteristics from the 192 monomials, and get three chiral invariants. The expressions of them are listed as below. $$S_{1}=f(1,1)f(1,2)f(2,3)g(1,2,3)$$ $$S_{2}=f(1,1)f(1,2)f(3,3)g(1,2,3)$$ $$S_{3}=f(1,2)f(1,3)f(2,4)g(1,3,4)$$ After adjusting the order of the points, we find (13) is opposite to the first chiral invariant proposed in [@li2017reflection], and (14) is equal to the second chiral invariant in [@li2017reflection]. The analysis about the structure of the chiral invariants was proposed in [@li2017reflection], it gives the guiding principle about how to construct a new chiral invariant. Moreover, the comparison in [@xu2008geometric] shown that the moment invariants of lower orders or lower degrees are more stable than the moment invariants of higher orders or higher degrees, and the former is usually more time-saving than the later as a result of the multinomials of the later are more complicated and the size are bigger. Therefore, we find two another chiral invariants with the order and the degree of them are no more than four. The expressions of them are listed as below. $$S_{4}=f(1,1)f(2,3)^{2}g(1,2,3)$$ $$S_{5}=f(1,2)g(1,2,3)g(1,3,4)^{2}$$ The fully expanded expressions of $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$, $S_{5}$ are given in appendix A. Analysis of the five chiral invariants -------------------------------------- ### Structure of the five chiral invariants The total number of points that participate in the integral is called as the degree of the invariant, and the highest occurrence number of the points is called the order of the invariant. Apart from the degree and the order, the number of generating functions $f(i,j)$ and $g(i,j,k)$ that compose the invariant are the important property of the moment invariant. A necessary and sufficient condition for a chiral invariant was given in [@li2017reflection], it is obviously that (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) are five chiral invariants with their degree and order are no more than four. The values of relative parameters mentioned above are listed in Table 1. \[table\] ### Functional Independent We could use the five chiral invariants to describe the shape of 3-D objects when they are functional independent of each other, which is considered as a more rigid requirement than linear independent. A technique about how to determine the functional independent of a group of functions was proposed by Brown et al. in [@brown1935functional]. It could be described as below. Assuming that there are a group of functions $f_{j}(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n})$, and $j=1,\ldots,m$, $x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}$ are the variables. And we could deduce a $m\times n$ matrix $\mathbf J$ which is the Jacobian matrix of this group of functions. So this group of functions are functional independent if and only if the rank of the Jacobian matrix $\mathbf J$ is $m$. Based on the technique mentioned above, we verified that the set of (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) is independent with the help of Maple software. ### Computation Complexity The computation complexity of expression $G_{0}$ given by Osipov et al. [@osipov1995new] is $O(n^4)$. By choosing $a=0$, $b=-2$, the complexity of the CI [@hattne2011moment] is $O(n)$. The complexity of the five chiral invariants shown in (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) is $O(n)$, too. The comparison of CI and the five chiral invariants is shown in Table 2. \[table\] ### “False Zero" Problem and Sign The “false zero” problem is a typical problem[@fowler2005quantification], it means that the value of chiral invariants would be 0 even if the object is chiral and Fowler gave an example in [@fowler2005quantification]. The five chiral invariants can not solve this problem. However, [@li2017reflection] gave a technique to detect the potential planes of symmetry of an object and then to judge if the two parts divided by the plane are mirrored. The technique is effective and the five chiral invariants are helpful in the verification part. In the practice, the sign of the five chiral invariants could be modified with multiplying by -1, if the user has chosen a calibrated object. We can use the calibrated model to define the correct sign to normalize them. As well known that the concept of “left" or “right" is only relative, there is no absolute, clear standard of it. Some “physical" or “empirical" methods are definitely needed. Experimental Results ==================== Biphenyl -------- ![The structure of the biphenyl molecule. The arrow indicates the rotation direction of the right benzene ring alone the C-C bond which links the left benzene and the right benzene.[]{data-label="figure"}](Biphenyl.jpg) Biphenyl is a typical achiral molecule (Figure 1). When the right benzene ring is rotated alone the C-C bond which links the left benzene and the right benzene, the chirality of the structure is determined by the angle of rotation. We get the structure data from the PubChem database of NIH [@pcd7095], and calculate the values of the five chiral invariants and CI (Figure 2). The result shows that the values of the five chiral invariants and CI are zero at $\theta=0^{\circ}$, $\theta=90^{\circ}$ and $\theta=180^{\circ}$. The curves of $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ perform sinusoidal (differ by at most a negative sign) like the curve of CI with getting their highest absolute values at $\theta=45^{\circ}$, $\theta=135^{\circ}$. The curve of $S_{5}$ is a little different to others and it gets highest absolute values at $\theta=60^{\circ}$ and $\theta=120^{\circ}$. ![The curve of the values of the five chiral invariants and CI at different angle of rotation on Biphenyl. And (a) is the curve of $S_{1}$, (b) is the curve of $S_{2}$, (c) is the curve of $S_{3}$, (d) is the curve of $S_{4}$, (e) is the curve of $S_{5}$, (f) is the curve of CI. The signs of $S_{1}$ and $S_{3}$ are modified with -1 for a better comparison with CI.[]{data-label="figure"}](S5_CI.jpg) When adding different degrees of normal noise to the structure data of biphenyl, the experiments show that $S_{1}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ are robust to normal noise scaled with $10^{-1}$ like CI, $S_{5}$ is robust to normal noise scaled with $10^{-2}$ and $S_{2}$ is robust to normal noise scaled with $10^{-6}$. The curves of the five chiral invariants and CI with adding normal noise to the structure data are shown in Figure 3. ![The red curves are the values of the five chiral invariants and CI at different angle of rotation on Biphenyl, and the blue curves are the values of them when adding different degrees of normal noise to the structure data of biphenyl. And the blue curves in (a) (c) (d) (f) are the values of $S_{1}$, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$, CI with adding normal noise scaled with $10^{-1}$ to the structure data, the blue curve in (e) is the value of $S_{5}$ with adding normal noise scaled with $10^{-2}$ to the structure data, the blue curve in (b) is the value of $S_{2}$ with adding normal noise scaled with $10^{-6}$ to the structure data.[]{data-label="figure"}](S5_CI_noise.jpg) Platonic Objects ---------------- We choose the Platonic Objects, which are obviously achiral, to verify if the five chiral invariants are valid in the symmetry detection. We use the Wolfram Mathematica 11 to get the vertex-coordinates of the Tetrahedron, Cube, Octahedron, Dodecahedron and Icosahedron and then calculate the values of the five chiral invariants and CI. The result is shown in Table 3. \[table\] \[table\] ![The result after operations mentioned above on the horse model. The red horse is the original voxel model, the green horse is the voxel model experiences the translation, rotation and mirror operation after the horse model is scaled with $1.5$. The figure is just like the big green horse is turning her head to right to look back to the little red horse, the red horse is turning her head to the left to look forward to the big green horse.[]{data-label="figure"}](horse.jpg) Horse Model ----------- The horse model is a typical chiral object. We use the method in [@karabassi1999fast] to get the voxel data on the horse model in different scales with the step=$0.05$. The experiments show that the absolute values of the five chiral invariants almost do not change in translation, rotation and mirror operation and change slightly in scale operation. And the sign of the values only change in mirror operation. The way to evaluate relative error is $$e_{i}=\frac{\vert S_{i}\vert - \vert S_{i}^{'}\vert}{\vert S_{i}\vert + \vert S_{i}^{'}\vert}\times 100\%.$$ Where $e_{i}$ is the relative error, $S_{i}$ is the value of the chiral invariants, $S_{i}^{'}$ is the value of the same chiral invariants after relative operation, $\vert\ \ \vert$ means getting the absolute value. For example, we set translation vector $=(0.1, 0.3, 0.05)$, rotation vector $= (0, 0, 135)$, mirror vector $= (0, 1, 0)$. These vectors mean that the scaled model is translated with $(0.1, 0.3, 0.05)$, rotated $135$ degrees around the $z$ axis and mirrored with the normal vector of the mirror plane is $(0, 1, 0)$. The values of the relative error on the five chiral invariants are shown in Table 4. The result after the operations on horse model which is scaled with $1.5$ is shown in Figure 4. “False Zero" Object ------------------- In order to show the availability of the five chiral invariants in the task of symmetry detection, we conducted the following experiments. Firstly, we construct a simple 3-D object with the values of the five chiral invariants are 0. We fix the four points (-1,0,0), (1,-2,0), (1,2,0), (-1,2,0), and they located on the bottom of the 3-D object. The fifth point move from (-20,1,1) to (20,1,1) with the step length is 0.05, the density of these five points is (1,1,2,1,1). The process is shown in figure 5. The values of the five chiral invariants in above process are shown in figure 6, the result shows that the values of the five chiral invariants and CI experience the process from positive to negative, and they are 0 when the offset in about \[222,571\]. We choose offset=405 as an example, and the position of the fifth point is (0.3,1,1). The 3-D object is shown in figure 7-(a). Secondly, we use the technique proposed in [@li2017reflection] to show that the five chiral invariants are helpful in the verification part. We set k=4 in $M^{k}(\varphi,\theta)$, and then get potential symmetry planes of the object, and the normals of them are shown in table 5. The figure 7-(b) shows the object and a potential symmetry plane with the No.7 normal in table 5. The plane divide the 3-D object into two parts, the upper object and the lower object. Then we calculate the values of the five chiral invariants, and the result is shown in table 6. The result shows that the two parts are not enantiomorph. After verifying all potential symmetry planes, we get the conclusion that the zeros are false. Moreover, we get the same conclusion at other offset values. This is an example about the application of the five chiral invariants in the task of symmetry detection. ![The construction process of chiral object with the values of the five chiral invariants are 0.[]{data-label="figure"}](FalseZeroObjectMove.jpg) ![The values of the five chiral invariants in the construction process. The signs of $S_{1}$, $S_{3}$ and $S_{4}$ are motified with -1 in order to clearly show the changing process.[]{data-label="figure"}](FalseZeroOf6CI.jpg) ![The left figure (a) is the “False Zero" chiral object, the right figure (b) is the “False Zero" chiral object and a potential symmetry.[]{data-label="figure"}](FalseZeroObject.jpg) \[table\] \[table\] Conclusion ========== We have shown that the universal chirality index $G_{0}$ in specified circumstance could be decoded into more essential expressions $S_{1}$, $S_{2}$ and $S_{3}$. As the expressions proposed for the first time, $S_{3}$, $S_{4}$ and $S_{5}$ perform as well as $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$. The five chiral invariants have brief expression with low order $(\leq4)$ and low time complexity $(O(n))$. With regard to a three-dimensional chiral object $A$ and its mirror counterpart $A^{'}$, the signs of the same chirality invariant will be opposite and the absolute values of the same chirality invariant will be equal. And we have shown they play an important role in the detection of symmetry, especially in the treatment of “false zero" problem. The five chirality invariants are effective and efficient in experiments. They give a geometric view to study the chiral invariants and could be used as a group of descriptors in the task of shape analysis. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== This work was partly funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.60573154, 61227802 and 61379082). The expressions of the five chiral invariants ============================================= $$\begin{aligned} S_{1}=&\ \ \ \eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{103}+\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{121}+\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{301}-\eta_{002}\eta_{013}\eta_{102}+\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{112} \\&+\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{130}+\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{310}-\eta_{002}\eta_{022}\eta_{111}-\eta_{002}\eta_{031}\eta_{102}-\eta_{002}\eta_{040}\eta_{111} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{102}\eta_{211}+\eta_{002}\eta_{111}\eta_{202}+\eta_{002}\eta_{111}\eta_{400}-\eta_{002}\eta_{112}\eta_{201}-\eta_{002}\eta_{130}\eta_{201} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{201}\eta_{310}-\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{103}-\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{121}-\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{301}+\eta_{003}\eta_{013}\eta_{101} \\&+\eta_{003}\eta_{031}\eta_{101}+\eta_{003}\eta_{101}\eta_{211}+\eta_{004}\eta_{011}\eta_{102}-\eta_{004}\eta_{012}\eta_{101}+\eta_{004}\eta_{020}\eta_{111} \\&-\eta_{004}\eta_{021}\eta_{110}+\eta_{004}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}-\eta_{004}\eta_{111}\eta_{200}-\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{112}-\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{130} \\&-\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{310}+\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{103}+\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{121}+\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{301}+\eta_{011}\eta_{022}\eta_{102} \\&-\eta_{011}\eta_{022}\eta_{120}+\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{112}+\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{130}+\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{310}-\eta_{011}\eta_{040}\eta_{120} \\&-\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{220}-\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{400}+\eta_{011}\eta_{103}\eta_{201}-\eta_{011}\eta_{112}\eta_{210}+\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{202} \\&+\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{400}+\eta_{011}\eta_{121}\eta_{201}-\eta_{011}\eta_{130}\eta_{210}+\eta_{011}\eta_{201}\eta_{301}-\eta_{011}\eta_{210}\eta_{310} \\&+\eta_{012}\eta_{013}\eta_{110}-\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{103}-\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{121}-\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{301}+\eta_{012}\eta_{031}\eta_{110} \\&+\eta_{012}\eta_{040}\eta_{101}-\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{202}+\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{220}+\eta_{012}\eta_{110}\eta_{211}+\eta_{013}\eta_{020}\eta_{120} \\&-\eta_{013}\eta_{021}\eta_{101}-\eta_{013}\eta_{030}\eta_{110}-\eta_{013}\eta_{101}\eta_{201}+\eta_{013}\eta_{102}\eta_{200}+\eta_{013}\eta_{110}\eta_{210} \\&-\eta_{013}\eta_{120}\eta_{200}-\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{112}-\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{130}-\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{310}+\eta_{020}\eta_{022}\eta_{111} \\&+\eta_{020}\eta_{031}\eta_{120}+\eta_{020}\eta_{103}\eta_{210}-\eta_{020}\eta_{111}\eta_{220}-\eta_{020}\eta_{111}\eta_{400}+\eta_{020}\eta_{120}\eta_{211} \\&+\eta_{020}\eta_{121}\eta_{210}+\eta_{020}\eta_{210}\eta_{301}-\eta_{021}\eta_{031}\eta_{101}+\eta_{021}\eta_{040}\eta_{110}-\eta_{021}\eta_{101}\eta_{211} \\&-\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{202}+\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{220}-\eta_{022}\eta_{101}\eta_{210}+\eta_{022}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}-\eta_{030}\eta_{031}\eta_{110} \\&-\eta_{030}\eta_{110}\eta_{211}-\eta_{031}\eta_{101}\eta_{201}+\eta_{031}\eta_{102}\eta_{200}+\eta_{031}\eta_{110}\eta_{210}-\eta_{031}\eta_{120}\eta_{200} \\&-\eta_{040}\eta_{101}\eta_{210}+\eta_{040}\eta_{111}\eta_{200}+\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{112}+\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{130}+\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{310} \\&+\eta_{101}\eta_{112}\eta_{120}-\eta_{101}\eta_{112}\eta_{300}+\eta_{101}\eta_{120}\eta_{130}+\eta_{101}\eta_{120}\eta_{310}-\eta_{101}\eta_{130}\eta_{300} \\&-\eta_{101}\eta_{201}\eta_{211}+\eta_{101}\eta_{202}\eta_{210}+\eta_{101}\eta_{210}\eta_{400}-\eta_{101}\eta_{300}\eta_{310}-\eta_{102}\eta_{103}\eta_{110} \\&-\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{121}-\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{301}+\eta_{102}\eta_{200}\eta_{211}-\eta_{103}\eta_{110}\eta_{120}+\eta_{103}\eta_{110}\eta_{300} \\&-\eta_{103}\eta_{200}\eta_{210}-\eta_{110}\eta_{120}\eta_{121}-\eta_{110}\eta_{120}\eta_{301}+\eta_{110}\eta_{121}\eta_{300}-\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{220} \\&-\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{400}+\eta_{110}\eta_{210}\eta_{211}+\eta_{110}\eta_{300}\eta_{301}-\eta_{111}\eta_{200}\eta_{202}+\eta_{111}\eta_{200}\eta_{220} \\&+\eta_{112}\eta_{200}\eta_{201}-\eta_{120}\eta_{200}\eta_{211}-\eta_{121}\eta_{200}\eta_{210}+\eta_{130}\eta_{200}\eta_{201}+\eta_{200}\eta_{201}\eta_{310} \\&-\eta_{200}\eta_{210}\eta_{301}; \\ \\S_{2}=\ &-\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{103}-\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{121}-\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{301}+\eta_{002}\eta_{013}\eta_{102}+\eta_{002}\eta_{013}\eta_{120} \\&+\eta_{002}\eta_{013}\eta_{300}-\eta_{002}\eta_{030}\eta_{103}-\eta_{002}\eta_{030}\eta_{121}-\eta_{002}\eta_{030}\eta_{301}+\eta_{002}\eta_{031}\eta_{102} \\&+\eta_{002}\eta_{031}\eta_{120}+\eta_{002}\eta_{031}\eta_{300}+\eta_{002}\eta_{102}\eta_{211}-\eta_{002}\eta_{103}\eta_{210}+\eta_{002}\eta_{120}\eta_{211} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{121}\eta_{210}-\eta_{002}\eta_{210}\eta_{301}+\eta_{002}\eta_{211}\eta_{300}+\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{103}+\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{121} \\&+\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{301}-\eta_{003}\eta_{013}\eta_{101}+\eta_{003}\eta_{020}\eta_{112}+\eta_{003}\eta_{020}\eta_{130}+\eta_{003}\eta_{020}\eta_{310} \\&-\eta_{003}\eta_{022}\eta_{110}-\eta_{003}\eta_{031}\eta_{101}-\eta_{003}\eta_{040}\eta_{110}-\eta_{003}\eta_{101}\eta_{211}+\eta_{003}\eta_{110}\eta_{202} \\&+\eta_{003}\eta_{110}\eta_{400}-\eta_{003}\eta_{112}\eta_{200}-\eta_{003}\eta_{130}\eta_{200}-\eta_{003}\eta_{200}\eta_{310}-\eta_{004}\eta_{011}\eta_{102} \\&-\eta_{004}\eta_{011}\eta_{120}-\eta_{004}\eta_{011}\eta_{300}+\eta_{004}\eta_{012}\eta_{101}+\eta_{004}\eta_{030}\eta_{101}+\eta_{004}\eta_{101}\eta_{210} \\&-\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{112}-\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{130}-\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{310}+\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{103}+\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{121} \\&+\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{301}-\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{112}-\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{130}-\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{310}+\eta_{011}\eta_{040}\eta_{102} \\&+\eta_{011}\eta_{040}\eta_{120}+\eta_{011}\eta_{040}\eta_{300}-\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{202}+\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{220}+\eta_{011}\eta_{103}\eta_{201} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \\&-\eta_{011}\eta_{112}\eta_{210}-\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{202}+\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{220}+\eta_{011}\eta_{121}\eta_{201}-\eta_{011}\eta_{130}\eta_{210} \\&+\eta_{011}\eta_{201}\eta_{301}-\eta_{011}\eta_{202}\eta_{300}-\eta_{011}\eta_{210}\eta_{310}+\eta_{011}\eta_{220}\eta_{300}+\eta_{012}\eta_{013}\eta_{110} \\&+\eta_{012}\eta_{022}\eta_{101}+\eta_{012}\eta_{031}\eta_{110}-\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{220}-\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{400}+\eta_{012}\eta_{103}\eta_{200} \\&+\eta_{012}\eta_{110}\eta_{211}+\eta_{012}\eta_{121}\eta_{200}+\eta_{012}\eta_{200}\eta_{301}-\eta_{013}\eta_{020}\eta_{102}-\eta_{013}\eta_{020}\eta_{120} \\&-\eta_{013}\eta_{020}\eta_{300}-\eta_{013}\eta_{021}\eta_{101}+\eta_{013}\eta_{030}\eta_{110}-\eta_{013}\eta_{101}\eta_{201}+\eta_{013}\eta_{110}\eta_{210} \\&+\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{112}+\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{130}+\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{310}-\eta_{020}\eta_{031}\eta_{102}-\eta_{020}\eta_{031}\eta_{120} \\&-\eta_{020}\eta_{031}\eta_{300}-\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{211}+\eta_{020}\eta_{112}\eta_{201}-\eta_{020}\eta_{120}\eta_{211}+\eta_{020}\eta_{130}\eta_{201} \\&+\eta_{020}\eta_{201}\eta_{310}-\eta_{020}\eta_{211}\eta_{300}-\eta_{021}\eta_{022}\eta_{110}-\eta_{021}\eta_{031}\eta_{101}-\eta_{021}\eta_{040}\eta_{110} \\&-\eta_{021}\eta_{101}\eta_{211}+\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{202}+\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{400}-\eta_{021}\eta_{112}\eta_{200}-\eta_{021}\eta_{130}\eta_{200} \\&-\eta_{021}\eta_{200}\eta_{310}+\eta_{022}\eta_{030}\eta_{101}+\eta_{022}\eta_{101}\eta_{210}-\eta_{022}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}+\eta_{030}\eta_{031}\eta_{110} \\&-\eta_{030}\eta_{101}\eta_{220}-\eta_{030}\eta_{101}\eta_{400}+\eta_{030}\eta_{103}\eta_{200}+\eta_{030}\eta_{110}\eta_{211}+\eta_{030}\eta_{121}\eta_{200} \\&+\eta_{030}\eta_{200}\eta_{301}-\eta_{031}\eta_{101}\eta_{201}+\eta_{031}\eta_{110}\eta_{210}-\eta_{040}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}+\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{112} \\&+\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{130}+\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{310}+\eta_{101}\eta_{112}\eta_{120}+\eta_{101}\eta_{112}\eta_{300}+\eta_{101}\eta_{120}\eta_{130} \\&+\eta_{101}\eta_{120}\eta_{310}+\eta_{101}\eta_{130}\eta_{300}-\eta_{101}\eta_{201}\eta_{211}-\eta_{101}\eta_{210}\eta_{220}-\eta_{101}\eta_{210}\eta_{400} \\&+\eta_{101}\eta_{300}\eta_{310}-\eta_{102}\eta_{103}\eta_{110}-\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{121}-\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{301}-\eta_{103}\eta_{110}\eta_{120} \\&-\eta_{103}\eta_{110}\eta_{300}+\eta_{103}\eta_{200}\eta_{210}-\eta_{110}\eta_{120}\eta_{121}-\eta_{110}\eta_{120}\eta_{301}-\eta_{110}\eta_{121}\eta_{300} \\&+\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{202}+\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{400}+\eta_{110}\eta_{210}\eta_{211}-\eta_{110}\eta_{300}\eta_{301}-\eta_{112}\eta_{200}\eta_{201} \\&+\eta_{121}\eta_{200}\eta_{210}-\eta_{130}\eta_{200}\eta_{201}-\eta_{200}\eta_{201}\eta_{310}+\eta_{200}\eta_{210}\eta_{301}; \\ \\S_{3}=&\ \ \ \eta_{002}^{2}\eta_{020}\eta_{111}-\eta_{002}^{2}\eta_{021}\eta_{110}+\eta_{002}^{2}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}-\eta_{002}^{2}\eta_{111}\eta_{200}-\eta_{002}\eta_{011}^2\eta_{111} \\&+2\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{110}-\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{102}+\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{120}+\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{101} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{110}-\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{101}\eta_{201}+\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{200}+\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{110}\eta_{210} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{200}-\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}+\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{200}-\eta_{002}\eta_{020}^2\eta_{111} \\&+\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{110}+\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{210}-\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}+\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{200} \\&+\eta_{002}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{111}-2\eta_{002}\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{110}-\eta_{002}\eta_{101}\eta_{110}\eta_{120}+\eta_{002}\eta_{101}\eta_{110}\eta_{300} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{101}\eta_{200}\eta_{210}-\eta_{002}\eta_{110}\eta_{200}\eta_{201}+\eta_{002}\eta_{111}\eta_{200}^2-\eta_{003}\eta_{011}^2\eta_{110} \\&+\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}-\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{101}\eta_{200}+\eta_{003}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{110}+\eta_{011}^3\eta_{102}-\eta_{011}^3\eta_{120} \\&-\eta_{011}^2\eta_{012}\eta_{101}+\eta_{011}^2\eta_{020}\eta_{111}+\eta_{011}^2\eta_{021}\eta_{110}+\eta_{011}^2\eta_{030}\eta_{101}-2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{101}\eta_{210} \\&+2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{110}\eta_{201}-\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{110}-\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{110}\eta_{200}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{101} \\&-\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{201}+\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{200}+\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{110}\eta_{210}-\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{120}\eta_{200} \\&+\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{101}\eta_{200}+\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{110}\eta_{200}+\eta_{011}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{102}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{120} \\&-\eta_{011}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{300}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{101}\eta_{200}\eta_{201}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{110}^2-\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{200}^2 \\&-\eta_{011}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{120}+\eta_{011}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{300}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{110}\eta_{200}\eta_{210}+\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{200}^2 \\&+\eta_{012}\eta_{020}^2\eta_{101}-\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{200}-\eta_{012}\eta_{101}^3+2\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{110}^2-\eta_{020}^2\eta_{101}\eta_{210} \\&+\eta_{020}^2\eta_{111}\eta_{200}-\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{200}+\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{110}+2\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{110}\eta_{120} \\&-\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{110}\eta_{300}+\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{200}\eta_{210}-\eta_{020}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{111}+\eta_{020}\eta_{110}\eta_{200}\eta_{201} \\&-\eta_{020}\eta_{111}\eta_{200}^2-2\eta_{021}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{110}+\eta_{021}\eta_{110}^3-\eta_{030}\eta_{101}\eta_{110}^2+\eta_{101}^3\eta_{210} \\&-\eta_{101}^2\eta_{110}\eta_{201}-\eta_{101}^2\eta_{111}\eta_{200}+\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{200}+\eta_{101}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{210} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \\&-\eta_{101}\eta_{110}\eta_{120}\eta_{200}-\eta_{110}^3\eta_{201}+\eta_{110}^2\eta_{111}\eta_{200}; \\ \\S_{4}=&\ \ \ \ \eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{103}-\eta_{002}\eta_{013}\eta_{102}+2\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{112}-2\eta_{002}\eta_{022}\eta_{111}+\eta_{002}\eta_{030}\eta_{121} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{031}\eta_{120}+2\eta_{002}\eta_{111}\eta_{202}-2\eta_{002}\eta_{112}\eta_{201}+2\eta_{002}\eta_{120}\eta_{211}-2\eta_{002}\eta_{121}\eta_{210} \\&+\eta_{002}\eta_{210}\eta_{301}-\eta_{002}\eta_{211}\eta_{300}-\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{103}+\eta_{003}\eta_{013}\eta_{101}-\eta_{003}\eta_{020}\eta_{112} \\&+\eta_{003}\eta_{022}\eta_{110}-\eta_{003}\eta_{110}\eta_{202}+\eta_{003}\eta_{112}\eta_{200}+\eta_{004}\eta_{011}\eta_{102}-\eta_{004}\eta_{012}\eta_{101} \\&-\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{112}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{013}\eta_{111}+\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{121}-\eta_{011}\eta_{022}\eta_{102}+\eta_{011}\eta_{022}\eta_{120} \\&+\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{130}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{031}\eta_{111}-\eta_{011}\eta_{040}\eta_{120}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{202}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{103}\eta_{201} \\&+2\eta_{011}\eta_{112}\eta_{210}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{220}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{121}\eta_{201}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{130}\eta_{210}-\eta_{011}\eta_{201}\eta_{301} \\&+\eta_{011}\eta_{202}\eta_{300}+\eta_{011}\eta_{210}\eta_{310}-\eta_{011}\eta_{220}\eta_{300}-\eta_{012}\eta_{013}\eta_{110}-2\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{121} \\&+2\eta_{012}\eta_{022}\eta_{101}+2\eta_{012}\eta_{031}\eta_{110}+\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{202}-\eta_{012}\eta_{103}\eta_{200}-2\eta_{012}\eta_{110}\eta_{211} \\&+2\eta_{012}\eta_{121}\eta_{200}+\eta_{013}\eta_{020}\eta_{102}-2\eta_{013}\eta_{021}\eta_{101}-\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{130}+2\eta_{020}\eta_{022}\eta_{111} \\&+\eta_{020}\eta_{031}\eta_{120}-2\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{211}-2\eta_{020}\eta_{111}\eta_{220}+2\eta_{020}\eta_{112}\eta_{201}+2\eta_{020}\eta_{121}\eta_{210} \\&-\eta_{020}\eta_{201}\eta_{310}+\eta_{020}\eta_{211}\eta_{300}-2\eta_{021}\eta_{022}\eta_{110}+\eta_{021}\eta_{031}\eta_{101}+\eta_{021}\eta_{040}\eta_{110} \\&+2\eta_{021}\eta_{101}\eta_{211}-\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{220}-2\eta_{021}\eta_{112}\eta_{200}+\eta_{021}\eta_{130}\eta_{200}-\eta_{022}\eta_{030}\eta_{101} \\&-\eta_{030}\eta_{031}\eta_{110}+\eta_{030}\eta_{101}\eta_{220}-\eta_{030}\eta_{121}\eta_{200}+\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{112}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{103}\eta_{111} \\&+2\eta_{101}\eta_{111}\eta_{301}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{112}\eta_{120}-\eta_{101}\eta_{120}\eta_{130}+2\eta_{101}\eta_{120}\eta_{310}-\eta_{101}\eta_{201}\eta_{211} \\&-\eta_{101}\eta_{202}\eta_{210}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{210}\eta_{220}+\eta_{101}\eta_{210}\eta_{400}-\eta_{101}\eta_{300}\eta_{310}+\eta_{102}\eta_{103}\eta_{110} \\&+2\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{121}-2\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{301}+2\eta_{102}\eta_{200}\eta_{211}+2\eta_{110}\eta_{111}\eta_{130}-2\eta_{110}\eta_{111}\eta_{310} \\&-\eta_{110}\eta_{120}\eta_{121}+2\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{202}+\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{220}-\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{400}+\eta_{110}\eta_{210}\eta_{211} \\&+\eta_{110}\eta_{300}\eta_{301}-2\eta_{111}\eta_{200}\eta_{202}+2\eta_{111}\eta_{200}\eta_{220}-2\eta_{120}\eta_{200}\eta_{211}+\eta_{200}\eta_{201}\eta_{310} \\&-\eta_{200}\eta_{210}\eta_{301}; \\ \\S_{5}=\ &-2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{012}\eta_{301}+2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{013}\eta_{300}+2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{021}\eta_{310}-2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{031}\eta_{300}+2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{102}\eta_{211} \\&-2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{103}\eta_{210}+4\eta_{011}^2\eta_{111}\eta_{202}-4\eta_{011}^2\eta_{111}\eta_{220}-4\eta_{011}^2\eta_{112}\eta_{201}-2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{120}\eta_{211} \\&+4\eta_{011}^2\eta_{121}\eta_{210}+2\eta_{011}^2\eta_{130}\eta_{201}-\eta_{003}\eta_{130}\eta_{200}^2+3\eta_{012}\eta_{121}\eta_{200}^2-3\eta_{021}\eta_{112}\eta_{200}^2 \\&+\eta_{030}\eta_{103}\eta_{200}^2+\eta_{003}\eta_{020}^2\eta_{310}-\eta_{013}\eta_{020}^2\eta_{300}-3\eta_{020}^2\eta_{102}\eta_{211}+3\eta_{020}^2\eta_{112}\eta_{201} \\&-\eta_{002}^2\eta_{030}\eta_{301}+\eta_{002}^2\eta_{031}\eta_{300}+3\eta_{002}^2\eta_{120}\eta_{211}-3\eta_{002}^2\eta_{121}\eta_{210}-2\eta_{012}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{121} \\&+2\eta_{013}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{120}+4\eta_{021}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{112}-2\eta_{021}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{310}-4\eta_{022}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{111}-2\eta_{030}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{103} \\&+2\eta_{030}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{301}+2\eta_{031}\eta_{101}^2\eta_{102}+4\eta_{101}^2\eta_{111}\eta_{220}-4\eta_{101}^2\eta_{120}\eta_{211}+2\eta_{101}^2\eta_{121}\eta_{210} \\&-2\eta_{101}^2\eta_{130}\eta_{201}-4\eta_{012}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{121}+2\eta_{012}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{301}-2\eta_{013}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{120}+2\eta_{021}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{112} \\&+4\eta_{022}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{111}-2\eta_{031}\eta_{102}\eta_{110}^2+4\eta_{102}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{211}+2\eta_{103}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{210}-4\eta_{110}^2\eta_{111}\eta_{202} \\&-2\eta_{110}^2\eta_{112}\eta_{201}+2\eta_{003}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{130}-2\eta_{003}\eta_{110}^2\eta_{310}+\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{112}\eta_{300} \\&-2\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{201}\eta_{211}-\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{202}\eta_{210}-3\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{301}+2\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{200}\eta_{211} \\&-\eta_{020}\eta_{103}\eta_{110}\eta_{300}+\eta_{020}\eta_{103}\eta_{200}\eta_{210}+3\eta_{020}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{202}-2\eta_{020}\eta_{111}\eta_{200}\eta_{202} \\&-\eta_{020}\eta_{112}\eta_{200}\eta_{201}-\eta_{200}\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{121}+\eta_{200}\eta_{002}\eta_{013}\eta_{120}+2\eta_{200}\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{112} \\&-2\eta_{200}\eta_{002}\eta_{022}\eta_{111}-\eta_{200}\eta_{002}\eta_{030}\eta_{103}+\eta_{200}\eta_{002}\eta_{031}\eta_{102}+\eta_{200}\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{121} \\&+\eta_{200}\eta_{003}\eta_{020}\eta_{130}-\eta_{200}\eta_{003}\eta_{031}\eta_{101}-\eta_{200}\eta_{003}\eta_{040}\eta_{110}+3\eta_{200}\eta_{003}\eta_{110}\eta_{220} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \\&-\eta_{200}\eta_{004}\eta_{011}\eta_{120}+\eta_{200}\eta_{004}\eta_{030}\eta_{101}-2\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{112}-\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{130} \\&+2\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{013}\eta_{111}+\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{103}+2\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{121}-\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{022}\eta_{102} \\&+\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{022}\eta_{120}-\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{112}-2\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{031}\eta_{111}+\eta_{200}\eta_{011}\eta_{040}\eta_{102} \\&-2\eta_{200}\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{121}+3\eta_{200}\eta_{012}\eta_{022}\eta_{101}+3\eta_{200}\eta_{012}\eta_{031}\eta_{110}-3\eta_{200}\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{220} \\&-6\eta_{200}\eta_{012}\eta_{110}\eta_{211}-\eta_{200}\eta_{013}\eta_{020}\eta_{120}-3\eta_{200}\eta_{013}\eta_{021}\eta_{101}+\eta_{200}\eta_{013}\eta_{030}\eta_{110} \\&+\eta_{200}\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{112}+2\eta_{200}\eta_{020}\eta_{022}\eta_{111}-\eta_{200}\eta_{020}\eta_{031}\eta_{102}-3\eta_{200}\eta_{021}\eta_{022}\eta_{110} \\&+6\eta_{200}\eta_{021}\eta_{101}\eta_{211}+3\eta_{200}\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{202}-3\eta_{200}\eta_{030}\eta_{101}\eta_{202}+3\eta_{200}\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{130} \\&-6\eta_{200}\eta_{101}\eta_{111}\eta_{121}+3\eta_{200}\eta_{101}\eta_{112}\eta_{120}-3\eta_{200}\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{121}-3\eta_{200}\eta_{103}\eta_{110}\eta_{120} \\&+6\eta_{200}\eta_{110}\eta_{111}\eta_{112}-\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{310}+\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{040}\eta_{300}+3\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{220} \\&-3\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{130}\eta_{210}+\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{310}-\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{031}\eta_{300}-2\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{111}\eta_{220} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{120}\eta_{211}+2\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{121}\eta_{210}+\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{130}\eta_{201}-\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{220} \\&+\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{400}-\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{200}\eta_{310}-\eta_{002}\eta_{030}\eta_{101}\eta_{400}+\eta_{002}\eta_{030}\eta_{110}\eta_{211} \\&+\eta_{002}\eta_{030}\eta_{200}\eta_{301}+\eta_{002}\eta_{031}\eta_{110}\eta_{210}-\eta_{002}\eta_{040}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}+3\eta_{002}\eta_{101}\eta_{120}\eta_{310} \\&+\eta_{002}\eta_{101}\eta_{130}\eta_{300}-3\eta_{002}\eta_{101}\eta_{210}\eta_{220}+2\eta_{002}\eta_{110}\eta_{111}\eta_{130}-2\eta_{002}\eta_{110}\eta_{111}\eta_{310} \\&-2\eta_{002}\eta_{110}\eta_{120}\eta_{121}-\eta_{002}\eta_{110}\eta_{120}\eta_{301}-\eta_{002}\eta_{110}\eta_{121}\eta_{300}+\eta_{002}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{220} \\&+2\eta_{002}\eta_{110}\eta_{210}\eta_{211}+2\eta_{002}\eta_{111}\eta_{200}\eta_{220}-2\eta_{002}\eta_{120}\eta_{200}\eta_{211}+\eta_{002}\eta_{121}\eta_{200}\eta_{210} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{130}\eta_{200}\eta_{201}-\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{301}+\eta_{002}\eta_{013}\eta_{020}\eta_{300}+\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{211} \\&-\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{103}\eta_{210}+2\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{111}\eta_{202}-2\eta_{002}\eta_{020}\eta_{112}\eta_{201}+\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{301} \\&-\eta_{003}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{211}+\eta_{003}\eta_{020}\eta_{110}\eta_{400}-\eta_{003}\eta_{020}\eta_{200}\eta_{310}-\eta_{004}\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{300} \\&+\eta_{004}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{210}-3\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{310}+3\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{022}\eta_{300}-3\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{202} \\&+3\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{220}+3\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{103}\eta_{201}+6\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{111}\eta_{211}-3\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{112}\eta_{210} \\&-6\eta_{011}\eta_{020}\eta_{121}\eta_{201}+\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{202}-\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{400}+\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{200}\eta_{301} \\&-\eta_{013}\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{201}+2\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{112}+\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{310}-2\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{103}\eta_{111} \\&+2\eta_{020}\eta_{101}\eta_{111}\eta_{301}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{110}\eta_{310}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{200}\eta_{220}+4\eta_{011}\eta_{110}\eta_{111}\eta_{301} \\&+2\eta_{011}\eta_{110}\eta_{112}\eta_{300}-4\eta_{011}\eta_{110}\eta_{201}\eta_{211}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{110}\eta_{202}\eta_{210}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{112}\eta_{200}\eta_{210} \\&+2\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{200}\eta_{202}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{121}\eta_{200}\eta_{201}+3\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{301}-3\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{022}\eta_{300} \\&-6\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{111}\eta_{211}+6\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{112}\eta_{210}-3\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{202}+3\eta_{002}\eta_{011}\eta_{121}\eta_{201} \\&-2\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{110}\eta_{400}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{200}\eta_{310}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{101}\eta_{400}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{200}\eta_{301} \\&-4\eta_{011}\eta_{101}\eta_{111}\eta_{310}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{101}\eta_{120}\eta_{301}-2\eta_{011}\eta_{101}\eta_{121}\eta_{300}+2\eta_{011}\eta_{101}\eta_{201}\eta_{220} \\&+4\eta_{011}\eta_{101}\eta_{210}\eta_{211}+4\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{031}\eta_{201}-3\eta_{110}\eta_{020}\eta_{022}\eta_{201}+4\eta_{110}\eta_{101}\eta_{121}\eta_{201} \\&+3\eta_{110}\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{211}+3\eta_{110}\eta_{013}\eta_{020}\eta_{210}-6\eta_{110}\eta_{020}\eta_{111}\eta_{112}-4\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{211} \\&-4\eta_{110}\eta_{021}\eta_{101}\eta_{301}+2\eta_{110}\eta_{002}\eta_{012}\eta_{211}-2\eta_{110}\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{202}+2\eta_{110}\eta_{002}\eta_{022}\eta_{201} \\&-2\eta_{110}\eta_{002}\eta_{102}\eta_{121}+2\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{202}+4\eta_{110}\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{310}+2\eta_{110}\eta_{003}\eta_{101}\eta_{121} \\&-4\eta_{110}\eta_{012}\eta_{101}\eta_{112}+2\eta_{110}\eta_{021}\eta_{101}\eta_{103}-4\eta_{110}\eta_{101}\eta_{102}\eta_{220}+4\eta_{110}\eta_{101}\eta_{120}\eta_{202} \\&-4\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{103}\eta_{111}+4\eta_{110}\eta_{013}\eta_{101}\eta_{111}-4\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{130}+6\eta_{110}\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{121} \\&-2\eta_{110}\eta_{022}\eta_{101}\eta_{102}+2\eta_{110}\eta_{002}\eta_{103}\eta_{120}-2\eta_{110}\eta_{004}\eta_{101}\eta_{120}+4\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{112}\eta_{120} \\&-3\eta_{110}\eta_{003}\eta_{020}\eta_{220}-4\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{022}\eta_{210}+4\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{112}-2\eta_{110}\eta_{003}\eta_{011}\eta_{211} \\&+4\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{220}-2\eta_{110}\eta_{011}\eta_{013}\eta_{201}-2\eta_{110}\eta_{002}\eta_{013}\eta_{210}+2\eta_{110}\eta_{004}\eta_{011}\eta_{210} \\&-4\eta_{110}\eta_{101}\eta_{112}\eta_{210}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{012}\eta_{110}\eta_{130}+4\eta_{101}\eta_{021}\eta_{110}\eta_{121}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{030}\eta_{110}\eta_{112} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \\&+2\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{030}\eta_{211}+2\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{031}\eta_{210}-4\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{120}\eta_{121}-4\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{202} \\&+4\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{022}\eta_{201}+3\eta_{101}\eta_{002}\eta_{022}\eta_{210}-4\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{013}\eta_{210}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{040}\eta_{201} \\&+2\eta_{101}\eta_{020}\eta_{031}\eta_{201}+2\eta_{101}\eta_{012}\eta_{020}\eta_{220}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{020}\eta_{021}\eta_{211}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{020}\eta_{022}\eta_{210} \\&+2\eta_{101}\eta_{020}\eta_{112}\eta_{120}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{021}\eta_{220}+3\eta_{101}\eta_{002}\eta_{030}\eta_{202}-3\eta_{101}\eta_{002}\eta_{021}\eta_{211} \\&-3\eta_{101}\eta_{002}\eta_{031}\eta_{201}+6\eta_{101}\eta_{002}\eta_{111}\eta_{121}+4\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{012}\eta_{211}+4\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{111}\eta_{130} \\&-4\eta_{101}\eta_{031}\eta_{110}\eta_{111}-4\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{102}\eta_{121}-2\eta_{101}\eta_{020}\eta_{102}\eta_{130}+2\eta_{101}\eta_{040}\eta_{102}\eta_{110} \\&-6\eta_{101}\eta_{002}\eta_{112}\eta_{120}+4\eta_{101}\eta_{011}\eta_{103}\eta_{120}+2\eta_{101}\eta_{022}\eta_{110}\eta_{120}. \end{aligned}$$	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In most recent substructuring methods, a fundamental role is played by the coarse space. For some of these methods (e.g. BDDC and FETI-DP), its definition relies on a ‘minimal’ set of coarse nodes (sometimes called corners) which assures invertibility of local subdomain problems and also of the global coarse problem. This basic set is typically enhanced by enforcing continuity of functions at some generalized degrees of freedom, such as average values on edges or faces of subdomains. We revisit existing algorithms for selection of corners. The main contribution of this paper consists of proposing a new heuristic algorithm for this purpose. Considering faces as the basic building blocks of the interface, inherent parallelism, and better robustness with respect to disconnected subdomains are among features of the new technique. The advantages of the presented algorithm in comparison to some earlier approaches are demonstrated on three engineering problems of structural analysis solved by the BDDC method.' address: - 'Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic' - \| Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering\ Czech Technical University in Prague - \| Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Civil Engineering\ Czech Technical University in Prague author: - Jakub Šístek - Marta Čertíková - Pavel Burda - Jaroslav Novotný bibliography: - '/home/sistek/denver/bddc/bibliography/bddc.bib' title: 'Face-based Selection of Corners in 3D Substructuring' --- domain decomposition ,iterative substructuring ,finite elements ,linear elasticity ,parallel algorithms ,corner selection Introduction {#sec:Introduction} ============ The Balancing Domain Decomposition based on Constraints (BDDC) is a numerically scalable, nonoverlapping (substructuring), primary domain decomposition method introduced in 2003 by Dohrmann [@Dohrmann-2003-PSC]. Its algebraic theory developed by Mandel, Dohrmann and Tezaur in [@Mandel-2005-ATP] demonstrates close relation to FETI-DP introduced by Farhat, Lesoinne, and Pierson [@Farhat-2000-SDP]: the eigenvalues of the preconditioned problem in BDDC and FETI-DP are the same except possibly those equal to 0 and 1 (see also [@Brenner-2007-BFW], [@Li-2006-FBB], and [@Mandel-2007-BFM] for simplified proofs). These results not only provide the theoretical reasoning for nearly identical performance of BDDC and FETI-DP observed earlier, but also imply, that many theoretical results obtained for one method apply readily to the other. The coarse space, defined by constraints on continuity of functions across the interface at coarse degrees of freedom, is essential for the performance of both methods. A historical overview of an evolution of the concept of the coarse space is presented, e.g., by Widlund in [@Widlund-2008-DCS] and by Mandel and Sousedík in [@Mandel-2011-CSA]. The usual basic choice of coarse degrees of freedom is presented by selecting a set of coarse nodes (also called corners). This set is usually selected to be ‘minimal’ in the sense that it is as small as possible while assuring invertibility of local subdomain problems and of the global coarse problem. For 2D problems this choice ensures good convergence properties. However, both methods require additional constraints on some generalized degrees of freedom such as average values on edges or faces of subdomains to achieve good efficiency for 3D problems. This fact was first discovered for FETI-DP: experimentally observed in Farhat, Lesoinne, and Pierson [@Farhat-2000-SDP] and theoretically supported by Klawonn, Widlund and Dryja in [@Klawonn-2002-DPF]. These observations apply to BDDC through the above-mentioned correspondence between both methods. A sufficiently robust definition of the coarse space in BDDC and FETI-DP is still not available, especially for complex 3D geometries, and existing methods tend to fail for such problems. Related work on choice of the coarse degrees of freedom has focused on selecting a small and effective coarse space. An algorithm for selecting the smallest set of coarse nodes to avoid coarse mechanism is described by Lesoinne in [@Lesoinne-2003-FCS]. Another algorithm, which is already based on pairs of subdomains, was given by Dohrmann in [@Dohrmann-2003-PSC]. This task has been recently further discussed by Brož and Kruis in [@Broz-2009-HAS] for 2D case. Klawonn and Widlund in [@Klawonn-2003-SCD] and [@Klawonn-2006-DPF] minimize a set of more general coarse degrees of freedom (like weighted averages over edges and faces) to achieve optimal convergence estimates, introducing the concept of an acceptable path. Adaptive selection of coarse degrees of freedom based on local estimates using eigenvectors associated with faces is described by Mandel and Soused[í]{}k in [@Mandel-2007-ASF], and by Mandel, Soused[í]{}k, and Šístek in [@Mandel-2009-ABT]. In this adaptive approach, which provides additional averages on faces leading to optimal decrease of the expected condition number, a sufficient number of initial constraints is required between each pair of subdomains as an input. This assumption is in good agreement with the output of the algorithm proposed in this paper. While proposing the new algorithm for selection of the basic set of corners is the main contribution of the manuscript, we further explore the potential of adding more coarse nodes into the coarse problem. This approach is technically simple and allows flexible setting of desired approximation. It is observed, that by loosening the requirement of ‘minimal’ selection and identifying more interface nodes as corners, the performance of the BDDC preconditioner may be cheaply but considerably improved. Numerical experiments on industrial 3D elasticity problems demonstrate the advantages of the new corner selecting algorithm in comparison to several earlier approaches. They also show the fact, that by enhancing the basic set of constraints by additional coarse nodes, the computational times might be further reduced. BDDC method =========== In this paper, we study the selection of the initial set of constraints in the context of the BDDC method [@Dohrmann-2003-PSC], which is briefly recalled in this section. However, the main ideas of the paper apply to FETI-DP method as well. After a discretization of a linearized partial differential equation of elliptic type in a given domain $\Omega$ by means of finite element method (FEM), a system of linear algebraic equations $$\mathbf{A} \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{f} \label{eq:Axf}$$ with a symmetric positive definite matrix $\mathbf{A}$ and a right-hand side $\mathbf{f}$ is solved for the unknown vector $\mathbf{x}$. Components of $\mathbf{x}$ represent function values at mesh nodes and they are often called degrees of freedom. In 3D linear elasticity, there are 3 unknown values of displacement (3 degrees of freedom) at every mesh node. The first step in the BDDC method is the reduction of the problem to the interface. This is quite standard and described in the literature, e.g., Toselli and Widlund [@Toselli-2005-DDM]: the underlying discretized domain $\Omega$ is split into $N$ nonoverlapping subdomains (also called substructures) $\Omega_i,\ i = 1,\dots,N$ with common interface $\Gamma$, and problem (\[eq:Axf\]) is reduced to the Schur complement problem with respect to interface $$\mathbf{S} \mathbf{u} = \mathbf{g} \label{eq:Sug}$$ with a symmetric positive definite matrix $\mathbf{S}$. The vector $\mathbf{u}$ now represents the subset of degrees of freedom in $\mathbf{x}$ that correspond to the interface $\Gamma$. Solution $\mathbf{u}$ of the problem (\[eq:Sug\]) can be also represented as the minimum of the functional $$\frac{1}{2} {\mathbf{u}} ^{\rm T} {\mathbf{S}} {\mathbf{u}} - {\mathbf{u}} ^{\rm T} \mathbf{g} \, \rightarrow \, min \, , \quad \mathbf{u} \in \widehat{W} \label{eq:S-min}$$ on the space $\widehat{W}$ of unknowns on the interface $\Gamma$. The space $\widehat{W}$ can be identified with the space of discrete harmonic functions, that are fully determined by their values of unknowns on the interface $\Gamma$ and have minimal energy on every subdomain. The problem (\[eq:Sug\]) is then solved by the preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) method, for which BDDC acts as the preconditioner. The main idea of the BDDC method is shortly described bellow. More details, together with connection to FETI-DP, can be found in Mandel, Dohrmann and Tezaur [@Mandel-2005-ATP] or Mandel and Soused[í]{}k [@Mandel-2007-BFM]. A preconditioner ${\mathbf{M}}$ for the system (\[eq:Sug\]) should realize an approximation of ${\mathbf{S}^{-1}}$ such that obtaining a preconditioned residual $\mathbf{p} = \mathbf{M} \mathbf{r}$ can be considerably easier than solving the original problem (\[eq:Sug\]). Construction of the BDDC preconditioner is based on the idea that instead of minimising (\[eq:S-min\]) on the space $\widehat{W}$, which represents solving the system (\[eq:Sug\]), the minimization is performed on some larger space $\widetilde{W}$ such that $\widehat{W} \subset \widetilde{W}$: $$\frac{1}{2} {\mathbf{\widetilde{u}}} ^{\rm T} {\mathbf{\widetilde{S}}} {\mathbf{\widetilde{u}}} - {\mathbf{\widetilde{u}}} ^{\rm T} \mathbf{\widetilde{g}} \, \rightarrow \, min \, , \quad \mathbf{\widetilde{u}} \in \widetilde{W} , \label{eq:Stilde-min}$$ where ${\mathbf{\widetilde{S}}}$ is a symmetric positive definite extension of ${\mathbf{S}}$ to $\widetilde{W}$ and ${\mathbf{\widetilde{g}}}$ is an extension of ${\mathbf{g}}$. The space $\widetilde{W}$ has to be chosen so that the symmetric positive definite extension ${\mathbf{\widetilde{S}}}$ on $\widetilde{W}$ exists. At the same time, solving problem (\[eq:Stilde-min\]) should be considerably easier than solving the original problem (\[eq:S-min\]), while providing good approximation of the solution of (\[eq:S-min\]). The BDDC preconditioner is then defined as $$\mathbf{M} = \mathbf{E} {\mathbf{\widetilde{S}}}^{-1} \mathbf{E}^{\rm T} \, , \label{eq:M}$$ where $\mathbf{E}$ represents a projection from $\widetilde{W}$ onto $\widehat{W}$ realized by a kind of averaging. Coarse degrees of freedom ========================= In BDDC, the space $\widetilde{W}$ is specified by relaxing the requirement of the continuity of discrete harmonic functions across the interface. The functions of $\widetilde{W}$ are required to be continuous only at selected coarse degrees of freedom. In this paper, we focus on the simplest choice of coarse degrees of freedom, which is a function value at a selected node on the interface. Such node is then called coarse node or corner. More general coarse degrees of freedom are commented at the end of this section and are considered in computations. In terms of mechanics, the transition from $\widehat{W}$ to $\widetilde{W}$ can be interpreted as making cuts into the continuous function along the interface, leaving the function continuous across the interface only at the corners. A schematic illustration of the continuity constraints is depicted in Figure \[fig:Wtilde\]: functions from $\widehat{W}$ are continuous across the interface, functions from $\widetilde{W}$ are continuous only at selected coarse nodes. The space $\widetilde{W}$ can be decomposed as $\mathbf{\widetilde{S}}$-orthogonal direct sum $$\widetilde{W}=\widetilde{W}_{1}\oplus\dots\oplus\widetilde{W}_{N} \oplus\widetilde{W}_{C} \, , \label{eq:sum}$$ where $\widetilde{W}_{i},\ i = 1,\dots,N,$ are local, subdomain spaces and $\widetilde{W}_{C}$ is the global coarse space, defined as the $\mathbf{\widetilde{S}}$-orthogonal complement of all spaces $\widetilde{W}_{i}$, i.e. $$\mathbf{w}_C \in \widetilde{W}_{C} \ \Leftrightarrow \ \mathbf{w}_C^T \mathbf{\widetilde{S}}\mathbf{w} = 0 \ \ \forall \mathbf{w} \in \widetilde{W}_{i}, \ i = 1,\dots,N.$$ Functions from $\widetilde{W}_{i}$ can have nonzero values only in $\Omega_{i}$ except for coarse degrees of freedom. They have zero values at coarse degrees of freedom, and they are fully determined by degrees of freedom on $\Gamma$ and the discrete harmonic extension to interiors of subdomains. Similarly, functions from $\widetilde{W}_{C}$ are fully determined by their values at coarse degrees of freedom (where they are continuous) and by the discrete harmonic extension to interiors of subdomains and on the rest of the interface (i.e. everywhere apart from the coarse nodes). Functions from the spaces $\widetilde{W}_{C}$ and $\widetilde{W}_{i}$ are generally discontinuous across $\Gamma$ outside corners. According to decomposition (\[eq:sum\]), solution of the problem (\[eq:Stilde-min\]) can now be split into solution of $N$ local subdomain problems on the spaces $\widetilde{W}_{i}$ and one global coarse problem on the coarse space $\widetilde{W}_{C}$. All these problems are mutually independent and so can be naturally parallelized. Coarse degrees of freedom have to be selected so that stable invertibility of both the coarse problem and the local problems is assured. Important role of the coarse space is to assure scalability by global error propagation over the whole domain. It was shown that while for 2D elasticity problems the BDDC (or FETI-DP) preconditioner is scalable for coarse space defined by coarse nodes (corners) only, in 3D elasticity problems more general coarse degrees of freedom, such as (weighted) average values over edges and faces, need to be used in order to achieve scalability, see e.g. Toselli and Widlund [@Toselli-2005-DDM]. Choice of the coarse degrees of freedom has a great impact on the performance of the preconditioner $\mathbf{M}$. The more coarse degrees of freedom are chosen, the more difficult it is to obtain the solution of (\[eq:Stilde-min\]), which, on the other hand, is then closer to the solution of the original problem (\[eq:S-min\]). In the extreme case of selecting all interface nodes as coarse, $\widetilde{W}_{C} \equiv \widetilde{W} \equiv \widehat{W}$, coarse problem becomes the original problem (\[eq:S-min\]) and $\mathbf{M} \equiv \mathbf{S}^{-1}$. In the opposite extreme, if no coarse degrees of freedom are selected, $\widetilde{W}_{C}$ is empty and solution of (\[eq:Stilde-min\]) splits to $N$ local problems only, some of which might not be invertible. Thus, the optimal choice of the coarse space lies somewhere in-between. Geometry and selection of the coarse space in 3D ================================================ The interface $\Gamma$ in 3 dimensions can be specified as a set of nodes belonging to at least two subdomains (subdomains are considered as closed sets). It consists of subdomain faces, edges and vertices. While there is an intuitive geometric notion what these three entities mean in a simple case of a cubic domain divided into cubic subdomains, there is no unique exact classification in more general case of domain with complicated geometry and subdomains obtained, e.g., by a graph partitioning tool. We adopt the classification presented by Klawonn and Rheinbach in [@Klawonn-2007-RFM] and use it in a slightly simplified form, which does not assume knowledge of boundary of the domain and is easy to implement: \[def:classification\] - a face contains all nodes shared by the same two subdomains, - an edge contains nodes shared by the same more than two subdomains, - a vertex is a degenerated edge with only one node. Then every node of the interface belongs to just one of the entities defined above. Two subdomains are called adjacent if they share a face. However, this classification does not reproduce our intuition in the case of cubic subdomains, as can be seen in Figure \[fig:cubes\]: for instance the interface of a domain consisting of two cubic subdomains has neither vertex nor edge, just one face (the left case in Figure \[fig:cubes\]). Different definitions of faces and edges are discussed by Klawonn and Rheinbach in [@Klawonn-2006-PID Section 2]. In practice, there are often not enough vertices, edges, or faces for satisfactory number of constraints. We have found it useful to introduce one additional entity: - a corner is any interface node selected as coarse. In implementations of the BDDC method, it is often customary to distinguish between the following two kinds of constraints on continuity across interface. Node constraints - corners\ The most obvious choice of coarse degrees of freedom are node constraints (at corners). The basic choice is a set of corners, that assures invertibility of local subdomain problems and also the global coarse problem. This is often put as a requirement on their selection (e.g. in [@Dohrmann-2003-PSC], [@Sistek-2010-BFS]). Although vertices provide a good initial set of corners, they often do not suffice for assuring invertibility of subdomain problems and/or of the coarse problem (cf. Figure \[fig:cubes\]), and other constraints need to be added. When other nodes are selected as corners, they have to be excluded from corresponding faces or edges, so that every interface node is either a corner, or belongs to a face or an edge. Corner constraints are not as efficient as constraints on averages on edges or faces, nevertheless they can be used as a substitute for these constraints, if enough corners are employed. Figure \[fig:celekt\_condition\] left illustrates the typical dependence of the condition number of the preconditioned problem on number of corners randomly selected from the interface, starting from some basic set. For small numbers of corners, we can observe poor performance of the preconditioner even though all system matrices are invertible. Then, after a typical sudden drop, the condition number improves only slightly with adding more corners. Number of iterations reproduces this dependence, see Figure \[fig:celekt\_condition\] (centre). Improving convergence by adding more corners leads to a larger coarse problem than adding averages on faces or edges. On the other hand, its implementation is straightforward and its scaling is easy to maintain. For 2D problems, the basic set of corner constraints already ensures good convergence properties. Although an efficient BDDC method for 3D elliptic problems requires also constraints on some generalized degrees of freedom, such as average values on edges or faces of subdomains described below, for many industrial problems this simple approach also leads to satisfactory results. Constraints on averages over edges and faces\ General coarse degrees of freedom can be constructed as any linear combinations of function values at nodes belonging to one face or one edge. This type of constraints is required for both BDDC and FETI-DP methods in three dimensions, if one expects the optimal polylogarithmic bound on condition number $\kappa$ of the preconditioned operator $$\kappa(\mathbf{M}\mathbf{S}) \leq const.\left( 1+\log\frac{H}{h}\right) ^{2}, \label{eq:polylog-bound}$$ where $H$ is the subdomain size and $h$ is the finite element size (see [@Klawonn-2002-DPF]). One of the standard choices is an arithmetic average over unknowns separately for each component of displacement leading to three constraints for 3D elasticity. We have tested this standard choice applied to all edges, to all faces, or both. More sophisticated methods of weighted averaging were developed, e.g., by Klawonn and Widlund [@Klawonn-2006-DPF], by Mandel and Soused[í]{}k [@Mandel-2007-ASF], or recently by Mandel, Soused[í]{}k, and Šístek [@Mandel-2009-ABT]. Selection of the basic set of corners {#sec:selection} ===================================== In this section, we concentrate on the selection of the basic set of corners that leads to positive definiteness of matrix $\mathbf{\widetilde{S}}$ in (\[eq:Stilde-min\]). This task is equivalent to assuring invertibility of both local subdomain problems and the global coarse problem only by corner constraints, which is often required by implementations (cf. [@Dohrmann-2003-PSC], [@Sistek-2010-BFS]). Therefore, we investigate selection of corners independently of enforcing constraints on general coarse degrees of freedom. From the mechanical point of view, the question of assuring invertibility of local subdomain problems corresponds to enforcing enough boundary conditions on a body to fix rigid body modes, with subdomain playing the role of the body. This goal is easily attained by selecting three nodes (not in a line) of the interface of a subdomain as corners. It turns out, that assuring invertibility of the coarse matrix is the more difficult task, since selection with respect to subdomain problems only may still lead to mechanisms in the coarse problem (see [@Lesoinne-2003-FCS]). To see this, one can simply think of a domain divided into subdomains in a linear fashion. Figure \[fig:mechanism\] illustrates this on a 2D case, where two corners for each subdomain are sufficient for invertibility of subdomain stiffness matrices. An algorithm attempting to select the smallest set of coarse nodes to avoid coarse mechanisms was given by Lesoinne in [@Lesoinne-2003-FCS]. Minimization of the number of corners is obtained mainly by favouring already selected corners. Thus, the approach is serial in its nature. Another algorithm for selecting corners was described already by Dohrmann in [@Dohrmann-2003-PSC]. It is based on the investigation of all possible neighbourings between substructures and selecting three corners from each such set, that maximise the area of a triangle with corners at its vertices. However, this algorithm is based on an incomplete classification of interface into vertices, edges, and faces, and it does not distinguish between the last two groups. Also this algorithm favours already selected corners by selecting vertices on the interface as the initial vertices of the triangle to be maximised. Nevertheless, it has provided a good starting point for the new algorithm proposed here. The third algorithm, which is based on selection of corners along edges, was described in [@Sistek-2008-FEM]. This idea is inspired by the definition of corners as end-points of edges by Klawonn and Widlund [@Klawonn-2003-SCD]. Although it was successfully used by our group in a number of practical computations, it may fail to produce a mechanism-free coarse problem in the case of divisions where no edges are present (cf. the leftmost case in Figure \[fig:cubes\]). The aim to select a low number of corners inherent to all these algorithms is motivated by the fact, that low number of corners results in a small size of the matrix of the coarse problem and its cheap factorization. However, it has been observed on a number of experiments (e.g. [@Sistek-2010-BFS], also Section \[sec:results\] in this paper) that this motivation may be misleading, and in fact, larger sets are preferable for the performance of the preconditioner often resulting in much lower number of PCG iterations. It has been also shown, that using more corners may lead to a considerable reduction of the computational time in spite of the longer time spent in factorization of the larger matrix of the coarse problem, even in the case of considering averages on edges and faces. Based on these observations and experience with the algorithms, we see several ideas that the new proposed algorithm should reflect: (i) selection with respect to faces (by Definition \[def:classification\]) as these are the basic building blocks of interface in 3D structures (Figure \[fig:cubes\]), (ii) provide larger set of corners than the previous algorithms as this usually leads to much better preconditioning, (iii) independence of selection subdomain by subdomain and of order of going through subdomains (better parallelization). Points (ii) and (iii) are attained simply by not favouring already selected corners and selecting optimal distribution of at least three corners between each pair of substructures sharing a face, i.e. adjacent substructures, independently. Let us now present an algorithm satisfying these requirements. For this, denote the set of faces of subdomain $\Omega _i$ as $\mathcal{F}({\Omega_i})$ and recall that $N$ denotes the number of subdomains. A face $\mathcal{F}_{ij}$ between subdomains $\Omega_i$ and $\Omega_j$ is present in both sets $\mathcal{F}({\Omega_i})$ and $\mathcal{F}({\Omega_j})$. \[Selection of corners for 3D elasticity problems\] \[alg:selection\] 1. Classify interface according to Definition \[def:classification\] and use all vertices as corners. 2. For subdomain $\Omega_i,\ i = 1,\dots,N$, For face $\mathcal{F}_{ij} \in \mathcal{F}({\Omega_i}),\ j = 1,\dots,\mathrm{size}(\mathcal{F}({\Omega_i}))$, - find the set of all nodes shared with the adjacent subdomain (generally larger set than the face under consideration, as it may contain also edges and/or vertices), - construct a graph of nodes of this set with connections defined by elements, and detect components of this graph - For each such component, select (in 3D) three corners by: - pick an arbitrary node of the subset, - find the first corner as the most remote node from the arbitrary node, - find the second corner as the most remote node from the first corner, - find the third corner as the node maximising the area of the triangle, end, end, end. 3. Select corners as the union of vertices and face-based selection above. 4. Remove selected corners from edges and faces. The algorithm assures that at least three corners are selected in an optimal way with respect to each face. This situation is often not obtained by favouring already selected corners, since corners optimally distributed for one pair of subdomains may be far from optimal distribution with respect to another pair. Presented algorithm is also much simpler for parallelization than algorithms favouring already selected corners, since communication is needed only at the end of the selection to synchronise locally detected corners. It typically provides more corners than algorithms mentioned above, which we consider as an advantage rather than a drawback. \[remark:favouring\] A modification of Algorithm \[alg:selection\] favouring already selected corners is simply possible by entering the face-based selection in any point (a), (b), (c), or (d), depending on how many corners are already selected between adjacent substructures. This modification leads to selection that is very similar to the algorithm by Dohrmann in [@Dohrmann-2003-PSC]. In our experience, this modification, referred to as ‘minimal’, leads to lower number of corners, but also usually to worse results (some of them are presented in Section \[sec:results\]). Thus, we recommend using the (‘full’) version as stated by Algorithm \[alg:selection\]. \[remark:2D\] A modification of Algorithm \[alg:selection\] for 2D problems (where no edges are present) or topologically 2D problems (such as for shell elements in 3D) is simply possible by finishing the face-based selection with point (c). \[remark:components\] Detection of components is aimed at problems divided into subdomains by graph partitioners, such as METIS. These programs typically provide divisions well balanced with respect to size of subdomains, but often with some subdomains disconnected. Such divisions present a challenge for many existing domain decomposition methods. With the detection of components, the algorithm is able to detect many of such discontinuities, and fix each component independently. The BDDC method is then able to proceed with computation, keeping such subdomains disconnected, thus preserving the suggested balance of load. We show the power of this detection on a simple problem of an elastic beam consisting of two subdomains, one of which is wedged in the other as in Figure \[fig:disconnected\]. On the left-hand side of the figure, corners selected without the detection of components are presented. In this case, both cuts are handled as a single interface, and the search of triangle with maximal area does not succeed. Resulting configuration has a mechanism in the coarse problem and, consequently, BDDC method fails. On the right-hand side of the figure, corners obtained with the component detection enabled are shown. Now the optimal triangle is sought at each of the cuts, which leads to a mechanism-free configuration of corners, and the BDDC method converges in four iterations. Implementation ============== The BDDC method has been implemented on top of common components of existing finite element codes, namely the frontal solver and the element stiffness matrix generation. Such implementation requires only a minimal amount of additional code. In our case, most of the program is written in Fortran 77, with some parts in Fortran 90. The MPI library is used for parallelization. The implementation relies on the separation of node constraints and enforcing the rest by Lagrange multipliers, as suggested already in Dohrmann [@Dohrmann-2003-PSC]. One new aspect of the implementation is the use of reactions, which come naturally from the frontal solver, to avoid custom coding. An external parallel multifrontal solver MUMPS [@Amestoy-2000-MPD] is used for the solution of the coarse problem, instead of the serial frontal solver, as dimension of the coarse space could become a bottleneck. Detailed description of the implementation can be found in [@Sistek-2010-BFS], and some more experiments were presented in [@Sistek-2008-FEM]. Recently, the proposed selection of corners has been implemented into the parallel solver, and the natural parallelism of the algorithm is fully exploited. Numerical results {#sec:results} ================= Presented numerical results were computed on SGI Altix 4700 computer with 1.5 GHz Intel Itanium 2 processors (OS Linux) in Czech Technical University Supercomputing Centre, Prague. For decompositions, we use the METIS graph partitioner [@Karypis-1998-FHQ]. Three different industrial problems have been tested. The first one is a problem of elasticity analysis of a turbine nozzle, through which the steam enters the turbine blades (Figure \[fig:dyza\_geo\]). The geometry is discretized using 2696 quadratic elements, which leads to 40254 unknowns. The second one is a problem of elasticity analysis of a hip joint replacement which is loaded by pressure from human body weight. This mesh consists of 33186 quadratic elements resulting in 544734 unknowns. Both meshes are divided into 36 subdomains by METIS. The turbine nozzle problem was computed using 12 processors, for hip joint replacement 36 processors were used. The third problem is stress analysis of a mine reel loaded by its own weight and the weight of the steel wire rope (Figure \[fig:buben\_geo\]). The mesh consists of 140816 quadratic elements and 1739211 unknowns. It was divided into 1024 subdomains by METIS. Problem was computed using 32 processors. Decomposition characteristics of the three industrial problems are summarized in Table \[tab:interf\]. Three algorithms for selecting the basic set of corners are tested: Algorithm 1 from Section \[sec:selection\] referred to as full, modified Algorithm 1 described in Remark \[remark:favouring\] in Section \[sec:selection\] referred to as minimal, and the edge-based algorithm mentioned in Section \[sec:selection\], inspired by [@Klawonn-2003-SCD] and described in [@Sistek-2008-FEM], referred to as edge. The number of PCG iterations was chosen as a measure of quality of the BDDC preconditioning. Numbers of the basic sets of corners obtained by the three algorithms for the three problems are recorded in Table \[tab:basic\] and corresponding number of PCG iterations are summarized in Table \[tab:pcg\]. For the two smaller problems (turbine nozzle and hip joint replacement), either constraints on corners only (referred to as C), or constraints on corners and all averages (over all edges and faces) referred to as C+E+F are tested. For the larger problem of mine reel, corner constraints alone turned out to be too weak to achieve a reasonable convergence and the results are marked as ‘n/a’. The edge-based algorithm did not work properly for hip joint replacement problem in the case of the basic set of corners only, so the results are missing too. As the basic sets of corners selected by different algorithms have different numbers of corners, for a fair comparison of the algorithms we added more corners selected randomly from the interface to the smaller sets in order to achieve the same number of corners. Comparison of the algorithms using the same number of corner constraints is summarized in Table \[tab:pcg\_rand\]. Interesting results are obtained by adding more randomly selected interface nodes as corners to the basic set in order to improve convergence (see Figures \[fig:dyza\] – \[fig:buben\] left): it seems that the initial choice of the basic set influences the convergence properties even when many more randomly selected corners are added. Graphs on the right side of these figures show that the best computational time is achieved for higher numbers of corners than the basic sets for all problems tested and all algorithms for selecting the basic set used. It can be observed especially on the most difficult problem of mine reel (Fig. \[fig:buben\]), that the basic set of corners provided by the new algorithm in its full version is much more efficient than the basic sets provided by the earlier approaches and considerably reduces the computational time. Conclusion ========== It has been observed on a number of practical computations by the BDDC method, that the effort to find the minimal set of corners might be misleading and selecting more corners often considerably improves the performance of the preconditioner and reduces the computational time. This behaviour can be explained for problems with complex interface by position of selected corners, which may be optimal with respect to one pair of subdomains, but may lead to poorly conditioned problems for other subdomains. As a consequence, by favouring already selected corners, these subdomains are not given the freedom to select corners optimally distributed for their own fixation. This has been the main motivation for presenting a new approach to selecting the basic set of corners, which is proposed in Section \[sec:selection\]. It attempts to combine advantages of previous algorithms, and it is based on selection of corners independently for each face, so it can be naturally parallelized. It does not aspire to minimize the number of selected corners that assure the invertibility of all problems in BDDC and typically produces a larger initial set of coarse nodes than the other algorithms. We have seen this to be beneficial for all performed computations. Numerical experiments on three industrial problems show that for basic sets of corners, this approach gives better results than the other two algorithms used for comparison in all three tested problems. When more corners are added, better results are obtained in two of the problems (turbine nozzle and mine reel) and comparable results in the third case (hip joint replacement). We are aware that for very large problems the solution of the coarse problem might eventually dominate the computation and another approach than a (parallel) direct solver could be necessary. In such cases, multilevel extension of the BDDC method (e.g. [@Mandel-2008-MMB]) seems to be a promising way. However, we observed even for the largest test problem of the mine reel, that we did not reach this computational bottleneck when adding more corners into the coarse problem, and the curve of computational time with respect to the number of corners was still decreasing. The expected bottleneck is also pushed farther by the everlasting advances in parallel direct solvers. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== We are grateful to Jan Leština (Vamet Ltd.) for providing the problems of turbine nozzle and mine reel for testing. We would also like to thank to Jan Mandel and Bedřich Sousedík for fruitful discussions about this topic and BDDC method in general. Jakub Šístek would like to acknowledge the help of Lan Vu with improvement of the algorithm for disconnected subdomains. This research has been supported by the Czech Science Foundation under grant GA CR 106/08/0403, by the Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the CR under grant IAA100760702, and by projects MSM 6840770001 and MSM 6840770010. It has also been supported by Institutional Research Plans AV0Z 10190503 and AV0Z 20760514. ![A schematic illustration of the continuity constraints: functions from $\widehat{W}$ are continuous across the interface (left), functions from $\widetilde{W}$ are continuous only at corners, marked by circles (centre and right, for two different choices of $\widetilde{W}$).[]{data-label="fig:Wtilde"}](obr/spoj "fig:"){width="37mm"} ![A schematic illustration of the continuity constraints: functions from $\widehat{W}$ are continuous across the interface (left), functions from $\widetilde{W}$ are continuous only at corners, marked by circles (centre and right, for two different choices of $\widetilde{W}$).[]{data-label="fig:Wtilde"}](obr/w2 "fig:"){width="37mm"} ![A schematic illustration of the continuity constraints: functions from $\widehat{W}$ are continuous across the interface (left), functions from $\widetilde{W}$ are continuous only at corners, marked by circles (centre and right, for two different choices of $\widetilde{W}$).[]{data-label="fig:Wtilde"}](obr/w1 "fig:"){width="37mm"} $\widehat{W}$ 5.5cm $\widetilde{W}$ ![A 2D example of mechanism in the coarse problem for serial division into four subdomains, red dots denote corners.[]{data-label="fig:mechanism"}](obr/mechanism){width="60mm"} ![Example of a problem with one subdomain disconnected. Four corners obtained by algorithm without detection of components (left), and eight corners obtained with detection of components of interface (right).[]{data-label="fig:disconnected"}](obr/disconnected_old "fig:"){width="55mm"} ![Example of a problem with one subdomain disconnected. Four corners obtained by algorithm without detection of components (left), and eight corners obtained with detection of components of interface (right).[]{data-label="fig:disconnected"}](obr/disconnected_new "fig:"){width="55mm"} ![Turbine nozzle problem, 36 subdomains, initial set of 218 corners selected by the full version of Algorithm \[alg:selection\] marked by balls.[]{data-label="fig:dyza_geo"}](obr/nozzle_subdomains1 "fig:"){width="55mm"} ![Turbine nozzle problem, 36 subdomains, initial set of 218 corners selected by the full version of Algorithm \[alg:selection\] marked by balls.[]{data-label="fig:dyza_geo"}](obr/nozzle_subdomains2 "fig:"){width="55mm"} ![Mine reel problem, finite element mesh (left) and a detail of the steel rope with division into subdomains (right).[]{data-label="fig:buben_geo"}](obr/reel_geo1 "fig:"){width="55mm"} ![Mine reel problem, finite element mesh (left) and a detail of the steel rope with division into subdomains (right).[]{data-label="fig:buben_geo"}](obr/reel_subdomains1 "fig:"){width="55mm"} ![Typical dependence of the condition number (left), the number of iterations of the PCG (centre), and the total computational time (right) on the number of corner constraints. Dashed line - corner constraints only, full line - corner constraints and all face and edge averages. Hip joint replacement, 33 186 quadratic elements, 36 subdomains.[]{data-label="fig:celekt_condition"}](obr/hip_full_cond "fig:"){width="39mm"} ![Typical dependence of the condition number (left), the number of iterations of the PCG (centre), and the total computational time (right) on the number of corner constraints. Dashed line - corner constraints only, full line - corner constraints and all face and edge averages. Hip joint replacement, 33 186 quadratic elements, 36 subdomains.[]{data-label="fig:celekt_condition"}](obr/hip_full_iter "fig:"){width="39mm"} ![Typical dependence of the condition number (left), the number of iterations of the PCG (centre), and the total computational time (right) on the number of corner constraints. Dashed line - corner constraints only, full line - corner constraints and all face and edge averages. Hip joint replacement, 33 186 quadratic elements, 36 subdomains.[]{data-label="fig:celekt_condition"}](obr/hip_full_time "fig:"){width="39mm"} \[c\][\|c\|\|c\|r\|r\|r\|r\|r\|]{}problem & subs. & vertices & edges & faces & intf. nodes & all nodes\ Turbine nozzle & 36 & 6 & 60 & 101 & 2 714 & 13 418\ Hip replacement & 36 & 1 & 19 & 78 & 9 222 & 181 578\ Mine reel & 1 024 & 2 451 & 1 209 & 4 164 & 117 113 & 579 737\ \[c\][\|c\|\|r\|r\|r\|]{}problem & full & min & edge\ Turbine nozzle & 218 & 145 & 115\ Hip replacement & 227 & 189 & 66\ Mine reel & 7 864 & 6 183 & 4 152\ \[c\][\|c\|\|r\|r\|r\|r\|r\|r\|]{} & &\ & full & min & edge & full & min & edge\ Turbine nozzle & 38 & 49 & 73 & 24 & 27 & 29\ Hip replacement & 95 & 99 & n/a & 50 & 52 & n/a\ Mine reel & n/a & n/a & n/a & 935 & 1 841 & 4 637\ \[c\][\|c\|\|r\|r\|r\|r\|r\|r\|]{} & &\ & full & min & edge & full & min & edge\ Turbine nozzle & 38 & 41 & 42 & 24 & 25 & 26\ Hip replacement & 95 & 91 & $>$ 138 & 50 & 50 & 61\ Mine reel & n/a & n/a & n/a & 935 & 1 674 & $\approx$1 800\ ![Turbine nozzle problem, 36 subdomains, corner constraints only. Dependence of the number of iterations (left) and the total computational time (right) on the number of corner constraints. Full line - full version of the Algorithm \[alg:selection\], dash-dotted line - minimalistic version, dashed line - the edge based algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:dyza"}](obr/dyza_iter "fig:"){width="60mm"} ![Turbine nozzle problem, 36 subdomains, corner constraints only. Dependence of the number of iterations (left) and the total computational time (right) on the number of corner constraints. Full line - full version of the Algorithm \[alg:selection\], dash-dotted line - minimalistic version, dashed line - the edge based algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:dyza"}](obr/dyza_time "fig:"){width="60mm"} ![Hip joint replacement problem, 36 subdomains, corner constraints only. Dependence of the number of iterations (left) and the total computational time (right) on the number of corner constraints. Full line - full version of the Algorithm \[alg:selection\], dash-dotted line - minimalistic version, dashed line - the edge based algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:celekt"}](obr/hip_iter "fig:"){width="60mm"} ![Hip joint replacement problem, 36 subdomains, corner constraints only. Dependence of the number of iterations (left) and the total computational time (right) on the number of corner constraints. Full line - full version of the Algorithm \[alg:selection\], dash-dotted line - minimalistic version, dashed line - the edge based algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:celekt"}](obr/hip_time "fig:"){width="60mm"} ![Mine reel problem, 1024 subdomains, corner and all edge and face constraints. A dependence of the number of iterations (left) and the total computational time (right) on the number of corner constraints. Full line - full version of the Algorithm \[alg:selection\], dash-dotted line - minimalistic version, dashed line - the edge based algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:buben"}](obr/buben_iter "fig:"){width="60mm"} ![Mine reel problem, 1024 subdomains, corner and all edge and face constraints. A dependence of the number of iterations (left) and the total computational time (right) on the number of corner constraints. Full line - full version of the Algorithm \[alg:selection\], dash-dotted line - minimalistic version, dashed line - the edge based algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:buben"}](obr/buben_time "fig:"){width="60mm"}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Complexation in symmetric solutions of oppositely charged polyelectrolytes is studied theoretically. We include polyion crosslinking due to formation of thermoreversible ionic pairs. The electrostatic free energy is calculated within the Random Phase Approximation taking into account the structure of thermoreversible polyion clusters. The degree of ion association is obtained self-consistently from a modified law of mass action, which includes long-range electrostatic contributions. We analyze the relative importance of the three complexation driving forces: long-range electrostatics, ion association and van der Waals attraction. The conditions on the parameters of the system that ensure stability of the complex with addition of salt are determined.' address: \| Department of Materials Science and Engineering\ Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208 author: - 'Alexander Kudlay[^1], Alexander V. Ermoshkin,[^2] and Monica Olvera de la Cruz[^3]' title: 'Complexation of oppositely charged polyelectrolytes: effect of ion pair formation.' --- Introduction ============ The complexation of oppositely charged polyelectrolytes in different ionic conditions is an interesting problem of biological relevance.[Blomfieldreviw,Raspaud98,Levin02,k91]{} Moreover, the association of two oppositely charged linear chains has implications in the design of new materials with unique properties such as multilayer polyelectrolytes[de97,m04]{}, and carrier gels for drug delivery[@drug]. Industrial applications include uses as coatings, flocculants and absorbents.[flocc,abs]{} Charged chains can associate via many mechanisms given the large number of length scales involved in these mixtures. The properties of the complexes are strongly dependent on physical parameters such as salt and monomer concentrations, and on the chemical configurations of the chains such as their charge densities, persistence lengths, degrees of polymerization, and nature of the interactions between the charge groups along the backbone.[k94,ger,d00,ts94,p97]{} Complexes formed by chains with low charge densities have been analyzed using linearized models.[@be90; @c01; @c02; @mine; @cs04] These models are applicable to describe solutions with strongly hydrated charge groups of positive and negative charges, which interact weakly with each other. In these studies ion condensation effects[@m69; @All] can be neglected if the linear charge density is sufficiently low. The complexation in these systems occurs via collective charge fluctuations.[@be90; @c01; @c02; @mine] With addition of salt the complexes dissolve due to screening of electrostatic interactions. In certain polymer mixtures, even when the charge density is low, non-linear effects are important if the charge groups are strongly interacting. In these mixtures the oppositely charged groups, when placed at short separation distances, can be locally dehydrated, and act as localized short-range crosslinks between oppositely charged groups along the chains. The formation of these links generates a thermoreversibly crosslinked solution[@ee99; @we; @dd04] of oppositely charged chains. The number of crosslinks formed in equilibrium in such thermoreversibly associating chains is given by the law of mass action with an effective association constant. In uncharged systems the association constant depends exponentially on the strength of the short range attraction between the reactive groups. For charged reactive groups, however, there is an additional term in the association constant due to the electrostatic contribution to the free energy resulting from the collective charge fluctuations. Since association occurs between the ions belonging to oppositely charged chains, this additional electrostatic term always increases the rate of association. The importance of non-linear association of charges has been recently recognized in polyelectrolyte adsorption[@m01; @g98] and multilayer formation[m02]{}. In this work the electrostatic interactions are described using a two-fold approach. The strongly non-linear short-range interactions between oppositely charged groups are accounted for by including strong correlations between the chains. The long-range electrostatic interactions (which are weak for weakly charged polyelectrolytes) are accounted for in a linearized way by computing the fluctuations of this correlated solution of crosslinked charged chains using a generalized Debye-Hückel approach (Random Phase Approximation).[@be88; @jl90] The electrostatic free energy depends onthe structure of charged polymer clusters, while the cluster distribution depends (through the modified law of mass action) on the electrostatic free energy. Therefore, we determine here the number of formed crosslinks by evaluating self-consistently the electrostatic contribution from the collective charge fluctuations of a crosslinked system of charged chains. The degree of hydrophobicity of the chain backbone modifies the thermodynamics of the solution.[@mine] We consider non-selective solvents, where the degree of compatibility is the same for both the positively and negatively charged chains. We investigate how the degree of hydrophobicity influences the properties of complexes formed by electrostatic interactions. The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[model\] we describe the model and approximations used, and derive the free energy of the solution; the details of the derivation of the correlation function of the crosslinked system required to determine the electrostatic contribution to the free energy is given in Appendix \[app\]. In Section \[express\] we discuss how different system parameters influence the properties of the formed complex and its response to addition of salt. The conclusions are given in Section \[conclusions\]. The free energy of the semi-dilute solution {#model} =========================================== Model ----- In this section we calculate the free energy of a homogeneous semidilute solution of oppositely charged polyelectrolytes. For simplicity in this work we consider only the absolutely symmetric case. Positively and negatively charged chains are present in the solution in equal concentrations, and have the same physical properties except the sign of the charge. The chains have degree of polymerization $N=N_{1}=N_{2}$. The fraction of charged monomers on both types of chains is equal to $f$. We consider only weakly charged chains for which $f$ is small enough, so that electrostatic energy of adjacent along the chain charges is smaller than the thermal energy.[kh82,d95]{} The number concentrations of positively and negatively charged monomeric units are $\rho _{1}=\rho _{2}$, so that the total concentration of monomeric units in the solution is $\rho =2\rho _{1}/f$. Each charged monomeric unit releases a monovalent counterion. A 1:1 low molecular salt can also be present in the solution with concentration of positively and negatively charged ions given by $\rho _{s+}$ and $\rho _{s-}$, respectively, and the total concentration of salt ions $\rho _{s}=2\rho _{s+}=2\rho _{s-}$. Since the effect of counterions is equivalent to addition of salt we include the counterions in the salt. We describe strong electrostatic interactions between oppositely charged monomeric units as thermoreversible bond (crosslink) formation. This strong non-linear interaction should be treated differently from the long-range electrostatic part which is treated within the Random Phase Approximation (RPA).[@be88; @jl90] Another reason why formation of ionic pairs should be considered in addition to Coulomb interactions is because formation of ionic pairs can proceed with the rearrangement of the solvation shell of charges on polymer. In this case the effective dielectric constant between charges in a pair can differ significantly from the bulk solvent dielectric constant. Thus, the bond energy in a pair can be quite high. A natural model to describe such ion-pairing is reversible association between charges of opposite signs. For simplicity we assume that only pairs can be formed, with the absolute value of the reduced bond energy $\varepsilon =\left\vert E\right\vert /kT$ ($k$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ the thermodynamic temperature), which gives rise to association constant $\omega =e^{\varepsilon }$. Note that bond formation is different from short-range van der Waals attraction in that it has the saturation property, that is, once a bond between two given ions is formed they do not interact with any other ions. We write the free energy of the solution of associating polyelectrolytes in the following form$$F=F_{ref}+F_{RPA} \label{f11}$$where the first term is the free energy of the reference neutral system (but with short-range interactions) and the second term is the contribution of electrostatics. The electrostatic part $F_{RPA}$ is calculated within the RPA, which is a linear theory equivalent to the Debye-Hückel approximation (i.e., to the linearized Poisson-Boltzmann equation). For the reference free energy we use the Flory-Huggins mean-field approximation $$F_{ref}=F_{id}+F_{FH} \label{fref}$$which includes the ideal entropic and enthalpic terms. In our associating system the ideal term is the free energy of ideal gas of all possible clusters $\{C\}$ with appropriate statistical weights $\omega (C)$$$\frac{F_{id}}{kTV}=\sum_{\{C\}}\rho (C)\ln \frac{\rho (C)}{e\omega (C)}+\rho _{s-}\ln \frac{\rho _{s-}}{e}+\rho _{s+}\ln \frac{\rho _{s+}}{e}$$as well the entropy of the ideal gas of salt ions (counterions are also included here). As has been shown in the refs the equilibrium concentrations $\rho (C)$ can be obtained using a diagrammatic technique and the free energy of associating chains can be written as$$\sum_{\{C\}}\rho (C)\ln \frac{\rho (C)}{e\omega (C)}=\frac{\rho }{N}\ln \rho +\rho f\left[ (1-\Gamma )\ln (1-\Gamma )+\Gamma \ln \Gamma \right] -\frac{% \rho f\Gamma }{2}\ln \left[ \frac{\rho f\Gamma }{2e}ve^{\varepsilon }\right] \label{ass}$$Here conversion $\Gamma $ is the fraction of polymeric ions in pairs (see Appendix \[app\]), which is to be found from subsequent minimization of the total free energy of the solution. The volume of the monomeric unit $v$ (which we for simplicity assume to be equal to $v=b^{3}$) is used to approximate the internal partition function of the crosslink $% Z_{cross}=ve^{\varepsilon }$. Alternative combinatorial derivation of ([ass]{}) can be performed along the lines of ref . We assume that the polycation and polyanion backbones have identical short range interaction with solvent. The interaction free energy in (\[fref\]) is assumed to be given by the Flory-Huggins form $$\frac{F_{FH}}{kTV/b^{3}}=(1-\phi -\phi _{s})\ln (1-\phi -\phi _{s})+\chi \phi (1-\phi ) \label{ffh}$$where $V$ is the volume of the system, $\phi =\rho b^{3}$ is the total polymer volume fraction, and $\phi _{s}=b^{3}\rho _{s}=2b^{3}\rho _{s-}$ is the total volume fraction of salt ions (and also counterions). The first term in (\[ffh\]) stems from hardcore repulsion; the second one from short-range attraction, whose strength is characterized by the parameter $% \chi $. We will analyze both the cases of good and marginal to bad solvent. Note that, in contrast to previous works,[@c01; @kh92] interactions of backbones with solvent favor complexation under bad solvent conditions. Adding up the two contributions, the free energy $F_{ref}$ of the reference neutral system reads$$\begin{aligned} \frac{F_{ref}}{kTV/v} &=&\frac{\phi }{N}\ln \phi +\phi _{s}\ln \phi _{s}+\phi f\left[ (1-\Gamma )\ln (1-\Gamma )+\Gamma \ln \Gamma \right] -% \frac{\phi f\Gamma }{2}\ln \left[ \frac{\phi f\Gamma }{2e}e^{\varepsilon }% \right] + \nonumber \\ &&+(1-\phi -\phi _{s})\ln (1-\phi -\phi _{s})+\chi \phi (1-\phi ) \label{fref2}\end{aligned}$$ Electrostatic free energy: Random Phase Approximation ----------------------------------------------------- Due to electroneutrality the electrostatic contribution $F_{RPA}$ in the total free energy (\[f11\]) is due to fluctuations of charge concentration, which is calculated within the Random Phase Approximation (see ref for details):$$\frac{F_{RPA}}{kT}=\frac{V}{2}\int \frac{d^{3}q}{(2\pi )^{3}}\left[ \ln \left( \det \left( {\bf I}+{\bf G}(q){\bf U}(q)\right) \right) -\sum_{i}\rho _{i}U_{ii}(q)\right] \label{frpa}$$where ${\bf I=}\left\vert \left\vert {\bf \delta }_{ij}\right\vert \right\vert $ is the unitary matrix, ${\bf G}(q)$ is the correlation function matrix of the reference neutral system and ${\bf U}(q)$ is the matrix of Coulomb interactions. The sum runs over all charged components of the system (co-ions and salt ions). The last term in (\[frpa\]) is the self-energy of pointlike charges. The correlation function matrix ${\bf G}(q) $ can be in turn obtained within the RPA as[@iya; @deGennes; @benoit]$${\bf G}^{-1}(q)={\bf g}^{-1}(q)+{\bf c}(q)$$where ${\bf g}(q)$ is the structure correlation matrix. It characterizes correlations of density due to existence of different clusters in the system, but does not include interactions. The matrix ${\bf g}(q)$ for our symmetric system has the form $$g_{ij}=\left( \begin{array}{cccc} g_{11} & g_{12} & 0 & 0 \\ g_{12} & g_{11} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \rho _{s-} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \rho _{s+}% \end{array}% \right) \label{gg}$$ The polymeric correlation function $g_{11}$ and $g_{12}$ are calculated in Appendix \[app\] using a diagrammatic approach. The interaction matrix $% {\bf c}(q)$ describes short-range interactions (free energy $F_{FH}$) and its components are given by$$c_{ij}=\frac{1}{\Phi }s_{i}s_{j}-2\chi p_{i}p_{j} \label{c1}$$where we introduced the volume fraction of solvent $\Phi =1-\phi -\phi _{s}$ and two auxiliary vectors $$\begin{aligned} s_{i} &=&\{1,1,1,1\} \\ p_{i} &=&\{1,1,0,0\} \label{c3}\end{aligned}$$Using the vector of valencies $e_{i}$, the Coulomb interaction matrix can be written in the following form $$\begin{aligned} U_{ij}(q) &=&e_{i}e_{j}U(q) \\ e_{i} &=&\{1,-1,1,-1\}\end{aligned}$$which allows us to simplify the expression under the logarithm in (\[frpa\])$$\det \left( {\bf I}+{\bf G}(q){\bf U}(q)\right) =1+U(q)\sum_{i.j}G_{ij}(q)e_{i}e_{j} \label{det}$$Using formulae (\[c1\]) and (\[c3\]) for the correlation functions $% g_{ij}$ and $c_{ij}$ we now can obtain $G_{ij}$ in accordance with (\[gg\]). Substituting the result into (\[det\]) we finally obtain$$\det \left( {\bf I}+{\bf G}(q){\bf U}(q)\right) =1+U(q)\left\{ 2g_{11}-2g_{12}+2\rho _{s-}\right\} \label{det2}$$It is remarkable that this result is the same as if we had neglected the short-range interactions (the matrix $c_{ij}$), that is, if we had put $% G_{ij}=g_{ij}$ in determinant (\[det\]). Note, however, that this simple result holds only for our case of a symmetric system (described by matrix $% g_{ij}$) and for symmetric long-range (matrix ${\bf U}(q)$) and short-range (matrix ${\bf c}$) interactions. The structure correlation functions $g_{ij}$ are calculated in Appendix [app]{} (see (\[gf11\]–\[gf12\])). We reproduce them here for convenience$$\begin{aligned} g_{11}(q) &=&\rho _{1}g(q)\frac{1+\left( \Gamma ^{\prime }\right) ^{2}h(q)}{% 1-\left[ \Gamma ^{\prime }h(q)\right] ^{2}} \label{pc1} \\ g_{12}(q) &=&\rho _{1}g(q)\frac{\Gamma ^{\prime }g(q)}{1-\left[ \Gamma ^{\prime }h(q)\right] ^{2}} \label{pc2}\end{aligned}$$The functions $g(q)$ and $h(q)$ are defined by (\[sg\]) and (\[hf\]) in Appendix \[app\]. The effective conversion $\Gamma ^{\prime }$ is defined as $\Gamma e^{-q^{2}b^{2}/6}$ in (\[ec\]), with the bare conversion $% \Gamma $ defined as the fraction of charged monomers participating in crosslinks (see eq \[dg\]). It is important to note that the correlation functions (\[pc1\]–\[pc2\]) are calculated for an ideal thermoreversibly associating system, in which no other interactions except crosslinking are present (in our case no electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions).[@we] Substituting these expressions into (\[det2\]) we can rewrite the free energy (\[frpa\]) as$$\frac{F_{RPA}}{kT}=\frac{V}{2}\int \frac{d^{3}q}{(2\pi )^{3}}\left[ \ln \left( 1+U(q)\left\{ \rho fg(q)\frac{1-\Gamma ^{\prime }}{1+\Gamma ^{\prime }h(q)}+\rho _{s}\right\} \right) -\sum_{i}\rho _{i}U_{ii}(q)\right] \label{frpa2}$$where $\rho f=2\rho _{1}=2\rho _{2}$, and $\rho _{s}=2\rho _{s-}=2\rho _{s+}$. To be able to evaluate $F_{RPA}$ we need to specify a suitable form of the interaction potential $U(q)$. For bare Coulomb interaction we have$$\begin{aligned} \frac{U_{C}(r)}{kT} &=&\frac{q_{e}^{2}}{\epsilon kT}\frac{1}{r}=\frac{l}{r} \label{co1} \\ \frac{U_{C}(q)}{kT} &=&\int d^{3}r~e^{i{\bf qr}}U_{C}(r)=\frac{4\pi l}{q^{2}} \label{co2}\end{aligned}$$Here we introduced the Bjerrum length $l=q_{e}^{2}/(\epsilon kT)$, where $% q_{e}$ is the electron charge and $\epsilon $ the dielectric constant of the solvent. In order to take into account the influence of the hardcore of the ions on the electrostatic contribution $F_{RPA}$ we use a modified Coulomb potential given by$$\begin{aligned} \frac{U(r)}{kT} &=&\frac{l}{r}\left( 1-e^{-r/b}\right) \label{mo1} \\ \frac{U(q)}{kT} &=&\frac{4\pi l}{q^{2}(1+q^{2}b^{2})} \label{mo2}\end{aligned}$$where the bond length $b$ is for simplicity taken to be the size of the ions. At large distances ($r\gg b$) the modified potential becomes the pure Coulomb potential (\[co1\]–\[co2\]). However, at $r=0$ the modified potential attains a finite value, while the original Coulomb potential diverges. Thus we phenomenologically include the impenetrability of the ions within the RPA formalism, which is originally formulated for pointlike ions. The RPA with the modified potential (\[mo1\]–\[mo2\]) has been shown to successfully describe the phase diagrams of polyelectrolytes[@emac] and of the low-molecular system of charged dumbbells.[@rpm] Furthermore, this potential has been successfully used in the liquid state approaches.[@gm03] Substituting the modified potential (\[mo2\]) into (\[frpa2\]) we obtain the final expression for the electrostatic free energy$$\frac{F_{RPA}}{kT}=\frac{V}{2}\int \frac{d^{3}q}{(2\pi )^{3}}\left[ \ln \left( 1+\frac{4\pi l}{q^{2}(1+q^{2}b^{2})}\left\{ \rho fg(q)\frac{1-\Gamma ^{\prime }}{1+\Gamma ^{\prime }h(q)}+\rho _{s}\right\} \right) -\frac{4\pi l% }{q^{2}(1+q^{2}b^{2})}(\rho f+\rho _{s})\right] \label{frpa3}$$Let us make several comments on the structure of $F_{RPA}$. The polymer structure correlation functions (\[pc1\]–\[mo2\]) diverge at the gelation condition $\Gamma (Nf-1)=1$, which is simply due to the fact that gelation corresponds to the formation of an infinite cluster. It is remarkable that the electrostatic free energy (\[frpa3\]) has no corresponding singularity at the gelation structural transition. This is due to the charge symmetry of the considered system. Indeed since in our case association is possible only between oppositely charged chains (which carry the same amount of charge) the infinite cluster is by construction neutral, therefore does not contribute to $F_{RPA}$. (It can be shown that for any asymmetric system (asymmetry of $N$, $\rho $ or $f$) the infinite cluster is charged and, accordingly, expression for $F_{RPA}$ has a singularity at and beyond the gelation transition. However, this unphysical singularity is an artifact of our simplified description of gel structure.) Let us look at the limiting cases of eq \[frpa3\]. By putting $\Gamma ^{\prime }=0$ we regain the well-known expression for free unassociated chains, and if we put $\Gamma ^{\prime }=1$, the polyelectrolyte chains do not contribute to $F_{RPA}$. However, since $\Gamma ^{\prime }$ is only the effective conversion:$\ \Gamma ^{\prime }=\Gamma e^{-q^{2}b^{2}/6}$ the equality $\Gamma ^{\prime }=1$ is possible only when $\Gamma =1$ and $q=0$. On all finite lengthscales ($q\neq 0$) charges in crosslinks still contribute to the electrostatic free energy $F_{RPA}$. This is natural, since in our model of crosslinking the two opposite charges do not annihilate, rather they are considered as separate charges with Gaussian correlations between them, which leads to the emergence of effective conversion $\Gamma ^{\prime }$, instead of bare conversion $\Gamma $. Because the charges do not annihilate when the ionic pairs are formed, we subtract the self-energy of all ions present in the system (last term in (\[frpa3\])), regardless of whether they are free or form crosslinks. The chain correlation functions $g(q)$ and $h(q)$ are defined by (\[sg\]) and (\[hf\]). The function $g(q)$ can be easily calculated in the continuous limit, the result being the well-known Debye structure function. However, we also need the correct limit of pointlike ions at $q\rightarrow \infty $ in (\[frpa3\]), since we subtract the self-energy of all ions Therefore, we choose a simple interpolation form for the chain structure function $g(q)$$$\begin{aligned} g(q) &=&1+\frac{Nf}{1+q^{2}b^{2}N/12} \\ h(q) &=&g(q)-1\end{aligned}$$which gives the correct limit at $q=0$, has the scaling of a Gaussian chain at $N^{-1/2}\ll qb\ll f^{1/2}$, and reproduces pointlike ions at $qb\gg f^{1/2}$. Minimization of the free energy\[secmin\] ----------------------------------------- The total free energy (\[f11\]) is given by the sum of $F_{ref}$ in ([fref2]{}) and $F_{RPA}$ in (\[frpa3\]). However, this is only the virtual free energy of a system with a given value of conversion $\Gamma $. To obtain the equilibrium free energy $F(\Gamma _{eq})$ we need to obtain the equilibrium conversion $\Gamma _{eq}$, by the minimization of $F(\Gamma )$:$$\frac{\partial F(\Gamma )}{\partial \Gamma }=0$$Using (\[fref2\]) and (\[frpa3\]) we obtain the following equation for $% \Gamma $$$\frac{\Gamma }{\left( 1-\Gamma \right) ^{2}}=\frac{\phi f}{2}\exp \left[ \varepsilon +\mu _{RPA}(\Gamma )\right] \label{mal}$$This equation has the general structure of the law of mass action. A noteworthy feature of (\[mal\]), however, is that the energy gained from formation of a crosslink consists of the bonding energy $\varepsilon $ and the energy gain $\mu _{RPA}$ resulting from the long-range electrostatic attraction of the polymer chains described by $F_{RPA}$:$$\begin{aligned} \mu _{RPA}(\Gamma ) &=&\int \frac{d^{3}q}{(2\pi )^{3}}\frac{U(q)}{1+U(q)K(q)}% \frac{g^{2}(q)e^{-q^{2}b^{2}/6}}{\left[ 1+\Gamma ^{\prime }h(q)\right] ^{2}} \label{mg} \\ U(q) &=&\frac{4\pi l}{q^{2}}\frac{1}{1+q^{2}a^{2}} \\ K(q) &=&\rho fg(q)\frac{1-\Gamma ^{\prime }}{1+\Gamma ^{\prime }h(q)}+\rho _{s}\end{aligned}$$Of course the energy $\mu _{RPA}$ depends on the thermodynamic state of the solution, and thus on $\Gamma $, therefore equations (\[mal\]) and ([mg]{}) are to be solved simultaneously to obtain $\Gamma (\phi )$. Since in our model crosslinking takes place only between oppositely charged chains $% \mu _{RPA}(\Gamma )$ is always positive, that is, the electrostatic attraction, along with the specific binding energy $\varepsilon $, always promotes crosslinking. From the numerical solution one obtains that $\mu _{RPA}(\Gamma )$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $\Gamma $ for all $\phi $, which is explained by the fact that as more ions associate they contribute less to the long-range attraction (which can be seen directly from $F_{RPA}$ in (\[frpa3\])). Results and discussion {#express} ====================== Due to its complete symmetry, only macroscopic phase separation is possible in the considered system. In our ternary incompressible system of polymer, salt and solvent we have two independent components, which we choose to be polymer and salt. When macroscopic phase separation (precipitation) occurs the two coexisting phases differ in concentrations of both polymer and salt. Thus, generally speaking, we have to calculate the phase diagrams of a ternary incompressible system. However, we are mostly interested in two aspects of the precipitation process: the influence of different competing complexation mechanisms on the density of the formed precipitate (studied in the next section) and determination of the conditions of solubility of the complexes with addition of salt (section \[phd\]). In both of these cases we can make specific additional assumptions which allow us to investigate the mentioned problems in a simple and clear manner. Density of precipitate: effect of crosslinking and van der Waals attraction --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In our model we consider three complexation driving forces: long-range electrostatic attraction between co-ions, strongly non-linear short-range attraction leading to ion-crosslinking and van der Waals attraction between all monomeric units. In this section, we look at the density of the formed complex $\phi $, in particular how $\phi $ depends on the relative importance of the three complexation factors as well as how the density is influenced by the addition of salt. We can significantly simplify the analysis if we make the following two assumptions (similar to the ones employed in our previous work).[@mine] First, we assume an infinite degree of polymerization $N=\infty $. Second, the total concentration of polymer chains in the whole solution (system) is assumed to be small. Since the entropy of the chains represents the only driving force for dissolution of the polymer chains from the precipitate, the first assumption amounts to assuming zero polymer concentration in the supernatant (which for a finite $N $ would be a polymer-poor phase). The second assumption is equivalent to assuming that the salt volume fraction in the supernatant is equal to the salt volume fraction in the whole system, which we thus denote simply as $% \phi _{s}$. Note that the salt volume fraction in the precipitate $\phi _{s}^{(p)}$ can differ considerably from $\phi _{s}$, which, as we show below, has a significant effect on $\phi $. Given our assumptions, $\phi $ and $\phi _{s}^{(p)}$ can be found by equating the pressure and the chemical potential of the salt in the coexisting phases:$$\begin{aligned} p(\phi &=&0,\phi _{s})=p(\phi ,\phi _{s}^{(p)}) \label{pr} \\ \mu _{s}(\phi &=&0,\phi _{s})=\mu _{s}(\phi ,\phi _{s}^{(p)}) \label{mu} \\ \mu _{s} &=&\frac{\partial {\cal F}}{\partial \phi _{s}} \\ p &=&-{\cal F}+\sum_{i=1}^{2}\phi _{i}\frac{\partial {\cal F}(\{\phi _{i}\})% }{\partial \phi _{i}}\end{aligned}$$For convenience here and in the following we use a dimensionless equilibrium free energy density defined by ${\cal F}=F(\Gamma _{eq})/(kTV/v)$. The equilibrium free energy $F(\Gamma _{eq})$ is obtained from the minimization (described in section \[secmin\]) of the total free energy, which according to (\[f11\]) is given by the sum of (\[fref2\]) and ([frpa3]{}). We solve equations (\[pr\]–\[mu\]) numerically to obtain $% \phi $ and $\phi _{s}^{(p)}$, considering $\phi _{s}$ as a parameter. The results are given in Figures 1–3. In Figure 1 we assume no van der Waals attraction $\chi =0$ and plot results for varying bonding energy $\varepsilon =E/kT$. (Experiments on polyelectrolyte adsorption[@m01; @g98] and multilayer formation[@m02] are consistent with the value of binding energy $\varepsilon $ varying between $\varepsilon =3$ and $\varepsilon =7$.) We set the Bjerrum length $% l=3$, and the fraction of charged monomers $f=0.1$. The dependence of $\phi $ on $l$ and $f$ for the case of complexation without crosslinking was investigated in our previous work.[@mine] Similar to the results for that case, $\phi $ increases with increasing $l$ and/or $f$ for all $\phi _{s}$, $\varepsilon $ or $\chi $. With good precision one can obtain results for other values of $f$ simply by linearly scaling $\phi $ with $f$. Figure 1(a) shows the polymer volume fraction in the precipitate $\phi $ as a function of the salt volume fraction in the system $\phi _{s}$. We see that for all values of $\varepsilon $ the complex density monotonically decreases with increasing salt concentration. This is of course due to Debye-Hückel screening by salt, which makes the electrostatic attraction weaker (the term $F_{RPA}$ in the total free energy). Note that as $F_{RPA}$ becomes weaker the electrostatic binding energy $\mu $, given by (\[mg\]), also becomes smaller, thus both the long-range and short-range electrostatics become less efficient in forming the complex. This is illustrated in Figure 1(b), where we plot conversion $\Gamma $ for curves of plot Figure 1(a). We see that conversion also monotonically drops when more salt is added to the system, the behavior being similar for all values of $% \varepsilon $. With the increase of $\varepsilon $, conversion $\Gamma $ increases for all salt concentrations. However this does not directly translate into a denser complex as we can see from Figure 1(a). Indeed for $% \phi _{s}\approx 0$ we see that $\phi $ depends non-monotonically on $% \varepsilon $, the feature which will be explored in detail in Figure 3. For large salt concentrations the density $\phi $ is larger for greater $\varepsilon $, which is obviously due to increased crosslinking of chains. The presence of crosslinks manifests itself in a feeble dependence of $\phi $ on $\phi _{s}$ for larger values of $\varepsilon $, which indicates indissolubility by salt of complexes formed primarily by specific short-range attractions. At the same time for small binding energies (such as $\varepsilon =0$ and $\varepsilon =3$) in Figure 1(a) the density $\phi $ drops rather abruptly and becomes very small, which indicates dissolution of the complex with addition of salt (this problem will be studied in the next section). The difference between the salt concentration in the precipitate $% \phi _{s}^{(p)}$and that in the supernatant $\phi _{s}$ (which , according to our assumption, is equal to the salt concentration in the whole system) is presented in Figure 1(c). We see that for small $\varepsilon $ the precipitate is first enriched with salt, which (as we showed previously[mine]{}) is due to correlational Debye-Hückel attraction. For small $% \varepsilon $ with increasing salt concentrations $\phi _{s}^{(p)}$ becomes smaller than $\phi _{s}$ and then as the complex becomes very diluted for large $\phi _{s}$ there is only a negligible difference. For large $% \varepsilon $ we have $\phi _{s}^{(p)}<\phi _{s}$ for all salt concentrations. (Note that we plot the difference $\phi _{s}^{(p)}-\phi _{s}$ in Figure 1(c), of course $\phi _{s}^{(p)}$ increases with $\phi _{s}$) The depletion of salt was previously shown to be due to hardcore interactions.[@mine] This depletion turns out to have a considerable effect on $\phi $. In Figure 1(a) we plot with dashed lines the curves for $\varepsilon =5$ and $\varepsilon =7$ obtained from equation (\[pr\]) with the assumption $% \phi _{s}^{(p)}=\phi _{s}$. The effect can be seen to be especially substantial for larger values of $\phi _{s}$. In Figure 2 we illustrate the effect of the $\chi $-parameter for the case when the effect of association is small ($\varepsilon =0$). The complex is seen to become denser with increasing short-range attraction for all values of $\phi _{s}$. For $\chi <0.5$ (good solvent) the volume fraction $\phi $ strongly decreases with increasing salt (which is an indication of dissolution of the complex for finite $N$). However, for $\chi \geq 0.5$ (bad solvent condition) the density is seen to be negligibly dependent on $% \phi _{s}$ for large $\phi _{s}$, with the complex being stable with respect to addition of salt. Comparing Figures 1(a) and 2 we observe that behavior of $\phi $ with increasing $\phi _{s}$ is qualitatively the same when the complex is formed by crosslinking ($\varepsilon $) or van der Waals interactions ($\chi $). Note that we analyze here only marginally bad solvent conditions, for which we can disregard the possibility of necklace formation.[@necklace] The relative strength of the long-range electrostatic attraction vs. crosslinking is demonstrated in Figure 3. We plot the precipitate density $% \phi $ in the salt-free solution as a function of bond energy $\varepsilon $. Different curves correspond to varying $\chi $, which spans good to marginal solvent conditions. Increasing $\varepsilon $ means that a greater number of charges form crosslinks. Indeed from the numerical solution we obtain that in all cases $\Gamma $ monotonically increases with growing $% \varepsilon $. Thus increasing $\varepsilon $ physically means changing the driving force of complexation from long-range charge correlation to crosslinking attraction (numerically, at $\varepsilon =10$ the conversion $% \Gamma \approx 1$). Interestingly, as we see from Figure 3, the density $% \phi $ (although it exhibits a shallow minimum as a function of $\varepsilon )$ is rather insensitive to the value of $\varepsilon $. Thus, ion-pairing and long-range correlations lead to polyelectrolyte complexes of similar density and the two mechanisms can be difficult to distinguish experimentally for salt-free systems. Curves for different $\chi $ show qualitatively the same behavior, with $\phi $ increasing as the solvent worsens. Phase diagram: dissolution with addition of salt\[phd\] ------------------------------------------------------- As can be seen from Figures. 1(a) and 2 for small $\varepsilon $ and/or $% \chi $ the density $\phi $ becomes very small with addition of enough salt, which is indicative of precipitate dissolution for a finite $N$. In the previous section we assumed $N=\infty $, so the precipitate never dissolved. In this section we relax this assumption and look at the phase coexistence. Let us first investigate the effect of $N$ on the phase coexistence. In order to simplify the presentation let us assume that the salt volume fractions in the polymer-rich and polymer-poor phases are the same. Thus we treat $\phi _{s}$ as a parameter and obtain the coexisting polymer concentrations by constructing a common tangent to the equilibrium free energy density ${\cal F}$. An example of resulting phase diagrams for varying $N$ is shown in Figure 4 (the values of all parameters are given in the plot). The area below the coexistence line (for a given $N$) corresponds to phase separation (complexation at low salt concentrations), above — to a homogeneous solution (the precipitate dissolves at high salt $\phi _{s}$). Owing to our simplifying assumption of equal $\phi _{s}$ in the two phases, the tie lines giving the coexisting polymer concentrations are parallel to the $\phi $-axis. We see that the dilute phase has negligible polymer concentration even for rather small $N$, which justifies the assumption $% N=\infty $ of the previous section. When enough salt is added to the solution the precipitate dissolves. As we can see from Figure 4 the salt concentration needed to dissolve the precipitate strongly depends on $N$ and (as Figures 1 and 2 show) it also depends on $\varepsilon $ and $\chi $. In Figure 5 we determine the conditions on $\varepsilon $, $\chi $, and $N$ ensuring stability of the precipitate at a given concentration of salt. For each curve (corresponding to a certain $\chi $) the precipitate exists at $% \phi _{s}=0.1$ if the values of $\varepsilon $ and $\chi $ lie in the area above the curve, and the precipitate is dissolved in the area below the curve. (The value $\phi _{s}=0.1$ is taken as an example and it applies to all curves). The increase of either of $\varepsilon $, $\chi $, or $N$ stabilizes the complex to addition of salt. We observe that the stability of the precipitate is quite sensitive to the values of parameters in the experimentally most relevant region $\varepsilon \approx 3$, $\chi \approx 0.5$, and $100<N<$ $1000$. The results of Figure 5 can be used for experimental design of complexes stable to salt. We obtained Figure 5 by considering the spinodal stability of our two component system. The spinodal points are found from the following equation$$J(\phi ,\phi _{s})=\left\vert \begin{array}{cc} \frac{\partial ^{2}{\cal F}}{\partial \phi ^{2}} & \frac{\partial ^{2}{\cal F% }}{\partial \phi \partial \phi _{s}} \\ \frac{\partial ^{2}{\cal F}}{\partial \phi \partial \phi _{s}} & \frac{% \partial ^{2}{\cal F}}{\partial \phi _{s}^{2}}% \end{array}% \right\vert =0 \label{spin}$$with ${\cal F}=F(\Gamma _{eq})v/(kTV)$ being the reduced equilibrium free energy. In Figure 5 in the area above the curve for a certain $\chi $ the equation $J(\phi ,\phi _{s}=0.1)=0$ has two solutions, while in the area below the curve it has no solutions for physical values of $\phi $. It should be noted that in our two component system this condition on the existence of spinodal at a given salt is strictly speaking not equivalent to existence of phase separation (to demand that the critical point be at $\phi _{s}=0.1$ is yet another different condition). However, in the considered system dissolution occurs at very low $\phi $, so the three conditions yield numerically close results. Conclusions =========== Complexation in solutions of oppositely charged polyelectrolytes can be accompanied by thermoreversible crosslinking of oppositely charged monomeric ions. A local electrostatic binding energy can exist between oppositely charged units when they tend to be dehydrated in the vicinity of each other or due to non-classical specific interactions. In this work we have investigated how the three different mechanisms (long-range electrostatics, crosslinking and backbone hydrophobicity) define the properties of polyelectrolyte complexes at different salt concentrations. In our approach we obtain self-consistently the fraction of crosslinked charged monomers (conversion) and the Debye-Hückel collective fluctuations contribution to the free energy (which depends on conversion). Accordingly, the degree of conversion is determined both by the local binding energy and by long-range electrostatics. We find that the long-range charge fluctuations always promote crosslinking. Given that the magnitude of the Debye-Hückel contribution decreases with increasing salt, the fraction of crosslinked monomers also monotonically decreases with increasing salt. The polymer concentration in the precipitate is largest at low salt concentration, when the screening of interactions between monomeric ions is weakest. The complex concentration generally decreases monotonically with increasing salt concentration. The rate of complex dilution with addition of salt and the concentration of monomers in the precipitate at high salt are strongly dependent on the value of the van der Waals attractions and on the binding energy. Non-selective net van der Waals attraction between the monomers of both the positively and negatively charged chains enhances the complexation in a way broadly similar to crosslinking due to local binding energy. The dilution is very rapid and the monomer concentration of the complex goes to zero in the case of zero binding energy and zero net van der Waals attraction (good solvent condition). Instead, for large values of either type of the short-range attractions, as the salt concentration increases the monomer concentration in the complex generally nearly saturates to a nonzero constant value (or slightly increases for sufficiently large $\chi $). Our results are consistent with experimental observations[@d97; @d98; @d02; @d04] in which, depending on the type of polymers used, with the addition of salt the complexes can either dissolve, or their density can remain stable. In some cases initial dissolution and subsequent re-entrant precipitation is observed[@d00], the type of behavior obtained in our theory for marginal solvent. There is an important competition between complexation due to charge fluctuations and non-linear thermoreversible linking, which is especially interesting in good solvent conditions. Unassociated charged monomeric groups induce complexation due to long-range electrostatics. However, once they form crosslinks they practically do not contribute to long-range attraction. Therefore at high conversion rates complexation is mostly due to effective crosslinking attraction in an effectively neutral polymer solution. This competition leads to an interesting non-monotonic behavior of monomer concentration in the precipitate with increasing the non-linear binding energy in the case of zero salt concentration: with the increasing binding energy the monomer concentration in the precipitate passes through a minimum. Remarkably, the variation in the complex density is rather small, that is, crosslinking and long-range electrostatic attractions give rise to complexes of similar density. Another important effect in polyelectrolyte complexation is the difference in salt concentration inside and outside the precipitate. When the non-linear binding energy is small the difference in salt concentration in and out of the precipitate is negligible. However, for large binding energies (or large values of $\chi $) this difference rapidly grows as the overall salt concentration increases, the precipitate being depleted of salt due to increasing importance of hardcore interactions.[@mine] We find that for large binding energies and/or in a bad solvent the difference between salt concentrations in the complex and in the bulk has a significant effect on the density of the complex at high salt concentrations. An interesting limit to analyze includes the addition of non-linear correlations among the ion pairs when the fraction of charged units increases as in the case of strongly charged chains in oppositely charged multivalent ion solution[@Solis00; @Solis01] where even denser precipitates are expected. [Acknowledgments]{}. This work was supported by NSF grant DMR 041446. A. E. acknowledges partial financial support of NSF grant EECO 118025. Calculation of the structural correlation functions {#app} =================================================== In this section we calculate the structural correlation functions of the solution of associating oppositely charged polyelectrolytes. Charged groups on chains are treated as stickers that can associate with ionic groups of an opposite sign. We consider only the symmetric case of oppositely charged homopolymers of equal degree of polymerization $N=N_{1}=N_{2}$, present in solution with equal concentrations $\rho _{1}=\rho _{2}=\rho /2$. (Indices $1 $ and $2$ refer to positively and negatively charged chains, respectively.) We also assume that the chains have the same chemical structure, that is the same bond length $b=b_{1}=b_{2}$, and the distance between charges $% a=bf^{-1/2}$ ($f$ is the fraction of charged monomers on the chains). We assume Gaussian statistics for chains. The expression for the structural correlation function (\[gg\]) between two different types of monomers $\alpha $ and $\beta $ reads (for detailed derivation see ref )$$\begin{aligned} g_{\alpha \beta }(q) &=&\sum_{C}\rho (C)g_{\alpha \beta }^{C}(q) \label{gab} \\ g_{\alpha \beta }^{C}(q) &=&\sum_{i,j}\left\langle e^{i{\bf q}({\bf r}% _{i}^{\alpha }-{\bf r}_{j}^{\beta })}\right\rangle _{C} \label{gabc}\end{aligned}$$Summation in (\[gab\]) is over all topologically different clusters formed due to association of polymers, with $\rho (C)$ being the number concentration of a cluster having structure $C$ and $g_{\alpha \beta }^{C}(q) $ the molecular structural correlation function. In (\[gabc\]) the summation runs over all monomers of types $\alpha $ and $\beta $ of the cluster $C$. The average is over the conformations of the cluster, it can be written as$$\left\langle e^{i{\bf q}({\bf r}_{i}^{\alpha }-{\bf r}_{j}^{\beta })}\right\rangle _{C}=\frac{\int e^{i{\bf q}({\bf r}_{i}^{\alpha }-{\bf r}% _{j}^{\beta })}f_{C}(\Gamma _{C})d\Gamma _{C}}{\int f_{C}(\Gamma _{C})d\Gamma _{C}}=\frac{1}{V}\int e^{i{\bf q}({\bf r}_{i}^{\alpha }-{\bf r}% _{j}^{\beta })}f_{C}(\Gamma _{C})d\Gamma _{C}$$where $f_{C}(\Gamma _{C})$ is the probability function of finding the cluster in conformation $\Gamma _{C}$, and the integration is over the entire configurational space of the cluster $C$. To calculate the correlation functions (\[gab\]) we employ the grand canonical diagrammatic technique described in ref . (For details of the diagrammatic technique as well as applications to other related systems see refs .) As is shown in ref the correlation function can be expressed as the sum of all two-root diagrams$$g_{\alpha \beta }(q)=\sum_{n}z^{n}\sum_{C_{n}^{\alpha \beta }}\frac{% W(C_{n}^{\alpha \beta })}{S(C_{n}^{\alpha \beta })}\left\langle e^{i{\bf q}(% {\bf r}_{i}^{\alpha }-{\bf r}_{j}^{\beta })}\right\rangle _{C_{n}^{\alpha \beta }}$$where $z$ is the fugacity of the chain ($z=\exp (-\mu /kT)$, $\mu $ is the chemical potential), $W(C_{n}^{\alpha \beta })$ is the statistical weight of the cluster $C_{n}^{\alpha \beta }$ with two marked monomers of types $% \alpha $ and $\beta $, and $S(C_{n}^{\alpha \beta })$ is its symmetry index. In order to calculate $g_{\alpha \beta }(q)$ it is convenient to introduce the following generating functions. Let us introduce the generating function of all one-root diagrams $t$ (diagrams with one marked monomer), which can be calculated recursively as$$t=1+\omega zt^{N-1}\frac{N}{2} \label{tt}$$Here $\omega $ is the statistical weight of the crosslink: $\omega =\exp (\varepsilon )$, where $\varepsilon $ is the absolute value of the dimensionless crosslink bond energy $\varepsilon =\left\vert E\right\vert /kT $. Now we can write the sum of all labeled diagrams with two labels belonging to the same chain as$$\Sigma _{g}(q)=zt^{N-2}\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}\left\langle e^{i{\bf q}({\bf r}% _{i}-{\bf r}_{j})}\right\rangle _{chain}=zt^{N-2}\frac{N}{2}g(q) \label{sg}$$where we have introduced the correlation function of one homopolymer chain $% g(q)$. Note that the two labeled points are free, that is they have no diagrams attached to them. We need to introduce also a closely related to $% \Sigma _{g}$ sum of all diagrams where the two labels cannot belong to the same monomer,$$\begin{aligned} \Sigma _{h}(q) &=&zt^{N-2}\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}\left\langle e^{i{\bf q}(% {\bf r}_{i}-{\bf r}_{j})}\right\rangle _{chain}=zt^{N-2}\frac{N}{2}h(q) \\ h(q) &=&g(q)-1 \label{hf}\end{aligned}$$ Since the system is symmetric we need to calculate only two functions $% g_{11}=g_{22}$ and $g_{12}=g_{21}$. Using definitions (\[tt\]–\[hf\]) the autocorrelation function $g_{11}(q)$ can be written as the following series$$g_{11}(q)=t^{2}\Sigma _{g}+t^{2}\Sigma _{g}(\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{h})\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{g}+t^{2}\Sigma _{g}(\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{h})^{3}\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{g}+... \label{g111}$$Here, the first term is the sum of all diagrams in which the two labels belong to the same chain. Next terms result from summation of all diagrams with labels belonging to different chains. In our model only oppositely charged chains can associate with each other. The second term is the sum of all diagrams in which the two labels (marking monomers on chains of type $1$) are separated by a chain of opposite charge (type $2$). The next term in (\[g111\]) comes from summation of all diagrams with the insert between the labeled chain comprised of three chains (sequence $2-1-2$). Higher terms correspond to summation of diagrams with a higher number of chains in the insert between the labeled chains. In (\[g111\]) we introduced the effective statistical weight of the crosslink$$\omega ^{\prime }=\omega e^{-q^{2}b^{2}/6}$$which takes into account the correlations of monomers in a crosslink, which we assume to be Gaussian ($b$ is the bond length). Note that since one monomer can form only one crosslink the presence in a diagram of a chain connecting the two labeled chains corresponds in eq \[g111\] to a generating function $\Sigma _{h}\,$, in which summation runs over$\ i\neq j$. It is easy to see that the term in (\[g111\]) corresponding to the sum of all diagrams separated by $2n-1$ chains reads $t^{2}\Sigma _{g}(\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{h})^{2n-1}\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{g}$. It is easy to sum the infinite series (\[g111\]) as$$g_{11}(q)=t^{2}\Sigma _{g}\frac{1+\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{g}\omega ^{\prime }(\Sigma _{g}-\Sigma _{h})}{1-\left( \omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{h}\right) ^{2}} \label{g11}$$Analogously for $g_{12}(q)$ we obtain$$g_{12}(q)=t^{2}\Sigma _{g}\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{g}+t^{2}\Sigma _{g}(\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{h})^{2}\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{g}+t^{2}\Sigma _{g}(\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{h})^{4}\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{g}+... \label{g121}$$where the first term corresponds to all diagram with the labels belonging to two neighboring chains (of opposite charge), the next term — all diagrams with two chains separating the labeled chains and so on. The series ([g121]{}) can be summed as $$g_{12}(q)=t^{2}\Sigma _{g}\frac{\omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{g}}{1-\left( \omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{h}\right) ^{2}} \label{g12}$$To use the correlators (\[g11\]) and (\[g12\]) in the free energy we need to change from the variables $z$ and $t$ to the number concentration of charged monomers $\rho _{1}$ (for our case $\rho _{1}=\rho _{2}$) and conversion $\Gamma $. Conversion $\Gamma $ is defined as the fraction of charged monomers in crosslinks$$\Gamma =\frac{\rho _{1}}{\rho ^{(2)}}=\frac{\rho _{2}}{\rho ^{(2)}} \label{dg}$$where $\rho ^{(2)}$ is the number of crosslinks. As is shown in refs the concentrations are given by$$\begin{aligned} \rho _{1} &=&\frac{zt^{N}}{2}N \label{r1} \\ \rho ^{(2)} &=&\omega \left( \frac{1}{2}zNt^{N-1}\right) ^{2} \label{r2}\end{aligned}$$Combining it with (\[tt\]) and (\[sg\]) we obtain$$\begin{aligned} t^{2}\Sigma _{g} &=&\rho _{1}g(q) \\ \omega ^{\prime }\Sigma _{h} &=&\Gamma e^{-q^{2}b^{2}/6}h(k)=\Gamma ^{\prime }h(k) \label{ec}\end{aligned}$$which substituted into (\[g11\]) and (\[g12\]) yields$$\begin{aligned} g_{11}(q) &=&\rho _{1}g(q)\frac{1+\left( \Gamma ^{\prime }\right) ^{2}h(q)}{% 1-\left[ \Gamma ^{\prime }h(q)\right] ^{2}} \label{gf11} \\ g_{12}(q) &=&\rho _{1}g(q)\frac{\Gamma ^{\prime }g(q)}{1-\left[ \Gamma ^{\prime }h(q)\right] ^{2}} \label{gf12}\end{aligned}$$Note that in (\[ec\]) we introduced the effective conversion $\Gamma ^{\prime }$, which takes into account the correlations of ions in the crosslink. The divergence of the correlators at $\Gamma ^{\prime }h(q=0)=1$, i.e. $\Gamma (N-1)=1$ corresponds to gelation.[@ee99; @we; @eprl] The value of $\Gamma $ can be obtained from the definition of $\Gamma $ (given by eq \[dg\]) using relations (\[tt\]), (\[r1\]), and (\[r2\]). Conversion turns out to be determined by the unmodified mass action law$$\frac{\Gamma }{(1-\Gamma )^{2}}=\rho _{1}\omega =\rho _{1}e^{\varepsilon } \label{malo}$$This reflects the fact that in this Appendix we considered an ideal associating system (no other interactions except association are present). Conversion for the solution of associating polyelectrolytes is obtained from the minimization of the total free energy, which includes interaction terms. The resulting modified mass action law (\[mal\]) differs from eq \[malo\] in that it has a long-range electrostatic contribution to the effective binding energy. Bloomfield, V. A. [Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol]{}. [1996]{}, [6]{}, 334. Raspaud, E.; Olvera de la Cruz, M.; Sikorav, J.-L.; Livolant, F. [Biophys. J.]{} [1998]{}, [74]{}, 381. Raspaud, E.; Chaperon, I.; Leforestier, A.; Livolant, F. [Biophys. J.]{} [1999]{}, [77]{}, 1547 (1999). Levin, Y. [Rep. Prog. Phys.]{} [2002]{}, [65]{}, 1577. Izumrudov, V.; Zezin, A.; Kabanov, V. [Usp. Khim.]{} [1991]{}, [60]{}, 1570. Decher, G. [Science]{} [1997]{}, [277]{}, 1232. Messina, R. [Macromolecules]{} [2004]{}, [37]{}, 621. Leclercq, L.; Boustta, M.; Vert, M. [J. Drug Target.]{} [2003]{}, [11]{}, 129. Nystrom, R.; Hedstrom, G.; Gustafsson, J.; Rosenholm, J. B. [Colloid. Surface. A]{} [2004]{}, [234]{}, 85. Mende, M.; Petzold, G.; Buchhammer, H.-M. [Colloid. Polym. Sci.]{} [2002]{}, [280]{}, 342. Kabanov, V. A. In [Macromolecular Complexes in Chemistry and Biology;]{} P. Dubin et al., Eds.; Springer: New York, 1994. Philipp, B.; Dautzenberg, H.; Linow, K. J.; Kotz, J.; Dawydoff, W. [Prog. Polym. Sci.]{} [1998]{}, [14]{}, 823. Dautzenberg, H. [Macromol. Symp.]{} [2000]{}, [162]{}, 1. Tsuchida, E. [J. Macromol. Sci. - Pure Appl.Chem.]{} [1994]{}, [A31]{}, 1. Pogodina, N. V.; Tsvetkov, N. V. [Macromolecules]{} [1997]{}, [30]{}, 4897. Borue, V. Yu.; Erukhimovich, I. Ya. [Macromolecules]{} [1990]{}, [23]{}, 3625. Castelnovo, M.; Joanny, J.-F. [Eur. Phys. J. E]{} [2001]{}, [6]{}, 377. Castelnovo, M.; Joanny, J.-F. [Macromolecules]{} [2002]{}, [35]{}, 4531. Kudlay, A.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [2004]{}, [120]{}, 404. Biesheuvel, P. M.; Cohen Stuart, M. A. [Langmuir]{} [2004]{}, [20]{}, 2785. Manning, G. S. [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [1969]{}, [51]{}, 924. Dobrynin, A. V.; Rubinstein, M. [Macromolecules]{} [2001]{}, [34]{}, 1964. Ermoshkin, A. V.; Erukhimovich, I. Ya. [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [1999]{}, [110]{}, 1781. Ermoshkin, A. V.; Kudlay, A.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [2004]{}, [120]{}, 11930. Dobrynin, A. V. [Macromolecules]{} [2004]{}, [37]{}, 3881. Park, S. Y.; Barrett, C. J.; Rubner, M. F.; Mayes, A. M. [Macromolecules]{} [2001]{}, [34]{}, 3384. Sukhishvili, S.; Granick, S. [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [1998]{}, [109]{}, 6861. Park, S. Y.; Rubner, M. F.; Mayes, A. M. [Langmuir]{} [2002]{}, [18]{}, 9600. Borue, V. Yu.; Erukhimovich, I. Ya. [Macromolecules]{} [1988]{}, [21]{}, 3240. Joanny, J.-F.; Leibler, L. [J. Physique]{} [1990]{}, [51]{}, 545. Khokhlov, A. R.; Khachaturian, K. A. [Polymer]{} [1982]{}, [23]{}, 1743. Dobrynin, A. V.; Colby, R. H.; Rubinstein, M. [Macromolecules]{} [1995]{}, [28]{}, 1859. Semenov, A. N.; Rubinstein, M. [Macromolecules]{} [1998]{}, [31]{}, 1373. Khokhlov, A. R.; Nyrkova, I. A. [Macromolecules]{} [1992]{}, [25]{}, 1493. Yerukhimovich, I. Ya. [Polym. Sci. USSR]{} [1979]{}, [21]{}, 470; [1982]{}, [24]{}, 2223 de Gennes, P.-G. [Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics]{}; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, 1979. Benoit, H. C.; Higgins, J. S. [Polymers and Neutron Scattering]{}; Oxford University Press: New York, 1996. Ermoshkin, A. V.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. [Macromolecules]{} [2003]{}, [36]{}, 7824. Kudlay, A.; Ermoshkin, A. V.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. [Phys. Rev. E.]{}, to be published. Gonzalez-Mozuelos, P.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [2003]{}, [118]{}, 4684. Dobrynin, A. V.; Rubinstein, M.; Obukhov, S. P. [Macromolecules]{} [1996]{}, [29]{}, 2974. Dautzenberg, H. [Macromolecules]{} [1997]{}, [30]{}, 7810. Dautzenberg, H.; Karibyants, N. [Macromol. Chem. Phys.]{} [1998]{}, [200]{}, 118. Dautzenberg, H.; Jaeger, W. [Macromol. Chem. Phys.]{} [2002]{}, [202]{}, 2095. Dautzenberg, H.; Rother, G. [Macromol. Chem. Phys.]{} [2004]{}, [205]{}, 114. Solis, F. J.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [2000]{}, [112]{}, 2030. Solis, F. J.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. [Eur. Phys. J. E]{} [2001]{}, [4]{}, 143. Ermoshkin, A. V.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. [J. Polym. Sci. Polym. Phys.]{} [2004]{}, [42]{}, 766. Ermoshkin, A. V.; Olvera de la Cruz, M. [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [2003]{}, [90]{}, 125504. [Figure Captions]{} [Figure 1.]{} (a) Polymer volume fraction in the precipitate $\phi $ as a function of the salt volume fraction in the supernatant $\phi _{s}$ for different binding energies $\varepsilon $. Dash lines correspond to the assumption of equality of salt concentrations in the precipitate and supernatant: $\phi _{s}^{(p)}=\phi _{s}$. (b) Conversion $\Gamma $ for curves of plot (a). (c) The difference of salt volume fractions in the precipitate and supernatant $\phi _{s}^{(p)}-\phi _{s}$ for the curves of plot (a). [Figure 2.]{} Effect of the Flory-Huggins $\chi $-parameter on the change of polymer volume fraction in the precipitate $\phi $ with increasing salt in the system $\phi _{s}$. [Figure 3.]{} Variation of the density of the precipitate for salt-free system with changing binding energy $\varepsilon $. Different curves correspond to different values of the $\chi $-parameter. [Figure 4.]{} Coexistence lines for phases with different polymer volume fractions $\phi $ at a given salt volume fraction $\phi _{s}$. The effect of varying chain length $N$ is illustrated. [Figure 5.]{} Stability of the precipitate to addition of salt. For all values of the bond energy $\varepsilon $ and the chain length $N$ below the curve for a corresponding $\chi $-value the precipitate dissolves when the salt concentration is increased beyond $\phi _{s}>0.1$. [^1]: E-mail: [email protected] [^2]: E-mail: [email protected]. Present address: Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599 [^3]: E-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'I summarize Density Functional Theory (DFT) in a language familiar to quantum field theorists, and introduce several apparently novel ideas for constructing [systematic]{} approximations for the density functional. I also note that, at least within the large $K$ approximation ($K$ is the number of electron spin components), it is easier to compute the quantum effective action of the Coulomb photon field, which is related to the density functional by algebraic manipulations in momentum space.' author: - \| Tom Banks\ NHETC and Department of Physics\ Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019\ [and]{}\ Department of Physics and SCIPP\ University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064\ E-mail: <[email protected]> title: '[ RUNHETC-2015-07 SCIPP 15/11]{}.5in Density Functional Theory for Field Theorists [I]{}' --- Density Functional Theory for Quantum Field Theorists ===================================================== Much of atomic, molecular and (quantum) condensed matter physics, reduces, in the non-relativistic limit, to the problem of solving the Schrödinger equation for point-like nuclei and electrons, interacting via the Coulomb potential. The electrons are fermions, and are best treated by introducing an electron field $$\psi_i ({\bf x}) = \sum_{\bf k} a_i ({\bf k}) e^{i {\bf k\cdot x}} ,$$ where $i$ is a spin label. If we introduce dimensionless space-time coordinates, by using the Bohr radius to measure length, and the Rydberg to measure energy, the only parameters in the problem are the nuclear charges $Z_a$ and the mass ratios $\frac{m_e}{m_a}$. The latter appear multiplying the nuclear kinetic terms $$H_{kin-nuc} = \sum_a \frac{m_e}{m_a} {\bf P}_a^2 .$$ The mass ratios are all $\leq .0005$, and this leads to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation for calculating a systematic series in powers of these small dimensionless parameters. One first freezes the nuclear positions and finds the electronic ground state energy $V_{BO} ({\bf R}_a )$ as a function of the nuclear positions. Then one minimizes the Born Oppenheimer potential and expands around the minimum to quadratic order. The minimum value of $V_{BO}$ is the order $1$ contribution to the ground state energy of the system in Rydbergs. The oscillator corrections are down by $\sqrt{\frac{m_e}{m_a}}$ . The next stage depends on whether one is dealing with atoms, molecules or large crystals. For atoms, the ground state is spherically symmetric. For molecules, the minimum of the Born Oppenheimer potential has a shape (the one you find models of in chemistry departments), and can be rotationally excited. The rotational level splittings are of order $\frac{m_e}{m_a}$. For large crystals the coherent superpositions of rotational levels corresponding to fixed positions of the crystal, satisfy almost classical equations of motion. On the other hand, the low energy spectrum of vibrational levels reaches down to $\sqrt{m_e / m_a} /L $, where $L$ is the linear size of the crystal. These phonon excitations are important to a number of properties of solids. The hard quantum mechanical part of all of these problems is the solution of the electronic Schrödinger equation for fixed nuclear positions. It is a many fermion problem with no dimensionless parameters. For infinite crystals one can introduce the electron density in Bohr units as a dimensionless parameter. Density Functional Theory is a general approach to this difficult problem. It was invented by Kohn Hohenberg and Shams[@KHS]. In this section, I want to present an elementary approach to DFT using concepts familiar to particle theorists, in the hope that we can make some contributions that may have been missed in the condensed matter literature. DFT has had remarkable successes in all areas of atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics, but much of the work is numerical. My hope is that there are some more analytical approaches to the calculation of the density functional, which can be of some use. In the second part of this paper I will present an analytic approach, based on an expansion in the number of electron spin components. The Born Oppenheimer approximation reduces all of our problems to that of electrons interacting via Coulomb repulsion, in a background potential $V_{ext} $, which neutralizes their total charge. $V_{ext}$ is a finite sum of nuclear Coulomb potentials, but it is convenient to generalize it to be an arbitrary function of ${\bf x}$ . Our problem then is to find the ground state energy of interacting electrons in a general neutralizing external potential, as a functional of the potential. Field theorists will instantly recognize this as the problem of finding the generating functional $W[V_{eff} ({\bf x}) ]$ of connected equal time Green’s functions of the electron density operator $$N( {\bf x} ) \equiv \psi^{\dagger}_i ({\bf x}) \psi_i ({\bf x} ) ,$$ in the Homogeneous Electron Gas (HEG). This observation is, from one point of view, the foundation of density functional theory. The density functional is just the functional Legendre transform of $W$. More intuitively, we can use the variational principle to find the ground state energy by minimizing $$\langle \chi \| \int d^3 x\ \psi^{\dagger}_i ({\bf x}) ( - \nabla^2 -\mu ) \psi_i ({\bf x}) + \frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x\ d^3 y\ \frac{(\tilde{N}({\bf x})\ \tilde{N}({\bf y})}{\|{\bf x - y}\|} +\int d^3 x\ N({\bf x}) V_{ext} ({\bf x}) , \| \chi \rangle ,$$ over all normalized states $\| \chi \rangle$. $\mu$ is the chemical potential and $\tilde{N} ({\bf x}) = N ({\bf x}) - n_0 ,$ where $n_0$ is the neutralizing charge density. We perform the minimization in stages, first minimizing the expectation value of the Hamiltonian among normalized states with a fixed value of the density $$n({\bf x}) = \langle \chi \| N(x) \| \chi \rangle ,$$ and then minimizing the resulting functional of $n({\bf x})$ w.r.t. the density. This procedure recommends itself, because the non-universal part of the energy, the part that depends on the external potential, is just $$\int d^3 x\ n({\bf x}) V_{ext} ({\bf x}) ,$$ and is thus a simple and explicit functional of the density alone. The hard part of the calculation, which gives rise to the density functional $F[n({\bf x})]$ is a property of the HEG: it is the minimum expectation value of the HEG Hamiltonian in states that have fixed expectation value of the density operator $N({\bf x})$. The message is clear, if surprising. The better we can do at solving the apparently academic problem of the HEG, the better we can do at [all]{} the problems of atomic, molecular, and condensed matter physics. Since the ground-breaking Hohenberg-Kohn paper that pointed this out[@hk] condensed matter physicists and quantum chemists have been making this insight pay off in a major way. The HEG itself is a difficult problem, with no intrinsic dimensionless expansion parameter besides the average electron density in Bohr units. For high density, an expansion around the free electron gas is useful, though it must be re-summed to deal with apparent IR divergences. The point is that the long distance Coulomb potential is screened (the quantum analog of Debye screening in a classical charged gas at finite temperature) so the long distance and weak coupling limits do not commute. This problem is easily dealt with and several terms in the high density expansion of the ultra-local part of $F[n]$ are known. Much of the work on DFT uses an approximation first proposed by Kohn and Shams (KS)[@ks]. They write $$F[n] = F_0 [n] + \frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x\ d^3 y\ \frac{(\tilde{n}({\bf x})\ \tilde{n}({\bf y})}{\|{\bf x - y}\|} + F_{LDA} [n] ,$$ where the first term is the density functional of a free electron gas[^1], the second, called the Hartree term, is the interaction term of the Hamiltonian with the density operator replaced by its expectation value, and the third, which is usually calculated by sophisticated numerical algorithms[@numerical], is an ultra-local functional of the density. It is the ground state energy density of the HEG. A variety of fitting functions have been proposed, which fit the numerical data and match the high and low density expansions[@fit], but there does not seem to be a systematic approach to computing corrections. There have been various attempts to go beyond the local density approximation. Some particularly successful ones are found in [@gga], but the most accurate fit to real data is found by making empirical fits to parameters in theoretically motivated formulae[@becke]. There is, to my knowledge, no systematic expansion for the density functional. One aim of the present paper is to propose directions for such a systematic set of approximations. We will see that the leading term in an expansion in the inverse number, $K$, of electron spin components gives something very close to the first two terms in the KS ansatz. The only difference is that $F_0 [n]$ is expressed in terms of the density, rather than KS orbitals. However, at the density which gives minimum energy, the two approaches give the same result. The higher order terms in the $1/K$ expansion are all describable in terms of diagrams whose vertices are functional derivatives of the partition function of a non-interacting electron gas w.r.t. a time dependent background potential. The propagator is similarly related to the density two point function. These remarks suggest an important step forward will be to develop analytic functional approximations to the non-interacting problems with an external field. I will make some tentative remarks about this in the penultimate section of this paper. The large $K$ expansion may also make it possible to explore analytically the properties of low density states of the HEG, which violate translation symmetry spontaneously, like the Wigner crystal[@wigner], and emulsions or stripes[@kivelson]. The leading order large $K$ expansion gives a steepest descent approximation to the expectation value of the potential coupled to the density operator. This is a translation invariant equation, but can have solutions which violate translation invariance and minimize the energy. Large $K$ expansions are not always reliable guides to the detailed physics of such phases and the transitions between them, but they certainly provide a convenient starting point for quantitative discussion. We’ll see that in leading order, the large $K$ expansion predicts a first order transition between a Wigner crystal and a homogeneous phase, at zero temperature. The KS approximation certainly gets some qualitative features of molecules and solids right. If we combine the Hartree term, the external potential term, and the Coulomb repulsion between nuclei, and ignore everything else, then the energy is minimized by making the electron density exactly cancel the nuclear charge density. However, because of the uncertainty principle, $F_0$ is large if the density varies on scales much shorter than the Bohr radius, while the nuclear wave functions are localized on scales shorter by a factor of $\sqrt{m_e / m_a}$, so exact cancelation is impossible. However, the Bohr radius of a single electron ion with a nucleus of charge $Z$ is $1/ Z$ in Bohr units, so the electron density tends to cluster in the vicinity of nuclear positions and to try to screen out the large nuclear charges, over distances of order $1$ in Bohr radii. Once the nuclear charges are screened down to something of order $1$, the competition between attraction to the nuclei, mutual repulsion, and Fermi statistics, becomes less easy to estimate, and one must go to more refined approximations. However, it’s clear that the qualitative fact that only a few valence electrons per nucleus are responsible for molecular binding, and transport in solids, follows simply from this crude approximation. What’s especially remarkable is that this essentially classical minimization problem captures so much of the quantum mechanics of a many electron system. Field theorists are used to the platitude that, in principle, everything one wants to calculate can be “reduced" to the problem of finding stationary points of the quantum effective action, but in atomic, molecular, and condensed matter physics, these fantastical claims actually lead to manageable computations. To conclude this introduction, I want to address myself to quantum chemists, band structure theorists, or other professional utilizers of DFT, who might happen across it. This paper is not addressed to you. As a practical tool, the methods proposed in this paper are not ready for prime time. My main motivation in writing has been to get professional field theorists interested in the field theory of the HEG, which is enormously simpler than the relativistic theories we typically study, but of enormous practical utility. The professionals have developed DFT into a tool of impressive accuracy, but the foundations of the theory and a more systematic approach to it have not been a center of interest for a while, as far as I am aware. A. Zangwill has pointed out a very interesting early paper[@dietz], which takes a field theoretic approach to DFT, similar to that advocated here. It will be interesting to compare the approach taken there with my own. The application of modern techniques of QFT to the HEG, is certainly a great mathematical physics project, and it might lead to real advances in practical calculations. I’m taking my first tentative steps in this field, and I would certainly appreciate guidance to the existing literature and things I might have missed. Some textbooks/monographs on DFT can be found in [@books], and an excellent recent history of the subject, from which I’ve benefitted enormously is [@zangwill]. Expansions in the Number of Spin Components =========================================== The Large $K$ Expansion ----------------------- From the point of view of Quantum Electrodynamics, the Hamiltonian of the HEG results from integrating out the electro-magnetic field in the non-relativistic approximation for electron motion. We can re-introduce the scalar potential by a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation[^2]. The finite temperature free energy of the HEG is then written as a Euclidean functional integral, with action for the Coulomb photon field $\phi$: $$S = \int d\tau\ \sum_{\bf k} {\bf k}^2 \phi_{\bf k} \phi_{\bf -k} + 2 {\rm Tr\ ln\ } \bigl(\partial_{\tau} - \nabla^2 - i g \phi (\tau, {\bf x}) - V_{ext} ({\bf x})\bigr) .$$ The trace is taken over the space of fermionic wave functions, $\psi (\tau, {\bf k})$ , periodic on a spatial torus and anti-periodic in Euclidean time. We’ve introduced the torus in order to isolate the spatial zero mode of the Coulomb photon field $\phi$. This mode is omitted from the sum, corresponding to the fact the the zero mode of the nucleon charge density, exactly cancels that of the electron charge density for a neutral system. We absorb the chemical potential into $V_{ext}$. The dimensionless parameter $g$ is equal to $1$ when we work in Bohr-Rydberg units. We insert it in order to obtain a smooth large $K$ limit when we give the fermions $K$ spin components. The log of the fermion determinant, like most functional determinants, has an additive infinity. We normalize it by insisting that for $\tau$ independent $\phi$ it just equals the free energy of electrons in the external potential $V - i\phi$. We now modify the HEG by allowing the electrons to have $K$ spin components, turning the $SU(2)$ spin rotation symmetry into $SU(K)$. The density operator $N(x) = \psi^{i\ \dagger} (x) \psi_i (x) $ has an expectation value of order $K$ and connected two point correlations of order $K$, so, in order to have a smooth large $K$ limit, we set $g = \sqrt{2/K} $, and define $\phi = \sqrt{K/2} \sigma$. The resulting functional integral over $\sigma$ has an action $$S[\sigma] = K[ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\bf k}\ {\bf k}^2 \sigma_{\bf k} \sigma_{\bf - k} + {\rm Tr\ ln\ } (\partial_{\tau} - \nabla^2 - i (\sigma - iV_{ext}) ] \equiv K\Bigl[ \frac{1}{2} \int\ \sigma (- \nabla^2) \sigma + \beta L[\sigma - iV_{ext}]\Bigr] .$$ For large $K$ the fluctuations of $\sigma$ around the stationary point of the action are of size $\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}$. For an equilibrium state, the stationary point should be independent of Euclidean time. Shifting variables to $ \chi \equiv i\sigma + V_{ext} $, the equation for a stationary point becomes $$\nabla^2 (\chi_0 - V_{ext}) = - \frac{\delta L}{\delta \chi ({\bf x})} .$$ The functional derivative of $L$ on the RHS is the electron density in a thermal equilibrium state of non-interacting electrons with external potential $\chi_0 $. Note that in terms of the original variable $\sigma$, the stationary point is on the imaginary axis, corresponding to a real potential. This often happens when evaluating an integral by the method of steepest descents. The value of the free energy $E$ (defined by $Z = e^{- \beta E}$) at the stationary point is $$E [V_{ext}] = K \int d^3x\ d^3y\ \Bigl[ \frac{\delta L}{\delta\chi ({\bf x})} \frac{1}{ - 2\nabla^2} ({\bf x, y })\frac{\delta L}{\delta\chi ({\bf y})} + L[\chi_0 ] \Bigr] ,$$ where $\beta$ is the inverse temperature. The functionals are evaluated at the stationary point, at real $\chi_0$, which is independent of Euclidean time. The density $n({\bf x})$ is defined as the functional derivative of $E$ w.r.t. $U$. To evaluate it we use the equation for the stationary point to write $$\frac{\delta U({\bf x})}{\delta \chi_0 ({\bf y})} = \delta^3 ({\bf x - y}) + \int\ G(y, w) \frac{\delta^2 L}{\delta \chi_0 ({\bf w}) \delta \chi_0 ({\bf x})} .$$ We then calculate $$\frac{\delta E}{U({\bf x})} = \int\ d^3 y\ \frac{\delta E}{\delta \chi_0 ({\bf y})}\frac{\delta \chi_0 ({\bf y})}{\delta U({\bf x})} ,$$ using the chain rule, and obtain $$\frac{\delta E} {\delta U({\bf x})} = K \frac{\delta L}{\delta \chi_0 ({\bf x})} .$$ The free energy can now be written $$E[V_{ext}] = \int d^3x\ d^3y\ \Bigl[ n({\bf x}) \frac{1}{ - 2K \nabla^2 } ({\bf x, y }) n({\bf y}) + K L[\chi_0 ] \Bigr] ,$$ where $$n({\bf x}) = K \frac{\delta L}{\delta \chi_0 ({\bf x})} .$$ Since $K L[\chi_0 ]$ is just the free energy of the system of non-interacting electrons in the external potential $\chi_0$ we can write $$K L[\chi_0 ] = F_0 [n] + \int\ [n \chi_0 ] .$$ Now use $$\nabla^2 (\chi_0 - V_{ext}) = - \frac{\delta L}{\delta \chi ({\bf x})} .$$ We see that the Legendre transform of $E[V_{ext}] $, which defines the leading large $K$ contribution to the density functional $F[n]$ is just given by $$F[n] = F_0 [n] + \frac{1}{2K} \int\ d^3 x\ d^3 y\ n({\bf x}) \frac{1}{\nabla^2} ({\bf x, y}) n({\bf y}) ,$$ which is the standard Hartree approximation to the density functional if $K = 2$. Note that since $n = 0(K)$, both of these terms are of order K in the large $K$ expansion. The term of order $1$ in the large $K$ expansion of the free energy is $$F_1 = \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr\ ln\ } [ - \nabla^2 \delta^3 ({\bf x - y})\delta (t_x - t_y) + \frac{\delta^2 L}{\delta\chi ({\bf x}, t_x) \delta\chi ({\bf y}, t_y)}] .$$ The operator whose determinant is evaluated here is called the inverse propagator of the $\chi$ field. Higher order terms in the large $K$ expansion involve Feynman diagrams whose vertices come from higher functional derivatives of $L$, and propagators for the $\chi$ field, which are inverses of the above integro-differential operator. The key to evaluating these corrections is the solution of the single electron problem in an external potential, as a functional of the potential. It’s also interesting to understand the relationship of the density functional to the functional $\Gamma [ \chi ]$, which field theorists call the effective action or 1PI (one particle irreducible) generating functional of the field $\chi$. This is defined in the HEG with no external potential. The diagrams of the $1/K$ expansion have a propagator that is given, to zeroth order by $ [- \nabla^2 + \Pi (x - x^{\prime})]^{-1}$, where I’ve introduced space-time notation to save typing ($x^0 = t$) and $\Pi$ is the one loop, Euclidean time dependent two point function of the density operator. One can divide all connected Feynman diagrams into those which cannot be cut in two, by cutting a single propagator line (the one photon irreducible diagrams), and those which can. It’s well known to field theorists that one can easily (meaning using only algebra in momentum space, without doing integrals) calculate the exact answer for any $n$ - point correlation of the field $\chi$, if one knows the exact $1PI$ correlators of $\chi $ for $k \leq n$. For the two point function, the result is known as the Dyson series. One simply corrects, order by order in the $1/K$ expansion, the polarization function $\Pi (x - x^{\prime})$, defined as the sum of all 1PI two point functions, and writes the full propagator as $( - \nabla^2 + \Pi )^{-1}$. 1PI n-point functions, $\Gamma_n ( x_1 \ldots x_n)$ of the field $\chi$ are written in terms of Feynman graphs involving loops of one component free electrons, which define the $k$ point vertices of the graphs as the connected, time dependent, $k$ point correlators of a gas of free electrons with a single spin component. The $k$ point vertex has a weight $K^{- (k - 2)/2}$ . The propagator for the photon contains only a single fermion loop contribution (RPA), and we sum over all 1PI graphs. The generating functional of 1PI graphs is $$\Gamma[ \chi_c ] = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} \int d^4n x\ \Gamma_n ( x_1 \ldots x_n) \chi_c (x_1) \ldots \chi_c (x_n ) .$$ It is well known to quantum field theorists that $$\Gamma[ \chi_c ] + \int d^4 x J(x) \chi_c (x) ,$$ evaluated at the value of $\chi_c$ satisfying $$\frac{\delta\Gamma[ \chi_c ] }{\delta \chi_c (x)} = - J(x)$$ is minus the logarithm of the functional integral over $\chi$ with action $$S[\chi ] = K [ \frac{1}{2} \int \chi \nabla^2 \chi + L[\chi] + \int \chi (x) J(x) .$$ The equation above says that $\Gamma [\chi_c]$ is the Legendre transform of the negative log of this functional integral. Call the Legendre transform of $\Gamma$, $W[J]$. On the other hand, the density functional (generalized to time dependent density fields) is the Legendre transform, w.r.t. $V_{ext}$ of the negative log of the functional integral with action $$S[\chi ] = K [ \frac{1}{2} \int (\chi - V_{ext}) \nabla^2 (\chi - V_{ext}) + L[\chi] .$$ Thus $F[n]$ is the Legendre transform of $$E[V] = W[ - \nabla^2 V_{ext} ] + \frac{1}{2} \int (V_{ext}) \nabla^2 (V_{ext}) .$$ The Legendre transform is not a linear operation. However, the Legendre transformed $n$ point functions, are given by tree diagrams constructed from the $n$ point functions of the original functional (as vertices) connected by the inverse two point function. The functionals $E$ and $W$ have $n > 3$ point functions which are the same up to multiplication by powers of momenta of the external legs, and two point functions which differ by a shift by $k^{-2} $ .It’s easy to construct the momentum space $n$ point functions of $F[n]$ as algebraic combinations of the 1PI $n$ point functions of $\Gamma$, thus exploiting the diagrammatic simplification of one photon irreducibility. An even easier procedure is simply to evaluate $\Gamma [\chi_c ]$ and use the relation $$E[V] = W[ - \nabla^2 V_{ext} ] + \frac{1}{2} \int (V_{ext}) \nabla^2 (V_{ext}) ,$$ and the Legendre transform relation between $W$ and $\Gamma$ to evaluate $E[V]$ directly, as the solution to a variational problem involving $\Gamma$. $F[n]$ has the virtue of being manifestly gauge invariant under space independent, but time dependent, gauge transformations of $\chi$, while $\Gamma$ is not. However, the simplicity of this calculational scheme suggests that it is the right way to proceed. Small K Expansion ----------------- We can also contemplate a small $K$ expansion of the functional integral over $\sigma$. For this purpose it is convenient to go back to the original variable $\phi$, in terms of which we see that the potential term in the Schrödinger operator becomes very large in the small $K$ limit, while the whole determinant contribution becomes small. We know that neglecting the determinant entirely will not work for small wave numbers, where screening effects are important. This suggests that a good approximation to the determinant for large, slowly varying potentials will be useful in this limit. This is precisely where the WKB approximation to the fermion determinant should work. If indeed we succeed in constructing a small $K$ expansion as well as a large $K$ expansion, then the technique of “two point interpolation" (a generalization of two point Pade approximants to expansions that are not pure integer power laws) might be expected to give reliable results for all values of $K$. The KS Equations ---------------- All of the applications of DFT are based on a series of approximations to $F[n]$ introduced by Kohn and Sham (KS)[@ks] . For non-interacting fermions, the density functional is computed by introducing independent single particle orbitals $\psi_i ({\bf x}) $, in terms of which the density is $$n({\bf x} ) = \sum_i \psi_i^* ({\bf x}) \psi^0_i ({\bf x}) .$$ These are the lowest $N$ normalized eigenstates of the single particle Schrödinger equation $$- \nabla^2 \psi_i + \mu + V({\bf x}) \psi^0_i = \epsilon_i \psi^0_i .$$ The value of $N$ is taken to coincide with $\int n({\bf x}) $, which is tuned by tuning the chemical potential $\mu$. The energy is $$\sum_ i \epsilon_i = \int\ \sum_i (\psi^0_i )^* ({\bf x}) [- \nabla^2 + \mu + V({\bf x}) ] \psi^0_i ({\bf x}) = F_0 [n ({\bf x})] + \int\ V({\bf x}) n({\bf x}) .$$ From this we see that [for the non-interacting problem]{} $$F_0 [ n ] = \int\ \sum_i (\psi^0_i )^* ({\bf x}) [- \nabla^2 + \mu ]\psi^0_i ({\bf x}) .$$ Note that these $\psi^0_i $ are fixed functions, because the potential in the Schrödinger equation, which they satisfy, is determined by $$\frac{\delta F_0 [n] }{\delta n({\bf x})} = - V({\bf x}) .$$ $F_0 [n]$ is then simply the kinetic energy of these single particle orbitals, and the density is written $ n({\bf x}) = \sum_i (\psi^0_i )^* ({\bf x}) \psi^0_i ({\bf x})$. KS now take the single particle orbitals as their variational parameters, rather than the density. The density functional is taken to be $$F[n] = K[\psi_i^* , \psi_i] + F_{Hartree} [n] + F_{xc} [n] ,$$ where $ n({\bf x}) = \sum_i \psi_i^* ({\bf x}) \psi_i ({\bf x})$, and $K$ the kinetic energy functional of the orbitals. One then varies $ F[n] + \int V_{BO} n$ w.r.t. the $\psi_i^* $ after making a suitable approximation to $F_{xc} $ , obtaining the KS equations: $$(- \nabla^2 + \mu ) \psi_i - [\frac{\delta (F_{Hartree} [n] + F_{xc} [n])}{\delta n({\bf x})} - V_{BO} ]\psi_i = \epsilon_i \psi_i .$$ The $\epsilon_i$ are Lagrange multipliers, which enforce the condition that the orbitals are normalized on the variational problem. These equations are solved by iteration. One starts with the solutions without the Hartree and [X-C]{} contributions to the density functional, computes the density, and plugs it into the density functional to get a new estimate of the self consistent potential, then repeats the exercise. My understanding is that the numerical convergence of the iteration is fast and stable. When $\psi_i$ satisfy the KS equations, the functional $K [\psi_i* , \psi_i]$ is [not]{} equal to the non-interacting density functional $F_0 [n] $, because the potential in the Schröodinger equation satisfied by the $\psi_i $ is not equal to $- \frac{\delta F_0}{\delta n} $. For general $n$ there is no simple relation between the two functionals. However, when $n$ satisfies the density functional condition $$\frac{\delta F_0}{\delta n({\bf x})} + [\frac{\delta (F_{Hartree} [n] + F_{xc} [n])}{\delta n({\bf x})} - V_{BO} ] = 0 ,$$ then the KS orbitals indeed satisfy $$(- \nabla^2 + \mu - \frac{\delta F_0}{\delta n({\bf x})}) \psi_i = \epsilon_i \psi_i .$$ We conclude that, at the minimum, the KS functional coincides with that obtained by using $F_0 [n]$ rather than the orbital kinetic energies. The KS equations are equivalent to those obtained by varying the density[^3]. The KS procedure makes the term $F_0 [n]$ a rather explicit functional of their variational orbitals, while computing $F_0 [n]$ is a nontrivial project, because it’s tantamount to solving the single particle Schrödinger equation for an arbitrary potential. KS reserve this work for their numerical solution of the variational equations. Historically, this was surely motivated by the existence of large computer codes for solving the Hartree equations at the time KS began their work. In order to carry out computations in the large $K$ expansion, we need to compute $L[\chi (t, {\bf x}) ]$. For time independent $\chi$ this is the Legendre transform of $F_0 $. Thus, for our purposes, working in terms of $n$ rather than KS orbitals, would seem to be the route to follow. Expansions of the Functional Determinant ======================================== Functional determinants can be computed simply in two different limits, constant fields of arbitrary strength, leading to the derivative expansion, and weak fields of general functional form. We begin by showing that these two expansions are expansions in a single parameter around $0$ and infinite values. Consider the Euclidean Schrödinger equation $$[\partial_t - \nabla^2 - \mu - g \chi (t, {\bf x}) ] f_n = \lambda_n f_n .$$ For small $g$ we can solve this by simple perturbation theory. To understand the large $g$ limit we rescale $t \rightarrow t/g$ , $\mu \rightarrow g \mu$, ${\bf x} \rightarrow 1/g {\bf x}$. In terms of the new variables, the equation is $$[\partial_t - \nabla^2 - \mu - \chi (t g^{-1}, {\bf x} g^{- 1/2}) ] f_n = g^{-1} \lambda_n f_n .$$ The overall rescaling of the eigenvalues leads to an additive, $\chi$ independent term in the logarithm of the determinant, which we can discard. It’s clear from this formula that the large $g$ limit is equivalent to one in which the fields are slowly varying functions so the derivative expansion, implemented via the heat kernel expansion as in [@dietz], is the appropriate approximation. The leading term gives the Thomas Fermi approximation to the density functional. It’s certainly possible to compute several terms in the small $g$ expansion fairly easily. The large $g$ expansion is more complicated but we can certainly get the first non-leading term with relative ease. My goal is to find an interpolation between these two approximations which will be valid for all $g$, with small error. There are two different ways to think about such an interpolation. One can calculate physical quantities like the ground state energy of a particular system as expansions in $g$ and $1/g$ and find interpolating formulae for each quantity individually. Alternatively, one can try to find an interpolating formula for the entire [functional]{} $L[\chi ]$, and then plug that into the $1/K$ expansion. The second procedure is more universal, and adheres more closely to the original spirit of DFT, but it may be difficult to implement. 1/K expansion of the HEG ======================== Let us now apply the large spin expansion to the ground state of the HEG. The leading order leads to a translation invariant equation for the background Coulomb photon field $\sigma $ $$\nabla^2 \sigma = \frac{1}{T} \frac{\delta L}{\delta \tilde{\sigma} ({\bf x})} ,$$ where the determinant is calculated with $V_{ext} = \mu$ and a background $\sigma $ independent of Euclidean time. It is therefore proportional to the Euclidean time interval, $T$, which is taken to infinity. The tilde over $\sigma$ reminds us that the zero momentum mode is decoupled from the determinant, because of the constraint of neutrality. The only parameter in the equation is the chemical potential, or equivalently the expectation value of the density operator. The homogeneous solution of this equation, $\sigma = 0$ gives the correct ground state for high density. On the other hand, an intuitive argument shows that for low density, a periodic solution, in which there are electron density fluctuations of order $N$ above and below the neutralizing homogeneous positive background charge, is energetically favored. The scaling argument, which enabled us to scale out the Bohr Rydberg units, shows that the Hartree term in the equation is more important than the non-interacting electron density functional at low density. Intuitively, the Hartree term gives negative energy from a regular array of positive and negative charge excesses. One pays a price for this in electron kinetic energy because the band structure in the self consistent periodic potential gives a higher Fermi energy than entirely free electrons. However, as the length of the lattice spacing goes to infinity, this effect goes away, and the scaling argument shows that it goes away more rapidly than the negative Coulomb energy. Thus, at sufficiently low density there is a state with negative energy of order $K$, which is the true ground state, since the order $K$ contribution to the homogeneous ground state energy vanishes. The quantum phase transition between these two systems is of first order. The inhomogeneous phase sets in at a finite wavelength, determined by the critical density. Gaussian fluctuations around the homogeneous phase are controlled by the Random Phase approximation to the Coulomb photon polarization. The operator $$p^2 + \Pi (p,\omega) ,$$ where $\Pi $ is give by a single fermion loop , has no negative modes for any value of the density, so the homogeneous phase is meta-stable in the large $K$ limit. This is consistent with the finite, $o(K)$, jump in energy between the two phases. I have not studied the details of the equation closely enough to do more than quote conventional expectations (see the Wikipedia article) for the precise form of the lattice that minimizes the energy at low density. These are the body centered cubic lattice in three dimensions, the triangular lattice in two, and a uniform lattice in one dimension. The large $K$ limit gives a controlled context in which the arguments that lead to these expectations, should become rigorous. Another point, which one should be able to investigate quite simply in this limit, is whether there is a tricritical point in the density temperature plane, at which the transition becomes second order and disappears. Certainly, we expect that at high enough temperature, only a homogeneous phase exists. In the large $K$ approximation, the critical quantity to study is the temperature dependent Coulomb photon inverse propagator $p^2 + \Pi (p, \omega, T) $ in the homogeneous phase. As one approaches the critical point along any trajectory in the density-temperature plane, this operator should develop a zero mode and then an unstable mode as one passes through in directions where the crystal phase exists. It’s entirely possible that this computation already exists in the literature, so I will put it off to a future paper until I’ve done a more thorough literature search. Higher order terms in the large $K$ expansion around the homogeneous phase are given in terms of Feynman diagrams. The propagator in these diagrams is the inverse of $p^2 + \Pi (p, \omega)$, and the vertices are connected correlation functions of the density operator in the free electron gas. $\Pi$ itself is the two point connected density correlator in the free gas. In a future paper, I intend to compute a few orders in the large K expansion of the ground state energy of the HEG, and compare them to the accurate numerical answers from quantum Monte Carlo. Conclusions =========== I’ve summarized DFT in a language familiar to quantum field theorists and proposed several strategies for finding analytic approximations for the density functional. I’ve also suggested that the effective action for the Coulomb photon field might be an even simpler quantity to calculate. It seems to me that there is a lot more that can be done, and that field theorists should be able to do a really accurate job of calculating at least the connected $n$ point functions of the density operator of the HEG for $n \leq 4$ and the first few terms in the derivative expansion of the effective action, to all orders in the density. Ignorant of the fundamental results of DFT, I’d always considered the HEG an academic problem of limited interest, but I now realize how central it is to all [ab initio]{} calculations of the properties of matter under the normal circumstances that prevail on earth. It’s worth putting a lot of effort into this problem. I hope others will agree. Acknowledgments =============== I would like to thank D. Vanderbilt, D. Ceperly, K. Burke, J. Perdew, N. Andrei, P. Coleman, S. Shastry, and especially A. Zangwill, for guidance to the literature on DFT. This work was supported in part by a grant from the Department of Energy. I would like to thank the Physics Dept. of the Georgia Institute of Technology for its hospitality during the time this paper was written. [99]{} P. Hohenberg, W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 136, B864 (1964). W. Kohn, L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965). P. Hohenberg, W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 136, B864 (1964). W. Kohn, L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965). E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 46, 1002 (1934). B. Spivak, S. Kivelson, Ann. Phys. 321, 2071 (2006). K. Dietz, G. Weyman, Physica, 131A, 321, (1985). B. Simons, Quantum Condensed Matter Field Theory, Chapter 5, p. 112, https://ia601004.us.archive.org/33/items/ SimonsQuantumCondensedMatterFieldTheoryFreeScience975 J.P. Perdew and Y. Wang, Accurate and Simple Analytic Representation of the Electron-Gas Correlation Energy, Phys. Rev. B 45, 13244 (1992), J. Sun et al., Correlation Energy of the Uniform Electron Gas from an Interpolation between High- and Low-Density Limits, Phys. Rev. B 81, 085123 (2010). A. Zangwill, The Education of Walter Kohn and the Creation of Density Functional Theory, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 68, 775, (2014), Springer. Y. Kwon, D.M. Ceperley, R.M. Martin, Effects of backflow correlation in the three-dimensional electron gas: Quantum Monte Carlo study, Phys. Rev. B58, 6800, (1998). J.P. Perdew, Y. Wang, Accurate and simple analytic representation of the electron-gas correlation energy,Phys. Rev. B45,(1992) J.P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996); J. Sun et al. Density Functionals that Recognize Covalent, Metallic, and Weak Bonds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 106401 (2013). AD Becke, J. Chem. Phys. 96, 2155 (1992)\]; W. Kohn , A. D. Becke , R. G. Parr, Density Functional Theory of Electronic Structure, J. Phys. Chem., 1996, 100 (31), pp 12974Ð12980 R.G. Parr and W. Yang, Density-Functional Theory of Atoms and Molecules (Oxford U. Press, 1989); A Primer in Density Functional Theory edited by Carlos Fiolhais, Fernando Nogueira, Miguel A.L. Marques (Springer Lecture notes 2003). [^1]: There is a subtlety in this statement, in that Kohn and Shams write $F_0 [n]$ in terms of single particle solutions to the Schrödinger equation $ - \nabla^2 + \mu - \frac{\delta F_0 [n]}{\delta n({\bf x})} = \epsilon_i \psi_i $, rather than the density itself. We’ll deal with this subtlety in the section on the KS equations. [^2]: This is done all over the condensed matter literature. I’ve followed some concise lecture notes by Ben Simons[@simon], with small changes in notation. [^3]: I suspect that this is well known to adepts in DFT, but I could not find a clear explanation of this point in the literature.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We give a brief overview of the ghost-free massive and bimetric gravity emphasising its non-perturbative aspects and ADM approach to calculating the precise number of degrees of freedom. To the standard material, we add some thoughts concerning existence and uniqueness problems of matrix square roots in non-perturbative metric formulations of massive gravity.' author: - Alexey Golovnev title: 'On non-perturbative analysis of massive and bimetric gravity' --- [ address=[St. Petersburg State University; Ulyanovskaya ul. 1, 198504 St. Petersburg, Russia; [email protected]]{} ]{} Massive gravity =============== Constructing a viable theory of massive gravity [@FierzPauli] was a long-standing problem with the general trend of giving the negative answer [@BoulwareDeser]. A serious progress has been made several years ago which has led to the family of dRGT ghost-free models [@dRG; @dRGT]. The major task was to get rid off the sixth polarisation of the graviton which is a ghost [@BoulwareDeser]. With modern ADM formalism, it is evident that, out of ten independent metric components, one lapse and three shifts are non-dynamical and, in absence of further dynamical constraints, all six components of the spatial metric are dynamical and independent. It exceeds the required five polarisations of a massive spin-two particle by one. That the sixth mode is problematic was clear from the very early days of massive gravity. Indeed, the linearised Einstein-Hilbert action around Minkowski spacetime $$\label{linearEH} S=\int d^4 x\left(-\frac14(\partial_{\alpha}h_{\mu\nu})(\partial^{\alpha}h^{\mu\nu})+ \frac12(\partial^{\alpha}h_{\mu\nu})(\partial^{\nu}h^{\mu}_{\alpha})- \frac12(\partial_{\alpha}h^{\alpha\mu})(\partial_{\mu}h^{\beta}_{\beta})+ \frac14(\partial_{\mu}h^{\alpha}_{\alpha})(\partial^{\mu}h^{\beta}_{\beta})+{\mathcal O}(h^3)\right)$$ in the standard perturbation variables reads $$\label{pertact} S=\int d^4 x\left(-\frac14 (\partial_{\alpha}h^{(TT)}_{ij})(\partial^{\alpha}h^{(TT)}_{ij}) +\frac12\left(\partial_j\left({\dot v}_i-s_i\right)\right)^2-6{\dot\psi}^2+2(\partial_i \psi)^2+ 4\psi\bigtriangleup\left(\phi-{\dot b}+{\ddot\sigma}\right)+{\mathcal O}(h^3)\right)$$ where as usual $h_{00}=2\phi$, $h_{0i} =\partial_i b+s_i$ with $\partial_i s_i=0$, and $h_{ij}=2\psi\delta_{ij}+2\partial^2_{ij}\sigma+ \partial_i v_j+\partial_j v_i+h^{(TT)}_{ij}$ with $\partial_i v_i=0$, $\partial_i h^{(TT)}_{ij}=0$ and $h^{(TT)}_{ii}=0$. Given the “mostly plus” signature, we see that the transverse traceless sector (two independent variables) is healthy. Two transverse vectors amount to four independent variables with only two of them, ${\dot v}_i-s_i$, gauge invariant. Finally, four scalars combine into two gauge invariant combinations, $\psi$ and $\phi-{\dot b}+{\ddot\sigma}$. For those who know we note that these gauge invariant quantities can be obtained as the ${\mathcal H}\to0$ limit of the standard gauge-invariant variables from cosmological perturbation theory in conformal time, $\Phi=\phi-{\dot b}+{\ddot\sigma}-{\mathcal H}\left(b-{\dot\sigma}\right)$ and $\Psi=\psi+{\mathcal H}\left(b-{\dot\sigma}\right)$ where ${\mathcal H}$ is the “Hubble constant” ${\mathcal H}\equiv\frac{\dot a}{a}$ in conformal time. The variables $s_i$ and $\phi$ have no time derivatives in the action, and the time derivative of $b$ can be excluded by intergration by parts. Therefore, four variables are non-dynamical from the very beginning. And, due to the gauge freedom, it is easy to see that the vector and scalar sectors are fully constrained in general relativity which is extremely good because otherwise the scalar sector in the action (\[pertact\]) contains kinetic energies of the wrong sign. Of course, the remaining helicity-two variables represent the massless graviton. A priori, one can think of two ways of introducing a mass term into the action (\[linearEH\]), $h_{\mu\nu}h^{\mu\nu}$ and $h^{\mu}_{\mu}h^{\nu}_{\nu}$. Unfortunately, it breaks the gauge invariance, and therefore generically makes the potentially problematic variables truly dynamical. However, we note from the kinetic term (\[pertact\]) that $\phi$, or essentially $h_{00}$, has entered the action linearly which brings us to the Fierz-Pauli mass term $$\label{FP} V=\frac{m^2}{4}\left(h_{\mu\nu}h^{\mu\nu}-h^{\mu}_{\mu}h^{\nu}_{\nu}\right)$$ preserving the linear dependence on $\phi$. Despite absence of gauge invariance, the field $\phi$ serves as a Lagrange multiplier entailing a constraint on dynamical sectors. One can check that five surviving degrees of freedom are healthy, provided that the sign of the mass term is correct. Another view on the Fierz-Pauli mass term can be obtained from the St[" u]{}ckelberg trick, see a nice detailed discussion in the review paper [@Kurt]. At linear order, one can mimic the gauge transformation by $$h_{\mu\nu}\to h_{\mu\nu}+\partial_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}+\partial_{\nu}\xi_{\mu}$$ with an auxiliary 4-vector $\xi_{\mu}$. Substituting it into the mass term (\[FP\]), we see that the Fierz-Pauli combination is special in that, up to surface terms, it gives the Maxwellian kinetic function for $\xi_{\mu}$ $$\left(\partial_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}\xi_{\mu}\right)\left(\partial^{\mu}\xi^{\nu}-\partial^{\nu}\xi^{\mu}\right)$$ which is healthy. Otherwise the subsequent St[" u]{}ckelberg trick $$\xi_{\mu}\to\xi_{\mu}+\partial_{\mu}\varphi$$ would have produced a higher-derivative action for $\varphi$. This is how the helicity zero mode appears to have two degrees of freedom with different signs of kinetic energy. The problem with this discussion is that it is entirely in terms of the linearised theory. Going beyond that, we have to take into account the quadratic in $\xi_{\mu}$ part of the St[" u]{}ckelberg transformation which destroys the Maxwellian form of the vector kinetic function. Effective field theory breaks down at the $\Lambda_5\equiv \left(m^4 M_{Pl}\right)^{1/5}$ scale, with the leading terms in the quartic self-interaction of $\varphi$. The basic idea of dRGT [@dRG] was to amend the model first by a cubic addition to the Fierz-Pauli mass term, then to correct the new leading scalar self-interaction by the next order contribution to the potential, and so on. It allows to push the cutoff scale up to $\Lambda_3\equiv \left(m^2 M_{Pl}\right)^{1/3}$, and there were good reasons to suspect that, at least classically, the model gets restricted to precisely five independent degrees of freedom. Non-perturbative definition and analysis ======================================== It has been noticed [@dRGT; @HR1] that the series expansion of the mass term was nothing but Taylor expansion of a square root, so that $$\label{dRGT} V=2m^2\left( {\rm Tr}\sqrt{g^{\mu\alpha}\eta_{\alpha\nu}}-3\right)$$ where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is Minkowski metric, and the $-3$ term serves only to keep the Minkowski space a solution. The non-perturbative calculation of the number of degrees of freedom required the ADM analysis to be used. General relativity with an additional potential $V$ has the Hamiltonian $$\label{Hamiltonian} H=-\int d^3 x\sqrt{\gamma}\left(N\left(\mathop{R}\limits^{({\mathit 3})}+\frac{1}{\gamma}\left(\frac12 \left(\pi^j_j\right)^2-\pi_{ik}\pi^{ik}\right) -V\right)+2N^i\mathop{{\bigtriangledown}^k}\limits^{({\mathit 3})}\pi_{ik} \right)$$ where the ADM variables are given by $$\label{ADM} ds^2\equiv g_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx{\nu}=-(N^2-N_k N^k)dt^2+2N_i dx^i dt+\gamma_{ij}dx^i dx^j.$$ $N$ and $N_i$ are the lapse and shift functions respectively, and $N_i\equiv\gamma_{ik}N^k$. Generically the potential term non-linearly depends on all the lapse and shifts, and therefore the variation with respect to those variables directly determines their values in terms of the spatial metric components instead of producing any constraints on $\gamma_{ij}$. The non-perturbative analysis has first been done [@HR2] by directly square-rooting the matrix $$\begin{aligned} \label{basic} g^{\mu\alpha}\eta_{\alpha\nu}= \left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{N^2} & \frac{N^i}{N^2} \\ -\frac{N^j}{N^2} & \gamma^{ij}-\frac{N^i N^j}{N^2} \end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ By a complicated direct calculation, it has been shown that, after a suitable redefinition of shifts of the form $$N^i=\left(\delta^i_j+ND^i_j(\gamma, n)\right)n^j,$$ the square root can be expressed as $$\label{decomposition} \sqrt{g^{-1}f}= \frac{1}{N\sqrt{1-n^kn^k}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & n^i \\ -n^j & -n^i n^j \end{array} \right)+ \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & X^{ij}(\gamma,n) \end{array} \right).$$ Being multiplied by the measure factor $\sqrt{g}=N\sqrt{\gamma}$ in the Hamiltonian (\[Hamiltonian\]), it becomes a linear function of the lapse, and so a spatial sector constraint emerges. Rather laborious calculations [@HRfull] show that this constraint produces a secondary constraint, and this pair of second class constraints allows to consistently exclude one degree of freedom, and finally an equation for the lapse can be obtained. It gives a fully self-contained dynamical system with five degrees of freedom. In our paper [@my] an alternative approach was proposed. We introduce a matrix of auxiliary fields $\Phi^{\mu}_{\nu}$ and substitute the potential (\[dRGT\]), for simplicity without the $-3$ term, by $$\label{our} V=\frac{m^2}{N}\left( \Phi^{\mu}_{\mu}+ \left(\Phi^{-1}\right)^{\mu}_{\nu}N^2 g^{\nu\alpha}\eta_{\alpha\mu}\right).$$ Obviously, we have to assume $\Phi_i^k=\Phi^i_k$ and $\Phi^0_i=-\Phi^i_0$. After that the $\Phi$ fields can be integrated out giving $\Phi^2=N^2g^{-1}\eta$, and the initial action is restored. Associated with absence of velocities for $N$, $N^i$ and $\Phi^{\mu}_{\nu}$, we have constraints on the variables of the model. If there were six degrees of freedom, one would be able to directly determine all these non-dynamical variables in terms of $\gamma_{ij}$ with only these constraints. However, there is a direction in space of these variables along which there is no restriction at this level of Hamiltonian analysis [@my]. It signals a spatial sector constraint. In this approach we do not need to find the square root explicitly, and the calculations are straightforward even if cumbersome. Auxiliary fields appeared to be convenient for performing the non-perturbative analysis in St[" u]{}ckelberg variables [@HRStueck]. Generalisations =============== The most immediate generalisation is to consider a curved auxiliary metric $$\begin{aligned} \label{ADMinv2} f_{\mu\nu} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} -\left( M^2-M_k M^k\right) & M_i \\ M_j & s_{ij} \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ instead of Minkowski background. It suffices to substitute $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ with $f_{\mu\nu}$ in the potential term and to take the square root of the new matrix $$\begin{aligned} \label{basic2} g^{\mu\alpha}f_{\alpha\nu}= \left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{M^2-M_k \left(M^k-N^k\right)}{N^2} & \frac{s_{ij}N^j-M_j}{N^2} \\ -\frac{N^j\left(M^2-M_k \left(M^k-N^k\right)\right)}{N^2}+\gamma^{ij}M_{j} & s_{ik}\gamma^{kj}-\frac{s_{ik}N^k N^j-N_i M^j}{N^2} \end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ The same analysis as above goes through with some mild complications [@HRcurved]. One more generalisation is to note that, in four dimensions, there are three families of ghost-free massive terms [@HR1]: $$V_1={\rm Tr}\sqrt{g^{-1}f},$$ $$V_2=\left({\rm Tr} \sqrt{g^{-1}f}\right)^2-{\rm Tr} \left(\sqrt{g^{-1}f}\right)^2,$$ $$V_3=\left({\rm Tr} \sqrt{g^{-1}f}\right)^3-3\left({\rm Tr} \sqrt{g^{-1}f}\right)\left({\rm Tr} \left(\sqrt{g^{-1}f}\right)^2\right) +2{\rm Tr} \left(\sqrt{g^{-1}f}\right)^3,$$ all being symmetric polynomials of eigenvalues of $\left(\sqrt{g^{-1}f}\right)^{\mu}_{\nu}$. Moreover, one can consider massive gravity in arbitrary spacetime dimensions and use the full series $V_1, \ldots, V_{D-1}$ of elementary symmetric polynomials as ghost-free potentials. The proof of ghost-freedom with explicit square root (\[decomposition\]) is not difficult. We would only mention that there are further generalisations available. One can write down an independent Einstein-Hilbert term for the metric $f_{\mu\nu}$, and the Boulware-Deser ghost is still absent because the elementary symmetric polynomials of $\left(\sqrt{g^{-1}f}\right)^{\mu}_{\nu}$-eigenvalues multiplied by $\sqrt{-g}$ can obviously be expressed by means of elementary symmetric polynomials of $\left(\sqrt{f^{-1}g}\right)^{\mu}_{\nu}$-eigenvalues multiplied by $\sqrt{-f}$. Note that the last elementary symmetric polynomial $V_D$ introduces a cosmological term for the $f_{\mu\nu}$-metric. And in the vielbein formalism this construction can naturally be generalised to multimetric models [@KR]. Finally, one can make the graviton mass a function of a scalar field [@varmass], $V=2m^2(\sigma)\cdot\left(V_1+\sum\limits_{i=2}^{D-1} \alpha_i V_i\right)$. Alternatively, a scalar field can be incorporated in a more involved way known as quasi-dilaton massive gravity [@qdil]. And $f(R)$-type generalisations of massive gravity are also known [@fRmass]. The issue of square roots ========================= There is an interesting problem in non-perturbative metric formulation of massive gravity [@Cedric1; @Cedric2; @myrev]. A real square root of $\left(g^{-1}f\right)^{\mu}_{\nu}$ is not always available. In perturbation theory one can never encounter this problem. Non-perturbatively, the necessary and sufficient condition for existence of a real square root is that either $\left(g^{-1}f\right)^{\mu}_{\nu}$ does not have real negative eigenvalues, or if there is one, then it must go with an even number of identical Jordan blocks. What is probably more important, there is a non-uniqueness problem. Even for a unit marix one can find infinitely many real square roots like the following one: $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} 3/5 & -4/5 \\ -4/5 & -3/5 \end{array} \right)\cdot \left( \begin{array}{cc} 3/5 & -4/5 \\ -4/5 & -3/5 \end{array} \right)= \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right)$$ which works simply because $3^2+4^2=5^2$. What to make out of this infinite degeneracy? In principle, one can use the standard theory of matrix functions. Those can be approached via interpolation polynomials, or using the Jordan normal form to define any desired function. For diagonalisable matrices the procedure is obvious, and for a $k\times k$ Jordan block we take $$f\left( \left( \begin{array}{cccc} \lambda & 1 & & \\ & \lambda & \ddots & \\ & & \ddots & 1 \\ & & & \lambda \end{array} \right)\right)\equiv \left( \begin{array}{cccc} f(\lambda) & f^{\prime}(\lambda) & \ldots & \frac{f^{(k-1)}(\lambda)}{(k-1)!} \\ & f(\lambda) & \ddots & \vdots \\ & & \ddots & f^{\prime}(\lambda) \\ & & & f(\lambda) \end{array} \right)$$ The problem with this definition is that sometimes it yields complex results while a real square root also exists. The simplest example is the $\left( \begin{array}{cc} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array} \right)$ matrix which admits a real square root $\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right)$. In other words, the problem comes with real negative eigenvalues, in this case with two identical $1\times 1$ Jordan blocks. Note though that even with another square root, $\left( \begin{array}{cc} i & 0 \\ 0 & i \end{array} \right)$, the potential $V_2$ would still be real-valued[^1]. Of course, this problem arises only in non-perturbative regimes when the two metrics are in a sense very far from each other. A real negative eigenvalue of $\left(g^{-1}f\right)^{\mu}_{\nu}$ obviously means that there exists a positive linear combination of $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $f_{\mu\nu}$ which is degenerate [@myrev]. At the same time, for complex eigenvalues no such problem presents itself. Indeed, for a real-valued matrix, complex eigenvalues go in complex-conjugate pairs with complex-conjugate eigenvectors, and after transforming back to the initial basis, they will result in a real square root, provided that the branches of $\sqrt{\lambda}$ are chosen consistently for the two complex-conjugate eigenvalues. In principle, one can also try using Frobenius normal forms over real numbers for defining the square roots. However, the proof of ghost-freedom goes through even with auxiliary fields $\Phi$ which probably means that the structure of the model is insensitive to the way of taking the square root. It is still an open problem to understand the algebraic peculiarities behind the massive gravity actions. Conclusions =========== General relativity is a very rich theory. And, upon any intrusions, its scalar sector can present many unexpected surprises. For example, somehow modifying the Einstein-Hilbert variational principle in its conformal part, one can have an arbitrary cosmological constant without interactions with the trace part of the stress tensor as in unimodular gravity [@unimgr], or be able to mimic the Dark Matter behaviour with modified gravitation [@MDM; @myMDM; @MDM2]. Analysing the conformal sector in a gravitational model with several new degrees of freedom, it is sometimes possible to prove that it is healthy [@Tomi] despite the ghosts in other modes [@weall]. And vice versa, a single scalar ghost can spoil the whole game in otherwise very promising model as it was with the Boulware-Deser mode of massive graviton. And among all these blessings, deceptions, and dangers, it is the dangerous and even fatal part which appears to be the most exciting one. Fighting with the sixth polarisation has produced a very interesting model, the dRGT gravity. We have reviewed its formal aspects totally neglecting phenomenological questions for which we refer the reader to a very recent review by Claudia de Rham [@Claudia], one of the founders. The author was partially supported by Saint Petersburg State University research grant No. 11.38.660.2013 and by Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant No. 12-02-31214. [99]{} M. Fierz, and W. Pauli, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 173, 211–232 (1939). D. G. Boulware, and S. Deser, Phys. Rev. D 6, 3368–3382 (1972). C. de Rham, and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Rev. D 82, 044020 (2010). C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 231101 (2011). K. Hinterbichler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 671–710 (2012). S. F. Hassan, and R. A. Rosen, J. High Energy Phys., JHEP07(2011)009 (2011). S. F. Hassan, and R. A. Rosen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 041101 (2012). S. F. Hassan, and R. A. Rosen, J. High Energy Phys., JHEP04(2012)123 (2012). A. Golovnev, Phys. Lett. B 707, 404–408 (2012). S. F. Hassan, A. Schmidt-May, and M. von Strauss, Phys. Lett. B 715, 335–339 (2012). S. F. Hassan, R. A. Rosen, and A. Schmidt-May, J. High Energy Phys., JHEP02(2012)026 (2012). K. Hinterbichler, and R. A. Rosen, J. High Energy Phys., JHEP07(2012)047 (2012). Q.-G. Huang, K.-Ch. Zhang, and Sh.-Y. Zhou, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., JCAP08(2013)050 (2013). A. de Felice, A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, and Sh. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D. 88, 124006 (2013). Y.-F. Cai, F. Duplessis, and E. N. Saridakis, e-print arXiv:1307.7150 (2013). C. Deffayet, J. Mourad and G. Zahariade, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., JCAP01(2013)032 (2013). C. Deffayet, J. Mourad and G. Zahariade, J. High Energy Phys., JHEP03(2013)086 (2013). A. Golovnev, “ADM analysis and massive gravity,” in Proceedings of the 7th MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS MEETING: Summer School and Conference on Modern Mathematical Physics, edited by B. Dragovich and Z. Rakic, Institute of Physics, Belgrade, 2013, pp. 171–179; also available as an e-print arXiv:1302.0687. M. Henneaux, and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 222, 195–199 (1989). A. H. Chamseddine, and V. Mukhanov, J. High Energy Phys., JHEP11(2013)135 (2013). A. Golovnev, Phys. Lett. B 728, 39–40 (2014). A. O. Barvinsky, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., JCAP01(2014)014 (2014). T. Koivisto, Phys. Rev. D 83, 101501 (2011). J. Beltran Jimenez, A. Golovnev, M. Karciauskas, and T. S. Koivisto, Phys. Rev. D 86, 084024 (2012). C. de Rham, e-print arXiv:1401.4173 (2014). [^1]: Fawad Hassan, private communication	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Bounded linear types have proved to be useful for automated resource analysis and control in functional programming languages. In this paper we introduce an affine bounded linear typing discipline on a general notion of resource which can be modeled in a semiring. For this type system we provide both a general type-inference procedure, parameterized by the decision procedure of the semiring equational theory, and a (coherent) categorical semantics. This is a very useful type-theoretic and denotational framework for many applications to resource-sensitive compilation, and it represents a generalization of several existing type systems. As a non-trivial instance, motivated by our ongoing work on hardware compilation, we present a complex new application to calculating and controlling timing of execution in a (recursion-free) higher-order functional programming language with local store.' author: - \| Dan R. Ghica Alex Smith\ University of Birmingham bibliography: - 'manual.bib' title: From bounded affine types to automatic timing analysis --- Resource-aware types and semantics ================================== The two important things about a computer program are what it computes and what resources it needs to carry out the computation successfully. Correctness of the input-output behavior of programs has been, of course, the object of much research from various conceptual angles: logical, semantical, type-theoretical and so on. Resource analysis has been conventionally studied for algorithms, such as time and space complexity, and for programs has long been a part of research in compiler optimization. An exciting development was the introduction of semantic [@DBLP:conf/concur/Boudol93] and especially type theoretic [@DBLP:conf/lics/Hofmann99a] characterizations of resource consumption in functional programming languages. Unlike algorithmic analyses, type based analysis are formal and can be statically checked for implementations of algorithms in concrete programming languages. Unlike static analysis, a typing mechanism is compositional which means that it supports, at least in principle, separate compilation and even a foreign function interface: it is an analysis based on signatures rather than implementations. Linear logic and typing, because of the fine-grained treatment of resource-sensitive structural rules, constitute an excellent framework for resource analysis, especially in its bounded fragment [@girard1992bounded], which can logically characterize polynomial time computation. Bounded Linear Logic (BLL) was subsequently extended to improve its flexibility while retaining poly-time [@DBLP:conf/tlca/LagoH09] and further extensions to linear dependent typing were used to completely characterize complexity of evaluation of functional programs [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1104-0193]. Although such analyses use time as a motivating example, they can be readily adapted to other consumable resources such as energy or network traffic. A slightly different angle on resource sensitivity is control of reusable resources which can be allocated and de-allocated at runtime, the typical example of which is memory, especially local (stack-allocated) memory. A well-behaved program will leave the stack empty upon termination, so talking about the total usage of stack-allocated memory is meaningless. Also, talking about the total number of allocations (push) on the stack is rarely interesting. What is interesting is that the maximum size of the stack, which is bounded on most architectures, is not exceeded. For reusable resources the relevant limits are, therefore, concerning the rate at which the resource is used, for example power (as opposed to energy) or bandwidth (as opposed to total network traffic). In previous work, the first author used a BLL-like type system to bound the number of simultaneous concurrent threads in a parallel functional programming language in order to extract finite models [@DBLP:journals/tcs/GhicaMO06]. This view of concurrent threads as a (reusable) resource proved to be instrumental in facilitating the compilation of functional-imperative programming languages directly into electronic circuits [@DBLP:conf/popl/Ghica07] and is closely related (conceptually, if not formally) to the use of sub-linear runtime space restrictions [@DBLP:conf/aplas/LagoS10]. As type systems become more sophisticated the burden on the programmer may increase correspondingly, unless type inference is used to automate the typing process. In the case of bounded linear types the bounds can be calculated fully automatically, by solving a system of numeric constraints [@DBLP:conf/popl/GhicaS11]. In the case of dependent typing this procedure is not decidable, but reduction to constraint systems can still greatly simplify the typing burden [@DBLP:conf/popl/LagoP13]. Resource-awareness can be usually captured quite well by operational models of programming languages or typing systems. This is a common feature of the work cited above. A notable exception is the use of game semantics as a denotational framework for resource sensitivity, which was introduced by the first author [@DBLP:conf/popl/Ghica05] and recently formulated in a more abstract denotational setting [@lairdmmp13]. Contribution and paper outline ============================== The first part of our present work generalizes bounded linear (or, rather, affine) type systems to an abstract notion of resource, so long as it can be modeled in a semiring. For this abstract type system we show how the problem of type inference can be reduced to a system of constraints based on the equational theory of the resource semiring. Provided this theory is decidable, a type inference algorithm automatically follows. Also for the abstract type system we give a simple categorical framework for which we prove the key result of coherence. Because meaning is calculated inductively on the derivation of the typing judgment, and because these derivations are not unique, coherence is the property guaranteeing that all these interpretations are actually equal. Coherence for a categorical semantics is the analogue of a subject reduction lemma in an operational semantics, the basic guarantee of its well-formedness. The second part of our work presents a non-trivial application to timing analysis and automated pipelining of computations in a recursion-free functional programming language with local store. The key notion of resource is that of a schedule of a computation, i.e. the multiset of stages, as defined by the start and end of computation, at which a term undergoes execution. Mathematically, stages are contractive affine transformations representing a sub-interval of the unit interval, taken conventionally as the overall duration of execution of the entire program. The resource reading of duration makes good intuitive sense in our target application, automated pipelining, as each stage in a pipeline can be seen as a reusable resource which is either free or busy at any given time. Both the type inference and the categorical semantics are applicable to a variety of resource-sensitive type systems and semantics, generalizing prior work such as [@DBLP:conf/popl/GhicaS11]. Finally, we give a game-semantic model for the (concrete) type system in order to justify it computationally. The game-semantic model is denotational therefore compositional by construction, and the categorical semantics ensures that it provides a reasonable interpretation. We do not provide a conventional operational semantics because the game semantics provides enough operational content to be directly usable in the definition of a compiler as proved practically by our previous work on hardware synthesis (loc. cit.) and more formally in forthcoming work on constructing abstract machines from game semantics [@fredrikssong13]. Moreover, the game semantics provides an immediate model for foreign function interfaces, which is essential in the development of a useful compiler [@DBLP:conf/memocode/Ghica11]. Related work ------------ The problem of calculating timing bounds for program execution has been studied extensively. In functional languages it is especially relevant for reactive [@wan2001real] and synchronous [@pilaud1987lustre] programming. A variety of methods have been proposed, from static analysis [@liu1998automatic] to full dependent types [@Crary:2000:RBC:325694.325716]. The defining feature of our work is the fact that it is type-based and offers fully automated inference, so requires no annotations or additional effort from the programmer. The application to pipelining is also suitable in terms of our restriction to recursion-free programming, as pipelining is most commonly used as an optimization for finite unfolding of recursive (or iterative) terms. Bounded affine types, a general framework {#sub:agf} ========================================= Types are generated by the grammar $\theta::=\sigma\mid (J\cdot\theta)\multimap\theta$, where $\sigma$ is a fixed collection of base types and $J\in\mathcal J$, where $(\mathcal J,+,\times,{\textbf 0},{\textbf 1})$ is a semiring. We will always take $\cdot$ to bind strongest so we will omit the brackets. Let $\Gamma= x_1{:}J_1{\cdot}\theta_1,\ldots,x_n{:}J_n{\cdot} \theta_n$ be a list of identifiers $x_i$ and types $\theta_i$, annotated with semiring elements $J_i$. Let $fv(M)$ be the set of free variables of term $M$, defined in the usual way. The typing rules are: \ \ \ \ In Weakening we have the side condition $x\not\in fv(M)$, and in Application we require $\text{dom} (\Gamma) \cap \text{dom} (\Gamma') = \emptyset$. In the Application rule we use the notation $$J\cdot(x_1:K_1\cdot\theta_1,\ldots,x_n:K_n\cdot \theta_n) {\triangleq}x_1:(J \times K_1)\cdot\theta_1,\ldots,x_n:(J \times K_n)\cdot\theta_n$$ For the sake of simplicity we take operations in the semiring to be resolved syntactically within the type system. So types such as $2\cdot A$ and $(1+1)\cdot A$ are taken to be syntactically equal. In the context of type-checking this is reasonable because ring actions are always constants that the type-checker can calculate with. If we were to allow resource variables, i.e. some form of resource-based polymorphism (cf. [@DBLP:conf/tlca/LagoH09]) then a new structural rule would be required to handle type congruences induced by the semiring theory: But in our current system this level of formalization is not worth the complication. #### Observation. This is an affine type system where types are decorated with resources taken from an arbitrary semiring. The new rules are resource-oriented versions of contraction and application. The similarity with BLL [@girard1992bounded] and SCC [@DBLP:journals/tcs/GhicaMO06] is clear. If we instantiate $\mathcal J$ to resource polynomials (and also remove weakening) we obtain BLL. If we instantiate $\mathcal J$ to the semiring of natural numbers we get SCC. If $\mathcal J=\{0,1,\infty\}$ we obtain a conventional multiplicative affine type system. In Sec. \[chap:pipes\] we will see a much more complex resource semiring to control timing of execution. Type inference {#sec:gti} -------------- We present a bound-inference algorithm for the abstract system which works by creating a system of constraints to be solved, separately, by an SMT-solver that can handle the equational theory of the resource semiring. In the type grammar, for the exponential type $J\cdot\theta\multimap \theta$ we allow $J$ to stand for a concrete element of $\mathcal{J}$ or for a variable in the input program; the bound-inference algorithm will produce a set of constraints such that every model of those constraints gives rise to a typing derivation of the program without resource variables as variables are instantiated to suitable concrete values. Type judgments have form $ {\Gamma\vdash M:\theta \blacktriangleright \chi}, $ where $\chi$ is a set of equational constraints in the semiring. We also allow an arbitrary set of constants $\mathbf k:\theta$, which will allow the definition of concrete programming languages based on the type system. We allow each constant $\textsf k$ to introduce arbitrary resource constraints $\chi_{\textsf k}$ \ \ \ \ \ The constraints of shape $\overline{\theta_1=\theta_2}$ are to be interpreted in the obvious way, as the set of pairwise equalities between resource bounds used in the same position in the two types: $$\begin{aligned} \overline{\sigma=\sigma}&\stackrel{def}=\emptyset\\ \overline{J_1\cdot\theta_1\multimap\theta_1'=J_2\cdot\theta_2\multimap\theta_2'}&\stackrel{def}= \{J_1=J_2\}\cup \overline{\theta_1=\theta_2}\cup \overline{\theta_1'=\theta_2'}.\end{aligned}$$ If $\mathcal M$ is a model, i.e. a function mapping variables to concrete values, by $\Gamma[\mathcal M]$ we write the textual substitution of each variable by its concrete value in a sequent. The following is then true by construction: If ${\Gamma\vdash M:\theta \blacktriangleright \chi}$ and $\mathcal M$ is a model of the system of constraints $\chi$ in the semiring $\mathcal J$ then $(\Gamma\vdash M:\theta)[\mathcal M]$. Categorical semantics {#sec:cf} --------------------- We first give an abstract framework suitable for interpreting the abstract type system of Sec. \[sub:agf\]. We require two categories. We interpret computations in a symmetric monoidal closed category $(\mathcal G,\otimes,I)$ in which the tensor unit $I$ is a terminal object. Let $\alpha$ be the associator and $\lambda,\rho$ be the right and left unitors. We write the unique morphism into the terminal object as ${!}_A:A\rightarrow I$. Currying is the isomorphism $$\Lambda_{A,B,C}:A\otimes B\rightarrow C\simeq A\rightarrow B\multimap C,$$ and the evaluation morphism is $\mathit{eval}_{A,B}:A\otimes (A\multimap B)\rightarrow B$. We interpret resources in a category $\mathcal R$ with two monoidal tensors $({\varoplus},0)$ and $({\varodot},1)$ such that: $$\begin{aligned} &J{\varodot}(K{\varoplus}L) \simeq J{\varodot}K {\varoplus}J{\varodot}L&\text{(r-distributivity)}\\ &(J{\varoplus}K){\varodot}L \simeq J{\varodot}L {\varoplus}K{\varodot}L&\text{(l-distributivity)}\\ &J{\varodot}0 \simeq 0{\varodot}J \simeq 0&\text{(zero)}.\end{aligned}$$ The action of resources on computations is modeled by a functor $\cdot:\mathcal R\times\mathcal G\rightarrow \mathcal G$ such that the following natural isomorphisms must exist: $$\begin{aligned} \delta_{J,K,A}: J\cdot A \otimes K\cdot A&\simeq(J{\varoplus}K)\cdot A\label{eq:dis2}\\ \pi_{R,R',A}: R\cdot(R'\cdot A)&\simeq (R\odot R')\cdot A \label{eq:sro}\\ \zeta_A:0\cdot A &\simeq I\label{eq:zeroi}\\ \iota_A:\mathbf 1 \cdot A &\simeq A\label{eq:one}\end{aligned}$$ and the following diagrams commute: $$\label{eq:coh} \xymatrix@C=12ex{ J{\cdot} A \otimes K{\cdot} A \otimes L{\cdot} A \ar[d]^{1_{J{\cdot}A}\otimes \delta_{K,L,A}} \ar[r]^-{\delta_{J,K,A}\otimes 1_{L{\cdot} A}} & (J{\varoplus}K){\cdot} A\otimes L{\cdot} A \ar[d]^{\delta_{J{\varoplus}K,L,A}}\\ J{\cdot} A \otimes (K{\varoplus}L){\cdot} A \ar[r]^-{\delta_{J,K{\varoplus}L, A}} & (J {\varoplus}K{\varoplus}L){\cdot} A }$$ $$\label{eq:nat} \xymatrix{ J{\cdot}A\otimes K{\cdot} A \ar[d]^{J{\cdot}f\otimes K{\cdot}f} \ar[r]^{\delta_{J,K,A}}& (J{\varoplus}K){\cdot} A\ar[d]^{(J{\varoplus}K)\cdot f} \\ J{\cdot}B\otimes K{\cdot} B\ar[r]^{\delta_{J,K,B}} & (J{\varoplus}K){\cdot} B }$$ Natural isomorphism $\pi$ (Eqn. \[eq:sro\]) reduces successive resource actions on computations to a composite resource action, corresponding to the product of the semiring. Natural isomorphism $\delta_{J,K,A}$ in Eqn. \[eq:dis2\] is a “quantitative” version of the diagonal morphism in a Cartesian category, which collects the resources of the contracted objects. The commuting diagram in Eqn. \[eq:coh\] stipulates that the order in which we use the “quantitative” diagonal order to contract several objects is irrelevant, and the commuting diagram in Eqn. \[eq:nat\] gives a “quantitative” counterpart for the naturality of the diagonal morphism. Finally, Eqns. \[eq:zeroi\] and \[eq:one\] shows the connection between the units of the tensors involved. A direct consequence of the naturality of $\rho$ and $I$ being terminal, useful for proving coherence, is: \[prop:wk\] The following diagram commutes in the category $\mathcal G$ for any $f:B\rightarrow C$: $$\xymatrix{ B\ar[r]^-{1_B\otimes !_A}\otimes A \ar[d]^{f\otimes 1_A} & B\otimes I \ar[r]^{\rho_B}& B\ar[d]^f\\ C\otimes A \ar[r]^-{1_C\otimes !_A} & C\otimes I \ar[r]^{\rho_C} & C. }$$ Computations are interpreted in a canonical way in the category $\mathcal G$. Types are interpreted as objects and terms as morphisms, with $$\begin{aligned} {\llbracket {J\cdot\theta\multimap\theta'}\rrbracket}_{\mathcal G}= ({\llbracket {J}\rrbracket}_{\mathcal R}\cdot{\llbracket {\theta}\rrbracket}_{\mathcal G})\multimap{\llbracket {\theta'}\rrbracket}_{\mathcal G}.\end{aligned}$$ From now on, the interpretation of the resource action is written as $J$ instead of ${\llbracket {J}\rrbracket}_{\mathcal R}$ when there is no ambiguity and the subscript of ${\llbracket {-}\rrbracket}_{\mathcal G}$ is left implicit. Environments are interpreted as $${\llbracket {\Gamma}\rrbracket}={\llbracket {x_1:J_1\cdot\theta_1,\ldots x_n:J_n\cdot \theta_n}\rrbracket} = J_1\cdot{\llbracket {\theta_1}\rrbracket}\otimes\cdots\otimes J_n\cdot{\llbracket {\theta_n}\rrbracket}.$$ Terms are morphisms in $\mathcal G$, ${\llbracket {\Gamma\vdash M:\theta}\rrbracket}$ defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned} & {\llbracket {x:\mathbf 1\cdot\theta\vdash x:\theta}\rrbracket} = \iota_{{\llbracket {\theta}\rrbracket}} \\ & {\llbracket {\Gamma,x:J\cdot\theta \vdash M:\theta'}\rrbracket} = 1_{{\llbracket {\Gamma}\rrbracket}}\otimes !_{J\cdot{\llbracket {\theta}\rrbracket}};\rho_{{\llbracket {\Gamma}\rrbracket}};{\llbracket {\Gamma\vdash M:\theta}\rrbracket} \\ & {\llbracket {\Gamma\vdash\lambda x.M:J\cdot\theta\multimap\theta'}\rrbracket} = \Lambda_{J\cdot{\llbracket {\theta}\rrbracket}}\bigl( {\llbracket {\Gamma, x:J\cdot\theta\vdash M:\theta'}\rrbracket} \bigr)\\ & {\llbracket {\Gamma,J\cdot\Gamma'\vdash FM:\theta'}\rrbracket}=({\llbracket {\Gamma\vdash F:J\cdot\theta\multimap\theta'}\rrbracket}\otimes J\cdot{\llbracket {\Gamma'\vdash M:\theta}\rrbracket});\mathit{eval}_{J\cdot{\llbracket {\theta}\rrbracket},{\llbracket {\theta'}\rrbracket}}\\ & {\llbracket {\Gamma,x:(J+ K)\cdot\theta\vdash M[x/y]:\theta'}\rrbracket}= 1_{{\llbracket {\Gamma}\rrbracket}}\otimes\delta_{J,K, \theta};{\llbracket {\Gamma,x:J\cdot\theta,y: K\cdot\theta\vdash M:\theta}\rrbracket}.\end{aligned}$$ ### Coherence The main result of this section is the coherence of typing. The derivation trees are not unique because there is choice in the use of the weakening and contraction rules. Since meaning is calculated on a particular derivation tree we need to show that it is independent of it. The coherence conditions for the monoidal category are the standard ones [@Kelly64], but what is interesting and important for coherence is that resource manipulation does not break coherence. The key role is played by the isomorphism $\delta$ which is the resource-sensitive version of contraction, which can combine or de-compose resources without loss of information. The key idea of the proof is that we can bring any derivation tree to a standard form (which we call stratified), with weakening and contraction performed as late as possible. Weakening and contraction for a variable can be pushed as far down as the first lambda abstraction that uses the variable, or to the root of the derivation tree if it remains unbound. We will use the following obviously admissible derivation rules (a chain of contractions followed by an abstraction, and weakening followed by an abstraction, respectively): \ where, in both rules, $x\not\in fv(M)$. We also introduce obviously admissible rules for contracting multiple (0, one or more) variables (labeled Contraction+) and for weakening multiple (0, one or more) variables (labeled Weakening+). We denote sequents $\Gamma\vdash M:\theta$ by $\Sigma$ and derivation trees by $\nabla$. Let $$\Lambda(\Sigma)\in\{id, wk, ab, ap, co, abco, abwk, co{+}, wk{+}\}$$ be a label on the sequents, indicating whether a sequent is the product of the rule for identity, weakening, etc. If a sequent $\Sigma=\Gamma\vdash M:\theta$ is the root of a derivation tree $\nabla$ we write it $\Sigma^\nabla$ or $\Gamma\vdash^\nabla M:\theta$. We say that a sequent is linear if each variable in the environment $\Gamma$ occurs freely in the term $M$ exactly once. We say that a derivation tree $\nabla$ is stratified if and only if: - the root is labeled $wk{+}$; - the node above the root is labeled $co{+}$; - no other node is labeled by $wk, co, wk{+}$ or $co{+}$; - all sequents in $\nabla$, except possibly for the root and the sequent above the root, are linear. \[lem:struni\] If a linear sequent has a stratified derivation tree then it is unique (up to renaming of variables). The last two rules (wk+ and co+) bring the sequent to a linear form. In constructing the stratified derivation tree $\nabla$ of a linear sequent $\Gamma\vdash M:\theta$ the choice of what rules to apply is always uniquely determined by the structure of the term $M$. [$MN$:]{} The only possible rule is Application and, since the term $MN$ is linear both $M$ and $N$ are linear and there is only one way $\Gamma$ can be split. [$\lambda x.M$:]{} We consider two cases: - If $x\not\in fv(M)$ we infer the rule Abs-weak. - If $x\in fv(M)$ we use Abs-con to give each occurrence of $x$ in $M$ a new (fresh) name. There are no other rules that would keep the derivation tree stratified. [$x$:]{} The only possible rule is $wk{+}$. All the choices above are unique (up to the choice of variable names in Abs-con). We now show that any derivation can be reduced to a stratified derivation through applying a series of meaning-preserving tree transformations, which we call stratifying rules. The Weakening rule commutes trivially with all other rules except Identity and Abstraction, if abstraction is on the weakened variable. In this case we replace the sequence of Weakening followed by Abstraction with the combined Abs-weak rule. The more interesting tree transformation rules are for Contraction. Contraction commutes with Application. There are two pairs of such rules, one for pushing down contraction in the function and one for pushing down contraction in the argument: \ $\stackrel{AL}\Longleftrightarrow$\ Similarly for pushing down contraction from the argument side and similarly for rules involving weakening: \ $\stackrel{AR}\Longleftrightarrow$\ Contraction also commutes with Abstraction, if the contracted and abstracted variables are distinct, $x\neq y$: \ $\stackrel{CA}\Longleftrightarrow$\ The rule for swapping contraction and weakening is (types are obvious and we elide them for concision): $\stackrel{WC}\Longleftrightarrow$ \[prop:syneq\]The following judgments are syntactically equal $$\begin{aligned} &\Gamma,x:\theta,\Gamma'\vdash F[x/y]M:\theta'= \Gamma,x:\theta,\Gamma'\vdash (FM)[x/y]:\theta', \\ &\Gamma,x:(J_1\times(J+ J'))\cdot\theta,\Gamma'\vdash F(M[x/y]):\theta_2=\Gamma,x:(J_1\times J+ J_1\times J')\cdot\theta,\Gamma'\vdash (FM)[x/y]:\theta_2, \\ &\Gamma,x:(J+ J')\cdot\theta\vdash \lambda y.M[x/x']:K\cdot\theta'\multimap\theta'=\Gamma,x:(J+ J')\cdot\theta\vdash (\lambda y.M)[x/x']:K\cdot\theta'\multimap\theta''.\end{aligned}$$ The proof of the first two statements is similar. Because Application is linear it means that an identifier $y$ occurs either in $F$ or in $M$, but not in both. Therefore $(FM)[x/y]$ is either $F(M[x/y])$ or $(F[x/y])M$. This makes the terms syntactically equal. In any semiring, $J_1\times(J+ J')=J_1\times J+ J_1\times J'$, which makes the environments equal. Note that semiring equations are resolved syntactically in the type system, as pointed out at the beginning of this section. For the third statement we know that $x\neq y$. \[prop:str\] If $\nabla$ is a derivation and $\nabla'$ is a tree obtained by applying a stratifying rule then $\nabla'$ is a valid derivation with the same root $\Sigma^\nabla=\Sigma^{\nabla'}$ and the same leaves. By inspecting the rules and using Prop. \[prop:syneq\]. Stratifying transformations preserve meaning. The following more general proposition shows that in general the weakening rule can be pushed by any other rule without changing meaning. \[lem:streq\] If $\nabla\Rightarrow\nabla'$ is a stratifying rule then ${\llbracket {\Sigma^\nabla}\rrbracket}={\llbracket {\Sigma^{\nabla'}}\rrbracket}$. By inspecting the rules. Prop. \[prop:str\] states that the root sequents are equal and the trees are well-formed. For WC (and the other rules involving the stratification of Weakening) this is an immediate consequence of Prop. \[prop:wk\]. For AL and AR the equality of the two sides is an immediate consequence of symmetry in $\mathcal G$ and the functoriality of the tensor $\otimes$. For CA the equality of the two sides is an instance of the general property in a symmetric monoidal closed category that $f;\Lambda(g)=\Lambda((f\otimes 1_{B'});g)$ for any $A\stackrel f\rightarrow B$, $B\otimes B'\stackrel g\rightarrow C$. \[lem:twk\] If $\nabla,\nabla'$ are derivation trees consisting only of Contraction and Weakening with a common root $\Sigma$ then ${\llbracket {\Sigma^\nabla}\rrbracket}={\llbracket {\Sigma^{\nabla'}}\rrbracket}$. Weakening commutes with any other rule (Prop. \[prop:wk\]). Changing the order of multiple contraction of the same variable uses the associativity coherence property in Eqn. \[eq:coh\]. Changing the order in which different variables are contracted uses the naturality coherence property in Eqn. \[eq:nat\]. \[lem:streq2\] If $\nabla$ is a derivation there exists a stratified derivation tree $\nabla'$ which can be obtained from $\nabla$ by applying a (finite) sequence of stratifying tree transformations. Moreover, ${\llbracket {\Sigma^\nabla}\rrbracket}={\llbracket {\Sigma^{\nabla'}}\rrbracket}$. The stratifying transformations push contraction and weakening through any other rules and the derivation trees have finite height. If a contraction or weakening cannot be pushed through a rule it means that the rule is an abstraction on the variable being contracted or weakened, and we replace the two rules with either Abs-con or Abs-weak. For the weakening and contractions pushed to the bottom of the tree the order is irrelevant, according to Lem. \[lem:twk\], therefore we replace them with a Contraction+ and Weakening+ which perform all the required weakening and contraction in one step each. The result is a stratified tree. Then we apply induction on the chain of stratifying rules using Lem. \[lem:streq\] for every rule application and Lem. \[lem:twk\] for the final chain of weakening and contractions. For any derivation trees ${\nabla_1},{\nabla_2}$ with common root $\Sigma$, ${\llbracket {\Sigma^{\nabla_1}}\rrbracket}={\llbracket {\Sigma^{\nabla_2}}\rrbracket}$. Using Lem. \[lem:streq\], $\nabla_1,\nabla_2$ must be effectively stratifiable into trees $\nabla_1',\nabla_2'$ with the same root. Using Lem. \[lem:streq2\], ${\llbracket {\Sigma^{\nabla_i}}\rrbracket}={\llbracket {\Sigma^{\nabla_i'}}\rrbracket}$ for $i=1,2$. We first reduce $\Sigma^{\nabla_i}$ to a linear form using Contraction+ and Weakening+ then use Lem. \[lem:struni\], ${\Sigma^{\nabla_1'}}={\Sigma^{\nabla_2'}}$. Case study: automated pipelining {#chap:pipes} ================================ Let us instantiate the abstract type system to a non-trivial resource-sensitive type system: automatic pipelining of computations. This is interesting for two reasons. First we get to work with a complex resource semiring of execution schedules. Second, for the type inference we show how the intrinsic constraints system generated over the resource semiring can be seamlessly combined with additional extrinsic constraints, in our case imposing a pipelining (first-in-first-out) discipline on the schedules. The concrete type system is an instance of the generic type system when $\mathcal J$ is taken to be the semigroup semiring (i.e. multisets) of one-dimensional contractive affine[^1] transformations $ \mathcal J = \mathbb N[{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}]. $ We will use the notation $J=[x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n]$ to represent some $J$ as a multiset; we call $x_i$ its stages and $J$ a schedule. Contractive affine transformations enable composition of timed functions in a natural way. Our view of timing is relative: in a type $([x_1,\ldots,x_n]\cdot A)\multimap B$ (brackets added for emphasis) we take the execution of the function to always be, by convention, the unit interval. This is a call-by-name language so each argument is re-evaluated when needed (to prevent needless re-evaluation we can use the store explicitly). The size of the multiset indicates that the function uses its argument $n$ times. Contractive affine transformation $x_i$, when applied to the unit interval, yields a sub-interval indicating the timing of execution of the $i$-th use of the argument. Compositionality is given automatically by the fact that the product of contractive affine transformations is a a contractive affine transformation. Composing time represented as explicit intervals can be done but is more complicated. A contractive affine transformation is represented $ x = \left( \begin{matrix} s & p \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right) \in{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}$, where $0\leq s\leq 1$ and $0\leq s+ p\leq 1. $ The factor $s$ is a scaling factor, representing the relative duration of a computation, and $p$ is a phase, representing a relative delay for the same computation. A one-dimensional affine transformation acting on the unit interval, in affine representation, can be used to represent the duration of the computation of one run of a term starting at $t_0$ and ending at $t_1$: $$\left( \begin{matrix} s & p \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right) \times \left( \begin{matrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{matrix} \right) =\left( \begin{matrix} p & s+p \\ 1 & 1 \end{matrix} \right){\triangleq}\left( \begin{matrix} t_0 & t_1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{matrix} \right)$$ If $x,y\in{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}$ then $x\times y\in{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}$. When we refer to the timing of a computation, and it is unambiguous from context, we will sometimes use just $x$ to refer to its action on the unit interval $u=[0,1]$. For example, if we write $x\subseteq x'$ we mean $x\cdot u\subseteq x'\cdot u$, i.e. $[p,s+p]\subseteq[p',s'+p']$, i.e. $p\geq p'$ and $s+p\leq s'+p'$. If we write $x\leq x'$ we mean the Egli-Milner order on the two intervals, $x\cdot u\leq x'\cdot u$, i.e. $p\leq p'$ and $s+p\leq s'+p'$. If we write $x\cap x'=\emptyset$ we mean the two intervals are disjoint, $x\cdot u\cap x'\cdot u=\emptyset$, etc. Contractive affine transformations form a semigroup with matrix product as multiplication and unit element $ I{\triangleq}\left( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right) $. The semiring of a semigroup $(\mathcal G,\times,I)$ is a natural construction from any semiring and any semigroup. In our case the semiring is natural numbers ($\mathbb N$), so the semigroup semiring is the set of finitely supported functions $J:{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}\rightarrow \mathbb N$ with $$\begin{aligned} {\textbf 0}(x) &= 0\label{eq:zero}\\ {\textbf 1}(x) &= \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } x = I\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}\label{eq:unit}\\ (J+ K)(x) &= J(x)+K(x)\label{eq:add}\\ (J\times K)(x) &= \sum_{\substack{y,z\in{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}\\y\times z=x}} J(y)\times K(z).\label{eq:mul}\end{aligned}$$ This is isomorphic to finite multisets over ${\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}$. We use interchangeably whichever representation is more convenient. A concrete programming language ------------------------------- A concrete programming language is obtained by adding a family of functional constants in the style of Idealized Algol [@reynolds1997essence]. Let us call it PIA (Pipelined-IA). We take commands and integer expressions as the base types, $ \sigma::={\mathsf{com}}\mid{\mathsf{exp}}. $ Ground-type operators are provided with explicit timing information. For example, for commands we have a family of timed composition operators (i.e. schedulers): $${\mathsf{comp}}_{x,y}:[x]\cdot{\mathsf{com}}\multimap [y]\cdot{\mathsf{com}}\multimap{\mathsf{com}}.$$ The fact that $x,y$ are contractive is a causality constraint which says that each argument must execute within the interval in which the main body of the function is running which is, by convention, the unit interval. Sequential composition is a scheduler in which the arguments are non-overlapping, with the first argument completing before the second argument starts: $\mathsf{seq}_{x,y} = {\mathsf{comp}}_{x,y}$ where $ x\leq y$ and $x\cap y=\emptyset$ (which we write $x<y$). Parallel composition is simply $ \mathsf{par}_x = {\mathsf{comp}}_{x,x}, $ with both arguments initiating and completing execution at the same time. Schedulers that are neither purely sequential nor parallel, but a combination thereof, are also possible. Arithmetic operators are also given explicit timings, but branching needs to be sequential. $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{op}}_{x,y}&:[x]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap [y]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}},\\ {\mathsf{if}}_{x,y} &: [x]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap [y]\cdot\sigma\multimap [y]\cdot\sigma\multimap\sigma, \quad x< y.\end{aligned}$$ Assignable variables are handled by separating read and write access, as is common for IA. Let the type of acceptors be defined (syntactically) as ${\mathsf{acc}}{\triangleq}[w]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{com}}$, where $w\in{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}$ is a system-dependent constant (writing to memory cannot usually be instantaneous). There is no stand-alone ${\mathsf{var}}$ type in PIA, instead the readers and writers to a variable are bound to the same memory location by a block variable constructor with signature: $${\mathsf{new}}_{\sigma,J,K}:(J\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap K\cdot{\mathsf{acc}}\multimap \sigma)\multimap \sigma, \quad \sigma\in\{{\mathsf{exp}}, {\mathsf{com}}\}.$$ For programmer convenience ${\mathsf{var}}$-typed identifiers can be sugared into the language but, because the read and write schedules of access need to be maintained separately, the contraction rules become complicated (yet routine) so we omit them here. Finally, ground-type constants are $ 1:{\mathsf{exp}}$ and ${\mathsf{skip}}:{\mathsf{com}}. $ In order to keep execution deterministic and timing predictable, no constants with data-dependent timing of execution can be allowed, such as recursion, iteration or semaphores. These restrictions are not onerous. Unbounded recursive (or iterated) executions cannot be in general pipelined, only finite unfoldings; we could handle this but it is a conceptually uninteresting complication. Semaphores are asynchronous computational features that also involve non-deterministic waiting for conditions to happen and cannot be pipelined. The language presented here must be understood as a sub-language of a larger ambient programming language, defining those computations that can be pipelined. \[ex:incx\] The program ${\mathsf{new}}\,x.\,x:={!}x+1$, written functionally (while separating the reader and the acceptor) as ${\mathsf{new}}(\lambda x_r\lambda x_w.x_w(\mathsf{add}\,x_r\,1))$ is typable. We give one possible way to annotate the constants with timing so that the term types: $ {\mathsf{new}}_{{\mathsf{com}},[w\times b],[w]}(\lambda x_r\lambda x_w.x_w(\mathsf{add}_{b,b}\,x_r\,1)) $ which, written in a fully sugared notation, would be: $ {\mathsf{new}}_{{\mathsf{com}},[w\times b],[w]}\,x:={!}x+_{b,b}1. $ Note that addition here is given the schedule of a parallel operation with some arbitrary schedule $b$. Type inference for automated pipelining {#sec:typin} --------------------------------------- \[sec:pip\] Note that the recipe from Sec. \[sec:gti\] cannot be immediately applied because there is no (off-the-shelf) SMT solver for $\mathbb N[\text{Aff}_1^c]$. We need to run the SMT in two stages: first we calculate the sizes of the multiset (as in SCC inference), which allows us to reduce constraints in $\mathbb N[\text{Aff}_1^c]$ to constraints in $\text{Aff}_1^c$. Then we map equations over $\text{Aff}_1^c$ into real-number equations, which can be handled by the SMT solver. There is a final, bureaucratic, step of reconstructing the multi-sets from the real-number values. To fully automate the process we also use Hindley-Milner type inference to determine the underlying simple-type structure [@milner1978theory]. Multiset size (SCC) type inference is presented in detail elsewhere [@DBLP:conf/popl/GhicaS11], but we will quickly review it here in the context of PIA. We first interpret schedules as natural numbers, representing their number of stages $J\in\mathbb N$. Unknown schedules are variables, schedules with unknown stages but fixed size (such as those for operators) are constants. A type derivation results in a constraint system over $\mathbb N$ which can be solved by an SMT tool such as Z3 [@Z3]. More precisely, Z3 can attempt to solve the system, but it can be either unsatisfiable in some cases or unsolvable as nonlinear systems of constraints over $\mathbb N$ are generally undecidable. As a practical observation, solving this constraint using general-purpose tools will give an arbitrary solution, if it exists, whereas a “small” solution is preferable. In [@DBLP:conf/popl/GhicaS11] we give a special-purpose algorithm guaranteed to produce solutions that are in a certain sense minimal. To achieve a small solution when using Z3 we set a global maximum bound which we increment on iterated calls to Z3 until the system is satisfied. The next stage is to instantiate the schedules to their known sizes, and to re-run the inference algorithm, this time in order to compute the stages. This stage proceeds according to the general type-inference recipe, resulting in a system of constraints over the $\mathbb N[\text{Aff}_1^c]$ semiring, with the particular feature that all the sizes of all the multisets is known. We only need to specify the schedules for the constants: \ \ \ \ In the concrete system it is useful to characterize the resource usage of families of constants also by using constraints, which can be simply combined with the constraints (in the theory of the semiring) produced by the generic type inference algorithm. The language of constraints itself can be extended arbitrarily, provided that eventually we can represent it into the language of our external SMT solver, Z3. The constraints introduced by the language constants are motivated as follows: op: : We prevent the execution of any of the two arguments to take the full interval, because an arithmetic operation cannot be computed instantaneously. if: : The execution of the guard must precede that of the branches. new: : The write-actions cannot be instantaneous. This allows us to translate the constraints into real-number constraints. Solving the system (using Z3) gives precise timing bounds for all types. However, this does not guarantee the fact that computations can be pipelined, it just establishes timings. In order to force a pipeline-compatible timing discipline we need to add extra constraints guaranteeing the fact that each timing annotation $J$ is in fact a proper pipeline. Two stages $x_1,x_2\in{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}$ are FIFO if they are Egli-Milner-ordered, $x_1\leq x_2$. They are strictly FIFO, written $x_1\lhd x_2$ if they are FIFO and they do not start or end at the same time, i.e. if $x_i\cdot [0,1] = [t_i,t_i']$ then $t_0\neq t_0'$ and $t_1\neq t_1'$. \[def:pipe\] We say that a schedule $J\in\mathbb N[{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}]$ is a pipeline, written ${\mathsf{Pipe}}(J)$, if and only if $\forall x\in {\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}, J(x)\leq 1$ (i.e. $J$ is a proper set) and for all $x, x'\in J$, either $x\lhd x'$ or $x'\lhd x$ or $x=x'$. Given a system of constraints $\chi$ over $\mathbb N[{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}]$, before solving it we augment it with the condition that every schedule is a proper pipeline: for any $J$ used in $\chi$, ${\mathsf{Pipe}}(J)$. Using the conventional representation (scaling and phase), the usual matrix operations and the pipelining definitions above we can represent $\chi$ as a system of constraints over $\mathbb R$, and solve it using Z3. #### Implementation note. For the implementation, we enforce arbitrary orders on the stages of the pipeline and, if that particular order is not satisfiable then a different (arbitrary) order is chosen and the process is repeated. However, spelling out the constraint for the existence of a pipelining order $\lhd$ for any schedule $J$ would entail a disjunction over all possible such orders, which is $\mathcal O(n!)$ in the size of the schedule, for each schedule, therefore not realistic. However, if the systems of constraints have few constants and mostly unknowns, i.e. we are trying to find a schedule rather than accommodate complex known schedules, our experience shows that this pragmatic approach is reasonable. #### Ex. \[ex:incx\] is from a scheduling point of view quite trivial because no pipelining takes place. We consider two more complex examples below. \[ex:fx4\] Let us first consider the simple problem of using three parallel adders to compute the sum $f x + f x + f x + f x$ when we know the timings of $f$. Suppose $f:([(0.5, 0.1);(0.5, 0.2)]\cdot {\mathsf{exp}}\multimap {\mathsf{exp}}$, i.e. it is a two-stage pipeline where the execution of the argument takes half the time of the overall execution and have relative delays of 0.1 and 0.2 respectively. We have the choice of using three adders with distinct schedules $+_i:[x_i]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap [y_i]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}}$ ($i\in\{1,2,3\}$) so that the expression respects the pipelined schedule of execution of $f$. The way the operators are associated is relevant: $(f x +_2 f x) +_1 (f x +_3 f x)$. Also note that part of the specification of the problem entails that the adders are trivial (single-stage) pipelines. Following the algorithm above, the typing constraints are resolved to the following: $$\begin{aligned} +_1 &:[(0.5, 0.265625)]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap [(0.5, 0.25)]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}}\\ +_2 &:[(0.5, 0.21875)]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap [(0.5, 0.25)]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}}\\ +_3 &:[(0.5, 0.375)]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap [(0.5, 0.25)]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}}\end{aligned}$$ In the implementation, the system of constraints has 142 variables and 357 assertions, and is solved by Z3 in circa 0.1 seconds on a high-end desktop machine. \[ex:fx4\] Let us now consider a more complex, higher-order example. Suppose we want to calculate the convolution ($$) of a pipelined function ($f:[(0.5, 0.1);(0.5, 0.2)]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}}$) with itself four times. And also suppose that we want to use just two instances of the convolution operator $_1, _2$, so we need to perform contraction on it as well. The simple type of the convolution operator is $ ():({\mathsf{exp}}\rightarrow{\mathsf{exp}})\rightarrow({\mathsf{exp}}\rightarrow{\mathsf{exp}})\rightarrow {\mathsf{exp}}\rightarrow{\mathsf{exp}}. $ For hardware compilation this corresponds to the following circuit diagram: ![image](convolution) By $F$ we denote the circuit implementing the function $f$, $1, 2$ the two instances of the convolution operator, $\Delta f$ the four-way contraction of $f$ and $\Delta $ the contraction of the convolution operation itself. Every port in this diagram must observe a pipelining discipline. The implementation of $f$ and $$ are unknown, so we want to compute the timings for the term $$\begin{aligned} (_1)&:J_1^{vi}\cdot(J_1^i\cdot(J_1^{ii}\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}})\rightarrow J_1^{iv}\cdot(J_1^{iii}\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}})\multimap J_1^v\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}}),\\ (_2)&:J_2^{vi}\cdot(J_2^i\cdot(J_2^{ii}\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}})\rightarrow J_2^{iv}\cdot(J_2^{iii}\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}})\multimap J_2^v\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}}),\\ f&:J_3\cdot([(0.5, 0.1);(0.5, 0.2)]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}})\vdash (f _1 f) _2 (f _1 f): \theta.\end{aligned}$$ The constraint system has 114 variables and 548 assertions and is solved by Z3 in 0.6 seconds on a high-end desktop machine. The results are: $$\begin{aligned} J_1^i &=J_1^{iv}=J_2^i =J_2^{iv}=[(1.0, 0.0)]\\ J_1^{ii} &=J_1^{iii}=J_1^v=J_2^{ii} =J_2^{iii}=J_2^v=[(0.5, 0.1);(0.5, 0.2)]\\ J_1^{vi}&=J_3=[(0.5, 0.125);(0.5, 0.25);(0.5, 0.375);(0.5, 0.4375)]\\ J_2^{vi}&=[(0.25, 0.25);(0.25, 0.5);(0.25, 0.625)]\end{aligned}$$ Timed games: semantics of PIA {#sec:gamhort} ============================= Rather than give a conventional operational semantics to our programming language we define it denotationally, using game semantics. This has the technical advantage that the model is compositional by construction. Moreover, game semantics packs pertinent operational intuitions and can be effectively presented, therefore (arguably) not much is lost by eschewing the conventional syntax-oriented operational semantics. In support of this statement we mention our prior work on hardware [@DBLP:conf/mpc/Ghica12] and distributed [@fredrikssong13] compilation directly from the game-semantic model of a programming language. Game-semantic models are also well suited to modeling resource usage explicitly by annotating moves with tokens representing resource usage [@DBLP:conf/popl/Ghica05]. We will use an annotated game model here as well, starting from the game model of ICA [@DBLP:journals/apal/GhicaM08]. Note that since we are giving a denotational semantics the usual syntactic sanity checks (reduction preserves typing) do not apply. Instead, we must show that our model fits the categorical requirements of Sec. \[sec:cf\]. These requirements subsume and strengthen the syntactic sanity checks by lifting them to higher order terms and formulating them compositionally. This section assumes that the reader is familiar with the basic concepts of game semantics. Tutorial introductions to game semantics are available, e.g. [@DBLP:conf/lics/Ghica09]. For readability, all techincal proofs are given in a Sec. \[sec:tec\]. \[def:prota\] A pre-arena* $A$ is a tuple $(M,\tau,E,\lambda,\vdash,{\asymp})$: 1. \[i:moves\] $M$ is a set of moves; 2. \[i:timing\] $\tau: M\rightarrow [0,1]$ is a timing function; 3. \[i:label\] $\lambda:M\rightarrow \{{\mathsf{O}},{\mathsf{P}}\}\times\{{\mathsf{Q}}, {\mathsf{A}}\}\times \{{\mathsf{M}},{\mathsf{N}}\}$ is a labelling function; 4. \[i:initial\] $E\subseteq M$ such that $\lambda(E)=({\mathsf{O}},{\mathsf{Q}}, x)$ for some $x\in\{{\mathsf{M}}, {\mathsf{N}} \}$; 5. \[i:enable\] ${\vdash}\subseteq M\times M$ is an enabling relation, such that for any $n$ there is an $m$ such that $m\vdash n$ if and only if $n\not\in E$, and for any $m, n$, $m\vdash n$ implies 1. \[i:oqenable\] $(\pi_1\circ\lambda)(m)\not= (\pi_1\circ\lambda)(n)$, 2. \[i:qenable\] $(\pi_2\circ\lambda)(m)={\mathsf{Q}}$, 3. \[i:placehold\] if $(\pi_3\circ\lambda)(m)={\mathsf{N}}$ then $(\pi_3\circ\lambda)(n)={\mathsf{N}}$. 6. \[i:simult\] ${\asymp}\subseteq M\times M$ is an equivalence relation such that for any $m, m', n, n'$ 1. \[i:simtim\] if $m\asymp n$ then $\tau(m)=\tau(n), (\pi_i\circ\lambda)(m)=(\pi_i\circ\lambda)(n)$ for $i=1,2$, 2. \[i:simjus\] if $m\vdash n, m'\vdash n', n\asymp n'$ then $m\asymp m'$, 3. \[i:simena\] if $m\vdash n, m\vdash n', (\pi_1\circ\lambda)(n)={\mathsf{A}}, (\pi_1\circ\lambda)(n')={\mathsf{A}}$ then $n\asymp n'$. Some of the game-semantic concepts are conventional (move, opponent-proponent, question-answer, enabling, initial move) but some are specific to timed games. We will use $q, a, o, p$ to stand for question, answer, opponent or proponent move if ambiguities are not introduced. We also use $\overline E$ to signify the set of final answers, the answers to the initial questions in $E$. The key new concept particular to timed systems is that of timing (Def. \[def:prota\].\[i:timing\]), assigning each move a time in the unit interval. The arenas of timed games introduce the notion of alternative moves, moves that are simultaneous (in the arena) but only one of which can occur in an actual play. Alternative moves are related by $\asymp$. Answers to the same question are alternatives (Def. \[def:prota\].\[i:simena\]) as are a move and its dummy counterpart (Def. \[def:prota\].\[i:simtim\]). One of the $\asymp$-alternatives in a collection of moves is the dummy move. The notion of “dummy move” (or non-move, the label ${\mathsf{N}}$) in Def. \[def:prota\].\[i:label\] corresponds to the principle that in a timed system observations are driven by timing: at any given moment we can observe a system to check whether it is producing any output or requesting any input. If that is the case this is modeled by a conventional, actual, move. But if that is not the case, especially if at a given time a move was possible or expected, the fact that no move occurred is relevant, and modeled by a dummy (non)move. If a dummy move enables another move, then that move must also be a dummy (Def. \[def:prota\].\[i:placehold\]). \[def:arena\] A precedence relation for arena $A=(M,\tau,E,\lambda,\vdash,{\asymp})$, ${\prec_A}\subseteq M\times M$ is the minimum transitive relation such that: 1. if $m\vdash n$ then $m\prec_A n$; 2. if $\tau(m)<\tau(n)$ then $m\prec_A n$;\[def:arenat\] 3. if $m\asymp m' \prec_A n$ then $m\prec_A n$; 4. if $m\prec_A n'\asymp n$ then $m\prec_A n$; 5. \[i:fj\] if $q\vdash a,q'\vdash a'$ and $q\vdash q'$ then $a'\prec_A a$. An arena is a pre-arena that has a well-founded precedence relation. Precedence is consistent with timing but it has a finer grain: even moves with the same timing may have a precedence relation, which indicates causality. As in synchronous digital systems, just because two signals have the same timing (are on the same cycle) does not mean they are truly simultaneous, as time itself is only an abstract approximation. Within the same timing we are just unable to further discern the value of the time but we can still observe the order of the events. This distinction is essential in preventing causal loops in composition. The last requirement (Def. \[def:arena\].\[i:fj\]) is the language-dependent requirement that all children of a thread terminate before the parent (the Fork and Join rules in game semantics of ICA). For any arena $A$, two time intervals will play an important role, the time interval when a play may execute $t_M$ and the time when a play must execute $t_m$, defined as $$\begin{aligned} t_M = [\text{inf}(\tau (E)), \text{sup}(\tau(\overline E))],\quad t_m = [\text{sup}(\tau (E)), \text{inf}(\tau(\overline E))].\end{aligned}$$ A play in an arena may (must) execute after the earliest (latest) initial move and before the latest (earliest) final move. If $x\in{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}$ then the action of $x$ on $A(M,\tau,E,\lambda,\vdash,{\asymp})$ is $ x\cdot A = (M,\tau',E,\lambda,\vdash,{\asymp}) $, where $\tau'(m)=t'$ if $x\times\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \tau(m) \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} t'\\ 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ \[def:schedact\] If $J\in\mathbb N[{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}]$ is a schedule then the action of the schedule on the arena $A$ is $ J\cdot A = \biguplus_{x\in{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}}\biguplus_{n\leq J(x)}x\cdot A. $ Every stage in the schedule is allowed to act on the arena $A$. Moreover, if a schedule occurs several times in the schedule then as many copies are created from the arena as required. The notion of “distinct copies of the same arena" can be formalised using either explicit tags or nominal techniques, but we avoid this formalisation here, whenever possible, as it is generally the case in presentations of game-semantic models, in order to keep the technicalities at bay. Let $[-,-]$ be the co-pairing of two functions and $\lambda^\bullet$ be a function like $\lambda$ except that the ${\mathsf{O}}, {\mathsf{P}}$ value are swapped. Let $A\otimes A'$ be the (disjoint) union of two arenas. If $A=(M,\tau,E,\lambda,\vdash,{\asymp})$ and $A'=(M',\tau',E',\lambda',\vdash',{\asymp'})$ are arenas such that $t_M(A)\subseteq t_m(A')$ then we define the arrow arena as $A\multimap A'=(M\uplus M',\tau\uplus \tau',E',[\lambda^\bullet,\lambda'],{\vdash''},{\asymp}\uplus{\asymp'})$ where $\vdash''$ is defined as ${\vdash''}={\vdash}\uplus{\vdash'}\uplus\{(e',e)\mid e\in E, e'\in E', (\pi_3\circ \lambda)(e)={\mathsf{N}})\}\uplus\{(e',e)\mid e\in E, e'\in E', (\pi_3\circ \lambda)(e')={\mathsf{M}})\}$. The arrow arena has the conventional definition in game semantics, except for the causality requirement that $t_M(A)\subseteq t_m(A')$ which ensures that all possible computations of the argument happens within the time bounds of the calling arena. Note that this condition is quite restrictive because it does not take into account the enabling relation, just the absolute earliest and latest possible moves in the arenas. If $J\in\mathbb N[{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}]$ and $A, A'$ are arenas then $J\cdot A$, $A\multimap A'$ and $A\otimes A'$ are arenas. \[def:play\] A play $P$ on an arena $A$ is a sequence of distinct moves of $A$ such that 1. \[it:jus\] for any $m\in P$, $m$ is initial or there is a unique $n\in P$ such that $n\vdash m$; 2. \[it:qa\] for any $q\in P$, there exists a unique $a\in P$ such that $q\vdash a$; 3. \[it:prec\] for any $m\prec_A m' \in P$, $m$ occurs before $m'$ in $P$; 4. \[it:sym\] for any $m\in M$ there is a unique $n\in P$ such that $m\asymp n$. The set of all legal plays of arena $A$ is $\mathcal L(A)$. Some of the rules are common in game semantics, such as the existence of unique enablers (Def. \[def:play\].\[it:jus\]) and unique answers (Def. \[def:play\].\[it:qa\]). Clearly, temporal precedence must be consistent with move sequencing in the play (Def. \[def:play\].\[it:prec\]). The last condition (Def. \[def:play\].\[it:sym\]) requires that exactly one of a set of alternative moves occurs in a play. Also note that plays must consist of distinct moves in the arenas: the enabling relation is a directed acyclic graph and a play is a path in this DAG. This is why timing is associated with arenas rather than with plays. A position of an arena $A$ is a prefix of some play $P$ in $A$. A move $m$ is legal in a position $P$ if $P::m$ is a position. A position of a set of plays $\sigma$ is a prefix of some play $P\in\sigma$ in that set. \[def:strat\] A strategy $\sigma$ on arena $A$, written $\sigma:A$, is a set of plays on $A$ such that 1. (responsive) for any position $Q$ in $\sigma$ and legal ${\mathsf{O}}$-move $o$ for $Q$ in $A$, $Q::o$ is a position in $\sigma$; 2. (saturated) for any play $P::m::m'::P'\in\sigma$ if $m$ is a ${\mathsf{P}}$-move or $m'$ is a ${\mathsf{O}}$-move (or both) and $P::m'::m::P'$ is a play then it is also in $\sigma$. These conditions correspond to O-completeness and saturations, as used in the ICA game model. A move that (transitively) enables two moves is said to be a common enabler. A common enabler that enables no other common enablers is said to be their last common enabler. \[def:precs\] A precedence relation for strategy $\sigma:A$ is a transitive well-founded relation ${\prec_\sigma}\subseteq M_A\times M_A$ such that : 1. for any $m,m'\in M_A$, if $m\prec_A m'$ then $m\prec_\sigma m'$; 2. if $m\asymp m' \prec_\sigma n$ then $m\prec_\sigma n$; 3. if $m\prec_\sigma n'\asymp n$ then $m\prec_\sigma n$; 4. for any position $Q$ of $\sigma$ and $m,m'\in M_A$, if $Q::m::m'\in \sigma, Q::m'::m\not\in\sigma$ then $m\prec_\sigma m'$; 5. for any $m,m'\in M_A$ such that $m\not\prec_A m'$ and the last common enabler of $m$ and $m'$ is not an ${\mathsf{O}}$-move then $m\not\prec_\sigma m'$. A strategy $\sigma$ is deadlock-free if it has a precedence relation $\prec_\sigma$. From now on we only consider deadlock-free strategies. Deadlock-free strategies are interesting in their own right, and represent an alternative to conventional notions of termination (such as may, must or may-must) when timing is known. On the one hand termination analysis is simplified since the type (the arena) contains all the timing information. But on the other hand composition becomes more delicate as there is no room for the two strategies to wait for each other to perform certain common actions. Their synchronization needs to be on the nose, and for it to work at all it is essential that we rule out “causal loops” which may take an arbitrary amount of time to sort themselves out. For this reason we use precedence also on strategies. It is an order consistent with arena precedence ($\prec_A$) and preserved by alternative moves ($\asymp$), which prevents deadlock from two players waiting for each other. The interesting requirement is the last one, which gives a term control over when it evaluates its arguments, which always have ${\mathsf{O}}$-moves as their last common enabler, but not over when arguments it applies to functions are evaluated, which always have ${\mathsf{P}}$-moves as last common enablers. Let $P{\downharpoonright}A$ be a play from which all moves not in $A$ have been removed. Let $\sigma{\downharpoonright}A=\{P{\downharpoonright}A, P\in \sigma\}$. Let $\Sigma_{A,B,C}$ be the set of sequences over $M_A, M_B, M_C$. The interaction and composition of strategies $\sigma:A\multimap B, \tau:B \multimap C$ are: $$\begin{aligned} \sigma\,\|\|\,\tau&=\{ P\in\Sigma_{A,B,C} \mid P {\downharpoonright}A\multimap B\in\sigma\text{ and } P{\downharpoonright}B\multimap C\in \tau \}. \\ \sigma;\tau &= \{ P{\downharpoonright}A\multimap C\mid P\in \sigma\,\|\|\,\tau\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let the interleaving of two strategies $\sigma:A\multimap B, \tau:C\multimap D$ be the set $$\sigma\otimes\tau=\{ P\in\mathcal L(A\otimes C\multimap B\otimes D) \mid \\ P {\downharpoonright}A\multimap B\in\sigma\text{ and } P{\downharpoonright}C\multimap D\in \tau \}.$$ \[def:cc\] We define the copycat ${{c\!c}}_A:A\multimap A$, as the set of all plays $P$ such that for all $m\in M_A$, $\mathit{inl}(m)\in P$ if and only if $\mathit{inr}(m)\in P$. Moreover, $\mathit{inr}(m)$ occurs before $\mathit{inl}(m)$ in $P$ if and only if $m$ is an ${\mathsf{O}}$-move in $A$. \[thm:games\] There exists a symmetric monoidal closed category with arenas $A$ as objects and strategies $\sigma: A\multimap B$ as morphisms where 1. identity $id_A:A \multimap A$ is the copycat strategy on $A$; 2. the tensor product is the disjoint union of arenas and interleaving of strategies, respectively; 3. the unit object is the empty arena (no moves); 4. the natural isomorphisms (associator, unitors, commutator) are (the obvious) copycat strategies; 5. currying is relabeling of moves in arenas induced by the obvious isomorphism between $A\otimes B\multimap C$ and $A\multimap B\multimap C$; 6. the morphism $eval_{A,B}:(A\multimap B)\otimes A\rightarrow B$ consists of two copycat behaviours between the $A$ and $B$ components, respectively. Interpretation of PIA --------------------- Let $\mathcal R$ be the discrete category with objects elements in $\mathbb N[{\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}]$, ${\varoplus}$ the additive operator of the semigroup semiring (Eq. \[eq:add\]), ${\varodot}$ the multiplicative operator of the semigroup semiring (Eq. \[eq:mul\]), and the unit $0$ the additive unit (Eq. \[eq:unit\]). The associativity, distributivity and zero laws follow from the semiring properties. Let $\mathcal G$ be the category of games from Thm. \[thm:games\]. The functor $\cdot$ is given in Def. \[def:schedact\] and it satisfies the associativity law given in Eqn. \[eq:sro\]. Any arena $A$ and schedules $J,K$ induce obviously isomorphic arenas $J\cdot A\,\otimes\, K\cdot A\simeq (J\,{\varoplus}\, K)\cdot A$. The strategy $\delta_{J,K,A}$ is the one induced by the arena isomorphism and it satisfies all required coherence conditions. The arena of expressions (base type) is given by ${\llbracket {{\mathsf{exp}}}\rrbracket}=(M,\tau,E,\lambda,\vdash,\asymp)$, where $$\begin{aligned} M& = \{\overline q, \overline a, q\}\cup \mathbb N, \\ \tau& = \{\overline q\mapsto 0, \overline a\mapsto 1, q\mapsto 0\} \cup \mathbb N\times \{1\},\\ E &= \{\overline q, q\},\\ \lambda& = \{\overline q\mapsto {\mathsf{OQN}}, \overline a\mapsto{\mathsf{PAN}}, q\mapsto{\mathsf{OQM}}\}\cup \mathbb N\times\{{\mathsf{PAM}}\},\\ {\vdash} &= \{\overline q\vdash\overline a\}\cup \{q\}\times\mathbb N,\\ {\asymp} &= \{\overline q\asymp q\}\cup \{\overline a\}\times\mathbb N.\end{aligned}$$ In the concrete arena for expressions the initial question $q$ (or its alternative dummy $\overline q$) happen at 0 and the answer $i$ (or the alternative dummy $\overline a$) happen at 1. Note that we demand that an actual question receives an actual answer, not a dummy. The scheduling of commands ${\mathsf{comp}}_{x,y}:[x]\cdot{\mathsf{com}}\multimap[y]\cdot{\mathsf{com}}\multimap{\mathsf{com}}$ is interpreted by the strategy consisting of the unique play in arena ${\llbracket {[x]\cdot{\mathsf{com}}\multimap[y]\cdot{\mathsf{com}}\multimap{\mathsf{com}}}\rrbracket}$ in which P does not play dummy moves unless responding to dummy O moves. Operators ${\mathsf{op}}_{x,y}:[x]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap[y]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}}$ are interpreted by a strategy which is a set of plays, all with the same schedule as determined by their arena ${\llbracket {[x]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap[y]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap{\mathsf{exp}}}\rrbracket}$, in which the final P-answer is calculated as the corresponding arithmetical operation applied to the preceding O-answers. Branching ${\mathsf{if}}_{\theta,x,y}:[x]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap[y]\cdot\sigma\multimap[y]\cdot\sigma\multimap \sigma$, with $x\leq y$, is a strategy in arena $${\llbracket {[x]\cdot{\mathsf{exp}}\multimap[y]\cdot\sigma\multimap[y]\cdot\sigma\multimap \sigma}\rrbracket}$$ defined as follows. The schedule constraint $x\leq y$ ensures that O answers first in the ${\mathsf{exp}}$ component, the guard. If it is not zero then a question is asked in the first $\sigma$ component and a dummy question in the second; the proper O-answer is then replicated as the final P-answer, while the dummy O-answer is ignored. Alternatively, if it is 0 then the question is asked in the second component and the dummy question in the first component, with the answer copied as final P-answer and the dummy answer ignored. The local variable binder ${\mathsf{new}}_{\sigma,J,K}$ is interpreted in arena ${\llbracket {(J\cdot {\mathsf{exp}}\multimap K\cdot{\mathsf{acc}}\multimap\sigma)\multimap\sigma}\rrbracket}$ in the same way as the local-variable strategy is interpreted in IA, in a history-sensitive way: whenever P answers in the ${\mathsf{exp}}$ arena it is either with the same answer as the last answer in the ${\mathsf{exp}}$ arena or with the last O-answer in the ${\mathsf{acc}}$ arena, whichever is most recent. Technical proofs {#sec:tec} ---------------- In this section, we show some of the main intermediate results and proofs demonstrating that the concrete category of games $\mathcal G$ is well defined and satisfies the required properties. This ancillary lemma is useful for proving further results about strategies: \[lem:stratprefix\] For any (deadlock-free) strategies $\sigma$ on $A\multimap B$ and $\tau$ on $B\multimap C$, and any positions $Q$ of $\sigma$, $R$ of $\tau$ such that $Q{\downharpoonright}B=R{\downharpoonright}B$, then there is a sequence $P\in\sigma\|\|\tau$ such that $Q$ is a prefix of $P{\downharpoonright}A\multimap B$ and $R$ is a prefix of $P{\downharpoonright}B\multimap C$. Let $\prec'$ be the minimum transitive relation on moves of $A$, $B$, and $C$ such that $m\prec'm'$ if $m\prec_\sigma m'$ or $m\prec_\tau m'$. Assume for contradiction that there are two moves $m$, $m'$ such that $m\prec_\sigma m'$ and $m'\prec_\tau m$; both moves would obviously have to be moves of $B$. Because $m'\prec_\tau m$, $m\nprec_B m'$. Because $m\prec_\sigma m'$, $m'\nprec_B m$. If $m$ and $m'$ do not have an $\mathsf{O}$-move as their last common enabler in $A\multimap B$, then because $m\nprec_{A\multimap B}m'$, we have $m\nprec_\sigma m'$, a contradiction. If they do have an $\mathsf{O}$-move as their last common enabler in $A\multimap B$, they must have the same move as their last common enabler in $B\multimap C$, where it is a $\mathsf{P}$-move, and thus because $m'\nprec_{B\multimap C}m$, $m'\nprec_\tau m$, also a contradiction. Thus, the assumption is wrong; and so, ${\prec'}$ is well-founded. Assume for contradiction that for given arenas $A$, $B$, $C$, that $Q$, $R$ are the counterexamples to the lemma with the largest total length. (They must be finitely long because the arenas contain finitely many questions, and all answers in a play must have a question enabling them.) Define $M$ as the set of all moves legal in the respective arenas in $Q$ or in $R$, or (transitively) justified by such a move. Choose a ${\prec'}$-least move $m\in M$ (such a move must be legal in $Q$ or $R$, because otherwise, its enabler would be ${\prec'}$-less than it, and there must be such a move or else $Q$ and $R$ are plays whose common moves appear in the same order and thus finding a suitable $P$ is trivial). Without loss of generality, assume that either $m$ is a move of $C$, or an $\mathsf{O}$-move of $B$ (the proof in the other cases is the same with $\sigma$ and $\tau$, and $Q$ and $R$, exchanged). Let $P_\tau$ be a play of $\tau$ with $R$ as a prefix in which $m$ or an alternative to it appears as early as possible. (Without loss of generality, assume that it is $m$ that appears.) If $R::m$ is not a prefix of $P_\tau$, then there must be a move $m'\in M$ immediately before $m$ in $P_\tau$; then $m'\nprec'm$ (by the definition of m), so $m'\nprec_\tau m$ (by the definition of ${\prec'}$), so $P_\tau$ with $m$ and $m'$ exchanged is a play of $\tau$ (by the definition of ${\prec_\tau}$), contradicting the assumption that $P_\tau$ is chosen such that $m$ appears as early as possible. Thus, $R::m$ is a prefix of $P_\tau$. If $m$ is a move of $C$, then we have $Q$ and $R::m$ as a counterexample to the lemma, violating the assumption that $Q$ and $R$ formed the counterexample with the largest total length. If $m$ is a move of $B$, then similarly we have $Q::m$ and $R::m$ as a counterexample to the lemma ($Q::m$ is a prefix of a play in $\sigma$ because $m$ is an $\mathsf{O}$-move of $A\multimap B$ and $\sigma$ is responsive), again violating the same assumption. Therefore, there cannot be a longest counterexample, and thus there cannot be any counterexample, to the lemma. To prove $\mathcal G$ a category, we need to show that it is closed under composition, that composition is associative, and that it has identities. The composition $\sigma;\tau$ of two (deadlock-free) strategies $\sigma$ on $A\multimap B$, $\tau$ on $B\multimap C$ is a (deadlock-free) strategy on $A\multimap C$. We show that $\sigma;\tau$ is a set of plays on $A\multimap C$, and that it is responsive, saturated, and deadlock-free. $\sigma;\tau$ is by definition a set of sequences of moves of $A\multimap C$. For each sequence: - All moves must be distinct, because two identical moves from $A$ would imply there were two identical moves in $\sigma$, and likewise for $C$ and $\tau$. Similar arguments shows that there is one move from each set of alternatives, and that each question enables exactly one answer. - All moves must be either initial, or enabled by an earlier move in the sequence: - By construction of the arenas, moves of $A$ cannot enable moves of $B$ or C in the original arenas $A\multimap B$, $B\multimap C$, nor can moves of $C$ enable moves of $A$, nor moves of $B$ enable moves of $C$. - Moves of $A$ enabled by other moves of $A$, and moves of $C$ enabled by other moves of $C$, in the initial arenas, will have both the move and enabler included in the same order in $\sigma;\tau$. - Initial moves of $C$ are initial moves of both $B\multimap C$ and $A\multimap C$ and so cannot be enabled in either arena. - Initial moves of $A$ (the only remaining case) are enabled by each initial move of $C$, and so are enabled in $A\multimap C$ by whichever initial move of $C$ happens to be included in the relevant play of $\tau$. - The order of moves in $\sigma;\tau$ must be consistent with ${\prec}_{A\multimap C}$; the timings must be in non-decreasing order, because otherwise either the order would be inconsistent with $\prec_{A\multimap B}$ or $\prec_{B\multimap C}$ respectively in a play of $\sigma$ or $\tau$, or else $B$ is the null arena (and thus no play of $\sigma$ contains any moves); and no moves can answer a move that is enabled by a move answered earlier in a sequence, using a similar argument to the above. Therefore, $\sigma;\tau$ is a set of plays on $A\multimap C$. To see that $\sigma;\tau$ is responsive, consider a position $Q$ of $\sigma;\tau$, and an $\mathsf{O}$-move $m$ legal in $Q$. Without loss of generality, assume that $m$ is a move of $A$ (the proof for $m$ a move of $C$ is similar). Let $P$ be an element of $\sigma\|\|\tau$ such that $Q$ is a prefix of $P{\downharpoonright}A\multimap C$, $P'$ the shortest prefix of $P$ where $Q = P'{\downharpoonright}A\multimap C$, $Q_\sigma$ be $P'{\downharpoonright}A\multimap B$, $Q_\tau$ be $P'{\downharpoonright}B\multimap C$. Then because $\sigma$ is responsive, $Q_\sigma::m$ is a position of $\sigma$; $Q_\tau$ is a position of $\tau$ by definition; and so by Lem. \[lem:stratprefix\], $Q::m$ is the prefix of some play in $\sigma;\tau$. For deadlock-freedom, we need to prove the existence of a $\prec_{\sigma;\tau}$. We claim that $\prec'$ defined in the proof of Lem. \[lem:stratprefix\] meets all the requirements to be such a relation. The first three requirements of Def. \[def:precs\] are obvious, and the last requirement is trivially met because the set of last common enablers of an $A$-move and $C$-move are the initial questions of $C$ (which contains only $\mathsf{O}$-moves, and is nonempty except in the degenerate case where $\sigma$ has no nonempty plays), so we need only prove that if $m\nprec'm'$ and $Q::m::m'$ is a position of $\sigma;\tau$, then $Q::m'::m$ is also a position of $\sigma;\tau$. Let $P$ be an element of $\sigma\|\|\tau$ such that $Q::m::m'$ is a prefix of $P{\downharpoonright}A\multimap C$; let $P'$ be the shortest prefix of $P$ such that $P'{\downharpoonright}A\multimap C = Q::m::m'$; and let $P''$ be the longest prefix of $P$ such that $P''{\downharpoonright}A\multimap C = Q$. Then let $Q_\sigma = P''{\downharpoonright}A\multimap B$, $Q_\sigma::R_\sigma = P'{\downharpoonright}A\multimap B$, and likewise for $Q_\tau$ and $R_\tau$. Let $N = \{n\in R_\sigma\cup R_\tau \| m\prec'n\}\cup\{m\}$, and $N' = \{n'\in R_\sigma\cup R_\tau \| n'\not\in N\}$. $Q_\sigma::R_\sigma$ is a position of $\sigma$, and because $\sigma$ is deadlock-free and $n\nprec' n'$ implies $n\nprec_\sigma n'$, it must be possible to repeatedly exchange the positions of a move of $N$ in $R_\sigma$ and an immediately following move of $N'$ in $R_\sigma$ and still have a position of $\sigma$; likewise for $\tau$. The rearrangement is the same in both strategies, and so the rearranged $Q_\sigma::R_\sigma$ and $Q_\tau::R_\tau$ have their common moves in the same order. $m\in N$ by definition, $m'\in N'$ because $m\nprec'm'$ by assumption. And therefore, via Lem. \[lem:stratprefix\], $Q::m'::m$ is a prefix of a play of $\sigma;\tau$. To prove that $\sigma;\tau$ is saturated, we need to prove that if $m$ is an $\mathsf{P}$-move and/or $m'$ is a $\mathsf{O}$-move, and $P::m::m'::P'\in \sigma$, then if $P::m'::m::P'$ is a play $P::m'::m::P'\in \sigma$. The proof is along similar lines to the previous proof. Define ${\prec_{\mathit sat}}$ such that $o {\prec_{\mathit sat}} p$ for every $\mathsf{O}$-move $o$ and $\mathsf{P}$-move $p$ in $A$, $B$, and $C$. Let $P_{\sigma\|\|\tau}$ be the element of $\sigma\|\|\tau$ such that $P_{\sigma\|\|\tau}{\downharpoonright}A\multimap C = P::m::m'::P'$; let $P'_{\sigma\|\|\tau}$ be the longest prefix and $P''_{\sigma\|\|\tau}$ the longest suffix of $P_{\sigma\|\|\tau}$, such that $P'_{\sigma\|\|\tau}{\downharpoonright}A\multimap C = P$ and $P''_{\sigma\|\|\tau}{\downharpoonright}A\multimap C = P'$, and define $R$ such that $P'_{\sigma\|\|\tau}::R::P''_{\sigma\|\|\tau} = P_{\sigma\|\|\tau}$. Then let $P'_\sigma = P'_{\sigma\|\|\tau}{\downharpoonright}A\multimap B$, $P''_\sigma = P''_{\sigma\|\|\tau}{\downharpoonright}A\multimap B$, $R_\sigma = R{\downharpoonright}A\multimap B$, and likewise for $P'_\tau$, $P''_\tau$, and $R_\tau$. Let $N = \{n\in R_\sigma\cup R_\tau \| m\prec_{\mathit sat}n\}\cup\{m\}$, and $N' = \{n'\in R_\sigma\cup R_\tau \| n'\not\in N\}$. $P'_\sigma::R_\sigma::P''_\sigma$ is a position of $\sigma$, and because $\sigma$ is saturated and $n\nprec_{\sigma\|\|\tau}n'$ implies $n$ is a $\mathsf{P}$-move and/or $n'$ is an $\mathsf{O}$-move, it must be possible to repeatedly exchange the positions of a move of $N$ in $R_\sigma$ and an immediately following move of $N'$ in $R_\sigma$ and still have a play of $\sigma$; likewise for $\tau$. As such, applying the same rearrangement to $P_{\sigma\|\|\tau}$ leads to an interaction which forms a play of $\sigma$ if restricted to moves of $A\multimap B$, and a play of $\tau$ if restricted to moves of $B\multimap C$. And thus, applying the same rearrangement to $P::m::m'::P'$ gives a play of $\sigma;\tau$, $P::m'::m::P'$. Therefore, $\sigma;\tau$ is a strategy on $A\multimap C$. $(\sigma;\tau);\upsilon$ = $\sigma;(\tau;\upsilon)$. Define the three-way interaction $\sigma\|\|\tau\|\|\upsilon$ of strategies $\sigma:A\multimap B$, $\tau:B\multimap C$, $\upsilon:C \multimap D$, as $\{P\in\Sigma_{A,B,C,D}\|P{\downharpoonright}A\multimap B=\sigma \wedge P{\downharpoonright}B\multimap C=\sigma\wedge P{\downharpoonright}C\multimap D=\sigma\}$. $(\sigma;\tau)\|\|\upsilon = (\sigma\|\|\tau\|\|\upsilon){\downharpoonright}A\cup C\cup D$, because for each element of $\sigma;\tau$, there is by definition an element of $\sigma\|\|\tau$ corresponding to it. For the same reason, $\sigma;(\tau\|\|\upsilon) = (\sigma\|\|\tau\|\|\upsilon){\downharpoonright}A\cup B\cup D$. Thus, $(\sigma;\tau);\upsilon = (\sigma\|\|\tau\|\|\upsilon){\downharpoonright}A\multimap D = \sigma;(\tau;\upsilon)$. The copycat strategy $id_A$ for any arena $A$ is in fact a strategy, and a left and right identity under strategy composition. By definition, $id_A$ is a set of plays on $A\multimap A$. Because $id_A$ is defined as containing all plays except those where specific $\mathsf{O}$-moves appear after specific $\mathsf{P}$-moves, $id_A$ is trivially both saturated and responsive (the requirement is preserved by moving $\mathsf{O}$-moves earlier or $\mathsf{P}$-moves later, and cannot prevent $\mathsf{O}$-moves appearing unless they have already appeared in the play). To show deadlock-freedom, a suitable $\prec_{id_A}$ is the least transitive relation where $in_x(m) \prec_{id_A} in_y(m')$ for $x,y\in{l,r}, m \prec_A m'$, and where $in_x(m) \prec in_y(m)$ with $x\neq y\in{l,r}$ and $in_x(m)$ an $\mathsf{O}$-move. This relation is obviously well-founded, obviously respects precedence on the arena and alternatives, and obviously lists all pairs of moves that cannot be reversed. It also obeys the last common enabler rule, because the last common enablers of $in_l(m)$ and $in_r(m')$ are the initial moves of $id_A$, which are $\mathsf{O}$-moves (except in the degenerate case where $A$ has no initial moves, whose identity contains no moves in its plays and thus is trivially deadlock-free). To prove $id_A;\sigma=\sigma$, consider the interaction $id_A\|\|\sigma$. (This contains moves from two distinct copies of $A$; we label them $A_1$ and $A_2$ for clarity, with $id_A$ on $A_1\multimap A_2$ and $\sigma$ on $A_2\multimap B$.) By the definition of $id$, in the interaction $id_A\|\|\sigma$, for each move of $A_2$ there is a move of $A_1$ and vice versa; and the $\mathsf{O}$-moves come first. Thus, for each play of $id_A;\sigma$, there is a play of $\sigma$ that contains the same moves (but not necessarily in the same order). However, the only changes to the ordering of the moves that are made are to move $\mathsf{P}$-moves later and/or $\mathsf{O}$-moves earlier. Thus, $id_A;\sigma\subseteq\sigma$. Additionally, by replacing each $\mathsf{O}$-move $o$ with $in_{A_1}(o)::in_{A_2}(o)$ and each $\mathsf{P}$-move $p$ with $in_{A_2}(p)::in_{A_2}(p)$ in any play of $\sigma$, the resulting sequence is clearly an element of $id_A\|\|\sigma$, and the play derived from it is clearly identical to the original play. Thus, $\sigma\subseteq id_A;\sigma$. And so, $id_A;\sigma=\sigma$. A similar argument can be used to prove that $\sigma;id_A=\sigma$. Taking ${\otimes}$ on strategies to be interleaving of strategies, $(\sigma;\sigma')\otimes(\tau;\tau') = (\sigma\otimes\tau);(\sigma'\otimes\tau')$. We can decompose this condition into three simpler conditions, $(\sigma\otimes id_B);(\sigma'\otimes id_B)=(\sigma;\sigma')\otimes id_B$, $(id_A\otimes\tau);(id_A\otimes\tau')= id_A\otimes(\tau;\tau')$, and $(\sigma\otimes id_B);(id_A\otimes\tau)=(\sigma\otimes\tau) = (id_A\otimes\tau);(\sigma\otimes id_B)$. Each of these conditions becomes obvious upon replacing $;$ and $\otimes$ with their definitions. With $I$ as the empty arena, $A\otimes I\simeq A\simeq I\otimes A$ for all arenas $A$. $I$ has no moves, so its disjoint union with any arena is isomorphic to that arena. This proves that $\mathcal G$ is a monoidal category. Proving it to be also symmetric and closed requires proving several coherence constraints, but each of these constraints are requirements that relabelings are natural isomorphisms (which is obviously true), or that relabelings of the identity commute (which is also obviously true). The fact that $\cdot$ is a proper functor is immediate. We prove that Eqn. \[eq:sro\] holds for $\mathbb N[\mathrm{Aff}_1^c]$ and $\mathcal G$: $(J{\varodot}K)\cdot\sigma = J\cdot(K\cdot\sigma)$ for $J,K \in \mathbb N[\mathrm{Aff}_1^c]$ and $\sigma$ a strategy. $$\begin{aligned} J\cdot(K\cdot\sigma) &= J\cdot\biguplus_{x\in \mathrm{Aff}_1^c}\biguplus_{n\leq K(x)} x\cdot A\\ &= \biguplus_{x,y\in\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}\biguplus_{m\leq J(x)}\biguplus_{n\leq K(y)} x\cdot (y\cdot A)\\ &= \biguplus_{x,y\in\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}\biguplus_{n\leq J(x)K(y)} (x \times y)\cdot A\\ &= \biguplus_{x\in\mathrm{Aff}_1^c}\biguplus_{n\leq (J{\varodot}K)(x)} x\cdot A \end{aligned}$$ Conclusion ========== We have presented a bounded affine type system using an abstract resource semiring and gave a generic type inference and coherent categorical semantics for it. To illustrate its flexibility we used it to give a precise timing discipline to a recursion-free functional programming language with local state defined using a game-semantic model. The first, more theoretical, part of the paper is motivated by our desire to generalize our previous work on resource-sensitive type systems (such as SCC) and the results should be broadly applicable to many such systems. The second part is a highly non-trivial motivating application of the theory where schedules of execution are treated as a resource, and is driven by our interest in enhancing the Geometry of Synthesis hardware compiler with transparent, automatic pipelining. It is hopefully obvious that the use of a generic type system and categorical semantics imposes a high degree of abstract discipline which is essential in managing a complex type system and its interpretation in a correspondingly complex semantics. For future work, carefully injecting some data-dependencies into the type system would be highly desirable. Full-blown data dependency, especially in the presence of recursion, would make automatic type inference unfeasible. This goes beyond a mere decidability result. In type inference we outsource the heavy lifting to an external SMT solver and, so long as it can attempt to solve the associated system of constraints with a decent chance of success (as determined by practical experiments) we are content. But when failure of inference due to computability issues is a matter of course (see e.g. [@DBLP:conf/popl/LagoP13]) then it means that the type system is overly ambitious. Fortunately there is room for an interesting middle ground. To stay in the concrete context of precise timing, access to resources can be data dependent in (logically) simple ways even in the absence of recursion. An example is that of caching behavior: requesting an item of data the second consecutive time can be accomplished much faster than the first time around. The game semantics of Sec. \[sec:gamhort\] introduced a number of innovations which deserve to be studied in more depth.We did not attempt to prove (or even formulate) definability in timed games, which is an interesting question. Also, although our game model is formulated for the concrete programming language directly, it is quite clear that much of its formulation is independent of the particular choice of resource semiring. The only place where the choice of the resource semiring (schedules) is important is in the Arena definition, Def. \[def:arena\](\[def:arenat\]), in which move ordering needs to be consistent with timing. A relaxation of this rule may lead to a generic game model of the abstract type system. Finally, an efficient implementation of the pipelining mechanism in the hardware compiler requires the exploration of several possible ways in which detailed knowledge of timing can be exploited. The current implementation of the hardware compiler[^2] is not compatible with pipelining because the circuit implementing contraction ($\delta$) can only be used sequentially. The new scheduled contraction operator $\delta_{J,K}$ on the other hand can be used concurrently and can be given a finite-state implementation. The sizes of schedules ($J,K$) is known and finite and so is the order in which signals arrive, therefore their order can be used to determine signal routing. On the other hand, the timing information at our disposal is now much richer than simply knowing the order of events in the pipelines. We have full knowledge of the timing of each event; our timing is relative, but computing absolute timings from the relative timing information is quite easy. This means that our locally-synchronous-globally-asynchronous handshake protocol between components can be replaced by a globally-synchronous communication paradigm. Control signals indicating when data is available are now redundant, since this information is available at compile-time. Removing the handshake infrastructure is an interesting and appealing idea, but it is difficult to predict if it will lead to any performance improvements, since a new global clocking infrastructure needs to replace it. We will examine these questions in the near future. #### Acknowledgment. Sec. \[sec:cf\] benefited significantly from discussions with Steve Vickers. Olle Fredriksson and Fredrik Nordvall-Forsberg provided useful comments. The authors express gratitude for their contribution. [^1]: The word “affine” has two distinct technical meanings, both standard: logical vs. algebraic. The overloading should be unambiguous in context. [^2]: See <http://veritygos.org>	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We propose a new semiparametric approach for modelling nonlinear univariate diffusions, where the observed process is a nonparametric transformation of an underlying parametric diffusion (UPD). This modelling strategy yields a general class of semiparametric Markov diffusion models with parametric dynamic copulas and nonparametric marginal distributions. We provide primitive conditions for the identification of the UPD parameters together with the unknown transformations from discrete samples. Likelihood-based estimators of both parametric and nonparametric components are developed and we analyze the asymptotic properties of these. Kernel-based drift and diffusion estimators are also proposed and shown to be normally distributed in large samples. A simulation study investigates the finite sample performance of our estimators in the context of modelling US short-term interest rates. We also present a simple application of the proposed method for modelling the CBOE volatility index data. [JEL Classification: C14, C22, C32, C58, G12]{} [Keywords: Continuous-time model; diffusion process; copula; transformation model; identification; nonparametric; semiparametric; maximum likelihood; sieve; kernel smoothing.]{} author: - '[Ruijun Bu]{}[^1]' - '[Kaddour Hadri]{}[^2]' - '[Dennis Kristensen]{}[^3]' - date: April 2020 title: '[Diffusion Copulas: Identification and Estimation]{}\' --- Introduction ============ Most financial time series have fat tails that standard parametric models are not able to generate. One forceful argument for this in the context of diffusion models was provided by Aït-Sahalia (1996b) who tested a range of parametric models against a nonparametric alternative and found that most standard models were inconsistent with observed features in data. One popular semiparametric approach that allows for more flexibility in terms of marginal distributions, and so allowing for fat tails, is to use the so-called copula models, where the copula is parametric and the marginal distribution is left unspecified (nonparametric). Joe (1997) showed how bivariate parametric copulas could be used to model discrete-time stationary Markov chains with flexible, nonparametric marginal distributions. The resulting class of semiparametric models are relatively easy to estimate; see, e.g. Chen and Fan (2006). However, most parametric copulas known in the literature have been derived in a cross-sectional setting where they have been used to describe the joint dependence between two random variables with known joint distribution, e.g. a bivariate $t$-distribution. As such, existing parametric copulas may be difficult to interpret in terms of the dynamics they imply when used to model Markov processes. This in turn means that applied researchers may find it difficult to choose an appropriate copula for a given time series. One could have hoped that copulas with a clearer dynamic interpretation could be developed by starting with an underlying parametric Markov model and then deriving its implied copula. This approach is unfortunately hindered by the fact that the stationary distributions of general Markov chains are not available on closed-form and so their implied dynamic copulas are not available on closed form either. This complicates both the theoretical analysis (such as establishing identification) and the practical implementation of such models. An alternative approach to modelling fat tails using Markov diffusions is to specify flexible forms for the so-called drift and diffusion term. Such non-linear features tend to generate fat tails in the marginal distribution of the process. This approach has been widely used to, for example, model short-term interest rates; see, e.g., Aït-Sahalia (1996a,b), Conley et al. (1997), Stanton (1997), Ahn and Gao (1999) and Bandi (2002). These models tend to either be heavily parameterized or involve nonparametric estimators that suffer from low precision in small and moderate samples. We here propose a novel class of dynamic copulas that resolves the above-mentioned issues: We show how copulas can easily be generated from parametric diffusion processes. The copulas have a clear interpretation in terms of dynamics since they are constructed from an underlying dynamic continuous-time process. At the same time, a given copula-based diffusion can exhibit strong non-linearities in its drift and diffusion term even if the underlying copula is derived from, for example, a linear model. Furthermore, primitive conditions for identification of the parameters are derived; and this despite the fact that the copulas are implicit. Finally, the models can easily be implemented in practice using existing numerical methods for parametric diffusion processes. This in turn implies that estimators are easy to compute and do not involve any smoothing parameters; this is in contrast to existing semi- and nonparametric estimators of diffusion models. The starting point of our analysis is to show that there is a one-to-one correspondence between any given semiparametric Markov copula model and a model where we observe a nonparametric transformation of an underlying parametric Markov process. We then restrict attention to parametric Markov diffusion processes which we refer to as underlying parametric diffusions (UPD’s). Copulas generated from a given UPD has a clear interpretation in terms of dynamic properties. In particular, standard results from the literature on diffusion models can be employed to establish mixing properties and existence of moments for a given model; see, e.g. Chen et al. (2010). Moreover, we are able to derive primitive conditions for the parameters of the copula to be identified together with the unknown transformation. Once identification has been established, estimation of our copula diffusion models based on a discretely sampled process proceeds as in the discrete-time case. One can either estimate the model using a one-step or two-step procedure: In the one-step procedure, the marginal distribution and the parameters of the UPD are estimated jointly by sieve-maximum likelihood methods as advocated by Chen, Wu and Yi (2009). In the two-step approach, the marginal distribution is first estimated by the empirical cdf, which in turn is plugged into the likelihood function of the model. This is then maximized with respect to the parameters of the UPD. We provide an asymptotic theory for both cases by importing results from Chen, Wu and Yi (2009) and Chen and Fan (2006), respectively. In particular, we provide primitive conditions for their high-level assumptions to hold in our diffusion setting. The resulting asymptotic theory shows $\sqrt{n}$-asymptotic normality of the parametric components. Given the estimates of parametric component, one can obtain semiparametric estimates of the drift and diffusion functions and we also provide an asymptotic theory for these. Our modelling strategy has parametric ascendants: Bu et al. (2011), Eraker and Wang (2015) and Forman and Sørensen (2014) considered parametric transformations of UPDs for modelling short-term interest rates, variance risk premia and molecular dynamics, respectively. We here provide a more flexible class of models relative to theirs since we leave the transformation unspecified. At the same time, all the attractive properties of their models remain valid: The transition density of the observed process is induced by the UPD and so the estimation of copula-based diffusion models is computationally simple. Moreover, copula diffusion models can furthermore be easily employed in asset pricing applications since (conditional) moments are easily computed using the specification of the UPD. Finally, none of these papers fully addresses the identification issue and so our identification results are also helpful in their setting. There are also similarities between our approach and the one pursued in Aït-Sahalia (1996a) and Kristensen (2010). They developed two classes of semiparametric diffusion models where either the drift or the diffusion term is specified parametrically and the remaining term is left unspecified. The remaining term is then recovered by using the triangular link between the marginal distribution, the drift and the diffusion terms that exist for stationary diffusions. In this way, the marginal distribution implicitly ties down the dynamics of the observed diffusion process. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to interpret the dynamic properties of the resulting semiparametric diffusion model. In contrast, in our setting, the UPD alone ties down the dynamics of the observed diffusion and so these are much better understood. The estimation of copula diffusions are also less computationally burdensome compared to the Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Estimator (PMLE) proposed in Kristensen (2010). The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[Sec\_Model\] outlines our semiparametric modelling strategy. Section [Sec\_Identification]{} investigates the identification issue of our model. In Section \[Sec\_Inference\], we discuss the estimators of our model while Section \[sec: asymp theory\] investigates their asymptotic properties. Section \[Sec\_Simulation\] presents a simulation study to examine the finite sample performance of our estimators. In Section \[Sec\_Application\], we consider a simple empirical application. Some concluding remarks are given in Section \[Sec\_Conclusion\]. All proofs and lemmas are collected in Appendices. Copula-Based Diffusion Models\[Sec\_Model\] =========================================== Framework\[SubSec\_Model\] -------------------------- Consider a continuous-time process $Y=\left\{ Y_{t}:t\geq 0\right\} $ with domain $\mathcal{Y}=\left( y_{l},y_{r}\right) $, where $-\infty \leq y_{l}<y_{r}\leq +\infty $. We assume that $Y$ satisfies$$Y_{t}=V\left( X_{t}\right) , \label{eq: Y def}$$where $V:\mathcal{X\mapsto }\mathcal{Y}$ is a smooth monotonic univariate function and $X=\left\{ X_{t}:t\geq 0\right\} $ solves the following parametric SDE:$$dX_{t}=\mu _{X}\left( X_{t};\theta \right) dt+\sigma _{X}\left( X_{t};\theta \right) dW_{t}. \label{UPD_x}$$Here, $\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $ and $\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x;\theta \right) \ $are scalar functions that are known up to some unknown parameter vector $\theta \in \Theta $, where $\Theta $ is the parameter space, while $W $ is a standard Brownian motion. We call $X$ the underlying parametric diffusion (UPD) and let $\mathcal{X}=\left( x_{l},x_{r}\right) $, $-\infty \leq x_{l}<x_{r}\leq +\infty $, denote its domain. We call $Y$ a copula-based diffusion since its dynamics are determined by the implied (dynamic) copula of the UPD $X$, as we will explain below. Given a discrete sample of $Y$, $Y_{i\Delta }$, $i=0,1,\ldots ,n$, where $\Delta >0$ denotes the time distance between observations, we are then interested in drawing inference regarding the parameter $\theta $ and the function $V$. Note here that we only observe $Y$ while $X$ remains unobserved since we leave $V$ unspecified (unknown to us). For convenience, we collect the unknown component in the structure $\mathcal{S}\equiv \left( \theta ,V\right) $. The above class of models allows for added flexibility through the transformation $V$ which we treat as a nonparametric object that we wish to estimate together with $\theta $. By allowing for a broad nonparametric class of transformations $V$, our model is richer and more flexible compared to the fully parametric case with known or parametric specifications of $V$. In particular, as we shall see, any given member of the above class of models is able to completely match the marginal distribution of any given time series. We will require that the underlying Markov process $X$ sampled at $i\Delta $, $i=1,2,...$, possesses a transition density $p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $,$$\Pr \left( X_{\Delta }\in \mathcal{A}\|X_{0}=x_{0}\right) =\int_{\mathcal{A}}p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) dx,\text{ \ \ }\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathcal{X}. \label{eq: p_X def}$$Moreover, some of our results require $X$ to be recurrent, a property which can be stated in terms of the so-called scale density and scale measure. These are defined as $$s\left( x;\theta \right) :=\exp \left\{ -\int_{x^{\ast }}^{x}\frac{2\mu _{X}\left( z;\theta \right) }{\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( z;\theta \right) }dz\right\} \text{ and }S\left( x;\theta \right) :=\int_{x^{\ast }}^{x}s\left( z;\theta \right) dz \label{eq: scale density}$$for some $x^{\ast }\in \mathcal{X}$. We then impose the following: Assumption 2.1. : \(i) $\mu _{X}\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) $ and $\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) >0$ are twice continuously differentiable; (ii) the scale measure satisfies $S\left( x;\theta \right) \rightarrow -\infty \ $($+\infty $) as$\ x\rightarrow x_{l}$ ($x_{r}$); (iii) $\xi \left( \theta \right) =\int_{\mathcal{X}}\left\{ \sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x;\theta \right) s\left( x;\theta \right) \right\} ^{-1}dx<\infty $. Assumption 2.2. : The transformation $V$ is strictly increasing with inverse $U=V^{-1}$, i.e., $y=V\left( x\right) \Leftrightarrow x=U\left( y\right) $, and is twice continuously differentiable. Assumption 2.1(i) provides primitive conditions for a solution to eq. ([UPD\_x]{}) to exist and for the transition density $p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $ to be well-defined, while Assumption 2.1(ii) implies that this solution is positive recurrent; see Bandi and Phillips (2003), Karatzas and Shreve (1991, Section 5.5) and McKean (1969, Section 5) for more details. Assumption 2.1(iii) strengthens the recurrence property to stationarity and ergodicity in which case the stationary marginal density of $X$ takes the form$$f_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) =\frac{\xi \left( \theta \right) }{\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x;\theta \right) s\left( x;\theta \right) }, \label{mpdf_x}$$where $\xi \left( \theta \right) $ was defined in Assumption 2.1(iii). However, stationarity will not be required for all our results to hold; in particular, some of our identification results and proposed estimators do not rely on stationarity. This is in contrast to the existing literature on dynamic copula models where stationarity is a maintained assumption. Assumption 2.2 requires $V$ to be strictly increasing; this is a testable restriction under the remaining assumptions introduced below which ensures identification: Suppose that indeed $V$ is strictly decreasing; we then have $Y_{t}=\bar{V}\left( \bar{X}_{t}\right) $, where $\bar{V}\left( x\right) =V\left( -x\right) $ is increasing and $\bar{X}_{t}=-X_{t}$ has dynamics $p_{X}\left( -x\|-x_{0};\theta \right) $. Assuming that the chosen UPD satisfies $p_{X}\left( -x\|-x_{0};\theta \right) \neq p_{X}(x\|x_{0};\tilde{\theta})$ for $\theta \neq \tilde{\theta}$, we can test whether $V$ indeed is decreasing or increasing. The smoothness condition on $V$ is imposed so that we can employ Ito’s Lemma on the transformation to obtain that the continuous-time dynamics of $Y$ can be written in terms of $\mathcal{S}$ as$$dY_{t}=\mu _{Y}\left( Y_{t};\mathcal{S}\right) dt+\sigma _{Y}\left( Y_{t};\mathcal{S}\right) dW_{t},$$with$$\begin{aligned} \mu _{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) &=&\frac{\mu _{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) \frac{U^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}}, \label{RDdrift} \\ \sigma _{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) &=&\frac{\sigma _{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) }, \label{RDdiffusion}\end{aligned}$$where we have used that, with $U^{\prime }\left( y\right) $ and $U^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) $ denoting the first two derivatives of $U\left( y\right) $, $V^{\prime }\left( U\left( y\right) \right) =1/U^{\prime }\left( y\right) $ and $V^{\prime \prime }\left( U\left( y\right) \right) =-U^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) /U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}$. In particular, $Y$ is a Markov diffusion process. As can be seen from the above expressions, the dynamics of $Y$, as characterized by $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$, may appear quite complex with $U$ potentially generating nonlinearities in both the drift and diffusion terms even if $\mu _{X}$ and $\sigma _{X}^{2}$ are linear. We demonstrate this feature in the subsequent subsection where we present examples of simple UPD’s are able to generate non-linear shapes of $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$ via the non-linear transformation $V$. At the same time, if we transform $Y$ by $U$ we recover the dynamics of the UPD. As a consequence, the transition density of the discretely sampled process $Y_{i\Delta }$, $i=0,1,2,...$, can be expressed in terms of the one of $X$ as$$p_{Y}\left( y\|y_{0};\mathcal{S}\right) =U^{\prime }\left( y\right) p_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) \|U\left( y_{0}\right) ;\theta \right) , \label{tpdf_y(x)}$$using standard results for densities of invertible transformations. By similar arguments, the stationary density of $Y$ satisfies $$f_{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) =U^{\prime }\left( y\right) f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) , \label{mpdf_y(x)}$$which shows that any choice for UPD is able to fully adapt to any given marginal density of $Y$ due to the nonparametric nature of $U$. The above expressions also highlights the following additional theoretical and practical advantages of our modelling strategy: First, for a given choice of $U$, we can easily compute $p_{Y}\left( y\|y_{0};\mathcal{S}\right) $ and $f_{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) $ since computation of parametric transition densities and stationary densities of diffusion models is in general straightforward, even if they are not available on closed form. Second, $Y$ inherits all its dynamic properties from $X$; and in the modelling of $X$, we can rely on a large literature on parametric modelling of diffusion models. Formally, we have the following straightforward results adopted from Forman and Sørensen (2014). \[Th: Y prop\]Suppose that Assumptions 2.1(i)–(ii) and 2.2 hold. Then the following results hold for the model (\[eq: Y def\])-(\[UPD\_x\]): 1. If Assumption 2.1(iii) hold, then $X$ is stationary and ergodic and so is $Y$. 2. The mixing coefficients of $X$ and $Y$ coincide. 3. If $E\left[ \left\vert X_{t}\right\vert ^{q_{1}}\right] <\infty $ and $\left\vert V\left( x\right) \right\vert \leq B\left( 1+\left\vert x\right\vert ^{q_{2}}\right) $ for some $B<\infty $ and $q_{1},q_{2}\geq 0$, then $E[\left\vert Y_{t}\right\vert ^{q_{1}/q_{2}}]<\infty $. 4. If $\varphi $ is an eigenfunction of $X$ with corresponding eigenvalue $\rho $ in the sense that $E\left[ \varphi \left( X_{1}\right) \|X_{0}\right] =\rho \varphi \left( X_{0}\right) $ then $\varphi \circ U$ is an eigenfunction of $Y$ with corresponding eigenvalue $\rho $. The above theorem shows that, given knowledge (or estimates) of $\mathcal{S}$, the properties of $Y$ in terms of mixing coefficients, moments, and eigenfunctions are well-understood since they are inherited from the specification of $X$. In addition, computations of conditional moments of $Y$ can be done straightforwardly utilizing knowledge of the UPD. For example, for a given function $G$, the corresponding conditional moment can be computed as$$E\left[ G\left( Y_{t+s}\right) \|Y_{t}=y\right] =E\left[ G_{X}\left( X_{t+s}\right) \|X_{t}=U\left( y\right) \right] ,\text{ where }G_{X}\left( x\right) :=G\left( V\left( x\right) \right) .$$The right-hand side moment only involves $X$ and so standard methods for computing moments of parametric diffusion models (e.g., Monte Carlo methods, solving partial differential equations, Fourier transforms) can be employed. This facilitates the use of our diffusion models in asset pricing where the price often takes the form of a conditional moment. We refer to Eraker and Wang (2015) for more details on asset pricing applications for our class of models; they take a fully parametric approach but all their arguments carry over to our setting. The last result of the above theorem will prove useful for our identification arguments since these will rely on the fundamental nonparametric identification results derived in Hansen et al. (1998). Their results involve the spectrum of the observed diffusion process, and the last result of the theorem implies that the spectrum of $Y$ is fully characterized by the spectrum of $X$ together with the transformation. The eigenfunctions and their eigenvalues are also useful for evaluating long-run properties of $Y$. In our semiparametric approach, the eigenfunctions and corresponding eigenvalues of $Y$ are easily computed from $X$ and so we circumvent the problem of estimating these nonparametrically as done in, for example, Chen, Hansen and Scheinkman (2009) and Gobet et al. (2004). Examples of UPDs ---------------- Our framework is quite flexible and in principle allows for any specification of the UPD for $X$. Many parametric models are available for that purpose, and we here present three specific examples from the literature on continuous-time interest rate modelling. Example 1: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) model. The OU model (c.f. Vasicek, 1977) is given by$$dX_{t}=\kappa \left( \alpha -X_{t}\right) dt+\sigma dW_{t}, \label{OU}$$defined on the domain $\mathcal{X}=\left( -\infty ,+\infty \right) $. The process is stationary if and only if $\kappa >0$, in which case $X$ mean-reverts to its unconditional mean $\alpha $. The scale of $X$ is controlled by $\sigma $. Its stationary and transition distributions are both normal, and the corresponding copula of the discretely sampled process is a Gaussian copula with correlation parameter $e^{-\kappa \Delta }$. For this particular model, the resulting drift and diffusion term of the observed process takes the form$$\mu _{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) =\frac{\kappa \left( \alpha -U\left( y\right) \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{2}\frac{U^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}},\text{ \ \ }\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) =\frac{\sigma ^{2}}{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{2}}.$$In Figure 2 (found in Section \[Sec\_Simulation\]), we plot these two functions with $U$ and $\theta $ fitted to the 7-day Eurodollar interest rate time series used in Aït-Sahalia (1996b). Observe that $U$generates non-linear behavior in $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$ despite the UPD being a linear Gaussian process. Example 2: Cox-Ingersoll-Ross (CIR) model. The CIR process (c.f. Cox et al., 1985) is given by$$dX_{t}=\kappa \left( \alpha -X_{t}\right) dt+\sigma \sqrt{X_{t}}dW_{t}. \label{CIR}$$The process has domain $\mathcal{X}=\left( 0,+\infty \right) $ and is stationary if and only if $\kappa >0$, $\alpha >0$ and $2\kappa \alpha /\sigma ^{2}\geq 1$. Conditional on $X_{i\Delta }$, $X_{\left( i+1\right) \Delta }$ admits a non-central $\chi ^{2}$ distribution with fractional degrees of freedom while its stationary distribution is a Gamma distribution. To our best knowledge, the corresponding dynamic copula has not been analyzed before or used in empirical work. Figure 4 (in Section [Sec\_Simulation]{}) displays $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2},$ with $U$ and $\theta $ chosen in the same way as in Exampe 1. Compared to this example, the resulting drift and diffusion term of $Y$ exhibit even stronger non-linearities. Example 3: Nonlinear Drift Constant Elasticity Variance (NLDCEV) model. The NLDCEV specification (c.f. Conley et al., 1997) is given by$$dX_{t}=\left( \sum_{i=-k}^{l}\alpha _{i}X_{t}^{i}\right) dt+\sigma X_{t}^{\beta }dW_{t} \label{NLDCEV}$$with domain $\mathcal{X}=\left( 0,+\infty \right) $. It is easily seen that when $\alpha _{-k}>0$ and $\alpha _{l}<0$ the drift term of the diffusion in (\[NLDCEV\]) exhibits mean-reversions for large and small values of $X$. A popular choice for various studies in finance assumes that $k=1$ and $l=2$ or $3$ (c.f. Aït-Sahalia, 1996b; Choi, 2009; Kristensen, 2010; Bu, Cheng and Hadri, 2017), in which case the drift has linear or zero mean-reversion in the middle part and much stronger mean-reversion for large and small values of $X$. Meanwhile, the CEV diffusion term is also consistent with most empirical findings of the shape of the diffusion term. It follows that since (\[NLDCEV\]) is one of the most flexible parametric diffusions, diffusion processes that are unspecified transformations of ([NLDCEV]{}) should represent a very flexible class of diffusion models. Similar to (\[CIR\]), the implied copula of the NLDCEV is new to the copula literature. Examples 1-2 are attractive from a computational standpoint since the corresponding transition densities are available on closed-form thereby facilitating their implementation. But this comes at the cost of the dynamics being somewhat simple. The NLDCEV model implies more complex and richer dynamics but on the other hand its transition density is not available on closed form. However, the marginal pdf of the NLDCEV process, as well as more general specifications, can be evaluated in closed form by (\[mpdf\_x\]). Moreover, closed-from approximations of the transition density of the NLDCEV model developed by, for example, Aït-Sahalia (2002) and Li (2013) can be employed. Alternatively, simulated versions of the transition density can be computed using the techniques developed in, for example, Kristensen and Shin (2012) and Bladt and Sørensen (2014). In either case, an approximate version of the exact likelihood can be easily computed, thereby allowing for simple estimation of even quite complex underlying UPDs. Related Literature ------------------ As already noted in the introduction, copula-based diffusions are related to the class of so-called discrete-time copula-based Markov models; see, for example, Chen and Fan (2006) and references therein. To map the notation and ideas of this literature into our continuous-time setting, we set the sampling time distance $\Delta =1$ in the remaining part of this section. Let us first introduce copula-based Markov models where a given discrete-time, stationary scalar Markov process $Y=\left\{ Y_{i}:i=0,1,\ldots ,n\right\} $ is modelled through a bivariate parametric copula density[^4], say, $c_{X}\left( u_{0},u;\theta \right) $, together with its stationary marginal cdf $F_{Y}$, i.e., so that $Y$’s transition density satisfies$$p_{Y}\left( y\|y_{0};\theta ,F_{Y}\right) =f_{Y}\left( y\right) c_{X}\left( F_{Y}\left( y_{0}\right) ,F_{Y}\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) , \label{eq: copula MC}$$where $f_{Y}\left( y\right) =F_{Y}^{\prime }\left( y\right) $. An alternative representation of this model is$$Y_{i}=F_{Y}^{-1}\left( \bar{X}_{i}\right) ,\text{ \ \ }\bar{X}_{i+1}\|\bar{X}_{i}=x_{0}\sim c_{X}\left( x_{0},\cdot ;\theta \right) , \label{eq: copula MC 2}$$so that $Y_{i}$ is a transformation of an underlying Markov process $\bar{X}_{i}\in \left[ 0,1\right] $; the latter having a uniform marginal distribution and transition density $c_{X}\left( x_{0},x;\theta \right) $. Thus, if $c_{X}\left( x_{0},x;\theta \right) $ is induced by an underlying Markov diffusion transition density, the corresponding copula-based Markov model falls within our framework. Reversely, consider a copula-based diffusion and suppose that the UPD $X$ is stationary with marginal cdf $F_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $. By definition of $Y$, its marginal cdf satisfies $$F_{Y}\left( y\right) =F_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) \Leftrightarrow U\left( y\right) =F_{X}^{-1}\left( F_{Y}\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) . \label{U}$$Substituting the last expression for $U$ into (\[tpdf\_y(x)\]), we see that $p_{Y}$ can be expressed in the form of (\[eq: copula MC\]) where $c_{X}\left( u_{0},u;\theta \right) $ is the density function of the (dynamic) copula implied by the discretely sampled UPD $X$,$$c_{X}\left( u_{0},u;\theta \right) =\frac{p_{X}\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( u;\theta \right) \|F_{X}^{-1}\left( u_{0};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) }{f_{X}\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( u;\theta \right) ;\theta \right) }. \label{dic}$$Thus, any discretely sampled stationary copula-based diffusion satisfies (\[eq: copula MC 2\]) with $\bar{X}_{i}=F_{X}\left( X_{i}\right) $. However, the literature on copula-based Markov models focus on discrete-time models with standard copula specifications derived from bivariate distributions in an i.i.d. setting. Using copulas that are originally derived in an i.i.d. setting complicates the interpretation of the dynamics of the resulting Markov model, and conditions for the model to be mixing, for example, can be quite complicated to derive; see, e.g., Beare (2010) and Chen, Wu and Yi (2009). This also implies that very few standard copulas can be interpreted as diffusion processes; to our knowledge, the only one is the Gaussian copula which corresponds to the OU process in Example 1. The reader may now wonder why we do not simply generate dynamic copulas by first deriving the transition density $p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $ for a given discrete-time Markov model and then obtain the corresponding Markov copula through eq. (\[dic\])? The reason is that for most discrete-time Markov models the stationary distribution $F_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $ is not known on closed form. Thus, first of all, $F_{X}^{-1}\left( u;\theta \right) $ and thereby also $c_{X}$ have be approximated numerically. Second, since $c_{X}$ is now not available on closed form, the analysis of which parameters one can identify from the resulting copula model becomes very challenging. And identification in copula-based Markov models is a non-trivial problem: Generally, for a given parametric Markov model, not all parameters are identified from the corresponding copula as given in (\[dic\]) and some of them have to be normalized. We here directly generate copulas through an underlying continuous-time diffusion model for $X$. This resolves the aforementioned drawbacks of existing copula-based Markov models: First, we are able to generate highly flexible copulas so far not considered in the literature. Second, given that our copulas are induced by specifying the drift and diffusion functions of $X $, the time series properties are much more easily inferred from our model, c.f. Theorem \[Th: Y prop\]. Third, by Ito’s Lemma, eqs. ([RDdrift]{})-(\[RDdiffusion\]) provide us with explicit expressions linking the drift and diffusion terms of the observed diffusion process $Y$ to the UPD through the transformation $V$; this will allow us to derive necessary and sufficient conditions for identification in the following. Fourth, in terms of estimation, the stationary distribution of a given diffusion model has an explicit form, c.f. eq. (\[mpdf\_x\]), which allows us to develop computationally simple estimators of copula diffusion models. Finally, some of our identification results will not require stationarity and so expands the scope for using copula-type models in time series analysis. Our modelling strategy is also related to the ideas of Aït-Sahalia (1996a) and Kristensen (2010, 2011) where $F_{Y}$ is left unspecified while either the drift, $\mu _{Y}$, or the diffusion term, $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$, is specified parametrically. As an example, consider the former case where $\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y;\theta \right) $ is known up to the parameter $\theta $. Given knowledge of the marginal density $f_{Y}$ (or a nonparametric estimator of it), the diffusion term can then be recovered as a functional of $f_{Y}$ and $\mu _{Y}$ as$$\mu _{Y}\left( y;f_{Y},\theta \right) =\frac{1}{2f_{Y}\left( y\right) }\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\left[ \sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y;\theta \right) f_{Y}\left( y\right) \right] .$$So in their setting $f_{Y}$ pins down the resulting dynamics of $Y$ in a rather opaque manner. Identification\[Sec\_Identification\] ===================================== Suppose that a particular specification of the UPD as given in (\[UPD\_x\]) has been chosen. Given the discrete sample of $Y$, the goal is to obtain consistent estimates of $\theta $ together with $V$. To this end, we first have to show that these are actually identified from data. In order to do so, we need to be precise about which primitives we can identify from data. Given the primitives, we then wish to recover $\left( \theta ,V\right) $. In the cross-sectional literature, one normally take as given the distribution of data and then establish a mapping between this and the structural parameters. In our setting, we are able to learn about the transition density of our data, $p_{Y}$, from the population and so it would be natural to use this as primitive from which we wish to recover $\left( \theta ,V\right) $. However, the mapping from $p_{Y}$ to $\left( \theta ,V\right) $ is not available on closed form in general in our setting and so this identification strategy appears highly complicated. Instead we will take as primitives the drift, $\mu _{Y}$, and diffusion term, $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$, of $Y$ and then show identification of $\left( \theta ,V\right) $ from these. This identification argument relies on us being able to identify $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$ in the first place, which we formally assume here: Assumption 3.1 : The drift, $\mu _{Y}$, and the diffusion, $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$, are nonparametrically identified from the discretely sampled process $Y$. The above assumption is not completely innocuous and does impose some additional regularity conditions on the Data Generating Process (DGP). We therefore first provide sufficient conditions under which Assumption 3.1 holds. The first set of conditions are due to Hansen et al. (1998) who showed that Assumption 3.1 is satisfied if $Y$ is stationary and its infinitesimal operator has a discrete spectrum. Theorem \[Th: Y prop\](4) is helpful in this regard since it informs us that the spectrum of $Y$ can be recovered from the one of $X$. In particular, if $X$ is stationary with a discrete spectrum, then $Y$ will have the same properties. Since the dynamics of $X$ is known to us, the properties of its spectrum are in principle known to us and so this condition can be verified a priori. The second set of primitive conditions come from Bandi and Phillips (2003): They show that as $\Delta \rightarrow 0$ and $n\Delta \rightarrow \infty $, the drift and diffusion functions of a recurrent Markov diffusion process are identified. This last result holds without stationarity, but on the other hand requires high-frequency observations. In order to formally state the above two results, we need some additional notation. Recall that the infinitesimal operator, denoted $L_{X}$, of a given UPD $X$ is defined as$$L_{X,\theta }g\left( x\right) :=\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta \right) g^{\prime }\left( x\right) +\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x;\theta \right) g^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) ,$$for any twice differentiable function $g\left( x\right) $. We follow Hansen et al. (1998) and restrict the domain of $L_{X}$ to the following set of functions:$$\mathcal{D}\left( L_{X,\theta }\right) =\left\{ g\in L_{2}\left( f_{X}\right) :g^{\prime }\text{ is a.c., }L_{X,\theta }g\in L_{2}\left( f_{X}\right) \text{ and }\lim_{x\downarrow x_{l}}\frac{g^{\prime }\left( x\right) }{s\left( x\right) }=\lim_{x\uparrow x_{u}}\frac{g^{\prime }\left( x\right) }{s\left( x\right) }=0\right\} .$$where a.c. stands for absolutely continuous. The spectrum of $L_{X,\theta }$ is then the set of solution pairs $\left( \varphi ,\rho \right) $, with $\varphi \in \mathcal{D}\left( L_{X,\theta }\right) $ and $\rho \geq 0$, to the following eigenvalue problem, $L_{X,\theta }\varphi =-\rho \varphi $. We refer to Hansen et al. (1998) and Kessler and Sørensen (1999) for a further discussion and results regarding the spectrum of $L_{X}$. The following result then holds: Suppose that Assumption 2.1(i)-(ii) is satisfied. Then Assumption 3.1 holds under either of the following two sets of conditions: 1. Assumption 2.1(iii) holds and $L_{X,\theta }$ has a discrete spectrum where $\theta $ is the data-generating parameter value. 2. $\Delta \rightarrow 0$ and $n\Delta \rightarrow \infty $. Importantly, the above result shows that Assumption 3.1 can be verified without imposing stationarity. Unfortunately, this requires high-frequency information ($\Delta \rightarrow 0$). To our knowledge, there exists no results for low-frequency ($\Delta >0$ fixed) identification of the drift and diffusion terms of scalar diffusion processes under non-stationarity. But by inspection of the arguments of Hansen et al. (1998) one can verify that at least the diffusion component is nonparametrically identified from low-frequency information without stationarity. We are now ready to analyze the identification problem. Recall that $\mathcal{S}=\left( \theta ,V\right) $ contains the objects of interest and let our model consist of all the structures that satisfy, as a minimum, Assumptions 2.1(i)–(ii) and 2.2. According to (\[RDdrift\])-([RDdiffusion]{}), each structure implies a drift and diffusion term of the observed process. We shall say that two structures $\mathcal{S}=\left( \theta ,V\right) $ and $\mathcal{\tilde{S}}=(\tilde{\theta},\tilde{V})$ are observationally equivalent, a property which we denote by $\mathcal{S}\sim \mathcal{\tilde{S}}$, if they imply the same drift and diffusion of $Y$, i.e. $$\forall y\in \mathcal{Y}:\mu _{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) =\mu _{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{\tilde{S}}\right) \text{ and }\sigma _{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) =\sigma _{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{\tilde{S}}\right) .$$The structure $\mathcal{S}$ is then said to be identified within the model if $\mathcal{S}\sim \mathcal{\tilde{S}}$ implies $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{\tilde{S}}$. In our setting, without suitable normalizations on the parameters of the UPD, identification will generally fail. To see this, observe that any given structure $\mathcal{S}$ is observationally equivalent to the following process: Choose any one-to-one transformation $T:\mathcal{X}\mapsto \mathcal{X}$, and rewrite the DGP implied by $\mathcal{S}$ as$$Y_{t}=\tilde{V}\left( \tilde{X}_{t}\right) ,\text{ \ \ }\tilde{V}\left( x\right) =V\left( T\left( x\right) \right) , \label{eq: Y = V(tilde X)}$$where $\tilde{X}_{t}=T^{-1}\left( X_{t}\right) $ solves$$d\tilde{X}_{t}=\mu _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }\left( \tilde{X}_{t};\theta \right) dt+\sigma _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }\left( \tilde{X}_{t};\theta \right) dW_{t}, \label{eq: tilde X def}$$with$$\begin{aligned} \mu _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }\left( x;\theta \right) &=&\frac{\mu _{X}\left( T\left( x\right) ;\theta \right) }{\partial T\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( T\left( x\right) ;\theta \right) \frac{\partial ^{2}T\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x^{2}\right) }{\partial T\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x\right) ^{3}}, \label{eq: mu tilde X} \\ \sigma _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }\left( x;\theta \right) &=&\frac{\sigma _{X}\left( T\left( x\right) ;\theta \right) }{\partial T\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x\right) }. \label{eq: sig tilde X}\end{aligned}$$Suppose now that there exists $\tilde{\theta}$ so that $\mu _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }\left( x;\theta \right) =\mu _{X}\left( x;\tilde{\theta}\right) $ and $\sigma _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }\left( x;\theta \right) =\sigma _{X}\left( x;\tilde{\theta}\right) $. Then the alternative representation (\[eq: Y = V(tilde X)\])-(\[eq: tilde X def\]) is a member of our model with structure $\mathcal{\tilde{S}=(}\tilde{\theta},\tilde{V})$ which is observationally equivalent to $\mathcal{S}=\left( V,\theta \right) $. The following result provides a complete characterizations of the class of observationally equivalent structures for a given model: \[Th: Master ID\]Suppose that Assumptions 3.1 is satisfied. For any two structures $\mathcal{S}=\left( V,\theta \right) $ and $\mathcal{\tilde{S}}=(\tilde{V},\tilde{\theta})$ satisfying Assumptions 2.1(i) and 2.2, the following hold: $\mathcal{S}\sim \mathcal{\tilde{S}}$ if and only if there exists one-to-one transformation $T:\mathcal{X}\mapsto \mathcal{X}$ so that$$\tilde{V}\left( x\right) =V\left( T\left( x\right) \right) \label{eq: equiv 1}$$and, with $\mu _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }\left( x;\tilde{\theta}\right) $ and $\sigma _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }\left( x;\tilde{\theta}\right) $ given in eqs. (\[eq: mu tilde X\])-(\[eq: sig tilde X\]), $$\text{(i) }\mu _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }(x;\tilde{\theta})=\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta \right) \text{ and (ii) }\sigma _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }(x;\tilde{\theta})=\sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta \right) . \label{eq: equiv 2}$$ In particular, the data-generating structure is identified if and only if there exists no one-to-one transformation $T$ such that (\[eq: equiv 2\]) holds for $\theta \neq \tilde{\theta}$. Note that the above theorem does not require stationarity since it is only concerned with the mapping $\mathcal{S\mapsto }\left( \mu _{Y}\left( \cdot ;\mathcal{S}\right) ,\sigma _{Y}\left( \cdot ;\mathcal{S}\right) \right) $ which is well-defined irrespectively of whether data is stationary. The first part of the theorem provides a exact characterization of when any two structures are equivalent, namely if there exists a transformation $T$ so that (\[eq: equiv 1\])-(\[eq: equiv 2\]) hold. The second part comes as a natural consequence of the first part: If there exists no such transformation, then the data-generating structure must be identified. Unfortunately, the above result may not always be useful in practice since it requires us to search over all possible one-to-one transformations $T$ and for each of these verify that there exists no $\theta \neq \tilde{\theta} $ for which eq. (\[eq: equiv 2\]) holds. In some cases, it proves useful to first normalize the UPD suitably and then verify eq. (\[eq: equiv 2\]) in the normalized version. First note that for any one-to-one transformation $\bar{T}\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) :\mathcal{X}\mapsto \mathcal{\bar{X}}$, an equivalent representation of the model is$$Y_{t}=V\left( \bar{X}_{t}\right) ,$$where the “normalised” UPD $\bar{X}_{t}:=\bar{T}^{-1}\left( X_{t};\theta \right) \in \mathcal{\bar{X}}$ solves$$d\bar{X}_{t}=\mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{X}_{t};\theta \right) dt+\sigma _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{X}_{t};\theta \right) dW_{t},$$with$$\begin{aligned} \mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) &=&\frac{\mu _{X}\left( \bar{T}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) }{\partial \bar{T}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) /\left( \partial \bar{x}\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( \bar{T}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) \frac{\partial ^{2}\bar{T}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) /\left( \partial \bar{x}^{2}\right) }{\partial \bar{T}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) /\left( \partial \bar{x}\right) ^{3}}, \label{eq: norm X drift} \\ \sigma _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) &=&\frac{\sigma _{X}\left( \bar{T}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) }{\partial \bar{T}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) /\left( \partial \bar{x}\right) }. \label{eq: norm X diff}\end{aligned}$$Given that the above representation is observationally equivalent to the original model, we can still employ Theorem \[Th: Master ID\] but with $\mu _{\bar{X}}$ and $\sigma _{\bar{X}}$ replacing $\mu _{X}$ and $\sigma _{X} $. Verifying the identification conditions stated in the second part of the theorem for the normalised versions will in some situations be easier by judicious choice of $\bar{T}$. Below, we present three particular normalising transformations that we have found useful in this regard. The chosen transformations allow us to provide easy-to-check conditions for a given UPD to be identified. For a given UPD, the researcher is free to apply either of the three identification schemes depending on which is the easier one to implement. The three schemes lead to different normalizations/parametrizations, but they all lead to models that are exactly identified (no over-identifying restrictions are imposed) and so are observationally equivalent: The resulting form of $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}$ will be identical irrespectively of which scheme is employed. The three transformations that we consider also highlights three alternative modelling approaches: Instead of starting with a parametric UPD as found in the existing literature, such as Examples 1-3, one can alternatively build a UPD with unit diffusion ($\sigma _{X}=1$), zero drift ($\mu _{X}=0$) or known marginal distribution. As we shall see, either of these three modelling approaches are in principle as flexible as the standard approach where the researcher jointly specifies the drift and diffusion term. First Scheme ------------ In our first identification scheme, we choose to normalize $X_{t}$ by the so-called Lamperti transform,$$\bar{X}_{t}=\bar{T}^{-1}\left( X_{t};\theta \right) :=\gamma \left( X_{t};\theta \right) ,\text{ \ \ }\gamma \left( x;\theta \right) =\int_{x^{\ast }}^{x}\frac{1}{\sigma _{X}\left( z;\theta \right) }dz,$$for some $x^{\ast }\in \mathcal{X}$. The resulting process is a unit diffusion process,$$d\bar{X}_{t}=\mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{X}_{t};\theta \right) dt+dW_{t},$$with domain $\mathcal{\bar{X}}=\left( \bar{x}_{l},\bar{x}_{r}\right) $, where $\bar{x}_{r}=\lim_{x\rightarrow x_{r}^{+}}\gamma \left( x;\theta \right) $ and $\bar{x}_{l}=\lim_{x\rightarrow x_{l}^{-}}\gamma \left( x;\theta \right) $, and drift function$$\mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) =\frac{\mu _{X}\left( \gamma ^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) }{\sigma _{X}\left( \gamma ^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) }-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial \sigma _{X}}{\partial x}\left( \gamma ^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) . \label{eq: Xbar drift}$$For the unit diffusion version of the UPD, the equivalence condition ([eq: equiv 2]{})(ii) becomes$$1=\sigma _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) =\sigma _{T^{-1}\left( \bar{X}\right) }\left( \bar{x};\tilde{\theta}\right) =\frac{1}{\partial T\left( \bar{x}\right) /\left( \partial x\right) },$$which can only hold if $T\left( \bar{x}\right) =\bar{x}+\eta $ for some constant $\eta \in \mathbb{R}$. Thus, we can restrict attention to this class of transformations and (\[eq: equiv 2\])(i) becomes: Assumption 3.2. : With $\mu _{\bar{X}}$ given in (\[eq: Xbar drift\]): There exists no $\eta \neq 0$ and $\tilde{\theta}\neq \theta $ such that $\mu _{\bar{X}}(\bar{x};\tilde{\theta})=\mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x}+\eta ;\theta \right) $ for all $\bar{x}\in \mathcal{\bar{X}}$. Assumption 3.2 imposes a normalization condition on the transformed drift function to ensure identification. When verifying Assumption 3.2 for the transformed unit diffusion $\bar{X}$ defined above, we will generally need to fix some of the parameters that enter $\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $ and $\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x;\theta \right) $ of the original process $X$, see below. \[Cor: scheme 1\]Under Assumptions 2.1(i), 2.2 and 3.1, $\mathcal{S}$ is identified if and only if Assumption 3.2 is satisfied. The above transformation result can be applied to standard parametric specifications when $\gamma \left( x;\theta \right) $ is available on closed-form. But it also highlights that in terms of modelling copula diffusions, we can without loss of generality build a model where we from the outset restrict $\sigma _{X}=1$ and only model the drift term $\mu _{X}$. For example, we could choose the following flexible polynomial drift model where we have already normalized the diffusion term:$$dX_{t}=\left( \sum_{i=1}^{l}\alpha _{i}X_{t}^{i}\right) dt+dW_{t},$$where $\theta =\left( \alpha _{1},...,\alpha _{l}\right) $. Corollary [Cor: scheme 1]{} shows that this particular copula diffusion specification is identified without further restrictions on $\theta $. Below we apply Corollary \[Cor: scheme 1\] to some of the standard parametric diffusions introduced earlier: Example 1 (continued). The Lamperti transform of the OUprocess in (\[OU\]) is given by $$d\bar{X}_{t}=\kappa \left( \alpha /\sigma -\bar{X}_{t}\right) dt+dW_{t}.$$Since $\alpha /\sigma $ is a location shift of $\bar{X}$, we need to normalize $\alpha /\sigma $ in order for the identification condition 3.3 to be satisfied; one such is $\alpha /\sigma =0$ leading to the following identified model,$$d\bar{X}_{t}=-\kappa \bar{X}_{t}dt+dW_{t}. \label{OU_LT}$$ Example 2 (continued). The Lamperti transform of the CIRdiffusion in (\[CIR\]) is given by$$d\bar{X}_{t}=\left[ \kappa \left( \frac{2}{\bar{X}_{t}}\frac{\alpha }{\sigma ^{2}}-\frac{\bar{X}_{t}}{2}\right) -\frac{1}{2\bar{X}_{t}}\right] dt+dW_{t}, \label{CIR_LT}$$which only depends on $\theta =\left( \kappa ,\alpha ^{\ast }\right) $ where $\alpha ^{\ast }=\alpha /\sigma ^{2}$. Note that the dimension of the parameter vector reduced from $3$ to $2$. Crucially, it also suggests that we can only identify $\alpha $ and $\sigma ^{2}$ up to a ratio. Hence, normalization requires fixing either $\alpha $, $\sigma ^{2}$, or their ratio. Example 3 (continued). It can be easily verified that the Lamperti transform of the NLDCEV diffusion in (\[NLDCEV\]) takes the form$$d\bar{X}_{t}=\left[ \sum_{i=-k}^{l}\alpha _{i}^{\ast }\bar{X}_{t}^{\frac{i-\beta }{1-\beta }}-\frac{\beta }{2\left( 1-\beta \right) }\bar{X}_{t}^{-1}\right] dt+dW_{t}, \label{NLDCEV_LT}$$where $\alpha _{i}^{\ast }:=\alpha _{i}\sigma ^{\frac{i-1}{1-\beta }}\left( 1-\beta \right) ^{\frac{i-\beta }{1-\beta }}$, $i=-k,...,l$. Hence, the parameters $\theta =\left( \beta ,\alpha _{-k}^{\ast },...,\alpha _{-l}^{\ast }\right) $ are identified and the number of parameters is reduced from $l+k+3$ to $l+k+2$. Note that just as (\[OU\]) and (\[CIR\]) are special cases of (\[NLDCEV\]), both (\[OU\_LT\]) and (\[CIR\_LT\]) are special cases of (\[NLDCEV\_LT\]). Second Scheme ------------- Our second identification strategy transforms $X$ by its scale measure defined in eq. (\[eq: scale density\]),$$\bar{X}_{t}:=S\left( X_{t};\theta \right) ,$$ which brings the diffusion process onto its natural scale,$$d\bar{X}_{t}=\sigma _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{X}_{t};\theta \right) dW_{t},$$where the drift is zero (and so known) while$$\sigma _{\bar{X}}^{2}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) =s^{2}\left( S^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) \sigma ^{2}\left( S^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) . \label{eq: scale diffusion term}$$ Since the drift term is zero, the identification condition (\[eq: equiv 2\])(i) becomes$$0=-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{\bar{X}}^{2}\left( T\left( \bar{x}\right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) \frac{\partial ^{2}T\left( \bar{x}\right) /\left( \partial \bar{x}^{2}\right) }{\partial T\left( \bar{x}\right) /\left( \partial \bar{x}\right) ^{3}},$$which can only hold if $\partial ^{2}T\left( \bar{x}\right) /\left( \partial \bar{x}^{2}\right) =0$. We can therefore restrict attention to linear transformations $T\left( \bar{x}\right) =\eta _{1}\bar{x}+\eta _{2}$, for some constants $\eta _{1},\eta _{2}\in \mathbb{R}$, in which case (\[eq: equiv 2\])(ii) becomes: Assumption 3.3. : With $\sigma _{\bar{X}}^{2}$ given in (\[eq: scale diffusion term\]): There exists no $\eta _{1}\neq 1$, $\eta _{2}\neq 0$ and $\tilde{\theta}\neq \theta $ such that $\sigma _{\bar{X}}^{2}(\bar{x};\tilde{\theta})=\sigma _{\bar{X}}^{2}\left( \eta _{1}\bar{x}+\eta _{2};\theta \right) /\eta _{1}^{2}$ for all $\bar{x}\in \mathcal{\bar{X}}$. In comparison to Assumption 3.2, we here have to impose two normalizations to ensure identification. The intuition for this is that setting the drift to zero does not act as a complete normalization of the process: Any additional scale transformation of $\bar{X}$ still leads to a zero-drift process. Therefore, for the third scheme to work we need both a scale and location normalization. \[Cor: scheme 2\]Under Assumptions 2.1(i)–(ii), 2.2 and 3.1, $\mathcal{S}$ is identified if and only if Assumption 3.3 is satisfied. Compared to the first identification scheme, it is noticeably harder to apply this one to existing parametric diffusion models since the inverse of the scale transform is usually not available in closed form. But, similar to the first identification scheme, the result shows that without loss of flexibility, we can focus on UPDs with zero drift and then model the diffusion term in a flexible manner, e.g.,$$dX_{t}=\exp \left( \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\beta _{i}X_{t}^{i}+\beta _{l}\left\vert X_{t}\right\vert ^{l}\right) dW_{t}.$$Corollary \[Cor: scheme 2\] shows that this UPD is identified together with $V$ without any further parameter restrictions on $\theta =\left( \beta _{1},...,\beta _{l}\right) $. Third scheme ------------ Our third identification strategy transforms a given stationary UPD by its marginal cdf,$$\bar{X}_{t}=F_{X}\left( X_{t};\theta \right) . \label{eq: cdf transform}$$In this case, there is generally no simplification in terms of the drift and diffusion term, which take the form $$\begin{aligned} \mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) &=&\mu _{X}\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) f_{X}\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) \label{eq: drift 3} \\ &&+\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) f_{X}^{\prime }\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) \notag\end{aligned}$$and$$\sigma _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) =\sigma _{X}\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) f_{X}\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) ;\theta \right) . \label{eq: diff 3}$$for $\bar{x}\in \mathcal{\bar{X}}=\left( 0,1\right) $. But the marginal distribution is now known with $\bar{X}_{t}\sim U\left( 0,1\right) $ and we can directly identify the transformation function by $U\left( y\right) =F_{Y}\left( y\right) $, c.f. eq. (\[U\]). The identification condition then takes the form: Assumption 3.4. : With $\mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) $ and $\sigma _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) $ given in eqs. ([eq: drift 3]{})-(\[eq: diff 3\]), the following hold:$$\forall \bar{x}\in \left( 0,1\right) :\mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) =\mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\tilde{\theta}\right) \text{ and }\sigma _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) =\sigma _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\tilde{\theta}\right) \Leftrightarrow \theta =\tilde{\theta}.$$ \[Cor: Scheme 3\]Under Assumptions 2.1-2.2 and 3.1, $\mathcal{S}$ is identified if and only if Assumption 3.4 is satisfied. The above result is only useful for showing identification of a given UPD if $F^{-1}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) $ is available on closed form. But similar to the previous identification schemes, it demonstrates we can restrict attention to diffusions with known marginal distributions in the model building phase. Specifically, one can choose a known density $f_{X}\left( x\right) $ that describes the stationary distribution of $X$ together with a parametric specification for, say, the drift function. We can then rearrange eq. (\[mpdf\_x\]) to back out the diffusion term of the UPD:$$\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x;\theta \right) =\frac{2}{f_{X}\left( x\right) }\int_{x_{l}}^{x}\mu _{X}\left( z;\theta \right) f_{X}\left( z\right) dz. \label{eq: Model 1B}$$If the drift is specified so that $\mu _{X}\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) \neq \mu _{X}(\cdot ;\tilde{\theta})$ for $\theta \neq \tilde{\theta}$, then Assumption 3.4 will be satisfied for this model. Alternatively, one could choose a parametric specification of the diffusion term and then derive the corresponding drift term of the UPD satisfying$$\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta \right) =\frac{1}{2f_{X}\left( x\right) }\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ \sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x;\theta \right) f_{X}\left( x\right) \right] .$$The resulting copula diffusion model is identified as long as the chosen diffusion term satisfies $\sigma _{X}\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) \neq \sigma _{X}(\cdot ;\tilde{\theta})$ for $\theta \neq \tilde{\theta}$, then Assumption 3.4 will be satisfied for this model. Below, we apply the third identification scheme to the OU and CIRmodel: Example 1 (continued). The stationary distribution of (\[OU\]) is $N\left( \alpha ,v^{2}\right) $ with $v^{2}=\sigma ^{2}/2\kappa $ and so the marginal density and cdf takes the form $f_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) =\frac{1}{v}\phi \left( \frac{x-\alpha }{v}\right) $ and $F_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) =\Phi \left( \frac{x-\alpha }{v}\right) $, where $\phi $ and $\Phi $ denote the density and cdf of the $N\left( 0,1\right) $ distribution. Applying the transformation (\[eq: cdf transform\]) yields, after some tedious calculations,$$d\bar{X}_{t}=-2\kappa \Phi ^{-1}\left( \bar{X}_{t}\right) \phi \left( \Phi ^{-1}\left( \bar{X}_{t}\right) \right) dt+\sqrt{2\kappa }\phi \left( \Phi ^{-1}\left( \bar{X}_{t}\right) \right) dW_{t},$$which is independent of $\alpha $ and $\sigma ^{2}$ and these therefore have to be fixed, leaving $\kappa $ as the only free parameter. This is the same finding as with the first identification strategy. Example 2 (continued). The stationary distribution of the CIR process is a $\Gamma $-distribution with scale parameter $\omega =2\kappa /\sigma ^{2}$ and shape parameter $\nu =2\kappa \alpha /\sigma ^{2}$. Thus, the marginal density and cdf can be written as$$\begin{aligned} f_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) &=&f_{X}\left( x;\omega ,\nu \right) =\frac{\omega ^{\nu }}{\Gamma \left( \nu \right) }x^{\nu -1}e^{-\omega x} \\ F_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) &=&F_{X}\left( x;\omega ,\nu \right) =\frac{1}{\Gamma \left( \nu \right) }\gamma \left( \nu ,\omega x\right)\end{aligned}$$where $\Gamma \left( \nu \right) $ is the gamma function and $\gamma \left( \nu ,\omega x\right) $ is the lower incomplete gamma function. Applying the transformation (\[eq: cdf transform\]) yields $$\mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) =\left[ \kappa \left( \frac{\nu }{2\kappa }-\frac{\gamma ^{-1}\left( \nu ,\bar{x}\Gamma \left( \nu \right) \right) }{2\kappa }\right) +\left( \frac{\nu -1}{2}-\frac{\gamma ^{-1}\left( \nu ,\bar{x}\Gamma \left( \nu \right) \right) }{2}\right) \right] \frac{2\kappa }{\Gamma \left( \nu \right) }\gamma ^{-1}\left( \nu ,\bar{x}\Gamma \left( \nu \right) \right) ^{\nu -1}e^{-\gamma ^{-1}\left( \nu ,\bar{x}\Gamma \left( \nu \right) \right) }$$and$$\sigma _{\bar{X}}^{2}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) =2\kappa \gamma ^{-1}\left( \nu ,\bar{x}\Gamma \left( \nu \right) \right) \left[ \frac{1}{\Gamma \left( \nu \right) }\gamma ^{-1}\left( \nu ,\bar{x}\Gamma \left( \nu \right) \right) ^{\nu -1}e^{-\gamma ^{-1}\left( \nu ,\bar{x}\Gamma \left( \nu \right) \right) }\right] ^{2}.$$Note that $\mu _{\bar{X}}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) $ and $\sigma _{\bar{X}}^{2}\left( \bar{x};\theta \right) $ only depend on $\kappa $ and $\nu $, which means we can only identify $\alpha $ and $\sigma ^{2}$ up to a ratio say $\alpha ^{\ast }=\alpha /\sigma ^{2}$. Hence, either $\alpha $ or $\sigma ^{2}$ must be fixed, which is in accordance with what we found when applying the first identification strategy to the CIR. We could, for example, set $\sigma ^{2}=2\kappa $ which leads to the following normalized CIR$$dX_{t}=\kappa \left( \alpha -X_{t}\right) dt+\sqrt{2\kappa X_{t}}dW_{t}.$$ Estimation\[Sec\_Inference\] ============================ In this section we develop two alternative semiparametric estimators of $\theta $ and $V$ for a given specification of the UPD. The first takes the form of a two-step Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Estimator (PMLE). The second is a semiparametric sieve-based ML estimator (SMLE). We consider two different scenarios when developing estimators: In the first one (see Section [sec: est low-freq]{}), $Y$ is observed at low frequency which we formally define as the case when $\Delta >0$ is fixed as $n\rightarrow \infty $. In the second one (see Section \[sec: est high-freq\]), high-frequency data is available so that $\Delta \rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow \infty $. Low-frequency estimators\[sec: est low-freq\] --------------------------------------------- To motivate the two estimators, suppose that $U$ is known, in which case the MLE of $\theta $ is given by$$\hat{\theta}_{\text{MLE}}=\arg \max_{\theta \in \Theta }L_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) ,$$where $L_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) $ is the log-likelihood of $\left\{ Y_{i\Delta }:i=0,1,...,n\right\} $,$$L_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) =\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \log p_{X}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) \|U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta }\right) ;\theta \right) +\log U^{\prime }\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) \right\} , \label{eq: L(f) def}$$where $p_{X}$ was is defined in eq. (\[eq: p\_X def\]). If $U$ is unknown, the above estimator is not feasible and we instead have to estimate it together with $\theta $. Our PMLE assumes $Y$ is stationary in which case $U$ satisfies eq. (\[U\]), where $F_{X}$ is known up to $\theta $ while $F_{Y}$ is unknown. The latter can be estimated by the empirical cdf defined as$$\tilde{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) =\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{i=0}^{n}\mathbb{I}\left\{ Y_{i\Delta }\leq y\right\} ,$$where $\mathbb{I}\left\{ \cdot \right\} $ denotes the indicator function, or alternatively by the following kernel smoothed empirical cdf, $$\hat{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) =\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{i=0}^{n}\mathcal{K}_{h}\left( Y_{i\Delta }-y\right) , \label{eq: kernel cdf}$$where $\mathcal{K}_{h}\left( y\right) =\mathcal{K}\left( y/h\right) $ with $\mathcal{K}\left( y\right) =\int_{-\infty }^{y}K\left( z\right) dz$, $K$ being a kernel (e.g., the standard normal density), and $h>0$ a bandwidth. Replacing $F_{Y}$ in eq. (\[U\]) with either $\tilde{F}_{Y}$ or $\hat{F}_{Y}$, we obtain the following two alternative estimators of $U$,$$\tilde{U}\left( y;\theta \right) =F_{X}^{-1}(\tilde{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) ;\theta );\text{ \ \ }\hat{U}\left( y;\theta \right) =F_{X}^{-1}(\hat{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) ;\theta ). \label{eq: U-tilde}$$Since $\hat{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) =\tilde{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) +O\left( h^{2}\right) $, the above two estimators of $U$ will be first-order asymptotically equivalent under appropriate bandwidth conditions. A natural way to estimate $\theta $ in our semiparametric framework would then be to substitute either $\hat{U}\left( y;\theta \right) $ or $\tilde{U}\left( y;\theta \right) $ into $L_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) $. However, in the latter case, this is not possible since $L_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) $ depends on $U^{\prime }$ and $\tilde{U}$ is not differentiable. However, note that$$U^{\prime }\left( y\right) =\frac{f_{Y}\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }, \label{U1}$$so that $\log U^{\prime }\left( y\right) =\log f_{Y}\left( y\right) -\log f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) $. Since the first term is parameter independent, it can be ignored and so we arrive at the following semiparametric PMLE,$$\hat{\theta}_{\text{PMLE}}=\arg \max_{\theta \in \Theta }\bar{L}_{n}(\theta ,\tilde{U}\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) ),$$where $\Theta $ is the parameter space and $$\bar{L}_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) =\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \log p_{X}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) \|U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta }\right) ;\theta \right) -\log f_{X}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) ;\theta \right) \right\}$$is $L_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) -\sum_{i=1}^{n}\log f_{Y}\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) /n$. One can easily check that, by rewriting the above in terms of the implied copula of $X$, this estimator is equivalent to the one analyzed in Chen and Fan (2006). Our second proposal, the SMLE, replaces the unknown density function $f_{Y}\left( y\right) $ by a sieve approximation $f_{Y,m}\left( y\right) \in \mathcal{F}_{m}$ where $\mathcal{F}_{m}$ is a finite-dimensional function space reflecting the properties of $f_{Y}$, $m=1,2,...$. For a given candidate density, we then compute $$U\left( y;f_{Y,m},\theta \right) =F_{X}^{-1}(F_{Y,m}\left( y\right) ;\theta )$$where $F_{Y,m}\left( y\right) =\int_{y_{l}}^{y}f_{Y,m}\left( z\right) dz$. Substituting this into the likelihood function yields the following semiparametric sieve maximum-likelihood estimator,$$(\hat{\theta}_{\text{SMLE}},\hat{f}_{Y,m})=\arg \max_{\theta \in \Theta ,f_{Y,m}\in \mathcal{F}_{m}}L_{n}\left( \theta ,U\left( \cdot ;f_{Y,m},\theta \right) \right) . \label{eq: SMLE 1}$$The above SMLE is identical to the one proposed by Chen, Wu and Yi (2009) for the estimation of copula-based Markov models, except that while they estimate the parameters of a copula function, we estimate those of the drift and diffusion functions of the UPD. In comparison with the PMLE, the numerical implementation of the SMLE involves joint maximization over both $\theta $ and $\mathcal{F}_{m}$, which is a harder numerical problem and potentially more time-consuming. In terms of statistical efficiency, $\hat{\theta}_{\text{SMLE}}$ will in general reach the semiparametric efficiency bound under stationarity, while the PMLE is inefficient. Both of the above estimators require us to evaluate $F_{X}^{-1}\left( x;\theta \right) $ which in general is not available on closed form and so has to be computed using numerical methods, e.g., numerical integration or Monte Carlo methods combined with a equation solver. For the SMLE, one can circumvent this issue by directly approximating $U$ instead of $f_{Y}$: For a given finite-dimensional function space of one-to-one transformations $\mathcal{U}_{m}$, an alternative to the SMLE in (\[eq: SMLE 1\]) is $(\tilde{\theta}_{\text{SMLE}},\tilde{U}_{m})=\arg \max_{\theta \in \Theta ,U_{m}\in \mathcal{U}_{m}}L_{n}\left( \theta ,U_{m}\right) $. We expect this to be computationally more efficient compared to the density version above; the theoretical analysis of this alternative SMLE is left for future research. Once an estimator for $\theta $ has been obtained, we can estimate the drift and diffusion terms of $Y$ using the expressions given in (\[RDdrift\]) and (\[RDdiffusion\]) by replacing $\theta $ and $U$ with their estimators. However, this involves estimating the first and second derivative of $U$. For the SMLE this is not an issue assuming that $\mathcal{F}_{m}$ is a differentiable function space. For the PMLE, since $\tilde{U}\left( y;\theta \right) $ is not differentiable, we instead use the kernel smoothed version $\hat{U}\left( y;\theta \right) $, leading to the following three-step estimators of the drift and diffusion functions$$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mu}_{Y}\left( y\right) &=&\frac{\mu _{X}(\hat{U}\left( y\right) ;\hat{\theta}_{\text{PMLE}})}{\hat{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}(\hat{U}\left( y\right) ;\hat{\theta}_{\text{PMLE}})\frac{\hat{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{\hat{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}}, \label{eq: mu_Y est} \\ \hat{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) &=&\frac{\sigma _{X}^{2}(\hat{U}\left( y\right) ;\hat{\theta}_{\text{PMLE}})}{\hat{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{2}}, \label{eq: sig_Y est}\end{aligned}$$where $\hat{U}\left( y\right) =F_{X}^{-1}(\hat{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) ;\hat{\theta}_{\text{PMLE}})$. High-frequency estimators\[sec: est high-freq\] ----------------------------------------------- We now turn to the case where high-frequency data is available; this scenario is formally modelled as $\Delta \rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow \infty $. The proposed estimators described in the previous section remains valid, but an alternative estimation method is available in this case since the exact density of the underlying UPD, $p_{X}$, is well-approximated by$$\hat{p}_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \Delta }}\sigma _{X}\left( x_{0};\theta \right) \exp \left[ -\frac{\left( x-x_{0}-\mu _{X}\left( x_{0};\theta \right) \Delta \right) ^{2}}{2\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x_{0};\theta \right) \Delta }\right] \label{eq: p_X approx}$$as $\Delta \rightarrow 0$, c.f. Kessler (1997). We then propose to estimate $\theta $ using either the two-step or sieve approach described in the previous section, except that we here replace $p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $ with its high-frequency approximation, $\hat{p}_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $, in the definition of $L_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) $ and $\bar{L}_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) $. The advantage of doing so is computational in that $\hat{p}_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $ is on closed form for any given UPD while $p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $ generally can only be evaluated using numerical methods as pointed out earlier. For most standard UPD’s, the parameters can be decomposed into $\theta =\left( \theta _{1},\theta _{2}\right) $ so that $\mu _{X}\left( x_{0};\theta _{1}\right) =\mu _{X}\left( x_{0};\theta _{1}\right) $ and $\sigma _{X}\left( x_{0};\theta \right) =\sigma _{X}\left( x_{0};\theta _{2}\right) $ only depends on the first and second component, respectively. One could hope to be able to estimate $\theta _{1}$ and $\theta _{2}$ separately in this case. For known $U$, this is indeed possible. We could, for example, use least-squares methods similar to Kanaya and Kristensen (2018) where $\theta _{1}$ and $\theta _{2}$, respectively, are estimated by the minimizers of the following two least-squares objectives,$$\begin{aligned} L_{n,\Delta }^{\left( \mu \right) }\left( \theta _{1};U\right) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}^{\left( \mu \right) }\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) -U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta }\right) -\mu _{X}\left( U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta }\right) ;\theta _{1}\right) \Delta \right) ^{2}, \label{eq: LS-drift} \\ L_{n,\Delta }^{\left( \sigma \right) }\left( \theta _{2};U\right) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}^{\left( \sigma \right) }\left( \left\{ U\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) -U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta }\right) \right\} ^{2}-\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta }\right) ;\theta _{2}\right) \Delta \right) ^{2}, \label{eq: LS-diff}\end{aligned}$$where $w_{i}^{\left( \mu \right) }=w^{\left( \mu \right) }\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta },Y_{i\Delta }\right) $ and $w_{i}^{\left( \sigma \right) }=w^{\left( \sigma \right) }\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta },Y_{i\Delta }\right) $ are weighting functions. This approach, however, faces two complications in our setting: First, after applying any of the three normalizations presented in Section [Sec\_Identification]{} in order to achieve identification, the resulting drift and diffusion of the UPD tend to share parameters. Second, $U$ is unknown and has to be estimated together with $\theta $. In the case of PMLE, $\tilde{U}\left( y;\theta \right) $ in eq. (\[eq: U-tilde\]) generally depends on both $\theta _{1}$ and $\theta _{2}$ since $f_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $ does. Thus, if we replace $U$ by $\tilde{U}\left( y;\theta \right) $ in the above objectives, we cannot separately estimate $\theta _{1}$ and $\theta _{2}$. Similarly, the SMLE requires joint estimation of $U$ together with $\theta $ in which case it would have to be re-estimated for each of the two objectives. In conclusion, these least-squares estimators are rarely useful in practice. Another alternative approach, inspired by Bandi and Phillips (2007), see also Kristensen (2011), would be to first obtain non-parametric estimates of $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$ and then match these with the ones implied by the copula model,$$Q_{n,\Delta }^{\left( \mu \right) }\left( \mathcal{S}\right) =\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}^{\left( \mu \right) }\left( \hat{\mu}_{Y}\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) -\mu _{Y}\left( Y_{i\Delta };\mathcal{S}\right) \right) ^{2},\text{ \ \ }Q_{n,\Delta }^{\left( \sigma \right) }\left( \mathcal{S}\right) =\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}^{\left( \sigma \right) }\left( \hat{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) -\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( Y_{i\Delta };\mathcal{S}\right) \right) ^{2},$$where $\hat{\mu}_{Y}\left( \cdot \right) $ and $\hat{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}\left( \cdot \right) $ are the first-step nonparametric estimators; see Bandi and Phillips (2007) for their precise forms. This procedure suffers from the same issue as the least-squares one described in the previous paragraph. An additional complication is that it involves multiple smoothing parameters: First, $\hat{\mu}_{Y}\left( \cdot \right) $ and $\hat{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}\left( \cdot \right) $ depend on two bandwidths and converge with slow rates and, second, $\mu _{Y}\left( \cdot ;\mathcal{S}\right) $ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( \cdot ;\mathcal{S}\right) $ involve derivatives of $U$ and so if we replace $U$ by its kernel-smoothed estimator, $\hat{U}$, the two objective funtions will depend on the first and second order derivatives of the kernel density estimator of $f_{Y}$, which in turn depends on additional bandwidth. All together, these estimators will be complicated to implement due to the multiple bandwidths that the econometrician have to choose. Moreover, their asymptotic analysis and behaviour will be non-standard. Asymptotic Theory\[sec: asymp theory\] ====================================== Low-frequency Estimation of Parametric Component ------------------------------------------------ We here establish an asymptotic theory for the proposed estimators in the case of low-frequency data ($\Delta >0$ fixed). In the theoretical analysis we shall work under the following high-level identification condition: Assumption 4.1 : $\mathcal{S}_{0}$ is identified. The previous section provided three different sets of primitive conditions for Assumption 4.1 to hold in terms of $\left( \mu _{Y}\left( \cdot ;\mathcal{S}\right) ,\sigma _{Y}\left( \cdot ;\mathcal{S}\right) \right) $. This combined with Assumption 3.1 then implies that the mapping $\left( \mu _{Y}\left( \cdot ;\mathcal{S}\right) ,\sigma _{Y}\left( \cdot ;\mathcal{S}\right) \right) \mapsto p_{Y}\left( y\|y_{0};\mathcal{S}\right) $ is injective so that different drift and diffusion terms lead to different transition densities. One implication of Assumptions 3.1 and 4.1 is $E\left[ \log p_{Y}\left( Y_{\Delta }\|Y_{0};\mathcal{S}\right) \right] <E\left[ \log p_{Y}\left( Y_{\Delta }\|Y_{0};\mathcal{S}_{0}\right) \right] $ for any $\mathcal{S}\neq \mathcal{S}_{0}$, c.f. Newey and McFadden (1994, Lemma 2.2). This ensures that the SMLE identifies $\mathcal{S}_{0}$ in the limit. Regarding the PMLE, we note that it replaces $U$ by $\hat{U}\left( y;\theta \right) =F_{X}^{-1}(\hat{F}_{Y}\left( y;\theta \right) )$. By the LLN of stationary and ergodic sequences, $\hat{U}\left( y;\theta \right) \rightarrow ^{P}U\left( y;\theta \right) =F_{X}^{-1}\left( F_{Y}\left( y;\theta \right) \right) $, where, by the same arguments as before, $E\left[ \log p_{Y}\left( Y_{\Delta }\|Y_{0};\theta ,U\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) \right) \right] <E\left[ \log p_{Y}\left( Y_{\Delta }\|Y_{0};\theta _{0},U\left( \cdot ;\theta _{0}\right) \right) \right] $. Thus, the PMLE will also in the limit identify $\theta _{0}$. Next, we import conditions from Chen et al. (2010) guaranteeing, in conjunction with our own Assumptions 2.1-2.2, that the UPD $X$, and thereby $Y$, is stationary and $\beta $-mixing with mixing coefficients decaying at either polynomial rate (c.f. Corollary 5.5 in Chen et al., 2010) or geometric rate (c.f. Corollary 4.2 in Chen et al., 2010): Assumption 4.2. : \(i) $\mu _{X}$ and $\sigma _{X}^{2}$ satisfies$$\lim_{x\rightarrow x_{r}}\left\{ \frac{\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{\sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial \sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{\partial x}\right\} \leq 0,\text{ \ \ }\lim_{x\rightarrow x_{u}}\left\{ \frac{\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{\sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial \sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{\partial x}\right\} \geq 0;$$(ii) With $s\left( x;\theta \right) $ and $S\left( x;\theta \right) $ defined in (\[eq: scale density\]), $$\lim_{x\rightarrow x_{r}}\left\{ \frac{s\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) \sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{S\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }\right\} >0,\text{ \ \ }\lim_{x\rightarrow x_{u}}\left\{ \frac{s\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) \sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{S\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }\right\} <0;$$ Assumption 4.2(ii) is a strengthening of Assumption 4.2(i). For the analysis of the PMLE, Assumption 4.2(i) suffices while we need the stronger Assumption 4.2(ii) to establish an asymptotic theory for the SMLE. As we mentioned before, it is not always straightforward to verify the required mixing conditions for copula-based (discrete-time) Markov models such as Chen and Fan (2006) and Chen, Wu and Yi (2009). In contrast, either sets of conditions stated in Assumption 4.2 can be easily verified by directly examining the drift and diffusion functions of the UPD $X$. Finally, we impose the same conditions as used in the asymptotic analysis of the PMLE in Chen and Fan (2006) and Chen, Wu and Yi (2009), respectively, on the copula implied by the chosen UPD and the sieve density in the case of SMLE: Assumption 4.3. : \(i) $c_{X}\left( u_{0},u;\theta \right) $ defined in (\[dic\]) satisfies the regularity conditions set out in Chen and Fan (2006, A1-A3, A4 or A4’, A5-A6); (ii) $c_{X}\left( u_{0},u;\theta \right) $ and the sieve space $\mathcal{F}_{m}$ satisfy Assumptions 3.1-3.4 and 4.1–4.7, respectively, in Chen, Wu and Yi (2009). We here abstain from stating the precise, mostly technical, conditions and refer the interested reader to Chen and Fan (2006) and Chen, Wu and Yi (2009); broadly speaking their conditions translate into moment bounds and smoothness conditions on the log-transition density of the UPD. These conditions depend on the precise choice of the UPD and so will have to be verified on a case-by-case basis. In Appendix \[Sec: verification\], we verify the conditions for models in Examples 1–2. The following result now follows from the general theory of Chen and Fan (2006) and Chen, Wu and Yi (2009), respectively: \[theorem\_AD\_PMLE\]Under Assumptions 2.1-2.2, 4.1, 4.2(i) and 4.3(i),$$\sqrt{n}(\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{PMLE}}-\theta _{0})\rightarrow ^{d}N\left( 0,B^{-1}\Sigma B^{-1}\right) ,$$where $B$ and $\Sigma $ are defined in Chen and Fan (2006, A1 and $A_{n}^{\ast }$). Under Assumptions 2.1-2.2, 4.1, 4.2(ii) and 4.3(ii),$$\sqrt{n}(\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{SMLE}}-\theta _{0})\rightarrow ^{d}N\left( 0,\mathcal{I}_{\ast }^{-1}\left( \theta \right) \right) ,$$where $\mathcal{I}_{\ast }$ is defined in Chen, Wu and Yi (2009). Consistent estimators of the asymptotic variances, $B^{-1}\Sigma B^{-1}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{\ast }^{-1}\left( \theta \right) $, can be found in Chen and Fan (2006) and Chen, Wu and Yi (2009), respectively. High-frequency Estimation of Parametric Component ------------------------------------------------- Next, we discuss the asymptotic properties of the PMLE based on the high-frequency log-likelihood that takes as input $\hat{p}_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $ defined in eq. (\[eq: p\_X approx\]); a complete analysis of the PMLE and SMLE in a high-frequency setting is left for future research. In the following, we let $T:=n\Delta $ denote the sampling range, which will be assumed to diverge as $\Delta \rightarrow 0$. The high-frequency PMLE is given by $\hat{\theta}_{\text{PMLE}}=\arg \max_{\theta \in \Theta }\hat{L}_{n}\left( \theta ,\tilde{U}\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) \right) $ where$$\hat{L}_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) =\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \log \hat{p}_{X}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) \|U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta }\right) ;\theta \right) -\log f_{X}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) ;\theta \right) \right\} ,$$and $\tilde{U}\left( Y_{i\Delta };\theta \right) $ defined in (\[eq: U-tilde\]). We first specialize the general result of Kanaya (2018, Theorem 2) by choosing $B=\psi =1$ and $K_{h}\left( y\right) =I\left\{ y\leq 0\right\} $ in his notation to obtain that under our Assumption 4.2,$$\sup_{y\in \mathcal{Y}}\left\vert \tilde{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) -F_{Y}\left( y\right) \right\vert =O_{P}\left( \sqrt{\Delta }/\log \Delta \right) +O_{P}\left( \log T/\sqrt{T}\right) , \label{eq: cdf conv}$$where the two terms on the right-hand side correspond to discretization bias and sampling variance, respectively. By letting $T$ grow sufficiently fast as $\Delta \rightarrow 0$, the first term can be ignored. Under regularity conditions on $\mu _{X}$ and $\sigma _{X}$ so that $\left( y,y_{0}\right) \mapsto \hat{p}_{X}\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( y;\theta \right) \|F_{Y}^{-1}\left( y_{0}\right) ;\theta \right) /f_{Y}\left( y_{0}\right) $ satisfies Lipschitz conditions similar to the ones in Chen and Fan (2006), we then obtain$$\sup_{\theta \in \theta }\left\vert \hat{L}_{n}\left( \theta ,\tilde{U}\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) \right) -\hat{L}_{n}\left( \theta ,U\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) \right) \right\vert =O_{P}\left( \sqrt{\Delta }/\log \Delta \right) +O_{P}\left( \log T/\sqrt{T}\right) ,$$where $U\left( y;\theta \right) =F_{Y}\left( F_{X}^{-1}\left( y;\theta \right) \right) $. Consistency of the PMLE now follows by extending the arguments of Kessler (1997) to allow for the presence of the parameter-dependent transformation $U\left( y;\theta \right) $. Next, to simplify our discussion of the asymptotic distribution of the PMLE, we consider two special cases: First, suppose that suppose that, after suitable normalizations, $\sigma _{X}\left( x\right) $ is known and only $\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $ is parameter dependent. In this case, we expect that Kessler’s results generalize so that $\hat{\theta}_{\text{PMLE}}$ will converge with $\sqrt{T}$-rate towards a Normal distribution, where the asymptotic variance will have to be adjusted to take into account the first-step estimation of $\hat{F}_{Y} $. Next, consider the opposite scenario, $\mu _{X}\left( x_{0}\right) $ is known and only $\sigma _{X}\left( x_{0};\theta \right) $ is parameter dependent. With $U$ known, Kessler (1997) shows that $\hat{\theta}_{\text{PMLE}}$ converges with $\sqrt{n}$-rate towards a Normal distribution in this case. Note the faster convergence rate compared to the drift estimator. However, in our setting $U\left( y;\theta \right) $ is parameter dependent, and as a consequence this result appears to no longer apply: $U\left( y;\theta \right) $ enters $\hat{L}_{n}\left( \theta ,U\right) $ in the same way that $\mu _{X}$ does and so the score of $\hat{L}_{n}\left( \theta ,U\left( \cdot ;\theta \right) \right) $ will have a component on the same form as in the first case and so will converge with $\sqrt{T}$-rate instead of $\sqrt{n}$-rate. Moreover, the presence of the first-step estimator $\tilde{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) $, which also converge with $\sqrt{T}$-rate, will generate an additional variance term. In total, estimators of diffusion parameters appear not to enjoy “super” consistency in our setting due to the way that the unknown transformation $U$ enters the likelihood. Estimation of Drift and Diffusion Functions\[SecSemiFuns\] ---------------------------------------------------------- We here analyze the asymptotic properties of the kernel-based estimators of $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$ given in eqs. (\[eq: mu\_Y est\])-(\[eq: sig\_Y est\]). We only do so for the low-frequency case; the analysis of the high-frequency case should proceed in a similar fashion. Our analysis takes as starting point the following regularity conditions on the estimator of the parametric component and the kernel function: Assumption 4.4. : The transformation function $V$ is four times continuously differentiable. Assumption 4.5. : The estimator $\hat{\theta}$ of the parameter of the UPD $X$ is $\sqrt{n}$-consistent. Assumption 4.6. : The kernel $K$ is differentiable, and there exists constants $D,\omega >0$ such that $$\left\vert K^{\left( i\right) }\left( z\right) \right\vert \leq D\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\omega },\text{ \ \ }\left\vert K^{\left( i\right) }\left( z\right) -K^{\left( i\right) }\left( \tilde{z}\right) \right\vert \leq D\left\vert z-\tilde{z}\right\vert ,\text{ \ \ }i=0,1,$$where $K^{\left( i\right) }\left( z\right) $ denotes the $i$th derivative of $K\left( z\right) $. Moreover, $\int_{\mathbb{R}}K\left( z\right) dz=1$, $\int_{\mathbb{R}}zK\left( z\right) dz=0$ and $\kappa _{2}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}z^{2}K\left( z\right) dz<\infty $. Assumption 4.4 ensures the existence of the $3$rd and $4$th derivatives of $U\left( y\right) $, which in turn ensure that relevant quantities entering the asymptotic distributions of $\hat{\mu}_{Y}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}$ are well defined. Assumption 4.5 implies that the asymptotic properties of $\hat{\mu}_{Y}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}$ are determined by the properties of the kernel density estimator alone. The proposed PMLE and SMLE satisfy this condition under our Assumptions 4.1-4.3, but other $\sqrt{n}$-consistent estimators are allowed for. Assumption 4.6 regulates the kernel functions and allow for most standard kernels such as the Gaussian and the Uniform kernels. Using the functional delta-method together with standard results for kernel density estimators, as found in Robinson (1983), we obtain: \[AD\_DD\]Under Assumptions 2.1-2.2, 4.2(i), and 4.4-4.6, we have as $n\rightarrow \infty $, $h\rightarrow 0$ and $nh^{3}\rightarrow \infty $,$$\sqrt{nh^{3}}\left\{ \hat{\mu}_{Y}\left( y\right) -\mu _{Y}\left( y\right) -h^{2}B_{\mu _{Y}}\left( y\right) \right\} \rightarrow ^{d}N\left( 0,V_{\mu _{Y}}\left( y\right) \right) ,$$where$$B_{\mu _{Y}}\left( y\right) =-\frac{\kappa _{2}\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) f_{Y}^{\prime \prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{4f_{Y}\left( y\right) },\text{ \ \ }V_{\mu _{Y}}\left( y\right) =\frac{\sigma _{Y}^{4}\left( y\right) }{4f_{Y}\left( y\right) }\int_{\mathbb{R}}K^{\prime }\left( z\right) ^{2}dz.$$Also, as $n\rightarrow \infty $, $h\rightarrow 0$ and $nh\rightarrow \infty $, we have$$\sqrt{nh}\{\hat{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) -\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) -h^{2}B_{\sigma _{Y}^{2}}\left( y\right) \}\rightarrow ^{d}N\left( 0,V_{\sigma ^{2}}\left( y\right) \right) ,$$where$$B_{\sigma _{Y}^{2}}\left( y\right) =-\frac{\kappa _{2}\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) f_{Y}^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{f_{Y}\left( y\right) },\text{ \ \ }V_{\sigma _{Y}^{2}}\left( y\right) =\frac{4\sigma _{Y}^{4}\left( y\right) }{f_{Y}\left( y\right) }\int_{\mathbb{R}}K\left( z\right) ^{2}dz.$$ We see that both estimators suffer from smoothing biases, $B_{\mu _{Y}}\left( y\right) $ and $B_{\sigma _{Y}^{2}}\left( y\right) $. If $h\rightarrow 0$ sufficiently fast, these biases will be negiglible. Also note that the convergence rates of the drift estimator is slower compared to the diffusion estimator. These features are similar to the asymptotic properties of the semi-nonparametric drift and diffusion estimators considered in Kristensen (2011). Monte Carlo Simulations\[Sec\_Simulation\] ========================================== In this section, we compare the finite sample performance of our low-frequency semiparametric PMLE with that of a fully parametric PMLE (described below) through Monte Carlo simulations. Data Generating Processes ------------------------- We consider the following normalized versions of the UPDs of Examples 1–2,$$\begin{aligned} \text{OU} &:&dX_{t}=-\kappa X_{t}dt+\sqrt{2\kappa }dW_{t},\text{ \ \ }\theta =\kappa , \label{Normalized_OU} \\ \text{CIR} &:&dX_{t}=\kappa \left( \alpha -X_{t}\right) dt+\sqrt{2\kappa X_{t}}dW_{t},\text{ \ \ }\theta =\left( \kappa ,\alpha \right) . \label{Normalized_CIR}\end{aligned}$$The chosen normalizations have the advantage that the marginal distributions of $X$ are invariant to the mean-reversion parameter $\kappa $. Hence, by varying $\kappa $, we can change the persistence level of $X$ (and thus $Y$) while keeping the marginal distributions fixed. In this way, we can examine the impact of persistence on the performance of the proposed estimators of $\theta $, $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$. Next, we specify the transformation of the DGP of $Y$. This is done by choosing marginal cdf $F_{Y}\left( y;\phi \right) $, where $\phi $ is a hyper parameter governing the shape of the cdf, which induces the transformation $V\left( X_{t};\phi \right) =F_{Y}^{-1}\left( F_{X}\left( X_{t};\theta \right) ;\phi \right) $. With $f_{Y}\left( y;\phi \right) =F_{Y}^{\prime }\left( y;\phi \right) $, the transition density of the true DGP of $Y$ then takes the form$$p_{Y}\left( y\|y_{0};\theta ,\phi \right) =f_{Y}\left( y;\phi \right) c_{X}\left( F_{Y}\left( y_{0};\phi \right) ,F_{Y}\left( y;\phi \right) ;\theta \right) . \label{RDSKST_tpdf}$$We choose $F_{Y}\left( y;\phi \right) $ as a flexible distribution to reflect stylized features such as asymmetry and fat-tailedness of observed financial data. Specifically, we use the Skewed Student-$t$ (SKST) Distribution of Hansen (1994) with density$$f_{Y}\left( y;\phi \right) =\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} \dfrac{bq}{v}\left( 1+\dfrac{1}{\tau -2}\left( \dfrac{\dfrac{b}{v}\left( y-m\right) +a}{1-\lambda }\right) ^{2}\right) ^{-\left( \tau +1\right) /2} & \text{if} & y<m-av/b, \\ \dfrac{bq}{v}\left( 1+\dfrac{1}{\tau -2}\left( \dfrac{\dfrac{b}{v}\left( y-m\right) +a}{1+\lambda }\right) ^{2}\right) ^{-\left( \tau +1\right) /2} & \text{if} & y\geq m-av/b,\end{array}\right. \label{SKSTpdf}$$where $v>0$, $2<\tau <\infty $, $-1<\lambda <1$, $a=4\lambda q\left( \dfrac{\tau -2}{\tau -1}\right) $, $b^{2}=1+3\lambda ^{2}-a^{2}$ and $q=\Gamma \left( \left( \tau +1\right) /2\right) /\sqrt{\pi \left( \tau -2\right) \Gamma ^{2}\left( \tau /2\right) }$. We collect the hyper parameters in $\phi =\left( m,v,\lambda ,\tau \right) $ which has to be chosen in order to fully specify the DGP. While $m$ and $v$ are the unconditional mean and standard deviation of the distribution, $\lambda $ controls the skewness and $\tau $ controls the degrees of freedom (hence the fat-tailedness) of the distribution. The distribution reduces to the usual student-$t$ distribution when $\lambda =0$. Due to its flexibility in modelling skewness and kurtosis, the SKST distribution is often used in financial modelling. (c.f. Patton, 2004; Jondeau and Rockinger, 2006; Bu, Fredj and Li, 2017). The transformed diffusion $Y$ generated by the SKST marginal distribution together with the normalized UPD in (\[Normalized\_OU\]) or ([Normalized\_CIR]{}) is referred to as the OU-SKST or the CIR-SKST model, respectively. The true data-generating parameters $\phi $ and $\theta $ are chosen as estimates obtained from fitting the parametric versions of the two models to the 7-day Eurodollar interest rate time series used in Aït-Sahalia (1996b). The estimation is based on a fully parametric two-stage PMLE. In the first stage, the SKST distribution is fitted to the data (as if they are i.i.d) to obtain $\hat{\phi}$. We then substitute $F_{Y}(y;\hat{\phi})$ and $f_{Y}(y;\hat{\phi})$ into (\[RDSKST\_tpdf\]) which is then maximized with respect to $\theta $ to obtain $\hat{\theta}$ for each of the two UPD’s. The calibrated parameter values of the marginal SKST distribution are $(\hat{m},\hat{v},\hat{\lambda},\hat{\tau})=(0.0835,0.0358,0.5193,25.3708)$, and those of the underlying OU and CIRdiffusions are $\hat{\kappa}=1.1376$ and $\left( \hat{\kappa},\hat{\alpha}\right) =\left( 0.7653,1.1653\right) $, respectively. We compare the fitted SKST and Normal distributions with a nonparametric kernel estimate in Figure 1. We see that the SKST distribution does a reasonable job at capturing the marginal distribution found in data while the Normal one does not provide a very good fit.$$\text{\lbrack Figure 1]}$$ Artificial samples of sizes $n=2202$ and $n=5505$, respectively, are then generated using $\phi =\hat{\phi}$ and $\theta =\hat{\theta}$ as our true data-generating parameters. For both OU-SKST and CIR-SKST, $\theta $ involves the mean-reversion parameter $\kappa $ which controls the level of persistence. We create $3$ additional scenarios by multiplying $\kappa $ by factors of 5, 10, and 20 while keeping everything else unchanged. Collectively, we have a total of $8$ cases corresponding to $2$ sample sizes and $4$ persistence levels. The maximum factor $20$ is chosen because the implied 1st-order autocorrelation coefficient $\rho _{1}\approx 0.9$, which is a reasonably high persistent level without being excessively close to the unit root. Finally, 500 replications for each case are generated. Estimation Results ------------------ We compare our low-frequency PMLE of $\theta $ with the corresponding fully parametric PMLE (PPMLE) described above that we used for our calibration. Note that the only difference between the two estimators is that the former estimates the marginal distribution $F_{Y}$ parametrically, while the latter estimates it nonparametrically. The relative bias and RMSE (defined as the ratios of the actual bias and the actual RMSE over the true parameter value, respectively) of the estimators of the parametric components of the OU-SKST case are presented in Table 1. Overall, the results from the two estimation methods are generally comparable with the same magnitudes. The semiparametric PMLE tends to do better in terms of bias while the parametric PMLE dominates in terms of variance. However, as the level of persistence decreases, the two estimators’ performance is close to identical. $$\text{\lbrack Table 1]}$$ The results for the CIR-SKST case are presented in Table 2 and 3 which are qualitatively very similar to the ones for the OU-SKST. Overall, the performance of the PMLE is comparable with that of the PPMLE with very similar estimation errors. Moreover, the gap in the performance of the PMLE relative to the PPMLE appears to narrow when the true DGP gets less persistent.$$\text{\lbrack Table 2 and 3]}$$ Next, we investigate the performance of the semiparametric estimators of $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$ in eqs. (\[eq: mu\_Y est\])-(\[eq: sig\_Y est\]) relative to their fully parametric estimators. In Figure 2, we plot their pointwise means and $95\%$ confidence bands from the 500 estimates against the truth for the OU-SKST process with $\kappa =22.753$ and sample size 2202. First, it is worth noting that $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$ exhibit strong nonlinearities that closely resemble the nonlinearities depicted in, for example, Aït-Sahalia (1996b), Jiang and Knight (1997), and Stanton (1997). Second, the mean estimates from both estimation methods are fairly close to the truth, but the variability of the semiparametric estimators is noticeably larger than the parametric ones, especially in the right end of the range. This is not surprising: Firstly, as shown in Theorem \[AD\_DD\], $\hat{\mu}_{Y}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}$ converges at slower than $\sqrt{n}$-rate due to the use of kernel estimators of $f_{Y}$. From Figure 1, we can see that $f_{Y}$ has a long right tail which is difficult to estimate by the kernel estimator in small and moderate samples. Figure 3 presents the same estimators at sample size 5505. At this larger sample size, the bias is even smaller for both methods and the variability of these estimates are also reduced significantly. Overall, although the parametric method obviously has the advantage due to its parametric structure, our semiparametric method also provides fairly satisfactory estimation results.$$\text{\lbrack Figure 2 and 3]}$$ The drift and diffusion estimators from the two methods where the true DGP is the CIR-SKST process with $\kappa =15.307$ and the two sample sizes are presented in Figure 4 and 5, respectively. Almost identical qualitative conclusions can be reached.$$\text{\lbrack Figure 4 and 5]}$$ Empirical Application\[Sec\_Application\] ========================================= Data ---- As an empirical illustration, we here model the time series dynamics of the CBOE Volatility Index data using copula diffusion models. The data consists of the daily VIX index from January 2, 1990 to July 19, 2019 ($7445$ observations). It is displayed and summarized in Figure 6 and Table 4, respectively. The time series plot shows a clear pattern of mean reversion, and Augmented Dickey-Fuller tests with reasonable lags all rejected the unit root hypothesis at $5\%$ significance level, which justifies the use of stationary diffusion models. The mean and the standard deviation is of VIX is $19.21$ and $7.76$, respectively. Meanwhile, the skewness and the kurtosis are $2.12$ and $10.85$, respectively, suggesting that the stationary distribution deviates quite substantially from normality. This is more formally confirmed by the highly significant Jarque-Bera test statistic with a negligible $p$-value.$$\text{\lbrack Figure 6 and Table 4]}$$ Models ------ We focus on whether two well known parametric transformed diffusion models proposed for modelling VIX are supported by the data against their semiparametric alternatives. The two parametric models are the transformed-OU model of Detemple and Osakwe (2000) (DO) and the transformed-CIR model of Eraker and Wang (2015) (EW). Specifically, the DOmodel is the exponential transform of the OU process, which can be written as$$Y_{t}=\exp \left( X_{t}\right) ,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ }dX_{t}=\kappa \left( \alpha -X_{t}\right) dt+\sigma dW_{t}$$and the EW model is a parameter-dependent transformation of the CIR process, which is given by$$Y_{t}=\frac{1}{X+\delta }+\varrho ,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ }dX_{t}=\kappa \left( \alpha -X_{t}\right) dt+\sigma \sqrt{X_{t}}dW_{t}$$Meanwhile, the two semiparametric models we consider are the same two models considered in our simulations, namely, the nonparametrically transformed OU and CIR models, which we denote as NPTOU and NPTCIR, respectively. Their associated normalized UPD processes are given in (\[Normalized\_OU\]) and (\[Normalized\_CIR\]). Importantly, we maintain the assumption that the VIX is a Markov diffusion process. In particular, we rule out jumps and stochastic volatility (SV) in the VIX which is inconsistent with the empirical findings of, e.g., Kaeck and Alexander (2013). However, their models are fully parametric and so impose much stronger functional form restrictions on the drift and diffusion component compared to our semiparametric approach. Specifically, jumps and SV components are often used to capture extremal events (fat tails). It is possible that these components are needed in explaining the VIX dynamics due to the restrictive drift and diffusion specifications they consider. Our semiparametric approach allows for more flexibility in this respect and so can be seen as a competing approach to capturing the same features in data. An interesting research topic would be to develop tools that allow for formal statistical comparison of our class of models against these alternative ones. Results ------- For each of the two UPDs, we examine whether the parametric specification of the transformation is supported by the data. We do this by testing each of the parametric models against the semiparametric alternative where the transformation is left unspecified. We do so by computing a pseudo Likelihood Ratio (pseudo-LR) test statistic defined as the difference between the pseudo log-likelihood (pseudo-LL) of the semiparametric model and the log-likelihood (LL) of the parametric model. Since the model under the alternative is semiparametric and estimated by pseudo-ML, the pseudo-LL test statistic will not follow a $\chi ^{2}$-distribution. We therefore resort to a parametric bootstrap procedure: For each of the two pseudo-LR test, we simulate $1000$ new time series from the parametric model using as data-generating parameter values the MLEs obtained from the original sample. For each of the $1000$ new data sets, of the same size as the original one, we estimate both the parametric model and the semiparametric model and compute the corresponding pseudo-LR statistic. Finally, we use the $95$th and $99$th quantiles from the simulated distribution of the pseudo-LR statistic as our $5\%$ and $1\%$ bootstrap critical values, respectively. The pseudo-LL is computed using the log-likelihood given in (\[eq: L(f) def\]) with $U\left( y\right) $ and $\log U^{\prime }\left( y;\theta \right) $ replaced by $\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( y;\theta \right) $ given in (\[eq: U-tilde\]) and $\log \tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( y;\theta \right) =\log \hat{f}_{Y}\left( y\right) -\log f_{X}\left( \tilde{U}\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) $, respectively. Here, $\hat{f}_{Y}\left( y\right) $ is the kernel density estimator which requires us choosing a bandwidth. There is a lack of consensus on the right procedure for choosing bandwidths for kernel estimators using dependent data. We therefore considered a sequence of bandwidths constructed by multiplying the Silverman’s rule of thumb bandwidth, denoted as $h_{S}$, by a factor $k$ between $0.75$ and $1.75$ on a small grid. Visual inspection of these density estimates revealed that with $k$ is around $1.5$, the resulting density appears to be the most satisfactory in terms of smoothness and the revelation of distributional features of the data. For this reason, we report our inferential results based on the relatively optimal bandwidth $1.5h_{S}=2.0730$ below. However, our conclusions remain unchanged for any bandwidth within the aforementioned range. Our estimation and testing results are reported in Table 5. The upper panel of the table presents the parameter estimates for the models together with their standard errors in the parentheses underneath. For the two semiparametric models, these were computed using the estimators proposed in Chen and Fan (2006). Recall that due to normalization, only $\kappa $ is estimated for the NPTOU model and only $\kappa $ and $\alpha $ for the NPTCIR model. In addition, while $\kappa $ has the same interpretation (i.e. rate of mean reversion) and scale in all four models, $\alpha $ has different scales in the two transformed CIR models. For both the transformed OU and the transformed CIR classes of models, we can see that the PMLEs of the mean-reversion parameter $\hat{\kappa}$ are slightly lower than their corresponding MLE estimates. The same difference applies to their standard errors. This shows that parametric (mis-)specification of the stationary distribution does have a quite significant impact on the estimation of the dynamic parameters.$$\text{\lbrack Table 5]}$$ The lower panel presents the LL values and the our pseudo-LR test results. We can see that the EW model has a much higher LL $(-1.1585)$ than the DO model $\left( -1.1724\right) $, suggesting much better goodness of fit to the data by the former. This is not entirely surprising because the EW model is more flexible both in terms of the UPD and the transformation function compared to the DO model. Meanwhile, the NPTCIR model has a higher pseudo-LL than the NPTOU. Since they have identical stationary distributions, such a difference is solely due to the additional flexibility of the UPD of the former. Most importantly, we see that when the underlying diffusions are the same, models with nonparametric transformation have much higher LLs than those with parametric transformations. More specifically, the resulting pseudo-LR between the NPTOU model and the DO model is $290.7263$, and that between the NPTCIR model and the EW model is $40.8606$. This proves that the exponential transformation of the DO model is too restrictive, and that while the transformation function of the EW model is more flexible, it is still rather restrictive relatively to our nonparametric alternative. To formally assess the significance of the observed differences, we present the empirical $5\%$ and $1\%$ critical values and the corresponding $p$-values of our pseudo-LR tests, obtained from our bootstrap procedure described above. For both tests, we observe that those critical values are all negative and the $p$-values are both exactly zero. This means that the original pseudo-LRs of $290.7263$ and $40.8606$ are not only far greater than their corresponding empirical critical values but also greater than any of the bootstrap pseudo-LRs when the parametric model under the null hypothesis is true. This suggests that when either the DO model or the EW model is the true model, the corresponding NPTOU model or the NPTCIR model is unlikely to produce a higher LL value than the parametric model itself. This is fairly strong evidence that the parametric assumptions made by the DO and the EW models are not supported by our data and our nonparametrically transformed models are strongly favored. The reason for the rejection of the two parametric models can be found in the implied stationary densities of the two models which we plot in Figure 7 together with the kernel density estimator. As can be seen from this figure, the parametric specifications are unable to capture the middle range of the empirical distribution of VIX; in contrast, the two semiparametric alternatives are constructed so that they match the empirical distribution exactly. $$\text{\lbrack Figure 7]}$$ Conclusion\[Sec\_Conclusion\] ============================= We propose a novel semiparametric approach for modelling stationary nonlinear univariate diffusions. The class of models can be thought of as Markov copula models where the copula is implied by the UPD model. Primitive conditions for the identification of the UPD parameters together with the unknown transformations from discrete samples are provided. We derive the asymptotic properties for our semiparametric likelihood-based estimators of the UPD parameters and kernel-based drift and diffusion estimators. Our simulation results suggest that our semiparametric method performs well in finite sample compared to the fully parametric method, and our relatively simple application shows that the parametric assumptions on the transformation function of the well known DO model and EW model are rejected by the data against our nonparametric alternatives. Potential future work under this framework may include extensions to multivariate diffusions and jump-diffusions. [20]{} Ahn, D.-H., Gao, B., 1999. A Parametric nonlinear model of term structure dynamics. Review of Financial Studies 12, 721-762. Aït-Sahalia, Y., 1996a. Nonparametric pricing of interest rate derivatives. Econometrica 64, 527-560. Aït-Sahalia, Y., 1996b. Testing continuous-time models of the spot interest rate. Review of Financial Studies 9, 385-426. Aït-Sahalia, Y., 2002. Maximum likelihood estimation of discretely sampled diffusions: a closed-form approximation Approach. Econometrica 70, 223-262. Bandi, F.M., 2002. Short-term interest rate dynamics: A spatial approach. Journal of Financial Economics 65, 73-110. Bandi, F.M., Phillips, P.C.B., 2003, Fully nonparametric estimation of scalar diffusion models. Econometrica 71, 241-283. Beare, B.K., 2010. Copulas and temporal dependence. Econometrica 78, 395-410. Bladt, M., Sørensen, M., 2014. Simple simulation of diffusion bridges with application to likelihood inference for diffusions. Bernoulli 20, 645-675. Bu, R., Cheng, J., Hadri, K., 2017. Specification analysis in regime-switching continuous-time diffusion models for market volatility. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics 21(1), 65-80. Bu, R., Fredj, J., Li, Y., 2017. An empirical comparison of transformed diffusion models for VIX and VIX futures. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 46, 116-127. Bu, R., Giet, L., Hadri, K., Lubrano, M., 2011. Modelling multivariate interest rates using time-varying copulas and reducible non-linear stochastic differential equations. Journal of Financial Econometrics 9(1), 198-236. Chen, X., Fan, Y., 2006. Estimation of copula-based semiparametric time series models. Journal of Econometrics 130, 307-335. Chen, X., Hansen, L.P., Scheinkman, J., 2009. Nonlinear principal components and long run implications of multivariate diffusions. Annals of Statistics 37, 4279-4312. Chen, X., Hansen, L.P., Carrasco, M., 2010. Nonlinearity and temporal dependence. Journal of Econometrics 155, 155-169. Chen, X., Wu, W.B., Yi, Y., 2009. Efficient estimation of copula-based semiparametric Markov models. Annals of Statistics 37, 4214-4253. Choi, S., 2009. Regime-switching univariate diffusion models of the short-term interest rate. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics 13(1), Article 4. Conley, T., Hansen, L., Luttmer, E., Scheinkman, J., 1997. Short-term interest rates as subordinated diffusions. Review of Financial Studies 10, 525-577. Cox, J., Ingersoll, J., Ross, S., 1985. In intertemporal general equilibrium model of asset prices. Econometrica 53, 363-384. Detemple, J., and Osakwe, C. 2000. The valuation of volatility option. European Finance Review 4, 21-50. Eraker, B., Wang, J., 2015. A non-linear dynamic model of the variance risk premium, Journal of Econometrics 187, 547-556. Forman, J.L., Sørensen, M., 2014. A transformation approach to modelling multi-modal diffusions. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 146, 56-69. Gobet, E., Hoffmann, M., Reiß, M., 2004. Nonparametric estimation of scalar diffusions based on low frequency data. Annals of Statistics 32, 2223-2253. Hansen, B., 1994. Autoregressive conditional density estimation. International Economic Review 35, 705-730. Hansen, L.P., Scheinkman, J., Touzi, N., 1998. Spectral methods for identifying scalar diffusions. Journal of Econometrics 86, 1-32. Jiang, G., Knight, J., 1997. A nonparametric approach to the estimation of diffusion processes with an application to a short-term interest rate model. Econometric Theory 13, 615-645. Joe, H., 1997. Multivariate Models and Dependence Concepts. Chapman & Hall, London. Jondeau, E., Rockinger, M., 2006. The copula-GARCH model of conditional dependencies - an international stock application. Journal of International Money and Finance 25, 827-853. Kaeck, A., Alexander, C., 2013. Continuous-time VIX dynamics: On the role of stochastic volatility of volatility. International Review of Financial Analysis 28, 46-56. Kanaya, S., Uniform Convergence Rates of Kernel-Based Nonparametric Estimators for Continuous Time Diffusion Processes: A Damping Function Approach. Econometric Theory 33, 874-914. Kanaya, S., Kristensen, D., 2016. Estimation of stochastic volatility models by nonparametric filtering. Econometric Theory 32, 861-916. Karatzas, I., Shreve, S., 1991. Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus, 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York. Kessler, M., 1997, Estimation of an ergodic diffusion from discrete observations. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 24, 211–229. Kessler, M., Sørensen, M., 1999. Estimating equations based on eigenfunctions for a discretely observed diffusion process. Bernoulli 5, 299-314. Kristensen, D., 2010. Pseudo-maximum likelihood estimation in two classes of semiparametric diffusion models. Journal of Econometrics 156, 239-259. Kristensen, D., 2011. Semi-nonparametric estimation and misspecification testing of diffusion models. Journal of Econometrics 164, 382-403. Kristensen, D., Shin, Y., 2012. Estimation of dynamic models with nonparametric simulated maximum likelihood. Journal of Econometrics 167, 76-94. Li, C., 2013. Maximum-likelihood estimation for diffusion processes via closed-form density expansions, Annals of Statistics 41, 1350-1380. McKean, H.P., 1969. Stochastic Integrals. Academic Press. New York. Newey, W.K., McFadden, D., 1994. Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. In: Engle, R.F., McFadden, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 4. North-Holland, Amsterdam (chapter 36). Patton, A., 2004. On the out-of-sample importance of skewness and asymmetric dependence for asset allocation. Journal of Financial Econometrics 2, 130-168. Robinson, P., 1983. Nonparametric estimators for time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis 4, 185-207. Silverman, B.W., 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, London. Stanton, R., 1997. A nonparametric model of term structure dynamics and the market price of interest rate risk. Journal of Finance 52, 1973-2002. Vasicek, O., 1977. An equilibrium characterization of the term structure, Journal of Financial Economics 5, 177-188. Proofs ====== From eqs. (\[eq: Y = V(tilde X)\])-(\[eq: sig tilde X\]), it is obvious that (\[eq: equiv 1\])-(\[eq: equiv 2\]) imply $\mathcal{S}\sim \mathcal{\tilde{S}}$. Now, suppose that $\mathcal{S}\sim \mathcal{\tilde{S}}$; this implies that $\mu _{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) =\mu _{Y}\left( y;\mathcal{\tilde{S}}\right) $ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y;\mathcal{S}\right) =\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y;\mathcal{\tilde{S}}\right) $, where $\mu _{Y}$ and $\sigma _{Y}^{2}$ are given in eqs. (\[RDdrift\])-(\[RDdiffusion\]). That is, for all $y\in \mathcal{Y}$,$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\mu _{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) \frac{U^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}} &=&\frac{\mu _{X}\left( \tilde{U}\left( y\right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( \tilde{U}\left( y\right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) \frac{\tilde{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}}, \\ \frac{\sigma _{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) } &=&\frac{\sigma _{X}\left( \tilde{U}\left( y\right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) }.\end{aligned}$$Since $V$ is one-to-one we can set $y=V\left( x\right) $ in the above to obtain the following for all $x\in \mathcal{X}$,$$\begin{aligned} &&\frac{\mu _{X}\left( U\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ;\theta \right) \frac{U^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}} \label{eq: equiv drift} \\ &=&\frac{\mu _{X}\left( \tilde{U}\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( \tilde{U}\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) \frac{\tilde{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}}, \notag \\ \frac{\sigma _{X}\left( U\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) } &=&\frac{\sigma _{X}\left( \tilde{U}\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }. \label{eq: equiv diff}\end{aligned}$$Define $T\left( x\right) =\tilde{U}\left( V\left( x\right) \right) \Leftrightarrow T^{-1}\left( x\right) =U\left( \tilde{V}\left( x\right) \right) $, and observe that$$U\left( V\left( x\right) \right) =x,\ \ U^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) V^{\prime }\left( x\right) =1,\text{ \ \ }\frac{\partial T\left( x\right) }{\partial x}=\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) V^{\prime }\left( x\right) .$$Eq. (\[eq: equiv diff\]) combined with the above implies (\[eq: equiv 2\])(ii),$$\sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta \right) =\frac{\sigma _{X}\left( U\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) V^{\prime }\left( x\right) }=\frac{\sigma _{X}\left( \tilde{U}\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) V^{\prime }\left( x\right) }=\frac{\sigma _{X}\left( T\left( x\right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) }{\partial T\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x\right) }=\sigma _{T^{-1}\left( X\right) }\left( x;\tilde{\theta}\right) . \label{eq: sig_X = sig_T}$$ Next, divide through with $V^{\prime }\left( x\right) $ in (\[eq: equiv drift\]) and rearrange to obtain$$\begin{aligned} \mu _{X}\left( x;\theta \right) &=&\frac{\mu _{X}\left( T\left( x\right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) }{\partial T\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x\right) }+\frac{1}{2}\left\{ \sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x;\theta \right) \frac{U^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}V^{\prime }\left( x\right) }-\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( T^{-1}\left( x\right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) \frac{\tilde{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}V^{\prime }\left( x\right) }\right\} \\ &=&\frac{\mu _{X}\left( T\left( x\right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) }{\partial T\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x\right) }+\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( T\left( x\right) ;\tilde{\theta}\right) \left\{ \frac{1}{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{2}V^{\prime }\left( x\right) ^{3}}\frac{U^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}}-\frac{\tilde{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}V^{\prime }\left( x\right) }\right\} \end{aligned}$$where the second equality uses (\[eq: sig\_X = sig\_T\]). Eq. (\[eq: equiv 2\])(i) now follows since$$\begin{aligned} &&\frac{1}{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{2}V^{\prime }\left( x\right) ^{3}}\frac{U^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}}-\frac{\tilde{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}V^{\prime }\left( x\right) } \\ &=&\frac{1}{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}V^{\prime }\left( x\right) ^{3}}\left[ \frac{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) U^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}}-\tilde{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) V^{\prime }\left( x\right) ^{2}\right] \\ &=&\frac{-1}{\tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) ^{3}V^{\prime }\left( x\right) ^{3}}\left[ \tilde{U}^{\prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) V^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) +\tilde{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( V\left( x\right) \right) V^{\prime }\left( x\right) ^{2}\right] \\ &=&-\frac{\partial ^{2}T\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x^{2}\right) }{\partial T\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x\right) ^{3}}.\end{aligned}$$ We first note that the PMLE takes the same form as the one analyzed in Chen and Fan (2006) with the general copula considered in their work satisfying eq. (\[dic\]). The desired result will follow if we can verify that the conditions stated in their proof are satisfied by our assumptions: First, by Assumptions 2.1, the discrete sample $\left\{ X_{i\Delta }:i=0,1,\ldots ,n\right\} $ generated by the UPD$\ X$ is first-order Markovian and with marginal density $f_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $ and transition density $p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $. Hence, the copula density $c_{X}\left( u_{0},u;\theta \right) $ in (\[dic\]) implied by $X$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\left[ 0,1\right] ^{2}$ due to its continuity in $F_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $, $f_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $ and $p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $. Moreover, the implied copula is neither the Fréchet-Hoeffding upper or lower bound due to Assumption 2.1, i.e., $\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( x;\theta \right) >0$ for all $x\in \mathcal{X}$. Thus, Chen and Fan (2006, Assumption 1) is satisfied. Second, our Assumption 4.2(i) ensures that $X$ is $\beta $-mixing with polynomial decay rate. Third, by Theorem \[Th: Y prop\], $Y$ is mixing with the same mixing properties as $X$ and so satisfies Chen and Fan (2006, Assumption 1). The remaining conditions are met by Assumption 4.3(i). For the analysis of the proposed sieve MLE, we note that it takes the same form as the one analyzed in Chen, Wu and Yi (2009) and so their results carry over to our setting. Their Assumption M and assumption of $\beta $-mixing property are satisfied by $Y$ under our Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2(ii) together with our Theorem \[Th: Y prop\]. The remaining conditions are met by Assumption 4.3(ii). Similar to the proof strategy employed in Lemma \[Lem: U deriv\], we define$$\tilde{\mu}_{Y}\left( y\right) =\frac{\mu _{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{X}^{2}(U\left( y\right) ;\theta )\frac{\hat{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}},\text{ \ \ }\tilde{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) =\frac{\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{\hat{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{2}},$$and, with $f_{Y}^{\left( i\right) }$ denoting the $i$th derivative of $f_{Y}$ and similar for other functions, arrive at$$\begin{aligned} &&\sqrt{nh^{3}}\left\{ \hat{\mu}_{Y}\left( y\right) -\mu _{Y}\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}\frac{f_{Y}^{\left( 3\right) }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }\left[ -\frac{\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{2U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}}\right] \right\} \\ &=&\sqrt{nh^{3}}\left\{ \tilde{\mu}_{Y}\left( y\right) -\mu _{Y}\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}\frac{f_{Y}^{\left( 3\right) }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }\left[ -\frac{\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{2U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}}\right] \right\} +o_{p}\left( 1\right) \\ &=&-\frac{\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{2U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}}\sqrt{nh^{3}}\left\{ \hat{U}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( y\right) -U^{\left( 2\right) }\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}\frac{f_{Y}^{\left( 3\right) }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }\right\} +o_{p}\left( 1\right) ,\end{aligned}$$and $$\begin{aligned} &&\sqrt{nh}\left\{ \hat{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) -\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}\frac{f_{Y}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }\left[ -\frac{2\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}}\right] \right\} \\ &=&\sqrt{nh}\left\{ \tilde{\sigma}_{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) -\sigma _{Y}^{2}\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}\frac{f_{Y}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }\left[ -\frac{2\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}}\right] \right\} +o_{p}\left( 1\right) \\ &=&-\frac{2\sigma _{X}^{2}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{3}}\sqrt{nh}\left\{ \hat{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) -U^{\prime }\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}\frac{f_{Y}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }\right\} +o_{p}\left( 1\right) .\end{aligned}$$These together with (\[AD\_U1\]) and (\[AD\_U2\]) of Lemma \[Lem: U deriv\] and Slutsky’s Theorem complete the proof. Verification of conditions for OU and CIR model\[Sec: verification\] ==================================================================== We here verify the technical conditions of Chen and Fan (2006) for the normalized versions of the OU and CIR model given in eqs. ([Normalized\_OU]{}) and (\[Normalized\_CIR\]), respectively. For both examples, we will require that $U\left( y;\theta \right) $, as defined in eq. (\[U\]), and its first and second-order derivatives w.r.t $\theta $ are polynomially bounded in $y$. This imposes growth restrictions on the transformation function and is used to easily verify various moment conditions in the following. Also note that the criterion $l\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) $ in Chen and Fan (2006) takes the form $l\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) :=\log p_{X}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta };\theta \right) ;U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta };\theta \right) ;\theta \right) -\log f_{X}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta };\theta \right) ;\theta \right) $, where $U_{i}=F_{Y}\left( Y_{i\Delta }\right) $, in our notation. OU model -------- Assumption 4.2: It is easily seen that $\left\{ \frac{\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{\sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial \sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{\partial x}\right\} =-\sqrt{\frac{\kappa }{2}}x$ and $\frac{s\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) \sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{S\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }=\exp \left( \frac{x^{2}}{2}\right) /\int_{x^{\ast }}^{x}\exp \left( \frac{z^{2}}{2}\right) dz$. Assumption 4.2 is verified by taking the relevant limits. Assumption 4.3: The implied copula of the normalized OU process is Gaussian, for which Assumption 4.3(i) and 4.3(ii) are satisfied as discussed in Chen and Fan (2006) and Chen, Wu, and Yi (2009), respectively. CIR model --------- Assumption 4.2: We obtain $\left\{ \frac{\mu _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{\sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial \sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{\partial x}\right\} =\frac{\left( 2\alpha -1\right) }{2}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa }{2x}}-\sqrt{\frac{\kappa }{4x}}$ and $\frac{s\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) \sigma _{X}\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }{S\left( x;\theta _{0}\right) }=\frac{\exp \left\{ x\right\} }{x^{\alpha }}\sqrt{2\kappa }\sqrt{x}/\int_{x^{\ast }}^{x}\frac{\exp \left\{ z\right\} }{z^{\alpha }}dz$ and the assumption is verified by taking relevant limits. Assumption 4.3. First observe that$$p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) =\exp \left[ c_{0}\left( \theta \right) -c\left( \theta \right) \left( x+e^{-\kappa \Delta }x_{0}\right) \right] \frac{x_{0}}{x}I_{\alpha -1}\left( 2c^{2}\left( \theta \right) \sqrt{xx_{0}}\right) ,$$where $I_{q}\left( \cdot \right) $ is the so-called modified Bessel function of the first kind and of order $q$ and $c_{0}\left( \theta ,\Delta \right) >0 $ and $c\left( \theta ,\Delta \right) >0$ are analytic functions. Moreover, $f_{X}$ is here the density of a gamma distribution and so all polynomial moments of $X$ exist. Since $U$ is assumed to be polynomially bounded, this implies that all polynomial moments of $Y$ also exist. All smoothness conditions imposed in Chen and Fan (2006) are trivially satisfied since $p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) $ and $U\left( y;\theta \right) $ are twice continuously differentiable w.r.t their arguments and so will not be discussed any further. Similarly, we have already shown that $Y$ is geometrically mixing. It remains to verify the moment conditions and the identifying restrictions imposed in C1-C.5 in Proposition 4.2 and A2-A6 in Chen and Fan (2006). C1 is satisfied if we restrict $\theta =\left( \alpha ,\kappa \right) $ to be situated in a compact set on $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2}$ that contains the true value. Observe that$$\log p_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) =c_{0}\left( \theta \right) -c\left( \theta \right) \left( x+e^{-\kappa \Delta }x_{0}\right) +\log \left( \frac{x_{0}}{x}\right) +\log I_{\alpha -1}\left( 2c^{2}\left( \theta \right) \sqrt{xx_{0}}\right) .$$Thus,$$\begin{aligned} s_{\theta }\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) &:&=\frac{\partial \log p_{X}\left( x;x_{0};\theta \right) }{\partial \theta } \\ &=&\dot{c}_{0}\left( \theta \right) -\dot{c}\left( \theta \right) \left( x+e^{-\kappa \Delta }x_{0}\right) +c\left( \theta \right) \Delta e^{-\kappa \Delta }x_{0}+\frac{I_{\alpha -1}^{\prime }\left( 2c^{2}\left( \theta \right) \sqrt{xx_{0}}\right) 4c\left( \theta \right) \sqrt{xx_{0}}\dot{c}\left( \theta \right) }{I_{\alpha -1}\left( 2c^{2}\left( \theta \right) \sqrt{xx_{0}}\right) } \\ &&+\left[ \begin{array}{c} \frac{\dot{I}_{\alpha -1}\left( 2c^{2}\left( \theta \right) \sqrt{xx_{0}}\right) }{I_{\alpha -1}\left( 2c^{2}\left( \theta \right) \sqrt{xx_{0}}\right) } \\ 0\end{array}\right] ,\end{aligned}$$where $\dot{c}_{0}\left( \theta \right) =\partial c_{0}\left( \theta \right) /\left( \partial \theta \right) $ and similar for other functions, $I_{\alpha -1}^{\prime }\left( x\right) =\partial I_{\alpha -1}\left( x\right) /\left( \partial x\right) $, and $\dot{I}_{\alpha -1}\left( x\right) =\partial I_{\alpha -1}\left( x\right) /\left( \partial \alpha \right) $. It is easily verified that $\left\vert I_{\alpha -1}^{\prime }\left( x\right) /I_{\alpha -1}\left( x\right) \right\vert $ and $\left\vert \left\vert I_{\alpha -1}^{\prime }\left( x\right) /I_{\alpha -1}\left( x\right) \right\vert \right\vert $ are both bounded by a polynomial in $x$. Thus, $\left\Vert s_{X}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) \right\Vert $ is bounded by a polynomial uniformly in $\theta \in \Theta $. The expressions of $s_{x}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) :=\partial \log p_{X}\left( x;x_{0};\theta \right) /\left( \partial x\right) $ and $s_{x_{0}}\left( x\|x_{0};\theta \right) :=\partial \log p_{X}\left( x;x_{0};\theta \right) /\left( \partial x_{0}\right) $ are on a similar form and also polynomially bounded. Now, observe that$$\begin{aligned} l_{\theta }\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) &:&=\frac{\partial l\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) }{\partial \theta } \\ &=&s_{\theta }\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta };\theta \right) \|U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta };\theta \right) ;\theta \right) \\ &&+s_{x}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta };\theta \right) \|U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta };\theta \right) ;\theta \right) \dot{U}\left( Y_{i\Delta };\theta \right) \\ &&+s_{x_{0}}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta };\theta \right) \|U\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta };\theta \right) ;\theta \right) \dot{U}\left( Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta };\theta \right) \\ &&-\frac{\partial \log f_{X}\left( U\left( Y_{i\Delta };\theta \right) ;\theta \right) }{\partial \theta }.\end{aligned}$$Given that the model is correctly specified and identified, it follows by standard arguments for MLE that $E\left[ l_{\theta }\left( U_{i},U_{i-1};\theta \right) \right] =0$ if and only if $\theta $ equals the true value. C4. From the above expression of $l_{\theta }\left( U_{i},U_{i-1};\theta \right) $ together with our assumption on $U\left( y;\theta \right) $, it is easily checked that it is bounded by a polynomial in $\left( Y_{i\Delta },Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta }\right) $ uniformly in $\theta \in \Theta $. It now follows that $E\left[ \sup_{\theta }\left\Vert l_{\theta }\left( U_{i},U_{i-1};\theta \right) \right\Vert ^{p}\right] <\infty $ for any $p\geq 1$. C5. $$l_{\theta ,1}\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) =\frac{\partial l_{\theta }\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) }{\partial U_{i-1}},\text{ \ \ }l_{\theta ,2}\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) =\frac{\partial l_{\theta }\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) }{\partial U_{i}}$$are again bounded by polynomials in $\left( Y_{i\Delta },Y_{\left( i-1\right) \Delta }\right) $ and so have all relevant moments. A1(ii)-(iii). With $W_{1,i}$ and $W_{2,i}$ defined in (4.2)-(4.3) in Chen and Fan (2006) and $$l_{\theta ,\theta }\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) =\frac{\partial ^{2}l\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) }{\partial \theta \partial \theta ^{\prime }},$$$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\text{Var}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ l_{\theta }\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) +W_{1,i}+W_{2,i}\right\} \right) ,$$and $E\left[ l_{\theta ,\theta }\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) \right] $ to have full rank. We have been unable to verify these two conditions due to the complex form of the score and hessian of the CIR model. A4. Observe that $\left\vert W_{1,i}\right\vert \leq E\left[ \left\vert U_{i-1}\right\vert \left\Vert l_{\theta ,1}\left( U_{i-1},U_{i};\theta \right) \right\Vert \right] <\infty $ and similar for $W_{2,i}$. Thus, both have all relevant moments. A5-A6 have already been verified above. Lemma ===== \[Lem: U deriv\]Under Assumptions 2.1-2.2, 4.2(i), and 4.4-4.6, we have as $n\rightarrow \infty $, $h\rightarrow 0$, $nh\rightarrow \infty $,$$\sqrt{nh}\left\{ \hat{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) -U^{\prime }\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}\frac{f_{Y}^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) }\right\} \rightarrow ^{d}N\left( 0,\frac{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{2}}{f_{Y}\left( y\right) }\int_{\mathbb{R}}K\left( z\right) ^{2}dz\right) , \label{AD_U1}$$and as $n\rightarrow \infty $, $h\rightarrow 0$, $nh^{3}\rightarrow \infty $,$$\sqrt{nh^{3}}\left\{ \hat{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) -U^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}\frac{f_{Y}^{\prime \prime \prime }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) }\right\} \rightarrow ^{d}N\left( 0,\frac{U^{\prime }\left( y\right) ^{2}}{f_{Y}\left( y\right) }\int_{\mathbb{R}}K^{\prime }\left( z\right) ^{2}dz\right) . \label{AD_U2}$$ With $\hat{F}_{Y}\left( y\right) $ given in (\[eq: kernel cdf\]), let $\hat{f}_{Y}^{\left( i\right) }\left( y\right) =\hat{F}_{Y}^{\left( i+1\right) }\left( y\right) $, for $i=1,2$, be the $i$th derivative of the kernel marginal density estimator. Using standard methods for kernel estimators (c.f. Robinson, 1983), we obtain under the assumptions of the lemma that, as $n\rightarrow \infty ,h\rightarrow 0$, and $nh^{1+2i}\rightarrow \infty $, $$\sqrt{nh^{1+2i}}\left\{ \hat{f}_{Y}^{\left( i\right) }\left( y\right) -f_{Y}^{\left( i\right) }\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}f_{Y}^{\left( i+2\right) }\left( y\right) \right\} \rightarrow ^{d}N\left( 0,V_{i}\left( y\right) \right) \label{R1983}$$where $V_{i}\left( y\right) =f_{Y}\left( y\right) \int_{\mathbb{R}}K^{\left( i\right) }\left( z\right) ^{2}dz$. Assumptions 2.1 and 4.4 ensure that $f_{Y}\left( y\right) $ is sufficiently smooth so that $f_{Y}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( y\right) $ and $f_{Y}^{\left( 3\right) }\left( y\right) $exist. Assumption 4.2(i) and 4.6 regulate the mixing property of $Y$ and the kernel function, respectively, as required by Robinson (1983). From (\[U1\]) we have $\hat{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) =\hat{f}_{Y}\left( y\right) /f_{X}(\hat{U}\left( y\right) ;\hat{\theta})$. Now define $\hat{U}_{0}^{\prime }\left( y\right) =\hat{f}_{Y}\left( y\right) /f_{X}(U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0})$ and note that Assumption 4.4 and 4.5 together with the delta-method imply $\hat{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) -\hat{U}_{0}^{\prime }\left( y\right) =O_{P}\left( 1/\sqrt{n}\right) =o_{P}(1/\sqrt{nh})$. It then follows that$$\begin{aligned} &&\sqrt{nh}\left\{ \hat{U}^{\prime }\left( y\right) -U^{\prime }\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}f_{Y}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( y\right) \frac{1}{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) }\right\} \\ &=&\sqrt{nh}\left\{ o_{P}\left( 1/\sqrt{nh}\right) +\hat{U}_{0}^{\prime }\left( y\right) -U^{\prime }\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}f_{Y}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( y\right) \frac{1}{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) }\right\} \\ &=&\frac{1}{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) }\sqrt{nh}\left\{ \hat{f}_{Y}\left( y\right) -f_{Y}\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}f_{Y}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( y\right) \right\} +o_{P}\left( 1\right) .\end{aligned}$$Using (\[R1983\]) and the same arguments as in Kristensen (2011, Proof of Theorem 1), we arrive at (\[AD\_U1\]). Next, observe that $U^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) =\frac{f_{Y}^{\prime }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) }-\frac{f_{X}^{\prime }\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) f_{Y}\left( y\right) ^{2}}{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta \right) ^{3}}$ where $f_{X}^{\prime }\left( x;\theta \right) $ and $f_{Y}^{\prime }\left( y\right) $ are the first derivatives of $f_{X}\left( x;\theta \right) $ and $f_{Y}\left( y\right) $, respectively. Similarly, it is easily checked that $\hat{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) =\frac{\hat{f}_{Y}^{\prime }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}(\hat{U}\left( y\right) ;\hat{\theta})}-\frac{f_{X}^{\prime }(\hat{U}\left( y\right) ;\hat{\theta})\hat{f}_{Y}\left( y\right) ^{2}}{f_{X}(\hat{U}\left( y\right) ;\hat{\theta})^{3}}$. Define $\hat{U}_{0}^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) =\frac{\hat{f}_{Y}^{\prime }\left( y\right) }{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) }-\frac{f_{X}^{\prime }\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) f_{Y}\left( y\right) ^{2}}{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) ^{3}}$ and apply arguments similar to before to obtain$$\begin{aligned} &&\sqrt{nh^{3}}\left\{ \hat{U}^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) -U^{\prime \prime }\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}f_{Y}^{\left( 3\right) }\left( y\right) \frac{1}{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) }\right\} \\ &=&\frac{1}{f_{X}\left( U\left( y\right) ;\theta _{0}\right) }\sqrt{nh^{3}}\left\{ f_{Y}^{\prime }\left( y\right) -f_{Y}^{\prime }\left( y\right) -\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\kappa _{2}f_{Y}^{\left( 3\right) }\left( y\right) \right\} +o_{p}\left( 1\right) \end{aligned}$$which together with (\[R1983\]) yield (\[AD\_U2\]). Tables and Figures ================== Table 1: Bias and RMSE of $\kappa $ in the OU-SKST Model ---------------------- ------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ Sample Size True Parameter Value $\rho _{1}$ PPMLE PMLE PPMLE PMLE $\kappa =1.1376$ $0.9944$ $\kappa =5.6882$ $0.9758$ $\kappa =11.377$ $0.9531$ $\kappa =22.753$ $0.9093$ Sample Size True Parameter Value $\rho _{1}$ PPMLE PMLE PPMLE PMLE $\kappa =1.1376$ $0.9944$ $\kappa =5.6882$ $0.9758$ $\kappa =11.377$ $0.9531$ $\kappa =22.753$ $0.9093$ ---------------------- ------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ Table 2: Bias and RMSE of $\kappa $ in the CIR-SKST Model ------------- ------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ -- Sample Size $\rho _{1}$ PPMLE PMLE PPMLE PMLE $0.9921$ $0.9675$ $0.9399$ $0.8917$ Sample Size $\rho _{1}$ PPMLE PMLE PPMLE PMLE $0.9921$ $0.9675$ $0.9399$ $0.8917$ ------------- ------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ -- Table 3: Bias and RMSE of $\alpha $ in the CIR-SKST Model ------------- ------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ -- Sample Size $\rho _{1}$ PPMLE PMLE PPMLE PMLE $0.9921$ $0.9675$ $0.9399$ $0.8917$ Sample Size $\rho _{1}$ PPMLE PMLE PPMLE PMLE $0.9921$ $0.9675$ $0.9399$ $0.8917$ ------------- ------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ -- Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Daily VIX ----------------------- --------------------------------- Sample Period January 2, 1990 - July 19, 2019 Sample Size 7445 Mean 19.21 Median 17.31 Std Dev. 7.76 Skewness 2.12 Kurtosis 10.85 Jarque-Bera Statistic 24669.26 ----------------------- --------------------------------- Table 5: Model Estimation and Pseudo-LR Test Results --------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- DO NPTOU EW NPTCIR $\hat{\kappa}$ 4.4888 3.8191 4.0741 3.7541 (0.5795) (0.4525) (0.5597) (0.4257) $\hat{\alpha}$ 2.8890 0.0524 14.6916 (0.0423) (0.0032) (8.8484) $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ 1.0818 0.0695 (0.0179) (0.0097) $\hat{\varrho}$ 0.1916 (0.4827) $\hat{\delta}$ 0.0072 (0.0029) $LL\left( 10^{4}\right) $ -1.1724 -1.1579 -1.1585 -1.1565 $LR$ 290.7263 40.8606 $CV_{0.05}$ -52.1521 -23.6766 $CV_{0.01}$ -30.5511 -10.9027 $p$-value 0.0000 0.0000 --------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ![Marginal Densities of the Eurodollar Rates. []{data-label="fig:marginaldensities"}](figures/MarginalDensities){width="0.7\linewidth"} ![Estimated Drift and Diffusion for the OU-SKST Model ($T=2202$) . []{data-label="fig:ouskst2202"}](figures/OUSKST_2202){width="0.7\linewidth"} ![Estimated Drift and Diffusion for the OU-SKST Model ( $T=5505$). []{data-label="fig:ouskst5505"}](figures/OUSKST_5505){width="0.7\linewidth"} ![Estimated Drift and Diffusion for the CIR-SKST Model ($ T=2202$). []{data-label="fig:cirskst2202"}](figures/CIRSKST_2202){width="0.7\linewidth"} ![Estimated Drift and Diffusion for the CIR-SKST Model ($ T=5505$). []{data-label="fig:cirskst5505"}](figures/CIRSKST_5505){width="0.7\linewidth"} ![Time Series of Daily VIX[]{data-label="fig:q9i8lf00"}](figures/Q9I8LF00){width="0.7\linewidth"} ![Estimated Marginal Densities of Daily VIX[]{data-label="fig:q9i8lf01"}](figures/Q9I8LF01){width="0.7\linewidth"} [^1]: Department of Economics, Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Email: [email protected]. [^2]: Queen’s University Management School, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. Email: [email protected]. [^3]: Department of Economics, University College London, London, UK. Email: [email protected]. [^4]: The copula $C_{X}\left( u_{0},u_{1};\theta \right) $ for a given Markov process is defined as$$C_{X}\left( u_{0},u_{1};\theta \right) =\Pr \left( X_{0}\leq F_{X}^{-1}\left( u_{0};\theta \right) ,X_{1}\leq F_{X}^{-1}\left( u_{1};\theta \right) \right) .$$The corresponding copula density is then given by $c_{X}\left( u_{0},u_{1};\theta \right) =\partial ^{2}C_{X}\left( u_{0},u_{1};\theta \right) /\left( \partial u_{0}\partial u_{1}\right) $.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We introduce a multiple conjugation biquandle, and show that it is the universal algebra to define a semi-arc coloring invariant for handlebody-links. A multiple conjugation biquandle is a generalization of a multiple conjugation quandle. We extend the notion of $n$-parallel biquandle operations for any integer $n$, and show that any biquandle gives a multiple conjugation biquandle with them.' address: - 'Institute of Mathematics, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan' - 'Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saga University, 1 Honjo-machi, Saga-city, Saga, 840-8502, Japan' - 'Department of Mathematics, Osaka City University, Sugimoto, Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka 558-8585, Japan' - 'Osaka City University Advanced Mathematical Institute, Osaka City University, Sugimoto, Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka 558-8585, Japan ' - 'Department of Mathematics, School of Education, Waseda University, Nishi-Waseda 1-6-1, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-8050, Japan' - 'Department of Information and Communication Sciences, Sophia University, 7-1 Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8554, Japan' author: - Atsushi Ishii - Masahide Iwakiri - Seiichi Kamada - Jieon Kim - Shosaku Matsuzaki - Kanako Oshiro title: 'A multiple conjugation biquandle and handlebody-links' --- [^1] Introduction ============ A quandle [@Joyce82; @Matveev82], biquandle [@FennaJordanSantanaKauffman04; @FennRourkeSanderson95; @KauffmanRadford03], and multiple conjugation quandle [@Ishii15MCQ] are algebras having certain universal properties related to topological objects in geometric topology. A quandle is a universal algebra to define an arc coloring invariant for oriented knots, where an arc coloring is a map from the set of arcs of a knot diagram to the algebra. The axioms of a quandle correspond to the Reidemeister moves on oriented knot diagrams. A biquandle is a generalization of a quandle, which is universal with respect to semi-arc colorings, and the axioms of a biquandle correspond to the Reidemeister moves. A handlebody-knot is a handlebody embedded in the $3$-sphere $S^3$, whose diagram is given by a diagram of a spatial trivalent graph which is a spine of the handlebody. A multiple conjugation quandle (MCQ) is a universal symmetric quandle with a partial multiplication to define arc coloring invariants for handlebody-knots, where a partial multiplication is an operation used at trivalent vertices (refer to [@Ishii15MCQ] or Section \[sect:coloring\]). Some axioms of a multiple conjugation quandle are not directly derived from the Reidemeister moves. In general we call conditions on an algebra which are directly derived from the Reidemeister moves primitive conditions. In Section 4 of [@Ishii15MCQ], the first author listed primitive conditions for an arc coloring invariant and proved that the axioms of a multiple conjugation quandle are obtained from the primitive conditions. In this paper, we introduce a multiple conjugation biquandle (MCB) as a universal biquandle with a partial multiplication to define semi-arc coloring invariants for handlebody-knots. We list primitive conditions for a semi-arc coloring invariant and prove that the axioms of a multiple conjugation biquandle are obtained from the primitive conditions (Theorem \[thm:universality\]). From the axioms of an MCB, it is naturally seen that an MCB is a generalization of an MCQ. In [@IshiiNelson16], Nelson and the first author introduced a partially multiplicative biquandle to construct a semi-arc coloring invariant, whose axioms are almost identical to the primitive conditions. Theorem \[thm:universality\] brings out the algebraic structure of a partially multiplicative biquandle. In [@IshiiNelson16], the notions of $G$-family of biquandles and $n$-parallel biquandle operations were introduced for $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$. We refine the axioms of a $G$-family of biquandles as a corollary of Theorem \[thm:universality\], and extend the notion of $n$-parallel biquandle operations for any integer $n$. We also show that, for any biquandle, the $n$-parallel biquandle operations yield a $\mathbb{Z}$-family of biquandles, which gives us a multiple conjugation biquandle. We introduce a $G$-family of (generalized) Alexander biquandles, which also gives us many multiple conjugation biquandles. (Co)homology theory is developed on quandles [@CarterJelsovskyKamadaLangfordSaito03], multiple conjugation quandles [@CarterIshiiSaitoTanaka16], and biquandles [@CarterElhamdadiSaito04; @CenicerosElhamdadiGreenNelson14]. The theory provides quandle cocycle invariants, which give us various information about knots, surface-knots, and handlebody-knots (cf. [@AsamiSatoh05; @CarterElhamdadiSaitoSatoh06; @CarterJelsovskyKamadaLangfordSaito03; @IshiiIwakiriJangOshiro13; @Iwakiri06; @SatohShima04]). (Co)homology theory will be also developed for multiple conjugation biquandles in the consecutive paper [@IshiiIwakiriKamadaKimMatsuzakiOshiroHomology]. This paper is the basis to develop the (co)homology theory for multiple conjugation biquandles. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall the definition of a biquandle, and introduce $n$-parallel biquandle operations, whose well-definedness is given in Section 9. In Section 3, we introduce a multiple conjugation biquandle with two equivalent definitions, and in Section 4, we show that the two definitions are equivalent. In Section 5, we recall the definition of a handlebody-link, and introduce colorings for handlebody-knots. In Section 6, we prove that a multiple conjugation biquandle gives a coloring invariant for handlebody-links. In Sections 7 and 8, we discuss the universality of the algebras used for colorings. In Section 9, we show some properties of $n$-parallel biquandle operations. Biquandles ========== We recall the definition of a biquandle and introduce a conjugation biquandle. A biquandle is a non-empty set $X$ with binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}},{\mathbin{\overline{}}}:X\times X\to X$ satisfying the following axioms. - For any $x\in X$, $x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$. - For any $a\in X$, the map ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}a:X\to X$ sending $x$ to $x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a$ is bijective. - For any $a\in X$, the map ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}a:X\to X$ sending $x$ to $x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a$ is bijective. - The map $S:X\times X\to X\times X$ defined by $S(x,y)=(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x,x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y)$ is bijective. - For any $x,y,z\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} &(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(z{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y)=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}z){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}z), \\ &(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(z{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y)=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}z){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}z), \\ &(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(z{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y)=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}z){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}z).\end{aligned}$$ We remark that $(X,)$ is a quandle if and only if $(X,,{\mathbin{\overline{}}})$ is a biquandle with $x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y=x$. We introduce a conjugation biquandle as an example of a biquandle. Let $G$ be a group with identity element $e$, ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}:G\times G\to G$ a binary operation satisfying the following. - For any $a\in G$, ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}a:G\to G$ is a group homomorphism. - For any $a,b,x\in G$, $x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(ab)=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)$ and $x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}e=x$. Define $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b:=(b^{-1}ab){\mathbin{\overline{}}}b$. Then $(G,{\mathbin{\underline{}}},{\mathbin{\overline{}}})$ is a biquandle. We call it a ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}$-conjugation biquandle, or just call it a conjugation biquandle. It is easy to see that a ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}$-conjugation biquandle satisfies the conditions in Definition \[def:MCB’\]. By Proposition \[prop:two definitions\], we see that a ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}$-conjugation biquandle is a biquandle. In this paper, we often omit brackets. When we omit brackets, we apply binary operations from left on expressions, except for multiplications, which we always apply first. For example, $a_1b_2cd_3(e_4f_5g)$ stands for $((a_1b)_2(cd))_3((e_4f)_5g)$, where $_i$ is a binary operation. We define ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^na:=({\mathbin{\underline{}}}a)^n$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}^na:=({\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)^n$ for $n\in\mathbb{Z}$. Then ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a$ are the inverses of ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}a$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}a$, respectively. We also introduce $n$-parallel biquandle operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]},{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}$ for any integer $n$, which are extensions of the operations introduced in [@IshiiNelson16], where they were defined for $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$. Let $X$ be a biquandle. We define two families of binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]},{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}:X\times X\to X$ ($n\in\mathbb{Z}$) by the equalities $$\begin{aligned} &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[0]}b=a, &&a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[1]}b=a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b, &&a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[i+j]}b=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[i]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[j]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[i]}b), \label{eq:u[n]def} \\ &a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[0]}b=a, &&a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[1]}b=a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b, &&a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[i+j]}b=(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[i]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[j]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[i]}b) \label{eq:o[n]def}\end{aligned}$$ for $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}$. In Section \[sect:parallel\], we see that the binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}$ are well-defined. Since $a=a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[0]}b =(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[1]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b) =(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b)$, we have $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b=a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b)$. Then we have the following by using . $$\begin{aligned} &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[0]}b=a, \hspace{5mm} a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[1]}b=a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b, \hspace{5mm} a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[2]}b=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b), \\ &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[3]}b=((a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)), \\ &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b=a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b), \hspace{5mm} a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-2]}b=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b), \\ &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-3]}b=((a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b)),\end{aligned}$$ where we note that $b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b$ is the unique element satisfying $(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-1]}b)=b$ (see Lemma \[lem:x\x=y\]). We define the type of a biquandle $X$ by $$\operatorname{type}X=\min\{n>0\,\|\,a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b=a=a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}b~(\forall a,b\in X)\}.$$ Any finite biquandle is of finite type [@IshiiNelson16]. For $m,n\in\mathbb{Z}$, if $\operatorname{type}X\mid(m-n)$, then $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[m]}b=a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b$ and $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b=a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}b$, since we have $$\begin{aligned} &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[i+\operatorname{type}X]}b =(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[i]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[\operatorname{type}X]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[i]}b) =a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[i]}b, \\ &a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[i+\operatorname{type}X]}b =(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[i]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[\operatorname{type}X]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[i]}b) =a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[i]}b.\end{aligned}$$ We give examples of biquandles and their $n$-parallel biquandle operations below. Let $G$ be a group, and $X:=G^2$. Fix $m,n\in\mathbb{Z}$. We define $$\begin{aligned} &(a_1,a_2){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b_1,b_2)=(b_1^{-n}a_1b_1^n,b_1^{-n}a_2b_1^n), \\ &(a_1,a_2){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b_1,b_2)=(a_1,b_1^{-n}b_2^{-m}a_2b_2^mb_1^n).\end{aligned}$$ Then $X$ is a biquandle. We have $$\begin{aligned} &(a_1,a_2){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[k]}(b_1,b_2)=(b_1^{-kn}a_1b_1^{kn},b_1^{-kn}a_2b_1^{kn}), \\ &(a_1,a_2){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}(b_1,b_2)=(a_1,b_1^{-kn}b_2^{-km}a_2b_2^{km}b_1^{kn}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $X$ be an $R[s^{\pm1},t^{\pm1}]$-module, where $R$ is a commutative ring. We define $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b=ta+(s-t)b$, $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b=sa$. Then $X$ is a biquandle, which we call an Alexander biquandle. We have $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b=t^na+(s^n-t^n)b$ and $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}b=s^na$. A group with the binary operations given in each of the following cases is a biquandle. - $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b=a^{-1}$, $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b=a^{-1}$. - $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b=b^{-1}ab^{-1}$, $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b=a^{-1}$. - $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b=b^{-2}a$, $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b=b^{-1}a^{-1}b$. We have $$\begin{aligned} &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b=\begin{cases} a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b & \text{if $n$ is odd,} \\ a & \text{if $n$ is even,} \end{cases} &&a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}b=\begin{cases} a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b & \text{if $n$ is odd,} \\ a & \text{if $n$ is even} \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ for each case. Let $R:=\{a+bi+cj+dk\in\mathbb{H}\,\|\,a,b,c,d\in\mathbb{Z}\}$, where $\mathbb{H}$ is the ring of quaternions with $i^2=j^2=k^2=ijk=-1$. Let $X$ be an $R$-module. We define $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b=-ja+(j+k)b$, $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b=ja+(k-j)b$. Then $X$ is a biquandle. We have $$\begin{aligned} &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b=\begin{cases} a & \text{if $n=4m$,} \\ -ja+(j+k)b & \text{if $n=4m+1$,} \\ -a & \text{if $n=4m+2$,} \\ ja-(j+k)b & \text{if $n=4m+3$,} \end{cases} \\ &a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}b=\begin{cases} a & \text{if $n=4m$,} \\ ja+(k-j)b & \text{if $n=4m+1$,} \\ -a & \text{if $n=4m+2$,} \\ -ja-(k-j)b & \text{if $n=4m+3$.} \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ We end this section with a lemma. \[lem:x\x=y\] Let $X$ be a biquandle. - For $x,y\in X$, if $x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y=y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$, then $x=y$. - For any $a\in X$, there exists a unique element $\alpha\in X$ such that $\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha=\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha=a$. <!-- --> - We have $x=y$ from $$\begin{aligned} &x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x \overset{\rm(B1)}{=}x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x =(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) \\ &\overset{\rm(B3)}{=} (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) =(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) =y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x.\end{aligned}$$ - By axiom (B2), there exists a unique pair $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\in X$ such that $(\alpha_2{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha_1,\alpha_1{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha_2)=(a,a)$. Since $\alpha_1{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha_2=\alpha_2{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha_1$ implies $\alpha_1=\alpha_2$, we put $\alpha:=\alpha_1=\alpha_2$. Then $\alpha$ is a unique element satisfying $\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha=\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha=a$. A multiple conjugation biquandle (MCB) ====================================== In this section, we introduce the notion of a multiple conjugation biquandle (MCB). We give two equivalent definitions for the multiple conjugation biquandle. The first one is useful to study coloring invariants, and the second one is useful to check that a given algebra is a multiple conjugation biquandle. In the next section, we see that these two definitions are equivalent. Let $X$ be the disjoint union of groups $G_\lambda$ ($\lambda\in\Lambda$). We denote by $G_a$ the group $G_\lambda$ to which $a\in X$ belongs. We denote by $e_\lambda$ the identity of $G_\lambda$. We also denote it by $e_a$ if $a\in G_\lambda$. The identity of $G_a$ is the element $e_a$. \[def:MCB\] A multiple conjugation biquandle* is a biquandle $(X,{\mathbin{\underline{}}},{\mathbin{\overline{}}})$ which is the disjoint union of groups $G_\lambda$ ($\lambda\in\Lambda$) satisfying the following axioms. - For any $a,x\in X$, ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$ are group homomorphisms. - For any $a,b\in G_\lambda$ and $x\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}ab=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a), \label{eq:xu(ab)} \\ &x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ab=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a), \label{eq:xo(ab)} \\ &a^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a=ba^{-1}{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a. \label{eq:R14}\end{aligned}$$ \[def:MCB’\] A multiple conjugation biquandle $X$ is the disjoint union of groups $G_\lambda$ ($\lambda\in\Lambda$) with binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}},{\mathbin{\overline{}}}:X\times X\to X$ satisfying the following axioms. - For any $x,y,z\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} &(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(z{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y)=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}z){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}z), \label{eq:R3-1'} \\ &(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(z{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y)=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}z){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}z), \label{eq:R3-2'} \\ &(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(z{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y)=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}z){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}z). \label{eq:R3-3'}\end{aligned}$$ - For any $a,x\in X$, ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$ are group homomorphisms. - For any $a,b\in G_\lambda$ and $x\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}ab=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a), \hspace{1em}x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}e_\lambda=x, \label{eq:xu(ab)'} \\ &x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ab=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a), \hspace{1em}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}e_\lambda=x, \label{eq:xo(ab)'} \\ &a^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a=ba^{-1}{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a. \label{eq:R14'}\end{aligned}$$ We remark that a multiple conjugation biquandle consisting of one group is a conjugation biquandle. A $G$-family of biquandles yields a multiple conjugation biquandle. We recall the definition of a $G$-family of biquandles below, where the bijectivity in its original axioms in [@IshiiNelson16] is replaced with $x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^ey=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^ey=x$. This refinement is induced from the equivalence of the two definitions of a multiple conjugation biquandle. For details on a $G$-family of biquandles, we refer the reader to [@IshiiNelson16]. Let $G$ be a group with identity element $e$. A $G$-family of biquandles is a non-empty set $X$ with two families of binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^g,{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^g:X\times X\to X$ ($g\in G$) satisfying the following axioms. - For any $x,y,z\in X$ and $g,h\in G$, $$\begin{aligned} &(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^h(z{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy) =(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{h^{-1}gh}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz), \\ &(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^h(z{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy) =(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{h^{-1}gh}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz), \\ &(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^h(z{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy) =(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^hz){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{h^{-1}gh}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz).\end{aligned}$$ - For any $x,y\in X$ and $g,h\in G$, $$\begin{aligned} &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{gh}y=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^h(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gy), \hspace{1em}x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^ey=x, \\ &x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{gh}y=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^h(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy), \hspace{1em}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^ey=x, \\ &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gx=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gx.\end{aligned}$$ Let $(X,({\mathbin{\underline{}}}^g)_{g\in G},({\mathbin{\overline{}}}^g)_{g\in G})$ be a $G$-family of biquandles. Then $X\times G=\bigsqcup_{x\in X}\{x\}\times G$ is a multiple conjugation biquandle with the binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}},{\mathbin{\overline{}}}:(X\times G)\times(X\times G)\to X\times G$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} &(x,g){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y,h)=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hy,h^{-1}gh), &&(x,g){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y,h)=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^hy,g).\end{aligned}$$ We call this multiple conjugation biquandle the associated multiple conjugation biquandle. A biquandle turns into a $G$-family of biquandles with parallel biquandle operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]},{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}$ (see Proposition \[prop:Z-family\]). Therefore we can construct a multiple conjugation biquandle from any biquandle. We introduce a $G$-family of (generalized) Alexander biquandles in the following proposition. Let $G$ be a group with identity $e$, and let $\varphi:G\to Z(G)$ be a homomorphism, where $Z(G)$ is the center of $G$. - Let $X$ be a group with a right action of $G$. We denote by $x^g$ the result of $g$ acting on $x$. We define binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^g,{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^g:X\times X\to X$ by $x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gy=(xy^{-1})^gy^{\varphi(g)}$, $x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy=x^{\varphi(g)}$. Then $X$ is a $G$-family of biquandles, which we call a $G$-family of generalized Alexander biquandles. - Let $R$ be a ring, $X$ a right $R[G]$-module, where $R[G]$ is the group ring of $G$ over $R$. We define binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^g,{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^g:X\times X\to X$ by $x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gy=xg+y(\varphi(g)-g)$, $x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy=x\varphi(g)$. Then $X$ is a $G$-family of biquandles, which we call a $G$-family of Alexander biquandles. It is sufficient to show (1), since (2) follows from (1) with an abelian group $X$. For any $x,y,z\in X$ and $g,h\in G$, we have $$\begin{aligned} (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^h(z{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy) &=x^{gh}y^{-gh}y^{\varphi(g)h}z^{-\varphi(g)h}z^{\varphi(g)\varphi(h)} \\ &=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{h^{-1}gh}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz), \\ (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^h(z{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy) &=x^{\varphi(g)h}z^{-\varphi(g)h}z^{\varphi(g)\varphi(h)} =(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{h^{-1}gh}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz), \\ (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^h(z{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy) &=x^{\varphi(g)\varphi(h)} =(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^hz){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{h^{-1}gh}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^hz)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{gh}y =(xy^{-1})^{gh}y^{\varphi(g)\varphi(h)} =(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^h(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gy), &&x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^ey=x, \\ &x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{gh}y =x^{\varphi(g)\varphi(h)} =(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^h(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gy), &&x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^ey=x, \\ &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^gx=x^{\varphi(g)}=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^gx,\end{aligned}$$ where $x^{-g}$ denotes $(x^g)^{-1}$, which coincides with $(x^{-1})^g$. The two definitions are equivalent ================================== In this section, we see that the two definitions of a multiple conjugation biquandle introduced in the previous section are equivalent. \[lem:x\e=x\] Let $X=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda$ be a multiple conjugation biquandle in the sense of Definition \[def:MCB\]. - For any $x\in X$ and $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $$\begin{aligned} &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}e_\lambda=x, &&x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}e_\lambda=x. \label{eq:xe}\end{aligned}$$ - For any $a,x\in X$, ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$ are bijections. Furthermore, ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x={\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)$, ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}x={\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)$. - For any $b\in X$, the map $f:G_b\to G_{b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b}$ which sends $x$ to $x^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$ is bijective. Furthermore, its inverse $f^{-1}:G_{b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b}\to G_b$ is given by $f^{-1}(x)=b(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b)$. <!-- --> - Let $\alpha\in X$ be the unique element satisfying $\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha=\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha=e_\lambda$. Then $$\begin{aligned} &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}e_\lambda =x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}e_{\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha} =((x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}\alpha){\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(e_\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha) \overset{\eqref{eq:xu(ab)}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}\alpha){\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha e_\alpha =x, \\ &x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}e_\lambda =x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}e_{\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha} =((x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}\alpha){\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(e_\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha) \overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}\alpha){\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha e_\alpha =x.\end{aligned}$$ - Since the maps ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:X\to X$, ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:X\to X$ are bijective, it is sufficient to show that $$b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x\in G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x} \Leftrightarrow b\in G_a \Leftrightarrow b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x\in G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}.$$ We have $b\in G_a\Rightarrow b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x\in G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and $b\in G_a\Rightarrow b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x\in G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$ by the well-definedness of the maps ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$, respectively. We have $b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x\in G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}\Rightarrow b\in G_a$ and $b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x\in G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}\Rightarrow b\in G_a$ by the equalities $$\begin{aligned} &(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)=a =(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x), \\ &(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)=b =(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x),\end{aligned}$$ which follow from $$\begin{aligned} &(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) \overset{\eqref{eq:xu(ab)}}{=}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}xx^{-1} =y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}e_x \overset{\eqref{eq:xe}}{=}y, \\ &(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) \overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=}y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}xx^{-1} =y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}e_x \overset{\eqref{eq:xe}}{=}y\end{aligned}$$ for any $y\in X$. - Let $g:G_{b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b}\to G_b$ be the map defined by $g(x)=b(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b)$, which is well-defined, since $$(e_b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(e_b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b =(e_b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(e_b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b \overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=}e_b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b =e_b\in G_b.$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned} (g\circ f)(x) &=b((x^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b) \\ &=b((b^{-1}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=}b(b^{-1}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b) =x, \\ (f\circ g)(x) &=(b(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b))^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b)) \\ &=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=} ((x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \\ &=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) \overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}e_x \overset{\eqref{eq:xe}}{=}x.\end{aligned}$$ \[prop:two definitions\] Let $X$ be the disjoint union of groups $G_\lambda$ ($\lambda\in\Lambda$) with binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}},{\mathbin{\overline{}}}:X\times X\to X$. Then $X$ is an MCB in the sense of Definition \[def:MCB\] if and only if $X$ is an MCB in the sense of Definition \[def:MCB’\]. By Lemma \[lem:x\e=x\], it is sufficient to show the “if” part. For any $x\in X$, we have $$\begin{aligned} x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x=x^2x^{-1}{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x \overset{\eqref{eq:R14'}}{=}x^{-1}x^2{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x. \label{eq:R1'}\end{aligned}$$ The map ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a):X\to X$ is the inverse of ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}a:X\to X$, since we have $$\begin{aligned} (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a) \overset{\eqref{eq:xu(ab)'}}{=}x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}aa^{-1}=x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}e_a \overset{\eqref{eq:xu(ab)'}}{=}x, \label{eq:xuaaa=x}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}a &\overset{\eqref{eq:xuaaa=x}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3-1'}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R1'}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:xuaaa=x}}{=}x.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the map ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}a:X\to X$ is bijective. The map ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a):X\to X$ is the inverse of ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}a:X\to X$, since we have $$\begin{aligned} (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a) \overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)'}}{=}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}aa^{-1}=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}e_a \overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)'}}{=}x, \label{eq:xoaaa=x}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}a &\overset{\eqref{eq:xuaaa=x}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3-3'}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((a^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R1'}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:xoaaa=x}}{=}x.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the map ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}a:X\to X$ is bijective. We show that the map $S:X\times X\to X\times X$ defined by $S(x,y)=(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x,x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y)$ is the bijection whose inverse $T:X\times X\to X\times X$ is given by $$T(x,y)=(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)^{-1},x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x)^{-1}),$$ where we note that $$\begin{aligned} y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)^{-1} &=((y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y) \\ &=((y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3-2'}}{=} ((y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((y^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)) \\ &=((y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((y^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x) \\ &=(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x)^{-1} \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R1'}}{=} (y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x)^{-1} &\overset{\eqref{eq:R1'}}{=}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x)^{-1} \\ &=((x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((y^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x) \\ &=((x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((y^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3-2'}}{=} ((x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y)) \\ &=((x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y) \\ &=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)^{-1} \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R1'}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $T\circ S=\mathrm{id}_{X\times X}$ and $S\circ T=\mathrm{id}_{X\times X}$ follow from $$\begin{aligned} &(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y))^{-1} \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3-3'}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y))^{-1} \\ &=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y)^{-1} =(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y) \overset{\eqref{eq:xuaaa=x}}{=}x, \\ &(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x))^{-1} \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3-1'}}{=} (y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x))^{-1} \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R1'}}{=}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)^{-1} =(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) \overset{\eqref{eq:xoaaa=x}}{=}y\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} &(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x)^{-1}){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)^{-1}) \\ &=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x)^{-1}){\mathbin{\overline{}}}((y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x)^{-1}) \overset{\eqref{eq:xoaaa=x}}{=}x, \\ &(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)^{-1}){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x)^{-1}) \\ &=(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)^{-1}){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)^{-1}) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3-1'}}{=} (y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}((x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)^{-1}{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}y)) \overset{\eqref{eq:xuaaa=x}}{=}y,\end{aligned}$$ respectively. This completes the proof. MCB colorings for handlebody-links {#sect:coloring} ================================== In this section we recall a diagrammatic presentation of a handlebody-link and consider its colorings using a multiple conjugation biquandle. A handlebody-link* is the disjoint union of handlebodies embedded in the $3$-sphere $S^3$. In this paper, we assume that every component of a handlebody-link is of genus at least $1$. An $S^1$-orientation of a handlebody-link is a collection of $S^1$-orientations of all genus-$1$ components, that are solid tori, of the handlebody-link. Here an $S^1$-orientation of a solid torus means an orientation of its core $S^1$. Two $S^1$-oriented handlebody-links are equivalent if there is an orientation-preserving self-homeomorphism of $S^3$ which sends one to the other preserving the $S^1$-orientation. A Y-orientation of a trivalent graph $G$, whose vertices are of valency $3$, is a direction of all edges of $G$ satisfying that every vertex of $G$ is both the initial vertex of a directed edge and the terminal vertex of a directed edge (See Figure \[fig:Y-orientations\]). In this paper, a trivalent graph may have a circle component, which has no vertices. (50,40) (20,20)[(0,-1)[20]{}]{} (0,40)[(1,-1)[20]{}]{} (40,40)[(-1,-1)[20]{}]{} (50,40) (20,40)[(0,-1)[20]{}]{} (20,20)[(-1,-1)[20]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,-1)[20]{}]{} A finite graph embedded in $S^3$ is called a spatial graph. For a Y-oriented spatial trivalent graph $K$ and an $S^1$-oriented handlebody-link $H$, we say that $K$ represents $H$ if $H$ is a regular neighborhood of $K$ and the $S^1$-orientation of $H$ agrees with the Y-orientation. Then any $S^1$-oriented handlebody-link can be represented by some Y-oriented spatial trivalent graph. The following theorem plays a fundamental role in constructing $S^1$-oriented handlebody-link invariants. \[thm:ReidemeisterMoves\] For a diagram $D_i$ of a Y-oriented spatial trivalent graph $K_i$ $(i=1,2)$, $K_1$ and $K_2$ represent an equivalent $S^1$-oriented handlebody-link if and only if $D_1$ and $D_2$ are related by a finite sequence of R1–R6 moves depicted in Figure \[fig:ReidemeisterMoves\] preserving Y-orientations. (24,48) (0,0)(0,12)(6,24) (6,24)(12,36)(18,36) (18,12)(12,12)(7.5,21) (4.5,27)(0,36)(0,48) (18,12)(24,12)(24,24) (18,36)(24,36)(24,24) $\overset{\text{R1}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (0,48) (0,0)(0,24)(0,48) $\overset{\text{R1}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (24,48) (0,48)(0,36)(6,24) (6,24)(12,12)(18,12) (18,36)(12,36)(7.5,27) (4.5,21)(0,12)(0,0) (18,12)(24,12)(24,24) (18,36)(24,36)(24,24) (24,48) (0,24)(0,30)(12,36) (12,36)(24,42)(24,48) (24,24)(24,30)(15,34.5) (9,37.5)(0,42)(0,48) (24,0)(24,6)(12,12) (12,12)(0,18)(0,24) (0,0)(0,6)(9,10.5) (15,13.5)(24,18)(24,24) $\overset{\text{R2}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (24,48) (0,0)(0,24)(0,48) (24,0)(24,24)(24,48) (32,48) (0,32)(0,36)(8,40) (8,40)(16,44)(16,48) (16,32)(16,36)(10,39) (6,41)(0,44)(0,48) (32,32)(32,40)(32,48) (16,16)(16,20)(24,24) (24,24)(32,28)(32,32) (32,16)(32,20)(26,23) (22,25)(16,28)(16,32) (0,16)(0,24)(0,32) (0,0)(0,4)(8,8) (8,8)(16,12)(16,16) (16,0)(16,4)(10,7) (6,9)(0,12)(0,16) (32,0)(32,8)(32,16) $\overset{\text{R3}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (32,48) (16,32)(16,36)(24,40) (24,40)(32,44)(32,48) (32,32)(32,36)(26,39) (22,41)(16,44)(16,48) (0,32)(0,40)(0,48) (0,16)(0,20)(8,24) (8,24)(16,28)(16,32) (16,16)(16,20)(10,23) (6,25)(0,28)(0,32) (32,16)(32,24)(32,32) (16,0)(16,4)(24,8) (24,8)(32,12)(32,16) (32,0)(32,4)(26,7) (22,9)(16,12)(16,16) (0,0)(0,8)(0,16) \ (24,48) (0,24)(0,30)(12,36) (12,36)(24,42)(24,48) (24,24)(24,30)(15,34.5) (9,37.5)(0,42)(0,48) (12,12)(12,6)(12,0) (12,12)(0,18)(0,24) (12,12)(24,18)(24,24) $\overset{\text{R4}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (24,48) (0,48)(0,36)(0,24) (24,48)(24,36)(24,24) (12,12)(12,6)(12,0) (12,12)(0,18)(0,24) (12,12)(24,18)(24,24) $\overset{\text{R4}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (24,48) (24,24)(24,30)(12,36) (12,36)(0,42)(0,48) (0,24)(0,30)(9,34.5) (15,37.5)(24,42)(24,48) (12,12)(12,6)(12,0) (12,12)(0,18)(0,24) (12,12)(24,18)(24,24) (24,48) (0,24)(0,32)(10,40)(14,43)(19,46)(24,48) (0,24)(5,24)(10,24)(14,24)(19,24)(24,24) (0,24)(0,16)(10,8)(14,5)(19,2)(24,0) (12,0)(12,24)(12,48) $\overset{\text{R5}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (24,48) (8,24)(8,36)(24,48) (8,24)(16,24)(24,24) (8,24)(8,12)(24,0) (0,0)(0,24)(0,48) $\overset{\text{R5}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (24,48) (0,24)(0,36)(24,48) (0,24)(12,24)(24,24) (0,24)(0,12)(24,0) (12,0)(12,2)(12,4) (12,10)(12,16)(12,22) (12,26)(12,32)(12,38) (12,44)(12,46)(12,48) (24,48) (0,48)(6,42)(12,36) (24,48)(18,42)(12,36) (12,12)(12,24)(12,36) (0,0)(6,6)(12,12) (24,0)(18,6)(12,12) $\overset{\text{R6}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (24,48) (0,48)(3,36)(6,24) (24,48)(21,36)(18,24) (6,24)(12,24)(18,24) (0,0)(3,12)(6,24) (24,0)(21,12)(18,24) For a diagram $D$ of a Y-oriented spatial trivalent graph, we denote by $\mathcal{SA}(D)$ the set of semi-arcs of $D$, where a semi-arc is a piece of a curve each of whose endpoints is a crossing or a vertex. \[def:coloring\] Let $X=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda$ be a multiple conjugation biquandle. We define $a\triangle b:=b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b$ for $a,b\in G_\lambda$. Let $D$ be a diagram of an $S^1$-oriented handlebody-link $H$. An $X$-coloring* of $D$ is a map $C:\mathcal{SA}(D)\to X$ satisfying (65,40)(-5,0) (40,40)[(-1,-1)[40]{}]{} (0,40)[(1,-1)[18]{}]{} (22,18)[(1,-1)[18]{}]{} (5,35)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (5,5)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,35)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,5)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (-3,40)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} (-3,0)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} (43,40)[(0,0)\[l\][$b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a$]{}]{} (43,0)[(0,0)\[l\][$a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b$]{}]{} (65,40)(-5,0) (0,40)[(1,-1)[40]{}]{} (40,40)[(-1,-1)[18]{}]{} (18,18)[(-1,-1)[18]{}]{} (5,35)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (5,5)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,35)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,5)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (-3,40)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} (-3,0)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} (43,40)[(0,0)\[l\][$b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a$]{}]{} (43,0)[(0,0)\[l\][$a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b$]{}]{} at each crossing, and (50,40)(-5,0) (20,20)[(0,-1)[20]{}]{} (0,40)[(1,-1)[20]{}]{} (40,40)[(-1,-1)[20]{}]{} (21,10)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (5,35)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (35,35)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (-3,40)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} (43,40)[(0,0)\[l\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (23,0)[(0,0)\[l\][$a$]{}]{} (50,40)(-5,0) (20,40)[(0,-1)[20]{}]{} (20,20)[(-1,-1)[20]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,-1)[20]{}]{} (21,30)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (5,5)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,5)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (23,40)[(0,0)\[l\][$a$]{}]{} (-3,0)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} (43,0)[(0,0)\[l\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} at each vertex, where the normal orientation is obtained by rotating the usual orientation counterclockwise by $\pi/2$ on the diagram. We denote by $\operatorname{Col}_X(D)$ the set of $X$-colorings of $D$. \[thm:coloring\] Let $X=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda$ be a multiple conjugation biquandle. Let $D$ be a diagram of an $S^1$-oriented handlebody-link $H$. Let $D'$ be a diagram obtained by applying one of the Y-oriented R1–R6 moves to the diagram $D$ once. For an $X$-coloring $C$ of $D$, there is a unique $X$-coloring $C'$ of $D'$ which coincides with $C$ except the place where the move is applied. We prove this theorem in the next section. Here we introduce the primitive conditions for the proof and the universality discussed in Section \[sect:universality\]. Let $X$ be a biquandle, $\triangle:P\to X$ a map, where $P$ is a subset of $X\times X$. We write $a\sim b$ if $(a,b)\in P$. We define an $(X,P,\triangle)$-coloring to be a map $C:\mathcal{SA}(D)\to X$ satisfying the conditions as crossings and vertices as in Definition \[def:coloring\]. The following conditions –, which we call the primitive conditions, are the conditions on $(X,P,\triangle)$ from that we obtain a one-to-one correspondence of $(X,P,\triangle)$-colorings on the Reidemeister moves R4–R6 (see Figure \[fig:coloredReidemeisterMove\], where all arcs are directed from top to bottom, except for the Reidemeister moves R4). (R4) For any $a,b,x\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} a\sim b,x=a\triangle b &\Leftrightarrow a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b\sim x,(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)\triangle x=b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a, \label{eq:R4-1,primitive} \\ a\sim b,x=a\triangle b &\Leftrightarrow a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b\sim x,(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)\triangle x=b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a. \label{eq:R4-2,primitive}\end{aligned}$$ (R5) For any $a,b,x\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} a\sim b &\Leftrightarrow a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x\sim b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x \nonumber \\ &\Rightarrow (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a\triangle b)=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a, (a\triangle b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x), \label{eq:R5-1,primitive} \\ a\sim b &\Leftrightarrow a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x\sim b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x \nonumber \\ &\Rightarrow (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a\triangle b)=x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a, (a\triangle b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)=(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x). \label{eq:R5-2,primitive}\end{aligned}$$ (R6) For any $a,b,c,x\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} &a\sim b,b\sim c,x=b\triangle c \Rightarrow a\sim c,a\triangle c\sim x, (a\triangle c)\triangle x=a\triangle b, \label{eq:R6-1,primitive} \\ &\exists!b\in X\text{ s.t.~}a\sim b,b\sim c, x=b\triangle c,(a\triangle c)\triangle x=a\triangle b \Leftarrow a\sim c,a\triangle c\sim x, \label{eq:R6-2,primitive} \\ &a\sim b,a\sim c,x=a\triangle c \Rightarrow b\sim c,x\sim b\triangle c, x\triangle(b\triangle c)=a\triangle b, \label{eq:R6-3,primitive} \\ &\exists!a\in X\text{ s.t.~}a\sim b,a\sim c, x=a\triangle c,x\triangle(b\triangle c)=a\triangle b \Leftarrow b\sim c,x\sim b\triangle c. \label{eq:R6-4,primitive}\end{aligned}$$ (24,72)(-6,-12) (0,24)(0,30)(12,36) (12,36)(24,42)(24,48) (24,24)(24,30)(15,34.5) (9,37.5)(0,42)(0,48) (12,12)(12,6)(12,0) (12,12)(0,18)(0,24) (12,12)(24,18)(24,24) (2,43)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (22,43)[(0,0)[$\nwarrow$]{}]{} (13,5)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b$]{}]{} (24,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a$]{}]{} (12,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (-3,24)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} (27,24)[(0,0)\[l\][$a$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R4}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (24,72)(0,-12) (0,48)(0,36)(0,24) (24,48)(24,36)(24,24) (12,12)(12,6)(12,0) (12,12)(0,18)(0,24) (12,12)(24,18)(24,24) (1,43)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (23,43)[(0,0)[$\leftarrow$]{}]{} (13,5)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b$]{}]{} (24,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a$]{}]{} (12,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (24,72)(-6,-12) (12,36)(12,42)(12,48) (12,36)(0,33)(0,24) (12,36)(24,33)(24,24) (0,0)(0,6)(12,12) (12,12)(24,18)(24,24) (24,0)(24,6)(15,10.5) (9,13.5)(0,18)(0,24) (13,43)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (2,5)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (22,5)[(0,0)[$\swarrow$]{}]{} (12,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b$]{}]{} (24,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a$]{}]{} (-3,24)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} (27,24)[(0,0)\[l\][$a$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R4}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (24,72)(0,-12) (12,36)(12,42)(12,48) (12,36)(0,30)(0,24) (12,36)(24,30)(24,24) (0,24)(0,12)(0,0) (24,24)(24,12)(24,0) (13,43)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (1,5)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (23,5)[(0,0)[$\leftarrow$]{}]{} (12,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b$]{}]{} (24,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a$]{}]{} (32,72)(0,-12) (0,40)(0,44)(0,48) (16,40)(16,44)(16,48) (8,32)(8,28)(8,24) (8,32)(0,36)(0,40) (8,32)(16,36)(16,40) (32,24)(32,36)(32,48) (8,0)(8,6)(20,12) (20,12)(32,18)(32,24) (32,0)(32,6)(23,10.5) (17,13.5)(8,18)(8,24) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$b$]{}]{} (16,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (30,51)[(0,0)\[bl\][$x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a$]{}]{} (8,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (32,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x$]{}]{} (5,24)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R5}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (32,72)(0,-12) (16,32)(16,36)(24,40) (24,40)(32,44)(32,48) (32,32)(32,36)(26,39) (22,41)(16,44)(16,48) (0,32)(0,40)(0,48) (0,16)(0,20)(8,24) (8,24)(16,28)(16,32) (16,16)(16,20)(10,23) (6,25)(0,28)(0,32) (32,16)(32,24)(32,32) (24,8)(24,4)(24,0) (24,8)(16,12)(16,16) (24,8)(32,12)(32,16) (0,0)(0,8)(0,16) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$b$]{}]{} (16,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (30,51)[(0,0)\[bl\][$(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a\triangle b)$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (24,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x$]{}]{} (10,32)[(0,0)\[l\][$x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b$]{}]{} (10,16)[(0,0)\[l\][$b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x$]{}]{} (35,32)[(0,0)\[l\][$(a\triangle b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)$]{}]{} (35,16)[(0,0)\[l\][$(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)$]{}]{} (32,72)(0,-12) (8,24)(8,30)(20,36) (20,36)(32,42)(32,48) (32,24)(32,30)(23,34.5) (17,37.5)(8,42)(8,48) (8,16)(8,20)(8,24) (8,16)(0,12)(0,8) (8,16)(16,12)(16,8) (0,0)(0,4)(0,8) (16,0)(16,4)(16,8) (32,0)(32,12)(32,24) (8,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (32,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$b$]{}]{} (16,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (30,-3)[(0,0)\[tl\][$x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a$]{}]{} (5,24)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R5}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (32,72)(0,-12) (24,40)(24,44)(24,48) (24,40)(16,36)(16,32) (24,40)(32,36)(32,32) (0,32)(0,40)(0,48) (0,16)(0,20)(8,24) (8,24)(16,28)(16,32) (16,16)(16,20)(10,23) (6,25)(0,28)(0,32) (32,16)(32,24)(32,32) (16,0)(16,4)(24,8) (24,8)(32,12)(32,16) (32,0)(32,4)(26,7) (22,9)(16,12)(16,16) (0,0)(0,8)(0,16) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (24,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$b$]{}]{} (16,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (30,-3)[(0,0)\[tl\][$(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a\triangle b)$]{}]{} (10,32)[(0,0)\[l\][$b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$]{}]{} (10,16)[(0,0)\[l\][$x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b$]{}]{} (35,32)[(0,0)\[l\][$(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)$]{}]{} (35,16)[(0,0)\[l\][$(a\triangle b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)$]{}]{} (32,72)(0,-12) (0,40)(0,44)(0,48) (16,40)(16,44)(16,48) (8,32)(8,28)(8,24) (8,32)(0,36)(0,40) (8,32)(16,36)(16,40) (32,24)(32,36)(32,48) (32,0)(32,6)(20,12) (20,12)(8,18)(8,24) (8,0)(8,6)(17,10.5) (23,13.5)(32,18)(32,24) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$b$]{}]{} (16,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (30,51)[(0,0)\[bl\][$x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a$]{}]{} (8,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (32,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$]{}]{} (5,24)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R5}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (32,72)(0,-12) (32,32)(32,36)(24,40) (24,40)(16,44)(16,48) (16,32)(16,36)(22,39) (26,41)(32,44)(32,48) (0,32)(0,40)(0,48) (16,16)(16,20)(8,24) (8,24)(0,28)(0,32) (0,16)(0,20)(6,23) (10,25)(16,28)(16,32) (32,16)(32,24)(32,32) (24,8)(24,4)(24,0) (24,8)(16,12)(16,16) (24,8)(32,12)(32,16) (0,0)(0,8)(0,16) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$b$]{}]{} (16,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (30,51)[(0,0)\[bl\][$(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a\triangle b)$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (24,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$]{}]{} (10,32)[(0,0)\[l\][$x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b$]{}]{} (10,16)[(0,0)\[l\][$b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$]{}]{} (35,32)[(0,0)\[l\][$(a\triangle b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)$]{}]{} (35,16)[(0,0)\[l\][$(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)$]{}]{} (32,72)(0,-12) (32,24)(32,30)(20,36) (20,36)(8,42)(8,48) (8,24)(8,30)(17,34.5) (23,37.5)(32,42)(32,48) (8,16)(8,20)(8,24) (8,16)(0,12)(0,8) (8,16)(16,12)(16,8) (0,0)(0,4)(0,8) (16,0)(16,4)(16,8) (32,0)(32,12)(32,24) (8,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (32,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$b$]{}]{} (16,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (30,-3)[(0,0)\[tl\][$x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a$]{}]{} (5,24)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R5}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (32,72)(0,-12) (24,40)(24,44)(24,48) (24,40)(16,36)(16,32) (24,40)(32,36)(32,32) (0,32)(0,40)(0,48) (16,16)(16,20)(8,24) (8,24)(0,28)(0,32) (0,16)(0,20)(6,23) (10,25)(16,28)(16,32) (32,16)(32,24)(32,32) (32,0)(32,4)(24,8) (24,8)(16,12)(16,16) (16,0)(16,4)(22,7) (26,9)(32,12)(32,16) (0,0)(0,8)(0,16) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (24,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$b$]{}]{} (16,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (30,-3)[(0,0)\[tl\][$(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a\triangle b)$]{}]{} (10,32)[(0,0)\[l\][$b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x$]{}]{} (10,16)[(0,0)\[l\][$x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b$]{}]{} (35,32)[(0,0)\[l\][$(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)$]{}]{} (35,16)[(0,0)\[l\][$(a\triangle b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)$]{}]{} (32,72)(0,-12) (0,40)(0,44)(0,48) (16,40)(16,44)(16,48) (8,32)(8,28)(8,24) (8,32)(0,36)(0,40) (8,32)(16,36)(16,40) (32,24)(32,36)(32,48) (20,12)(20,6)(20,0) (20,12)(8,18)(8,24) (20,12)(32,18)(32,24) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$c$]{}]{} (16,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (32,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (20,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a$]{}]{} (5,24)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R6}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (32,72)(0,-12) (16,40)(16,44)(16,48) (32,40)(32,44)(32,48) (24,32)(24,28)(24,24) (24,32)(16,36)(16,40) (24,32)(32,36)(32,40) (0,24)(0,36)(0,48) (12,12)(12,6)(12,0) (12,12)(0,18)(0,24) (12,12)(24,18)(24,24) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$c$]{}]{} (16,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (25,51)[(0,0)\[bl\][$(a\triangle c)\triangle x$]{}]{} (12,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a$]{}]{} (27,24)[(0,0)\[l\][$a\triangle c$]{}]{} (32,72)(0,-12) (20,36)(20,42)(20,48) (20,36)(8,30)(8,24) (20,36)(32,30)(32,24) (32,0)(32,12)(32,24) (8,16)(8,20)(8,24) (8,16)(0,12)(0,8) (8,16)(16,12)(16,8) (0,0)(0,4)(0,8) (16,0)(16,4)(16,8) (20,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$c$]{}]{} (16,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (32,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (5,24)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R6}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (32,72)(0,-12) (12,36)(12,42)(12,48) (12,36)(0,30)(0,24) (12,36)(24,30)(24,24) (0,0)(0,12)(0,24) (24,16)(24,20)(24,24) (24,16)(16,12)(16,8) (24,16)(32,12)(32,8) (16,0)(16,4)(16,8) (32,0)(32,4)(32,8) (12,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$c$]{}]{} (16,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (25,-3)[(0,0)\[tl\][$(a\triangle c)\triangle x$]{}]{} (27,24)[(0,0)\[l\][$a\triangle c$]{}]{} (24,72)(0,-12) (12,32)(12,28)(12,24) (12,32)(0,40)(0,48) (12,32)(24,40)(24,48) (12,16)(12,20)(12,24) (12,16)(0,8)(0,0) (12,16)(24,8)(24,0) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$b$]{}]{} (24,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$c$]{}]{} (24,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (15,24)[(0,0)\[l\][$a$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R6}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (32,72)(0,-12) (8,36)(8,42)(8,48) (8,36)(0,32)(0,28) (8,36)(16,32)(16,28) (0,0)(0,14)(0,28) (16,20)(16,24)(16,28) (32,20)(32,34)(32,48) (24,12)(24,6)(24,0) (24,12)(16,16)(16,20) (24,12)(32,16)(32,20) (8,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$b$]{}]{} (22,51)[(0,0)\[bl\][$x\triangle(b\triangle c)$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$c$]{}]{} (24,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$x$]{}]{} (11,24)[(0,0)\[l\][$b\triangle c$]{}]{} (24,72)(0,-12) (12,32)(12,28)(12,24) (12,32)(0,40)(0,48) (12,32)(24,40)(24,48) (12,16)(12,20)(12,24) (12,16)(0,8)(0,0) (12,16)(24,8)(24,0) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$c$]{}]{} (24,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$b$]{}]{} (24,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$a\triangle b$]{}]{} (15,24)[(0,0)\[l\][$a$]{}]{} $\overset{\text{R6}}{\leftrightarrow}$ (32,72)(0,-12) (24,36)(24,42)(24,48) (24,36)(16,32)(16,28) (24,36)(32,32)(32,28) (0,20)(0,34)(0,48) (16,20)(16,24)(16,28) (32,0)(32,14)(32,28) (8,12)(8,6)(8,0) (8,12)(0,16)(0,20) (8,12)(16,16)(16,20) (0,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$c$]{}]{} (24,51)[(0,0)\[b\][$x$]{}]{} (8,-3)[(0,0)\[t\][$b$]{}]{} (22,-3)[(0,0)\[tl\][$x\triangle(b\triangle c)$]{}]{} (11,24)[(0,0)\[l\][$b\triangle c$]{}]{} Proof of Theorem \[thm:coloring\] ================================= \[lem:axioms of triangle MCB\] Let $X=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda$ be a multiple conjugation biquandle with $a\triangle b:=b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b$. We have the following. - For any $a\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} \text{$\triangle a:G_a\to G_{a\triangle a}$ which sends $x$ to $x\triangle a$ is a bijection.} \label{eq:bijection,triangle}\end{aligned}$$ - For any $a,x\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} \text{${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$ are bijections.} \label{eq:bijection,uo}\end{aligned}$$ - For any $a,b\in G_\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned} &G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b}=G_{a\triangle b}, &&(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)\triangle(a\triangle b)=b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a, \label{eq:R4,u,triangle} \\ &G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b}=G_{a\triangle b}, &&(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)\triangle(a\triangle b)=b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a. \label{eq:R4,o,triangle}\end{aligned}$$ - For any $a,b\in G_\lambda$ and $x\in X$, $$\begin{aligned} &(a\triangle b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x), \label{eq:R5-1,u,triangle} \\ &(a\triangle b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)=(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x), \label{eq:R5-1,o,triangle} \\ &(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a\triangle b)=x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a, \label{eq:R5-2,u,triangle} \\ &(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a\triangle b)=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a. \label{eq:R5-2,o,triangle}\end{aligned}$$ - For any $a,b,c\in G_\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned} (a\triangle c)\triangle(b\triangle c)=a\triangle b. \label{eq:R6,triangle}\end{aligned}$$ <!-- --> - The map $\triangle a:G_a\to G_{a\triangle a}$ is a well-defined bijection, since it is the composition of the bijections $a^{-1}\cdot:G_a\to G_a$ defined by $a^{-1}\cdot x=a^{-1}x$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}a:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a}=G_{a\triangle a}$. - By Lemma \[lem:x\e=x\], ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$ are well-defined bijections. - For $a,b\in G_\lambda$, we have $G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b}=G_{a\triangle b}=G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b}$, since $$\begin{aligned} &ab^{-1}\in G_a, && a\triangle b\overset{\eqref{eq:R14}}{=}ab^{-1}{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b\in G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b}, \\ &b^{-1}a\in G_a, && a\triangle b=b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b\in G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b}.\end{aligned}$$ For $a,b\in G_\lambda$, we have $$\begin{aligned} (a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)\triangle(a\triangle b) &\overset{\eqref{eq:R14}}{=} (b^{-1}ab{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)\triangle(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \\ &=(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)^{-1}(b^{-1}ab{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \\ &=(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a, \\ (a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)\triangle(a\triangle b) &=(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)^{-1}(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \\ &=(a^{-1}ba{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=}a^{-1}ba{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a \overset{\eqref{eq:R14}}{=}b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a.\end{aligned}$$ - For $a,b\in G_\lambda$ and $x\in X$, we have $$\begin{aligned} &(a\triangle b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) =(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \overset{\rm(B3)}{=}(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x) \\ &=(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)^{-1}(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x) =(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x), \\ &(a\triangle b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b) =(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b) \overset{\rm(B3)}{=}(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) \\ &=(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)^{-1}(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) =(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x).\end{aligned}$$ - For $a,b\in G_\lambda$ and $x\in X$, we have $$\begin{aligned} &(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a\triangle b) =(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \overset{\eqref{eq:xu(ab)}}{=}x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a, \\ &(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a\triangle b) =(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=}x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a.\end{aligned}$$ - For $a,b,c\in G_\lambda$, we have $$\begin{aligned} (a\triangle c)\triangle(b\triangle c) &=(c^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c)\triangle(c^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c) \\ &=(c^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c)^{-1}(c^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(c^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c) \\ &=(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(c^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:xo(ab)}}{=}b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b =a\triangle b.\end{aligned}$$ We see that $(X,\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda^2,\triangle)$ satisfies the primitive conditions –. By Lemma \[lem:axioms of triangle MCB\], it is sufficient to show $$\begin{aligned} b\in G_a,x=a\triangle b &\Leftarrow x\in G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b},(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)\triangle x=b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a, \label{eq:R4-1,primitive,half} \\ b\in G_a,x=a\triangle b &\Leftarrow x\in G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b},(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)\triangle x=b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a \label{eq:R4-2,primitive,half}\end{aligned}$$ for $a,b,c,x\in X$. The other conditions are easily verified, where we note that $b=x\triangle^{-1}c\sim a$ and $a=x\triangle^{-1}c\sim b$ for and , respectively. We show . Put $c:=x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b\in G_a$. Then $$(a\triangle c){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c) \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,u,triangle}}{=} (a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)\triangle(c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b) =(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)\triangle x =b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-2,o,triangle}}{=} (b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a\triangle c).$$ By Lemma \[lem:x\x=y\], we have $a\triangle c=b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c$. Since $a\triangle c\in G_{a\triangle c}=G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c}$, we have $b=(a\triangle c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}c\in G_a$. The equality $x=a\triangle b$ follows from $$x\triangle(c\triangle b) =(c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)\triangle(c\triangle b) \overset{\eqref{eq:R4,u,triangle}}{=}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}c =a\triangle c \overset{\eqref{eq:R6,triangle}}{=}(a\triangle b)\triangle(c\triangle b).$$ Then we have . We show . Put $c:=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}b\in G_a$. Then $$(a\triangle c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}c) \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,o,triangle}}{=} (a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)\triangle(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) =(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)\triangle x =b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-2,u,triangle}}{=} (b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}c){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a\triangle c).$$ By Lemma \[lem:x\x=y\], we have $a\triangle c=b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}c$. Since $a\triangle c\in G_{a\triangle c}=G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}c}$, we have $b=(a\triangle c){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}c\in G_a$. The equality $x=a\triangle b$ follows from $$x\triangle(c\triangle b) =(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)\triangle(c\triangle b) \overset{\eqref{eq:R4,o,triangle}}{=}b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}c =a\triangle c \overset{\eqref{eq:R6,triangle}}{=}(a\triangle b)\triangle(c\triangle b).$$ Then we have . The universality of an MCB {#sect:universality} ========================== In this section, we see that a multiple conjugation biquandle is the universal biquandle to define coloring invariants for $S^1$-oriented handlebody-links. \[thm:universality\] Let $X$ be a biquandle, $\triangle:P\to X$ a map, where $P$ is a subset of $X\times X$. We write $a\sim b$ if $(a,b)\in P$. Suppose $(X,P,\triangle)$ satisfies the primitive conditions –. - We define $X_1:=\{b\in X\,\|\,\text{there exists $a\in X$ such that $a\sim b$}\}$, $X_2:=X-X_1$. Then $X_1,X_2$ are subbiquandles of $X$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} &X_1{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a=X_1{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a=X_1, &&X_2{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a=X_2{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a=X_2\end{aligned}$$ for any $a\in X$, where $X_i{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a=\{x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a\,\|\,x\in X_i\}$, $X_i{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a=\{x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\,\|\,x\in X_i\}$. - The relation $\sim$ is an equivalence relation on $X_1$. - Let $X_1=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda$ be the partition of $X_1$ determined by the equivalence relation $\sim$, that is, $a\sim b$ if and only if $a,b\in G_\lambda$ for some $\lambda\in\Lambda$. Then $X_1$ is a multiple conjugation biquandle. By the definition, elements in $X_2$ cannot be used for colorings at a vertex. For a handlebody-knot of genus greater than one, we see that they also cannot be used for colors of any arcs. In this sense, an MCB is the universal biquandle for $S^1$-oriented handlebody-links. A multiple conjugation quandle (MCQ) [@Ishii15MCQ] was introduced as the universal symmetric quandle for unoriented handlebody-links in the same sense, where we note that the axioms of an MCQ coincide with that of an MCB under the assumption that $x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}y=x$. In [@Iijima17], Iijima showed that an MCQ is also the universal quandle for $S^1$-oriented handlebody-links, although it was introduced as the universal symmetric quandle for unoriented handlebody-links. As a corollary of Theorem \[thm:universality\], we also have this universality. In [@IshiiNelson16], Nelson and the first author introduced the notion of a partially multiplicative biquandle. A partially multiplicative biquandle* is a biquandle $X$ with a subset $\widetilde{P}$ of $X\times X$ and a map $\bullet:\widetilde{P}\to X$ satisfying the following axioms, where $a\bullet b$ stands for $\bullet(a,b)$. - $x\mapsto a\bullet x$, $x\mapsto x\bullet b$ are injective. - $(a,b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a)\in\widetilde{P} \Leftrightarrow(b,a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)\in\widetilde{P} \Rightarrow a\bullet(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a)=b\bullet(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b)$. - $(a,b)\in\widetilde{P} \Leftrightarrow(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x,b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a))\in\widetilde{P} \Leftrightarrow(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x,b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a))\in\widetilde{P} \Rightarrow$ $$\begin{aligned} &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(a\bullet b)=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}b, &&(a\bullet b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}x=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)\bullet(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)), \\ &x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a\bullet b)=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}b, &&(a\bullet b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}x=(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)\bullet(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a)).\end{aligned}$$ - $(a,b),(a\bullet b,c)\in\widetilde{P} \Leftrightarrow(b,c),(a,b\bullet c)\in\widetilde{P} \Rightarrow(a\bullet b)\bullet c=a\bullet(b\bullet c)$. - $(a,b),(c,d)\in\widetilde{P},a\bullet b=c\bullet d \Leftrightarrow\exists e\in X$ such that $(a,e),(e,d)\in\widetilde{P},a\bullet e=c,e\bullet d=b$. The axioms of a partially multiplicative biquandle is obtained from colored Reidemeister moves like the primitive conditions –, where the coloring is defined by (65,40)(-5,0) (40,40)[(-1,-1)[40]{}]{} (0,40)[(1,-1)[18]{}]{} (22,18)[(1,-1)[18]{}]{} (5,35)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (5,5)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,35)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,5)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (-3,40)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} (-3,0)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} (43,40)[(0,0)\[l\][$b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a$]{}]{} (43,0)[(0,0)\[l\][$a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b$]{}]{} (65,40)(-5,0) (0,40)[(1,-1)[40]{}]{} (40,40)[(-1,-1)[18]{}]{} (18,18)[(-1,-1)[18]{}]{} (5,35)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (5,5)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,35)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,5)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (-3,40)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} (-3,0)[(0,0)\[r\][$b$]{}]{} (43,40)[(0,0)\[l\][$b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a$]{}]{} (43,0)[(0,0)\[l\][$a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b$]{}]{} at each crossing, and (50,40)(-5,0) (20,20)[(0,-1)[20]{}]{} (0,40)[(1,-1)[20]{}]{} (40,40)[(-1,-1)[20]{}]{} (21,10)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (5,35)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (35,35)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (-3,40)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} (43,40)[(0,0)\[l\][$b$]{}]{} (23,0)[(0,0)\[l\][$a\bullet b$]{}]{} (50,40)(-5,0) (20,40)[(0,-1)[20]{}]{} (20,20)[(-1,-1)[20]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,-1)[20]{}]{} (21,30)[(0,0)[$\rightarrow$]{}]{} (5,5)[(0,0)[$\searrow$]{}]{} (35,5)[(0,0)[$\nearrow$]{}]{} (23,40)[(0,0)\[l\][$a\bullet b$]{}]{} (-3,0)[(0,0)\[r\][$a$]{}]{} (43,0)[(0,0)\[l\][$b$]{}]{} at each vertex. Although the axioms of a partially multiplicative biquandle are almost identical to the primitive conditions – under the correspondence $$\begin{aligned} &a\bullet b=b\triangle^{-1}a=a(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a), \\ &\widetilde{P}=\{(a,b\triangle a)\,\|\,(b,a)\in P\}=\{(a,a^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)\,\|\,(a,b)\in\textstyle\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda^2\},\end{aligned}$$ the axiom (i) is an additional axiom to simplified the axioms. Fortunately, we see that the axiom (i) is a necessary condition as follows. By Theorem \[thm:universality\], a partially multiplicative biquandle consists of a multiple conjugation biquandle and a biquandle. Then the axiom (i) follows from Lemma \[lem:x\e=x\] (3), since we have $a^{-1}(a\bullet b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}a=(a\bullet b)\triangle a=b$. We prove Theorem \[thm:universality\] (1), (2) below, and (3) in the next section. - We show that ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:X_1\to X_1$ is a well-defined bijection for any $x\in X$. For any $b\in X_1$, there exists $a\in X$ such that $a\sim b$. By , we have $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x\sim b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x$ and $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x\sim b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x$, which imply $b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x,b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x\in X_1$. Therefore ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x,{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x:X_1\to X_1$ are well-defined bijections. In the same way, we see that ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:X_1\to X_1$ is a well-defined bijection for any $x\in X$. Since $$\begin{aligned} &{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x,{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:X_1\to X_1, &&{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x,{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:X_1\sqcup X_2\to X_1\sqcup X_2\end{aligned}$$ are bijections, ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x,{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:X_2\to X_2$ are well-defined bijections. On $X\times X=(X_1\times X_1)\sqcup(X_1\times X_2)\sqcup(X_2\times X_1)\sqcup(X_2\times X_2)$, the bijection $S:X\times X\to X\times X$ defined by $S(x,y)=(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x,x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y)$ is decomposed into the four bijections $$\begin{aligned} &S:X_1\times X_1\to X_1\times X_1, &&S:X_1\times X_2\to X_2\times X_1, \\ &S:X_2\times X_1\to X_1\times X_2, &&S:X_2\times X_2\to X_2\times X_2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $X_1,X_2$ are subbiquandles of $X$. - For any $a\in X_1$, there exists $b\in X$ such that $b\sim a$ by the assumption. From , $b\sim a,b\sim a,x=b\triangle a\Rightarrow a\sim a$. By , $a\sim b$ with $a\sim a$ implies $b\sim a$. Suppose $a\sim b$, $b\sim c$. By , we have $a\sim c$. Thus $\sim$ is an equivalence relation on $X_1$. Proof of Theorem \[thm:universality\] (3) ========================================= We introduce the notion of a triangle MCB. Although it is defined as the disjoint union of sets, it turns out that a triangle MCB consists of the disjoint union of groups. Furthermore, we show that a triangle MCB is an MCB. At the end of this section, we prove Theorem \[thm:universality\] (3). A triangle MCB $X=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda$ is a biquandle $(X,{\mathbin{\underline{}}},{\mathbin{\overline{}}})$ with a map $\triangle:\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda^2\to X$ satisfying –, where $G_\lambda$ is not necessarily a group. \[lem:unique identity and inverse\] Let $X=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda$ be a triangle MCB. For $a,b\in G_\lambda$, we have $$\begin{aligned} &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b\triangle^{-1}b=b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a \in G_\lambda, \label{eq:2ab} \\ &a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a=b\triangle b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b \in G_\lambda. \label{eq:2e}\end{aligned}$$ For $a\in G_\lambda$, we have $$\begin{aligned} &a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a=\alpha\triangle\alpha =a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a, \label{eq:uo2e} \\ &a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a =a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a \in G_\lambda, \label{eq:uo2inverse}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha\in X$ is the unique element satisfying $\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha=\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha=a$. The equality follows from $$\begin{aligned} &a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b\triangle^{-1}b =(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b\triangle^{-1}b)\triangle(a\triangle b\triangle^{-1}b)\triangle^{-1}a \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R6,triangle}}{=} (a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b)\triangle(a\triangle b)\triangle^{-1}a \overset{\eqref{eq:R4,u,triangle}}{=} b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a.\end{aligned}$$ The equality follows from $$\begin{aligned} a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a &=(a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R5-2,u,triangle}}{=} (a\triangle a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b\triangle a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b \\ &=(a\triangle a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b\triangle a)\triangle^{-1}(b\triangle a)\triangle(b\triangle a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:2ab}}{=} (b\triangle a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a\triangle a)\triangle^{-1}(a\triangle a)\triangle(b\triangle a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R5-2,o,triangle}}{=} (b\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}(a\triangle a)\triangle(b\triangle a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b \\ &=(b\triangle a)\triangle^{-1}(a\triangle a)\triangle(b\triangle a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R6,triangle}}{=} (b\triangle a)\triangle(a\triangle a)\triangle^{-1}(a\triangle a)\triangle(b\triangle a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b \\ &=(b\triangle a)\triangle(b\triangle a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R6,triangle}}{=} b\triangle b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}b.\end{aligned}$$ Then follows from $$\begin{aligned} &a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a =(\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha)\triangle(\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,u,triangle}}{=} (\alpha\triangle\alpha){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a =\alpha\triangle\alpha, \\ &a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a =(\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha)\triangle(\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,o,triangle}}{=} (\alpha\triangle\alpha){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a =\alpha\triangle\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ The equality follows from and $$\begin{aligned} &a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a \overset{\eqref{eq:uo2e}}{=} \alpha\triangle\alpha\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a =(\alpha\triangle\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha)\triangle(\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,u,triangle}}{=} (\alpha\triangle\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}\alpha\triangle\alpha){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a =\alpha\triangle\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}\alpha\triangle\alpha, \\ &a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a \overset{\eqref{eq:uo2e}}{=} \alpha\triangle\alpha\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a =(\alpha\triangle\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha)\triangle(\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,o,triangle}}{=} (\alpha\triangle\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}\alpha\triangle\alpha){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(\alpha{\mathbin{\underline{}}}\alpha){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a =\alpha\triangle\alpha{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}\alpha\triangle\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ We have $b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a,a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a,a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a\in G_\lambda$, since ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}a,{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a,\triangle a$ are bijections from $G_\lambda$ to $G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a}=G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a}=G_{a\triangle a}$. \[prop:triangle2MCB\] Let $X=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda$ be a triangle MCB. - For any $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $G_\lambda$ is a group with $$\begin{aligned} &ab:=a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b\triangle^{-1}b=b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a\in G_\lambda, \\ &e_\lambda:=a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a=a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a\in G_\lambda, \\ &a^{-1}:=a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a =a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a\in G_\lambda\end{aligned}$$ for $a,b\in G_\lambda$. - The triangle MCB $X=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}G_\lambda$ is a multiple conjugation biquandle. <!-- --> - By Lemma \[lem:unique identity and inverse\], the multiplication, identity, and inverse are well-defined. The associativity $(ab)c=a(bc)$ follows from $$\begin{aligned} &(ab)c\triangle(ab) =c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(ab) =c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a) \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-2,o,triangle}}{=} (c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a) \\ &\overset{\rm(B3)}{=} (c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b) =(bc\triangle b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b) \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,o,triangle}}{=} (bc{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R6,triangle}}{=} (bc{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a) =a(bc)\triangle(ab).\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned} &e_\lambda a=(a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a=a, \\ &ae_\lambda=(a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a=a.\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned} &a^{-1}a =(a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a =a\triangle a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}a =e_\lambda, \\ &aa^{-1} =(a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}a\triangle^{-1}a =a\triangle a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}a =e_\lambda.\end{aligned}$$ - The maps ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$ are group homomorphism, since $b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x=(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)^{-1}(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)$ and $b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x=(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)^{-1}(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)$ follow from $$\begin{aligned} &(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)^{-1}(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x) =(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,u,triangle}}{=} (a\triangle b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) =(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b) \overset{\rm(B3)}{=} (b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x), \\ &(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)^{-1}(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) =(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x)\triangle(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,o,triangle}}{=} (a\triangle b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b) =(b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b) \overset{\rm(B3)}{=} (b^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x).\end{aligned}$$ For $a,b\in G_\lambda$ and $x\in X$, we have $$\begin{aligned} &x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}ab \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-2,u,triangle}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(ab\triangle a) =(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a){\mathbin{\underline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a), \\ &x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ab \overset{\eqref{eq:R5-2,o,triangle}}{=} (x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(ab\triangle a) =(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} a^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}a &\overset{\eqref{eq:R5-2,o,triangle}}{=} (a^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ba^{-1}){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(a\triangle ba^{-1}) \\ &=(a^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ba^{-1}){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(ab^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ba^{-1}) \\ &\overset{\rm(B3)}{=} (a^{-1}b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ab^{-1}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(ba^{-1}{\mathbin{\underline{}}}ab^{-1}a) \\ &=(a\triangle ab^{-1}a){\mathbin{\overline{}}}(ba^{-1}{\mathbin{\underline{}}}ab^{-1}a) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R5-1,o,triangle}}{=} (a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ba^{-1})\triangle(ab^{-1}a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ba^{-1}) \\ &=(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}ba^{-1})\triangle(a\triangle ba^{-1}) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R4,o,triangle}}{=} ba^{-1}{\mathbin{\underline{}}}a.\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition \[prop:triangle2MCB\], it is sufficient to show that $X_1$ is a triangle MCB. We show , , and $G_{a\triangle b}=G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b}=G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b}$ for $a,b\in G_\lambda$. The other equalities – follow directly from the primitive conditions –. For $a,b\in G_\lambda$, $a\sim b$ implies $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b\sim a\triangle b$ and $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b\sim a\triangle b$ by and , respectively. Then $G_{a\triangle b}=G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b}=G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}b}$. We verify . The map $\triangle a:G_a\to G_{a\triangle a}$ is well-defined, since $x\triangle a\sim a\triangle a$ follows from $x\sim a$ and $a\sim a$ by . Let $y\in G_{a\triangle a}$. Then $a\sim a,y\sim a\triangle a$. By , $$\exists!x\in X\text{ s.t.~}x\sim a,y=x\triangle a,y\triangle(a\triangle a)=x\triangle a.$$ Since $(x\triangle a)\triangle(a\triangle a)=x\triangle a$ follows from , we can remove the condition $y\triangle(a\triangle a)=x\triangle a$, that is, $$\exists!x\in X\text{ s.t.~}x\sim a,y=x\triangle a.$$ Then $\triangle a$ is bijective. We verify . By , ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{-1}x:G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}\to G_a$ are well-defined. By , ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{-1}x:G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}\to G_a$ are well-defined. Therefore ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}x:G_a\to G_{a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x}$ are well-defined bijections. Parallel biquandle operations {#sect:parallel} ============================= In this section, we show that the $n$-parallel biquandle operations are well-defined and that $(X,({\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]})_{n\in\mathbb{Z}},({\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]})_{n\in\mathbb{Z}})$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-family of biquandles. The binary operations ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]},{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}:X\times X\to X$ are well-defined for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$. Let $\varphi:X\times X\to X\times X$ be the bijection defined by $\varphi(x,y)=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y,y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}y)$, where the bijectivity follows from Lemma \[lem:x\x=y\]. For $n\in\mathbb{Z}$, we define $f_n,g_n:X\times X\to X$ by $\varphi^n(x,y)=(f_n(x,y),g_n(x,y))$. Then $$\begin{aligned} &f_{n+1}(x,y)=f_n(x,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}g_n(x,y), &&g_{n+1}(x,y)=g_n(x,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}g_n(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ We show that ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]},f_n:X\times X\to X$ coincide. Since $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b$ can be calculated by using , it is sufficient to show the equalities $$\begin{aligned} &f_0(a,b)=a, &&f_1(a,b)=a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}b, &&f_{i+j}(a,b)=f_j(f_i(a,b),f_i(b,b)),\end{aligned}$$ which correspond to . We show the equality $g_n(x,y)=f_n(y,y)$ by induction on $n$. When $n=0$, the both sides coincide with $y$. We assume that the equality holds when $n=k$ for some $k\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned} &g_{k+1}(x,y)=g_k(x,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}g_k(x,y)=f_k(y,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}f_k(y,y) \\ &=f_k(y,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}g_k(y,y)=f_{k+1}(y,y).\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the equality holds when $n=-k$ for some $k\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}$. By Lemma \[lem:x\x=y\], we have $g_{-k-1}(y,y)=g_{-k-1}(x,y)$ from $$\begin{aligned} &g_{-k-1}(y,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}g_{-k-1}(y,y)=g_{-k}(y,y)=f_{-k}(y,y) \\ &=g_{-k}(x,y)=g_{-k-1}(x,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}g_{-k-1}(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ Then the equality $g_{-k-1}(x,y)=f_{-k-1}(y,y)$ follows from $$\begin{aligned} &g_{-k-1}(x,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}g_{-k-1}(x,y)=g_{-k}(x,y)=f_{-k}(y,y) \\ &=f_{-k-1}(y,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}g_{-k-1}(y,y)=f_{-k-1}(y,y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}g_{-k-1}(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$f_j(f_i(a,b),f_i(b,b))=f_j(f_i(a,b),g_i(a,b))=f_{i+j}(a,b),$$ where the last equality follows from $$\begin{aligned} &(f_{i+j}(x,y),g_{i+j}(x,y)) =\varphi^{i+j}(x,y) =\varphi^j(\varphi^i(x,y)) \\ &=\varphi^j(f_i(x,y),g_i(x,y)) =(f_j(f_i(x,y),g_i(x,y)),g_j(f_i(x,y),g_i(x,y))).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}$ coincides with $f_n$, which is well-defined. In a similar manner, we see that ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}$ is well-defined. \[lem:\[n\]inverse\] For $n\in\mathbb{Z}$, we have the following. - If $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b=c$, then $a=c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-n]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b)$. - If $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}b=c$, then $a=c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-n]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}b)$. In particular, for $n\in\mathbb{Z}$, we have the following. - If $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}a=c$, then $a=c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-n]}c$. - If $a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}a=c$, then $a=c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-n]}c$. We have $a=a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[0]}b =(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-n]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b) =c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-n]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b)$. If $a=b$, then $a=c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-n]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}b)=c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-n]}c$. In the same way, we see the remaining part. \[prop:Z-family\] Let $(X,{\mathbin{\underline{}}},{\mathbin{\overline{}}})$ be a biquandle. Then $(X,({\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]})_{n\in\mathbb{Z}},({\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]})_{n\in\mathbb{Z}})$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-family of biquandles. We show $a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}a=a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}a$ for $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $a\in X$. Let $f,g:X\to X$ be the bijections defined by $f(x)=x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}x$, $g(x)=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}x$. Then we have $f^n(x)=x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}x$ and $g^n(x)=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}x$. Since $f=g$ follows from (B1), we have $$a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}a=f^n(a)=g^n(a)=a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}a.$$ Then, by the definition of ${\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}$ and ${\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}$, it is sufficient to show that $$\begin{aligned} (a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[m]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b) &=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c), \label{eq:R3-1,mn} \\ (a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b) &=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c), \label{eq:R3-2,mn} \\ (a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b) &=(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c) \label{eq:R3-3,mn}\end{aligned}$$ for $m,n\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $a,b,c\in X$. These equalities were verified for $m,n\geq0$ in [@IshiiNelson16]. We note that $$\begin{aligned} &x=x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[0]}y=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-n]}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}y)=(x{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}y){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-n]}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}y), \\ &x=x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[0]}y=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-n]}(y{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}y)=(x{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[n]}y){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-n]}(y{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}y).\end{aligned}$$ We show the equality . Let $m\geq0$, $n=-k\leq0$. By Lemma \[lem:\[n\]inverse\], the equality $$\begin{aligned} (c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c) =(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b) \label{eq:R3,aba-1}\end{aligned}$$ follows from $$\begin{aligned} c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b &=((c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[k]}(c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[k]}(c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c)) \\ &=((c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[k]}((c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c)).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned} a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b &=((a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[k]}(c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[k]}(c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c)) \\ &=((a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[k]}((c{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3,aba-1}}{=} ((a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[k]}((c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b))\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem:\[n\]inverse\], we have $$\begin{aligned} &(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}c) \\ &=(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}(((c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[k]}((c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b))) \\ &=(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-k]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[m]}b).\end{aligned}$$ Let $m=-k\leq0$, $n\geq0$. By Lemma \[lem:\[n\]inverse\], the equality $$\begin{aligned} (b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b) =(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c) \label{eq:R3,aba-2}\end{aligned}$$ follows from $$\begin{aligned} b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c &=((b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}((c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)) \\ &=((b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}((b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned} a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c &=((a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}((c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)) \\ &=((a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}((b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3,aba-2}}{=} ((a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c)).\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem:\[n\]inverse\], we have $$\begin{aligned} &(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b) \\ &=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c))) \\ &=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[n]}c).\end{aligned}$$ Let $m=-k\leq0$, $n=-l\leq0$. By Lemma \[lem:\[n\]inverse\], the equality $$\begin{aligned} (b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b) =(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c) \label{eq:R3,aba-3}\end{aligned}$$ follows from $$\begin{aligned} b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c &=((b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}((c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)) \\ &=((b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}((b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned} a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c &=((a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}((c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}(b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)) \\ &=((a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}((b{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)) \\ &\overset{\eqref{eq:R3,aba-3}}{=} ((a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c)).\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem:\[n\]inverse\], we have $$\begin{aligned} &(a{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b){\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}(c{\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}b) \\ &=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c)){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[k]}((b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c))) \\ &=(a{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c){\mathbin{\overline{}}}^{[-k]}(b{\mathbin{\underline{}}}^{[-l]}c).\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of . In a similar manner, we can verify and by using the equalities –. This completes the proof. [000]{} S. Asami and S. Satoh, An infinite family of non-invertible surfaces in $4$-space, Bull. London Math. Soc. 37* (2005), no. 2, 285–296. S. Carter, M. Elhamdadi and M. Saito, Homology theory for the set-theoretic Yang-Baxter equation and knot invariants from generalizations of quandles, Fund. Math. 184 (2004), 31–54. S. Carter, M. Elhamdadi, M. Saito and S. Satoh, A lower bound for the number of Reidemeister moves of type III, Topology Appl. 153 (2006), no. 15, 2788–2794. S. Carter, A. Ishii, M. Saito and K. Tanaka, Homology for quandles with partial group operations, to appear in Pacific J. Math. J. S. Carter, D. Jelsovsky, S. Kamada, L. Langford and M. Saito, Quandle cohomology and state-sum invariants of knotted curves and surfaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), 3947–3989. J. Ceniceros, M. Elhamdadi, M. Green and S. Nelson Augmented biracks and their homology, Internat. J. Math. 25 (2014), 1450087, 19 pp. R. Fenn, M. Jordan-Santana and L. H. Kauffman, Biquandles and virtual links, Topology Appl. 145 (2004), 157–175. R. Fenn, C. Rourke and B. Sanderson, Trunks and classifying spaces, Appl. Categ. Structures 3 (1995), 321–356. Y. Iijima, in preparation. A. Ishii, A multiple conjugation quandle and handlebody-knots, Topology Appl. 196 (2015), 492–500. A. Ishii, The Markov theorem for spatial graphs and handlebody-knots with Y-orientations, Internat. J. Math. 26 (2015), 1550116, 23 pp. A. Ishii and M. Iwakiri, Y. Jang and K. Oshiro, A $G$-family of quandles and handlebody-knots, Illinois J. Math. 57 (2013), 817–838. A. Ishii, M. Iwakiri, S. Kamada, J. Kim, S. Matsuzaki and K. Oshiro, in preparation. A. Ishii and S. Nelson, Partially multiplicative biquandles and handlebody-knots, preprint. M. Iwakiri, Quandle cocycle invariants of pretzel links, Hiroshima Math. J. 36 (2006), no. 3, 353–363. D. Joyce, A classifying invariant of knots, the knot quandle, J. Pure Appl. Alg. 23 (1982), 37–65. L. H. Kauffman and V. O. Manturov, Virtual biquandles, Fund. Math. 188 (2005), 103–146. L. H. Kauffman and D. E. Radford, Bi-oriented quantum algebras, and generalized Alexander polynomial for virtual links, Contemp. Math., 318 (2003), 113–140. S. V. Matveev, Distributive groupoids in knot theory, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 119(161) (1982), 78–88. S. Satoh and A. Shima, The 2-twist-spun trefoil has the triple point number four, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356 (2004), no. 3, 1007–1024. M. Wada, Group invariants of links, Topology 31 (1992), 399–406. [^1]: Atsushi Ishii was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15K0486. Seiichi Kamada was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26287013. Jieon Kim was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15F15319 and a JSPS Postdoctral Fellowship for Foreign Researchers. Kanako Oshiro was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K17600.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We present generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength. The proposed mechanistic contact laws are continuous at the onset of unloading by means of a regularization term, in the spirit of a cohesive zone model, that introduces a small and controllable error in the conditions for interparticle breakage. This continuity property is in sharp contrast with the behavior of standard mechanistic loading and unloading contact theories, which exhibit a discontinuity at the onset of unloading when particles form solid bridges during plastic deformation. The formulation depends on five material properties, namely two elastic properties (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio), two plastic properties (a plastic stiffness and a power-law hardening exponent) and one fracture mechanics property (fracture toughness), and its predictions are in agreement with detailed finite-element simulations. The numerical robustness and efficiency of the proposed formulation are borne out by performing three-dimensional particle mechanics static calculations of microstructure evolution during the three most important steps of powder die-compaction, namely during compaction, unloading, and ejection. These simulations reveal the evolution, up to relative densities close to one, of microstructural features, process variables and compact mechanical attributes which are quantitatively similar to those experimentally observed and in remarkable agreement with the (semi-)empirical formulae reported in the literature.' author: - 'Marcial Gonzalez [^1]' title: 'Generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength' --- Introduction ============ Many physical mechanisms are required to convert a powder bed confined inside a rigid die into a compressed solid compact by the sole application of a compaction force. Typically, the initial stage of this process is characterized by rearrangement of particles that leads to the formation of a closely packed granular system. In the subsequent stage, the porosity or the packing volume cannot be further reduced by particle rearrangement and therefore particles undergo brittle fracture or plastic deformation, or both [@Celik-2016; @Alderborn-1996]. It is indeed these dissipative and irreversible processes, in which the volume of the powder bed is reduced, that ultimately give rise to compact formation inside the die. Specifically, fracture and permanent deformation generate particle-to-particle contact surface and thus the opportunity for bond formation. The understanding of microstructure formation and evolution during this process is therefore of paramount importance to elucidate strength formation. Particle size, shape, and roughness affect the initial stage of compaction, but it is fragmentation and plastic deformation that dominate the synthesis of highly dense compacts [@Duberg-1985]. For polymeric solids, fracture and plastic behavior are dependent on the physical form of the material; that is amorphous polymers have a tendency to ductile, elasto-plastic deformation whereas crystalline polymers exhibit brittle failure at room temperature [@Kinloch-2013]. In addition, most materials exhibit a brittle-ductile transition temperature that is pressure dependent and strain rate dependent—high temperature and low strain rate promote ductile, plastic behavior, while low temperature and high strain rate promote brittle fracture [@Kinloch-2013]. It is worth noting that the formation of particle-to-particle contact surface then clearly depends on both material properties and process variables, such as compaction speed and temperature. Bonding surface area can be regarded as the effective surface area that is involved in the interaction between particles. According to Rumpf [@Rumpf-19xx], the bonding mechanisms participating in this interaction can be classified into five different types: (i) formation of solid bridges (driven by processes such as sintering, melting, crystallization of amorphous solids, or chemical reactions); (ii) bonding between movable liquids (caused by capillary and surface tension forces in the presence of some moisture); (iii) non-freely movable binder bridges (resulting from adhesive and cohesive forces in binders such as those used in wet granulation); (iv) long-range attractive forces between solid particles (such as van der Waals and hydrogen bonding interactions); and (v) mechanical particle interlocking. For particles with low aspect ratio and low roughness, mechanical interlocking can be neglected. Among the remaining mechanisms, there is general agreement that solid bridge formation and attractive interfacial forces are the major contributions to strength formation. Figure \[Fig-AdhesiveMechanisms\] illustrates these different mechanisms and that attractive interfacial interactions are dominant under small deformations whereas solid bridge formation occurs under large deformations. ![Different bonding mechanisms participating in the interaction between particles. Attractive interfacial interactions are dominant under small deformations whereas solid bridge formation occurs under large deformations.[]{data-label="Fig-AdhesiveMechanisms"}](Fig-BondingMechanisms.pdf) During powder compaction, regions of high plastic deformation are formed around particle contact interfaces. Plastic deformation dissipates energy as heat and thus locally increases the temperature. This change in temperature may, in turn, promote molecular movement and, consequently, the formation of a new solid region that bridges the particles in contact. It is then the formation of an interconnected network of solid bridges that enables strength formation in the solid compact. The strength of these solid bridges will vary from material to material depending on the forces that hold the (poly)crystals and amorphous solids together [@Rumpf-19xxb; @Down-1985; @Mitchell-1984; @Ahineck-1989]. It is worth noting that this process is irreversible, and thus it is not possible to divide the compacted system into its original particles. The system can only be separated by fracture of either solid bridges or particles, whichever is weaker. This irreversibility is one of the main differences between solid bridges and the attractive interfacial interactions. This observation also suggests to characterize the strength of the solid bridges with fracture mechanics properties and to characterize the strength of the solid compact by its tensile strength. In this work, we will restrict attention to powder blends used by the pharmaceutical industry to fabricate solid tables, the most popular dosage form in use today. Therefore, it is worth noting that the contact surface created during compaction of these powders also allows for the formation of attractive forces such as van der Waals and hydrogen bonding interactions [@Joesten-1974; @Israelachvili-2011; @Derjaguin-1960; @Derjaguin-1956; @Israelachvili-1973b]. These long-range forces are of lower energy than covalent bonding forces, and they are present in many excipients (such as sugars, celluloses, and starches) and active pharmaceutical ingredients. It is also important to note that some polymers can experience a change in physical form with relative humidity (e.g., lactose) and that some active ingredients can experience strain- and temperature-driven solid-state transitions and amorphization. These additional physical mechanisms clearly increase the complexity of the analysis and, even though necessary for specific powder blends [@Sebhatu-1994], their study will be beyond the scope of this work. We will specifically restrict attention to the formation of solid bridges, as it is a physical mechanism that dominates the synthesis of many, but not all, pharmaceutical excipients. We will simplify the powder morphology to spherical particles, and we will consider that these particles are amenable to elasto-plastic deformation without brittle failure. A quantitative elucidation of strength formation requires not only the identification of the deformation and bonding mechanisms of interest but also of the bonding surface involved in the process. Unfortunately, it is not possible to experimentally measure the actual interfacial area that is available during tableting [@Karehill-1993; @Nystrom-1986]. However, one can assume that an upper bound for the bonding surface involved in the formation of solid bridges is the particle-to-particle contact area created during compaction. It bears emphasis that the presence of lubricants in the formulation can diminish the bonding surface, and thus the tablet strength [@Karehill-1993; @deBoer-1978; @Razavi-2018]. The most common lubricant used in pharmaceutical tablets is magnesium stearate, typically prepared as a small particle size ingredient. Before tableting, the lubricant is mixed with the particles in the formulation, partially coating their surface and thus altering the tribochemical properties of the particle-to-particle contact area. In the context of this work, we will assume that the lubricant alters the fracture mechanics properties of the solid bridges. In this paper, we report three-dimensional particle mechanics static calculations that enable us to predict microstructure evolution during compaction, unloading, and ejection—that is during the three most important steps of die-compaction of solid tablets (see Figure \[Fig-CompactionSchematics\])—of elasto-plastic spherical particles capable of forming solid bridges. To this end, we develop and employ generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength. The proposed loading-unloading contact laws are continuous at the onset of unloading by means of a regularization term that introduces a small, controllable error in the solid bridge breakage force and the critical contact surface. The contact laws are explicit in terms of the relative position between the particles, and their strain path dependency is accounted for incrementally. The resulting formulation is then numerically robust and efficient, and mechanistically sound. ![Transformation of the powder bed during the stages of die compaction: (A) die filling, (B) compaction, (C) unloading, and (D) tablet ejection.[]{data-label="Fig-CompactionSchematics"}](Fig-CompactionSchematics02.pdf) The paper is organized as follows. The generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength are presented and validated in Section \[Section-GeneralizedContactLaws\], after reviewing the state of the art in Section \[Section-StateOfTheArt\]. The particle mechanics approach used to generate a sequence of static equilibrium configurations of granular systems at high levels of confinement is presented in Section \[Section-ParticleMechanicsAlgorithm\]. The evolution of microstructural statistical features and of macroscopic effective properties during compaction, unloading and ejection is investigated in Section \[Section-MicrostructureEvolution\]. Specifically, we study the evolution of the mechanical coordination number (number of non-zero contact forces between a particle and its neighbors), punch and die-wall pressures, in-die elastic recovery, residual radial pressure and ejection pressure, the network of contact forces and granular fabric anisotropy, bonding surface area, Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the compacted solid, and a microstructure-mediated process-structure-property-performance interrelationship. Finally, concluding remarks are collected in Section \[Section-ConcludingRemarks\]. Loading and unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres {#Section-StateOfTheArt} ============================================================= Loading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres have been developed by Storkers and co-workers [@Storakers-1997a; @Storakers-1997b] using a rigid plastic flow formulation [@Hill-1998] and assuming a power-law plastic hardening behavior, i.e., $\sigma = \kappa \epsilon^{1/m}$ where $\kappa$ is the plastic stiffness and $m$ is the plastic law exponent. These contact laws have been generalized to dissimilar particles [@Mesarovic-1999; @Mesarovic-2000]. Specifically, for particles with the same hardening exponent or when one particle is assumed to be rigid, an analytical self-similar solution is derived by assuming a contact radius sufficiently small compared to the particle size and by neglecting elastic behavior. For particles with different hardening exponents, Skrinjar and Larsson [@Skrinjar-2004; @Skrinjar-2007a; @Skrinjar-2007b] derived and verified an approximate formulae based on the self-similar solution proposed by Storkers. These loading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres are successful in simulating the deformation of soft metals, such as bronze and aluminum [@Olsson-2012], and pharmaceutical excipients, such as microcrystalline cellulose and lactose monohydrate [@Yohannes-2016; @Yohannes-2017], and of harder materials, such as ceramics and cemented carbides, when both elastic and plastic deformations are properly accounted for during the loading phase [@Olsson-2013]. Unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength, or adhesion, have been developed by Mesarovic and Johnson [@Mesarovic-2000b] assuming elastic perfectly-plastic behavior and using a rigid punch decomposition [@Hill-1990]. Olsson and Larsson [@Olsson-2013] have extended these laws to elasto-plastic spheres that exhibit power-law plastic hardening behavior, and have verified their validity with detailed finite element simulations. This formulation assumes elastic behavior, approximated by Hooke’s law, and Irwin’s fracture mechanics to describe the elastic recovery of the deformed spheres and the breakage of the solid bridge. We present next these loading and unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength. Specifically, we consider two elasto-plastic spherical particles of radii $R_1$ and $R_2$, Young’s moduli $E_1$ and $E_2$, Poisson’s ratios $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, plastic stiffnesses $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$, and plastic law exponent $m$, that deform plastically under loading and relax elastically under unloading. For particles located at ${\bf x}_1$ and ${\bf x}_2$, the relative position between them $\gamma$ (see Figure \[Fig-AdhesiveMechanisms\]) is give by $$\gamma = R_1+R_2-\\|{\bf x}_1-{\bf x}_2\\|$$ and the contact radius $a$ is given by $$a^2 = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2c^2 \bar{R} \gamma =: a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2 & \mbox{plastic loading} \\ \left[ a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2 - \left(\frac{4 \bar{E} (\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}-\gamma)} {3 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{1/m}} \right)^2 \right]_+ & \mbox{elastic (un)loading} \end{array} \right.$$ where the effective radius $\bar{R}$, the effective elastic stiffness $\bar{E}$ and the plastic law coefficient $n_{\mbox{\tiny P}}$ are given by $$\bar{R} = \left(\frac{1}{R_1}+\frac{1}{R_2}\right)^{-1}$$ $$\bar{E} = \left(\frac{1-\nu_1^2}{E_1}+\frac{1-\nu_2^2}{E_2}\right)^{-1}$$ $$n_{\mbox{\tiny P}} = \pi k \bar{R}^{-1/m} \left(\frac{1}{\kappa_{1}^{m}}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{2}^{m}}\right)^{-1/m}$$ with $k=3 \times 6^{-1/m}$, $c^2=1.43~\mathrm{e}^{-0.97/m}$ [@Storakers-1994; @Fleck-1997; @Johnson-1985], and $[ \cdot ]_+ = \max\{\cdot, 0\}$. The permanent plastic deformation is characterized by the plastic relative position $\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}$ and the plastic contact radius $a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}$, which are related by $a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2=2c^2 \bar{R} \gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}$. In addition, the elasto-plastic spherical particles are capable of forming a solid bridge characterized by its fracture toughness $K_{Ic}$. Therefore, the plastic and elastic (un)loading force is defined by $$P = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} n_{\mbox{\tiny P}}~a^{2+1/m} \hspace{3.42in} \mbox{plastic loading} \\ \frac{2 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}{\pi} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{2+1/m} \left[ \arcsin\left(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right) - \frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}} \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^2} \right] - 2 K_{Ic} \pi^{1/2} a^{3/2} \hspace{0.25in} \mbox{elastic (un)loading} \end{array} \right.$$ This force acts in direction $({\bf x}_1 - {\bf x}_2)/\\| {\bf x}_1 - {\bf x}_2 \\|$ on particle 2 and in direction $({\bf x}_2 - {\bf x}_1)/\\| {\bf x}_2 - {\bf x}_1 \\|$ on particle 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![Loading-unloading contact laws (solid lines) and finite element results (symbols) for elasto-plastic spheres. (a) Evolution of contact radius $a$, and (b) of contact force $P$, under diametrical compression, small deformations and no formation of solid bridges for ($\ocircle$) a spherical particle of $R=2$ mm and mechanical properties $E=80$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=1.56$ GPa, $m=2.10$ and for ($\Diamond$) a spherical particle of $R=10$ mm and mechanical properties $E=200$ GPa, $\nu=0.32$, $\kappa=1.56$ GPa, $m=2.40$ [@Etsion-2005]. (c) Evolution of contact force $P$ under diametrical compression and small deformations for a spherical particle of $R=1.3~\mu$m, mechanical properties $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, that forms a solid bridge with fracture properties $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$ [@Du-2008]. (d) Evolution of contact force $P$ under large deformations and different loading configurations, namely diametrical compression ($\vartriangle $), diametrical compression and lateral confinement ($\ocircle$) and triaxial compression ($ \triangledown$), for a spherical particle of $R=5$ mm and mechanical properties $\kappa=15.5$ MPa, $m=2.86$ [@Harthong-2009]. []{data-label="Fig-SimilaritySlnValidation"}](Fig-Validation005.pdf "fig:") ![Loading-unloading contact laws (solid lines) and finite element results (symbols) for elasto-plastic spheres. (a) Evolution of contact radius $a$, and (b) of contact force $P$, under diametrical compression, small deformations and no formation of solid bridges for ($\ocircle$) a spherical particle of $R=2$ mm and mechanical properties $E=80$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=1.56$ GPa, $m=2.10$ and for ($\Diamond$) a spherical particle of $R=10$ mm and mechanical properties $E=200$ GPa, $\nu=0.32$, $\kappa=1.56$ GPa, $m=2.40$ [@Etsion-2005]. (c) Evolution of contact force $P$ under diametrical compression and small deformations for a spherical particle of $R=1.3~\mu$m, mechanical properties $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, that forms a solid bridge with fracture properties $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$ [@Du-2008]. (d) Evolution of contact force $P$ under large deformations and different loading configurations, namely diametrical compression ($\vartriangle $), diametrical compression and lateral confinement ($\ocircle$) and triaxial compression ($ \triangledown$), for a spherical particle of $R=5$ mm and mechanical properties $\kappa=15.5$ MPa, $m=2.86$ [@Harthong-2009]. []{data-label="Fig-SimilaritySlnValidation"}](Fig-Validation006.pdf "fig:") ![Loading-unloading contact laws (solid lines) and finite element results (symbols) for elasto-plastic spheres. (a) Evolution of contact radius $a$, and (b) of contact force $P$, under diametrical compression, small deformations and no formation of solid bridges for ($\ocircle$) a spherical particle of $R=2$ mm and mechanical properties $E=80$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=1.56$ GPa, $m=2.10$ and for ($\Diamond$) a spherical particle of $R=10$ mm and mechanical properties $E=200$ GPa, $\nu=0.32$, $\kappa=1.56$ GPa, $m=2.40$ [@Etsion-2005]. (c) Evolution of contact force $P$ under diametrical compression and small deformations for a spherical particle of $R=1.3~\mu$m, mechanical properties $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, that forms a solid bridge with fracture properties $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$ [@Du-2008]. (d) Evolution of contact force $P$ under large deformations and different loading configurations, namely diametrical compression ($\vartriangle $), diametrical compression and lateral confinement ($\ocircle$) and triaxial compression ($ \triangledown$), for a spherical particle of $R=5$ mm and mechanical properties $\kappa=15.5$ MPa, $m=2.86$ [@Harthong-2009]. []{data-label="Fig-SimilaritySlnValidation"}](Fig-Du-2008-LoadingUnloading.pdf "fig:") ![Loading-unloading contact laws (solid lines) and finite element results (symbols) for elasto-plastic spheres. (a) Evolution of contact radius $a$, and (b) of contact force $P$, under diametrical compression, small deformations and no formation of solid bridges for ($\ocircle$) a spherical particle of $R=2$ mm and mechanical properties $E=80$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=1.56$ GPa, $m=2.10$ and for ($\Diamond$) a spherical particle of $R=10$ mm and mechanical properties $E=200$ GPa, $\nu=0.32$, $\kappa=1.56$ GPa, $m=2.40$ [@Etsion-2005]. (c) Evolution of contact force $P$ under diametrical compression and small deformations for a spherical particle of $R=1.3~\mu$m, mechanical properties $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, that forms a solid bridge with fracture properties $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$ [@Du-2008]. (d) Evolution of contact force $P$ under large deformations and different loading configurations, namely diametrical compression ($\vartriangle $), diametrical compression and lateral confinement ($\ocircle$) and triaxial compression ($ \triangledown$), for a spherical particle of $R=5$ mm and mechanical properties $\kappa=15.5$ MPa, $m=2.86$ [@Harthong-2009]. []{data-label="Fig-SimilaritySlnValidation"}](Fig-Harthong-2009-F3_Similarity.pdf "fig:") --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This formulae is predictive at small deformations for particles that do not form solid bridges during plastic deformation, as it is depicted in Figures \[Fig-SimilaritySlnValidation\](a) and \[Fig-SimilaritySlnValidation\](b) when compared with detailed finite element simulations of an elasto-plastic continuum solid [@Etsion-2005]. However, the formulation exhibits a discontinuity at the onset of unloading when particles form solid bridges during plastic deformation that it is not present in detailed finite element simulations as shown in Figure \[Fig-SimilaritySlnValidation\](c). Specifically, there is a discontinuity at $a=a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}$, that is $$P(a^+_{\mbox{\tiny P}}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} n_{\mbox{\tiny P}}~a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{2+1/m} \hspace{1.05in} = P(a^-_{\mbox{\tiny P}}) \hspace{0.7in} \mbox{if solid bridge is not formed} \\ n_{\mbox{\tiny P}}~a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{2+1/m} - 2 K_{Ic} \pi^{1/2} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{3/2} \ne P(a^-_{\mbox{\tiny P}}) \hspace{0.7in} \mbox{if solid bridge is formed} \end{array} \right.$$ where $P(a^-_{\mbox{\tiny P}})$ and $P(a^+_{\mbox{\tiny P}})$ correspond to the contact force right before and after unloading, respectively. The loading-unloading contact laws proposed in this work, and described next in Section \[Section-GeneralizedContactLaws\], are continuous at the onset of unloading by means of a regularization term that introduces a small, controllable error in the solid bridge breakage force and the critical contact surface. Finally, at moderate to large deformations, detailed finite element simulations show a dependency of the response on the loading configuration and confinement of the particles (see Figure \[Fig-SimilaritySlnValidation\](d) and [@Frenning-2013; @Frenning-2015; @Jonsson-2017; @Tsigginos-2015]). This behavior is not captured by the above local contact formulation and it calls for the development of plastic nonlocal contact formulations (see [@Gonzalez-2012; @Gonzalez-2016] for an elastic nonlocal contact formulation). The systematic development of nonlocal contact formulations for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength is a worthwhile direction of future research and, though beyond the scope of this work, it is currently being pursued by the author. Generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength {#Section-GeneralizedContactLaws} =========================================================================================== We adopt the formulae developed by Mesarovi and co-workers for elasto-plastic spheres with power-law plastic hardening behavior [@Mesarovic-1999; @Mesarovic-2000; @Mesarovic-2000b], presented in the previous section, and we propose a regularization of the contact force that does not modify the evolution of contact area $a$ which is give by $$\label{Eqn-ContactRadius} a^2 = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2c^2 \bar{R} \gamma =: a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2 & \mbox{plastic loading} \\ \left[ a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2 - \left(\frac{4 \bar{E} (\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}-\gamma)} {3 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{1/m}} \right)^2 \right]_+ & \mbox{elastic (un)loading} \end{array} \right.$$ with $\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}=a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2/2c^2 \bar{R}$. It is worth noting that a solid bridge breaks during unloading at $\gamma = a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2/2c^2\bar{R}-3 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{1+1/m}/4 \bar{E}$ (see Figure \[Fig-GeneralizedContactLaw\]b). The regularized contact force $P$ is defined by $$\label{Eqn-ContactForce} P = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} n_{\mbox{\tiny P}}~a^{2+1/m} \hspace{2.91in} \mbox{plastic loading} \\ \frac{2 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}{\pi} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{2+1/m} \left[ \arcsin\left(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right) - \frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}} \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^2} \right] \\ \hspace{1.37in} - 2 K_{Ic} \pi^{1/2} a^{3/2} \frac{(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})^2 [a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}-a]_{\mbox{\tiny +}}} {(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}-a} \hspace{0.35in} \mbox{elastic (un)loading} \end{array} \right.$$ where $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}>0$ is the regularization parameter and $a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ is the radius of the bonded area, or solid bridge, which evolves as follows $$\label{Eqn-EvolutionOfInternalVariable} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} a_{\mbox{\tiny B}} := a_{\mbox{\tiny P}} & \mbox{if mechano-chemical conditions are favorable, i.e., when $\dot{a}_{\mbox{\tiny P}}>0$} \\ a_{\mbox{\tiny B}} := 0 & \mbox{if solid bridge is broken, i.e., when $a = 0$} \\ \dot{a}_{\mbox{\tiny B}} = 0 & \mbox{otherwise, i.e., the size of the bonded area does not change} \end{array} \right.$$ Furthermore, the fracture toughness of the solid bridge is given by $K_{Ic}=\sqrt{2 G\bar{E}}$, where the dissipated energy $G$ includes interfacial fracture energy $\omega$ (i.e., surface and field forces at direct contact) and plastic or other type of dissipation $G_p$, that is $$K_{Ic}=\sqrt{\frac{(\omega_1+\omega_2+G_p) 2 E_1 E_2}{(1-\nu_1^2)E_2+(1-\nu_2^2)E_1}}$$ A solid bridge between two particles of the same material then reduces to $K_{Ic}=\sqrt{G E/(1-\nu^2)}$. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength. (a) Evolution of contact force $P$ under loading and two subsequent unloading-loading cycles that break the solid bridge. (b) Evolution of contact radius $a$. A regularization parameter $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ equal to $0.01$ is used.[]{data-label="Fig-GeneralizedContactLaw"}](Fig-Bonding001.pdf "fig:") (-181,229)[![Generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength. (a) Evolution of contact force $P$ under loading and two subsequent unloading-loading cycles that break the solid bridge. (b) Evolution of contact radius $a$. A regularization parameter $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ equal to $0.01$ is used.[]{data-label="Fig-GeneralizedContactLaw"}](Fig-TwoParticles.png "fig:")]{} ![Generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength. (a) Evolution of contact force $P$ under loading and two subsequent unloading-loading cycles that break the solid bridge. (b) Evolution of contact radius $a$. A regularization parameter $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ equal to $0.01$ is used.[]{data-label="Fig-GeneralizedContactLaw"}](Fig-Bonding002.pdf "fig:") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It bears emphasis that the contact force is continuous at $a = a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}$, and it is equal to zero at $a=0$, for any $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}} >0$ and any value of $a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$. Therefore, this generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength are continuous at the onset of unloading after formation of a solid bridge, and at the onset of plastic loading after breakage of a solid bridge or bonded surface (see Figure \[Fig-GeneralizedContactLaw\]a). This is achieved by means of a regularization term that introduces a small, controllable error in the solid bridge breakage force and the critical contact surface—that we will study in Section \[Section-ErrorAnalysis\], after introducing a set of non-dimensional parameters in Section \[Section-NonDimensional\]. The proposed contact laws are validated in Section \[Section-Validation\], followed by a reinterpretation of the regularization term as a cohesive zone model and by a sensitivity analysis in Sections \[Section-CohesizeZone\] and \[Section-Sensitivity\], respectively. Non-dimensional analysis {#Section-NonDimensional} ------------------------ We recast the generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength presented above using the following non-dimensional parameters: (i) elastic recovery ${\gamma}/{\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}$ and ${a}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}$, (ii) plastic deformation ${a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}/{\bar{R}}$, (iii) bonded surface ${a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}$, (iv) contact force ${P}{/\pi k \bar{\kappa} \bar{R}^2}$, (v) ratio of elastic to plastic stiffness $\psi={2 \bar{E}}/{3 \pi k \bar{\kappa}c^2}$, (vi) ratio of bonding to stored elastic energy $\chi = {4\pi K_{Ic}^2}/{n_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2 a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{1+2/m}}$. Therefore, the non-dimensional contact radius then simplifies to $$\dfrac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{plastic loading, i.e.,}~\gamma/\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}=1, a_{\mbox{\tiny P}} := \sqrt{2c^2 \bar{R} \gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}} \\ \left[ 1 - \left(\psi \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right) \left(\frac{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}{\bar{R}}\right)^{1-1/m} \right)^2 \right]_+^{1/2} & \mbox{elastic (un)loading, i.e.,}~\gamma/\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}<1 \end{array} \right.$$ and the non-dimensional contact force is $$\frac{P}{\pi k \bar{\kappa} \bar{R}^2} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \left(\frac{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}{\bar{R}}\right)^{2+1/m} \hspace{2.91in} \mbox{plastic loading} \\ \frac{2}{\pi} \left(\frac{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}{\bar{R}}\right)^{2+1/m} \left[ \arcsin\left(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right) - \frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}} \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^2} \right] \\ \hspace{0.67in} - \chi \left(\frac{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}{\bar{R}}\right)^{2+1/m} \left(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^{3/2} \frac{(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})^2 \left[a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}/a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}-a/a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}\right]_+} {(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}/a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}-a/a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}} \hspace{0.22in} \mbox{elastic (un)loading} \end{array} \right.$$ It is worth noting that bonding to stored elastic energy ratio $\chi$ is $16(\pi-2)/\pi^2 \approx 1.85$ times larger than the bonding energy to elastic energy ratio in [@Mesarovic-2000b]. Error analysis and optimal selection of the regularization parameter {#Section-ErrorAnalysis} -------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed generalized loading-unloading contact laws introduce a controllable error in the solid bridge breakage force and the critical contact surface. In order to study these errors, we first derive the critical force $P_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}$ and contact radius $a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}$ for a give regularization parameter $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ assuming, for simplicity, ${a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}=1$. The critical point occurs at the maximum tensile force, that is at $$\frac{\partial P}{\partial \gamma} = 0 = \frac{16 a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}\bar{E}}{3\pi(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}})^{1/2}} \left[ \left(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^{3/2} - \frac{3\pi^{3/2} K_{Ic}}{4 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{1/2+1/m}} \times \frac{(1-\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}})^2+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}(1-\frac{5}{3}\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}})} {(1-\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})^2(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})^{-2}} \sqrt{ 1-\left(\frac{a}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^2} \right]$$ and thus, after performing a power series expansion in $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$, the critical contact radius or critical pull-off force is given by the solution of $$\left(\frac{a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^3 = \frac{9\pi^3 K_{Ic}^2}{16 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2 a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{1+2/m}} \left[ 1 - \left(\frac{a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^2 - \frac{2(1+a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}/a_{\mbox{\tiny P}})(3-2a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}/a_{\mbox{\tiny P}})(3a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}/a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}-1)} {3(1-a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}/a_{\mbox{\tiny P}})} \xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}} + \mathcal{O}(\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}^2) \right]$$ Specifically, the critical contact radius for the regularized contact law, $a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}$, is give by the solution of the following equation $$\left(\frac{a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^{3/2} - \frac{3\pi^{3/2} K_{Ic}}{4 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{1/2+1/m}} \times \frac{(1-{a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}})^2+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}(1-\frac{5}{3}{a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}})} {(1-{a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})^2(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})^{-2}} \sqrt{ 1-\left(\frac{a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}\right)^2} = 0$$ which reduces to $({a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}})^{3} = \chi (3\pi/8)^2 (1-({a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}})^2)$ for $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}=0$ (cf. [@Mesarovic-2000]). Finally, the corresponding critical force is given by equation , i.e., by $P_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}} = P(a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}})$, and, naturally, the correct limiting behavior is retained, i.e., $a_{\mbox{\tiny C}} = a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}} \rightarrow 0}$ and $P_{\mbox{\tiny C}} = P_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}} \rightarrow 0}$. Figure \[Fig-ErrorAnalysis001\] shows the error incurred in the critical force and the critical contact radius for different regularization parameters and bonding to elastic energies ratios. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![Error incurred in the critical force ${P_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}$ and the critical contact radius ${a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}$ for different regularization parameters $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}=\{0, 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02, 0.025\}$ and bonding to elastic energies ratio $\chi$.[]{data-label="Fig-ErrorAnalysis001"}](Fig-PullOffForce_new.pdf "fig:") ![Error incurred in the critical force ${P_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}$ and the critical contact radius ${a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}$ for different regularization parameters $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}=\{0, 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02, 0.025\}$ and bonding to elastic energies ratio $\chi$.[]{data-label="Fig-ErrorAnalysis001"}](Fig-CriticalPoint_new.pdf "fig:") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We next define the optimal regulation parameter $ \bar{\xi}_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ as follows $$\bar{\xi}_{\mbox{\tiny B}} := \min \left\{ \xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}>0 \mbox{~~s.t.~~} \epsilon = \| 1 - a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}} / a_{\mbox{\tiny C}} \| \mbox{~~,~~} \xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}>0 \mbox{~~s.t.~~} \epsilon = \| 1 - P_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}} / P_{\mbox{\tiny C}} \| \right\}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the maximum relative error incurred in the critical contact radius and the critical force. Figure \[Fig-ErrorAnalysis002\] shows that a regularization parameter of ${\xi}_{\mbox{\tiny B}}=0.01$ ensures a moderate error in the prediction of the critical point over a wide range of bonding to elastic energy ratio conditions. It is worth noting that this controllable error is the cost we pay to achieve a numerically robust and efficient as well as a mechanistically sound formulation. ![ Optimal regularization parameter $\bar{\xi}_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ for introducing less than or equal to $1\%$ and $5\%$ error in ${a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}$ and in ${P_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}$ simultaneously. Thin solid lines correspond to the optimal values of $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ that keep ${a_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}$ within given bounds. Thin dashed lines correspond to the optimal values of $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ that keep ${P_{\mbox{\tiny C}}^{\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}}$ within given bounds.[]{data-label="Fig-ErrorAnalysis002"}](Fig-OptimalReg.pdf) Validation {#Section-Validation} ---------- We compare next the proposed formulation with detailed finite element simulations with Lennard-Jones stresses at the interface [@Du-2007] performed by Du et al. [@Du-2008]. The finite element simulations correspond to an elasto-plastic spherical particle with radius $R=1.3~\mu$m, Young’s modulus $E=233$ GPa, Poisson’s ratio $\nu=0.3$, yield stress equal to 1.94 GPa and linear hardening equal to 2$\%$ of Young’s modulus. We approximate the bi-linear elasto-plastic law by an exponential plastic law with plastic stiffness $\kappa=12.1$ GPa and plastic law exponent $m=1.79$. The bond interaction is represented by the Lennard-Jones potential between two parallel surfaces, which we approximate by an equivalent fracture toughness $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$. The maximum separation is $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. Figure \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] shows Du’s finite element calculations and the predictions of the generalized loading-unloading contact law for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength using three different values of $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ and adopting ${a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}=1$. It is evident in the figure that the proposed loading-unloading contact law is continuous at the onset of unloading by means of the regularization term (cf. Figure \[Fig-SimilaritySlnValidation\]c). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Detailed finite element simulations (symbols) performed by Du et al. [@Du-2008] and generalized loading-unloading contact law predictions (solid line) for $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, and $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$—the bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$. Three different values of $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ are use $0$, $0.01$, and $0.05$. Dimensionless force vs deformation (a) and dimensionless contact radius vs deformation (b) correspond to a single loading-unloading cycle with $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm.[]{data-label="Fig-Validation-Du2007"}](Fig-Validation001.pdf "fig:") ![Detailed finite element simulations (symbols) performed by Du et al. [@Du-2008] and generalized loading-unloading contact law predictions (solid line) for $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, and $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$—the bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$. Three different values of $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ are use $0$, $0.01$, and $0.05$. Dimensionless force vs deformation (a) and dimensionless contact radius vs deformation (b) correspond to a single loading-unloading cycle with $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm.[]{data-label="Fig-Validation-Du2007"}](Fig-Validation002.pdf "fig:") --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regularization as a cohesive zone model {#Section-CohesizeZone} --------------------------------------- We show next that the proposed regularization, which provides continuity in the contact force at the onset of unloading, is in the spirit of a cohesive zone model. Specifically, we show that the relationship between interfacial separation traction $\hat{T}$ and separation displacement $\hat{\gamma}$ follows a typical cohesive law curve under strain control, for $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}>0$. For simplicity, we restrict attention to ${a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}=1$ but, in general, the non-dimensional bonded surface is $0 \le a_{\mbox{\tiny B}}/a_{\mbox{\tiny P}} \le 1$. It is worth noting that the separation force $ P_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}}$ is the term in the unloading contact force that corresponds to separation and breakage of the solid bridge. Similarly, the separation displacement is zero at the onset of unloading and equal to the critical separation $\Delta\gamma_c$ at solid bridge breakage. Therefore, a non-dimensional separation force $\hat{P}$ and a non-dimensional separation displacement $\hat{\gamma}$ are defined as $$\hat{P} = \frac{ P_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}} }{ 2 K_{Ic} \pi^{1/2} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{3/2} } = \frac{({a}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}})^{3/2}(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})^2 [1-{a}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}]_{\mbox{\tiny +}}} {(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})-{a}/{a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}}}$$ $$\hat{\gamma} = \frac{(\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny P}}-\gamma)} {\Delta\gamma_c} \mbox{\hspace{.25in} with \hspace{.25in}} \Delta\gamma_c = \frac{3 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{1+1/m}}{4 \bar{E} }$$ and thus they are related by $$\hat{P} = \frac{\left(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}\right)^2 \left(1-\sqrt{1-\hat{\gamma}^2}\right) \left(1-\hat{\gamma}^2\right)^{3/4}} {1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}-\sqrt{1-\hat{\gamma}^2}}$$ We next define a separation traction $T_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ as $$T_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}} = \frac{ P_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}} K_{Ic} }{ 3 n_{\mbox{\tiny P}} \pi^{1/2} a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{5/2+1/m} \mathbb{C}(\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}) }$$ where the correction factor $\mathbb{C}(\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}})$ enforces $G=\int_0^{\Delta\gamma_c} T_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}} \mathrm{d}(\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{P}}}-\gamma)$ and is equal to $$\mathbb{C}(\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}) = \int_0^1 \frac{\left(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}\right)^2 \left(1-\sqrt{1-\hat{\gamma}^2}\right) \left(1-\hat{\gamma}^2\right)^{3/4}} {1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}-\sqrt{1-\hat{\gamma}^2}} \mathrm{d}\hat{\gamma}$$ The nondimensional separation traction thus simplifies to $$\hat{T} = \frac{ T_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}} 3 a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{1+1/m} n_{\mbox{\tiny P}} }{ 2 K_{Ic}^2 } = \frac{1}{\mathbb{C}(\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}) } \frac{\left(1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}\right)^2 \left(1-\sqrt{1-\hat{\gamma}^2}\right) \left(1-\hat{\gamma}^2\right)^{3/4}} {1+\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}-\sqrt{1-\hat{\gamma}^2}}$$ Figure \[Fig-CohesiveZoneModel\] shows the non-dimensional separation force $\hat{P}$ and non-dimensional separation traction $\hat{T}$ as a function of the non-dimensional separation displacement $\hat{\gamma}$ for different regularization parameters $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$. The similarity between a typical cohesive traction-separation curve under stain control and the traction-separation curves depicted in the figure is evident, for $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}>0$. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Non-dimensional separation force $\hat{P}$ (a) and non-dimensional separation traction $\hat{T}$ (b) as a function of the non-dimensional separation displacement $\hat{\gamma}$ for different regularization parameters $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}=\{0, 0.001, 0.05, 0.01\}$.[]{data-label="Fig-CohesiveZoneModel"}](Fig-CohesiveLaw01.pdf "fig:") ![Non-dimensional separation force $\hat{P}$ (a) and non-dimensional separation traction $\hat{T}$ (b) as a function of the non-dimensional separation displacement $\hat{\gamma}$ for different regularization parameters $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}=\{0, 0.001, 0.05, 0.01\}$.[]{data-label="Fig-CohesiveZoneModel"}](Fig-CohesiveLaw02.pdf "fig:") -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sensitivity analysis {#Section-Sensitivity} -------------------- The proposed loading-unloading contact law depends on five material properties, namely two elastic properties ($E$ and $\nu$), two plastic properties ($\kappa$, $m$) and one fracture mechanics property ($K_{Ic}$). In order to gain insight into the role of these parameters and the coupled mechanisms involved, we performed a sensitivity analysis whose results are presented in Figure \[Fig-SensitivityAnalysis\]. It is interesting to note that the bonding surface can be controlled by changing the Young’s modulus $E$ without changing the peak force, that is without changing the compaction force (see Fig. \[Fig-SensitivityAnalysis\]a). Bonding surface can also be manipulated by changing the plastic stiffness $\kappa$ (Fig. \[Fig-SensitivityAnalysis\]d), plastic law exponent $m$ (Fig. \[Fig-SensitivityAnalysis\]e) and the porosity or relative density through $\gamma$ (Fig. \[Fig-SensitivityAnalysis\]c) but, in contrast, this inevitably results in a change of the compaction force. This is valuable insight for product and process design integration, since, as mentioned above, compact strength is directly correlated to the bonding surface created during the compaction. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-E-001.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-R-001.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-gamma-001.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-E-002.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-R-002.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-gamma-002.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-kappa-001.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-m-001.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-KIc-001.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-kappa-002.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-m-002.pdf "fig:") ![Sensitivity analysis. Reference values $P_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$ correspond to Fig. \[Fig-Validation-Du2007\] and [@Du-2008], that is $R=1.3~\mu$m, $E=233$ GPa, $\nu=0.3$, $\kappa=12.1$ GPa, $m=1.79$, $K_{Ic}=0.48$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, $\gamma_{\textrm{max}}=28.2$ nm. The bonding energy to elastic energy ratio is $\chi=0.0493$.[]{data-label="Fig-SensitivityAnalysis"}](Fig-Trend-KIc-002.pdf "fig:") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Particle mechanics approach to powder compaction {#Section-ParticleMechanicsAlgorithm} ================================================ The particle mechanics approach for granular systems under high confinement, developed by Gonzalez and Cuitiño [@Gonzalez-2016], describes each individual particle in the powder bed, and the collective rearrangement and deformation of the particles that result in a compacted specimen. This approach has been used to predict the microstructure evolution during die-compaction of elastic spherical particles up to relative densities close to one. By employing a nonlocal contact formulation that remains predictive at high levels of confinement [@Gonzalez-2012], this study demonstrated that the coordination number depends on the level of compressibility of the particles and thus its scaling behavior is not independent of material properties as previously thought. The study also revealed that distributions of contact forces between particles and between particles and walls, although similar at jamming onset, are very different at full compaction—being particle-wall forces are in remarkable agreement with experimental measurements reported in the literature. In this work, we extend the particle mechanics approach to the treatment of internal variables (i.e., $\mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny P}}$ and $\mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$) and their equations of evolution (i.e., Equations \[Eqn-ContactRadius\] and \[Eqn-EvolutionOfInternalVariable\]) under quasi-static evolution. Therefore, an equilibrium configuration is defined by the solution of a system of nonlinear equations that corresponds to static equilibrium of the granular system, that is sum of all elasto-plastic contact forces acting on each particle equals zero, that is $$\label{Eqn-SOE} \sum\nolimits_{j \in \mathcal{N}_i} P\left( a(R_i+R_j-\\|\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{x}_j\\|, a_{\mbox{\tiny P},ij}), a_{\mbox{\tiny P},ij}, a_{\mbox{\tiny B},ij} \right) \tfrac{\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{x}_j}{\\|\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{x}_j\\|} = \mathbf{0}$$ where $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathcal{N}_i$ are the position and all the neighbors of particle $i$, respectively, $a_{\mbox{\tiny P},ij}=a_{\mbox{\tiny P},ji}$ and $a_{\mbox{\tiny B},ij}=a_{\mbox{\tiny B},ji}$ by definition, $P(a, a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}, a_{\mbox{\tiny B}})$ is given by equation , and $a(\gamma, a_{\mbox{\tiny P}})$ is given by equation . A sequential strategy is proposed to treat the nonlinear problem (see Algorithm \[Alg-SequentialStrategy\]). The equations of static equilibrium are solved for $\mathbf{x}=(\mathbf{x}_1^T, ..., \mathbf{x}_N^T)^T$, for given internal variables $ \mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny P}}=(a_{\mbox{\tiny P},12}, a_{\mbox{\tiny P},13}, ...,a_{\mbox{\tiny P},N-1,N})^T$ and $ \mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny B}}=(a_{\mbox{\tiny B},12}, a_{\mbox{\tiny B},13}, ...,a_{\mbox{\tiny B},N-1,N})^T$, by employing a trust-region method [@Coleman-1996; @Conn-2000] that successfully overcomes the characteristic ill-posedness of the problem (e.g., due to metastability [@Mehta-2007]). The basic trust-region algorithm requires the solution of a minimization problem to determine the step between iterations, namely the trust-region step. This minimization problem is of the form $\min\{\psi(\mathbf{s}):\\|\mathbf{s}\\| \leq \Delta\}$, where $\mathbf{s}={^{n+1}\mathbf{x}}-{^{n}\mathbf{x}}$ is the trust-region step, $\Delta$ is a trust-region radius and $\psi$ is a quadratic function that represents a local model of the objective function about ${^{n}\mathbf{x}}$, that is $$\psi(\mathbf{s})= \tfrac{1}{2} \\| {^n}\mathbf{F} + {^n}\mathbf{K} \mathbf{s} \\|^2 = \tfrac{1}{2} \left< {^n}\mathbf{F},{^n}\mathbf{F} \right> + \left< {^n}\mathbf{K} \mathbf{s}, {^n}\mathbf{F} \right> + \tfrac{1}{2} \left< {^n}\mathbf{K} \mathbf{s}, {^n}\mathbf{K} \mathbf{s}\right>$$ with ${^n}\mathbf{F}$ and ${^n}\mathbf{K}$ the global force vector and stiffness matrix at ${^{n}\mathbf{x}}$—the first term in the above equation is not required in the minimization problem. It is worth noting that the trust-region step is not necessarily in the direction of a quasi-Newton step and that the trust-region radius acts as a regularization term that controls the growth in the size of the least squares solution observed in most ill-posed [@Vicente-1996]. Trading accuracy for performance, Byrd [@Byrd-1988], among others, proposed to approximate the minimization problem by restricting the problem to a two-dimensional subspace. Furthermore, the two-dimensional subspace can be determined by a preconditioned conjugate gradient process and the trust-region radius can be adjusted over the iterative process (see, e.g., [@More-1983]). Here we adopt the implementation available in MATLAB R2016a Optimization Toolbox. It is worth noting that an equilibrium configuration is not obtained by artificially damped or cooled-down dynamic processes but rather by iterative solvers that follow the energy landscape around the solution of static equilibrium. The strain path dependency of the contact law is accounted for incrementally by updating internal variables $\mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny P}}$ and $\mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ at the new equilibrium configuration. Specifically, new particle-to-particle contact radii $a_{ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}}$ are computed at the converged equilibrium configuration and internal variables are updated as follows: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} a_{\mbox{\tiny P},ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}} \leftarrow a_{ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}}~,~~~a_{\mbox{\tiny B},ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}} \leftarrow a_{ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}} & \mbox{if $a_{ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}} > a_{\mbox{\tiny P},ij}$~~~~plastic loading and bond formation} \\ a_{\mbox{\tiny B},ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}} \leftarrow 0 & \mbox{if $a_{ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}} = 0$~~~~~~~~~solid bridge is broken} \\ a_{\mbox{\tiny P},ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}} \leftarrow a_{\mbox{\tiny P},ij}~,~~~a_{\mbox{\tiny B},ij}^{\mbox{\tiny new}} \leftarrow a_{\mbox{\tiny B},ij} & \mbox{otherwise~~~~~~~~~~elastic (un)loading} \end{array} \right.$$ Initial guess for particles’ coordinates ${^1}\mathbf{x}$, current state of internal variables $\{ \mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny P}}, \mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny B}} \}$, TOL1, trust-region radius $\Delta$ and the simplicial complex $X$ $\text{Error} \leftarrow \text{TOL1}$ $n \leftarrow 1$ /$\ast$ Compute global force and global stiffness. $\ast$/ $\{{^n}\mathbf{F},{^n}\mathbf{K}\} \leftarrow \mathbf{ContactFormulation}({^n}\mathbf{x},\mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny P}},\mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny B}},X)$ /$\ast$ Update coordinates with the trust-region step obtained by restricting the problem to a two-dimensional subspace [@Byrd-1988]. $\ast$/ ${^n\mathbf{s}} \leftarrow \text{argmin}_\mathbf{s} ~ \left< {^n}\mathbf{K} \mathbf{s}, {^n}\mathbf{F} \right> + \tfrac{1}{2} \left< {^n}\mathbf{K} \mathbf{s}, {^n}\mathbf{K} \mathbf{s}\right>$ subject to $\\|\mathbf{s}\\| \le \Delta$ ${^{n+1}\mathbf{x}} \leftarrow {^{n}\mathbf{x}} + {^n\mathbf{s}}$ /$\ast$ Compute a measure of convergence. $\ast$/ $\text{Error} \leftarrow \\| {^n\mathbf{s}} \\|$ $n \leftarrow n+1$ /$\ast$ Update internal variables based on converged solution. $\ast$/ $\{ \mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{\mbox{\tiny new}}, \mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny B}}^{\mbox{\tiny new}} \} \leftarrow \mathbf{UpdateInternalVariables}({^n}\mathbf{x},\mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny P}},\mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny B}})$ $\{ {^n\mathbf{x}}, \mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^{\mbox{\tiny new}}, \mathbf{a}_{\mbox{\tiny B}}^{\mbox{\tiny new}}\}$ Microstructure formation and evolution during compaction, unloading and ejection {#Section-MicrostructureEvolution} ================================================================================ We next report three-dimensional particle mechanics static calculations that enable us to study microstructure evolution during die-compaction up to relative densities close to one, unloading and ejection of elasto-plastic spherical particles with bonding strength. We employ the generalized loading-unloading contact laws presented in Section \[Section-GeneralizedContactLaws\] which result in a numerically robust and efficient formulation. The contact laws are continuous at the onset of unloading by means of a regularization term, they are explicit in terms of the relative position between the particles, and their strain path dependency is accounted for incrementally. Here we adopt a regularization parameter equal to $\xi_{\mbox{\tiny B}}=0.01$. Three different relative densities are defined and used in the study, namely (i) the maximum relative density of the compact inside the die $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$ which occurs at the shortest gap between the two punches (i.e., (B) in Fig. \[Fig-CompactionSchematics\]), (ii) the minimum relative density of the compact inside the die $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$ which occurs right after separation of the upper punch from the compact (i.e., (C) in Fig. \[Fig-CompactionSchematics\]), and (iii) the relative density of the tablet out of the die $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny tablet}}$ which is approximately equal to $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$ (i.e., (D) in Fig. \[Fig-CompactionSchematics\]). We specifically study a noncohesive frictionless [@Mahmoodi-2010] granular system comprised by 6,512 weightless spherical particles with radius $R = 220 \mu$m, and two sets of material properties, namely (i) [Material 1]{} with Young’s modulus $E=5$ GPa, and Poisson’s ratio $\nu=0.25$, plastic stiffness $\kappa=150$ MPa, plastic law exponent $m=2.00$, and fracture toughness $K_{Ic}=1.26$ MPa m$^{1/2}$, and (ii) [Material 2]{} with Young’s modulus $E=30$ GPa, and Poisson’s ratio $\nu=0.25$, plastic stiffness $\kappa=900$ MPa, plastic law exponent $m=2.00$, and fracture toughness $K_{Ic}=6.19$ MPa m$^{1/2}$ (see Table \[Table-MaterialProperties\]). These materials properties do not correspond to any material in particular but rather represent lower and upper bounds for many pharmaceutical powders, including drugs and excipients (see, e.g., [@Mahmoodi-2013; @Panelli-2001] and references therein). The granular bed, which is numerically generated by means of a ballistic deposition technique [@Jullien-1989], is constrained by a rigid cylindrical die of diameter $D=10$ mm. Assuming a sufficiently small compaction speed, we consider rate-independent material behavior and we neglect traveling waves, or any other dynamic effect [@Gonzalez-2016]. The deformation process is therefore described by a sequence of static equilibrium configurations using the particle mechanics approach presented in Section \[Section-ParticleMechanicsAlgorithm\]. In this work we employ 115 quasi-static load steps and we consider 12 unloading points, namely $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}=\{ 0.6663, 0.6869, 07089, 0.7323, 0.7573, 0.7841, 0.8128, 0.8437, 0.8770,$ $0.9131, 0.9523, 0.9950 \}$. Figure \[Fig-FullSystem\] shows the compacted granular bed at $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.7323$ and at $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.9523$. Figure \[Fig-SingleParticle3D\] shows the evolution of deformations of a single particle located inside the powder bed, where the particle deformed configuration is estimated from neighboring particles’ displacements and contact radii. The similitude with the experimentally observed shape of die-compacted spherical granules formed from microcrystalline cellulose [@Nordstrom-2013] is striking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Compacted granular bed of Material 1 at $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.7323$ (a) and at $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.9523$ (b).[]{data-label="Fig-FullSystem"}](Fig-CN-Cylinder-Full_Initial.png "fig:") ![Compacted granular bed of Material 1 at $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.7323$ (a) and at $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.9523$ (b).[]{data-label="Fig-FullSystem"}](Fig-CN-Cylinder-Full_Final.png "fig:") ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- ![Deformed configuration of a single particle located inside the powder bed of Material 1 at eight different levels of confinement $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}=\{ 0.7323, 0.7573, 0.7841, 0.8128,$ $0.8437, 0.8770, 0.9131, 0.9523 \}$.[]{data-label="Fig-SingleParticle3D"}](Fig-2276-75.png "fig:") ![Deformed configuration of a single particle located inside the powder bed of Material 1 at eight different levels of confinement $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}=\{ 0.7323, 0.7573, 0.7841, 0.8128,$ $0.8437, 0.8770, 0.9131, 0.9523 \}$.[]{data-label="Fig-SingleParticle3D"}](Fig-2276-80.png "fig:") ![Deformed configuration of a single particle located inside the powder bed of Material 1 at eight different levels of confinement $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}=\{ 0.7323, 0.7573, 0.7841, 0.8128,$ $0.8437, 0.8770, 0.9131, 0.9523 \}$.[]{data-label="Fig-SingleParticle3D"}](Fig-2276-85.png "fig:") ![Deformed configuration of a single particle located inside the powder bed of Material 1 at eight different levels of confinement $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}=\{ 0.7323, 0.7573, 0.7841, 0.8128,$ $0.8437, 0.8770, 0.9131, 0.9523 \}$.[]{data-label="Fig-SingleParticle3D"}](Fig-2276-90.png "fig:") ![Deformed configuration of a single particle located inside the powder bed of Material 1 at eight different levels of confinement $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}=\{ 0.7323, 0.7573, 0.7841, 0.8128,$ $0.8437, 0.8770, 0.9131, 0.9523 \}$.[]{data-label="Fig-SingleParticle3D"}](Fig-2276-95.png "fig:") ![Deformed configuration of a single particle located inside the powder bed of Material 1 at eight different levels of confinement $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}=\{ 0.7323, 0.7573, 0.7841, 0.8128,$ $0.8437, 0.8770, 0.9131, 0.9523 \}$.[]{data-label="Fig-SingleParticle3D"}](Fig-2276-100.png "fig:") ![Deformed configuration of a single particle located inside the powder bed of Material 1 at eight different levels of confinement $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}=\{ 0.7323, 0.7573, 0.7841, 0.8128,$ $0.8437, 0.8770, 0.9131, 0.9523 \}$.[]{data-label="Fig-SingleParticle3D"}](Fig-2276-105.png "fig:") ![Deformed configuration of a single particle located inside the powder bed of Material 1 at eight different levels of confinement $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}=\{ 0.7323, 0.7573, 0.7841, 0.8128,$ $0.8437, 0.8770, 0.9131, 0.9523 \}$.[]{data-label="Fig-SingleParticle3D"}](Fig-2276-110.png "fig:") ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- We investigate jamming transition, evolution of the mean mechanical coordination number (number of non-zero contact forces between a particle and its neighbors) in Section \[Section-MeanCoord\], punch force and die-wall reaction during compaction and unloading in Section \[Section-PunchForce\], in-die elastic recovery during unloading in Section \[Section-ElasticRecovery\], and residual radial pressure after unloading and ejection pressure in Section \[Section-ResidualEjection\]. We also investigate microstructure evolution by studying probability density function of contact forces as well as the anisotropic granular fabric after compaction, unloading and ejection in Section \[Section-NetworkCFAnisotroy\]. Finally, we evaluate the evolution of bonding surface area during all stages of die compaction in Section \[Section-BondingArea\] and we estimate the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the compacted solid in Section \[Section-YoungPoisson\]. We close by depicting a microstructure-mediated process-structure-property-performance interrelationship of the compaction process in Section \[Section-PSPP\]. Mean coordination number {#Section-MeanCoord} ------------------------ The mean coordination number $\bar{Z}$ evolves as a power law of the following form $$\bar{Z} - \bar{Z}_c = \bar{Z}_0 (\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}-\rho_{c,\bar{Z}})^{\theta} \label{Eqn-CoordinationFit}$$ where $\rho_{c,\bar{Z}}$ is the critical relative density, $\bar{Z}_c$ is the minimal average coordination number and $\theta$ is the critical exponent. This well-known critical-like behavior has an exponent consistent with $1/2$ for different pair-interaction contact laws, polydispercity and dimensionality of the problem [@OHern-2002; @OHern-2003; @Durian-1995]. It is known, however, that this power law is a first order approximation to the behavior of a deformable material for which, as demonstrated by Gonzalez et al. [@Gonzalez-2016] for elastic materials, the coordination number depends on the level of compressibility, i.e., on Poisson’s ratio, of the particles and thus its scaling behavior is not independent of material properties as previously thought. This more realistic behavior is predicted by nonlocal contact formulations [@Gonzalez-2012; @Gonzalez-2016] and it will not be the focus of this paper, as it was previously stated. Figure \[Fig-CN\] shows the results obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulations and their best fit to equation . Jamming occurs at $\bar{Z}_c=4.366$ and $\rho_{c,\bar{Z}}=0.5081$ with $\theta=0.5535$ for Material 1, and at $\bar{Z}_c=4.439$ and $\rho_{c,\bar{Z}}=0.5151$ with $\theta=0.5333$ for Material 2. The fit to numerical results is good not only near jamming but also at large relative densities. It is worth noting that the isostatic condition for frictionless packings implies a critical coordination number equal to 6 and a critical density close to 0.64. In addition, however, there exists a body of work that indicates that $\rho_{c,\bar{Z}}$ depends on the protocol used for obtaining jammed configurations and on the particle-die size ratio, and that monodisperse systems are prone to crystallization [@Baranau-2104; @Chaudhuri-2010; @Schreck-2011; @Vagberg-2011]. Here we restrict our discussion to post-jamming behavior and to one preparation protocol. It is also interesting to note that the jamming transition occurs later for $K_{Ic}=0$—cf. [@Gonzalez-2018], that is $\rho_{c,\bar{Z}}=0.57$ with $\bar{Z}_c\approx 5$, for the same preparation protocol. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![Mean coordination number as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$. Solid line corresponds to the best fit of equation (\[Eqn-CoordinationFit\]) to the mean coordination number obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-CN"}](Fig-MeanCoordination.pdf "fig:") ![Mean coordination number as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$. Solid line corresponds to the best fit of equation (\[Eqn-CoordinationFit\]) to the mean coordination number obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-CN"}](Fig-MeanCoordinationM2.pdf "fig:") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Punch force and die-wall reaction {#Section-PunchForce} --------------------------------- The pressures applied by the punches and the reaction at the die wall are macroscopic variables relevant to powder die-compaction that are effectively predicted by the particle contact mechanics simulation. These predictions are presented in Figure \[Fig-AppliedPressure\]a for solid compacts compressed at 12 different relative densities. The compaction process is dominated by plastic deformations and formation of solid bridges, while the unloading stage is characterized by elastic recovery and breakage of bonded surfaces. The numerical simulation accounts for these different physical mechanisms and it successfully predicts a residual radial stress after unloading. If there is friction between the solid compact and the die wall during the ejection stage, the residual radial stress will lead to an ejection force. Figure \[Fig-AppliedPressure\]b shows the evolution of the punch force during compaction, unloading and ejection (assuming, for simplicity, a friction coefficient of 1). We also note that the compaction pressure follows a power law of the following form $$\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny punch}} = K_{\mbox{\tiny P}} (\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} - \rho_{c,\bar{Z}})^{\beta_{\mbox{\tiny P}} } \label{Eqn-AppliedPressure}$$ where $\rho_{c,\bar{Z}}$ is obtained from the evolution of $\bar{Z}$, and the coefficients $K_{\mbox{\tiny P}} = 210$ MPa and $\beta_{\mbox{\tiny P}} =1.561$ are best-fitted to the numerical results for Material 1—$K_{\mbox{\tiny P}} = 1.265$ GPa and $\beta_{\mbox{\tiny P}} = 1.541$ for Material 2. It is interesting to note that a factor of two in $\kappa$ translates into a factor of two in $K_{\mbox{\tiny P}}$, as noted in [@Gonzalez-2018] for $K_{Ic}=0$. As mentioned above, the compaction curves shown in Figure \[Fig-AppliedPressure\] represent lower and upper bounds for many pharmaceutical powders, including drugs and excipients [@Mahmoodi-2013; @Panelli-2001]—e.g., ammonium chloride’s compaction curve is similar to Material 1, and lactose monohydrate’s compaction curve to Material 2 [@Razavi-2018]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Punch and die-wall pressures as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}$ (a)&(c) and punch force (b)&(d) as a function of tablet press step during the powder die-compaction process—labels correspond to Fig. \[Fig-CompactionSchematics\].[]{data-label="Fig-AppliedPressure"}](Fig-PressurevsRD.pdf "fig:") ![Punch and die-wall pressures as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}$ (a)&(c) and punch force (b)&(d) as a function of tablet press step during the powder die-compaction process—labels correspond to Fig. \[Fig-CompactionSchematics\].[]{data-label="Fig-AppliedPressure"}](Fig-ForcevsStep.pdf "fig:") ![Punch and die-wall pressures as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}$ (a)&(c) and punch force (b)&(d) as a function of tablet press step during the powder die-compaction process—labels correspond to Fig. \[Fig-CompactionSchematics\].[]{data-label="Fig-AppliedPressure"}](Fig-PressurevsRDM2.pdf "fig:") ![Punch and die-wall pressures as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}$ (a)&(c) and punch force (b)&(d) as a function of tablet press step during the powder die-compaction process—labels correspond to Fig. \[Fig-CompactionSchematics\].[]{data-label="Fig-AppliedPressure"}](Fig-ForcevsStepM2.pdf "fig:") --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In-die elastic recovery {#Section-ElasticRecovery} ----------------------- The in-die elastic recovery is further investigated and two alternative definitions found in the literature are proposed, namely the elastic recovery in terms of relative density $\epsilon_{\rho}$ and in terms of tablet height $\epsilon_{H}$, that is $$\epsilon_{\rho} = \frac{\rho_{\mbox{\tiny max}}^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}-\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}}{\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}} \mbox{~~~~~,~~~~~} \epsilon_{H} = \frac{H^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}} - H^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}}{H^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}} \label{Eqn-DefinitionElasticRecovery}$$ Naturally, these two definitions are interrelated and, adopting a linear relationship between $\epsilon_{\rho}$ and relative density, one obtains they are the same to fist order in $\epsilon_{\rho}$. Specifically, the following relationships hold $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_{\rho} &=& \epsilon_{0} \frac{\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} - \rho_{c,\epsilon}}{1-\rho_{c,\epsilon}} \label{Eqn-ElasticRecovery} \\ \epsilon_{H} &=& \frac{\epsilon_{0} (\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} - \rho_{c,\epsilon})}{1- \rho_{c,\epsilon}-\epsilon_{0} (\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} - \rho_{c,\epsilon})} = \epsilon_{\rho} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon_{\rho}^2)\end{aligned}$$ where the in-die elastic recovery at full compaction $\epsilon_{0}=3.550\%$ and the critical relative density $\rho_{c,\epsilon}=0.5180$ are best-fitted to the numerical results for Material 1—$\epsilon_{0}=4.579\%$ and $\rho_{c,\epsilon}=0.5602$ for Material 2. Figure \[Fig-ElasticRecovery\] shows the results obtained from the particle mechanics simulations and their fit to the above equations. It is worth noting that these values are in the lower range of many pharmaceutical excipients [@Haware-2010; @Yohannes-2015], which highlights the ability of the proposed model to decouple the loading and unloading parts of the compaction curve by properly choose material properties. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![In-die elastic recovery as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$. Solid line corresponds to the best fit of equation to the in-die elastic recovery in terms of relative density obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-ElasticRecovery"}](Fig-ElasticRecovery.pdf "fig:") ![In-die elastic recovery as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$. Solid line corresponds to the best fit of equation to the in-die elastic recovery in terms of relative density obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-ElasticRecovery"}](Fig-ElasticRecoveryM2.pdf "fig:") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residual radial pressure and ejection pressure {#Section-ResidualEjection} ---------------------------------------------- The residual radial pressure and ejection pressure are further investigated and the following relations are proposed $$\begin{aligned} \sigma_{\mbox{\tiny residual}} \label{Eqn-ResidualPressure} &=& \sigma_{\mbox{\tiny res},0} ~ \dfrac{\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} (\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} - \rho_{c,e})}{1-\rho_{c,e}} \\ \sigma_{\mbox{\tiny ejection}} &=& \mu ~ \dfrac{\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny res},0}~16 W}{\rho_t \pi D^3 } ~ \dfrac{\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} - \rho_{c,e}}{1-\rho_{c,e}} \label{Eqn-EjectionPressure}\end{aligned}$$ where the residual radial radial pressure at full compaction $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny res},0}=9.719$ MPa and the critical relative density $\rho_{c,e}=0.6196$ are best-fitted to the numerical results for Material 1—$\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny res},0}=59.51$ MPa and $\rho_{c,e}=0.6093$ for Material 2. The two equations presented above are equivalent and obtained by using the relationship between the punch gap and in-die relative density, i.e., $H^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}= 4W/(\pi D^2\rho_t\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}})$—where $\rho_t$ is the true density of the material and $W$ is the weight of the powder inside the die with diameter $D$. Figure \[Fig-EjectionPressure\] shows the results obtained from the particle mechanics simulations and their fit to the above equations. These values are similar to those observed in many pharmaceutical excipients (see, e.g., [@AbdelHamid-2011; @Doelker-2004]). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Residual radial pressure and ejection pressure as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations - to the residual radial pressure and ejection pressure obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-EjectionPressure"}](Fig-EjectionResidualPressure.pdf "fig:") ![Residual radial pressure and ejection pressure as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations - to the residual radial pressure and ejection pressure obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-EjectionPressure"}](Fig-EjectionResidualPressureM2.pdf "fig:") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Network of contact forces and granular fabric anisotropy {#Section-NetworkCFAnisotroy} -------------------------------------------------------- In previous subsections we studied the evolution of macroscopic, effective properties of the compaction process (i.e., punch force and die-wall reaction during compaction and unloading, in-die elastic recovery during unloading, and residual radial pressure after unloading and ejection pressure). Next, we turn attention to the evolution of some of the microstructural features that give rise to such macroscopic behavior. Under increasing confinement, powders support stress by spatial rearrangement and deformation of particles and by the development of inhomogeneous force networks. A force network is typically characterized by the probability distribution of its inter-particle contact forces and their directional orientation. For simplicity of exposition, we restrict attention to the behavior of Material 1—results are similar for Material 2. Figure \[Fig-ContactForceDistribution\] shows the distribution of contact forces after loading, unloading and ejection at three different levels of compaction. It is worth noting that we show force histograms rather than, as it is typically used in the literature, probability distributions of contact forces non-dimensionalized by their mean value. In turn, it is evident from the figure that: (i) the range of compressive forces increases with relative density more than the range of tensile forces does; (ii) compressive forces reduce significantly in magnitude during unloading, while tensile forces hardly change; and (iii) distributions after unloading and after ejection are very similar and both exhibit some symmetry about zero. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![Distribution of contact forces after loading, unloading and ejection at three different levels of compaction $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$ equal to $0.7323$, $0.8437$ and $0.9950$. Broken solid bridges are not included and distributions are obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed.[]{data-label="Fig-ContactForceDistribution"}](Fig-075-CF.pdf "fig:") ![Distribution of contact forces after loading, unloading and ejection at three different levels of compaction $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$ equal to $0.7323$, $0.8437$ and $0.9950$. Broken solid bridges are not included and distributions are obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed.[]{data-label="Fig-ContactForceDistribution"}](Fig-095-CF.pdf "fig:") ![Distribution of contact forces after loading, unloading and ejection at three different levels of compaction $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$ equal to $0.7323$, $0.8437$ and $0.9950$. Broken solid bridges are not included and distributions are obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed.[]{data-label="Fig-ContactForceDistribution"}](Fig-115-CF.pdf "fig:") ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Granular fabric anisotropy is a complementary aspect of stress transmission and it can be determined from particle mechanics descriptions of granular systems under static equilibrium. This anisotropy is influenced by different factors, such as particle shape, die filling protocol, and deformation history. We specifically study the orientation distribution function of contact normals and of the mean contact force. Using spherical coordinates with azimuth and zenith angles $\theta$ and $\phi$, we define the contact orientation vector by $${\bf{n}} = (\sin(\theta) \cos(\phi),\sin(\theta) \sin(\phi), \cos(\theta) )$$ and, for axial symmetry around the zenith axis or the direction of compaction [@Gonzalez-2018b], the spherical harmonics spectrum of the orientation distribution function of contact normals $ \xi({\bf{n}})=\xi(\theta,\phi)$ [@Chang-1990] by $$\begin{aligned} &\xi(\theta,\phi) = \dfrac{1}{4 \pi} &\left( 1 + \frac{a_{20}}{2} (3 \cos(\theta)^2-1) + \frac{a_{40}}{8} (35 \cos(\theta)^4-30 \cos(\theta)^2+3) \right. \\ \nonumber && + \frac{a_{60}}{16} (231 \cos(\theta)^6 -315 \cos(\theta)^4 + 105 \cos(\theta)^2 - 5) \\ \nonumber && + \left. \frac{a_{80}}{128} (6435 \cos(\theta)^8 - 12012 \cos(\theta)^6 + 6930 \cos(\theta)^4 - 1260 \cos(\theta)^2 + 35) \right) \label{Eqn-ODF-Normals}\end{aligned}$$ with $ \int_0^\pi \int_0^{2\pi} \xi(\theta,\phi) \sin(\theta) \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi = 1$. Similarly, the orientation distribution function of the mean contact force is assumed to be $$\begin{aligned} &\dfrac{ f(\theta,\phi) }{f_{\rm avg}} = \dfrac{1}{4 \pi} & \left(1 + \frac{b_{20}}{2} (3 \cos(\theta)^2-1) + \frac{b_{40}}{8} (35 \cos(\theta)^4-30 \cos(\theta)^2+3) \right. \\ \nonumber && + \frac{b_{60}}{16} (231 \cos(\theta)^6 -315 \cos(\theta)^4 + 105 \cos(\theta)^2 - 5) \\ \nonumber && \left. + \frac{b_{80}}{128} (6435 \cos(\theta)^8 - 12012 \cos(\theta)^6 + 6930 \cos(\theta)^4 - 1260 \cos(\theta)^2 + 35) \right) \label{Eqn-ODF-Forces}\end{aligned}$$ with $ \int_0^\pi \int_0^{2\pi} f(\theta,\phi) \sin(\theta) \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi = {f_{\rm avg}}$. Figures \[Fig-FabricAnisotropy001\] and \[Fig-FabricAnisotropy002\] show the orientation distribution function of the mean contact force and of contact normals after compaction, unloading and ejection obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed at relative densities $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$ equal to $0.7323$ and $0.9950$, respectively. It is evident from the figure that: (i) the small number of large forces are oriented in the loading direction after compaction, while the large number of intermediate to small forces are oriented at $\pm60^{\circ}$ from the loading direction; (ii) the orientation distribution of contact normals does not significantly change during unloading and ejection due to the plastic, permanent nature of the deformations; (iii) after unloading, most large, vertically oriented forces are relaxed and, after ejection, most radially oriented forces are relaxed; (iv) compressive residual forces in the ejected solid compact are mostly oriented at $\pm60^{\circ}$ from the loading direction, and there is a small number of tensile residual forces that are oriented in the direction of loading; and (v) the orientation distribution of residual mean contact forces is different for different relative densities $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}}$. [ccc]{} ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.7323$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy001"}](Fig-MeanForceAngular-075-B.pdf "fig:") & ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.7323$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy001"}](Fig-MeanForceAngular-075-C.pdf "fig:") & ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.7323$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy001"}](Fig-MeanForceAngular-075-D.pdf "fig:")\ & &\ \ ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.7323$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy001"}](Fig-ContactsAngular-075-B.pdf "fig:") & ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.7323$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy001"}](Fig-ContactsAngular-075-C.pdf "fig:") & ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.7323$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy001"}](Fig-ContactsAngular-075-D.pdf "fig:")\ & &\ [ccc]{} ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.9950$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy002"}](Fig-MeanForceAngular-115-B.pdf "fig:") & ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.9950$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy002"}](Fig-MeanForceAngular-115-C.pdf "fig:") & ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.9950$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy002"}](Fig-MeanForceAngular-115-D.pdf "fig:")\ & &\ \ ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.9950$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy002"}](Fig-ContactsAngular-115-B.pdf "fig:") & ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.9950$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy002"}](Fig-ContactsAngular-115-C.pdf "fig:") & ![Granular fabric anisotropy, adopting axial symmetry around the direction of compaction, for relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny max}} = 0.9950$. Solid lines correspond to the best fit of equations and to the distributions obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-FabricAnisotropy002"}](Fig-ContactsAngular-115-D.pdf "fig:")\ & &\ Table \[Table-FabricAnisotropy\] shows the coefficients $a_i$ and $b_i$ determined by fitting equations and to the distributions illustrated in Figures \[Fig-FabricAnisotropy001\]-\[Fig-FabricAnisotropy002\] and obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed. It is worth noting that a eighth-order approximation is the lowest-order representation of the orientation distributions functions that captures the characteristics of directional distributions at the desired approximation accuracy. The eighth-order expansion of $\xi({\bf{n}})$ takes the form $$\xi({\bf{n}}) = C + C_{ij} n_i n_j + C_{ijkl} n_i n_j n_k n_l + C_{ijklpq} n_i n_j n_k n_l n_p n_q + C_{ijklpqrs} n_i n_j n_k n_l n_p n_q n_r n_s$$ where four independent coefficients $a_{20}$, $a_{40}$, $a_{60}$ and $a_{80}$ emerge after enforcing symmetry about the zenith axis and $ \int_0^\pi \int_0^{2\pi} \xi(\theta,\phi) \sin(\theta) \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi = 1$—cf. equation . In a similar manner, four independent coefficients $b_{20}$, $b_{40}$, $b_{60}$ and $b_{80}$ characterize the eighth-order expansion of ${ f({\bf n}) }/{f_{\rm avg}}$—cf. equation . Bonding surface area {#Section-BondingArea} -------------------- As discussed above, the quantitative elucidation of strength formation requires not only the identification of the deformation and bonding mechanisms of interest but also of the bonding surface involved in the process. Here we assume that an upper bound for the bonding surface involved in the formation of solid bridges is the particle-to-particle contact area created during compaction. Therefore, we study the bonding surface area by defining a parameter $\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b}}$ that is proportional to the ratio between the total bonding surface and that total available surface in the powder bed, i.e., $\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b}}=(\sum a_{\mbox{\tiny P}}^2)/(R^2 N_P)$ with $N_P$ being the number of particles in the monodisperse bed. Specifically, we investigate the evolution of the bonding surface parameter $\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b}}$ during all stages of die compaction (see Figure \[Fig-BondingSurface\]) and we identify that the following relationship holds $$\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b}} = \bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b},0} \frac{\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}} - \rho_{c,b}}{1-\rho_{c,b}} \label{Eqn-BondingSurface}$$ where the bonding surface parameter of a fully dense tablet $\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b},0} = 1.030$ and the critical relative density $\rho_{c,b}=0.5004$ are best-fitted to the numerical results for Material 1—$\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b},0} = 0.9883$ and $\rho_{c,b}=0.4988$ for Material 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Bonding surface area. (a)&(c) bonding surface parameter $\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b}}$ as a function of tablet press step for loading, unloading and ejection; (b)&(d) bonding surface parameter as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$. Solid line in (b)&(d) corresponds to the best fit of equation to the bonding surface parameter obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-BondingSurface"}](Fig-BondingSurfacevsStep.pdf "fig:") ![Bonding surface area. (a)&(c) bonding surface parameter $\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b}}$ as a function of tablet press step for loading, unloading and ejection; (b)&(d) bonding surface parameter as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$. Solid line in (b)&(d) corresponds to the best fit of equation to the bonding surface parameter obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-BondingSurface"}](Fig-BondingSurfacevsDensity.pdf "fig:") ![Bonding surface area. (a)&(c) bonding surface parameter $\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b}}$ as a function of tablet press step for loading, unloading and ejection; (b)&(d) bonding surface parameter as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$. Solid line in (b)&(d) corresponds to the best fit of equation to the bonding surface parameter obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-BondingSurface"}](Fig-BondingSurfacevsStepM2.pdf "fig:") ![Bonding surface area. (a)&(c) bonding surface parameter $\bar{A}_{\mbox{\tiny b}}$ as a function of tablet press step for loading, unloading and ejection; (b)&(d) bonding surface parameter as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$. Solid line in (b)&(d) corresponds to the best fit of equation to the bonding surface parameter obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-BondingSurface"}](Fig-BondingSurfacevsDensityM2.pdf "fig:") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It bears emphasis that the formation of bonding surface area is controlled by both plastic deformations and elastic deformations. It is known that extensive particle elasticity could cause a drastic decrease in tablet strength, due to the breakage of solid bridges and thus reduction of bonding surface area. Figure \[Fig-BondingSurface\] shows that during unloading and ejection the lost in bonding surface area is larger for higher relative densities, i.e., for higher elastic recovery (cf. Figure \[Fig-ElasticRecovery\]). These trends are consistent with the behavior of many pharmaceutical excipients obtained from permeametry measurements [@Adolfsson-1999; @Nystrom-1986]. Finally, it is interesting to note that $\rho_{c,\bar{Z}} \approx \rho_{c,b}$. Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the compacted solid {#Section-YoungPoisson} ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. (a)&(c) Young’s modulus of the compacted solid as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$; (b)&(d) Poisson’s ratio of the compacted solid as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$. Solid line in (a)&(c) corresponds to the best fit of equation to the bonding surface parameter obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-YoungPoisson"}](Fig-YoungModulus.pdf "fig:") ![Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. (a)&(c) Young’s modulus of the compacted solid as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$; (b)&(d) Poisson’s ratio of the compacted solid as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$. Solid line in (a)&(c) corresponds to the best fit of equation to the bonding surface parameter obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-YoungPoisson"}](Fig-PoissonRatio.pdf "fig:") ![Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. (a)&(c) Young’s modulus of the compacted solid as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$; (b)&(d) Poisson’s ratio of the compacted solid as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$. Solid line in (a)&(c) corresponds to the best fit of equation to the bonding surface parameter obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-YoungPoisson"}](Fig-YoungModulusM2.pdf "fig:") ![Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. (a)&(c) Young’s modulus of the compacted solid as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$; (b)&(d) Poisson’s ratio of the compacted solid as a function of relative density $\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}}$. Solid line in (a)&(c) corresponds to the best fit of equation to the bonding surface parameter obtained from the particle contact mechanics simulation of the granular bed (symbols).[]{data-label="Fig-YoungPoisson"}](Fig-PoissonRatioM2.pdf "fig:") ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Young’s modulus of the compacted solid, obtained from central one-third of the unloading curve using Hooke’s law [@Han-2008; @Swaminathan-2016], is given by $$E_{\mbox{\tiny tablet}} = E_{0} \left[ \frac{\rho^{\mbox{\tiny in-die}}_{\mbox{\tiny min}} - \rho_{c,E}}{1-\rho_{c,E}} \right]^n \label{Eqn-Young}$$ where the Young’s modulus of a fully dense tablet $E_{0}=2.224$ GPa, the exponent $n = 0.2873$ and the critical relative density $\rho_{c,E} = 0.6423$ are best-fitted to the numerical results for Material 1—$E_{0}= 9.345$ GPa, $n = 0.285$ and $\rho_{c,E} = 0.6262$ for Material 2. These values shown in Figure \[Fig-YoungPoisson\] are in agreement with those obtained for two grades on lactose, at different lubrication levels, using an ultrasound transmission technique [@Razavi-2016; @Razavi-2018]. Equation is a semi-empirical relationship derived by Phani and Niyogi for porous solids [@Phani-1987]. The exponent $n$ is regarded as a material constant dependent on particle morphology and pore geometry of the material, which is also suggested by these results for which the packings are identical and the values of $n$ are equal. Finally, it is also interesting to note that $\rho_{c,e} \approx \rho_{c,E}$. As point out above, the granular bed develops anisotropic mechanical properties during loading, unloading and ejection. In this section, for simplicity, we assume isotropic behavior and thus determine two elastic properties, i.e., Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, from the unloading curve. This assumption can be relaxed and, if a transversely isotropic material is assumed, five anisotropic continuum properties can be determined from the loading curve [@Gonzalez-2018b]. The extension of this analysis to unloading and ejection stages, though beyond the scope of this work, is currently being pursued by the author. Microstructure-mediated process-structure-property-performance interrelationship {#Section-PSPP} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the spirit of Olson’s design framework that integrates process, structure, property, and performance [@Olson-1997], as well as of the Quality by Design (QbD) principles recently adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [@Lawrence-2008; @Lee-2015], we study next the interrelationship between two process variables (namely compaction and ejection pressures), particle-scale material properties (i.e., $E$, $\nu$, $\kappa$, $m$ and $K_{Ic}$) and a critical quality attribute of the compacted solid product (namely the tablet Young’s modulus). This relationship is derived from microstructure formation and evolution predicted with the proposed particle mechanics approach and the generalized loading-unloading contact laws. Figure \[Fig-TabletCQA\] uses equations , , and to represent this interrelationship for Materials 1 and 2. It is worth noting that this interrelationships can not only be used to design a material with targeted quality attributes (see, e.g., [@Sun-2001; @Tye-2005; @Razavi-2015; @Razavi-2016; @Razavi-2018]) but it can also be used to control the manufacturing process to assure such quality attributes are achieved (see, e.g., [@Su-2018]). ![Interrelationship between process variables (namely compaction and ejection pressures), material properties (i.e., $E$, $\nu$, $\kappa$, $m$ and $K_{Ic}$) and critical quality attributes of the compact (namely the tablet Young’s modulus). Materials 1 and 2 are depicted in gray and in black, respectively.[]{data-label="Fig-TabletCQA"}](Fig-3D-1.pdf) Concluding remarks {#Section-ConcludingRemarks} ================== We have reported three-dimensional particle mechanics static calculations that enabled us to predict microstructure evolution during the three most important steps of die-compaction of solid tablets, namely during compaction, unloading, and ejection [@nanoHUB-2017]. Specifically, we have simulated the compaction, inside a rigid cylindrical die, of monodisperse elasto-plastic spherical particles capable of forming solid bridges. To this end, we have developed and employed generalized loading-unloading contact laws for elasto-plastic spheres with bonding strength. The proposed loading-unloading contact laws are continuous at the onset of unloading by means of a regularization term, in the spirit of a cohesive zone model, that introduces a small, controllable error in the solid bridge breakage force and the critical contact surface. This continuity property is in sharp contrast with the behavior of standard mechanistic loading and unloading contact theories, which exhibit a discontinuity at the onset of unloading when particles form solid bridges during plastic deformations. In addition, these generalized contact laws are explicit in terms of the relative position between the particles, and are updated incrementally to account for strain path dependency. Furthermore, the three-dimensional particle mechanics static calculations show that the formulation is numerically robust, efficient, and mechanistically sound. We have exemplified the effectiveness and versatility of the particle mechanics approach by studying two sets of material properties, which do not correspond to any material in particular but rather represent lower and upper bounds for many pharmaceutical powders, including drugs and excipients. These simulations reveal the evolution, up to relative densities close to one, of (i) mean mechanical coordination number, (ii) punch force and die-wall reaction, (iii) in-die elastic recovery, (iv) ejection pressure, (v) network of contact forces and granular fabric anisotropy, (vi) bonding surface area, (vii) Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the compacted solid. Our results are quantitatively similar to those experimentally observed in many pharmaceutical formulations [@AbdelHamid-2011; @Adolfsson-1999; @Doelker-2004; @Haware-2010; @Mahmoodi-2013; @Nystrom-1986; @Panelli-2001; @Phani-1987; @Razavi-2016; @Razavi-2018; @Yohannes-2015]. Moreover, the evolution during compaction of these process variables (such as punch, die-wall and ejection pressures, and in-die elastic recovery) and compact attributes (such as Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio) is in remarkable agreement with the formulae reported in the literature—i.e., (semi-)empirical relationships developed over the last decades [@Durian-1995; @Gonzalez-2016; @Gonzalez-2018; @OHern-2002; @OHern-2003; @Phani-1987; @Razavi-2016; @Su-2018]. Furthermore, these relationships have enabled the development of microstructure-mediated process-structure-property-performance interrelationships for QbD product development and process control. Table \[Table-SummaryEvolution\] summarizes these findings. It is evident from the table that a small number of parameters, with well-defined physical meaning, is required to describe such evolution with relative density. The systematic investigation of the relationship between these parameters with particle-level material properties (i.e., $E$, $\nu$, $\kappa$, $m$ and $K_{Ic}$), particle morphology (such as particle size distribution) and process variables (such as tablet weight, dimensions and composition) is a worthwhile direction of future research—see [@Gonzalez-2018] for a systematic study of particles with hardening plastic behavior, but no elastic unloading and formation of bonding strength. It is worth noting that the development of these relationships and, by extension, of predictive contact mechanics formulations for highly confined systems, is key to better design, optimize and control many manufacturing processes widely used in pharmaceutical, energy, food, ceramic and metallurgical industries. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The author gratefully acknowledges the support received from the National Science Foundation grant number CMMI-1538861, from Purdue University’s startup funds, and from the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) and nanoHUB.org. The author also thanks Prof. Alberto Cuitiño for interesting discussions. [99]{} Abdel-Hamid S., and Betz G. Study of radial die-wall pressure changes during pharmaceutical powder compaction. Drug development and industrial pharmacy 2011; 37:4, 387–395. Adolfsson, A., Gustafsson, C. and Nyström, C. Use of tablet tensile strength adjusted for surface area and mean interparticulate distance to evaluate dominating bonding mechanisms. Drug development and industrial pharmacy 1999; 25:6, 753–764. Ahlneck, C. and Alderborn, G. Moisture adsorption and tabletting. II. The effect on tensile strength and air permeability of the relative humidity during storage of tablets of 3 crystalline materials. International journal of pharmaceutics 1989, 56:2, 143–150. Alderborn G. and Nyström C. Pharmaceutical powder compaction technology. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1996. Baranau V. and Tallarek U. On the jamming phase diagram for frictionless hard-sphere packings, Soft matter 2014; 10, 7838. Byrd R.H., Schnabel R.B., and Shultz G.A. Approximate solution of the trust region problem by minimization over two-dimensional subspaces, Mathematical Programming 1988; 40, 247–263. Chaudhuri P., Berthier L., and Sastry S. Jamming transitions in amorphous packings of frictionless spheres occur over a continuous range of volume fractions, Physical Review Letters 2010; 104, 165701. elik, M. Pharmaceutical Powder Compaction Technology, Second Edition, 2016. Chang C. S., and Misra A. Packing structure and mechanical properties of granulates. ASCE J. Engng Mech. Div. 1990; 116:5, 1077–1093. Coleman T.F. and Li Y. An interior trust region approach for nonlinear minimization subject to bounds, SIAM Journal on Optimization 1996; 6:2, 418–445. Conn A., Gould N., and Toint P. Trust Region Methods, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2000. De Boer A.H., Bolhuis G.K., and Lerk C.F. Bonding characteristics by scanning electron microscopy of powders mixed with magnesium stearate. Powder Technology 1978; 20:1, 75–82. Derjaguin B.V. The force between molecules. Scientific American 1960; 203:1, 47–53. Derjaguin B.V., Abrikosova I.I., and Lifshitz E.M. Direct measurement of molecular attraction between solids separated by a narrow gap. Quarterly Reviews Chemical Society 1956; 10:3, 295–329. Doelker E., and Massuelle D. Benefits of die-wall instrumentation for research and development in tabletting. European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics 2004; 58:2, 427–444. Down G.R.B., and McMullen M.I. The effect of inteparticulate friction and moisture on the crushing strength of sodium chloride compacts. Powder Technology 1985; 42:2, 169–174. Du Y., Chen L., McGruer N.E., Adams G.G., Etsion I. A finite element model of loading and unloading of an asperity contact with adhesion and plasticity, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2007; 312:2, 522–528. Du Y., Adams G.G., McGruer N.E., Etsion I. A parameter study of separation modes of adhering microcontacts, Journal of Applied Physics 2008; 103, 064902. Duberg M. and Nyström C. Studies on direct compression of tablets XII. The consolidation and bonding properties of some pharmaceutical compounds and their mixtures with Avicel 105, Int J Pharm Tech Prod Manuf 1985; 6:2, 17–25. Durian D.J. Foam mechanics at the bubble scale, Physical Review Letters 1995; 75:26, 4780–4783. Etsion I., Kligerman, Y. and Y C. Unloading of an elastic-plastic loaded spherical contact, International Journal of Solids and Structures 2005; 42, 3716–3729. Fleck N.A., Storakers B., and McMeeking R.M. The viscoplastic compaction of powders, Proceedings of IUTAM Symposium Mechanics of Granular Flow and Particle Compaction 1997; 1–10. Frenning, G. Towards a mechanistic model for the interaction between plastically deforming particles under confined conditions: A numerical and analytical analysis, Materials Letters 2013, 92, 365–368. Frenning, G. Towards a mechanistic contact model for elastoplastic particles at high relative densities, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 2015, 104, 56–60. Gonzalez M. and Cuitiño A.M. A nonlocal contact formulation for confined granular systems, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 2012; 60, 333–350. Gonzalez M. and Cuitiño A.M. Microstructure evolution of compressible granular systems under large deformations, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 2016; 93, 44–56. Gonzalez M., Poorsolhjouy P., Thomas A., Liu J., and Balakrishnan K. Statistical characterization of microstructure evolution during compaction of granular systems composed of spheres with hardening plastic behavior, arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09156; [under review]{} 2018. Han L.H., Elliott J.A., Bentham A.C., Mills A., Amidon G.E., and Hancock B.C. A modified Drucker-Prager Cap model for die compaction simulation of pharmaceutical powders. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2008; 45:10, 3088–3106. Harthong B., Jérier J.-F., Dorémus P., Imbault D. and Donzé F.-V. Modeling of high-density compaction of granular materials by the Discrete Element Method, International Journal of Solids and Structures 2009; 46, 3357–3364. Haware R.V., Tho I. and Bauer-Brandl A. Evaluation of a rapid approximation method for the elastic recovery of tablets. Powder Technology 2010; 202:1-3, 71–77. Hill R. and Storakers, B. A concise treatment of axisymmetric indentation in elasticity. In: Eason, G., Ogden, R.W. (Eds.), Elasticity: Mathematical Methods and Applications. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, pp. 199-210, 1990. Hill R. The mathematical theory of plasticity. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1998. Israelachvili J.N. Intermolecular and surface forces. Third Edition. Academic press, 2011. Israelachvili J.N., and Tabor D. Van der Waals forces: theory and experiment. In Progress in surface and membrane science 1973; 7, 1–55. Joesten M.D., and Schad Q. Hydrogen Bonding. Marcel Dekker Inc, 1974. Johnson K.L., Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, London, 1985. Jonsson H., Grasjö J., and Frenning G. Mechanical behaviour of ideal elastic-plastic particles subjected to different triaxial loading conditions. Powder Technology 2017, 315, 347–355. Jullien R. and Meakin P. Simple-models for the restructuring of 3-dimensional ballistic aggregates. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 1989; 127:1, 265–272. Karehill P.G., Börjesson E., Glazer M., et al. Bonding surface area and bonding mechanisms-two important factors for the understanding of powder compactability. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1993, 19, 2143–2196. Kinloch A.J., ed. Fracture behaviour of polymers. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. Lawrence X.Y. Pharmaceutical quality by design: product and process development, understanding, and control. Pharmaceutical research 2008, 25:4, 781–791. Lee S.L., O’Connor T.F., Yang X., Cruz C.N., Chatterjee S., Madurawe R.D., Moore C.M., Lawrence X.Y., and Woodcock J. Modernizing pharmaceutical manufacturing: from batch to continuous production. Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation 2015; 10:3, 191–199. Mahmoodi F., Alderborn G., and Frenning G. Effect of lubrication on the distribution of force between spherical agglomerates during compression. Powder Technology 2010, 198:1, 69–74. Mahmoodi F., Klevan I., Nordström J., Alderborn G., and Frenning G. A comparison between two powder compaction parameters of plasticity: The effective medium A parameter and the Heckel 1/K parameter. [International journal of pharmaceutics]{} 2013, 453:2, 295–299. Mesarovic S.D. and Fleck N.A. Spherical indentation of elastic-plastic solids. Proc. R. Soc. A 1999; 455:1987, 2707–2728. Mesarovic S.D. and Fleck N.A. Frictionless indentation of dissimilar elastic-plastic spheres. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2000; 37, 7001–7091. Mesarovic S.D. and Johnson K.L. Adhesive contact of elasticÂ–plastic spheres. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 2000; 48, 2009–2033. Mehta A. Granular physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. Mitchell A.G., and Down C.O.X. Recrystallization after powder compaction. International journal of pharmaceutics 1984; 22:2-3, 337–344. Moré J.J. and Sorensen D.C. Computing a trust region step, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 1983; 4:3, 553–572. Nordström J., Persson, A. S., Lazorova, L., Frenning, G., and Alderborn, G. The degree of compression of spherical granular solids controls the evolution of microstructure and bond probability during compaction. International journal of pharmaceutics 2013, 442:1, 3–12. Nyström C, Karehill PG. Studies on direct compression of tablets XVI. The use of surface area measurements for the evaluation of bonding surface area in compressed powders. Powder Technology 1986, 47, 201–209. O’Hern C.S., Langer S.A., Liu A.J., and Nagel S.R. Random packings of frictionless particles, Physical Review Letters 2002; 88:7, 075507. O’Hern C.S., Silbert L.E., Liu A.J., and Nagel S.R. Jamming at zero temperature and zero applied stress: The epitome of disorder, Physical Review E 2003; 68:1, 011306. Olson G.B. Computational design of hierarchically structured materials, Science 1997; 277:5330, 1237-?1242. Olsson E. and Larsson P.-L. On the Effect of Particle Size Distribution in Cold Powder Compaction, Journal of Applied Mechanics 2012; 79:5, 051017. Olsson E. and Larsson P.-L. On force-displacement relations at contact between elastic-plastic adhesive bodies. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 2013; 61, 1185–1201. Phani K.K., and Niyogi S.K. Young’s modulus of porous brittle solids. Journal of materials science 1987; 22:1, 257–263. Razavi S.M., Gonzalez M. and Cuitiño A.M. General and mechanistic optimal relationships for tensile strength of doubly convex tablets under diametrical compression. International journal of pharmaceutics 2015; 484:1, 29–37. Razavi S.M., Callegari G., Drazer G. and Cuitiño A.M. Toward predicting tensile strength of pharmaceutical tablets by ultrasound measurement in continuous manufacturing. International journal of pharmaceutics 2016; 507:1, 83–89. Razavi S.M., Gonzalez M., and Cuitiño A.M. Quantification of lubrication and particle size distribution effect on mechanical strength of tablets, arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02577; [under review]{}, 2018. Rumpf H. Basic principles and methods of granulation: I, II. Chemie-Ingr-Tech. 1958; 30, 138–144. Rumpf H. The Strength of Granules and Agglomerates. Agglomeration, Interscience, New York, 1962. Panelli R., and Ambrozio Filho F. A study of a new phenomenological compacting equation. Powder Technology 2001; 114:1-3, 255–261. Poorsolhjouy P., and Gonzalez M. Connecting discrete particle mechanics to continuum granular micromechanics: Anisotropic continuum properties under compaction, arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04905; [under review]{}, 2018. Schreck C.F., O’Hern C.S., and Silbert L.E. Tuning jammed frictionless disk packings from isostatic to hyperstatic. Physical Review E 2011; 84, 011305. Sebhatu T., Elamin A.A., and Ahlneck C. Effect of moisture sorption on tabletting characteristics of spray dried (15% amorphous) lactose. Pharmaceutical research 1994; 11:9, 1233–1238. Skrinjar O., and Larsson P.-L. Cold compaction of composite powders with size ratio. Acta Materialia 2004; 52:7, 1871–1884. Skrinjar O. and Larsson P.-L. On the local contact behavior in regular lattices of composite powders. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2007; 184, 312–318. Skrinjar O., Larsson P.-L. and Storakers, B. Local Contact Compliance Relations at Compaction of Composite Powders, Journal of Applied Mechanics 2007; 74:1, 164–168. Storkers B., and Larsson P.-L. On Brinell and Boussinesq indentation of creeping solids. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1994; 42:2, 307–332. Storkers B. Local Contact Behaviour of Visco-plastic Particles. Proceedings of IUTAM Symposium Mechanics of Granular Flow and Particle Compaction 1997, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam; 173–184. Storkers B., Biwa S., and Larsson P.-L. Similarity Analysis of Inelastic Contact, International Journal of Solids and Structures 1997; 34:24, 3061–3083. Su Q. Bommireddy Y., Gonzalez M., Reklaitis G., and Nagy Z.K. Variation and Risk Analysis in Tablet Press Control for Continuous Manufacturing of Solid Dosage via Direct Compaction, Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering [PSE 2018]{} (San Diego, CA), July, 2018. Sun C., Grant D.J.W. Influence of Crystal Structure on the Tableting Properties of Sulfamerazine Polymorphs. Pharmaceutical Research 2001; 18, 274-?280. Swaminathan S., Hilden J., Ramey B., and Wassgren C. Modeling the formation of debossed features on a pharmaceutical tablet. Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation 2016; 11:3, 214–230. Tsigginos, C., Strong, J., and Zavaliangos, A. On the force-displacement law of contacts between spheres pressed to high relative densities. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2015, 60, 17–27. Tye C.K., Sun C., and Amidon G.E. Evaluation of the Effects of Tableting Speed on the Relationships between Compaction Pressure, Tablet Tensile Strength, and Tablet Solid Fraction. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2005; 94 465-?472. V[å]{}gberg D., Olsson P., and Teitel S. Glassiness, rigidity, and jamming of frictionless soft core disks. Physical Review E 2011; 83, 031307. Vicente L.N. A comparison between line searches and trust regions for nonlinear optimization, Investigação Operacional 1996; 16, 173–179. Yohannes B., Gonzalez M., Abebe A., Sprockel O., Nikfar F., Kang S., and Cuitiño A.M. The role of fine particles on compaction and tensile strength of pharmaceutical powders. Powder Technology 2015; 274, 372–378. Yohannes B., Gonzalez M., Abebe A., Sprockel O., Nikfar F., Kang S., and Cuitiño A.M. Evolution of the microstructure during the process of consolidation and bonding in soft granular solids. International journal of pharmaceutics 2016; 503:1, 68–77. Yohannes B., Gonzalez M., Abebe A., Sprockel O., Nikfar F., Kang S., and Cuitiño A.M. Discrete particle modeling and micromechanical characterization of bilayer tablet compaction. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 2017; 529:1-2, 597–607. Similar results for smaller granular systems can be obtained using the “Powder Compaction” tool available in nanoHUB.org, https://nanohub.org/resources/gscompaction, DOI: 10.4231/D33N20F7K. [^1]: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Deep learning (DL) architectures for super-resolution (SR) normally contain tremendous parameters, which has been regarded as the crucial advantage for obtaining satisfying performance. However, with the widespread use of mobile phones for taking and retouching photos, this character greatly hampers the deployment of DL-SR models on the mobile devices. To address this problem, in this paper, we propose a super lightweight SR network: s-LWSR. There are mainly three contributions in our work. Firstly, in order to efficiently abstract features from the low resolution image, we build an information pool to mix multi-level information from the first half part of the pipeline. Accordingly, the information pool feeds the second half part with the combination of hierarchical features from the previous layers. Secondly, we employ a compression module to further decrease the size of parameters. Intensive analysis confirms its capacity of trade-off between model complexity and accuracy. Thirdly, by revealing the specific role of activation in deep models, we remove several activation layers in our SR model to retain more information for performance improvement. Extensive experiments show that our s-LWSR, with limited parameters and operations, can achieve similar performance to other cumbersome DL-SR methods.' author: - 'Biao Li, Jiabin Liu, Bo Wang, Zhiquan Qi, and Yong Shi[^1] [^2] [^3] [^4] [^5]' bibliography: - 's-LWSR.bib' title: \| s-LWSR: Super Lightweight\ Super-Resolution Network --- super-resolution, lightweight, multi-level information, model compression, activation operations. Introduction ============ to recover super-resolution (SR) image from its low-resolution counterpart is a longstanding problem in image processing regime [@glasner2009super; @yang2010image; @sun2010gradient; @schulter2015fast]. In this paper, we focus on the problem called single image super-resolution (SISR), which widely exists in medicine [@shi2013cardiac], security and surveillance [@gunturk2003eigenface; @zou2011very], as well as many scenarios where high-frequency details are extremely desired. Recently, thanks to the emergence of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), specially designed SR neural networks [@Chao2014Learning; @Ledig2017Photo; @Zhang2018Image; @article2; @Lim2017Enhanced; @Haris_2018_CVPR] as an example-based SR method, has achieved impressive performance in terms of model accuracy. Particular, these new deep learning (DL) algorithms strive to generate satisfactory SR images with super-high peak-signal-noise-ratio (PSNR) scores than their traditional competitors [@Chang2004Super; @glasner2009super]. ![Visual SR results with 4X enlargement on “img-$074$” in benchmark dataset Urban$100$ [@huang2015single]. In this comparison, $s$-LWSR$_{16}$ (Ours) only uses $144k$ parameters to obtain similar performance to way larger models. Besides, if properly adding more channels in our model ($s$-LWSR$_{32}$), the final performance will surpass the others. The compared methods include: Bicubic, IDN [@hui2018fast], and CARN-M [@article2].[]{data-label="Cont1"}](Cont1.png) To the best of our knowledge, the cutting edge of SISR is CNN-based methods, normally equipped with specifically designed convolutional blocks and sophisticated mechanisms, such as global residual [@Kim2016Accurate], self-attention [@Zhang2018Image], Densenet [@huang2017densely]. In particular, the first convolutional SR network (SRCNN) is propose by Dong et al. [@Chao2014Learning], based on three simple convolutional layers, where the model is trained with an interpolated low-resolution (LR) image. Although the network is not consummately design, its performance is still significantly better than almost all traditional SR algorithms. However, shallow convolutional structure constrains the model’s learning ability, and the pre-processed input causes huge computation and operation cost. Hence, along with the great development of CNNs in other Computer Vision (CV) tasks, in order to leverage more information from LR inputs, SRResNet [@Ledig2017Photo] presents a new network by stacking $16$ residual blocks, which are learnt from ResNet [@he2016deep]. Later, EDSR [@Lim2017Enhanced] leverages $32$ modified residual blocks with $256$ channels to build an enormous SR model. Eventually, EDSR proves its super generating ability by winning the NTIRE2017 Super-Resolution Challenge [@timofte2017ntire] . As far as we know, RCAN [@Zhang2018Image] is currently the best CNN-based SR method (according to PSNR), which employs complicated residual in residual (RIR) block and self-attention mechanism. However, as smart phones develop into regular tools for taking photos or retouch images on daily basis, CNN-based SR algorithms, which are innately designed with tremendous number of parameters, are not suitable for lightweight delivery of the model, especially as a built-in application in mobile devices. The contradiction between accuracy and efficiency raises a demanding challenge: How to deploy a CNN-based SR model on these civil-use mobile devices with a comparable performance. In other words, designing a lightweight SR network while maintaining the advanced ability in image processing becomes a rather tough yet promising computer vision task. Generally speaking, an appropriate model architecture with well-designed hyper-parameters is needed in order to build an accurate and fast lightweight model, which is attributed to well arrangement of two principal factors therein: parameters and operations. Hence, to promote the application of SR methods on mobile devices, the essential issue will be focusing on reducing the number of parameters and operations, while keeping satisfying performance. In terms of parameters decrease, one widespread idea is to slim the network by parameters sharing among different blocks/modules. For example, the DRCN [@kim2016deeply] and DRRN [@Ying2017Image] recursively employ certain basic block with same parameters. In addition to architecture modification, some methods attempt to reduce the operations along with the parameters through unusual convolutional layer (e.g., depth-wise separable convolution [@Sifre2014Rigid]), cascading structure [@he2016deep], or even neural architecture search (NAS) [@he2018amc]. Regarding lightweight SISR, to our knowledge, CARN [@article2] and FALSR [@chu2019fast] achieve state-of-the-art results by appropriately balancing between SR restoration accuracy and model simplicity. Although these advanced compression methods have made a great progress on decreasing model size and operations, there is still a huge space for improvement. In this paper, we propose an adjustable super lightweight SR network called s-LWSR to promote bette balance between accurate and model size than former SR methods. The contribution of this paper is mainly threefold: - Inspired by U-Net [@Ronneberger2015U], we build an SR model with symmetric architecture, possessing an assistant information pool. The skip connection mechanism greatly promotes learning ability. By further combination of multi-level information from chosen layers, we build the information pool to transmit features to high-dimensional channels. Experiments show that our new architecture does well in extracting accurate information. This new information pool enforces better features transmission between the first and the second half of the model. - We propose a comparatively flexible SR model compared with existing methods. Normally, the most effective factor of model size is channel numbers in intermediate layers. Here, we also modify the model size by different setting of channel numbers. Nevertheless, number change results in reduplicated model variation. Hence, by introducing a novel compression module (the inverted residual block originally borrowed from MobileNet V2 [@inproceedings]), the model size can be reduced by partly replacing normal residual blocks. In this way, we can control the total number of parameters within the ideal size by properly choosing the channel number and replacing specific layers with the new compression module. - According to our observation, when performing the nonlinear mapping in some activation layers (e.g., ReLU), useful information is likely to be partly discarded. As a result, we remove some activation operations to retain object details in our lightweight model. Experiments prove that this minor modification improves the performance of our lightweight SR model. Related Work ============ With the development of deep learning, a bunch of achievements on SR has been obtained [@Chao2014Learning; @Zhang2018Image; @Ledig2017Photo; @article2; @chu2019fast; @Lai2017Deep; @Lim2017Enhanced; @Haris_2018_CVPR; @he2016deep; @Kim2016Accurate; @inproceedings; @Ying2017Image; @shi2019unsupervised]. There are many detailed reviews about SR development in these papers. Based on these surveys, we firstly present a brief introduction about DL-SR algorithms. Additionally, literature study addresses model compression will be given in Section \[MC\]. Deep Single Image Super-Resolution (SISR) ----------------------------------------- The first deep SISR model that surpasses almost all former traditional methods is SRCNN [@Chao2014Learning]. In this end-to-end network, three convolutional layers are employed to produce HR images from their interpolated LR counterparts. Then, Dong et al. push the envelope further by introducing a new architecture FSRCNN [@10.1007/978-3-319-46475-6_25]. The model replaces the pre-upsampling layer at the beginning of the network with a learnable scale-up layer at the end of the network. Because of training with smaller patches in most intermediate layers, the computational and operational costs greatly drop. Subsequently, more sophisticated and powerful approaches have been proposed. For instance, by using $20$ convolutional layers and a global residual, VDSR [@Kim2016Accurate] obtains a shocking result that satisfies various applications. Meanwhile, DRCN [@kim2016deeply] proposes a deeper recursive architecture with fewer parameters. In particular, several identical layers are stacked recursively in DRCN. At the same time, recursive-supervision and skip-connection are applied to ease the problem of mis-convergence. Besides, benefiting from ResNet [@he2016deep], SRResNet [@Ledig2017Photo] improves the model efficiency by stacking several residual blocks. Based on SRResNet, Lim et al. propose the EDSR [@Lim2017Enhanced], which removes the batch normalization [@ioffe2015batch] module and expends the width of channels. However, there are still more than $40$ million parameters in this model. Recently, a very deep residual network RCAN is proposed [@Zhang2018Image], which introduces a novel local block and the channel attention mechanism. As described in the paper, the attention mechanism further facilitates learning in high-frequency information. Although these methods receive the state-of-the-art results on PSNR, too many parameters ($\sim30-40$ million parameters) make them hard to run on common CPU-based computers, not to mention any mobile devices/phones. On the other hand, although most SR algorithms persist in obtaining SOTA results in pixel level, it is still controversial that high PSNR or SSIM guarantees satisfying and realistic feeling in visual. Based on this consideration, some former researches focus on how to generate perceptual satisfying images. For example, SRGAN [@Ledig2017Photo] leverage the generative adversarial networks (GANs) [@goodfellow2014generative] with SRResNet as the generator to produce photo-realistic images. Similar to SRGAN, EnhanceNet [@sajjadi2017enhancenet] produces automated texture synthesis in a GANs framework. Although GAN-based SR models work well on perceptual generation, they act poorly on PSNR or SSIM accuracy. In this paper, we mainly focus on how to obtain more accurate SR images in pixel level. However, our perspective is to properly balance between the pixel level fidelity and the model size. Model Compression {#MC} ----------------- Recently, how to make deep models be capable in running on mobile devices has received much attention. In this section, we provide a brief survey on compression methods, especially in SR relevant models. Firstly, most compression methods try to compress the model by modifying the network structure, such as [@zhang2018shufflenet; @changpinyo2017power; @article; @Sandler2018Inverted]. In MobileNetV1 [@article], it reduces the number of parameters through utilizing depth-wise separable convolutions [@Sifre2014Rigid]. Since convolution operation are separated into two steps, the total number of parameters is reduced in a large margin, accompanying with the learning ability decline. In order to maintain the accuracy as reducing the model size, MobileNetV2 [@Sandler2018Inverted] proposes a novel layer module: the inverted residual with linear bottleneck. A scale factor is introduced to add more channels into the compression module. As a result, we can obtain better performance by reducing the compression level. In addition, a new compression pattern: neural architecture search (NAS) [@zoph2018learning], which searches architecture by genetic algorithms, reinforcement learning, and Bayesian optimization, has received much attention. In this paper, we employ a similar mechanism as MobileNetV2 to build an efficient lightweight model. For SR compression, Kim et al. introduce the recursive layers to share parameters in different blocks. They propose a very deep convolutional network (DRCN) [@kim2016deeply] consisting of $16$ identical intermediate layers. In this way, the number of parameters can be controlled when more layers are added. Similar to DRCN, DRRN [@Ying2017Image] utilizes both global and local residual learning to further optimize the method. Using these recursive blocks, DRRN with $52$ recursive layers surpasses former methods in performance. Recently, Ahn et al. design an efficient and lightweight model called CARN [@article2]. Their compression strategies include the residual-E (similar to MobileNetV1 [@article]) and the recursive layers in the cascading framework. Finally, the CARN-M achieves comparable accuracy to other CNN-based SR methods, with fewer parameters and operations than CARN. Besides, the NAS strategy (like [@zoph2018learning]) is proposed in FALSR [@chu2019fast]. Unsurprisingly, its result is comparable with CARN or CARN-M with appropriate model size. However, the generated architecture is extremely complex and hard to explain. Besides, Ma et al. make efforts to use binary weights and operations, compared with general 16-bit or 32-bit float operations, to address the over-parametrization in [@ma2018efficient]. Though these lightweight SR models have achieved great success, there is still huge improvement space in how to obtain a better balanced and more flexible SR model. This is the start point of our research. Methodology =========== In this section, we present the technical details of s-LWSR, which consists of five parts: basic residual blocks, symmetric connection frame, information pool, model compression, and activation removal mechanism. The first part, residual blocks, is the fundamental unit used to sufficiently extract information from the LR image (i.e., $I^{LR}$). The second and third parts work as the backbone of the network, functioning as the fusion of multi-level information among intermediate layers. In the fourth part, we further introduce a compression module to decrease the number of parameters and operations, so that the model size can be controlled within an ideal range. In the last part, selected activation layers are removed from the pipeline to retain more information in inner layers. The architecture of our s-LWSR is shown in Fig. \[Total structure\]. ![image](Stru.pdf) Basic Residual Block -------------------- ![The proposed residual block in s-LWSR. There are two separate information flows. A scale factor is used to control the magnitude of the information introduced in the branch. Features from two flows are element-wise added as the input of the next block.[]{data-label="Residual"}](resid.pdf) We firstly introduce the basic cell of s-LWSR: the residual block ($\mathcal{R}$)[@he2016deep], which plays the fundamental role in our model. It leads to excellent extracting ability as learning from the LR inputs ($I^{LR}$). The $i_{th}$ cell is defined as: $$\begin{aligned} &R^{i} = \alpha \cdot Conv(Conv(\mathcal{F}(R^{i-1}))) \cdot + \mathcal{F}(R^{i-1}), %\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $R^{i}$ refers to final output of the $i_{th}$ residual block. As shown in Fig. \[Residual\], the starting activation operation $(\mathcal{F})$ is utilized to process initial input to all following operations. In the branch part, two convolutional layers are cascaded like other residual setting. A scale factor: $\alpha$ is introduced to control the effect of residual branch. Both of them are used to extract useful information and increase dimensions. Inspired by the EDSR, we remove all batch normalization layers from the original residual block to enhance final performance, as well as reducing the redundant operations. Symmetric Connection Frame -------------------------- Inspired by U-Net [@Ronneberger2015U], we propose a novel symmetric architecture which is depicted in Fig. \[Total structure\]. Like most SR models, the whole process of s-LWSR contains three sub-procedures: original feature extraction, detailed information learning, and SR image restoration. The RBG inputs ($I_{LR}$) are firstly operated by original feature extraction part. Then, pre-processed layers go through a series of well-designed blocks which are used to act accurate information. Finally, SR images ($I_{SR}$) are generated from the last outputs containing abundant features by the SR image restoration block, where HR images ($I_{HR}$) supervise the quality of generations. In s-LWSR, experiments prove a trade-off between accuracy and model size: the more channels involved, the better performance achieved. In order to flexibly adjust the model size, we set the channel number of all residual blocks, n-feats ($\beta$), as the primary factor of model size. In Fig. \[Total structure\], the channel number is chosen from $[16, 32, 64, 128]$. With the increasing of $\beta$, the model size enlarges diploid. More experimental details about models with different channels are shown in Section \[details\]. As shown in Fig. \[Total structure\], a sequence of basic residual blocks consecutively connected, aiming at learning the feature map between $I^{LR}$ and $I^{SR}$. Similar to U-Net, our model equips the skip-connection between corresponding structure channels, and the entire mid-procedure is separated into nine bunches of local blocks ($LB_{s}$). Separated by function, the first five $LB_{s}$ serve as the multi-level information extractor for the information pool, and rest blocks are information fusion part. Inspired by RDN [@zhang2018residual], we further introduce local residual learning (LRL) to fuse features from different dimension. Given any $LB^{i}_{s}$ in the information extractor, the information propagating process runs as follows: $$\centering \begin{aligned} %\left\{ \begin{array}{lr} LB^{i}_{output} = LB_{R3}^{i}(LB_{R1}^{i}(LB^{i-1}_{output}) + LB_{R2}^{i}(LB_{R1}^{i})). &\\% i \in [2,3,4,5].& %\nonumber \end{array} %\right. \end{aligned}$$ Benefit from the skip-connection and LRL, the $I^{LR}$ can be sufficiently processed in local spatial architecture with multi-level information. For the latter half of $LB_{s}$, the sum of features from the information pool and skip connection of former layers form their input. To coordinate the proportion, we set $0.5$ as weight for either source. As a result, s-LWSR is not only fully extracting multi-level information from information pool, but also fully utilizes specific features of its corresponding former layers. Information Pool ---------------- For combining detailed multi-layer information, specific layers in the former five $LB_{s}$ are chosen as sources of the information pool. As shown in Fig. \[Total structure\], we mark these layers with red border. All chosen layers are firstly concatenated, and then followed with a $1 \times 1$ convolutional layer which is used to reduce these five times concatenated layers to original input numbers. Finally, the output of information pool contains the same number of channels as other residual blocks. To be specified, equal layers is the basic processing for adding operations at any point of the network. In general, the whole process of information pool can be described as: $$\begin{aligned} IP_{output} = {Conv}^{}(Cat[conv_{1}, R^{1}_2, R^{1}_3, R^{1}_4, R^{1}_5, R^{2}_5]), %\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where ${Conv}^{}$ denotes the $1 \times 1$ convolution, and $R^i_j$ represents the $i_{th}$ residual block in the $j_{th}$ block bunch. In fact, a similar structure has been introduced in DRCN [@inproceedings], where all predictions from different layers are weighted combined in the last layer. The intention therein is to train the network in a supervised way. The output of inner blocks is summed with an extra weight factor $w$. Then, the output $I^{SR}$ is determined by the learning ability of middle blocks, and parameter sharing is employed in all the learning blocks of DRCN for reducing the number of parameters. Hence, although the information pool utilizes the similar structure as DRCN, the underlying mechanism is fairly different. Instead of adding every generation in the halfway blocks, some specified dimensional layers chosen by experiments are concatenated in the information pool, which considerable alleviate the over-fitting problem. We choose the channel concatenation because it can maintain more multi-level information within the channels, whereas the channel addition operation will change the value in the tensor. Totally, the information pool introduced here is distinct from the existing information fusion strategies. Model Compression of s-LWSR {#com} --------------------------- In deep learning architectures, the function of how to count parameters in each convolutional layer is like: $$Para_{sum} = F_{kernel} \times F_{kernel} \times C_{input} \times C_{output} + C_{output},$$ where $F_{kernel}$ is the kernel size and $C$ is the channel number. In particular, when the channel number reduces by half, both of $C_{input}$ and $C_{output}$ decrease by half, which further cause that the total number of parameters approximately decreases to one quarter of its full size. On the other hand, in order to endow the model size with the flexibility, we further compress s-LWSR with a novel module: The inverted residual with linear bottleneck, which is originally introduced in MobileNetV2 [@Sandler2018Inverted]. This paper demonstrates that this compression module improves the performance in a large margin, compared with the depth-wise separable convolution in MobileNetV1 [@article]. Details of the module are illustrated in Fig. \[MobileV2\]. In our model, some basic blocks are changed with this new module to progressively reduce the model size to the ideal range. ![Illustration of the inverted residual module which is introduced in MobileNetV2. Three convolutional layers and a residual connection are involved. To improve the learning ability of the module, the channels of middle layers are increased by $1 \times 1$ convolution. Compared with MobileNetV1 [@article], the number of inner layers affects the performance and total parameters.[]{data-label="MobileV2"}](MobileV2.pdf) Activation Removal ------------------ To maintain more information when performing model compression, we modify s-LWSR with activation layers removal mechanism. Unlike high-level CV tasks, such as object detection YOLOV3 [@Redmon2018YOLOv3] and semantic segmentation [@chen2018encoder], the SR task requires to recover information from the $I^{LR}$ as much as possible. Thus, maintaining the comprehensive details flow from the original input is essential to the following processing on features. However, the activation operations, e.g., ReLU, alter the details in feature map in order to realize the non-linearity, which may undermine the fidelity of useful information [@wang2018esrgan]. The learning ability of SR models inevitably suffers from the model compression module in a certain degree. Hence, removing some activation layers could be a proper strategy to offset the information loss brought by the model compression, and retain important feature information. Meanwhile, this operation can further reduce the computational complexity. However, it is still an open question that how many activation layers should be removed, and we strive for making it clear through looking at the influence arisen by this removal with our multi-level ablation analysis in Section \[MA\]. Experiments =========== Implementation and Training Details {#details} ----------------------------------- To fair compare our approach with other DL-SR methods, we conduct the training process on a widely used dataset, DIV2K [@agustsson2017ntire], which contains $800$ LR-HR image pairs. Then, we investigate the performance of different algorithms upon four standard datasets: $Set5$ [@bevilacqua2012low], $Set14$ [@zeyde2010single], $B100$ [@martin2001database], and $Urban100$ [@huang2015single]. Besides, the generated SR images are transformed into $YCbCr$ space, where we compute the corresponding PSNR and SSIM [@wang2004image] on the $Y$ channel. In detail, the data augmentation is firstly adopted to the training data to improve the generalization ability. During the training process, our algorithm extracts features with $48 \times 48$ patches from the $I^{LR}$, and the objective is optimized with the ADAM ($\beta_{1}\!=\!0.9, \beta_{2}\!=\! 0.999$) [@kingma2014adam]. Besides, most filters in the pipeline are designed with the same size $3 \times 3$, except some $1 \times 1$ layers for channels reduction, and the learning rate is set as $1 \times 10^{-4}$, halved every $200$ epochs. We implement s-LWSR on Pytorch with a Titan Xp GPU. Our code is availabe on <https://github.com/Sudo-Biao/s-LWSR>. ![image](Cont3.png) Model Analysis {#MA} -------------- Most DL-SR algorithms can be separated into three parts: feature extraction, feature learning, and up-sampling. For the first part in our method, a $conv(3,n\!-\!feats)$ layer is implemented to primarily learn the comprehensive features, which are the inputs of the next layer, the information pool, and the global residual unit. In order to maintain more details from the input and deliver them to the following operation layers, we only use one $conv(3,n\!-\!feats)$ to achieve channel number change. We will explicitly illustrate the feature learning part in Section \[as\]. For the up-sampling part, we adopt the sub-pixel shuffling strategy, which is commonly used by other outstanding DL-SR methods. As we mentioned in Section \[com\], the channel number is a crucial factor with a great effect on the model size and accuracy performance. In our experiment, we firstly use $16$ channels for the simplicity of the desirable lightweight model. Then, channels in all modules are $2 \times$ added for better learning ability, like $32$ and $64$. For the flexible parameter modification, we utilize the inverted residual module and remove some activation layers. Further analysis on the trade-off between the number of parameters and the model accuracy is provided in Fig. \[cont3\]. [Channel Size.]{} To demonstrate the learning ability of our model, we build several models with different $n\!-\!feats$: $16\times$, $32\times$, and $64\times$. The total number of parameters ranges from $140K$ to $2277K$. Referring to the $4\times$ SR task, s-LWSR$_{16}$ leverages an extremely small network to learn the feature map between $I^{LR}$ and $I^{SR}$, and the final result is comparable to some DL-SR methods with several times larger in parameters as shown in Table \[tab1\]. Hence, s-LWSR$_{16}$ is the specific model that perfectly solves the mobile device implementation issue aforementioned. More visual detail comparisons are illustrated in Fig. \[Cont1\]. The numerical comparison can be found in Table \[tab2\]. Experiments clearly demonstrate that the PSNR value can be significantly improved with additional parameters. However, the comparison with former leading methods proves that our model can achieve similar performance with considerable fewer parameters. In detail, we first compare our smallest model (s-LWSR$_{16}$), which is equipped with a deeper but thinner network, with other outstanding methods. Our method contains fewer parameters and operations than that of LapSRN, VDSR, and DRCN, while receiving even higher PSNR values in the final results. To be specific, for $4\times$ SR task on $Set5$, s-LWSR$_{16}$ achieves $31.62$ dB, which is respectively $0.08$ dB, $0.27$ dB, and $0.09$ dB higher than LapSRN, VDSR, and DRCN. On the other hand, the model parameter size of s-LWSR$_{16}$ is respectively $17.7\%$, $21.7\%$, and $8.1\%$ of those state-of-the-art DL-SR methods. Meanwhile, the decrease of operations is even much greater, which are $5.6\%$ of LapSRN, $1.4\%$ of VDSR, and $0.085\%$ of DRCN, respectively. Besides, if we double the $n\!-\!feats$ to generate a bigger model: s-LWSR$_{32}$, it achieves the best performance of all SOTA DL-SR methods that with $<1000K$ parameters on datasets: $Set5$, $B100$, and $Urban100$. Compared with s-LWSR$_{16}$, s-LWSR$_{32}$ is four times larger, which leads to $0.42$ dB improvement in the final result on $Set5$. Besides, compared with former leading lightweight methods: CARN-M and IDN [@hui2018fast], our $32 n\!-\!feats$ model performs better with $0.12$ dB and $0.22$ dB higher in PSNR for $4\times$ SR task on $Set5$ respectively. However, there is no data to compete with FALSR-A due to the lack of available code in public. Hence, we follow the allegation in the paper that their results are comparable to CARN-M. In particular, CARN-M proposes a single model for $2\times$, $3\times$, and $4\times$ SR images at the same time. However, when calculating the parameter and multi-adds, they divide the total parameters number by $3$. Our s-LWSR$_{32}$ contains less than half of the number of parameters and multi-adds in the entire CARN-M model, while obtaining better performance. In general, the generations of s-LWSR$_{32}$ verify the promising learning ability of the proposed set of mechanisms in our SR structure. To further study the relationship between the number of channels and the performance in our method, we increase the channel numbers to $64$, that is, s-LWSR$_{64}$. We conduct additional experiments to affirm the expected capacity of the proposed unit. The final results are displayed in Table \[tab1\]. [Further Compression.]{} The former comparison of s-LWSR with different $n\!-\!feats$ verifies the effectiveness and efficiency of our network. When designing a model for a practical SR problem, the number of $n\!-\!feats$ is determined by the computation resource. In addition, parameters decrease in three quarters when the $n\!-\!feat$ is halved down. There is still a huge space for the better trade-off between the number of parameters and the final accuracy. To address the issue, we introduce the inverted residual blocks derived from the MobileNetV2 in our model. When the basic residual blocks are replaced by this compression unit, the number of parameters is further reduced in a relatively small degree compared with channel changing. Taking s-LWSR$_{32}$ for an example, the total number of parameters reduces from 571K to 124K when all layers are replaced with this new module, which is a similar size as that of s-LWSR$_{16}$. We show the setting details in Table. \[tab2\]. On the other hand, experiments also demonstrate that the reverse residual block is less capable in extracting features than the original residual block. For example, the PSNR value of the entire compressed s-LWSR$_{32}$ is $0.4$ dB less than that of s-LWSR$_{16}$ on the condition of similar model size. The comparison is shown in Fig. \[cont3\]. As a result, the number of compressed blocks involved in the model should be elaborately determined to balance the model size and performance. Options s-LWSR(base line) Depth Width --------------- ------------------- --------- --------- Basic blocks 26 6 26 n-feats 32 32 16 Loss function L1 L1 L1 Parameters $571K$ $308K$ $144K$ PSNR(+) $32.15$ $31.93$ $31.78$ : The comparison of the original s-LWSR and two derivatives transformed in the depth or the width. The changes of parameters and PSRN are illustrated.[]{data-label="tab2"} ------------------------ ------- ------------ ---------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Algorithm Scale Params (K) Multi-Adds (G) PSNR SSIM PSNR SSIM PSNR SSIM PSNR SSIM Bicubic $4$ - - $28.42$ $0.810$ $26.10$ $0.704$ $25.96$ $0.669$ $23.15$ $0.659$ FSRCNN $4$ $12$ $4.6$ $30.71$ $0.866$ $27.59$ $0.753$ $26.98$ $0.715$ $24.62$ $0.728$ SRCNN $4$ $57$ $52.7$ $30.48$ $0.863$ $27.49$ $0.750$ $26.90$ $0.710$ $24.52$ $0.722$ $s$-LWSR$_{16}$(Ours) $4$ $144$ $8.3$ $31.62$ $0.886$ $27.92$ $0.770$ $27.35$ $0.729$ $25.36$ $0.762$ $s$-LWSR$_{16}+$(Ours) $4$ $144$ $8.3$ $31.78$ $0.889$ $28.00$ $0.772$ $27.40$ $0.730$ $25.45$ $0.765$ CARN-M $4$ $412^{}$ $18.3$ $31.92$ $0.890$ $28.42$ $0.776$ $27.44$ $0.730$ $25.63$ $0.769$ $s$-LWSR$_{32}$(Ours) $4$ $571$ $32.9$ $32.04$ $0.893$ $28.15$ $0.776$ $27.52$ $0.734$ $25.87$ $0.779$ $s$-LWSR$_{32}+$(Ours) $4$ $571$ $32.9$ $32.15$ $0.894$ $28.24$ $0.778$ $27.58$ $0.736$ $26.00$ $0.782$ IDN $4$ $600$ $34.5$ $31.82$ $0.890$ $28.25$ $0.773$ $27.41$ $0.730$ $25.41$ $0.763$ VDSR $4$ $665$ $612.6$ $31.35$ $0.884$ $28.01$ $0.767$ $27.29$ $0.725$ $25.18$ $0.752$ MemNet $4$ $677$ $623.9$ $31.74$ $0.889$ $28.26$ $0.772$ $27.40$ $0.728$ $25.50$ $0.763$ LapSRN $4$ $813$ $149.4$ $31.54$ $0.885$ $28.19$ $0.772$ $27.32$ $0.728$ $25.21$ $0.756$ CARN $4$ $1592^{}$ $65.4$ $32.13$ $0.894$ $28.60$ $0.781$ $27.58$ $0.735$ $26.07$ $0.784$ DRCN $4$ $1774$ $9788.7$ $31.53$ $0.885$ $28.02$ $0.767$ $27.23$ $0.723$ $25.14$ $0.751$ $s$-LWSR$_{64}$(Ours) $4$ $2277$ $131.1$ $32.28$ $0.896$ $28.34$ $0.780$ $27.61$ $0.738$ $26.19$ $0.791$ $s$-LWSR$_{64}+$(Ours) $4$ $2277$ $131.1$ $32.42$ $0.898$ $28.42$ $0.782$ $27.69$ $0.739$ $26.39$ $0.795$ D-DBPN $4$ $10426$ $590.2$ $32.47$ $0.898$ $28.82$ $0.786$ $27.72$ $0.740$ $26.38$ $0.795$ EDSR $4$ $43090$ $2482.0$ $32.46$ $0.897$ $28.80$ $0.788$ $27.71$ $0.742$ $26.64$ $0.803$ ------------------------ ------- ------------ ---------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- [Activation Removal.]{} In addition to the compression block, we further remove several activation layers to retain more details in the very model with small size. Note that the thinner channel design of the small model limits its learning ability. How to retain more accurate information of input becomes a crucial factor regarding to better performance. Hence, we imply the strategy of removing some activation layers to keep more information. To evaluate our opinion, some activation layers are discarded from the model-s-LWSR$_{16}$. More comparing experiments are done for the purpose that how the model change with the reduce of activation layers. Actually, we decrease activation operations with the setting: rare (only first and last convolutional layers) kept, 1/3 kept, 1/2 kept, 2/3 kept and all. It can be inferred from the results that the removal of the moderate number of activate layers brings the beneficial effect on the small SR model. Even with a few activation layers, our model can still achieve comparable results. What’s more, with the increasing of parameters, on the contrary, the removing operation results in a worse performance. We can see from the chart that better performance is achieved in all middle setting(like 1/3, 2/1, or 2/3) compared with rare and all activation layers kept. The final outputs are illustrated in Fig. \[activation\]. Our final s-LWSR model imply half activation setting to obtain a better balance between PSNR and SSIM. Ablation Study {#as} -------------- In s-LWSR, is the newly introduced information pool really works for final performance? To answer this question, we design the ablation experiments. Besides, the chosen channels are evaluated by different setting to better evaluate effects. For the purpose of acquiring multi-dimensional information of inputs, chosen layers of the front half model are concatenated as the information pool which provides hybrid features to latter layers. From the perspective of information utilization, the more details are involved, the better performance of model achieves. However, over recurrence leads to overfitting. We respectively compare the performance of different setting. Moreover, s-LWSR with $16$, $32$ and $64$ channels are all involved for clarifying the effect of model size. As shown in Table \[tab3\], the existence of information pool slightly increases SSIM score and PSNR. We mark the best scores in red color. The benefit exists among all three settings and performs better with the increase of channel number. This trend is related to learning ability and more parameters. Because of minor filtered operations, former layers extract more accurate and useful information from input. As a result, chosen layers bring these better details into the information pool and are transferred to the latter layers. Because there are skip connections without information pool, the improvements are limited in a rather small level. We further make contrast experiments in s-LWSR$_{16}$ to check out the effect of layers involved in the information pool. Note that skip connections play equal influence as the information pool, we just compare three extreme conditions of front half: all involved, half, and none. In Table \[tab3\], all SR results are shown in \[tab3\]. From the table, we can inform that s-LWSR$_{16}$ obtains better generations in mostly datasets where the only exception is marked in blue color. Even though, SR generations achieve equal PSNR score, the SSIM provides additional evidence of the effect. We attribute the advantage of s-LWSR$_{16}$ to reasonable using of the information. To be specific, s-LWSR$_{16}$ without pool transfers information by the skip-residual mechanism which transmits given layer to fixed ones. However, our pool block gathers layers from various channels, which concatenates multi-dimensions information. Referring to s-LWSR$_{16}$ with all former layers, repetitive features of adjacent layers lead to overfitting. ----------------------------------------- ------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ---------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- Algorithm Scale PSNR SSIM PSNR SSIM PSNR SSIM PSNR SSIM $s$-LWSR$_{16}$(normal) $4$ $31.63$ $0.8869$ $27.92$ $0.7701$ $27.35$ ${\color{red}0.7287}$ $25.36$ $0.7618$ $s$-LWSR$_{16}$(no-pool) $4$ $31.63$ $0.8868$ $27.92$ $0.7696$ $27.35$ $0.7284$ $25.36$ $0.7616$ $s$-LWSR$_{16}$(pool- former 11 layers) $4$ $31.63$ ${\color{blue}0.8871}$ $27.90$ $0.7698$ $27.34$ $0.7286$ $25.36$ $0.7616$ $s$-LWSR$_{32}$(normal) $4$ ${\color{red}32.02}$ ${\color{red}0.893}$ ${\color{red}28.15}$ $0.776$ ${\color{red}27.52}$ $0.734$ ${\color{red}25.87}$ $0.779$ $s$-LWSR$_{32}$(no-pool) $4$ $31.97$ $0.892$ $28.12$ $0.776$ $27.51$ $0.734$ $25.86$ $0.779$ $s$-LWSR$_{64}$(normal) $4$ $32.23$ $0.896$ ${\color{red}28.34}$ $0.780$ $27.61$ $0.738$ ${\color{red}26.19}$ ${\color{red}0.791}$ $s$-LWSR$_{64}$(no-pool) $4$ $32.23$ $0.896$ $28.32$ $0.780$ $27.61$ $0.738$ $26.13$ $0.790$ ----------------------------------------- ------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ---------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ![image](Cont2.png) Comparison with State-of-the-art Models --------------------------------------- To confirm the learning ability of our proposed network, we compare our model with several state-of-the-art methods: SRCNN [@Chao2014Learning], FSRCNN [@10.1007/978-3-319-46475-6_25], CARN[@article2], VDSR [@Kim2016Accurate], MemNet [@tai2017memnet], IDN [@hui2018fast], LapSRN [@Lai2017Deep], DRCN [@kim2016deeply], DBPN [@Haris_2018_CVPR], and EDSR [@Lim2017Enhanced]. We conduct the evaluation experiments through two frequently-used image quality metrics: the PSNR and the SSIM. Most pre-trained models are directly based on the $DIV2K$. Here, it is noting that that the DBPN and the CARN are trained with extra images as they declaring in their papers. Accordingly, test datasets are $Set5$, $Set14$, $B100$, and $Urban100$. In this paper, all methods are only performed for the $4\times$ SR task. For precise comparison, we separate these algorithms into three sections based on their sizes: $0-500K$, $500K-1000K$, and $1000K+$. It is worth noticing that the CARN actually contains three times parameters in the main network than that asserted in the single scale-up model. Here, we only compare with the asserted size. [color[red]{}To maximize the performance of SR generations, we adopt the self-ensemble strategy which is widerly used in EDSR, RCAN. Moreover, to separate enhanced version with original SR, the $+$ is added behind initial name.]{} In the first section, s-LWSR$_{16}+$ performs a little worse than CARN-M, while greatly surpasses SRCNN and FSRCNN. However, the total number of parameters and operations in s-LWSR$_{16}+$ is only half of the asserted value of the CARN-M. In the second section, s-LWSR$_{32}+$ outperforms all the competitors. It can be concluded from Table \[tab1\] that s-LWSR$_{32}+$ demonstrates great advantages on both model size and accuracy in a large margin. Referring to the last section, s-LWSR$_{64}+$ performs similarly with the DBPN and the EDSR. Meanwhile, the size of our model is distinctly smaller on both parameters and operations. Besides, the outputs of $4\times$ enlargement are visually exhibited in Fig. \[cont2\]. In general, the comparison suggests that our model has a strong capability in the SR generation, weather in the lightweight model size or better accuracy. Conclusion ========== In this paper, we propose a super lightweight SR network: s-LWSR. To facilitate the implementation on mobile devices, we compress our model to only $144K$ parameters while the s-LWSR achieves a satisfying performance. Base on the symmetric architecture, we propose an information pool with skip-connection mechanism to comprehensively incorporate the multi-level information. Besides, we further explore s-LWSR with more channels and remove certain ratios of activation layers to achieve comparable performance with leading SR models. In addition, we introduce a compression module to further reduce the model size to the ideal scale. The extensive experiments demonstrate that our model performs better than other state-of-the-art lightweight SR algorithms, with a relatively smaller model size. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== Thanks for the helpful suggestions from reviewers of the ACM MM’19. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 91546201, No. 71801232, No. 71501175, and No. 61702099, the Open Project of Key Laboratory of Big Data Mining and Knowledge Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in UIBE (No.CXTD10-05), and the Foundation for Disciplinary Development of SITM in UIBE. [^1]: B. Li, Z. Qi, and Y. Shi are with the School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China. [^2]: B. Li, Jiabing Liu, Z. Qi, and Y. Shi are also with the Research Center on Fictitious Economy and Data Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China, and also with the Key Laboratory of Big Data Mining and Knowledge Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]). [^3]: B. Wang is with the School of Information Technology and Management, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100029, China. He is currently a visiting scholar in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA (e-mail:[email protected]). [^4]: Y. Shi is also with the College of Information Science and Technology, University of Nebraska, Omaha, NE 68182, USA. [^5]: Correspond author: Zhiquan Qi	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'Jonathan J. Fortney' title: \| Modeling Exoplanetary Atmospheres:\ An Overview --- Why Study Atmospheres? {#sec:1} ====================== While atmospheres often make up only a tiny fraction of a planet’s mass, they have an out-sized importance in determining a number of physical properties of planets, how they evolve with time, and their physical appearance. Atmospheres dramatically influence a planet’s energy balance, as the relative importance of gaseous absorption or scattering from clouds or gasses dictate a planet’s albedo. Atmospheres can impact cooling, as interior convection or conduction must give way to a radiative atmosphere to lose energy out to space. Atmospheres, by their composition, can tell us a rich story of the gain and loss of volatiles, since atmospheres can be accreted from the nebula, outgassed from the interior, lost to space by escape processes, or regained by the interior. We tend to think of two broad reasons for studying planetary atmospheres. One is that atmospheres are inherently interesting, with a diverse array of physical and chemical processes at work. What sets the temperature structure of an atmosphere? Why do some have thermal inversions and others do not? What sets the chemical abundances in an atmosphere? Why are some atmospheres dominated by clouds, and why are others mostly cloud-free? What determines the day-night temperature contrast on the planet? How fast can winds blow? Can planets lose their entire atmosphere, never to attain one again? An entirely other set of questions focuses more on what an atmosphere can tell us about the formation and evolution of the planet. Atmospheric composition can tell us a lot about the integrated history of a planet. The metal-enrichment of a giant planet, compared to its star, can help us to understand aspects of planet formation. The comparative planetology of rocky worlds, like Earth and Venus, one with water vapor in the atmosphere, and one without, informs our understanding of divergent evolution. Noble gas abundances teach us about the accretion of primordial volatiles. The tools we use to model exoplanetary atmospheres are often the very same tools, or descendents of the tools, that we used to model the atmospheres of solar system planets. Other such tools were used to study cool stellar atmospheres or brown dwarfs. In that way, exoplanetary atmospheres can be thought of as a meeting of the minds, tools, and prejudice of the models and methods of planetary atmospheres and stellar atmospheres. The continuum from the coolest stars, to brown dwarfs and hot planets, to cool planets is real, and can be readily seen in Figure \[cushing\]. ![An entirely empirical showcase of the continuum in atmospheres from the coolest stars, to brown dwarfs, to the spectrum of Jupiter. Dominant infrared molecular absorption features of H$_2$O, CO, CO$_2$, CH$_4$, and NH$_3$ are shown, as well as TiO and K at optical wavelengths. This sequence is [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} values of 2700 K, 1550 K, 1075 K, and 125 K. Note that nearly all flux from Jupiter short-ward of 4.5 $\mu$m is reflected solar flux, not thermal emission. Figure courtesy of Mike Cushing.\[cushing\]](f1.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} The field of exoplanetary atmospheres has exploded in the past decade. With the 2019 launch of the James Webb Space Telescope, the field is poised for dramatic advances. We are lucky that a number of recent texts have emerged that discuss the physics and chemistry of exoplanetary and solar system atmospheres. All are worth a detailed reading, including [Seager10b]{}, [Pierrehumbert10]{}, [Heng17]{}, and [Catling17]{}, while classic solar system texts like [ChambHunt]{} are also still essential reading. Energy Balance and Albedos {#sec:2} ========================== For any planet with an atmosphere, the atmosphere will help to set the energy balance of the planet with that of its parent star. Let’s begin by striving to be clear about the albedo (reflectivity) of a planet, and how that enables estimates of planetary fluxes and temperatures. Often the descriptions of various albedos are actually much clearer in words than in mathematics, which is somewhat unusual. Excellent references on this topic exist from the “early days” of exoplanetary atmospheres, including [Marley99]{} and [Sudar00]{}. Geometric Albedo ---------------- Geometric albedo is the reflectivity of the planet when seen at full illumination, called “at full phase.” (Think of the full moon.) Within the solar system, this is basically how we always see the giant planets, since they are on orbits at much larger separations than the Earth. In the exoplanet context, we can determine the geometric albedo of a planet at secondary eclipse (or “occultation”) when its flux disappears as it passes behind its parent star. The geometric albedo, $A_{\mathrm G}$, is always specified at a particular wavelength or in a given bandpass. An oddity of $A_{\mathrm G}$ is that it can sometimes fail as a true measure of planetary reflectivity in the exoplanet context for hot planets \[e.g.\]\[\][Burrows08b,Fortney08a]{}. This is because hot Jupiters can have appreciable thermal emission at visible wavelengths. Thus, $A_{\mathrm G}$ can be higher than naively expected, due to some (or even most!) of the “planetary” flux coming from the planet being due to thermal emission, rather than reflected light. Spherical Albedo ---------------- The spherical albedo, $A_{\mathrm S}$, is similar to the geometric albedo. Again, it is specified at a given wavelength or a bandpass. However, here we are interested in the reflectivity over all angles – just the total reflectivity of the stellar flux, not caring about scattering angle. Recall that $A_{\mathrm G}$ is the stellar light that we get back when viewing the planet at full phase. This means that $A_{\mathrm S}$ can only be determined with some care. Within the solar system, the most straightforward way is to send a spacecraft to the planet to observe scattering from the planet at all phase angles. In practice, the spherical albedo is not discussed much in the literature. However, if the spherical albedo is integrated over all stellar wavelengths, then we have a rather interesting quantity: the Bond albedo. Bond Albedo ----------- The Bond albedo, $A_{\mathrm B}$, is typically the most important albedo for planets. It is the ratio of the total reflected stellar power (in say, erg s$^{-1}$) to the total power incident upon the planet. Within a modeling framework, it is $A_{\mathrm S}$ integrated over the stellar spectrum. The value of $A_{\mathrm B}$ is important because it determines how much total power is absorbed or scattered by a planet. The single most important thing to recall about $A_{\mathrm B}$ is that, unlike $A_{\mathrm G}$ and $A_{\mathrm S}$, it is not a quantity that is inherent to the planet alone. The value of $A_{\mathrm B}$, for a given planet, strongly depends on the incident spectrum from the parent star. Meaning, the same planet, around two different stars, will have two different Bond albedos. Typically, around an M star, more flux is emitted in the infrared. There is less scattering, more absorption, and lower $A_{\mathrm B}$, compared to illumination by a Sunlike star, where there is more short-wavelength incident flux that is Rayleigh scattered away \[e.g.,\]\[\][Marley99]{}. While $A_{\mathrm B}$ is straightforward to discuss, it is difficult to measure in practice. Within the solar system, it can be determined by observing light scattered from planetary atmospheres in all directions ($A_{\mathrm S}$) over a broad wavelength range that samples from the near UV to mid IR, where the Sun is brightest. In the exoplanet context, such a measurement is much more difficult. At least for strongly irradiated planets, $A_{\mathrm B}$ is probably best determined by just observing how hot a planet actually is, by measuring its total thermal emission. Temperatures of Interest ------------------------ Planets that do not have an intrinsic energy source will be in energy balance with the input from their parent star. That is, the power absorbed by the planet will be re-radiated back to space. For a planet like the Earth, the intrinsic energy due to secular cooling of the interior, along with radiative decay, is negligible in terms of energy balance; thus, absorbed power from the Sun entirely dominates the atmospheric energy balance. However, for very young rocky planets [Lupu14]{}, and for giant planets at essentially any age [Burrows97,Baraffe03,Marley07]{}, the flux from the planet’s interior is appreciable and affects the atmospheric temperature structure and energy balance. If a planet is in energy balance with its star, the equilibrium temperature, [$T_{\rm eq}$]{}, can be written: $$T_{\rm eq}^4 = f(1-A_{\rm B})L_* / (16 \pi \sigma d^2),$$ where $f$ is 1 if the absorbed radiation is able to be radiated away over the entire planet (4$\pi$ steradians) or 2 if it only radiates on the dayside (2$\pi$ sr), which is then hotter. $A_{\rm B}$ is the planet’s Bond albedo, $L_$ is the luminosity of the star, $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and $d$ is the planet’s orbital distance. If the effective temperature, [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}, is defined as the temperature of a blackbody of the same radius that would emit the equivalent flux as the real planet, [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} and [$T_{\rm eq}$]{} can be simply related. This relation requires the inclusion of a third temperature, [$T_{\rm int}$]{}, the “intrinsic effective temperature," that describes the flux from the planet’s interior. These temperatures are related by: $$T_{\rm eff}^4 = T_{\rm eq}^4 + T_{\rm int}^4$$ We then recover our limiting cases: if a planet is self-luminous (like a young giant planet) and far from its parent star, $T_eff \approx T_int$; for most rocky planets, or any planets under extreme stellar irradiation, $T_eff \approx T_eq$. Absorption and Emission of Flux ------------------------------- Recent reviews on radiative transfer in substellar and exoplanetary atmospheres can be found in [Hubeny17]{} and [Heng17b]{}. Here will be merely show some illustrative plots of how a 1D radiative-convective atmosphere model operates in terms of the absorption of stellar flux (Figure \[fluxin\]), the emission of thermal flux (Figure \[fluxout\]), and the outgoing flux carried by an atmosphere in radiative-convective equilibrium (Figure \[cartoon\]). ![Incident net flux (erg g$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ $\mu$m$^{-1}$, solid line, left axis) in five model layers for a cloud-free hot Jupiter model, $g$=15 m s$^{-2}$, at 0.05 au from the Sun. The dotted line (right axis) illustrates the integrated flux, evaluated from short to long wavelengths. The layer integrated* flux is read at the intersection of the dotted line and the right axis. Note the logarithmic scale on the left. At 0.45 mbar, although the absorption due to neutral atomic alkalis are important in the optical, more flux is absorbed by water vapor in the infrared. Heating due to alkali absorption becomes relatively more important as pressure increases. By 420 mbar, there is no flux left in the alkali line cores, and by 4.1 bar, nearly all the incident stellar flux has been absorbed. Adapted from [Fortney08a]{}, which also included a description of the hot Jupiter “pL Class" noted on the figure.\[fluxin\] ](f2.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} ![Similar to Figure \[fluxin\], but for thermal emission, from 30 to 0.26 $\mu$m (long wavelengths to short). Negative flux is emitted. The dotted line is again integrated flux, evaluated from long to short wavelengths. The negative value of a layer integrated flux in Figure \[fluxin\] equals the integrated flux here. In addition, the scaled Planck function appropriate for each layer is shown as a dashed curve. The temperature and pressure of each layer is labeled. Cooling occurs mostly by way of water vapor, but also CO. As the atmosphere cools with altitude progressively longer wavelength water bands dominate the layer thermal emission. Adapted from [Fortney08a]{}.\[fluxout\]](f3.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} As we will see below, strongly irradiated planets are dominated by the absorbed incident stellar flux, rather than any intrinsic flux from the deep interior. Atmospheric energy balance is satisfied by re-radiation of absorbed stellar flux. For a generic gas giant planet at 0.05 au from the Sun, Figure \[fluxin\] shows the wavelength-dependent absorption of stellar flux at five pressure levels within a 1D model. At the top of the model, most flux is absorbed by the near infrared water bands (see Figure \[3abunds\] for their exact locations in wavelength), while at deeper layers most absorption is via the pressure-broadened alkali (Na and K) doublets at 0.59 and 0.77 $\mu$m. By 4 bars essentially all stellar flux has been absorbed. The re-radiation of this energy to space, at these same pressure levels, occurs in the near and mid infrared, mostly longward of 3 $\mu$m in the top three panels shown in Figure \[fluxout\]. Deeper in the atmosphere, where temperatures are warmer, there is more overlap with shorter wavelength water bands. Figure \[cartoon\], adapted from [Marley15]{} shows the balance of several fluxes for a modestly irradiated planet, somewhat similar to Jupiter. The planet’s intrinsic flux is carried via radiation or convection, with convection dominating at the deepest levels where the atmosphere is dense and mostly opaque. A second detached, convective zone forms in region of local high opacity, which carries some of the flux as well. At depth, the profile in the convective region (thicker solid line) is that of an isentrope (constant specific entropy) with a temperature-pressure profile that is essentially adiabatic, as a only a minute super-adiabaticity is needed to transport flux via convection. Absorbed stellar fluxes are shown as a an additional component that the atmosphere must also carry via radiation. In practice, a 1D radiative-convective model needs to iterate to find a temperature structure that satisfies the constant flow of intrinsic energy through each layer (given that each layer both absorbs and emits flux) and the re-emission of absorbed stellar flux at each layer. [Marley15]{} features an in-depth discussion of the temperature corrections needed in each model layer, for each iteration, to converge to a model in radiative-convective equilibrium. ![Schematic depiction of the temperature structure of a model atmosphere. The y-axis is pressure, increasing downwards, and the x-axis shows temperature and energy flux. Model levels are shown (horizontal dashed lines), and the solid line is the temperature structure profile, where bolded parts indicate a convective region. ‘RC’ indicates the radiative-convective boundary. In equilibrium, net thermal flux ($F^{\rm{net}}_{\rm{t}}$, orange) and the convective flux ($F_{\rm{c}}$, blue) must sum to the internal heat flux ($F_{\rm{i}}$, dotted, which is $\sigma T_{\rm int}^4$) and, for an irradiated object, the net absorbed stellar flux ($F^{\rm{net}}_{\odot}$, striped, which alone is $\sigma T_{\rm eq}^4$ ). Note that the internal heat flux is constant throughout the atmosphere, whereas the schematic profile of net absorbed stellar flux decreases with increasing pressure, and eventually reaches zero in the deep atmosphere. At depth, convection carries the vast majority of the summed internal and stellar fluxes, but is a smaller component in detached convective regions (upper blue region). Adapted from [Marley15]{}. \[cartoon\]](f4.pdf){width="0.75\columnwidth"} Overview of Pressure-Temperature Profiles and Absorption Features ================================================================= Pressure-Temperature Profiles {#sec:3} ----------------------------- Much has been written over the years on the temperature structure of planetary atmospheres. Just in the recent past, analytic models of atmospheric temperature structure have been published, mostly focusing on strongly irradiated planets, by [Hansen08b]{}, [Guillot10]{}, [Robinson12]{}, and [Parmentier14]{}. These frameworks aim to understand the radiative (or radiative-convective) temperature structure as a function of the three temperatures outlined above, as well as the gaseous opacity relevant for flux incident upon the atmosphere (typically visible light) and the gaseous opacity relevant for emitted planetary fluxes (typically infrared light). Figure \[ptgrid1\] shows atmospheric pressure-temperature (T–P) profiles from 2400 K down to 50 K, compared to relevant condensation curves for cloud-forming materials. ![Pressure-temperature profiles from a warm brown dwarf (2400 K) to Neptune (50 K), showing the range of cool molecule-dominated H-He atmospheres. Model atmospheric profiles are shown as solid curves. Chemical condensation curves for cloud species are shown as dashed lines. Figure adapted from [Marley15]{}.\[ptgrid1\]](f5.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} Interpreting Spectra via Absorption Features ============================================ While much of the physics of stellar atmospheres transfers over to our understanding of planetary atmospheres, the interpretation of spectra is not one such area. While much of stellar atmospheres can be interpreted in terms of narrow atomic/ionic lines, caused by electronic transitions, on top of wavelength-independent “continuum" opacity sources, the same is not true for planets. In planets, few—if any—continuum opacity sources exist, and atmospheric opacities are dominated by the forest of rotational/vibration lines of dominant molecular absorbers like H$_2$O, CH$_4$, CO, CO$_2$, and NH$_3$, among other molecules. The entire concept of a “photosphere,” the $\tau=2/3$ surface from which all photons are emitted, is nearly meaningless in a planetary atmosphere, where opacity can vary widely from wavelength to wavelength. As an example, Figure \[3abunds\] shows the absorption cross-section (cm$^2$ per molecule) for a solar mixture of gases at 0.3 bar and three separate temperatures (2500 K, 1500 K, and 500 K) which shows that at all temperatures the opacity is nowhere dominated by any continua but instead by the opacities of various molecules. [ ![These three panels show the absorption cross-sections of molecules, weighted by their volume mixing ratios. The x-axis is the wavelength range of interest for the James Webb Space Telescope. These calculations are for solar metallicity atmospheres at 0.3 bar, at 2500 K, 1500 K, and 500 K. Water vapor is a dominant opacity source at all of these temperatures. Figure courtesy of Caroline Morley. \[3abunds\]](f6a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![These three panels show the absorption cross-sections of molecules, weighted by their volume mixing ratios. The x-axis is the wavelength range of interest for the James Webb Space Telescope. These calculations are for solar metallicity atmospheres at 0.3 bar, at 2500 K, 1500 K, and 500 K. Water vapor is a dominant opacity source at all of these temperatures. Figure courtesy of Caroline Morley. \[3abunds\]](f6b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![These three panels show the absorption cross-sections of molecules, weighted by their volume mixing ratios. The x-axis is the wavelength range of interest for the James Webb Space Telescope. These calculations are for solar metallicity atmospheres at 0.3 bar, at 2500 K, 1500 K, and 500 K. Water vapor is a dominant opacity source at all of these temperatures. Figure courtesy of Caroline Morley. \[3abunds\]](f6c.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}]{} ![Contribution function vs. wavelength for an HD 209458b-like hot Jupiter. Maximum contributions are shown in red. Where opacity is highest, contributions come from the lowest pressures. At wavelengths of lower opacity, flux emerges from higher pressures. Figure courtesy of Mike Line. \[cf\]](f7.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} The best way to interpret planetary emission spectra is with the concept of the brightness temperature, $T_{\mathrm B}$. This is a wavelength-dependent quantity that is the temperature that a blackbody planet must have to emit the same amount of specific flux as the real planet, at that wavelength. For an atmosphere in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), this corresponds to the temperature of the real atmosphere where the optical depth reaches $2/3$ — this is the level in the atmosphere that one “sees” down to. This is an important way to think about spectra as it can show us, for instance, that difference levels of flux in different infrared bands could actually come from the same level in the atmosphere, if they have the same $T_{\mathrm B}$. The spectra and [$T_{\mathrm B}$]{}, which are both measured quantities, can be turned into the pressure level of that thermal emission by interpolating the [$T_{\mathrm B}$]{} values on a model pressure-temperature profile. One can then infer the wavelength-dependent pressure probed from an observed spectrum. A more detailed analysis \[e.g.,\]\[\][ChambHunt]{} of emergent emission spectra shows, and one could likely intuit, that thermal emission at a particular wavelength comes from a range of pressures, not from only one precisely defined pressure. From this analysis emerges the definition of the “contribution function,” which shows the pressure range from which thermal emission emerges. The pressure that corresponds to [$T_{\mathrm B}$]{} is then merely the location of the maximum of the contribution function. The contribution function can be quantified, as by [Knutson09]{}, as: $$cf(P)=B(\lambda,T) \frac{d e^{- \tau}}{d \log(P)}$$ A plot of the color-coded contribution function vs. wavelength for a hot Jupiter atmosphere model is shown in Figure \[cf\]. Stepping Through Physical Effects ================================= In the following sections we will look at how a variety of physical and chemical processes affect the temperature-pressure profile and spectra of exoplanetary atmospheres. We will do this through a series of model calculations starting with, and then deviating from, solar-composition H/He atmospheres. The atmosphere code employed for calculating these models iteratively solves for radiative-convective equilibrium by adjusting the size of the convection zone until the lapse rate everywhere in the radiative region is sub-adiabatic. This code was originally developed for modeling Titan’s atmosphere [Mckay89]{}, and has been extensively modified and applied to the study of brown dwarfs [Marley96,Burrows97,Saumon08,Morley12]{} and solar and extrasolar giant planets [Marley99,Marley12,Fortney05,Fortney08a,Fortney13,Morley15]{}. The radiative transfer equations are computed using optimized algorithms described in [Toon89]{}. Surface Gravity --------------- Typically, when one constructs a grid of model atmospheres, the first parameters of interest are the [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} and the surface gravity. The surface gravity is often written as a log (in cgs units), such that “log $g$ = 4.0” means a gravity of $10^4$ cm s$^{-2}$, or 100 m s$^{-2}$. For reference, Jupiter’s surface gravity is around 25 m s$^{-2}$. Surface gravity is a unit of choice because it is flexible. We may not know the masses and radii of the objects that we are studying so these quantities can be swept into the gravity. All things being equal, lower gravity objects have emission from lower atmospheric pressures. This is clearly seen in Figure \[gravity\], which shows the T–P profiles of two models with [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} of 1000 K. The black dot on the profiles (top panel) at 1000 K show where the local temperature is equal to the model [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}. This can be thought of as a kind of “mean photospheric pressure,” although keep in mind that the emission comes from a range of pressures. Lower gravity leading to a lower photospheric pressure can be understood as the effect of gravity on the scale height, $H$, where $H = k T / \mu m_{\rm H} g$, and $k$ is Boltzman’s constant, $T$ is the temperature, $\mu$ is the dimensionless mean molecular weight (2.35 for a solar abundance mix of gasses), $m_{\rm H}$ is the mass of the hydrogen atom, and $g$ is the surface gravity. For an isothermal, constant gravity, and exponential atmosphere, the column density of molecules ($N$), from some reference location with local density $n_o$, vertically to infinity, is $N=n_o H$. This value $N$ is directly proportional to the optical depth, $\tau$. In either a low gravity or high gravity atmosphere, we see down to the $\tau=2/3$ level at a given wavelength. If the gravity is lower at the same temperature, $H$ will be larger, meaning that $n_o$ will be smaller (found at a lower pressure) to reach the same $N$, or the $\tau=2/3$ level. We should expect the spectra of these two profiles to differ given their quite different temperature structures, and that is what we see in the second and third panels. A few things are worth noting: In the higher gravity atmosphere, the potassium doublet at 0.77 $\mu$m (first seen in Figure \[3abunds\] above) is much more pressure-broadened. Also, the flux peaks in the J (1.2 $\mu$m), H (1.6 $\mu$m), and K (2.2 $\mu$m) differ significantly. The high gravity model is much brighter in J and dimmer in K, compared to the low gravity model. This is due to the opacity source known a hydrogen “collision induced absorption” (CIA), which goes as the square of the local density. In higher pressure photospheres, this opacity source, which peaks in K band, is significantly more important. Most of the rest of the spectral differences can be attributed the differing abundances of CO and CH$_4$. The dashed curve shows where these molecules have an equal abundance in thermochemical equilibrium. To the right of this curve, CO is dominant, and to the left, CH$_4$ is. As one travels further from this curve, less and less of the “unfavored” species is found in the atmosphere. Metallicity ----------- The abundances of atoms and molecules in an atmosphere obviously also dictate the depth to which one can see at a given wavelength, and hence, the emitted spectra. For a H/He dominated atmosphere, as the metallicity increases, the opacity increases, and the photospheric pressures decrease. This can be seen in Figure \[metallicity\], which shows four models, all with [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} $=1000 $K, but with metallicity values of \[M/H\]$=-0.25$, 0.0, +0.5, and +1.0. \[M/H\] is a log scale referenced to solar abundances, such that “0.0” is solar and “+1.0” is ten times solar. The metal-rich models have lower pressure photospheres so their deep atmospheres end on a warmer adiabat. The spectra of these atmospheres for the most part look fairly similar. The main differences here are due to how metallicity influences chemical composition. The abundances of CO and CO$_2$ scale linearly and quadratically with metallicity, respectively [Lodders02]{}. This is seen most clearly from 4-5 $\mu$m (again refer to Figure \[3abunds\], where the metal-rich models show significantly more absorption from CO/CO$_2$). Carbon-to-Oxygen Ratio ---------------------- In a solar metallicity gas, the carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) ratio is 0.54 [Asplund09]{}. In such a mixture, at higher temperatures, CO takes up just over half of the available oxygen, leaving the remainder of the oxygen to be found in H$_2$O. At cooler temperatures, carbon is found in CH$_4$, leaving most of the oxygen free to be in H$_2$O. This is readily seen in the spectral sequence of cool brown dwarfs, as seen in Figure \[cushing\] and [Kirkpatrick05]{}. The C/O ratio also effects the condensation sequence of the elements which are lost into clouds (Figure \[ptgrid1\]), as many of these refractory species take oxygen out of the gas phase and into the solid phase. However, the details of particular abundances of molecules at a given $P$, $T$, and base elemental mixing ratios, quite sensitively depend on the abundances of C and O, as one might expect. In particular, there is a dramatic change at C/O$\,>1$. If C/O$\,>1$, then at hot temperatures nearly all oxygen will be tied up in CO, with little left for H$_2$O. Extra carbon can then go into CH$_4$, which is never seen at high temperatures for “normal” C/O ratios. The implications for spectra and the atmospheric structure of hot Jupiters have been examined in detail by [Madhu11]{}, [Madhu11b]{}, and [Molliere15]{}. [ ![These three panels show the effect of the atmospheric C/O ratio for three models at [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} $=1600$ K and log $g$=4. Differences are mostly subtle in the P–T profile and are predominantly due to changes in the water vapor opacity, which is the dominant absorber. \[co\] ](f10a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![These three panels show the effect of the atmospheric C/O ratio for three models at [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} $=1600$ K and log $g$=4. Differences are mostly subtle in the P–T profile and are predominantly due to changes in the water vapor opacity, which is the dominant absorber. \[co\] ](f10b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![These three panels show the effect of the atmospheric C/O ratio for three models at [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} $=1600$ K and log $g$=4. Differences are mostly subtle in the P–T profile and are predominantly due to changes in the water vapor opacity, which is the dominant absorber. \[co\] ](f10c.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} Here we will examine the changes in the P–T profiles and spectra for three illustrative values of the C/O ratio in Figure \[co\] for a 1600 K, log $g=4.0$ model. These numbers are shown referenced to the solar value, such that C/O=1.0 is the solar value, 0.25 is $1/4$ the solar value, and 2.5 is $5/2$ of the solar value. These 1600 K models are hot enough that CO is the dominant carbon carrier. The models have relatively similar temperature structures, but the highest C/O value yields the highest pressure photosphere. This is because this model has the most C and O tied up in CO gas, which is relatively transparent in the infrared compared to H$_2$O and CH$_4$ (see Figure \[3abunds\]). The spectra of the solar model and the 0.25 model are relatively similar, as both are dominated by H$_2$O opacity, with some contributions from CO. However, for the high C/O model, we can see that the H$_2$O bands essentially vanish and are replaced by strong CH$_4$ bands, which dramatically alters the emitted spectrum. Such objects have not been seen in the collection of brown dwarfs, but it is possible there are formation pathways for such carbon-rich giant planets, as discussed in Section \[formation\]. Incident Flux ------------- The incident flux from the parent star, often known as irradiation, insolation, or instellation, has a dramatic effect on the temperature structure of a planet. Indeed, for a terrestrial planet, the incident flux is the planet’s only important energy source. For the Earth, most of the Sun’s flux penetrates the atmosphere, which is optically thin in most of the optical, and is absorbed or scattered at the surface. This provides the Earth’s atmosphere with a warm bottom boundary. Earth’s atmosphere is optically thick at thermal infrared wavelengths near the surface, such that convection dominates in our troposphere. For a strongly irradiated planet, such as a hot Jupiter at 0.03 au, or even a sub-Neptune at 0.2 au, the absorption and re-radiation of stellar flux carves the planetary T–P profile shape. An illustrative example of the difference between a H/He atmosphere heated from below (like a young giant planet on a wide orbit, or brown dwarf) or a planet heated from above by stellar flux, is show in Figure \[irrad\]. These two models have the same [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} of 1600 K and same surface gravity of (log $g =4$), but the temperature structures appear radically different. In this figure, the convective parts of the atmosphere are shown in a thicker line, while the radiative parts are shown as a thinner line. The irradiated model is forced to have a much hotter upper atmosphere. This also forces the more isothermal, radiative part of the atmosphere to be relatively large in vertical extent, pushing the radiative-convective boundary down to nearly 1000 bar. This is a generic finding for all strongly irradiated atmospheres and it is a significant difference between these atmospheres and those under modest stellar irradiation. Weakly irradiated atmospheres can typically be convective up to the visible atmosphere. Mixing processes in the radiative part of the atmosphere are probably slower than in the convective part of the atmosphere, but it is incorrect to think of these radiative regions as being quiescent. [ ![Shown are two models with the same [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}(1600 K) and surface gravity (log $g$ =4). One is an isolated object and one is in a close-in orbit around a main sequence G0 parent star. The irradiated planet model has a much shallower temperature gradient. The radiative-convective boundary is pushed to much higher pressures in the irradiated model. In the top panel, the convective part of the atmosphere is shown with a thicker line. The more isothermal atmosphere yields a more muted (modestly more blackbody-like) emission spectrum. \[irrad\]](f11a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![Shown are two models with the same [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}(1600 K) and surface gravity (log $g$ =4). One is an isolated object and one is in a close-in orbit around a main sequence G0 parent star. The irradiated planet model has a much shallower temperature gradient. The radiative-convective boundary is pushed to much higher pressures in the irradiated model. In the top panel, the convective part of the atmosphere is shown with a thicker line. The more isothermal atmosphere yields a more muted (modestly more blackbody-like) emission spectrum. \[irrad\]](f11b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![Shown are two models with the same [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}(1600 K) and surface gravity (log $g$ =4). One is an isolated object and one is in a close-in orbit around a main sequence G0 parent star. The irradiated planet model has a much shallower temperature gradient. The radiative-convective boundary is pushed to much higher pressures in the irradiated model. In the top panel, the convective part of the atmosphere is shown with a thicker line. The more isothermal atmosphere yields a more muted (modestly more blackbody-like) emission spectrum. \[irrad\]](f11c.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} The spectra of the two models (middle panel) look almost nothing alike, owing to the radically different temperature structures. In the near infrared, where one sees most deeply into the atmosphere (see Figure \[3abunds\], middle panel), the isolated model is significantly hotter, which yields much higher near-infrared fluxes. The bottom panel of Figure \[irrad\] graphically shows that the more isothermal temperature structure directly leads to a smaller dynamic range in the temperatures probed, which leaves the spectrum more blackbody-like than the isolated object. This suggests that while brown dwarfs and imaged planets will provide (and have been providing) essential lessons in terms of atmospheric abundances and molecular opacities, we should not expect spectra of the strongly irradiated planets to necessarily follow the same sequence that is clear for the isolated objects at these same [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} values \[e.g.\]\[\][Kirkpatrick05]{}. Figure \[ptgrid\] shows the result of a calculation of placing this same model planet at different distances from its parent star to yield [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} values from 2400 K to 600 K. All models have a [$T_{\rm int}$]{} value of 200 K. [ ![A sample calculation of the effects of stellar insolation, for planets at various distances from a 6000 K G0 main sequence star. The models go from [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} of 2400 K to 600 K in 200 K increments. All models have a [$T_{\rm int}$]{} value of 200 K. \[ptgrid\]](f12.pdf "fig:"){width="1.0\columnwidth"}]{} Outer Boundary Condition: Parent Star Spectral Type --------------------------------------------------- As we have seen in Figures \[fluxin\], \[fluxout\], and the previous section, the pressure levels and wavelengths at which incident stellar flux is absorbed and then re-radiated back to space dictate the temperature structure, especially for strongly irradiated planets. Not all parent stars have the same spectra energy distributions, as hotter A-type parent stars will peak in the blue or even UV, while cool M-star hosts will peak in the near-infrared, in accordance with Wien’s law. It is difficult to create a one-size-fits-all grid of model atmospheres for strongly irradiated planets because each particular planet has its own particular parent star. Typically, when modeling a given exoplanet atmosphere, investigators will create a synthetic spectrum for the parent star by interpolating in a grid of stellar model atmospheres \[\]\[\][Hauschildt99]{} for the fluxes incident upon the planet. This effect of stellar spectral type on hot Jupiter atmospheres has been investigated in some detail by [Molliere15]{}. Here in Figure \[star\] we look at just a subset of models, for a 6000 K type G0 and 5000 K type K2 parent star. These models are placed at distances such that the planet [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} are the same, yielding planetary [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} values of 1000 K and 1800 K. The cooler parent star spectrum (solid curves), peaking at longer wavelengths, allows more incident energy to be absorbed higher in the atmosphere by the water bands (see Figure \[fluxin\]), which warms the upper atmosphere and cools the lower atmosphere, relative to the hotter parent star (dotted curves). The spectra from the more isothermal atmosphere are, as expected, slightly more muted, since the spectrum of a truly isothermal atmosphere would appear as a blackbody. [ ![The effect of parent star spectral type on two hot Jupiter atmosphere models at [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} values of 1000 K and 1800 K. The solid line is a main sequence K2 star, while the dashed line is G0. The cool star puts out more flux in the infrared, which can be absorbed higher in the atmosphere by strong infrared bands leading to a slightly shallower P-T profile, which mutes the spectrum. The spectrum is only shown for the hotter model.\[star\]](f13a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![The effect of parent star spectral type on two hot Jupiter atmosphere models at [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} values of 1000 K and 1800 K. The solid line is a main sequence K2 star, while the dashed line is G0. The cool star puts out more flux in the infrared, which can be absorbed higher in the atmosphere by strong infrared bands leading to a slightly shallower P-T profile, which mutes the spectrum. The spectrum is only shown for the hotter model.\[star\]](f13b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![The effect of parent star spectral type on two hot Jupiter atmosphere models at [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} values of 1000 K and 1800 K. The solid line is a main sequence K2 star, while the dashed line is G0. The cool star puts out more flux in the infrared, which can be absorbed higher in the atmosphere by strong infrared bands leading to a slightly shallower P-T profile, which mutes the spectrum. The spectrum is only shown for the hotter model.\[star\]](f13c.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} Inner Boundary Condition: Flux From the Interior ------------------------------------------------ Typically, one worries little about the inner boundary condition for a strongly irradiated planet. Given the three temperatures discussed above, $T_{\rm eff}^4 = T_{\rm eq}^4 + T_{\rm int}^4$, the planetary [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} is typically dominated by absorbed stellar flux, with [$T_{\rm int}$]{} contributing little to the planetary energy budget. As one moves further from the parent star, or to younger planets which have interiors that have not yet cooled with age, the flux from the interior can matter considerably. Obviously, for isolated brown dwarfs or young gas giants on wide separation orbits, this intrinsic flux is essentially all the flux that we see. The inner boundary for strongly irradiated gas giants may be important in energy balance in some circumstances, however (Fortney et al., in prep). As shown in [Morley17a]{}, the emission spectrum of prototype warm Neptune GJ 436b is best matched by a model that has a high [$T_{\rm int}$]{} value of $\sim$ 350 K, much higher than the $\sim$ 50 K one would expect from a Neptune-like evolution model \[e.g.\]\[\][Fortney11]{}. [Morley17a]{} suggest the large intrinsic flux is due to ongoing tidal dissipation, as the planet is currently on an eccentric orbit. With the aid of a tidal model these authors constrain the tidal $Q$ of the planet. This was an interesting planetary science exercise where the planet’s emission spectrum was tied to its interior structure and orbital evolution! Another case where the inner boundary may matter is for the largest-radius (“most inflated”) hot Jupiters. This is because large radii imply hot interiors, which implies high fluxes from the interior \[e.g.\]\[\][Fortney07a]{}. [Thorngren17]{} recently suggested that some hot Jupiter’s may have [$T_{\rm int}$]{} values of $\sim$ 700 K, far in excess of Jupiter’s value of 100 K. Figure \[inner\] shows an example calculation for a hot Jupiter at 0.03 au from the Sun, with inner boundaries [$T_{\rm int}$]{} values from 100 to 700 K. The flux enhancements are most prominent in the JHK near-infrared windows, which probe deepest in the planetary atmosphere. Although small, these altered fluxes are likely detectable with JWST. [ ![The effect of a hotter and cooler inner boundary on the T–P profile and spectrum of a Saturn-like (gravity = 10 m s$^{-2}$) planet at 0.04 au from the Sun. Values of [$T_{\rm int}$]{} are 700, 400, and 100 K, with higher values leader to a hotter deep atmosphere and shallower radiative-convective boundary. A hot inner boundary could be due to youth or additional energy sources in the planetary interiors. The spectra from the 400 K and 100 K models are indistinguishable. The differences in spectra are modest but likely detectable with JWST.\[inner\]](f14a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![The effect of a hotter and cooler inner boundary on the T–P profile and spectrum of a Saturn-like (gravity = 10 m s$^{-2}$) planet at 0.04 au from the Sun. Values of [$T_{\rm int}$]{} are 700, 400, and 100 K, with higher values leader to a hotter deep atmosphere and shallower radiative-convective boundary. A hot inner boundary could be due to youth or additional energy sources in the planetary interiors. The spectra from the 400 K and 100 K models are indistinguishable. The differences in spectra are modest but likely detectable with JWST.\[inner\]](f14b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.75\columnwidth"}]{} Role of Atmospheric Thickness ----------------------------- For gas giant planets the atmospheric thickness takes up most of the radius of the planet. Even for a sub-Neptune, we have little hope of seeing the bottom of the atmosphere. For example, [Lopez14]{} point out that for a 5 [$M_{\oplus}$]{} rocky planet with only 0.5% of its mass in H/He (which would yield a radius of 2 [$R_{\oplus}$]{}), the surface pressure would be 20 kbar. However, for terrestrial planets the atmospheric thickness is tremendously important, as it helps to set the surface pressure. Surface temperature tends to scale with surface pressure as well, due to the greenhouse effect. Our nearby example is Venus, which actually has a lower [$T_{\rm eq}$]{} than the Earth, due to Venus’s high Bond albedo. Venus’s extremely high surface temperature is mostly due to its atmospheric pressure, which is 90 times larger than the Earth’s. Determining the surface pressure is not necessarily straightforward. Perhaps the most straightforward way is if one could detect signatures from the ground in the planetary spectrum, in wavelengths where the atmospheric opacity is low, such that it could be optically thin to ground level. Figure \[trappist\] shows models from [Morley17b]{} that examine the spectra of planet TRAPPIST-1b, the innermost planet in the TRAPPIST-1 system, around a very late M dwarf. These plots examine the role of surface pressure on emission and transmission, with pressures from $10^{-4}$ to $10^2$ bar. It should be noted that these models are cloud-free. In emission, in the top panel, the atmosphere is everywhere optically thin enough to see emission from the blackbody surface. In transmission, which has a much longer atmospheric path length \[e.g.\]\[\][Fortney05c]{}, one can no longer see the surface for pressures above $10^{-3}$ bars. An interesting dichotomy between these plots is that for a wide range of thick atmospheres the transmission spectra are the same. However, the emission spectra differ substantially. This is because for transmission spectra, the atmosphere is basically a passive absorber of the stellar flux. In emission, flux originates from a diverse range of pressure levels, meaning that the atmospheres appear distinct until the pressure is high enough that the atmosphere is optically thick at all pressures, which is nearly seen in the emission spectra models at 10 and 100 bars. [ ![Emission (top) and transmission (bottom) spectra of Venus-like models of planet TRAPPIST-1b, courtesy of Caroline Morley, from [Morley17b]{}. Colors denote the surface pressure of the models. These models have an adiabatic P–T profile with depth that terminates at the planetary surface.\[trappist\]](f15a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"}]{} Effects of Clouds ----------------- The phase change of molecules from the gas phase to the liquid or solid phase is an unavoidable consequence of lower temperatures. Within the solar system, clouds are ubiquitous in every planetary atmosphere. As shown in Figure \[ptgrid1\], a wide range of species condense to form solids and liquids in H/He dominated atmospheres. While sometimes known as “dust” in the astrophysical literature, here we will reference these condensates as “clouds." At the highest temperatures, the most refractory species such as Al$_2$O$_3$ (corundum) and Ca-Ti-O bearing species will condense. Next are silicates (MgSiO$_3$ or Mg$_2$SiO$_4$) and iron. A variety of sulfide species condense at moderate temperatures, later followed by water (H$_2$O) and ammonia (NH$_3$) at the coolest temperatures. For reference, the cloud layers in Figure \[ptgrid1\] should all occur in Jupiter at great depth, as one could mentally extrapolate the deep atmosphere’s adiabat to higher pressures, past $\sim$ 1 kbar or higher. Many of the P–T curves that indicate condensation can be readily derived from the Claussius-Clapeyron relation, as discussed in [Seager10]{}. A detailed look at the chemistry of condensation across $\sim$ 500 to 1500 K can be found in [Morley12]{} and [Morley13]{}, with applications to cool brown dwarfs and warm sub-Neptune transiting exoplanets, respectively. Cloud modeling is quite important because cloud opacity can be just as important as gaseous opacity. However, while gaseous opacity can in principle readily be measured over a range of $P$ and $T$ via laboratory work, or via first-principles quantum mechanical simulations (see the contribution from Jonathan Tennyson, Chapter 3), cloud opacity is generally not amenable to this kind of analysis. The complexity of clouds comes from a number of reasons. Most importantly, there is a tremendous amount of complex and poorly understood microphysics. One must try to understand, at a given pressure level in the atmosphere, the mean or mode particle size, the (likely non-symmetric) distribution in sizes around this value, which could be bi-modal, how this mode and distribution change with height, the absorption and scattering properties, and scattering phase functions of these particles. All of these quantities likely change with latitude and longitude, as Earth and Jupiter both have clear and cloud patches. In addition, the coverage fraction of a given visible hemisphere likely changes with time. There are several different ways investigators have aimed to understand the role of clouds in exoplanetary atmospheres. A relatively simple cloud model is that of [AM01]{} who aim to understand the 1D distribution of cloud particles by balancing the sedimentation of particles with the upward mixing of particles and condensible vapor. All microphysics is essentially ignored and parameterized by a sedimentation efficiency parameter, $f_{\rm sed}$ (called $f_{\rm rain}$ in the original paper). $f_{\rm sed}$ is tuned to fit observations of planets and brown dwarfs. This methodology has been beneficial and has been applied across a wide range of [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}, from $\sim$ 200 to 2500 K. However, it lacks predictive power. Another framework is that of Helling and collaborators [Helling06,Helling08,Helling17]{} who use a sophisticated chemical network and follow the microphysics of tiny “seed particles” that fall down through the planetary atmosphere, from the atmosphere’s lowest pressures. Cloud particles sizes and distributions vs. height naturally emerge from these calculations, which typically yield “dirty” grains of mixed compositions. The comparison of these models to observed planetary and brown dwarf spectra has not progressed quite as far at this time. The effects of clouds on the spectra of planets can be readily understood. Cloud opacity is typically “gray,” meaning that there is little wavelength dependence to the opacity. (While typical, this is not a rule.) Compared to a cloud-free model, clouds are an additional opacity source, and limit the depth to which one can see. Clouds typically then raise the planetary “photosphere” to lower pressures. In Figure \[clouds\] we can examine the effect of clouds on a 1400 K, log $g=4$ young giant planet. These examples lack external irradiation. These four panels show a cloud-free model (thin solid curve), an optically thinner cloud ($f_{\rm sed}=4$) cloud as a dashed curve, and a thicker cloud ($f_{\rm sed}=2$) in a thicker solid curve. Figure \[clouds\]A shows the atmospheric P–T profiles. The black dot shows where the local temperature matches the 1400 K [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}, which one can think of as the mean photosphere. With larger cloud opacity, the P–T profile is shifted to lower pressures at a given temperature. \[clouds\]B shows the resulting brightness temperatures. In the near infrared the clouds limit our ability to see deeply down in the JHK near-infrared opacity windows. The inclusion of the gray opacity source limits the dynamic range in temperatures that are seen in the cloud-free model. For each profile, the pressure that corresponds to each value of the brightness temperature, where the optical depth out of the atmosphere is 2/3, is shown just below in \[clouds\]D. The higher pressures probed in the cloud-free model, and the higher dynamic range of pressures probed, is clearly seen. The resulting emergent spectra are shown in \[clouds\]C. Although all spectra are nothing like a blackbody, the cloudiest models have the most muted absorption features. The J-band at $\sim$ 1.3 $\mu$m, where water opacity is at its minimum, and one would normally see deepest into the atmosphere, is the wavelength range that is most affected by the cloud opacity. After the past 15 years of observing transit transmission spectra, we are fully aware of how clouds manifest themselves in transiting planet atmospheres. Typically, weaker than expected absorption features are seen \[e.g.,\]\[\][Sing16]{}. There are numerous examples where cloud opacity blocks all molecular absorption features [Kreidberg14a]{}. An illustrative example of how clouds effect absorption features in transmission spectrum model is shown in Figure \[1214\]. These models already have enhanced metallicity atmospheres that drive up the mean molecular weight, $\mu$, which shrinks the scale height and size of absorption features. The clouds provide additional (mostly gray) opacity that mutes the absorption features. ![Example transit transmission spectra of planet GJ 1214b at high metallicity, with and without clouds. Models are at metallicity values of 100 and 1000$\times$ solar. The top panel shows the optical and infrared transmission spectra. The bottom panel shows the same spectra, zoomed in to focus on the featureless [Kreidberg14a]{} data in the near-infrared from Hubble. Cloud-free transmission spectra are shown as dotted and solid gray lines and cloudy spectra are shown as colored lines. Note that the only model that fits the data is the 1000$\times$ solar model with $f_{\rm sed}= 0.01$ (very highly lofted) clouds. Figure courtesy of Caroline Morley. \[1214\]](f17.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} Retrieval ========= Over the past several years inverse methods have become an integral part of modeling exoplanetary atmospheres. Within this framework one performs a wide exploration of a range of possible atmospheres models that can yield a best-fit to an observed spectrum. Typically these methods, called “retrieval,” aim to find the combination of atmospheric abundances and atmospheric T–P profile that yield a best fit to an observed spectrum. Those models can find solutions outside the confines of self-consistent models. Forward Model ------------- The most important piece of any atmospheric retrieval algorithm is the forward model. The forward model takes a set of inputs, generally the parameters of interest, and then uses various physical assumptions to map these parameters onto the observable, e.g., the spectra. Depending on the situation of interest, there are three kinds of forward models one would implement, depending on if the observations were in thermal emission, transit transmission, or reflection. First is an emission forward model, which computes the upwelling top-of-atmosphere flux, and would be used at secondary eclipse or for directly imaged planets. Second is a transmission forward model, which computes the wavelength-dependent transit radius of the planet, and is used in defining the planet-to-star radius ratio. Third is a reflection forward model, which sums the stellar flux scattered in any direction from an illuminated hemisphere, and would be used as a function of orbital phase for an imaged or a transiting planet phase curve. These forward models differ in their geometry and in the atmospheric regions probed. The necessary inputs in all models are the temperatures at each atmospheric level–the thermal profile–and the abundance and type of opacity sources, whether they be molecular/atomic gases or cloud/grain opacities, gravity, host star properties, and basic instrumental parameters that convolve and bin the high-resolution model spectra to the data set in question. These are the fundamental quantities that impact any emission, transmission, or reflection spectrum. Bayesian Estimator/Model Selection ---------------------------------- The Bayesian estimator is used to determine the allowed range of parameters (posterior), in the context of a given forward model, which can adequately describe the data. Most investigators use a multi-pronged modeling approach \[e.g.,\]\[\][Line13]{} that includes several MCMC samplers, including the powerful ensemble sampler EMCEE [Foreman13]{}, implemented in [Kreidberg15]{}, [Greene16]{}, and multimodal nested sampling [Feroz09]{}, PYMULTINEST [Buchner14]{}, implemented in [Line16L]{}. Using more than one inference method ensures robust results \[e.g.,\]\[\] [Lupu16]{}. An important aspect of Bayesian problems is that of model selection. Given two competing models, model selection aims to rigorously identify the simplest model that can adequately explain the data. This is done through the evaluation of the marginal likelihood, or Bayesian evidence \[e.g.,\]\[\][Trotta08]{}. The validity and utility of these model selection-based approaches as applied to exoplanet atmospheres have been routinely demonstrated [Benneke13, Kreidberg14b, Line16L]{}. It is essential to use these evidence-based model selection methods to explore the hierarchy of model assumptions in order to diagnose the significance of the assumptions and/or missing model physics. An Example: Cool T-Type Brown Dwarfs ------------------------------------ While exoplanet spectra typically have low signal-to-noise spectra and spectral coverage over a limited wavelength range, brown dwarfs have excellent spectra over a broad wavelength range, and have been studied in some detail since their first discovery in 1995. An excellent review article on observations of these objects can be found in [Kirkpatrick05]{}. [Line14,Line15,Line17]{} pioneered the use of retrieval methods for these objects. T-type brown dwarfs are especially good targets because they typically lack the thick clouds in L-type brown dwarfs. This means that their photospheres span a relatively large dynamic range in pressure, meaning that information on the atmosphere can be gleaned from many levels. [ ![Adapted from [Line15]{}, retrievals on two $\sim$700 K T-type brown dwarfs. Spectra (top row), retrieved temperature profiles (middle row), and retrieved atmospheric abundances (bottom row). Top: For the two objects we show the H-band calibrated SpeX spectra data as the diamonds with error bars, a summary of thousands of model spectra generated from the posterior and their residuals (median in blue, 1$\sigma$ spread in red), and their spectral type and bulk properties. Middle: This summarizes thousands of temperature profiles drawn from the posteriors for each object (median in blue, 1$\sigma$ spread in red, 2$\sigma$ spread in pink). The black temperature profile shown for each object is a representative self-consistent grid model [Saumon08]{} interpolated to the quoted $\log g$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ to demonstrate that the retrieved profiles are physical and are consistent with 1D radiative-convective equilibrium. Bottom: Comparison of the retrieved chemical abundances (shaded boxes) of the well constrained molecules with their expected thermochemical equilibrium abundances along the median temperature profile. The solid curves are the thermochemical equilibrium abundances for solar composition while the dashed curves are the thermochemical equilibrium abundances for the specified C/O and metallicity. This shows that the retrieved abundances are thermochemically consistent. \[lineBDs\]](f18a.pdf "fig:"){width="1.0\columnwidth"}]{} [ ![Adapted from [Line15]{}, retrievals on two $\sim$700 K T-type brown dwarfs. Spectra (top row), retrieved temperature profiles (middle row), and retrieved atmospheric abundances (bottom row). Top: For the two objects we show the H-band calibrated SpeX spectra data as the diamonds with error bars, a summary of thousands of model spectra generated from the posterior and their residuals (median in blue, 1$\sigma$ spread in red), and their spectral type and bulk properties. Middle: This summarizes thousands of temperature profiles drawn from the posteriors for each object (median in blue, 1$\sigma$ spread in red, 2$\sigma$ spread in pink). The black temperature profile shown for each object is a representative self-consistent grid model [Saumon08]{} interpolated to the quoted $\log g$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ to demonstrate that the retrieved profiles are physical and are consistent with 1D radiative-convective equilibrium. Bottom: Comparison of the retrieved chemical abundances (shaded boxes) of the well constrained molecules with their expected thermochemical equilibrium abundances along the median temperature profile. The solid curves are the thermochemical equilibrium abundances for solar composition while the dashed curves are the thermochemical equilibrium abundances for the specified C/O and metallicity. This shows that the retrieved abundances are thermochemically consistent. \[lineBDs\]](f18b.pdf "fig:"){width="1.0\columnwidth"}]{} As a test-case in what we might expect for exoplanets in the future, when we have JWST-quality (or better) data for cool atmospheres, [@Line15] studied two benchmark brown dwarfs, Gl 570D and HD 3651B, both of which are $\sim$ 700 K brown dwarfs that orbit well-characterized Sunlike parent stars. Figure \[lineBDs\] shows the results of the retrievals. The top panel shows the outstanding agreement between the model-derived spectra and the medium-resolution observations. The work aimed to retrieve the atmospheric P–T profile at 15 levels in the atmosphere. The middle panel compares the derived profile to that of a best-fit radiative-convective self-consistent model atmosphere [Saumon08]{}, and the agreement is striking. Finally, the retrievals allow for the determination of chemical abundances, a first for a fit to brown dwarf spectra. The bottom panel of Figure \[lineBDs\] shows the derived abundances, within the 1$\sigma$ error bars, as shaded colors, with the expected chemical equilibrium abundances as solid and dashed curves. The agreement is quite good. (We note that the sharp drop in alkali metals Na and K is due to their condensation into solid cloud particles, and corresponding loss from the gas phase.) The implied abundances for carbon and oxygen, and the C/O ratio, agree well with a detailed analysis of the a high-resolution spectrum of each object’s parent star. Since the brown dwarf and the Sunlike star formed in a bound orbit, within the same giant molecular cloud, they should share the same abundances. This gives confidence in the retrieval methodology. Another nice feature that one can derive from retrieval models is the degree to which changes in chemical abundances, the temperature profile, or surface gravity affect the spectra at particular wavelengths. This can give one an intuitive feel for which wavelengths are most sensitive to particular aspects of the model, and why some features are essentially insensitive to the spectrum itself. This is nicely displayed in Figure \[sense\] for a generic 700 K brown dwarf model. One can first look at the three pressures, 8, 50, and 125 bars. The spectrum gives very little sensitivity to the 8-bar temperature, because the atmosphere is optically thin at most wavelengths at this pressure. However, at 50 bars, we are typically seeing down into the Y (1.0 $\mu$m), J (1.2 $\mu$m), and H (1.6 $\mu$m) band windows, so the spectrum gives us great leverage on the temperature there. By 125 bars the atmosphere is nearly opaque at all wavelengths, so we have very little leverage on the temperature at such a high pressure. For the atmospheric surface gravity all wavelengths contribute to our understanding, as this is a constant in the atmosphere. For the molecular abundances, as one might expect, there is only “power” at wavelengths where the particular molecules are good absorbers and if these molecules are abundant enough to create any spectral features. At such a cool temperature (700 K), CO and CO$_2$ have very low mixing ratios, so we do not see them, and they have little impact on the spectrum. The pressure-broadened alkali metals, Na and K, impact the spectrum via their pressure-broadened red wing that overlaps with the Y and J bands. H$_2$S has little abundance so it impacts the spectrum modestly. NH$_3$, CH$_4$, and H$_2$O all have multiple molecular bands throughout the near-infrared, so we should expect to be able to determine their abundances relatively robustly, in agreement with the bottom panel of Figure \[lineBDs\]. ![Sensitivity of a cool brown dwarf spectrum to various parameters. This is a synthetic spectrum with [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} of 700 K and a log $g$ of 5 and with purely thermochemical equilibrium composition. The red regions represent a change in the spectrum due to a perturbation of each of the parameters. For H$_2$O, CH$_4$, NH$_3$, H$_2$S, alkali, this perturbation is $\pm$ 0.5 dex (where 1 dex is 1 order of magnitude) in number mixing ratio from the thermochemical abundance value. For CO the perturbation is +2 dex, CO$_2$, +6 dex, log$g$ $\pm$ 0.1 dex, and the temperatures are perturbed at each level by $\pm$50 K. Figure courtesy of Michael Line.\[sense\]](f19.pdf){width="0.82\columnwidth"} Simplified Atmospheric Dynamics {#dynamics} =============================== There are a number of excellent reviews of atmospheric dynamics in the exoplanet context, including [Showman08b]{} and [Heng15]{} on hot Jupiters and [Showman13]{} on terrestrial planets. This is a huge subject and the interested reader can find a robust literature that connects the dynamics of solar system rocky planets to solar system gas giants to exoplanets. Here we will suffice to discuss a few relevant timescales that help us understand the detected phase curves of (likely) tidally locked hot Jupiters, which are the planets whose atmospheres have been probed to understand dynamics. ![This is a compilation of phase curve data, mostly from Spitzer, that shows the day/night temperature contrast for transiting giant planets. The y-axis is a measure of day/night temperature homogenization, with more homogenized planets plotting lower. There is a weak general trend that the hottest planets have the largest day/night contrast, although these inferences depend on the wavelength observed (as they probe different depths in the atmosphere). Figure courtesy of Tad Komacek.](f20.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} Within the realm of hot Jupiters, state-of-the-art three dimensional circulation models include a treatment of the Navier-Stokes equations (or a simplified version of them that assume hydrostatic equilibrium, called the Primitive Equations), for the fluid dynamics. This is combined with a treatment of the radiative transport in the atmosphere, which can be fully wavelength-dependent (termed “non-gray” in astronomical jargon) across a wide wavelength range from the blue optical to the far infrared, or can also averaged over in terms of weighted mean wavelength-independent visible (“shortwave”) and corresponding thermal (“longwave”) fluxes. Such “grey” simplifications speed up codes dramatically, but have significant drawbacks when comparing to wavelength-dependent thermal infrared phase curves, as can be obtained from Spitzer or Hubble [Knutson07b,Knutson09,Stevenson14]{}. State of the art models including non-gray radiative transfer are described in [Showman09,Lewis14,Mayne14]{}. However, one should be very clear that all levels of model sophistication are important within dynamics. Within the dynamics literature one often finds a discussion of a “hierarchy of models,” from simple 1-layer models in 2D, to simplified 3D models, to 3D models with full radiative transfer. It is only through an understanding of the physical mechanisms across multiple levels of complexity that one can begin to understand the diverse physical behavior of atmospheres. As a basic introduction, one often discusses relevant physical timescales [Showman02]{}. These include the advective timescale, the timescale over which a parcel of gas is moved within an atmosphere. This quantity is characterized by the atmospheric wind speed and a relevant planetary distance, on the order of a planetary radius. Thus, the advective time is: $$\tau_{\mathrm{advec}} = \frac{R_{\mathrm P}}{U}$$ where $R_{\mathrm P}$ is the planet radius and $U$ is the wind speed. This can be compared to a radiative timescale, the time it takes for a parcel of gas to cool off via radiation to space: $$\tau_{\mathrm{rad}} = \frac{P}{g}\frac{c_{\mathrm P}}{4 \sigma T^3}.$$ If $\tau_{\mathrm{advec}} << \tau_{\mathrm{rad}}$, we would expect temperature homogenization around the planet. This is the case for Jupiter, as $\tau_{\mathrm{rad}}$ is quite large, owing to the cold atmospheric temperatures. If $\tau_{\mathrm{advec}}>>\tau_{\mathrm{rad}}$, then we should expect large temperature contrasts on the planet. All things being equal, for even hotter planets, $\tau_{\mathrm{rad}}$ will become smaller, given the strong temperature dependence. With a relatively constant wind speed, this would imply larger temperature contrasts. This could manifest itself in large day-night temperature differences observed for the hot Jupiters, which are expected to be tidally locked. This is indeed what is observed. In addition, other physical forces, such a Lorentz drag due to the thermal ionization of alkali metals, can slow advection as well [Perna10]{}, also aiding large temperature differences. Connection With Formation Models {#formation} ================================ The atmospheres of all four of the solar system‚ giant planets are enhanced in “metals” (elements heavier than helium) compared to the Sun. Spectroscopy of these atmospheres yields carbon abundances (via methane, CH$_4$) that show an enrichment of $\sim$ 4, 10, 80, and 80, for Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, respectively. Spectra that determine other atmospheric abundances are challenging due to the very cold temperature of these atmospheres, which sequester most molecules in clouds far below the visible atmosphere. The 1995 Galileo Entry Probe into Jupiter measured in situ enrichments from factors of 2-5, for light elements (C, N, S, P) and the noble gases \[e.g.\]\[\][Wong04]{}. Taken as a whole, these measurements suggest that giant planet atmospheres are enhanced in metals compared to parent star values. Before the dawn of exoplanetary science, these atmospheric metal enrichments were understood within the standard “core-accretion” model of giant planet formation \[e.g.\]\[\][Pollack96]{}. Within this theory, after a solid core of ice and rock attains a size of $\sim$ 10 Earth masses, this core accretes massive amounts of H/He-dominated gas from the solar nebula, which can be several Earth masses to many hundreds of Earth masses. This accretion also includes solid planetesimals that are abundant within the midplane of the solar nebula disk. The accretion of solids and gas leads to an H/He envelope enriched in metals compared to parent star abundances. Since giant planet H/He envelopes are mostly or fully convective, the metal enrichment of the envelope will include the visible atmosphere. This planet formation framework was built upon a sample size of only 4 planets. The promise of exoplanetary science is to understand metal enrichment, and its relevance to planet formation, over a vastly larger sample size. This planet mass-metallicity relation needs to be understood in terms of the enrichment as a function of planet mass, but also the intrinsic dispersion in the enrichment at a given mass, since it appears that exoplanet populations are quite diverse [Thorngren16]{}. The metal enrichment observed today drives our understanding of the accretion of gas and solids in the planet formation era. Recently, population synthesis formation models have aimed to understand the metal enrichment of atmospheres from massive gas giants down to sub-Neptunes. An example from [Fortney13]{} is shown in Figure \[pop\]. These models follow the accretion of gas and solids and aim to calculate the amount of solid matter accreted by the planet as well as the fraction that ablates into the atmosphere. This is quite uncertain, as the size (or size distribution) of planetesimals is unknown, and the physics of ablation in these atmospheres is still not well understood theoretically. Nonetheless, the general trend of the models agrees well with that seen in the solar system. ![Mass fraction of metals in the H/He envelope and visible atmosphere ($Z_{\rm env}$) as a function of planet mass for the output of the population synthesis models of [Fortney13]{}. The dots are individually formed planets and use 100 km planetesimals. We make a simple assumption of a uniform $Z_{\rm env}$ throughout the envelope. The turnover below 10 [$M_{\oplus}$]{} is due to planetesimals driving through the atmosphere and depositing their metals directly onto the core. The general trend of the mass / atmospheric metallicity trend of the solar system system \[e.g.,\]\[\][Fortney13,Kreidberg14b]{} is reproduced by these models\[pop\]](f21.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} . A recent update to the classic [Pollack96]{} picture is the role of condensation (“snow lines”) in controlling the local composition of planet-forming disks like the solar nebula. For instance, [Oberg11]{} suggest that the condensation of water into solid form beyond the water snow line will drive up the C/O ratio of the local gas (since O is lost into solids) but will drive down the C/O ratio of the solids (due to the incorporation of O into solid water). This is shown graphically in Figure \[ratio\] for a standard solar nebula model. The accretion of the H/He envelope of the planet, with a mix of gas and solids, could be a fingerprint of the local conditions in the disk. This has been an essential new idea in connecting atmospheric observations to planet formation. This upshot is that giant planet atmospheres are likely not enriched in individual metals by uniform amounts, which is consistent with the Galileo Probe data for Jupiter. The original [Oberg11]{} model has since been expanded by other groups to understand the roles of additional physical processes. These processes include the accretion of solids and gas during disk-driven orbital migration, accretion via pebbles, and disk evolution/cooling over time [Madhu14, Madhu17, Mordasini16, Espinoza17]{}. These processes all affect the location of snow lines and the composition of accretions solids. Importantly, these various theories make a wide range of predictions for the final C/O ratios of giant planets. There is broad agreement within the planet formation field that giant planets will typically not take on the same carbon and oxygen abundances as their parent star. Therefore, a derivation of the population-wide C/O ratio of the sample would be a new and unique constraint on planet formation. ![For a typical model of the solar nebula, two values of the C/O ratio are plotted as a function of orbital separation, referenced to that of the parent star. The solid line shows the C/O ratio in the nebular gas. The dashed line shows the C/O ratios of grains, meaning the solids. Inside of 2 au, condensation of oxygen-bearing rocks removes oxygen from the gas phase, increasing the C/O of the gas. At the water snow line at 2 au, water converts to solid form, dramatically decreasing the amount of oxygen in gaseous form, therefore enhancing the C/O ratio of the gas while lowering the ratio in the solids as the amount of oxygen in solid form increases. Since giant planets accrete massive amounts of gas and solids, the final C/O ratio of the planet traces its formation location as well as its relative accretion of solids and gas. Figure courtesy of Nestor Espinoza, adapted from [Espinoza17]{}. \[ratio\]](f22.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} Perspective =========== The study of exoplanetary atmospheres is still an extremely young field. There is much room for adventurous investigators in observations, theory, and modeling. We have barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn. Given the complexity of planetary atmospheres, we should not expect them to readily fall into tidy spectral classes like main sequence stars. Planets have a diversity of initial abundances, formation locations, durations of formation, and subsequent evolution in isolation or in packed planetary systems, with incident stellar fluxes of both high and low energy across a broad parent star spectral range. This rich diversity will make for a rewarding study in the near term, as JWST transforms the data quality that we have for studying atmospheres. In the long term, given the large phase space, the field likely will need a space telescope dedicated to obtaining high-quality spectra for a statistically large sample of atmospheres. We should develop a hierarchy of modeling tools to confront these data sets, some simple to complex, from 1D to 3D. Within this hierarchy we should endeavor for a better understanding of molecular opacities, cloud microphysics, radiative transport, and fluid dynamics. I would like thank the organizers of the 2nd Advanced School of Exoplanetary Sciences (ASES2) for the opportunity to give lectures at the school on the beautiful Amalfi Coast. It was a fantastic experience and I benefit from great interactions with the attendees. The lectures and this chapter benefited significantly from many discussions with Mark Marley going back to 2004. Christopher Seay aided the chapter greatly by generating many of the figures. Mike Line provided figures and gave significant input on the atmospheric retrieval section. Caroline Morley helped in ways large and small. Callied Hood, Kat Feng, and Maggie Thompson provided essential comments. natexlab\#1[\#1]{} , A. S., & [Marley]{}, M. S. 2001, [ApJ]{}, 556, 872 , M., [Grevesse]{}, N., [Sauval]{}, A. J., & [Scott]{}, P. 2009, [ARA&A]{}, 47, 481 , I., [Chabrier]{}, G., [Barman]{}, T. S., [Allard]{}, F., & [Hauschildt]{}, P. H. 2003, [A & A]{}, 402, 701 , B., & [Seager]{}, S. 2013, [ApJ]{}, 778, 153 , J., [Georgakakis]{}, A., [Nandra]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2014, [A & A]{}, 564, A125 , A., [Ibgui]{}, L., & [Hubeny]{}, I. 2008, [ApJ]{}, 682, 1277 , A., [Marley]{}, M., [Hubbard]{}, W. B., [et al.]{} 1997, [ApJ]{}, 491, 856 , D. C., & [Kasting]{}, J. F. 2017, [Atmospheric Evolution on Inhabited and Lifeless Worlds]{} , J. W., & [Hunten]{}, D. M. 1987, [Theory of planetary atmospheres. An introduction to their physics andchemistry.]{} , N., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Miguel]{}, Y., [Thorngren]{}, D., & [Murray-Clay]{}, R. 2017, [ApJ Letters]{}, 838, L9 , F., [Hobson]{}, M. P., & [Bridges]{}, M. 2009, [MNRAS]{}, 398, 1601 , D., [Hogg]{}, D. W., [Lang]{}, D., & [Goodman]{}, J. 2013, [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific]{}, 125, 306 , J. J. 2005, [MNRAS]{}, 364, 649 , J. J., [Ikoma]{}, M., [Nettelmann]{}, N., [Guillot]{}, T., & [Marley]{}, M. S. 2011, [ApJ]{}, 729, 32 , J. J., [Lodders]{}, K., [Marley]{}, M. S., & [Freedman]{}, R. S. 2008, [ApJ]{}, 678, 1419 , J. J., [Marley]{}, M. S., & [Barnes]{}, J. W. 2007, [ApJ]{}, 659, 1661 , J. J., [Marley]{}, M. S., [Lodders]{}, K., [Saumon]{}, D., & [Freedman]{}, R. 2005, [ApJ Letters]{}, 627, L69 , J. J., [Mordasini]{}, C., [Nettelmann]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2013, [ApJ]{}, 775, 80 , T. P., [Line]{}, M. R., [Montero]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2016, [ApJ]{}, 817, 17 , T. 2010, [A & A]{}, 520, A27 , B. M. S. 2008, [Astrophysical Journal Supplement]{}, 179, 484 , P. H., [Allard]{}, F., [Ferguson]{}, J., [Baron]{}, E., & [Alexander]{}, D. R. 1999, [ApJ]{}, 525, 871 , C., [Tootill]{}, D., [Woitke]{}, P., & [Lee]{}, G. 2017, [A & A]{}, 603, A123 , C., & [Woitke]{}, P. 2006, [A & A]{}, 455, 325 , C., [Woitke]{}, P., & [Thi]{}, W.-F. 2008, [A & A]{}, 485, 547 , K. 2017, [Exoplanetary Atmospheres: Theoretical Concepts and Foundations]{} , K., & [Marley]{}, M. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1706.03188 , K., & [Showman]{}, A. P. 2015, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 43, 509 , I. 2017, [MNRAS]{}, 469, 841 , J. D. 2005, [ARA&A]{}, 43, 195 , H. A., [Charbonneau]{}, D., [Allen]{}, L. E., [et al.]{} 2007, [Nature]{}, 447, 183 , H. A., [Charbonneau]{}, D., [Cowan]{}, N. B., [et al.]{} 2009, [ApJ]{}, 690, 822 , L., [Bean]{}, J. L., [D[é]{}sert]{}, J.-M., [et al.]{} 2014, [ApJ Letters]{}, 793, L27 —. 2014, [Nature]{}, 505, 69 , L., [Line]{}, M. R., [Bean]{}, J. L., [et al.]{} 2015, [ApJ]{}, 814, 66 , N. K., [Showman]{}, A. P., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Knutson]{}, H. A., & [Marley]{}, M. S. 2014, [ApJ]{}, 795, 150 , M. R., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Marley]{}, M. S., & [Sorahana]{}, S. 2014, [ApJ]{}, 793, 33 , M. R., [Teske]{}, J., [Burningham]{}, B., [Fortney]{}, J. J., & [Marley]{}, M. S. 2015, [ApJ]{}, 807, 183 , M. R., [Wolf]{}, A. S., [Zhang]{}, X., [et al.]{} 2013, [ApJ]{}, 775, 137 , M. R., [Stevenson]{}, K. B., [Bean]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2016, [AJ]{}, 152, 203 , M. R., [Marley]{}, M. S., [Liu]{}, M. C., [et al.]{} 2017, [ApJ]{}, 848, 83 , K., & [Fegley]{}, B. 2002, Icarus, 155, 393 , E. D., & [Fortney]{}, J. J. 2014, [ApJ]{}, 792, 1 , R. E., [Marley]{}, M. S., [Lewis]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2016, [AJ]{}, 152, 217 , R. E., [Zahnle]{}, K., [Marley]{}, M. S., [et al.]{} 2014, [ApJ]{}, 784, 27 , N., [Amin]{}, M. A., & [Kennedy]{}, G. M. 2014, [ApJ Letters]{}, 794, L12 , N., [Bitsch]{}, B., [Johansen]{}, A., & [Eriksson]{}, L. 2017, [MNRAS]{}, 469, 4102 , N., [Mousis]{}, O., [Johnson]{}, T. V., & [Lunine]{}, J. I. 2011, [ApJ]{}, 743, 191 , N., [Harrington]{}, J., [Stevenson]{}, K. B., [et al.]{} 2011, [Nature]{}, 469, 64 , M. S., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Hubickyj]{}, O., [Bodenheimer]{}, P., & [Lissauer]{}, J. J. 2007, [ApJ]{}, 655, 541 , M. S., [Gelino]{}, C., [Stephens]{}, D., [Lunine]{}, J. I., & [Freedman]{}, R. 1999, [ApJ]{}, 513, 879 , M. S., & [Robinson]{}, T. D. 2015, [ARA&A]{}, 53, 279 , M. S., [Saumon]{}, D., [Cushing]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2012, [ApJ]{}, 754, 135 , M. S., [Saumon]{}, D., [Guillot]{}, T., [et al.]{} 1996, Science, 272, 1919 , N. J., [Baraffe]{}, I., [Acreman]{}, D. M., [et al.]{} 2014, [A & A]{}, 561, A1 , C. P., [Pollack]{}, J. B., & [Courtin]{}, R. 1989, Icarus, 80, 23 , P., [van Boekel]{}, R., [Dullemond]{}, C., [Henning]{}, T., & [Mordasini]{}, C. 2015, [ApJ]{}, 813, 47 , C., [van Boekel]{}, R., [Molli[è]{}re]{}, P., [Henning]{}, T., & [Benneke]{}, B. 2016, [ApJ]{}, 832, 41 , C. V., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Marley]{}, M. S., [et al.]{} 2012, [ApJ]{}, 756, 172 —. 2013, [ApJ]{}, 756, 172 —. 2015, [ApJ]{}, 815, 110 , C. V., [Knutson]{}, H., [Line]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2017, [AJ]{}, 153, 86 , C. V., [Kreidberg]{}, L., [Rustamkulov]{}, Z., [Robinson]{}, T., & [Fortney]{}, J. J. 2017, [ApJ]{}, 850, 121 , K. I., [Murray-Clay]{}, R., & [Bergin]{}, E. A. 2011, [ApJ Letters]{}, 743, L16 , V., & [Guillot]{}, T. 2014, [A & A]{}, 562, A133 , R., [Menou]{}, K., & [Rauscher]{}, E. 2010, [ApJ]{}, 724, 313 , R. T. 2010, [Principles of Planetary Climate]{} , J. B., [Hubickyj]{}, O., [Bodenheimer]{}, P., [et al.]{} 1996, Icarus, 124, 62 , T. D., & [Catling]{}, D. C. 2012, [ApJ]{}, 757, 104 , D., & [Marley]{}, M. S. 2008, [ApJ]{}, 689, 1327 , S. 2010, [Exoplanet Atmospheres: Physical Processes]{} , S., & [Deming]{}, D. 2010, [ARA&A]{}, 48, 631 , A. P., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Lian]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2009, [ApJ]{}, 699, 564 , A. P., & [Guillot]{}, T. 2002, [A & A]{}, 385, 166 , A. P., [Menou]{}, K., & [Cho]{}, J. Y.-K. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 398, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, ed. D. [Fischer]{}, F. A. [Rasio]{}, S. E. [Thorsett]{}, & A. [Wolszczan]{}, 419–+ , A. P., [Wordsworth]{}, R. D., [Merlis]{}, T. M., & [Kaspi]{}, Y. 2013, [Atmospheric Circulation of Terrestrial Exoplanets]{}, ed. S. J. [Mackwell]{}, A. A. [Simon-Miller]{}, J. W. [Harder]{}, & M. A. [Bullock]{}, 277–326 , D. K., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Nikolov]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2016, [Nature]{}, 529, 59 , K. B., [D[é]{}sert]{}, J.-M., [Line]{}, M. R., [et al.]{} 2014, Science, 346, 838 , D., [Burrows]{}, A., & [Pinto]{}, P. 2000, [ApJ]{}, 538, 885 , D. P., & [Fortney]{}, J. J. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.04539 , D. P., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Murray-Clay]{}, R. A., & [Lopez]{}, E. D. 2016, [ApJ]{}, 831, 64 , O. B., [McKay]{}, C. P., [Ackerman]{}, T. P., & [Santhanam]{}, K. 1989, Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, 16287 , R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71 , M. H., [Mahaffy]{}, P. R., [Atreya]{}, S. K., [Niemann]{}, H. B., & [Owen]{}, T. C. 2004, Icarus, 171, 153	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The correlator of vector and nonsinglet axial-vector currents in the external electromagnetic field is calculated within the instanton liquid model of QCD vacuum. In general the correlator has two Lorentz structures: longitudinal $w_{L}$ and transversal $w_{T}$ with respect to axial-vector index. Within the instanton model the saturation of the anomalous $w_{L}$ structure is demonstrated. It is known that in the chiral limit the transversal structure $w_{T}$ is free from perturbative corrections. In this limit within the instanton model we calculate the transversal invariant function $w_{T}$ at arbitrary momentum transfer $q$ and show the absence of power corrections to this structure at large $q^{2}$. Instead there arise the exponential corrections to $w_{T}$ at large $q^{2}$ reflecting nonlocal properties of QCD vacuum. The slope of $w_{T}$ at zero virtuality, the QCD vacuum magnetic susceptibility of the quark condensate and its momentum dependence are estimated.' author: - \| A.E. Dorokhov\ [Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, ]{}\ [141980 Dubna, Russia]{} title: '$VA\widetilde{V}$ correlator within the instanton vacuum model' --- Introduction ============ Since discovery of anomalous properties [@Adler:1969gk; @BJ] of the triangle diagram (Fig. 1) with incoming two vector and one axial-vector currents [@Rosenberg:1963pp] many new interesting results have been gained. Recently the interest to triangle diagram has been renewed due to the problem of accurate calculation of higher order hadronic contributions to muon anomalous magnetic moment via the light-by-light scattering process[^1]. At low energies the dynamics of light-by-light scattering is nonperturbative, so one needs rather realistic QCD inspired model to find a solution with the lowest model sensitivity. The light-by-light scattering amplitude with one photon real and another photon has the momenta much smaller than the other two, can be analyzed using operator product expansion (OPE). In this special kinematics the amplitude is factorized into the amplitude depending on the largest photon momenta and the triangle amplitude involving the axial current $A$ and two electromagnetic currents (one soft $\widetilde{V}$ and one virtual $V$). The corresponding triangle amplitude, which can be viewed as a mixing between the axial and vector currents in the external electromagnetic field, were considered recently in [@CMV; @VainshPLB03]. It can be expressed in terms of the two independent invariant functions, longitudinal $w_{L}$ and transversal $w_{T}$ with respect to axial current index. In perturbative theory for massless quarks (chiral limit) one has for space-like momenta $q$ $\left( q^{2}% \geq0\right) $ $$w_{L}\left( q^{2}\right) =2w_{T}\left( q^{2}\right) =\frac{2}{q^{2}}. \label{WLTch}%$$ The appearance of the longitudinal structure is the consequence of the axial Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly [@Adler:1969gk; @BJ]. Because there are no perturbative (Fig. 1b) [@Adler:er] and nonperturbative (Fig. 1c) [@tHooft] corrections to the axial anomaly, the invariant function $w_{L}$ remains intact when interaction with gluons is taken into account. Nonrenormalization of the longitudinal part follows from the ’t Hooft consistency condition [@tHooft], i.e. the exact quark-hadron duality. In QCD this duality is realized as a correspondence between the infrared singularity of the quark triangle and the massless pion pole in terms of hadrons. It was shown in [@VainshPLB03] (see also [@Knecht04]) that in nonsinglet channel the transversal structure $w_{T}$ is also free from perturbative corrections. OPE analysis indicates that at large $q$ the leading nonperturbative power corrections to $w_{T}$ can only appear starting with terms $\sim1/q^{6}$ containing the matrix elements of the operators of dimension six [@Knecht02]. Thus, the transversal part of the triangle with a soft momentum in one of the vector currents has no perturbative corrections nevertheless it is modified nonperturbatively. ![Quark triangle diagram, $(a)$; perturbative gluon, $(b),$ and four-quark condensate, $(c),$ corrections to it.[]{data-label="fig:triangle"}](tri1.eps){width="14cm"} In the present work we analyze in the framework of the instanton liquid model [@ShSh] the nonperturbative properties of the triangle diagram in the kinematics specified above (see Section 2 for further details). The model is based on the representation of QCD vacuum as an ensemble of strong vacuum fluctuations of gluon field, instantons. They characterize nonlocal properties of QCD vacuum [@MikhRad92; @DEM97; @DoLT98]. The interaction of light $u,d$ quarks in the instanton vacuum can be described in terms of effective ’t Hooft four-quark action with nonlocal kernel induced by quark zero modes in the instanton field (Section 3). The gauged version of the model [@Birse95; @ADoLT00; @DoBr03] meets the symmetry properties with respect to external gauge fields (Section 4), and corresponding vertices satisfy the Ward-Takahashi identities. Below in Section 5 we demonstrate how the anomalous structure $w_{L}$ is saturated within the instanton liquid model. We also calculate the transversal invariant function $w_{T}$ at arbitrary $q$ and show that within the instanton model at large $q^{2}$ there are no power corrections to this structure. The nonperturbative corrections to $w_{T}$ at large $q^{2}$ have exponentially decreasing behavior related to the short distance properties of the instanton nonlocality in the QCD vacuum. We also estimate the slope of transversal invariant function at zero virtuality. When light quark current masses, $m_{f}$ $\left( f=u,d\right) ,$ are switched on, additional OPE structures appear, with the leading one being of dimension four $\sim m_{f}\bar{q}\,\sigma_{\alpha\beta}q$. Its matrix element between vacuum and soft photon state is proportional to the quark condensate magnetic susceptibility introduced in Ref.[@Ioffe:1984ju]. Using the expansion of the triangle amplitude in inverse powers of momentum transfer squared we will derive an expression for the magnetic susceptibility in the instanton model and find its momentum dependence (Section 6). The structure of $VA\widetilde{V}$ correlator ============================================= We will employ a tensor decomposition of the $VVA$ triangle graph amplitude suggested originally by Rosenberg [@Rosenberg:1963pp] for the general kinematics of incoming momenta $$\begin{aligned} T_{\mu\nu\lambda}(q_{1},q_{2}) & =A_{1}q_{1}^{\rho}\varepsilon_{\rho\mu \nu\lambda}+A_{2}q_{2}^{\rho}\varepsilon_{\rho\mu\nu\lambda}+A_{3}q_{1}^{\nu }q_{1}^{\rho}q_{2}^{\sigma}\varepsilon_{\rho\sigma\mu\lambda}\label{T}\\ & +A_{4}q_{2}^{\nu}q_{1}^{\rho}q_{2}^{\sigma}\varepsilon_{\rho\sigma \mu\lambda}+A_{5}q_{1}^{\mu}q_{1}^{\rho}q_{2}^{\sigma}\varepsilon_{\rho \sigma\nu\lambda}+A_{6}q_{2}^{\mu}q_{1}^{\rho}q_{2}^{\sigma}\varepsilon _{\rho\sigma\nu\lambda},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{1}$ and $q_{2\text{ }}$are the vector field momenta with corresponding Lorentz indices $\mu$ and $\nu$. The coefficients $A_{j}% =A_{j}(q_{1},q_{2}),j=1,...6$ are the Lorentz invariant amplitudes. The vector Ward identities provide a gauge invariant definition of the $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ amplitudes in terms of finite amplitudes $A_{k},k=3,...,6,$ $$A_{1}=\left( q_{1}q_{2}\right) A_{3}+q_{2}^{2}A_{4},\qquad A_{2}=\left( q_{1}q_{2}\right) A_{6}+q_{1}^{2}A_{5}.\qquad\label{A12}%$$ In the specific kinematics when one photon ($q_{2}\equiv q$) is virtual and another one ($q_{1}$) represents the external electromagnetic field and can be regarded as a real photon with the vanishingly small momentum $q_{1}$ only two invariant functions survive in linear in small $q_{1}$ approximation [@Kukhto92]. It is convenient to define longitudinal and transversal with respect to axial current index amplitudes [@VainshPLB03] $$w_{L}\left( q^{2}\right) =4\pi^{2}\widetilde{A}_{4}\left( q^{2}\right) ,\qquad w_{T}\left( q^{2}\right) =4\pi^{2}\left( \widetilde{A}_{4}\left( q^{2}\right) +\widetilde{A}_{6}\left( q^{2}\right) \right) , \label{WLT}%$$ where tilted amplitudes are $\widetilde{A}(q^{2})\equiv A\left( q_{1}% =0,q_{2}=q\right) .$ In terms of $w$ invariant functions the $VA\widetilde {V}$ amplitude becomes $$\widetilde{T}_{\mu\nu\lambda}(q_{1},q_{2})=\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}\left[ w_{T}\left( q_{2}^{2}q_{1}^{\rho}\varepsilon_{\rho\mu\nu\lambda}-q_{2}^{\nu }q_{1}^{\rho}q_{2}^{\sigma}\varepsilon_{\rho\mu\sigma\lambda}+q_{2}^{\lambda }q_{1}^{\rho}q_{2}^{\sigma}\varepsilon_{\rho\mu\sigma\nu}\right) -w_{L}% q_{2}^{\lambda}q_{1}^{\rho}q_{2}^{\sigma}\varepsilon_{\rho\mu\sigma\nu }\right] . \label{Tt}%$$ Both structures are transversal with respect to vector current, $q_{2}^{\nu }T_{\nu\lambda}=0$. As for the axial current, the first structure is transversal with respect to $q_{2}^{\lambda}$ while the second is longitudinal and thus anomalous. The amplitude for the triangle diagrams (Fig.\[fig:triangle\]) can be written as a correlator of the axial current $j_{\lambda}^{5}$ and two vector currents $j_{\nu}$ and $\tilde{j}_{\mu}$ $$T_{\mu\nu\lambda}=-\int\mathrm{d}^{4}x\mathrm{d}^{4}y\,\mathrm{e}% ^{iqx-iky}\,\langle0\|\,T\{j_{\nu}(x)\,\tilde{j}_{\mu}(y)\,j_{\lambda}% ^{5}(0)\}\|0\rangle\,,$$ where for light $u$ and $d$ quarks one has $$j_{\mu}=\bar{q}\,\gamma_{\mu}Qq,\qquad j_{\lambda}^{5}=\bar{q}\,\gamma _{\lambda}\gamma_{5}\tau_{3}q\,,$$ the quark field $q_{f}^{i}$ has color ($i$) and flavor ($f$) indices, the charge matrix is $Q=\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{1}{3}+\tau_{3}\right) $ and the tilted current is for the soft momentum photon vertex. In the local theory the one-loop result for the invariant functions $w_{T}$ and $w_{L}$ is[^2] $$w_{L}^{\mathrm{1-loop}}=2\,w_{T}^{\mathrm{1-loop}}=\frac{2N_{c}}{3}\int _{0}^{1}\frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha\,\alpha(1-\alpha)}{\alpha(1-\alpha)q^{2}% +m_{f}^{2}}\,, \label{wlt}%$$ where the factor $N_{c}/3$ is due to color number and electric charge. The analytical result for the triangle diagram with finite quark masses has been obtained in [@Achasov:1992bu] by dispersion integral method. In the chiral limit, $m_{f}=0$, one gets the result (\[WLTch\]) (with additional factor $N_{c}/3$). When nonperturbative contributions to the triangle amplitude (Fig. 1c) are taken into account it was shown in [@Knecht02] by using the OPE methods that at large Euclidean $q^{2}$ the difference between the longitudinal and transversal parts, $w_{LT}=w_{L}-2w_{T},$ starts in the chiral limit from leading, $\sim1/q^{6},$ power behavior. The power terms are expected to contribute only into the transversal function $w_{T}$. Below we demonstrate that within the instanton liquid model in the chiral limit all allowed by OPE power corrections to $w_{T}$ cancel each other and only exponentially suppressed corrections remain. The instanton effective quark model =================================== To study nonperturbative effects in the triangle amplitude $\widetilde{T}% _{\mu\nu\lambda}$ at low and high momenta one can use the framework of the effective field model of QCD. In the low momenta domain the effect of the nonperturbative structure of QCD vacuum become dominant. Since invention of the QCD sum rule method based on the use of the standard OPE it is common to parameterize the nonperturbative properties of the QCD vacuum by using infinite towers of the vacuum expectation values of the quark-gluon operators. From this point of view the nonlocal properties of the QCD vacuum result from the partial resummation of the infinite series of power corrections, related to vacuum averages of quark-gluon operators with growing dimension, and may be conventionally described in terms of the nonlocal vacuum condensates [@MikhRad92; @DEM97]. This reconstruction leads effectively to nonlocal modifications of the propagators and effective vertices of the quark and gluon fields. The adequate model describing this general picture is the instanton liquid model of QCD vacuum describing nonperturbative nonlocal interactions in terms of the effective action [@ShSh]. Spontaneous breaking the chiral symmetry and dynamical generation of a momentum-dependent quark mass are naturally explained within the instanton liquid model. The nonsinglet and singlet $V$ and $A$ current-current correlators, the vector Adler function have been calculated in [@DoBr03; @ADpepanTop; @ADprdG2] in the framework of the effective chiral model with instanton-like nonlocal quark-quark interaction [@ADoLT00]. In the same model the pion transition form factor normalized by axial anomaly has been considered in [@AD02] for arbitrary photon virtualities. We start with the nonlocal chirally invariant action which describes the interaction of soft quark fields [@ADoLT00] $$\begin{aligned} S & =\int d^{4}x\ \overline{q}_{I}(x)\left[ i\gamma^{\mu}D_{\mu}% -m_{f}\right] q_{I}(x)+\frac{1}{2}G_{P}\int d^{4}X\int\prod_{n=1}^{4}% d^{4}x_{n}\cdot\nonumber\\ & \cdot\ f(x_{n})\left[ \overline{Q}(X-x_{1},X)\Gamma_{P}Q(X,X+x_{3}% )\overline{Q}(X-x_{2},X)\Gamma_{P}Q(X,X+x_{4})\right] , \label{Lint}%\end{aligned}$$ where $D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}-iV_{\mu}\left( x\right) -i\gamma_{5}A_{\mu }\left( x\right) $ and the matrix product $\left( 1\otimes1+i\gamma_{5}% \tau^{a}\otimes i\gamma_{5}\tau^{a}\right) $ provides the spin-flavor structure of the interaction. In Eq. (\[Lint\]) $\overline{q}_{I}% =(\overline{u},\overline{d})$ denotes the flavor doublet field of dynamically generated quarks, $G_{P}$ is the four-quark coupling constant, and $\tau^{a}$ are the Pauli isospin matrices. The separable nonlocal kernel of the interaction determined in terms of form factors $f(x)$ is motivated by instanton model of QCD vacuum. In order to make the nonlocal action gauge-invariant with respect to external gauge fields $V_{\mu}^{a}(x)$ and $A_{\mu}^{a}(x)$, we define in (\[Lint\]) the delocalized quark field, $Q(x),$ by using the Schwinger gauge phase factor $$Q(x,y)=P\exp\left\{ i\int_{x}^{y}dz_{\mu}\left[ V_{\mu}^{a}(z)+\gamma _{5}A_{\mu}^{a}(z)\right] T^{a}\right\} q_{I}(y),\qquad\overline {Q}(x,y)=Q^{\dagger}(x,y)\gamma^{0}, \label{Qxy}%$$ where $P$ is the operator of ordering along the integration path, with $y$ denoting the position of the quark and $x$ being an arbitrary reference point. The conserved vector and axial-vector currents have been derived earlier in [@ADoLT00; @DoBr03; @ADprdG2]. The dressed quark propagator, $S(p)$, is defined as $$S^{-1}(p)=i\widehat{p}-M(p^{2}), \label{QuarkProp}%$$ with the momentum-dependent quark mass found as the solution of the gap equation $$M(p^{2})=m_{f}+4G_{P}N_{f}N_{c}f^{2}(p^{2})\int\frac{d^{4}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{4}}f^{2}(k^{2})\frac{M(k^{2})}{k^{2}+M^{2}(k^{2})}. \label{SDEq}%$$ The formal solution is expressed as [@Birse95] $$M(p^{2})=m_{f}+(M_{q}-m_{f})f^{2}(p^{2}),$$ with constant $M_{q}\equiv M(0)$ determined dynamically from Eq. (\[SDEq\]) and the momentum dependent $f(p)$ is the normalized four-dimensional Fourier transform of $f(x)$ given in the coordinate representation. The nonlocal function $f(p)$ describes the momentum distribution of quarks in the nonperturbative vacuum. Given nonlocality $f(p)$ the light quark condensate in the chiral limit, $M(p)=M_{q}f^{2}(p)$, is expressed as $$\left\langle 0\left\| \overline{q}q\right\| 0\right\rangle =-N_{c}\int \frac{d^{4}p}{4\pi^{4}}\frac{M(p^{2})}{p^{2}+M^{2}(p^{2})}. \label{QQI}%$$ Its $n$-moment is proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the quark condensate with the covariant derivative squared $D^{2}$ to the $n$th power $$\left\langle 0\left\| \overline{q}D^{2n}q\right\| 0\right\rangle =-N_{c}% \int\frac{d^{4}p}{4\pi^{4}}p^{2n}\frac{M(p^{2})}{p^{2}+M^{2}(p^{2})}. \label{20}%$$ The $n$th moment of the quark condensate appears as a coefficient of Taylor expansion of the nonlocal quark condensate defined as [@MikhRad92] $$C(x)=\left\langle 0\left\| \overline{q}\left( 0\right) P\exp\left[ i\int_{0}^{x}A_{\mu}\left( z\right) dz_{\mu}\right] q\left( x\right) \right\| 0\right\rangle \label{NLC}%$$ with gluon Schwinger phase factor inserted for gauge invariance and the integral is over the straight line path. Smoothness of $C(x)$ near $x^{2}=0$ leads to existence of the quark condensate moments in the l.h.s. of (\[20\]) for any $n$. In order to make the integral in the r.h.s. of (\[20\]) convergent the nonlocal function $f(p)$ for large arguments must decrease faster than any inverse power of $p^{2}$, e.g., like some exponential[^3] $$f\left( p\right) \sim\exp\left( -\mathrm{const\cdot}p^{\alpha}\right) ,~\alpha>0\quad\mathrm{as\quad}p^{2}\rightarrow\infty. \label{ExpSup}%$$ Note, that the operators entering the matrix elements in (\[20\]) and (\[NLC\]) are constructed from the QCD quark and gluon fields. The r.h.s. of (\[20\]) is the value of the matrix elements of QCD defined operators calculated within the effective instanton model with dynamical quark fields. Within the instanton model in the zero mode approximation the function $f(p)$ depends on the gauge. It is implied [@DEM97; @DoLT98] that the r.h.s. of (\[20\]) corresponds to calculations in the axial gauge for the quark effective field. It is selected among other gauges because in this gauge the covariant derivatives become ordinary ones: $D\rightarrow\partial,$ and the exponential in (\[NLC\]) with straight line path is reduced to unit. In particular it means that one uses the quark zero modes in the instanton field given in the axial gauge when define the gauge dependent dynamical quark mass. The axial gauge at large momenta has exponentially decreasing behavior and all moments of the quark condensate exist. In principle, to calculate the gauge invariant matrix element corresponding to the of l.h.s. of (\[20\]) it is possible to use the expression for the dynamical mass given in any gauge, but in that case the factor $p^{2n}$ will be modified for more complicated weight function providing invariance of the answer[^4]. Furthermore, the large distance asymptotics of the instanton solution is also modified by screening effects due to interaction of instanton field with surrounding physical vacuum [@DEMM99; @ADWB01]. To take into account these effects and make numerics simpler we shell use for the nonlocal function the Gaussian form $$f(p)=\exp\left( -p^{2}/\Lambda^{2}\right) , \label{MassDyna}%$$ where the parameter $\Lambda$ characterizes the nonlocality size and it is proportional to the inverse average size of instanton in the QCD vacuum. The important property of the dynamical mass (\[SDEq\]) is that at low virtualities passing through quark its mass is close to constituent mass, while at large virtualities it goes to the current mass value. As we will see in Sect. 5 this property is crucial in obtaining the anomaly at large momentum transfer. The instanton liquid model can be viewed as an approximation of large-$N_{c}$ QCD where the only new interaction terms, retained after integration of the high frequency modes of the quark and gluon fields down to a nonlocality scale $\Lambda$ at which spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking occurs, are those which can be cast in the form of four-fermion operators (\[Lint\]). The parameters of the model are then the nonlocality scale $\Lambda$ and the four-fermion coupling constant $G_{P}$. Conserved vector and axial-vector currents ========================================== The quark-antiquark scattering matrix (Fig. 2) in pseudoscalar channel is found from the Bethe-Salpeter equation as $$\widehat{T}_{P}(q^{2})=\frac{G_{P}}{1-G_{P}J_{PP}(q^{2})}, \label{ScattMatr}%$$ with the polarization operator being $$J_{PP}(q^{2})=\int\frac{d^{4}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{4}}f^{2}\left( k\right) f^{2}\left( k+q\right) Tr\left[ S(k)\gamma_{5}S\left( k+q\right) \gamma_{5}\right] . \label{J}%$$ ![[Diagrammatic representation of the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the quark-quark scattering matrix, $T$, with nonlocal instanton kernel, ]{}$I$.[]{data-label="BSTfig"}](sd.eps){width="10cm"} The position of pion state is determined as the pole of the scattering matrix $$\left. \det(1-G_{P}J_{PP}(q^{2}))\right\| _{q^{2}=-m_{\pi}^{2}}=0. \label{PoleEq}%$$ The quark-pion vertex found from the residue of the scattering matrix is $\left( k^{\prime}=k+q\right) $ $$\Gamma_{\pi}^{a}\left( k,k^{\prime}\right) =g_{\pi qq}i\gamma_{5}% f(k)f(k^{\prime})\tau^{a}\quad\nonumber$$ with the quark-pion coupling found from $$g_{\pi q}^{-2}=-\left. \frac{dJ_{ii}\left( q^{2}\right) }{dq^{2}}\right\| _{q^{2}=-m_{\pi}^{2}}, \label{gM}%$$ where $m_{\mathrm{\pi}}$ is physical mass of the $\pi$-meson. The quark-pion coupling, $g_{\pi q}^{2}$, and the pion decay constant, $f_{\pi}$, are connected by the Goldberger-Treiman relation, $g_{\pi}=M_{q}/f_{\pi},$ which is verified to be valid in the nonlocal model [@Birse95], as requested by the chiral symmetry. The vector vertex following from the model (\[Lint\]) is (Fig. \[w5\]a) $$\Gamma_{\mu}(k,k^{\prime})=\gamma_{\mu}+(k+k^{\prime})_{\mu}M^{(1)}% (k,k^{\prime}), \label{GV}%$$ where $M^{(1)}(k,k^{\prime})$ is the finite-difference derivative of the dynamical quark mass, $q$ is the momentum corresponding to the current, and $k$ $(k^{\prime})$ is the incoming (outgoing) momentum of the quark, $k^{\prime}=k+q$. The finite-difference derivative of an arbitrary function $F$ is defined as $$F^{(1)}(k,k^{\prime})=\frac{F(k^{\prime})-F(k)}{k^{\prime2}-k^{2}}. \label{FDD}%$$ ![[Diagrammatic representation of the bare (a) and full (b) quark-current vertices. Diagram (c) shows separation of local (fat dot) and nonlocal parts of the full vertex.]{}[]{data-label="w5"}](Bare.eps){width="10cm"} The full axial vertex corresponding to the conserved axial-vector current is obtained after resummation of quark-loop chain that results in appearance of term proportional to the pion propagator [@ADoLT00] (Fig. \[w5\]b) $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{\mu}^{5}(k,k^{\prime}) & =\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}+2\gamma_{5}% \frac{q_{\mu}}{q^{2}}f(k)f(k^{\prime})\left[ J_{AP}\left( 0\right) -\frac{m_{f}G_{P}J_{P}\left( q^{2}\right) }{1-G_{P}J_{PP}\left( q^{2}\right) }\right] \label{GAtot}\\ & +(k+k^{\prime})_{\mu}J_{AP}\left( 0\right) \frac{\left( f(k^{\prime })-f\left( k\right) \right) ^{2}}{k^{\prime2}-k^{2}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the notations $$J_{P}(q^{2})=\int\frac{d^{4}k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{4}}f\left( k\right) f\left( k+q\right) Tr\left[ S(k)\gamma_{5}S\left( k+q\right) \gamma _{5}\right] . \label{JP}%$$$$J_{AP}(q^{2})=4N_{c}N_{f}\int\frac{d^{4}l}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{4}}% \frac{M\left( l\right) }{D\left( l\right) }\sqrt{M\left( l+q\right) M\left( l\right) }. \label{JAP}%$$ The axial-vector vertex has a pole at $$q^{2}=-m_{\pi}^{2}=m_{c}\left\langle \overline{q}q\right\rangle /f_{\pi}^{2}%$$ where the Goldberger-Treiman relation and definition of the quark condensate have been used. The pole is related to the denominator $1-G_{P}J_{PP}\left( q^{2}\right) $ in Eq. (\[GAtot\]), while $q^{2}$ in denominator is compensated by zero from square brackets in the limit $q^{2}\rightarrow0.$ This compensation follows from expansion of $J(q^{2})$ functions near zero $$\begin{aligned} J_{PP}(q^{2}) & =G_{P}^{-1}+m_{c}\left\langle \overline{q}q\right\rangle M^{-2}\left( 0\right) -q^{2}g_{\pi q}^{-2}+O\left( q^{4}\right) ,\qquad\\ J_{AP}(q^{2} & =0)=M\left( 0\right) ,\qquad J_{P}(q^{2}=0)=\left\langle \overline{q}q\right\rangle M^{-1}\left( 0\right) .\end{aligned}$$ In the chiral limit $m_{f}=0$ the second structure in square brackets in Eq. (\[GAtot\]) disappears and the pole moves to zero. The parameters of the model are fixed in a way typical for effective low-energy quark models. One usually fits the pion decay constant, $f_{\pi}$, to its experimental value, which in the chiral limit reduces to $86$ [@LeutG]. In the instanton model the constant, $f_{\pi}$, is determined by $$f_{\pi}^{2}=\frac{N_{c}}{4\pi^{2}}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}du\ u\frac {M^{2}(u)-uM(u)M^{\prime}(u)+u^{2}M^{\prime}(u)^{2}}{D^{2}\left( u\right) }, \label{Fpi2_M}%$$ where here and below $u=k^{2},$ primes mean derivatives with respect to $u$: $M^{\prime}(u)=dM(u)/du$, etc., and $$D\left( k^{2}\right) =k^{2}+M(k)^{2}.$$ One gets the values of the model parameters [@ADprdG2] $$M_{q}=0.24~\mathrm{GeV,}\qquad\Lambda_{P}=1.11~\mathrm{GeV,\quad}% G_{P}=27.4~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}. \label{G's}%$$ $VA\widetilde{V}$ correlator within the instanton liquid model ============================================================== Our goal is to obtain the nondiagonal correlator of vector current and nonsinglet axial-vector current in the external electromagnetic field ($VA\widetilde{V}$) by using the effective instanton-like model (\[Lint\]). In this model the $VA\widetilde{V}$ correlator is defined by (Fig. 4a) $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{T}_{\mu\nu\lambda}(q_{1},q_{2}) & =-2N_{c}\int\frac{d^{4}% k}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{4}}\cdot\label{Tncqm}\\ \cdot & Tr\left[ \Gamma_{\mu}\left( k+q_{1},k\right) S\left( k+q_{1}\right) \Gamma_{\lambda}^{5}\left( k+q_{1},k-q_{2}\right) S\left( k-q_{2}\right) \Gamma_{\nu}\left( k,k-q_{2}\right) S\left( k\right) \right] ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the quark propagator, the vector and the axial-vector vertices are given by (\[QuarkProp\]), (\[GV\]) and (\[GAtot\]), respectively. The structure of the vector vertices guarantees that the amplitude is transversal with respect to vector indices $$\widetilde{T}_{\mu\nu\lambda}(q_{1},q_{2})q_{1}^{\mu}=\widetilde{T}_{\mu \nu\lambda}(q_{1},q_{2})q_{2}^{\nu}=0$$ and the Lorentz structure of the amplitude is given by (\[Tt\]). It is convenient to express Eq. (\[Tncqm\]) as a sum of the contribution where all vertices are local (Fig. 4b), and the rest contribution containing nonlocal parts of the vertices (Fig. 3c). Further results in this section will concern the chiral limit. ![[Diagrammatic representation of the triangle diagram in the instanton model with dressed quark lines and full quark-current vertices (a); and part of the diagram when all vertices are local one (b). ]{}[]{data-label="w6"}](LTcorr.eps){height="4cm"} The contributions of diagram 4b to the invariant functions at space-like momentum transfer, $q^{2}\equiv q_{2}^{2}$, are given by $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{A}_{4}^{\left( L\right) }\left( q^{2}\right) & =\frac{N_{c}% }{9q^{2}}\int\frac{d^{4}k}{\pi^{4}}\frac{1}{D_{+}^{2}D_{-}}\left[ k^{2}-4\frac{\left( kq\right) ^{2}}{q^{2}}+3\left( kq\right) \right] ,\label{A46a}\\ \qquad\widetilde{A}_{6}^{\left( L\right) }\left( q^{2}\right) & =-\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{A}_{4}^{\left( L\right) }\left( q^{2}\right) . \label{A6a}%\end{aligned}$$ where the notations used here and below are $$k_{+}=k,\qquad k_{-}=k-q,\qquad k_{\perp}^{2}=k_{+}k_{-}-\frac{\left( k_{+}q\right) \left( k_{-}q\right) }{q^{2}},$$$$D_{\pm}=D(k_{\pm}^{2}),\qquad M_{\pm}=M(k_{\pm}^{2}),\ \ \ \ f_{\pm}=f(k_{\pm }^{2}).\ \ \ \$$ At large $q^{2}$ one has an expansion $$\widetilde{A}_{4}^{\left( L\right) }\left( q^{2}\rightarrow\infty\right) =\frac{N_{c}}{6\pi^{2}}\left( \frac{1}{q^{2}}+\frac{a_{\left( 4\right) }^{\left( L\right) }}{q^{4}}+\frac{a_{\left( 6\right) }^{\left( L\right) }}{q^{6}}+O\left( q^{-8}\right) \right) , \label{A4as}%$$ with coefficients given by $$a_{\left( 4\right) }^{\left( L\right) }=-\int_{0}^{\infty}du\frac {M^{2}\left( u\right) }{D^{2}\left( u\right) }\left( 2u+M^{2}\left( u\right) \right) ,\qquad a_{\left( 6\right) }^{\left( L\right) }% =-\frac{2}{3}\int_{0}^{\infty}du\frac{uM^{2}\left( u\right) \left( u+2M^{2}\left( u\right) \right) }{D^{2}\left( u\right) }. \label{A4aAs}%$$ It is clear that the contribution (\[A46a\]) saturate the anomaly at large $q^{2}$. The reason is that the leading asymptotics of (\[A46a\]) is given by the configuration where the large momentum is passing through all quark lines. Then the dynamical quark mass $M(k)$ reduces to zero and the asymptotic limit of triangle diagram with dynamical quarks and local vertices coincides with the standard triangle amplitude with massless quarks and, thus, it is independent of the model. The contribution to the form factors when the nonlocal parts of the vector and axial-vector vertices are taken into account is given by $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{A}_{4}^{\left( NL\right) }\left( q^{2}\right) & =\frac{N_{c}% }{3q^{2}}\int\frac{d^{4}k}{\pi^{4}}\frac{1}{D_{+}^{2}D_{-}}\left\{ M_{+}\left[ M_{+}-\frac{4}{3}M_{+}^{\prime}k_{\perp}^{2}\right] -\right. \nonumber\\ & \left. -M^{2(1)}(k_{+},k_{-})\left( 2\frac{\left( kq\right) ^{2}}% {q^{2}}-\left( kq\right) \right) \right\} . \label{A4bt}%\end{aligned}$$ One has for the leading terms of large $q^{2}$ asymptotics $$\widetilde{A}_{4}^{\left( NL\right) }\left( q^{2}\rightarrow\infty\right) =\frac{N_{c}}{6\pi^{2}}\left( \frac{a_{\left( 4\right) }^{\left( NL\right) }}{q^{4}}+\frac{a_{\left( 6\right) }^{\left( NL\right) }}% {q^{6}}+O\left( q^{-8}\right) \right) , \label{A4bAs}%$$ with coefficients given by $$\begin{aligned} a_{\left( 4\right) }^{\left( NL\right) } & =2\int_{0}^{\infty}% du\frac{uM\left( u\right) }{D^{2}\left( u\right) }\left( M\left( u\right) -uM^{\prime}\left( u\right) \right) ,\qquad\label{a4bc}\\ a_{\left( 6\right) }^{\left( NL\right) } & =\frac{2}{3}\int_{0}^{\infty }du\frac{u^{3}M\left( u\right) M^{\prime}\left( u\right) }{D^{2}\left( u\right) }.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In sum of two contributions both power corrections with coefficients $a_{\left( 4\right) }$ and $a_{\left( 6\right) }$ are canceled. To prove cancellation for the $a_{\left( 4\right) }$ coefficient one needs to use integration by parts. Summing analytically the local (\[A46a\]) and nonlocal (\[A4bt\]) parts provides us with the result required by the axial anomaly $$w_{L}(q^{2})=4\pi^{2}\widetilde{A}_{4}\left( q^{2}\right) =\frac{2N_{c}}% {3}\frac{1}{q^{2}}. \label{A4Tot}%$$ Fig. 5 illustrates how different contributions saturate the anomaly. Note, that at zero virtuality the saturation of anomaly follows from anomalous diagram of pion decay in two photons. This part is due to the triangle diagram involving nonlocal part of the axial vertex and local parts of the photon vertices. The result (\[A4Tot\]) is in agreement with the statement about absence of nonperturbative corrections to longitudinal invariant function following from the ’t Hooft duality arguments. Earlier this consistency has also been demonstrated within the QCD sum rules [@NestRad83; @Pivovarov91] and within dispersion method [@TerHor95] considering the lowest orders of expansion of the triangle diagram in condensates. For $\widetilde{A}_{6}^{\left( NL\right) }\left( q^{2}\right) $ invariant function one gets $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{A}_{6}^{\left( NL\right) }\left( q^{2}\right) & =-\frac {N_{c}}{6q^{2}}\int\frac{d^{4}k}{\pi^{4}}\frac{1}{D_{+}^{2}D_{-}}\left\{ \left( M_{+}+M_{-}\right) \left[ M_{+}-\frac{\left( kq\right) }{q^{2}% }\left( M_{+}-M_{-}\right) \right] -\right. \label{A4bc}\\ & \left. -\frac{2}{3}M_{+}^{\prime}\left[ 2k_{\perp}^{2}M_{+}-M_{-}% \frac{q^{2}}{k_{+}^{2}-k_{-}^{2}}\left( k^{2}+2\frac{\left( kq\right) ^{2}% }{q^{2}}-6\left( kq\right) \frac{k^{2}}{q^{2}}\right) \right] \right\} +\nonumber\\ & +\frac{2N_{c}}{9q^{2}}\int\frac{d^{4}k}{\pi^{4}}\frac{\sqrt{M_{+}M_{-}}% }{D_{+}^{2}D_{-}}\frac{k_{\perp}^{2}}{k_{+}^{2}-k_{-}^{2}}\left[ M_{+}% -M_{-}-2M_{+}^{\prime}\left( kq\right) \right] .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Then, let us consider the combination of invariant functions which show up nonperturbative dynamics $$w_{LT}(q^{2})\equiv w_{L}(q^{2})-2w_{T}(q^{2})=-4\pi^{2}\left[ \widetilde {A}_{4}\left( q^{2}\right) +2\widetilde{A}_{6}\left( q^{2}\right) \right] .\label{WLTtot}%$$ From (\[A6a\]) we see that the contribution to $w_{LT}$ from the triangle diagram 4b with local vertices is absent. In sum of $\widetilde{A}_{4}\left( q^{2}\right) $ and $\widetilde{A}_{6}\left( q^{2}\right) $ a number of cancellations takes place and the final result is quite simple$$\begin{aligned} w_{LT}\left( q^{2}\right) & =\frac{4N_{c}}{3q^{2}}\int\frac{d^{4}k}% {\pi^{2}}\frac{\sqrt{M_{-}}}{D_{+}^{2}D_{-}}\left\{ \sqrt{M_{-}}\left[ M_{+}-\frac{2}{3}M_{+}^{\prime}\left( k^{2}+2\frac{\left( kq\right) ^{2}% }{q^{2}}\right) \right] -\right. \nonumber\\ & \left. -\frac{4}{3}k_{\perp}^{2}\left[ \sqrt{M_{+}}M^{(1)}(k_{+}% ,k_{-})-2\left( kq\right) M_{+}^{\prime}\sqrt{M}^{\left( 1\right) }% (k_{+},k_{-})\right] \right\} .\label{WLTf}%\end{aligned}$$ The behavior of $w_{LT}(q^{2})$ is presented in Fig. 6. In the above expression the integrand is proportional to the product of nonlocal form factors $f\left( k_{+}\right) f\left( k_{-}\right) $ depending on quark momenta passing through different quark lines. Then, it becomes evident that the large $q^{2}$ asymptotics of the integral is governed by the asymptotics of the nonlocal form factor $f\left( q\right) $ which is exponentially suppressed (\[ExpSup\]). Thus, within the instanton model the distinction between longitudinal and transversal parts is exponentially suppressed at large $q^{2}$ and all allowed by OPE power corrections are canceled each other. Recently, it was proven that the relation $$w_{LT}[m_{f}=0]=0, \label{wtwl}%$$ which holds at the one-loop level gets no perturbative corrections from gluon exchanges [@VainshPLB03]. The instanton liquid model indicates that it may be possible that due to anomaly this relation is violated at large $q^{2}$ only exponentially. We also find numerical values of the slope of invariant function $w_{LT}$ at zero virtuality $$\left. \frac{\partial w_{LT}(q^{2})}{\partial q^{2}}\right\| _{q^{2}% =0}\left( \mu_{\mathrm{Inst}}\right) =-3.8~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2},$$ and its width $$\lambda_{LT}^{2}\equiv\int uw_{LT}\left( u\right) du\cdot\left( \int w_{LT}\left( u\right) du\right) ^{-1}=0.54~\mathrm{GeV}^{2}.$$ Magnetic susceptibility of quark condensate =========================================== In this section we consider the leading power corrections to $w_{L}$ and $w_{T}$ resulting from inclusion of current quark mass, $m_{f}$, into consideration. An appearance of this kind of power corrections is already clear from perturbative expression (\[wlt\]). In OPE the leading, by dimension, correction to the invariant functions $w_{T,L}(q^{2})$ is $$\Delta w_{L}=2\,\Delta w_{T}=\frac{4m_{f}\kappa_{f}}{3q^{4}}\,, \label{dW(3)}%$$ where $\kappa_{f}$ are the matrix element of dimension 3 operators $$\mathcal{O}_{f}^{\alpha\beta}=-i\,\bar{q}_{f}\,\sigma^{\alpha\beta}\gamma _{5}\,q^{f}\,, \label{fop}%$$ between the soft photon and vacuum states. Proportionality to $m_{f}$ in (\[dW(3)\]) is in correspondence with chirality arguments. In perturbation theory the matrix element $\kappa_{f}$ of the chirality-flip operator $O_{f}$ is proportional to $m_{f}$. Nonperturbatively, however, due to spontaneous breaking of the chiral symmetry $\kappa_{f}$ does not vanish at $m_{f}\!=\!0\,$. It is convenient to introduce the magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{m}$ normalized by the quark condensate [@Ioffe:1984ju] $$\kappa_{f}=-4\pi^{2}\,\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\,\chi_{m}\,.$$ This representation emphasizes that magnetic susceptibility for the nondiagonal vector–axial-vector vector correlator in the external electromagnetic field plays the similar role as the quark condensate for the diagonal correlators of vector and axial-vector currents. In the instanton model the $VA\widetilde{V}$ correlator is given by (\[Tncqm\]) with the quark propagator, the vector and the axial-vector vertices defined by (\[QuarkProp\]), (\[GV\]) and (\[GAtot\]), with the quark mass, $m_{f}$, being included. Keeping in the calculation only linear in the current quark mass terms one finds at large $q^{2}$ the correction at twist 4 level (\[dW(3)\]) for the contribution of diagram Fig. 4b $$\Delta\widetilde{A}_{4}^{\left( L\right) }\left( q^{2}\rightarrow \infty\right) =-\frac{1}{q^{4}}\frac{2m_{f}}{3}\frac{N_{c}}{\pi^{2}}\int du\frac{u^{2}M\left( u\right) }{D^{3}\left( u\right) }, \label{A4Lm}%$$ and from nonlocal part$$\Delta\widetilde{A}_{4}^{\left( NL\right) }\left( q^{2}\rightarrow \infty\right) =-\frac{1}{q^{4}}\frac{m_{f}}{3}\frac{N_{c}}{\pi^{2}}\int du\frac{uM\left( u\right) }{D^{3}\left( u\right) }\left[ -u+3M^{2}\left( u\right) -4uM\left( u\right) M^{\prime}\left( u\right) \right] . \label{A4NLm}%$$ The leading asymptotics linear in current mass for the invariant function $\widetilde{A}_{6}$ is given by the relation$$\Delta\widetilde{A}_{6}\left( q^{2}\rightarrow\infty\right) =-\frac{1}% {2}\Delta\widetilde{A}_{4}\left( q^{2}\rightarrow\infty\right) \label{A6m}%$$ which is in accordance with OPE (\[dW(3)\]). Then, summing up contributions (\[A4Lm\]) and (\[A4NLm\]) and comparing the result at large $q^{2}$ with OPE one gets the magnetic susceptibility in the form $$\chi_{m}\left( \mu_{\mathrm{Inst}}\right) =-\frac{1}{\left\langle 0\left\| \overline{q}q\right\| 0\right\rangle }\frac{N_{c}}{4\pi^{2}}\int du\frac{u\left( M\left( u\right) -uM^{\prime}\left( u\right) \right) }{D^{2}\left( u\right) }, \label{ChiInst}%$$ where the quark condensate is defined in (\[QQI\]). Alternatively, to get (\[ChiInst\]) we may simply calculate the matrix element of $\mathcal{O}_{f}^{\alpha\beta}$ (\[fop\]) between vacuum and one real photon state and use Eq. (\[GV\]) for the quark-photon vertex. In this way it is easy to show that the result (\[ChiInst\]) stays unchanged when one includes the vector meson degrees of freedom. Indeed, in the extended model [@ADprdG2; @DoMKR] the vector vertex gets contribution from vector $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons in the form$$\Delta\Gamma_{\mu}^{a}(p,p^{\prime})=\left( g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{q^{\mu}q^{\nu}% }{q^{2}}\right) \gamma_{\nu}T^{a}\frac{G_{V}f^{V}\left( p\right) f^{V}\left( p^{\prime}\right) }{1-G_{V}J_{V}^{T}\left( q^{2}\right) }% B_{V}\left( q^{2}\right) , \label{GVdress}%$$ where $T^{a}$ is a flavor matrix, $f^{V}\left( p\right) $, $J_{V}% ^{T}\left( q^{2}\right) ,$ $G_{V}$ are the nonlocal form factor, the polarization operator and four-quark coupling in the vector channel, correspondingly. Due to conservation of the vector current one has $B_{V}\left( q^{2}=0\right) =0$ and thus there is no contribution to the magnetic susceptibility. It is easy also to derive the momentum dependence of the magnetic susceptibility$$\begin{aligned} \chi_{m}\left( q\right) & =-\frac{N_{c}}{\left\langle 0\left\| \overline{q}q\right\| 0\right\rangle }\int\frac{d^{4}k}{4\pi^{4}}\frac {1}{D_{+}D_{-}}\left\{ \left[ M_{+}-\frac{kq}{q^{2}}\left( M_{+}% -M_{-}\right) \right] \left( 1+B_{V}\left( q^{2}\right) f_{+}^{V}% f_{-}^{V}\right) -\right. \label{ChiQ}\\ & \left. -\frac{2}{3}k_{\perp}^{2}M^{(1)}(k_{+},k_{-})\right\} ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ presented in Fig. 7. At large $q$ the integral in (\[ChiQ\]) is proportional to the quark condensate providing the asymptotic result$$\chi_{m}\left( q\rightarrow\infty\right) =\frac{2}{q^{2}}. \label{ChiAs}%$$ ![The momentum dependence of the magnetic susceptibility of quark condensate.[]{data-label="ChiF"}](chi.eps){width="6cm"} Recently, Eq. (\[ChiInst\]) has been obtained by more complicated way in [@MusaPLB05]. Also note that the instanton model does not support use of the pion dominance for estimate of the magnetic susceptibility as it was attempted in [@VainshPLB03]. The reason is that the pion pole in the axial vertex (\[GAtot\]) is accompanied by the exponentially suppressed residue $J_{P}\left( q^{2}\right) $. Thus, it does not contribute to the twist 4 coefficient. Given model parameters (\[G’s\]) one finds numerical values for the quark condensate and the magnetic susceptibility $$\left\langle 0\left\| \overline{q}q\right\| 0\right\rangle \left( \mu_{\mathrm{Inst}}\right) =-\left( 214~\mathrm{GeV}\right) ^{3},\qquad \chi_{m}\left( \mu_{\mathrm{Inst}}\right) =4.32~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}\mathrm{,}%$$ where $\mu_{\mathrm{Inst}}$ is the normalization scale typical for instanton fluctuations. To leading-logarithmic accuracy scale dependence of these values is predicted by QCD as$$\left\langle 0\left\| \overline{q}q\right\| 0\right\rangle \left( \mu\right) =L^{-\gamma_{\overline{q}q}/b}\left\langle 0\left\| \overline{q}q\right\| 0\right\rangle \left( \mu_{0}\right) ,\qquad\chi_{m}\left( \mu\right) =L^{-\left( \gamma_{0}-\gamma_{\overline{q}q}\right) /b}\chi_{m}\left( \mu_{0}\right) ,$$ where $L=\alpha_{s}\left( \mu\right) /\alpha_{s}\left( \mu_{0}\right) $, $b=\left( 11N_{c}-2n_{f}\right) /3$, $\gamma_{\overline{q}q}=-3C_{F}$ is the anomalous dimension of the quark condensate, $\gamma_{0}=C_{F}$ is the anomalous dimension of the chiral-odd local operator of leading-twist, $C_{F}=4/3$. We may fix the normalization scale of the model by comparing the value of the condensate with that found in QCD sum rule at some standard normalization point: $\left\langle 0\left\| \overline{q}q\right\| 0\right\rangle \left( \mu_{0}=1~\mathrm{GeV}\right) =-\left( 240~\mathrm{GeV}\right) ^{3}$. Then one finds $L=2.17$ that corresponds to the normalization point $\mu_{\mathrm{Inst}}\approx0.5~\mathrm{GeV}$, with the QCD constant for three flavors being $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{\left( n_{f}=3\right) }=296$ MeV. The rescaled magnetic susceptibility calculated in the model will be$$\chi_{m}\left( \mu_{\mathrm{Inst}}=1~\mathrm{GeV}\right) =2.73~\mathrm{GeV}% ^{-2},$$ which is in rather good agreement with the latest numerical value of $\chi _{m}$ obtained with the QCD sum rule fit [@BBK]: $\chi_{m}\left( \mu_{\mathrm{SR}}=1~\mathrm{GeV}\right) =\left( 3.15\pm0.3\right) ~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$. A phenomenology of hard exclusive processes sensitive to the magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{m}\,$, see [@BBK], will possibly help to fix its value. Conclusions =========== In the framework of the instanton liquid model we calculated for arbitrary momenta transfer the nondiagonal correlator of the vector and nonsinglet axial-vector currents in the background of a soft vector field. In this case we find that at large momenta the nonperturbative power corrections are absent in the chiral limit for the transversal part $w_{T}$ of triangle diagram. The transversal part is corrected only by exponentially small terms which reflects the nonlocal structure of QCD vacuum. Within the instanton model the saturation of the anomalous, longitudinal $w_{L}$ structure is demonstrated explicitly. Using the instanton liquid model we also derive an expression for the quark condensate magnetic susceptibility and its momentum dependence. The author is grateful to A. P. Bakulev, N. I. Kochelev, P. Kroll, S. V. Mikhailov, A. A. Pivovarov, O. V. Teryaev for helpful discussions on the subject of the present work. The author also thanks for partial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research projects nos. 03-02-17291, 04-02-16445 and the Heisenberg–Landau program. [99]{} S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. 177, 2426 (1969). J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cim. A 60, 47 (1969). L. Rosenberg, Phys. Rev. 129, 2786 (1963). S. Groote, J. G. Körner, A. A. Pivovarov, Eur. Phys. J. C 24, 393 (2002). A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 073006. A. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B 569 (2003) 187. S. L. Adler and W. A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. 182, 1517 (1969). G. ’t Hooft, in Recent Developments In Gauge Theories, Eds. G. ’t Hooft et al., (Plenum Press, New York, 1980). M. Knecht, S. Peris, M. Perrottet and E. de Rafael, JHEP 0403 (2004) 035. M. Knecht, S. Peris, M. Perrottet and E. De Rafael, JHEP 0211 (2002) 003. See for review, e.g., T. Schafer, E.V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70 (1998) 323. S.V. Mikhailov, A.V. Radyushkin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 49 (1989) 494 \[Yad. Fiz. 49 (1988) 794\]; S. V. Mikhailov and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 1754. A. E. Dorokhov, S. V. Esaibegian and S. V. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 4062; A. E. Dorokhov and L. Tomio, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 014016; R. D. Bowler and M. C. Birse, Nucl. Phys. A 582 (1995) 655. I. V. Anikin, A. E. Dorokhov and L. Tomio, Phys. Part. Nucl. 31 (2000) 509 \[Fiz. Elem. Chast. Atom. Yadra 31 (2000) 1023\]. A. E. Dorokhov, W. Broniowski, Eur. Phys. J. C 32 (2003) 79. B. L. Ioffe and A. V. Smilga, Nucl. Phys. B 232, 109 (1984). T. V. Kukhto, E. A. Kuraev, Z. K. Silagadze and A. Schiller, Nucl. Phys. B 371 (1992) 567. N. N. Achasov, Phys. Lett. B 287 (1992) 213. A. E. Dorokhov, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 1 (2004) 240. A. E. Dorokhov, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 094011. A. E. Dorokhov, JETP Letters, 77 (2003) 63 \[Pisma ZHETF, 77 (2003) 68\]; I. V. Anikin, A. E. Dorokhov and L. Tomio, Phys. Lett. B 475 (2000) 361. I.V. Anikin, A.E. Dorokhov, A.E. Maksimov, L. Tomio, V. Vento, Nucl. Phys. A 678 (2000) 175. A.E. Dorokhov, S.V. Esaibegyan, A. E. Maximov, S.V. Mikhailov, Eur. Phys. J. C 13 (2000) 331. A. E. Dorokhov and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 094007. J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. 158, (1984) 142. V. A. Nesterenko and A. V. Radyushkin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 39 (1984) 811 \[Yad. Fiz. 39 (1984) 1287\]. G. T. Gabadadze and A. A. Pivovarov, JETP Lett. 54 (1991) 298. J. Horejsi and O. Teryaev, Z. Phys. C 65 (1995) 691. O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Part. Nucl. 35 (2004) S24. A. E. Dorokhov, A. E. Radzhabov and M. K. Volkov, Eur. Phys. J. A 21 (2004) 155. H. C. Kim, M. Musakhanov and M. Siddikov, Phys. Lett. B 608 (2005) 95. P. Ball, V. M. Braun and N. Kivel, Nucl. Phys. B 649 (2003) 263. [^1]: See, e.g., [@APP02; @CMV] and references therein. [^2]: Here and below the small effects of isospin violation is neglected, considering $m_{f}\equiv m_{u}=m_{d}$. [^3]: Very similar arguments lead the author of [@Teryaev04] to the conclusion that finiteness of all transverse momenta moments of the quark distributions guarantees the exponential fall-of of the cross sections. [^4]: If one would naively use the dynamical quark mass corresponding to popular singular gauge then one finds the problem with convergence of the integrals in (\[20\]), because in this gauge there is only powerlike asymptotics of $M\left( p\right) \sim p^{-6}$ at large $p^{2}.$	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Some Lyman continuum photons are likely to escape from most galaxies, and these can play an important role in ionizing gas around and between galaxies, including gas that gives rise to Lyman alpha absorption. Thus the gas surrounding galaxies and in the intergalactic medium will be exposed to varying amounts of ionizing radiation depending upon the distances, orientations, and luminosities of any nearby galaxies. The ionizing background can be recalculated at any point within a simulation by adding the flux from the galaxies to a uniform quasar contribution. Normal galaxies are found to almost always make some contribution to the ionizing background radiation at redshift zero, as seen by absorbers and at random points in space. Assuming that $\sim 2$ percent of ionizing photons escape from a galaxy like the Milky Way, we find that normal galaxies make a contribution of at least 30 to 40 percent of the assumed quasar background. Lyman alpha absorbers with a wide range of neutral column densities are found to be exposed to a wide range of ionization rates, although the distribution of photoionization rates for absorbers is found to be strongly peaked. On average, less highly ionized absorbers are found to arise farther from luminous galaxies, while local fluctuations in the ionization rate are seen around galaxies having a wide range of properties.' date: Released 2002 Xxxxx XX title: Galaxies as Fluctuations in the Ionizing Background Radiation at Low Redshift --- \[firstpage\] diffuse radiation – quasars: absorption lines – intergalactic medium – galaxies: structure. Introduction ============ The extragalactic background of Lyman continuum photons plays an important role in ionizing the many absorption line systems seen shortward of Ly$\alpha$ emission in quasar spectra, including those seen at low redshifts using the ultraviolet capabilities of the Hubble Space Telescope (Bahcall et al. 1996). The ionizing background intensity determines the neutral gas fraction in Ly$\alpha$ forest absorbers and the ion ratios seen in metal absorption line systems. Furthermore, understanding the ionizing background is important for developing theories for the formation and evolution of galaxies and the Ly$\alpha$ forest and possibly for finding the baryonic mass contained within galaxies and the intergalactic medium. Interesting questions remain as to how much of this background is contributed by galaxies and what role galaxies play in ionizing gas around and between them that is detected as Ly$\alpha$ absorption. The only largely neutral Ly$\alpha$ absorbers are the damped systems which have neutral hydrogen column densities $N_{HI} > 10^{20.3}$ cm$^{-2}$. Ionized absorbers include some Lyman limit systems ($N_{HI} > 10^{17.2}$ cm$ ^{-2}$) and Ly$\alpha$ forest absorbers which have lower neutral column densities. Lyman limit systems are thought to arise around galaxies (Bergeron & Boissé 1991; Steidel 1995), while Ly$\alpha$ forest absorbers have been detected which are as weak as $N_{HI} \sim 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$. Although many of these may be associated with the smallest amounts of intergalactic gas, including that in void regions (Davé et al. 1999; Stocke et al. 1995; Shull et al. 1996; Penton, Stocke, & Shull 2002), at least some stronger forest absorbers are found near luminous galaxies. In particular Ly$\alpha$ absorption is almost always detected at a similar redshift to a galaxy which is found within $\sim 200$ kpc of a quasar line of sight (Bowen, Blades, & Pettini 1996; Lanzetta et al. 1995a; Le Brun, Bergeron, & Boissé 1996; Chen et al. 1998; 2001). Bowen, Pettini, & Blades (2002) have shown recently that while nearby Ly$\alpha$ absorbers are difficult to match with particular observed galaxies, $N_{HI}$ is correlated with the local density of detected luminous galaxies. In carefully observed spiral galaxy discs the neutral column density falls off slowly with radius over most of the extents as seen with 21 cm HI observations, but then a rapid truncation is seen. Bochkarev & Sunyaev (1977) first suggested that a truncation would occur in a spiral disc at a sufficient radius where the HI column becomes ionized by an extragalactic background. Disk edges have been modelled also by Maloney (1993), Dove & Shull (1994a), and Corbelli & Salpeter (1993). More recently ionized gas has been detected in H$\alpha$ emission using a Fabry-Perot ‘staring technique’ (Bland-Hawthorn et al. 1994) beyond the HI edges of several nearby galaxies (Bland-Hawthorn, Freeman & Quinn 1997; Bland-Hawthorn 1998). The intensity of the ionizing background radiation has been measured using the ‘proximity effect’, or the paucity of absorption lines close to a quasar emission redshift, at low redshift first by Kulkarni & Fall (1993) and more recently by Scott et al. (2002) who find $J(912$Å$)= 7.6^{+9.4}_{-3.0}\times 10^{-23}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$, or a frequency and direction averaged ionization rate of $1.9 \times 10^{-13}$ s$^{-1}$ at redshift $z<1$. Some evidence for redshift evolution in the background is seen. Other methods for estimating this intensity give generally consistent results typically within the lower end of their uncertainty range, including limits on H$\alpha$ emission from high-latitude galactic clouds (Vogel 1995; Tufte, Reynolds, & Haffner 1998; Vogel et al. 2002) and extragalactic HI clouds (Stocke et al. 1991; Donahue, Aldering & Stocke 1995) and estimates from the HI galaxy disc edges (Maloney 1993; Dove & Shull 1994a; Corbelli & Salpeter 1993). Using quasar spectra and considering reprocessing of photons by the intergalactic medium, Haardt & Madau (1996), Davé et al. (1999), and Shull et al. (1999) have calculated the history of the intensity of the ionizing background down to low redshifts. Their values are approximately consistent with the measurements above, so that quasars make an important and possibly dominant contribution to the ionizing background even at low redshifts. While the number density of quasars is low at low redshifts, the universe becomes optically thin to ultraviolet photons at redshifts $z \ltorder 2$ (Haardt & Madau 1996) such that ultraviolet photons emitted at $z\sim 2$ are likely to survive without reprocessing until $z\sim 0$. In contrast, the ionizing spectrum at higher redshifts is modified by absorption and reemission (Fardal, Giroux, & Shull 1998). What contribution might galaxies make to the ionizing background at low redshifts? Some suggestions have been made that insufficient numbers of ionizing photons (less than one percent) escape from galaxies for an important contribution to the ionizing background (Deharveng et al. 1997; Henry 2002), though others measure (Bland-Hawthorn & Maloney 1999; Leitherer et al. 1995; Goldader et al. 2002; Hurwitz, Jelinsky, & Van Dyke Dixon 1997) and model (Dove & Shull 1994b; Dove, Shull & Ferrara 2000) higher escape fractions between three and ten percent. Giallongo, Fontana, & Madau (1997), Shull et al. (1999) and Bianchi, Cristiani, & Kim (2001) find that star-forming galaxies could even dominate the ionizing background if at least a few percent of the ultraviolet photons escape. Some ionizing photons are likely to escape from most galaxies. Bland-Hawthorn (1998) suggests that the gas detected beyond the HI disc edge in several spiral galaxies is ionized by stellar populations within the galaxies, as the emission measures are stronger than those predicted (Maloney 1993; Dove & Shull 1994a) for an extragalactic background. Given that many stronger Ly$\alpha$ absorbers are found close to galaxies, it is possible that stellar populations within galaxies make some contribution to the ultraviolet photons that ionize any nearby absorbers. Thus what is measured as ionizing background radiation may vary in intensity with location, depending upon the galaxy clustering environment or the properties, such as brightness and extinction behaviour, of any nearby galaxies. The method for simulating a fluctuating ionizing background is described in Section 2, while the resulting fluctuations are discussed in Section 3. Results of varying model parameters are discussed in Section 4, and Section 5 describes the relationship of the ionization rate fluctuations to the properties and locations of galaxies. The value of $H_0$ is assumed to be 100 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Method and Simulations ====================== The simulation used here is an updated version of that first described in Linder (1998), where in each case here 12590 clustered galaxies are placed in a cube with an edge of 28.9 Mpc (except where this edge is adjusted at redshift one). Ly$\alpha$ absorbers arise in gas within and extending from galaxy discs, which are modelled as in Charlton, Salpeter, & Hogan (1993) and Charlton, Salpeter & Linder (1994). Each galaxy has an exponential inner disc and an outer extension where the column density declines as a power law with radius, assumed as galaxy discs are generally found to be exponential while absorbers roughly obey a power-law column density distribution at lower column densities (see Appendix \[appendixa\]). In reality a smoother transition probably occurs, and some evidence for such a transition has been seen by Hoffman et al. (1993). The radius at which each HI disc changes from exponential to power law decline was defined previously (Linder 1998) in terms of the disc ionization edge, as little is known about this switching radius. Since the ionizing background varies here, however, it makes more sense to define this switching radius in terms of the galaxy disc scale length. Assuming the switch from exponential to power law occurs in each galaxy at a radius of four HI disc scale lengths, similar results are seen in the absorber counts arising as compared to absorber counts simulated using the previously defined switching radius. The galaxies are chosen to have visible properties based upon observed distributions of galaxy parameters, such as a Schechter luminosity function and a flat surface brightness distribution (McGaugh 1996). The HI disc scale lengths ($h_{HI}$) are assumed to be proportional to the $B$ scale lengths ($h_B$), where $h_{HI}=1.7h_B$ to start, as this was previously found to give rise to reasonable absorber counts in Linder (1998). The gaseous properties of the galaxies can thus be related to the visible properties. This makes sense as galaxy discs are generally somewhat larger in HI than in optical images, although the HI sizes of galaxy discs also vary depending upon the location within a cluster (Cayatte et al. 1994) so that the average ratio of $h_B/h_{HI}$ is uncertain. Each galaxy is placed in a cube of space, where the positions are chosen to be clustered as described in Linder (2000) using a fractal type method based upon Soneira & Peebles (1978). Random lines of sight through the box can then be simulated, and an absorption line is assumed to arise when these lines of sight intersect any disc or outer extension. Neutral column densities for absorbers are found by integrating the HI density along the line of sight. Each galaxy disc has an ionization edge, or radius beyond which no layer of neutral gas remains. The vertical ionization structure of the gas is modelled as in Linder (1998) which is similar to the model in Maloney (1993). Inside of this ionization radius, the gas is assumed to have a sandwich structure, where the inner shielded layer remains neutral and has a height ($z_i$) determined by equation (6) in Linder (1998). The gas above height ($z_i$) and beyond the ionization radius is assumed to be in ionization equilibrium where $\alpha_{rec} n_{tot}^2 = \zeta n_H$, for a highly ionized hydrogen gas with total (neutral plus ionized) density $n_{tot}$ and neutral density $n_H$. The recombination coefficient is $\alpha_{rec}=2.42\times 10^{-13}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}(T/10,000 \mbox{K})^{-0.75}$ and the gas temperature $T$ is assumed to be 20,000 K. The frequency- and direction-averaged ionization rate $\zeta$ is determined at each point in space while converging numerically upon the ionization edge (the minimum disc radius where ($z_i=0$)) in a self-consistent manner, and $\zeta$ is calculated as described below. The intensity of ionizing radiation is allowed to vary at each point in space within the box. The ionization rate $\zeta$, which was previously assumed to be constant in Linder (1998; 2000), is recalculated here at each point in space, where $\zeta = \zeta_b + \zeta_{gal}$ and $\zeta_b$ is the contribution from quasars. The value of $\zeta_{gal}$ can be recalculated at any point within the box based upon the flux from the surrounding galaxies. The value of $\zeta_b=3.035 \times 10^{-14}$ s$^{-1}$ is assumed from the calculation of Davé et al. (1999) at $z=0$ based upon spectra from Haardt & Madau (1996). Bland-Hawthorn & Maloney (1999) modelled the escape of ionizing photons from our galaxy by extrapolating from a calculation of the ionizing photon surface density at the Solar Circle using nearby O stars by Vacca, Garmany, & Shull (1996). Bland-Hawthorn (1998) gives a simple estimate of the number of ionizing photons escaping from the Galaxy, where $\varphi = 2\times 10^{10}e^{-\tau}r_{kpc}^{-2}cos^{0.6\tau+ 0.5}\Theta$ phot cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ as in the first equation of their Appendix, at some point with distance $r$, where $\Theta$ is the angle from the galactic pole, and $\tau$ is the Lyman limit optical depth. In order to add such a radiation field to $\zeta$ in the units above, we need a frequency-averaged quantity which also considers the ionization cross section for hydrogen, where $\sigma_H=6.3\times 10^{-18}(\nu/\nu_0)^{-3}$ at frequency $\nu$, and $\nu_0$ is the Lyman limit frequency. Thus, for example, the contribution from our galaxy to $\zeta$ at some point at a distance $r_{kpc}$ from its center would be $$\zeta_{gal,MW} = \int_{\nu_0}^\infty \varphi_{\nu} \sigma_H d\nu=\varphi\langle\sigma_H\rangle,$$ where $\varphi=\int_{\nu_0}^\infty \varphi_{\nu}d\nu$. The mean value for $\sigma_H$ is weighted by assuming that $\varphi_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-\alpha_s},$ so that $$\zeta_{gal,MW}=\varphi \sigma_H(\nu_0) \left(\frac{\alpha_s-1}{\alpha_s+2}\right).$$ We assume $\alpha_s=2.5$, which gives $\langle\sigma_H\rangle = \sigma_H(\nu_0)/3$, while Sutherland & Shull (1999) prefer a similar $\alpha_s\sim 1.9$ to $2.2$ for starburst galaxies, which would result in $\langle\sigma_H\rangle \sim \sigma_H(\nu_0)/4$. Bland-Hawthorn & Maloney (1999) assumed that our galaxy has an axisymmetric exponential disc where the ionizing photon surface density $n_d(r)=n_0e^{-r/h}$ for disc scale length $h$ and central ionizing photon surface density $n_0$. Integrating $n_d(r)$ over the disc area out to an infinite radius gives a number of ionizing photons which is proportional to $h^2$, while the ionizing photon surface density can also be expressed as an ionizing surface brightness ($\mu$) where $n/n_0=100^{(\mu_0-\mu)/5}$. Thus we extrapolate the formula above to other galaxies by correcting for variations in central surface brightness ($\mu_0$) and disc scale length for galaxy $i$ as compared to Galactic (MW) values, by assuming that the ionizing scale lengths and central surface brightnesses are proportional to the B values. The galaxy contribution to $\zeta$ for some galaxy $i$ becomes $$\zeta_{gal,i}= \varphi\left(\frac{\sigma_H}{3}\right) 10^{(\mu_{0,MW}-\mu_{0,i})/5}\left(\frac{h_{B,i}} {h_{B,MW}}\right)^2.$$ At any point in space at which we wish to calculate $\zeta$ we sum the contributions from all the galaxies in the simulation, so that $$\zeta_{\rm{gal}} = \sum_i \zeta_{gal,i},$$ where galaxy $i$ is at a distance $r$, and $\Theta_i$ is calculated for each galaxy as in Appendix \[appendixb\]. When calculating the ionizing intensity seen by the outer part of a galaxy, extinction from gas and dust is important in shielding absorbing gas from being ionized by the inner parts of the galaxy. Although some neutral gas must remain around galaxies which is often seen to give rise to absorption, the galaxy itself still may be the most important contributor to ionizing the gas in its outer parts. To start we assume that each galaxy disc is flat within two HI scale lengths and then warped by ten degrees beyond that value (Briggs 1990), so that the outer parts of the disc are exposed to some ionizing radiation which escapes from the inner regions. A value of $\tau=2.8$ is preferred by Bland-Hawthorn (1998) when modelling our Galaxy, although the preferred value could be different as a result of an error (Bland-Hawthorn & Maloney 2001). On the other hand it has been difficult to detect any dust extinction in low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies (for example O’Neil, Bothun & Impey 1997). Little is known about the gas-to-dust ratio in LSB galaxies, although the total extinction is likely to be higher in high surface brightness (HSB) galaxies. Thus it might make sense to assume that $\tau_i$ is related to central surface brightness for the simulated galaxies. Thus a linear relationship was assumed where $\tau=2.8$ for a galaxy with a Freeman surface brightness value of $\mu_{0,i}=21.65$, and $\tau=0$ for $\mu_{0,i}=25$, so that $\tau_i=-0.836(\mu_{0,i}-25)$. Shadowing, or extinction from gas between an absorber and a given ionizing source, is not taken into account as this would require substantially more computing time. This is a reasonable approximation in the sense that the universe is optically thin at redshifts $\ltorder 2$ (Haardt & Madau 1996) Shadowing could make the calculated $\zeta$ values slightly lower in some cases, although typically the second closest galaxy to an absorber contributes only a few percent of the ultraviolet flux that the closest galaxy contributes. Starburst galaxies are not treated as emitting differently from other galaxies within the simulation, although the galaxy population is chosen within the simulation to be consistent with the observed optical galaxy luminosity function and thus does not exclude the existence of such objects. Some of the more luminous galaxies may have a clumpy distribution of dust, which might allow for a larger fraction of their ionizing photons to escape as compared to other galaxies. There could be an additional population of infrared selected galaxies that would not be included within the luminosity function simulated here. Although these galaxies also might make some contribution to the ionizing background, a fairly small fraction of ultraviolet photons are thought to escape from them (Goldader et al. 2002). Assuming the conversion between the intensity at the Lyman limit and the one-sided flux seen by galaxies, as defined in Tumlinson et al. (1999), the first simulation, as illustrated in the figures, gives rise to a number of Lyman limit absorbers per unit redshift $(dN/dz)_{0,LL}=3.67$ when the number density of galaxies is adjusted to produce $(dN/dz)_0=24.3$ for forest absorbers as in Bahcall et al. (1996). The number density of galaxies used here is found to remain consistent with observed galaxy luminosity functions as discussed in Linder (1998). The observed values for $(dN/dz)_{0,LL}$ tend to be $\sim 1$ or lower (Lanzetta, Wolfe, & Turnshek 1995b; Storrie Lombardi et al. 1994; Stengler-Larrea et al. 1995). Adjusting the switching radius does not substantially change the number of Lyman limit absorbers, as these absorbers still arise largely in the exponential parts of the discs. However, if the scale length ratio $h_{H1}/h_{B}$ is decreased to $1.2$ then a more realistic number of Lyman limit absorbers arises as seen in Table \[table2\]. In this case an extra population of weaker absorbers would be needed in order to produce the observed $(dN/dz)_0$. However most Ly$\alpha$ absorbers, including even the weakest ones, are found to trace the large scale galaxy distribution, so that they are likely to arise in gas which is about as close to galaxies as that in the first simulation. However this absorbing gas could be higher above the planes of galaxy discs and thus be even more highly ionized, as in the fifth simulation shown in Table \[table2\]. Alternatively the additional absorbers could behave more like randomly distributed points, in which case they would have a distribution of ionization rates similar to that for the first simulation, as illustrated in Fig. \[zetadist\]. Another possibility is that Lyman limit absorbers arise only around luminous, high surface brightness galaxies. Observers have also questioned whether galaxies which are low in luminosity and/or surface brightness give rise to Lyman limit absorption (McLin, Giroux, & Stocke 1998; Steidel 1995; Steidel et al. 1997; Bergeron & Boissé 1991), although such objects are being found to give rise to stronger damped Ly$\alpha$ absorption (Cohen 2001; Turnshek et al. 2000; Bowen, Tripp, & Jenkins 2001). Some possible explanations include gas being blown out more easily from less massive galaxies as suggested by McLin et al. (1998), differences in the column density profiles in the outer parts of LSB galaxies compared to what is simulated here, a slightly steeper neutral column density distribution compared to the $N_{HI}^{-1.5}$ assumed here, and/or a galaxy surface brightness distribution which allows for fewer moderate to large sized LSB galaxies compared to the flat surface brightness distribution simulated here. Other possible scenarios and implications for the nature of Ly$\alpha$ absorbers will be discussed further in a future paper. Ionization Rate Fluctuations ============================ ![A distribution of values for the direction and frequency averaged ionization rate $\zeta$ is shown for simulated Ly$\alpha$ absorbers with $N_{HI}>10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ (solid line) and for randomly chosen points within the simulation (dashed line). Also shown (as \*) is the assumed minimum background value due to quasars based upon Davé et al. (1999) and Haardt & Madau (1996). The triangle indicates the value for $z<1$ found by Scott et al. (2002) using proximity effect measurements. []{data-label="zetadist"}](fig1.eps "fig:"){width="84mm"} \[zetadist\] A further understanding of the fluctuations in the ionizing background intensity due to galaxies is important for numerous reasons. First of all, the fluctuations need to be understood as a source of uncertainty in measuring the overall background intensity. Histograms of values for the ionization rate $\zeta$ are shown in Fig. \[zetadist\] for the first simulation, and are shown both for Ly$\alpha$ absorbers ($N_{HI}>10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$) and for random points in the box. The histograms are shown along with the $z=0$ quasar value from Davé et al. (1999), based upon Haardt & Madau (1996) spectra, which is the assumed minimal value for $\zeta$. Absorbers see higher $\zeta$ values somewhat more often than randomly chosen points, as absorbers arise on average closer to galaxies. Overall the ionization rate seen by Ly$\alpha$ absorbers at $z=0$ varies over about a factor of about two in this simulation. None of the absorbers or random points are exposed to ionization rates which are within about ten percent of the minimal assumed background, although extinction from gas between the absorbers and their ionization sources is not modelled here, so that in reality there may be a few. Most often both the random points and absorbers have $\zeta$ values which are about a factor of 1.4 larger than $\zeta_b$. Varying the spectral index of the contribution from these nearby galaxies to $\alpha_s\sim 2$ would simply move this peak to $\zeta\sim 1.3\zeta_b$. Points with the largest values of $\zeta$ tend to arise at quite low impact parameters from the centres of galaxies, as will be seen in Fig. \[zetavsenv\]. Also shown in Fig. \[zetadist\] is the measurement from Scott et al. (2002) for $z<1$. This measurement has error bars which are large compared to the range of $\zeta$ values shown in this plot, and the lower error bar would be at a slightly higher value than the peak of the plotted histogram, although an extra contribution from star-forming galaxies would move the calculated peak within the measurement error bars. While the galaxies are simulated here at $z\sim 0$, the ionization rate is seen to evolve only by $<0.2$ orders of magnitude between the Scott et al. (2002) measurements at $z<1$ and $z>1$. According to the redshift evolution model they fit, where the background intensity evolves as $(1+z)^{0.017}$, there would be even less difference expected between their measurement for $z<1$ and what would be expected at $z\sim 0$. This could mean that more ionizing radiation escapes from galaxies than is assumed here, although it is more likely that this power law model does not describe the evolution in the ionizing background very well down to $z\sim 0$. However, an additional uniform contribution could also come from galaxies at redshifts $\ltorder 2$, as the universe is optically thin to ionizing photons at these redshifts. Such a contribution would likely be $\sim\zeta_b$, as calculated for star-forming galaxies (Giallongo et al. 1997; Shull et al. 1999; Bianchi et al. 2001). Another possible contribution could come from gas in the intragroup medium (Maloney & Bland-Hawthorn 1999; 2001). On the other hand, the other previously mentioned low redshift measurements also tend to be consistent with $\zeta$ values closer to the assumed $\zeta_b$, so the value at $z=0$ need not be as large as the Scott et al. (2002) measurement. While the background intensity detected using the proximity effect is likely to be the most common value in a peaked distribution like the one found here, other values could be seen, for example, when making measurements of the ionization rate around a galaxy in an unusual environment. ![A distribution of values for the ionization rate $\zeta$ is shown for simulated Ly$\alpha$ absorbers with varying limiting neutral column densities. Values of $\zeta$ are binned for absorbers having $N_{HI}>10^{19}$ cm $^{-2}$ (solid line), $>10^{17}$ cm $^{-2}$ (long-dashed line), $>10^{15}$ cm $^{-2}$ (dashed line), $>10^{13}$ cm $^{-2}$ (dot-dashed line), and $>10^{12}$ cm $^{-2}$ (dotted line). Stronger absorbers arise on average closer to luminous galaxies, so that their $\zeta$ values are typically higher. []{data-label="zetadistlim"}](fig2.eps){width="84mm"} $N_{HI,min}/cm^{-2}$ $\overline{\log (\zeta/s^{-1})}$ $\sigma$ ---------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------- $10^{12}$ -13.38 0.06 $10^{13}$ -13.38 0.10 $10^{15}$ -13.36 0.33 $10^{17}$ -13.36 0.58 $10^{19}$ -13.36 0.63 : Ionization Rates for Varied Limiting Absorber Column Densities[]{data-label="table1"} For Ly$\alpha$ absorbers with varying limiting neutral column densities, $N_{HI,min}$, the mean values for $\log\zeta$ and standard deviations are shown for the first simulation as also illustrated in Fig. \[zetadistlim\]. Absorbers with higher $N_{HI}$ appear to have more higher $\zeta$ values in the Figure. Here it can be seen that the mean $\log \zeta$ values change only slightly with limiting $N_{HI}$, but the $\sigma$ values become much larger, indicating more substantial tails of high $\zeta$ values. Distributions of $\zeta$ values for absorbers are shown in Fig. \[zetadistlim\], where the limiting neutral column density for absorbers is varied. It can be seen that more high $\zeta$ values arise for stronger absorbers, as these arise on average closer to galaxies. The average $\log \zeta$ value increases only slightly with limiting $N_{HI}$ however, but the distributions become much less strongly peaked due to larger tails of high $\zeta$ values, as shown in Table \[table1\]. ![Values of the neutral column density are plotted versus ionization rate for simulated Ly$\alpha$ absorbers. Absorbers are shown as arising from 15,000 lines of sight in the region where $N_{HI}<10^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $\zeta > 10^{-13.3}$ s$^{-1}$, and ten percent of these simulated points are shown in the region where $N_{HI}<10^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $\zeta < 10^{-13.3}$ s$^{-1}$ which would otherwise be further saturated. Absorbers are shown as arising from 60,000 lines of sight through the box where $N_{HI}>10^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$. Fairly high values of $\zeta$ can be seen for any value of $N_{HI}$. Few points arise with $N_{HI}\sim 10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$ because absorbers change from neutral to highly ionized at a slightly larger $N_{HI}$ value, as seen in galaxy disc ionization edges.[]{data-label="zetavsnh"}](fig3.eps){width="84mm"} Values of $\zeta$ are plotted versus neutral column density ($N_{HI}$) for absorbers in Fig. \[zetavsnh\]. Different numbers of simulated points are plotted in different regions of the plot in order to reduce saturation for low $\zeta$ values and to show more detail for absorbers with high $N_{HI}$. Again the minimum assumed $\zeta=\zeta_b$ produces a cutoff on the left side of the plot. Few points are seen with $N_{HI}\sim 10^{18}$ to $10^{19}$, which is related to the galaxy disc ionization edges where $N_{HI}$ falls off quickly with increasing radius around these values. It can be seen that absorbers with a wide range of $N_{HI}$ can be exposed to a wide range of ionization rates. Even more absorbers with a wide range of higher $\zeta$ values would be seen for a wide range of $N_{HI}$ if more ionizing photons were allowed to escape from galaxies in the simulation. This happens even though one might expect absorbers exposed to large $\zeta$ to be ionized away or seen only at lower values of $N_{HI}$. High $N_{HI}$ values with high $\zeta$ still arise, as the galaxies are simulated with a full range of disc inclinations. Occasionally voids are reported in the Ly$\alpha$ forest (Crotts 1987; Dobrzycki & Bechtold 1991; Cristiani et al. 1995), and there is the possibility that variations in the ionizing background might contribute to such voids. However at this time numbers of voids beyond what would be expected for a random absorber population have not yet been detected for voids smaller than the box size simulated here (Williger 2002). Model Parameter Variations ========================== Description $(dN/dz)_0$ $(dN/dz)_{0,LL}$ $\overline{\log (\zeta /s^{-1}) }$ $\sigma$ --------------------- ------------- ------------------ ------------------------------------ ---------- 1: As in text 25.93 3.91 -13.38 0.06 2: $\tau=2.8$ 27.43 4.01 -13.43 0.05 3: $\tau=3.5$ 28.85 4.09 -13.47 0.03 4: $\tau=1.5$ 21.72 3.69 -13.23 0.10 5: warp$=25^o$ 24.47 3.69 -13.36 0.07 6: $h_{21}/h_B=1.2$ 14.06 0.90 -13.44 0.04 : A Summary of the Simulations[]{data-label="table2"} The first simulation is as described in the text and illustrated in the Figures. Shown for each simulation in the table are the parameters which were varied (where each simulation is otherwise the same as the first simulation), and the numbers of absorbers $>10^{14.3}$ cm$^{-2}$ and Lyman limit absorbers arising per unit redshift in a simulation with 12590 galaxies in a 28.9 Mpc cube, and the mean values for the logarithm of the ionization rate $\zeta$ for Ly$\alpha$ absorbers, and the standard deviation for the distribution of $\log\zeta$. Several model parameters were varied in further simulations as described in Table \[table2\]. The number of Lyman alpha absorbers having $N_{HI}>10^{14.3}$ cm$^{-2}$, the number of Lyman limit systems, and the mean and standard deviation $\sigma$ for $\log \zeta$ are shown for each simulation. In each case the mode for the distribution of $\log \zeta$ is very close in value to the mean. In cases where $\sigma$ is relatively large, there tends to be a more substantial tail of points having high $\zeta$ values. The optical depth $\tau$ was varied in order to explore the uncertainty range in the fraction of ionizing photons escaping from galaxies. The value of $\tau=2.8$, preferred for our Galaxy by Bland-Hawthorn (1998), corresponds to a direction-averaged escape fraction of $\sim 2$ percent of the ionizing photons (Bland-Hawthorn & Maloney 2001). In the first simulation, it is assumed that $\tau$ is dependent upon galaxy central surface brightness as discussed above, while in the second simulation we assume $\tau=2.8$ for all galaxies. In the third simulation $\tau=3.5$ is used for all galaxies in order to produce an escape fraction of $\sim 1$ percent, while $\tau=1.5$ is used for all galaxies in the fourth simulation, giving an escape fraction $\sim 10$ percent. A similar distribution for $\zeta$ arises when the value $\tau=2.8$ is assumed for all galaxies as compared to the first simulation. The mean and mode values of $\log \zeta$ correspond to $1.38\zeta_b$ in the first simulation, $1.23\zeta_b$ in the second simulation, $1.11\zeta_b$ where $\tau=3.5$, and $1.95\zeta_b$ where $\tau=1.5$. Thus the uncertainty in the fraction of ionizing photons escaping from galaxies means that normal galaxies could contribute between ten percent of the quasar background and an amount about equal to the quasar background. The typical disc warping angle, which is also rather uncertain, was also varied as shown in the fifth simulation in Table \[table2\]. Bland-Hawthorn (1998) has suggested, for example, that there may be a selection bias against detecting highly warped discs in HI because they become more highly ionized by the stars within the galaxy. When the disc warping angle is increased to $25^o$ then a slightly higher mean $\log \zeta$ is seen, as more ionizing photons escape higher above the plane of a disc. However the absorbers even in this case are not generally far above the plane of the disc, as the disc is only warped beyond two HI scale lengths. The distributions in ionization rates seen in the simulations here are generally quite strongly peaked, although there may be more absorbers with high $\zeta$ if there is substantial absorbing gas above the planes of galaxy discs. The contribution to the ionization rate varies by a factor of $45$ for the Bland-Hawthorn (1998) model between polar angles of $0^o$ and $80^o$ at some distance from a galaxy with $\tau=2.8$. An additional simulation was done where absorbers arise in galaxy haloes with column density profiles obeying equation (24) from Chen et al. (1998). While the absorbing gas is not modeled in this case, the distribution of ionization parameters is found to be similar to that seen in the fifth simulation (where the warping angle $=25^o$). Even in this case, however, or for randomly chosen points, or in any case where absorbers arise in random directions relative to galaxies, few of the points or absorbers will arise close to the galactic poles. The sixth simulation was done with a reduced $h_{21}/h_B=1.2$ in order to illustrate a scenario with a more realistic number of Lyman limit absorbers. In this case the mean $\log \zeta$ is slightly lower compared to the first simulation because the simulated absorbers arise typically somewhat closer to the centres of galaxies within the warped outer discs, so that they arise closer to the planes of the discs. In order to make such a scenario realistic, however, an additional population of low column density absorbers would be needed to account for the observed $(dN/dz)_0$ as in Bahcall et al. (1996). The additional absorbers could either arise far from luminous galaxies and thus behave more like the random points illustrated in Fig. \[zetadist\], or they could arise higher above galactic planes where they could be more highly ionized. A simulation was also run at redshift one by decreasing the box size by a factor of $(1+z)$ and assuming $\zeta_b=3.33\times 10^{-13}$ s$^{-1}$, again based upon the calculations of Davé et al. (1999) and Haardt & Madau (1996) at $z=1$. Any inconsistency might indicate some galaxy luminosity evolution and/or require more photons to escape from galaxies at $z=1$, although the $\zeta$ distribution was found to be peaked at $3.7\times 10^{-13}$ s$^{-1}$, which is between the Scott et al. (2002) measurements for $z<1$ and $z>1$. Relationship to Galaxies ======================== Understanding how the ionizing background varies with galactic environment will be important for understanding what kinds of objects give rise to Ly$\alpha$ absorption, and in which environments Ly$\alpha$ absorption is most likely to arise. Tripp et al. (1998) suggest that no absorption is found near a galaxy cluster due to increased ionization. Fluctuations in the ionizing background may also allow for substantial variations in the environments affecting galaxy formation processes. For example, it has been suggested that dwarf galaxies may form less easily in an intense radiation field (Tully et al. 2002; Efstathiou 1992; Quinn, Katz, & Efstathiou 1996; but see the discussion in Sabatini et al. 2003). ![The average impact parameter to the nearest four galaxies having $M_B<-16$ is plotted versus ionization rate for simulated Ly$\alpha$ absorbers with $N_{HI}>10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$. Circles indicate points where the nearest galaxy having $M_B<-16$ is within 100 kpc, and triangles indicate such a galaxy within 200 kpc. Eight percent of the simulated points with the nearest galaxy $>200$ kpc and fifteen percent of the other points are shown in the region where $\zeta<10^{-13.3}$ s$^{-1}$ where the points would otherwise be further saturated. Absorbers with the largest $\zeta$ values tend to be in environments which are rich in nearby galaxies. Absorbers with lower values of $\zeta$ arise at a wide range of averaged impact parameters.[]{data-label="zetavsenv"}](fig4.eps){width="84mm"} In order to attempt to parametrize the galaxy clustering environment, in Fig. \[zetavsenv\] $\zeta$ values are plotted (again for the first simulation) versus the average distance to the nearest four galaxies having $M_B < -16$, as observers are generally unable to detect less luminous galaxies around even the nearest absorbers. Again here and in the next two figures, different numbers of simulated points are plotted for $\log \zeta<-13.3$ values in order to reduce the saturation in the plot. The nearest four galaxies are used because the ionizing background is likely to be somewhat higher even in a group environment in addition to being higher in a rich cluster. The shapes of the plotted points give more information about the nearest single galaxy with $M_B < -16$. The $\zeta$ values are shown for absorbers with $N_{HI}>10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$. Most of the points with $\zeta\sim\zeta_b$ are far from luminous galaxies, while those with higher $\zeta$ arise more often closer to luminous galaxies. However, selection effects against LSB galaxies may make this correlation less clearly visible to an observer. Some higher $\zeta$ values can arise even far from luminous galaxies, however, as it was assumed that some ionizing radiation escapes even from dwarf galaxies which are not assumed to be strongly clustered. Still the presence of any luminous galaxy may have a more important effect on the ionization rate rather than the overall clustering environment, as large $\zeta$ values tend to arise more often when a luminous galaxy is within 200 kpc. ![Absolute magnitudes are plotted for galaxies where Ly$\alpha$ absorption ($>10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$) is known to arise in the simulation versus ionization rate for the absorber. Ten percent of the simulated points are shown for $\log\zeta<-13.3$ where the figure would otherwise be further saturated. Horizontal lines are seen because numerous absorbers can arise close to a particular simulated luminous galaxy. More high $\zeta$ absorbers are seen around luminous galaxies simply because these galaxies are assumed to have more absorbing gas around them so that more absorbers with any $\zeta$ value arise. Fairly high values of $\zeta$ can arise around galaxies with any $M_B$ value. []{data-label="zetavsmb"}](fig5.eps){width="84mm"} ![Central surface brightnesses are plotted for galaxies where Ly$\alpha$ absorption ($>10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$) arises nearby versus ionization rate for the absorber. Ten percent of the simulated points are shown for $\log\zeta<-13.3$ where the figure would otherwise be further saturated. High $\zeta$ values can arise around galaxies with a wide range of central surface brightness values. []{data-label="zetavsmuo"}](fig6.eps){width="84mm"} In Figs. \[zetavsmb\] and \[zetavsmuo\], $\zeta$ values are plotted versus galaxy luminosity and central surface brightness for each absorber, where their associated galaxies are known from the simulation. (Note that an observer might identify a different galaxy as associated with an absorber, as discussed in Linder (2000).) Points are seen to lie on horizontal lines in either plot, as galaxies which are luminous or moderately low in surface brightness are assumed to have large absorption cross sections for their surrounding gas and give rise to numerous absorbers within the simulation. It can be seen in either plot that absorbers arising around galaxies with a wide range of properties are exposed to a wide range of ionization rates. Thus variations in $\zeta$ happen around particular galaxies, although these galaxies can have a wide range of properties. High $\zeta$ values will be seen most often in locations where absorbers arise most often, such as those close to luminous galaxies. Yet many more faint galaxies exist, where some absorbers with high $\zeta$ values can also be seen, and no evidence is seen for a variation in the average $\zeta$ values with galaxy luminosity or surface brightness. The ionization rate tends to be higher close to galaxies and in regions of higher galaxy density where Ly$\alpha$ absorbers often arise, but how much is the intergalactic medium affected on average by ionizing radiation from galaxies? The lowest $\zeta$ values tend to be seen when looking as far as possible from a luminous galaxy, as can be seen in Fig. \[zetabinip\]. A fall-off can be seen in the average $\zeta$ value with impact parameter from a galaxy with $M_B<-16$, and such a fall-off appears to be steeper for more luminous galaxies. Again this plot may be affected by luminous galaxies having more absorbers with high $\zeta$ values around them simply because more absorbing gas is assumed to be located around luminous galaxies. ![The average ionization rate, shown in units of the assumed quasar background $\zeta_b$, is shown here for absorbers $>10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ versus impact parameter to the nearest galaxy with $M_B>-16$. A solid line is shown where the nearest such galaxy has $M_B<-19$, a dashed line for $-19<M_B<-18$, dot-dashed for $-18<M_B<-17$, and dotted for $M_B<-17$. It can be seen that the average $\zeta$ value for absorbers decreases with increasing impact parameter from a luminous galaxy, and the decrease appears to be steepest for the most luminous galaxies. Note that the error bars based upon the standard deviation in simulated $\zeta$ values would be smallest for impact parameter values in the centre of the plot where $\zeta/\zeta_b\sim 1.4$, as there are fewer data points for high and low $\zeta$ values. []{data-label="zetabinip"}](fig7.eps){width="84mm"} A less biased view of the ionization of the intergalactic medium can be seen from looking at a similar plot of the average $\zeta$ value versus impact parameter to the nearest galaxy for random points rather than absorbers, as shown in Fig. \[zetabinipis\]. While it becomes even more difficult here to simulate points which are very close to galaxies, it can be seen even more clearly that the intergalactic medium is more highly ionized at points which are closer to more luminous galaxies. While Fig. \[zetabinip\] is a prediction of what observers might see if they are able to measure $\zeta$ for numerous absorbers, Fig. \[zetabinipis\] is a better representation of how the ionization of the intergalactic medium could be simulated. ![The average ionization rate, shown in units of the assumed quasar background $\zeta_b$, is shown here at randomly chosen points versus impact parameter to the nearest galaxy with $M_B>-16$. A solid line is shown where the nearest such galaxy has $M_B<-19$, a dashed line for $-19<M_B<-18$, dot-dashed for $-18<M_B<-17$, and dotted for $M_B<-17$. Compared to the previous figure, it can be seen even more clearly here that the average $\zeta$ value for absorbers decreases with increasing impact parameter from a luminous galaxy, and the decrease is the steepest for the most luminous galaxies. []{data-label="zetabinipis"}](fig8.eps){width="84mm"} Conclusions =========== Normal galaxies are likely to contribute at least thirty to forty percent of what quasars do to the ionizing background of Lyman continuum photons at zero redshift, assuming that ionizing photons escape from other galaxies in an analogous manner to the Bland-Hawthorn (1998) model of our Galaxy where $\sim 2$ percent of ionizing photons escape. Allowing for some uncertainty in this direction-averaged ionizing photon escape fraction, assuming that between $\sim 1$ and $\sim 10$ percent of ionizing photons escape means that the contribution to the ionizing background from normal galaxies could be between $\sim 10$ and $\sim 100$ percent of the assumed quasar contribution. This ultraviolet background is important for ionizing gas surrounding galaxies and within the intergalactic medium. This gas gives rise to Ly$\alpha$ absorption and makes an uncertain contribution to the baryon content in the local universe due to uncertainties in ionization intensities and mechanisms. Distant quasars at somewhat higher redshifts will ionize the low redshift universe in a relatively uniform manner, but ionizing radiation escaping from normal galaxies at low redshift will result in local fluctuations in the ionizing background. Fluctuations have been found in the ionization rate of gas around simulated galaxies, which will give rise to variations in the neutral gas fractions in Ly$\alpha$ absorbers with a wide range of neutral column densities. A wide range of ionization rates are found to arise close to galaxies having a wide range of properties, but normal galaxies also play an important role in ionizing the more distant intergalactic medium. Ionization rates for absorbers are found to be about twice as high as the quasar background on average when looking at $\sim 200$ kpc from a luminous galaxy, about 1.4 times the quasar background when looking at $\sim 1$ to 2 Mpc from a luminous galaxy, and only as little as $\sim 1.1$ times the quasar background when looking as far as possible from luminous galaxies. Luminous star forming galaxies, which may contain rather clumpy dust and thus have more complex extinction behaviour than was modelled here, will also give rise to both local and larger scale fluctuations in the ionizing background. Fluctuations in the ionizing background may have implications for the formation and evolution, and our ability to detect, smaller objects located near luminous galaxies, such as dwarf galaxies and high velocity clouds. Such fluctuations will also give rise to variations in galaxy disc ionization edges, which will have implications for the column density distribution of Lyman limit absorbers. Fluctuations in the ionizing background may also have some implications for the nature of Ly$\alpha$ absorbers and their relationship to galaxies. If galaxies play an important role in ionizing the gas around them, gas which must make some contribution to Ly$\alpha$ absorption, then further constraints may be made on models for galaxies giving rise to absorption. Gas which is too close to a luminous galaxy, and in particular that located far above the plane of the disc, will be exposed to more ionizing radiation than absorbing gas which is ionized largely by a quasar background, possibly reducing the number density of absorbers that will arise in such environments. Variations in the fractions of ionizing radiation that escape from galaxies with various properties may be important for determining what kinds of galaxies can give rise to absorption. A further understanding of the distribution of ionization rates will enable us to learn more about chemical abundances using metal absorption line systems. The fluctuations in the ionizing background are not seen to be substantial in the simulations here however, although most absorbers are assumed to arise fairly close to the planes of galaxy discs. Larger variations in the photoionization rates would only be seen if substantial amounts of absorbing gas are concentrated above galactic poles, although in this case the gas might include components which are ejected from the galaxies so that collisional ionization processes might also be important. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We are grateful to R. Davé, S. Eales, and J. Scott for valuable discussions and to J. Charlton and the referee, S. Bianchi, for careful reading and helpful suggestions for improving the manuscript. [99]{} Bahcall, J. N. et al. 1996, ApJ, 457, 19 Bergeron, J., & Boissé, P. 1991, A&A, 243, 344 Bianchi, S., Cristiani, S., & Kim, T.-S. 2001, A&A, 376, 1 Bland-Hawthorn, J., Taylor, K., Veilleux, S. & Shopbell, P. L. 1994, ApJ, 437, L95 Bland-Hawthorn, J., 1998, in D. Zaritsky, ed., Galaxy Halos, ASP Conf. Ser. 136, San Francisco, p. 113 Bland-Hawthorn, J., Freeman, K. C., & Quinn, P. J. 1997, ApJ, 490, 143 Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Maloney, P. 1999, ApJ, 510, L33 Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Maloney, P. 2001, ApJ, 550, L231 Bochkarev, N. G. & Sunyaev, R. A., 1977, Soviet Astr., 21, 542 Bowen, D. V., Blades, J. C., & Pettini, M. 1996, ApJ, 464, 141 Bowen, D. V. Tripp, T. M., & Jenkins, E. B., 2001, AJ, 121, 1456 Bowen, D. V., Pettini, M., & Blades, J. C. 2002, ApJ, 580, 169 Briggs, F. H. 1990, ApJ, 352, 15 Cayatte, V., Kotanyl, C., Balkowski, C., & Van Gorkom, J. H. 1994, AJ, 107, 1003 Charlton, J. C., Salpeter, E. E., & Hogan, C. J. 1993, ApJ, 402, 493 Charlton, J. C., Salpeter, E. E., & Linder, S. M. 1994, ApJ, 430, L29 Chen, H.-W., Lanzetta, K. M., Webb, J. K., Barcons, X. 1998, ApJ, 498, 77 Chen, H.-W., Lanzetta, K. M., Webb, J. K., Barcons, X. 2001, ApJ, 560, 101 Cohen, J. G., 2001, AJ, 121, 1275 Corbelli, E. & Salpeter, E. E. 1993, ApJ, 419, 104 Cristiani S., D’Odorico S., Fontana A., Giallongo E., & Savaglio S. 1995, MNRAS 273, 1016 Crotts A. P. S. 1987, MNRAS, 228, 41 Davé, R., Hernquist, L., Katz, N., & Weinberg, D. H. 1999, ApJ, 511, 521 Deharveng, J.-M., Faïsse, S., Milliard, B., & Le Brun, V. 1997, A&A, 325, 1259 Dobrzycki A. & Bechtold J. 1991. ApJ, 377, L69 Donahue, M., Aldering, G., & Stocke, J. T., 1995, ApJ, 450, L45 Dove, J. B. & Shull, J. M. 1994a, ApJ, 423, 196 Dove, J. B. & Shull, J. M. 1994b, ApJ, 430, 222 Dove, J. B., Shull, J. M., & Ferrara, A. 2000, ApJ, 531, 846 Efstathiou, G. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 43 Fardal, M. A., Giroux, M. L., & Shull, J. M. 1998, AJ 115, 2206 Giallongo, E., Fontana, A., & Madau, P. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 629 Goldader, J. D., Meurer, G. Heckman, T. M., Seibert, M., Sanders, D. B., Calzetti, D., & Steidel, C. C. 2000, ApJ, 568, 651 Haardt, F. & Madau, P. 1996, ApJ, 461, 20 Henry, R. C. 2002, ApJ, 570, 697 Hoffman, G. L., Lu, N. Y., Salpeter, E. E., Farhat, B., Lamphier, B., & Roos, T. 1993, AJ, 106, 39 Hurwitz, M., Jelinsky, P., & Van Dyke Dixon, W., 1997, ApJ, 378, 131 Kulkarni, V. P., & Fall, S. M. 1993, ApJ, 413, L63 Lanzetta, K. M., Bowen, D. V., Tytler, D., & Webb, J. K. 1995a, ApJ, 442, 538 Lanzetta, K. M., Wolfe, A. M., & Turnshek, D. A. 1995b, ApJ, 440, 435 Le Brun, V., Bergeron, J., & Boissé, P. 1996, A&A, 306, L691 Leitherer, C., Ferguson, H. C., Heckman, T. M., & Lowenthal, J. D. 1995, ApJ, 454, L19 Linder, S. M. 1998, ApJ, 495, 637 Linder, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 529, 644 Maloney, P. 1993, ApJ, 414, 41 Maloney, P. R. & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 1999, ApJ, 522, L81 Maloney, P. R. & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2001, ApJ, 553, L129 McGaugh, S. S. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 337 M. A., 1999, AJ, 118, 1450 McLin, K. M., Giroux, M. L., & Stocke, J. T., 1998, in D. Zaritsky, ed., Galaxy Halos, ASP Conf. Ser. 136, San Francisco, p. 175 O’Neil, K., Bothun, G. D., & Impey, C. D. 1997, BAAS, 29, 1398 Penton, S. V., Stocke, J. T., & Shull, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 565, 720 Quinn, T., Katz, N., & Efstathiou, G. 1996, MNRAS, 278, L49 Sabatini, S., Davies, J. I., Scaramella, R., Smith, R., Baes, M., Linder, S. M., Roberts, S. 2003, & Testa, V., MNRAS, in press Scott, J., Bechtold, J., Morita, M., Dobrzycki, A., & Kulkarni, V. 2002, ApJ, 571, 665 Shull, J. M., Stocke, J. T., & Penton S. 1996, AJ, 111, 72 Shull, J. M., Roberts, D., Giroux, M. L., Penton, S. V., & Fardal, M. A. 1999, AJ, 118, 1450 Soneira, R. M. & Peebles, P. J. E. 1978, AJ, 83, 845 Steidel, C. C., 1995, in G. Meylan, ed., QSO Absorption Lines, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, p. 139 Steidel, C. C., Dickinson, M., Meyer, D. M., Adelberger, K. L., & Sembach, K. R. 1997, ApJ, 480, 568 Stengler-Larrea, E. A., et al. 1995, ApJ, 444, 64 Stocke, J. T., Case, J., Donahue, M., Shull, J. M., & Snow, T. P. 1991, ApJ, 374, 72 Stocke, J. T., Shull, J. M., Penton, S., Donahue, M., & Carilli, C. 1995, ApJ, 451, 24 Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., McMahon, R. G., Irwin, M. J., & Hazard, C. 1994, ApJ, 427, L13 Sutherland, R., & Shull J. M. 1999, as referenced in Shull et al. (1999) Tripp, T. M., Lu, L., & Savage, B. D. 1998, ApJ, 508, 200 Tufte, S. L., Reynolds, R. J., & Haffner, L. M. 1998, ApJ, 504, 773 Tully, R. B., Somerville, R. S., Trentham, N., & Verheijen, M. A. W., 2002, ApJ, 569, 573 Tumlinson, J., Giroux, M. L., Shull, J. M., & Stocke, J. T. 1999, AJ, 118,2148 Turnshek, D. A., Rao, S., Nestor, D., Lane, W., Monier, E., Bergeron, J., Smette, A. 2000, ApJ, 553, 288 Vacca, W. D., Garmany, C. D., & Shull, J. M. 1996, ApJ, 460, 914 Vogel, S. N., Weymann, R., Rauch, M. & Hamilton, T. 1995, ApJ, 441, 162 Vogel, S. N., Weymann, R. J., Veilleux, S., & Epps, H. W. 2002, in J. S. Mulchaey & J. T. Stocke, eds.,Extragalactic Gas at Low Redshift, ASP Conf. Ser. 254, San Fransisco, p. 363 Williger, G. 2002 in ’The IGM/Galaxy Connection’, Kluwer, in press Relationship between the Column Density Profile in a Disc and the Column Density Distribution {#appendixa} ============================================================================================= Suppose absorbers arise in the outer parts of galaxy discs, where the column density $N_{HI}$ in each disc falls off with radius $r$ as a power law where $N_{HI}\propto r^{-p}$. The neutral column density distribution $d{\cal{N}}/dN_{HI}$ resulting from these absorbers in then $d{\cal{N}}/dN_{HI}= d{\cal{N}}/dr\times dr/dN_{HI} = 2\pi r \times dr/dN_{HI}$. Since $dN_{HI}/dr \propto r^{-(p+1)}$ from the assumed column density profile then $d{\cal{N}}/dN_{HI} \propto r^{(p+2)}\propto (N_{HI}^{-1/p})^{(p+2)}$. Thus when the neutral column density distribution in each outer disc falls off as a power law with exponent $-p$, then the resulting neutral column density distribution is also a power law having exponent $-\epsilon$, where $d{\cal{N}}/dN_{HI} \propto N_{HI}^{-\epsilon} \propto N_{HI}^{-(p+2)/p}$ and $p=2/(\epsilon-1)$. Polar Angle Calculation {#appendixb} ======================= At a point $(x,y,z)$ in space where the ionization rate is calculated, each galaxy $i$ contributes emission which is seen at angle $\Theta_i\ (\leq\pi/2)$ from the galaxy’s pole. Each galaxy has a randomly simulated inclination $\theta$ between the disc plane and the $z$-axis, thus chosen from a uniform distribution in $\cos \theta$, and a random orientation $\phi$, where $0\leq\phi<2\pi$. The angle between the galaxy’s rotation axis given by the vector ${\bf v}$ and the line given by the vector ${\bf d}=(x-x_i,y-y_i,z-z_i)$ equals $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\min(\angle({\bf v},{\bf d}),\angle(-{\bf v},{\bf d}))} \\ &=& \min\left(\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{\langle {\bf v},{\bf d}\rangle}{\|\|{\bf v}\|\|\cdot\|\|{\bf d}\|\|}\right),\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{\langle {\bf v},-{\bf d}\rangle}{\|\|{\bf v}\|\|\cdot\|\|{\bf d}\|\|}\right)\right) \\&=& \cos^{-1}\left(\frac{\|\langle {\bf v},{\bf d}\rangle\|}{\|\|{\bf v}\|\|\cdot\|\|{\bf d}\|\|}\right) \\&=& \cos^{-1}\left(\frac{\|v_xd_x+v_yd_y+v_zd_z\|}{\|\|{\bf v}\|\|\cdot\|\|{\bf d}\|\|}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ This angle is always in the interval $[0,\pi/2].$ Here $\|\|{\bf d}\|\|=\sqrt{d_x^2+d_y^2+d_z^2}$. The vector ${\bf v}$ is produced by rotating the vector $(0,0,1)$ first by $\pi/2-\theta$ in the $xz$-plane, which gives the vector $(\cos\theta,0,\sin\theta)$, and then rotating by angle $\phi$ in the $xy$-plane, which gives the vector $(\cos\theta\cos\phi,-\cos\theta\sin\phi,\sin\phi).$ Hence $\|\|{\bf v}\|\|=1$. The polar angle is thus $$\Theta_i = \cos^{-1} \left( \frac{\|d_x\cos\theta\cos\phi-d_y\cos\theta\sin\phi+ d_z\sin\theta\|}{(d_x^2+d_y^2+d_z^2)^{1/2}}\right)$$ where $$\begin{aligned} d_x = x-x_i\\ d_y = y-y_i\\ d_z = z-z_i\end{aligned}$$ for galaxy $i$ centred at $(x_i,y_i,z_i)$.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'J.A. Pons' - 'U. Geppert' date: 'Received...../ Accepted.....' title: \| Magnetic field dissipation in neutron star crusts:\ from magnetars to isolated neutron stars. --- Introduction ============ Since the early days of neutron star (NS) research, when a first estimate of the characteristic decay time of its magnetic field was performed [@BPP69], our models of magnetic field evolution in isolated NSs has become more and more complex. However, a complete theoretical model that explains all observational facts satisfactorily does not yet exist. There is quite general agreement that the magnetic field in ultra-magnetized NSs ([magnetars]{}) decays on timescales of $10^3$–$10^5$ years [@WT06; @HL06]. Very recently, it has been argued [@prl07] that field decay may be an effective heating mechanism also in isolated NSs which are somewhat less magnetized than [standard]{} magnetars (AXPs and SGRs). The observed correlation between surface temperatures and magnetic field strength is an evidence for efficient dissipation, and hence Joule heating, near the surface layers of NSs. In addition, the evidence for braking indexes significantly larger than 3, which are inferred for an ensemble of a dozen of pulsars in an active age of a few $10^5$ years, indicate that epochs of rapid decay in relatively young NSs occur (Johnston & Galloway 1999, Geppert & Rheinhardt 2002). Another evidence for rapid magnetic field evolution in the subsurface crustal layers would be the observation of small structures (significantly smaller than the dipolar mode) close to the surface. These small scale structures could not be survivors from the magnetic field structure acquired by the NS at birth; their small scales, in combination with the low electric conductivity in the outer crust, would have erased such field structures on timescales shorter than 1 Myr. The existence of small scale structures is, however, a necessary condition for the pulsar mechanism to work (Ruderman & Sutherland 1975). In addition, the growing understanding of the physics of the drifting sub-pulses supports the idea that small scale crustal field structures must be present (Gil et al. 2003, 2006). The existence of strong crustal fields in NSs as old as about 1 Myr is also necessary to create the non–uniform surface temperature distribution observed e.g. in the “Magnificent Seven” (see Pons et al. 2002, Schwope et al. 2005; Haberl et al. 2006 for the observational evidence and Geppert et al. 2004, 2006; Pérez–Azorín et al. 2006a, 2006b for the theoretical interpretation). All this phenomena can only be understood if there is a crustal magnetic field with a strong toroidal component, and with more structure than the simple dipolar model. On the other hand, population synthesis studies suggest that old pulsars show no significant magnetic field decay over their life time, i.e. the decay time must be larger than 10 Myr (Hartman et al. 1997; Regimbau & de Freitas Pacheco 2001), although the opposite conclusion has also been claimed (Gonthier et al. 2004). These, at first glance, contradictory facts can be satisfactorily resolved by the (quite natural) assumption that the NS magnetic field is maintained by two current systems. Long living currents in the superconducting core support the large scale dipolar field and are responsible for the spin down of old pulsars. Currents in the crust support the short living part of the field. It decays on a timescale of $10^5$–$10^7$ years, depending on the conductivity, thickness of the crust, and strength and structure of the initial field. Estimates of how fast a core anchored field could be expelled and subsequently dissipated in the crust result in characteristic timescales exceeding $100$ Myr (Konenkov & Geppert 2001). The dipolar component of the crust is superimposed, outside the NS, to the core component. Depending on their relative strengths, a rapid decay of the crustal dipolar field may or may not have observable influence on the pulsar spin down behaviour. Besides the Ohmic diffusion, which will proceed fast in the outermost low–density crustal regions and during the early hot phase of a NS’s life, the only process that can change the crustal field structure, both quantitatively and qualitatively, is the [[Hall drift]{}]{}. Many authors studied during the last two decades the effects of Hall drift onto the evolution of magnetic fields in isolated NSs (Haensel et al. 1990; Goldreich & Reisenegger 1992; Muslimov 1994; Naito & Kojima 1994; Urpin & Shalybkov 1995; Shalybkov & Urpin 1997; Vainshtein et al. 2000; Rheinhardt & Geppert 2002; Geppert & Rheinhardt 2002; Hollerbach & Ruediger 2002; Geppert et al. 2003; Rheinhardt et al. 2004; Cumming et al. 2004). By use of the analogy of the Hall induction equation with the vorticity equation of an incompressible liquid, Goldreich & Reisenegger (1992) developed the idea of the [[Hall cascade]{}]{}. It transfers magnetic energy from the largest to smaller scales until a critical scale length below which Ohmic decay becomes dominant is reached. Vainshtein et al. (2000) considered for the first time the Hall drift in a stratified NS crust. In the presence of a density profile, Hall currents are able to create current sheets, which are places where very efficient dissipation occurs. This effect is dramatic if current sheets are located just below the surface, where the conductivity is lower, but even if the drift is directed towards the highly conductive inner crust, the small scale of the locally intense field causes a significantly faster dissipation of magnetic energy than the purely Ohmic diffusion estimate. In summary, this MHD–like process (considering the crust as a one–component plasma) is by itself energy conserving. However, it affects the magnetic field by two inherent tendencies: the creation of small scale field structures by transferring magnetic energy from the initial large scale field and, the drift of growing structures towards a region where current sheets are created. Another interesting effect of the Hall drift was proposed by Rheinhardt & Geppert (2002). They show, by means of a stability analysis of the linearized Hall induction equation, that the transfer of energy from the large scale (background) field to the smaller scale modes may proceed in a non–local way in the momentum space, resulting in a Hall instability. Cumming et al. (2004) showed that the growth rate of this instability depends on the shear in the velocity of the electrons whose current supports the background field. As they pointed out it is unclear whether the [[Hall instability]{}]{} is relevant for the field evolution in the crust, since the Hall cascade may proceed sufficiently fast to fill in the intermediate scales between the large scale initial field and the unstable growing small scale ones. In the present study we intend to consider the field evolution as realistic as possible. Thus, we will solve numerically the non–linear Hall induction equation in the crustal region, using a crustal density and conductivity profile according to the state-of-the-art microphysical input. We start with initial field configurations which consist both of poloidal and toroidal field components that fulfill boundary conditions at the superconducting core and at the surface. We will follow the cooling history of a NS, starting with an initially hot NS where the magnetization parameter is relatively small and the field evolution in the crust is almost completely determined by Ohmic diffusion. As the NS cools down, the magnetization parameter increases, thereby gradually enhancing the relative importance of the Hall drift. Our aim is to reach a better understanding of the effects that Hall drift may have on the crustal field evolution and its consequences for the rotational and thermal evolution of isolated NSs. The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we present the Hall induction equation where the magnetic field is represented in terms of its poloidal and toroidal components which are expanded in a series of spherical harmonics. Sect. 3 is devoted to purely toroidal fields. For this case we show that the induction equation can be written in a form similar to the Burgers equation. This allows us to discuss the importance of the field–dependent drift in a clear way. In Sect. 4 we detail the input microphysics, the NS model, and the initial conditions. In Sect. 5 we present the results for different initial field configurations. Finally, in Sect. 6, we discuss our main conclusions and give an outlook to future improvements. Basic Equations and Formalism ============================= In the crystallized crust of NSs, where convective motions of the conductive material play no role, the evolution of the magnetic field is governed by the Hall–induction equation = - ( { + \_B } ), \[Hallind\] where $\vec b$ is the unit vector in the direction of the magnetic field $\vec b= \vec{B}/B$, with $B$ being the magnetic field strength, $\tau$ is the relaxation time of the electrons and $\omega_B=eB/m^_e c$ is the electron cyclotron frequency. Here, $\sigma=e^2 n_e \tau/m^_e$ is the electrical conductivity parallel to the magnetic field , and $n_e$ the electron number density. The Hall drift term (the term proportional to $\omega_B\tau$) at the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[Hallind\]) is a consequence of the Lorentz force acting on the electrons. The tensor components of the electric conductivity are derived in the relaxation time approximation (Yakovlev & Shalybkov 1991). If the [magnetization parameter]{} $\omega_B\tau$ exceeds unity significantly, the Hall drift dominates, which results in a very different field evolution from the purely Ohmic case. A large magnetization parameter, typically $\approx 1000$ during some stages [@GR02; @paper2], strongly suppresses the electric conductivity perpendicular to the magnetic field. The up to now limited success to solve Eq. (\[Hallind\]) has been restricted to magnetization parameter not exceeding 200 [@HR02] [^1]. These numerical limitations guided us to use an alternative approach, since fully spectral codes have systematically unsurmountable problems to deal with structures where discontinuities or very large gradients of the variables appear. This will happen, for example, if current sheets develop as a consequence of the Hall drift. The next section will describe in detail the reason why spectral methods may not be well suited to deal with this problem. We have decided to employ a semi–spectral method which describes the angular part of the field by spherical harmonics but uses a spatial difference scheme in radial direction. The formalism that uses the representation of fields by their poloidal and toroidal parts and their expansion in a series of spherical harmonics was developed by R[ä]{}dler (1973). R[ä]{}dler’s formalism allows to transform the (vector) induction equation into two scalar equations. In this formalism, the magnetic field is decomposed in poloidal and toroidal components: =\_[pol]{} + \_[tor]{} . Hereafter, we follow the notation of Geppert & Wiebicke (1991). The two components are described by two functions, $\Phi (r,\theta,\varphi,t)$ and $\Psi (r,\theta,\varphi,t)$, where $r,\theta$, and $\varphi$ are the usual spherical coordinates. Explicitly, the components of the field are given by \_[pol]{} &=& , = - ,\ \_[pol]{} &=&= - \^2 + ( ) ,\ \_[tor]{} &=& - . \[bfield\] This formulation has the advantage that it automatically fulfills the divergence condition ($\nabla \cdot \vec{B} = 0$). Inserting the expressions of Eq. (\[bfield\]) into Eq. (\[Hallind\]) we arrive at two partial differential equations describing the evolution of the poloidal and of the toroidal part of the magnetic field. &=& \^2 + D ,\ &=& ( \^2 - ) + C . \[PhiPsi\] Here, $\hat{\sigma}= 4\pi\sigma/c^2$ and $D$ and $C$ stand for the nonlinear terms describing the Hall drift and coupling both components (poloidal and toroidal) of the magnetic field. We have assumed that the conductivity depends only on the radial coordinate, and is independent of the magnetic field strength. After expanding the functions $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ in a series of spherical harmonics = \_[n,m]{} \_[nm]{}(r,t) Y\_[nm]{}(,) ,\ = \_[n,m]{} \_[nm]{}(r,t) Y\_[nm]{}(,) , \[expans\] where $n=1,\ldots,n_{\rm max}$ and $m=-n,\ldots,+n$. The vector potential, as well as the poloidal and toroidal parts of the magnetic field, can be written as &=& - ( \_[n,m]{} \_[nm]{} ) \_ ,\ \_[pol]{} &=& \_[n,m]{} n(n+1) \_[nm]{} Y\_[nm]{} \_[r]{} + \_[n,m]{} \_ ,\ \_[tor]{} &=& - ( \_[n,m]{} \_[nm]{} ) \_ , \[bpoltor\] while the corresponding components of the current density, given by $\vec{J}= \frac{c}{4\pi} \nabla \times \vec{B}$, is &=& \_[n,m]{} n(n+1) \_[nm]{} Y\_[nm]{} \_[r]{} + \_[n,m]{} \_\ &+& \_[n,m]{} \_. \[currents\] Finally, by inserting the expansions of Eq. (\[bpoltor\]) into Eq. (\[Hallind\]), we arrive to an infinite set of partial differential equations: &=& ( - \_[nm]{} ) + D\_[nm]{} ,\ &=& ( - \_[nm]{} - ) + C\_[nm]{} . \[PhiPsi\_ind\] In this paper we will restrict ourselves to axially symmetric field configurations, i.e., the index $m=0$ and we will drop it henceforth. Following the derivation of Geppert & Wiebicke (1991) the nonlinear coupling terms are D\_[n]{}= \_[k,k’]{} I\^[(2)]{}( \_k\_[k’]{} - \_k\_[k’]{}), \[Ind\_Phi\] C\_[n]{} &=& \_[k,k’]{} I\^[(2)]{} () +\ & & \_[k,k’]{} I\^[(3)]{} , \[Ind\_Psi\] where \_k\^[(1)]{} = ( -)\_k . Above, $\hat{\tau}$ = $\omega_B\tau/B$, and $I^{(2)},I^{(3)}$ are expressions that contain the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients which reflect the coupling properties of the field modes with different multipolarity (see Eq. (60) in Geppert & Wiebicke (1991)). Using the orthonormality properties of the spherical harmonics, the volume integrated magnetic energy can be calculated as &dV& B\^2 =\ &dr& \_[n]{} n(n+1) . As a criterion for the magnetic energy conservation we will check that the equality B\^2 dV = - dV , is satisfied during the evolution within a certain tolerance (typically less than $10^{-3}$). The integral on the l.h.s is evaluated over the volume occupied by the magnetic field (including the vacuum exterior region), while the integral on the r.h.s. is calculated over the region where currents exist (the crust). Outer Boundary Conditions ------------------------- ### Outside Vacuum Since we consider in this study realistic crusts with finite electric conductivity, surface currents are excluded. This means that we require all components of the magnetic field to be continuous across the NS surface, i.e. that the scalar fields $\Phi_n$ and $\Psi_n$, and the derivative $\frac{\partial \Phi_n}{\partial r}$ are continuous through the outer boundary (see also R[ä]{}dler 1973). The external vacuum solution of a NS magnetic field is determined by $\nabla \times \vec{B}=0$, $\nabla \cdot \vec{B}= 0$ and the boundary conditions. From Eq. (\[currents\]), the vanishing curl condition leads to \_[n]{} \_ = 0 r R, which can be expressed as $\Delta \Phi =0$, where $\Delta$ is the Laplacian. The index $m=0$ in $Y_{nm}$ has been omitted for simplicity. The only physical solution of this equation is $\Phi_n=a_nr^{-n}$. Therefore, the requirement of continuity across the surface results in = -\_n r=R. \[OBC\_Phi\] Because the poloidal current must also vanish in vacuum, we can derive another general boundary condition \_n= 0 rR . The existence of surface currents may affect the condition on the $\theta$–component of the poloidal current density, but there cannot exist radial currents penetrating into the vacuum. Thus the outer boundary condition for the toroidal field is simply \_[n]{} =0 r=R. \[OBC\_Psi\] In general, the poloidal tangential $\theta$–component of the current density has to vanish at the surface only if the electric conductivity vanishes there. Then, according to Ohm’s law, any finite tangential current density would cause an infinite tangential electrical field which is in contradiction to the energy conservation guaranteed by Maxwell’s equations. Therefore, in the case of $\sigma=0$ at $r=R$, any solution of the induction equation which fulfills the boundary condition $\Psi_{n} =0 \;\; {\rm at}\;\, r=R$ will be characterized by vanishing tangential surface currents, i.e. $ \Psi_{n}=\frac{\partial \Psi_n}{\partial r}=0 \;\; {\rm at}\;\; r=R$. Inner Boundary Conditions ------------------------- The inner boundary conditions are determined by the transition from normal to superconducting matter at the crust–core interface $r=R_i$. The Meissner–Ochsenfeld effect demands that the normal component of the magnetic field has to vanish at $r=R_i$. Continuity of the tangential component of the electric field together with Ohm’s law enforces that component to vanish at $r=R_i$ because otherwise the infinite electric conductivity would cause infinite tangential current densities, finally destroying the superconducting state. For a spherically symmetric NS, the normal component of the magnetic field is its $r-$component as given by Eq. (\[bpoltor\]). Thus, the inner boundary condition for the poloidal field is \_n = 0 r = R\_i . \[IBC\_Phi\_1\] The tangential component of the electric field consists of $\theta-$ and $\varphi-$components. For the $\varphi-$component we find, after some algebra: E\_&=&\_[n,n’]{}\ &+& \_n( -\_n). This electric field component has to vanish at the surface of the superconducting core. Since $\Phi_n=0$ at $r=R_i$ , this condition reads \_[n,n’]{} + \_n( ) = 0. This condition is obviously not suited to find an inner boundary condition for the toroidal field. Therefore, we have to consider the $\theta-$component of the electric field which consists of three contributions: E\_ = \_ Using again the expressions of Eq. (\[bpoltor\]) and taking again into account that $\Phi_n(r=R_i)=0$, the term $\left(\nabla \times \vec{B}_{\rm pol}\right) \times \vec{B}_{\rm pol}$ vanishes and it remains from the condition $E_{\theta}=0$ at the inner boundary that \_n + \_[n,n’]{} n(n+1) \_n\_[n’]{}Y\_[n’]{} = 0 . Multiplying both sides with $\frac{\partial Y_l^{\ast}} {\partial \theta}$ and integrating over the solid angle the orthonormality of the spherical harmonics returns =- \_[k,k’]{} I\^[(2)]{} \_k\_[k’]{}. \[IBC\_Psi\] Hollerbach & R[ü]{}diger (2002) applied the above boundary condition in the limit of $\omega_B \tau \rightarrow \infty$, avoiding thereby the difficulties the non–linearity will cause. We use the general form of Eq. (\[IBC\_Psi\]), since during the cooling process of the NS, there certainly will be periods during which it is not justified to neglect the dissipative term. Comments on the evolution of purely toroidal fields =================================================== From Eqs. (\[PhiPsi\]), (\[Ind\_Phi\]), and (\[Ind\_Psi\]) it is readily seen that an initial purely toroidal field ($\Phi=0$ at $t=0$) will not develop a poloidal part and does remain purely toroidal. For clarity, we will use in this section the $\varphi$–component of the magnetic field ($B_\varphi$) as a variable. In axial symmetry, it is related to $\Psi$ through \_[tor]{} B\_ = - . In order to make evident the effect of the Hall drift we will use cylindrical coordinates ($R, \varphi, z$). In the Appendix A we have written the general form of the induction equation in cylindrical coordinates, with a decomposition of the magnetic field as used by Hollerbach & Rüdiger (2002). When considering the case of purely toroidal fields, neglecting for simplicity the dissipative term (limit of strong magnetization), and assuming constant electron density $n_e$, the induction equation is reduced to a single evolution equation for the variable $B_\varphi$: = - = , \[Burgers\] where we have used that ${\hat{\tau}}/{\hat{\sigma}}={c}/{4 \pi e n_e}$. In this form, the Hall–dominated induction equation has the form of the inviscid Burgers equation with a wave velocity that depends on the variable $B_\varphi$, and on the coordinate $R$. This has been pointed out by Reisennegger et al. (2005) who also concluded that it leads to the formation of current sheets. In this way, the formulation illustrates very clearly that the originally (in the limit of weak field) purely parabolic diffusion equation changes its character to hyperbolic when the Hall term dominates. The analogy between the induction equation and the Burgers equation was discussed before by Vainshtein et al. (2000) but there are a few more qualitative differences we should notice. Vainshtein et al. (2000) derived the analogy with the Burgers equation in Cartesian coordinates, assuming no dependence of the field on the $z$-coordinate. In this particular case, it is necessary to consider a stratified medium in order to have the Hall drift leading to the formation of current sheets. Our result is more general: even in the uniform density case, the geometry of a NS crust (axially symmetric toroidal field in a conducting [spherical shell]{}) leads to a Burgers-like equation that does not admit stationary solutions. Depending on the sign of the gradient, the field will drift [vertically]{} in one or the other direction, leading to the formation of current sheets either at the surface, or at the crust-core interface. The purely vertical drift acting within a spherical shell (the crust) will result inevitably in fast dissipation locally, wherever current sheets are formed. Moreover, when we consider NS models with a stratified electron number density, the gradient in $n_e$ through the NS crust may additionally support the creation of current sheets (mainly close to the crust–core interface). But there is yet another important problem related to the change from parabolic to hyperbolic character of the induction equation for purely toroidal fields. It is well known that the solutions of the inviscid Burgers equation develop discontinuities or, if a small viscous term is present, steep gradients. This is probably the reason why spectral methods have always failed when trying to solve numerically the induction equation for large magnetization parameters. The system evolves naturally to form a discontinuity or sharp gradient in $B_{\varphi}$ on a characteristic timescale which can be shown to be $\approx \tau_{\rm Hall}$ (the Hall timescale is defined below in Eq. (\[tau\_Hall\])) \_[shock]{} = ( )\^[-1]{} = ( )\^[-1]{} , which is of the order of $\approx 10^6-10^7$ yr for $B=10^{13}$ G and typical lengthscale of 1 km. However, it can be much shorter for stronger fields and small scale structures generated by the Hall cascade. A similar timescale characterizes the typical travel time of a magnetic perturbation to reach either the surface or the core–crust boundary, \_[travel]{} = ( )\^[-1]{}, where $d$ denotes the distance between the initial position of the perturbation in the crust and the surface or the crust–core interface. The formation of a shock by the compression of the field against the inner or outer boundaries will cause unavoidable numerical instabilities and/or the Gibb’s phenomenon if one tries to solve the problem by means of spectral methods. Note that, locally and temporarily, the three characteristic timescales ($\tau_{\rm Hall},\tau_{\rm shock},$ and $\tau_{\rm travel}$) may coincide or differ by orders of magnitude, because they are proportional to the second, first, and zeroth derivative of the field strength, respectively. These characteristic timescales become different once small-scale structure or current sheets appear, creating small length scales in addition to the larger crust size. This makes any reasoning based on those timescales questionable; only a serious numerical study of the Hall drift can yield an idea about its effects on the crustal magnetic field evolution. For the simple case of a Burgers-like equation with constant $n_e$, (see Eq. (\[Burgers\])), we have checked that upwind methods, specifically designed to deal with hyperbolic equations, work very well in regimes $\omega_B \tau \rightarrow \infty$, in which a spectral method fails. Thus, the numerical problems observed with spectral codes for $\omega_B \tau \ga 100$ are most likely caused by an intrinsic limitation of the numerical approach. In the general case, having both poloidal and toroidal field components in a stratified spherical shell, the field evolution is not so simple. Then, the equations are strongly coupled, they have both a parabolic and a hyperbolic part and it is difficult to guess what is the best strategy to solve them. It is not the scope of this paper to give the final answer about the best numerical technique. We intend to point out in this section that there are deep unavoidable reasons that lead to unsurmountable problems in many cases. For the rest of the paper, we will focus on simulations with realistic NS models that can be handled by our hybrid method. We take advantage of a seldom occasion: the more realistic model causes less numerical problems than the constant density model. The reason is that current sheets are faster smoothed out in the shell layers just below the surface, because their electric conductivity is orders of magnitudes smaller than in the inner crust. In addition, in the long run, the toroidal field seems to find a quasi-equilibrium configuration in which the effect of the gradient of conductivity is counterbalancing the Hall drift. Such an equilibrium can not be established for non-stratified crustal models. [lccc]{} & $B_{\rm pol}$ & $B_{\rm tor}$ & [Multipole]{}\ & ($10^{13}$ G) & ($10^{13}$ G) & [(toroidal)]{}\ A & 10 & -100 & $n=2$\ B & 10 & 100 & $n=2$\ C & 10 & -100 & $n=1$\ D & 1 & -10 & $n=2$\ E & 20 & -200 & $n=2$\ F & 50 & -50 & $n=1$\ G &100 & -100 & $n=2$\ \[models\] The NS model and the initial conditions. ======================================== Our aim is to study the global evolution of the magnetic field in isolated NSs. The Hall drift occurs both in the fluid core and in the solidified crust. While the effect of the Hall drift in the core is less obvious and may proceed on a timescale of the order of the Hubble time (insert $L_5=10\; {\rm and}\; \rho \approx 10\rho_{\rm nuc}$ into Eq. (61) of Goldreich & Reisenegger (1992)), its effect can be crucial in the crustal field. In order to build the background NS model we have used a modern Skyrme-type equation of state (EOS) at zero temperature describing both, the NS crust and the liquid core, based on the effective nuclear interaction SLy [@DH91]. The low density EOS (below the neutron drip point) employed is that of Baym et al. (1971). With this EOS, we have built a NS model having a radius of about 11.7 km and a mass of 1.28 $M_\odot$. The central density is 8.83$\times 10^{14}$ g/cm$^3$ and its crust (from $\rho \approx 10^{10}$ g/cm$^3$ to $\approx 10^{14}$ g/cm$^3$) extends from 10.7 to 11.6 km. In Fig. \[fig1\] we show radial profiles of the electric conductivity $\sigma$ (solid lines) and $\omega_B \tau/B_{13}$ (dashed lines), where $B_{13}$ is $B$ in units of $10^{13}$ G, for three different temperatures. We have assumed a constant impurity concentration parameter $Q = {n_{\rm imp}(Z_{\rm imp}-Z)^{2}}/{n_{i}}$ of $Q=10^{-2}$. Here, $n_{\rm imp}$ and $n_{i}$ are the impurity and ion particle densities, respectively, and $Z_{\rm imp}$ is the charge number of the impurities. We have compared simulations with $Q=10^{-2}$ and $Q=10^{-4}$ without finding significant differences. A high impurity content could lead to even faster dissipation [@jones]. The figure illustrates the fact that the electric conductivity varies by $3 - 4$ orders of magnitude within the crust and depends strongly on the temperature. The magnetization parameter scales linearly with $B$. For the fiducial field of $10^{13}$ G, it is of the order of unity for a temperature of $10^9$ K but can become as large as $1000$ as the star cools down. For magnetar field strength which both at the surface (radial poloidal component) and within the crust (meridional poloidal and toroidal components) may well exceed $B_{13}=10$, the magnetization parameter can reach locally values in excess of $10000$. From Fig. \[fig1\] one can also read the relevant timescales of the problem. The Ohmic timescale is \_[Ohm]{}= = \^2 where $\lambda$ is the typical magnetic field length-scale. Inserting some typical numbers, we get \_[Ohm]{}= 4.4 () ()\^2 10\^6 [years]{} On the other hand, the Hall timescale is \_[Hall]{}= . \[tau\_Hall\] The ratio of the Ohmic to Hall timescale is simply given by $\omega_B \tau$. From Fig. \[fig1\] we can infer that, if the temperature of a NS’s crust varies between $10^9$ and $10^8$ K during the first million years of its life, the average Ohmic timescale in the crust is $\approx 1$ Myr. For magnetized NSs, the ratio of the Ohmic to Hall timescale is approximately =(1-10)B\_[13]{} . Note, however, that such averaged timescales are of very restricted use to characterize the field evolution in NS crusts, since both the density and the magnetic field vary over many orders of magnitude there. There is no doubt, then, that in any circumstances there is magnetic field decay in the crust of young NSs. A different issue is whether or not this effect is observable when studying populations of older NSs. Because of the strong temperature dependence of the electrical conductivity, when a NS’s crust cools below $10^7$ K, typically one million years after birth, the Ohmic dissipation time increases significantly, and no rapid field decay can be expected after that age. For this reason, in this paper we want to focus on the initial evolution of magnetic fields in relatively young NS. In order to mimic the cooling process of a NS, we have started with a crust at $T=10^9$ K, a typical value after formation of the crust, at most within hours after birth, and we force the temperature of the isothermal crust to vary according to T(t) = 10\^9 (1 + 10\^[6]{} t\_6)\^[-1/6]{} where $t_6$ is the NS age in $10^6$ years. This approximation is valid during the neutrino cooling era if only modified URCA processes are operating (Page et al. 2006). It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss how the thermal and magnetic field evolution are coupled in detail, but this simple approximation is sufficient to capture the main effect: as the NS’s crust cools (from $10^9$ to $10^8$ K in about 1 Myr), via the decrease of the electron relaxation time ($\tau$), the Hall term becomes more and more important. When a significant part of the crustal field is dissipated and/or it has approached a force free configuration, its decay continues on a much longer Ohmic timescale. We have not included effects of temperature anisotropies within the crust, although they may be important. This will be addressed in detail in future works. The other microphysical input needed for performing the simulations is the electrical conductivity and the magnetization parameter. Since, as the temperature drops and the magnetic field evolves, the magnetization parameter and the electrical conductivities vary, at each time step we recompute the value of the relaxation time and the electrical conductivities by using the public code developed by A. Potekhin (1999) [^2]. Despite it causes some numerical efforts, we have chosen to be as realistic as possible and use this state-of-the-art microphysical ingredients to account for the effect of composition stratifications. Initial magnetic field configuration. ------------------------------------- Little is known with certainty about the initial magnetic field strength and structure. Recently, Braithwaite (2006) and Geppert & Rheinhardt (2006) have shown that sufficiently rapid rotation can stabilize dipolar toroidal and poloidal fields of magnetar strength against MHD instabilities occurring immediately after completion of the proto-NS phase. Only preliminary results are available about the stability of magnetic field structures consisting of a poloidal–toroidal mixture. Our conclusion about the origin of strong toroidal crustal fields that probably exist in magnetars and quite certainly exist in thermally emitting NSs with a highly non–uniform surface temperature distribution (Geppert et al. 2004, 2006; Pérez–Azorín et al. 2006a, 2006b) is, therefore, that they have probably been generated at birth. Later, they were stabilized against Tayler instabilities, and have been frozen into the solid crust when it forms. Alternatively, the presence of sufficiently strong temperature gradients both close to the crust–core interface and in the degenerate surface layers (Wiebicke & Geppert 1995) are able to convert thermal into magnetic energy very effectively via a thermoelectric instability. In this case, the magnetic energy will be predominantly stored in toroidal field structures. We have considered quite different initial structures: purely poloidal and purely toroidal ones, with initial dipolar and quadrupolar modes, and several mixed initial fields where the ratio between the energies stored in the toroidal and poloidal field parts is varied. For the poloidal field, our initial configurations are chosen to be free Ohmic decaying modes (strictly speaking, pure decay modes for constant conductivity profiles) satisfying the boundary conditions. For a given angular multipole ($n$), the radial eigenfunctions can be written as linear combination of spherical Bessel functions of the first (${\rm j}_n$) and second (${\rm n}_n$) kind \_n(r) = a r [j]{}\_n(r) + b r [n]{}\_n(r) where $\mu$ is the radial wavenumber. The boundary conditions fix the wavenumber $\mu$ and the ratio $b/a$. For the models presented in this paper, the overall normalization factor has been chosen to fix the radial component at the pole of the dipolar ($n=1$) component to the values of $B_{pol}$ listed in Table \[models\]. The initial toroidal field is given by \_l(r) = c \[(r-R\_[i]{})(r-R)\]\^2 where the constant $c$ is determined by the maximum value of $B_\varphi$. In Table 1 we summarize the models employed in this work, differing in the initial values and relative sign of the poloidal and toroidal components. Results and discussion. ======================= We present now the results of our numerical simulations of the field evolution in the crust and its dependence on the initial magnetic field structure and strength. We will restrict this presentation to the selection of initial models described in Table \[models\], although we have performed a number of different simulations with a variety of initial configurations. In particular, we have reproduced some of the toy models (constant $\hat{\sigma}$ and $\hat{\tau}$) found in the literature [@HR02] to test our code. We saw a good qualitative agreement with only minor quantitative differences. We have also performed simulations of the evolution of purely toroidal fields, which remain toroidal forever, for testing purposes. For conciseness, we will discuss now only realistic models of magnetized NSs. In Fig. \[fig2\], \[fig3\], and \[fig4\] we present the evolution of models $A$, $B$ and $C$. For three representative ages, we show both the poloidal magnetic field lines (top panels) and the contours of constant toroidal field strength (bottom panels). The crustal shell has been stretched by a factor of 4 for clarity. Models $A$ and $B$ differ only in the relative sign of its toroidal component which is for both models initially quadrupolar ($n=2$), while model $C$ has an initially dipolar ($n=1$) toroidal field with the same radial profile as model $A$. In all cases the models have the same maximum toroidal field strength. The different sign of the toroidal field affects the direction of the Hall drift (toward north or south). The other important effect is due to the gradient of the electric conductivity, which always causes the tendency to displace field lines towards the inner crust. For Model A, we see in the central panel how the Hall drift compresses magnetic field lines near the equator, while the results for Model B show the opposite tendency. Model C, due to its dominant initial dipolar structure, shows a global displacement of the magnetic field towards the south pole, that results in a fast dissipation in the high resistivity surface region near the south pole. During that phase, the interplay of the poloidal and toroidal field modes is very intense. The magnetic field is dragged and twisted, thereby creating current sheets. At these sites of very efficient dissipation the toroidal field weakens rapidly and, after becoming about equally strong as the poloidal field, the latter tends to return into its original position. This sequence of twisting and stretching and subsequent release of the twisted field characterizes this epoch by its oscillatory behaviour. However, looking at the right panels, we see that after about half a million years, all poloidal fields have a very similar appearance. The strongly dissipated, and now weaker, toroidal components, become more regular than in the Hall phase, and they are dominated by the $n=2$ or $n=3$ modes. [^3] The main conclusion from these results is that the initial magnetic field configuration largely determines the early evolution ($< 10^5$ yr). On the long run, however, there seems to exist a clear tendency to establish a more stable configuration, consisting of a dipolar poloidal component in combination with higher order toroidal field modes. This fact can be better understood when looking at the evolution of the radial profiles of the dominant modes, as shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. At early times, say $t=20$ kyr, the interplay between the toroidal and poloidal components results in a different evolution of $\Phi_1$, although the shape is qualitatively similar. After half a million years, the poloidal field is clearly dominant, and very similar for all models. The toroidal field is weaker (in real units, about a factor of 2-3 smaller than the poloidal field) and concentrated towards the inner crust. It is interesting to notice that also $\Psi_2$ is rapidly driven towards a similar shape in all cases, indicating that after the fast initial transient the gradient of the conductivity determines a sort of [quasi-equilibrium]{} field. It is also interesting to look at the evolution of the total magnetic energy (Fig. \[fig6\]) to understand the different evolutionary stages that the NS passes through. Firstly, it is remarkable how all models have a very similar evolution, and how they converge at late times towards a similar exponential decay. For all models, the magnetic energy has been dissipated by a factor 10 to 20 after 0.5 Myr. Secondly, we can clearly differentiate between the initial fast decay, in which the field can dissipate one half of its energy in only $\sim 10^4$ yr. This is caused by the much smaller initial conductivity at higher temperatures combined with the effects of the Hall drift. During the subsequent stage, the Ohmic dissipation timescale (about half a million years) is almost identical for all models. Obviously, the first stage is of great importance for models with initially stronger fields, i.e. it will play an important role for NSs born as magnetars. This seems to be the only period, before the photon cooling era, when the Hall drift will qualitatively affect the field evolution. In general, the models in which the initial ratio of toroidal to poloidal field is small (models F,G) decay slower than those with large ratios (models A,B,C,E). Among the latter, the stronger the initial field, the more efficient is the dissipation during the Hall phase. The Ohmic dissipation rate appears to be faster than what has been usually discussed in the literature. The reason is that we are simulating for the first time the evolution of NS models with a realistic profile of electron density, composition, conductivity, etc., [including]{} the coupling between different field modes through the non–linear Hall term. The effect of the Hall drift is twofold: it causes the transfer of magnetic energy to smaller scale modes that decay faster and, in some cases, the displacement of the magnetic field to regions of higher resistivity where it is rapidly dissipated. In Fig. \[fig7\] we compare the evolution of the total magnetic energy in models A and G (thick dashes and solid lines, respectively) with the hypothetical evolution of the same initial configuration without the Hall drift (by setting $\hat{\tau} = 0$). After the initial phase (about 50 kyr) during which the models that include the Hall drift dissipate energy about $10-20 \%$ faster, the rate of energy dissipation becomes approximately the same. This makes evident that the initial departure of the exponential decay is partially caused by Hall drift, but also by the relatively rapid cooling of the crust that results in a significant time-dependence of the conductivity and of the magnetization parameter. Other cooling models, for example fast cooling due to the activation of direct URCA processes, may result in an initially different evolution. However, we think that on a secular timescale of about 0.1 Myr the system readjusts itself and the dissipation of magnetic field is mostly controlled by the Ohmic decay. In a future work we plan to couple a multidimensional cooling code with the magnetic field evolution to study different cooling scenarios. To finish the discussion in this section, we present in Fig. \[spect\] the power spectra for models A, B, and C at three different moments of the evolution. In the left panel, which corresponds to $t=1$ kyr, we see how the Hall cascade is filling very quickly the shorter wavelength modes (initially only $n=1$ and $n=2$ modes existed). At $t=10$ kyr, which corresponds roughly to the Hall timescale, the Hall cascade and perhaps the Hall instability have filled out all large wavenumber modes and approximately saturates following a $n^{-2}$ power law. This situation is kept for about 50 kyr (not shown in the figure), until the field has been dissipated by a significant amount, and the Hall term begun to lose its importance with respect to the regular Ohmic dissipation term. After half a million years the power spectrum is much steeper ($ \propto n^{-6}$), an indication that the Hall drift has lost its influence on the crustal field evolution. Spin down evolution. -------------------- Since the evolving crustal field may also have effects on the rotational evolution of the NS, we study the differences of the spin down behaviour between different models. In Fig. \[period\] we show the evolution of the period (top), period derivative (middle) and spin-down age ($t_{\rm sd}=P/(2\dot{P})$) (bottom) in four selected models with different initial dipolar field strengths. The line-styles correspond to models A (solid lines), D (dash-dotted line), E (dots), and G (dashes). A typical NS born as a magnetar would correspond to model G or, perhaps, E, while a typical pulsar such as Geminga would show the behaviour of model D. Notice that a minimum initial poloidal field of about $2\times 10^{14}$ G is required to explain the large rotation periods ($5-10$ s) of thermally emitting isolated NSs as the Magnificent Seven. This may be another indication towards a common evolutionary path in which some INSs were born as magnetars and their magnetic field has decreased one order of magnitude during their lifetimes. The evidence for crustal field decay presented here has also implications for estimates of the ages of old NSs. Pulsar spin down is thought to generally follow the prediction of the vacuum dipole model, which gives $\dot\nu\propto B^2\nu^3$, where $\nu$ is the spin rate. If the birth spin rate far exceeds the present spin rate and $B$ is constant, the age in this model is given by $t_{\rm sd}$. This expression is used as the standard estimate of a pulsar’s age. If the field is decaying according to our simulations, however, the relationship between the true age and $t_{\rm sd}$ given by the dipole model is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[period\]. It shows that $t_{\rm sd}$ seriously [overestimates]{} the age for NS older than $10^5$ years. This effect helps to reconcile the observed discrepancy between the spin-down ages and independent measures of the ages of some isolated NSs. Another interesting feature is the rapid variation of the dipolar poloidal component during the Hall epoch. Of course, the total magnetic energy always decreases, but the $n=1$ poloidal component may exhibit an oscillatory behavior. This is a result of the efficient energy transfer between the large scale toroidal and the dipolar poloidal field modes, i.e. an genuine effect of the Hall drift. Assuming that only the $n=1$ component contributes to spin down the star, the oscillations of the dipolar poloidal surface field affect the braking index $n=\nu \ddot{\nu}/\dot{\nu}^2$, as shown in Fig. \[brak\]. During the first $\sim 10^5$ years of their lives, sufficiently magnetized NSs will show a quite erratic variation of the braking index, that may reach any value from 1.5 to 4. The oscillations of the braking index continue even until $\sim 5\times10^5$ years, when the initial toroidal field is stronger, as seen for model E which has an initial maximum toroidal field of $2\times 10^{15}$ G. At late times, once Ohmic dissipation is controlling the evolution and the dipolar magnetic field decreases steadily, the braking index gradually increases and might reach very high values. This process will be inverted after the crustal field is dissipated almost completely and the rotational evolution of the NS is determined by the much longer timescale of the core field expulsion. In that period, the braking index will approach its canonical (dipolar) value of $3$ again. Our results for the braking index evolution coincide very well with the observed indices for middle aged pulsars (see Geppert & Rheinhardt g002). It can be shown that the braking index satisfies the relation n=3-2 3 + 4 , where we have introduced a typical magnetic field decay time $\tau_B=B/\dot{B}$ to derive the latter equality. The thin solid line in Fig. \[brak\] corresponds to this approximation with $\tau_B=0.8$ Myr. Notice that Fig. \[fig7\] shows the evolution of the total magnetic energy ($\propto B^2$), so that the decay time for the magnetic field is twice the value quoted in Fig. \[fig7\]. It should be noted that after $\approx 1$ Myr neutrino emission no longer controls the thermal evolution of a NSs, and our results do not apply. Moreover, the low temperatures reached at that time would increase significantly the conductivity (see Fig. \[fig1\]). Then, the purely Ohmic decay will proceed much slower, but also the magnetization parameter will increase, which may result in another [Hall stage]{} during the photon cooling era. In future work, we plan to extend our study to longer times with consistent temperature evolution. In addition, one always must keep in mind that the magnetic field component supported by currents and in the superconducting NS core would be dominant after the crustal field has been dissipated. This, however, is a completely different scenario that cannot be analyzed with our presently available tools. The Hall instability ? ---------------------- We have seen in our numerical studies some hints for the occurrence of the Hall instability, i.e., for the rapid, non–local in the momentum space, energy transfer from the initial large scale field modes into much smaller ones. Related spectral features can be seen e.g. in Fig. \[spect\], where local maxima appear. However, at the present level of energy conservation ($99.9\%$) and our limiting angular resolution ($n_{\rm max}=120$, although most of our runs were performed with $n_{\rm max}=50$) we can not clearly distinguish the truncation effects from the onset of the Hall instability. Therefore, we decided to postpone the study of the Hall instability in the NS crust to future work. Conclusions =========== The above presented results show that magnetic fields maintained by currents circulating in the crust of NSs are strongly rearranged and do decay significantly during the first million years of a NS’s life. In addition to purely Ohmic decay, which is faster in the first thousands of years when the electrical conductivity is relatively large due to the high crustal temperature, we find that the Hall drift may contribute noticeably to accelerate the dissipation of magnetic fields. For typical field strengths of $10^{14}$ G, we observe a [Hall drift dominated]{} stage followed by purely Ohmic decay proceeding in a timescale of the order of 1 Myr. Depending on the strength and structure of the initial magnetic field, this Hall phase lasts a few $10^3$–$10^4$ years and it is characterized by an intense exchange of magnetic energy between the poloidal and toroidal components of the field and by the redistribution of magnetic field energy between different scales. It can be expected that such rearrangements and the relatively rapid field decay have observational consequences, as can be observed in magnetars. Of course, whether this first phase plays an important role and how distinctive it is depends on the initial field strength and structure and how fast the NS cools. If a NS begins its life as a magnetar its external dipolar field is $> 10^{14}$ G. Within the crust, however, the internal magnetic field may locally exceed that value by about one order of magnitude. Thus, even the expected initial high crustal temperatures of $\ga 10^9$K, which cause a relative small electron relaxation time ($\tau$), cannot avoid that $\omega_B\tau \gg 1$ in a large fraction of the crust volume. The toroidal part of the field is specially affected by the Hall drift. There are two main effects acting upon the toroidal fields: it is globally displaced toward the inner crust because of the almost everywhere negative conductivity gradient and, depending on the relative sign with respect to the poloidal component, it tends to move vertically toward one or the other magnetic pole. After the Hall stage, during which the toroidal field is strongly rearranged and dissipated, the long term evolution seems to select, generally, a predominantly quadrupolar/octupolar structure concentrated in the inner crust and with tendency to be stronger close to the poles. This multipolar structure will determine the surface temperature distribution of middle aged NSs, that could be more complex than previously thought. Such complex field structures and the local deposition of energy by Joule heating favor surface temperature distributions characterized not only by two hot polar caps, but for example by a hot equatorial belt, as has been probably seen in RX J0720.4-3125 (Haberl et al. 2006, Pérez–Azorín et al. 2006b) or can be inferred from the light curve of RBS 1223 (Schwope et al. 2005). Though the toroidal part of the crustal field undergoes a spectacular dissipation and rearrangement, the coupling between both parts also affects the evolution of the poloidal field, which is responsible for the spin down of NSs. Thus, the complex interaction of Hall drift and Ohmic dissipation is also reflected in the temporal behaviour of the braking index and, in principle, accessible for observations. Our models show that the braking index of young ($\la 10^5$ years), magnetized NSs exhibits a quite wild variation, and can reach any value from 1.5 to 4. After the Hall stage, when Ohmic dissipation controls the evolution and the dipolar magnetic field decreases steadily, the braking index gradually increases and might reach very high values. This process will cease after the crustal field is dissipated almost completely, or when the conductivity increases as the NS cools down. During the photon cooling era, the braking index will approach its canonical (dipolar) value of $3$ again. If the initial magnetic field is too weak ($\la 10^{12}$G) for the Hall stage to be relevant, the evolution will proceed according to purely Ohmic field decay. The very existence of magnetars and of their presumable descendants, thermally emitting NSs with $B\approx 10^{13}$ G, suggests that the fraction of NSs born with large magnetic fields may be larger than expected. This work has been supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología grant AYA 2004-08067-C03-02. JAP is supported by a [Ramón y Cajal]{} contract from the Spanish MEC. Induction equation in cylindrical coordinates. ============================================== In this appendix we use a different set of variables to derive the induction equation in cylindrical coordinates ($R\equiv r\sin\theta, \varphi, z\equiv r\cos\theta$) and use the notation of Hollerbach & Rüdiger (2002). Alternatively to our decomposition in Eq. (\[bfield\]), one can in axial symmetry simply work with the $\varphi$-components of the vector potential and of the magnetic field, =\_[pol]{} + \_[tor]{} = (A\_\_) + B\_\_. In cylindrical coordinates, we can write explicitly the different components of the magnetic field and the current density: &=& - \_R + \_z +B\_\_,\ = &=& - \_R + \_z + \_\_, where we have introduced the notation \_-\^2 A\_+ . The induction equation in terms of this variables reads: &=& - \_ -\ &=& \_( \[(\_[pol]{}) \_[pol]{} + (\_[tor]{}) \_[tor]{}\] )\ &+& . The term appearing in the r.h.s. of the first equation can be written as follows: \_= \_ . The two terms inside the curl of the second equation are (\_[tor]{}) \_[tor]{} &=& - (RB\_)\ (\_[tor]{}) \_[pol]{} &=& (RA\_) Then, taking the curl and after some algebra, the two terms appearing in the equation for $B_\varphi$ can be written as follows: \_&=& \_\ &=& -\ \_&=& - \_, where the first one is used in the derivation of Eq. (\[Burgers\]). Baym, G., Pethick, C.J., Pines, D. 1969, Nature, 224, 674 Baym, G., Pethick, C.J., Sutherland, P. 1971, , 170, 299 Braithwaite, J. 2006, A&A 453, 687 Cumming, A., Arras, P., & Zweibel E. 2004, , 609, 999 Douchin, F. & Haensel, P. 2001, A&A, 380, 151 Geppert, U., Küker, M., & Page, D. 2004, A&A, 426, 267 Geppert, U., Küker, M., & Page, D. 2006, A&A, 457, 937 Geppert, U. & Rheinhardt, M. 2002, A&A, 392, 1015 Geppert, U. & Wiebicke, H.-J. 1991, A&A Suppl. Ser., 87, 217 Gil, J., Melikidze, G., & Geppert, U. 2003, A&A, 407, 315 Gil, J., Melikidze, G., & Zhang, B. 2006, , 650, 1048 Goldreich, P. & Reisenegger, A. 1992 , 95, 250 Gonthier, P., van Guilder, R., & Harding, A. 2004, , 604, 775 Haberl, F., Turolla, R., de Vries, C., et al. 2006, A&A, 451, L17 Haensel, P., Urpin, V., & Yakovlev, D. 1990, A&A, 229, 133 Harding, A.K. & Lai, D. 2006, Rep. Prog. Phys., 69, 2631 Hartman, J., Bhattacharya, D., Wijers, R., & Verbunt, F. 1997, A&A, 322, 477 Hollerbach, R. & Rüdiger, G. 2002, , 337, 216 Johnston, S. & Galloway, D. 1999, , 306, L50 Jones, P.B. 2004, , 93, 221101 Konenkov, D. & Geppert, U. 2001, 325, 426 Muslimov, A. 1994, , 267,523 Naito, T. & Kojima, Y. 1994, , 266, 597 Page, D., Geppert, U., & Weber, F. 2006, Nucl. Phys. A, 777, 497 Pérez–Azorín, J.F., Miralles J.A., & Pons J.A. 2006a, A&A, 451, 1009 Pérez–Azorín, J.F., Pons, J.A., Miralles J.A., & Miniutti, G., 2006b, A&A, 459, 175 Pons, J.A, Link, B., Miralles J.A., & Geppert, U. 2007, , 98, 071101 Pons, J.A, Walter, F.M., Lattimer, J.M. et al. 2002, ApJ, 564, 981 Potekhin, A.Y., 1999, A&A 351, 787 Rädler, K.H. 1973, Astron. Nachr., 294, 213 Regimbau, T. & de Freitas Pacheco, J. 2001, A&A, 374, 182 Reisenegger, A., Prieto, J.P., Benguria, R.,Lai, D., Araya, P.A. 2005 in “Magnetic Fields in the Universe: From Laboratory and Stars to Primordial Structures”. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 784, 263 Rheinhardt, M. & Geppert, U. 2002, , 88, 101103 Ruderman, M.A. & Sutherland, P.G. 1975, , 196, 51 Schwope, A., Hambaryan, V., Haberl, F., & Motch, C. 2005, A&A, 441, 597 Shalybkov, D. & Urpin, V. 1997, A&A, 321, 685 Urpin, V. & Shalybkov, D. 1995, A&A, 294, 117 Vainshtein, S.I., Chitre, S.I., & Olinto, A.V. 2000, , 61, 4422 van Adelsberg, M., Lai, D., & Potekhin, A. 2005, , 628, 902 Wiebicke, H.-J. & Geppert, U. 1995, A&A, 294, 303 Woods, P. & Thompson, C. 2006, in “Compact Stellar X-ray Sources”, eds. W.H.G. Lewin and M. van der Klis, Cambridge University Press, p. 547 Yakovlev, D. & Shalybkov, D. 1991, Ap&SS, 176, 191 [^1]: Their parameter $R_B$ is equivalent to our $\omega_B\tau$ calculated for a fixed, initial magnetic field strength $B_0$. [^2]: [www.ioffe.rssi.ru/astro/conduct/condmag.html]{} [^3]: The black/white figures presented here are snapshots and yield only a vague impression of the evolution of the magnetic field with Hall drift and Ohmic diffusion, everything coupled with the cooling of the crust. We advice the reader to look at the movies, available under [http://www.dfa.ua.es/UNS06/movies.html]{}, where the evolution is visualized in much more detail.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We consider the problem of approximate joint triangularization of a set of noisy jointly diagonalizable real matrices. Approximate joint triangularizers are commonly used in the estimation of the joint eigenstructure of a set of matrices, with applications in signal processing, linear algebra, and tensor decomposition. By assuming the input matrices to be perturbations of noise-free, simultaneously diagonalizable ground-truth matrices, the approximate joint triangularizers are expected to be perturbations of the exact joint triangularizers of the ground-truth matrices. We provide a priori and a posteriori perturbation bounds on the ‘distance’ between an approximate joint triangularizer and its exact counterpart. The a priori bounds are theoretical inequalities that involve functions of the ground-truth matrices and noise matrices, whereas the a posteriori bounds are given in terms of observable quantities that can be computed from the input matrices. From a practical perspective, the problem of finding the best approximate joint triangularizer of a set of noisy matrices amounts to solving a nonconvex optimization problem. We show that, under a condition on the noise level of the input matrices, it is possible to find a good initial triangularizer such that the solution obtained by any local descent-type algorithm has certain global guarantees. Finally, we discuss the application of approximate joint matrix triangularization to canonical tensor decomposition and we derive novel estimation error bounds.' author: - 'Nicolo Colombo[^1]' - 'Nikos Vlassis[^2]' title: Approximate Joint Matrix Triangularization --- Introduction ============ We address an estimation problem that appears frequently in engineering and statistics, whereby we observe noise-perturbed versions of a set of jointly decomposable matrices $M_n$, and the goal is to recover (within a bounded approximation) some aspects of the underlying decomposition. An instance of this problem is [approximate joint diagonalization]{}: $$\label{jointschur} \hat M_n = M_n + \sigma W_n, \qquad M_n = V^{} {\rm diag}([\Lambda_{n1}, \dots, \Lambda_{nd}]) V^{-1}, \qquad n=1,\ldots,N ,$$ where $\hat M_n$ are the $d \times d$ observed matrices, and the rest of the model primitives are unobserved: $\sigma > 0$ is a scalar, $W_n$ are arbitrary noise matrices with Frobenius norm $\\| W_n \\| \leq 1$, and the matrices $V, \Lambda$ define the joint eigenstructure of the ground-truth matrices $M_n$. The optimization problem involves estimating from the observed matrices $\hat M_n$ the eigenvalues $\Lambda$ and/or the common factors $V$. Joint matrix diagonalization appears in many notable applications, such as independent component analysis [@cardoso1996jacobi], latent variable model estimation [@balle2011spectral; @AnimaJMLR14], and tensor decomposition [@Lat06; @Kuleshov15]. Under mild conditions, the ground-truth matrices $M_n$ in can be jointly triangularized, which is known as the (real) joint or simultaneous Schur decomposition [@horn2012matrix]. Namely, there exists an orthogonal matrix $U_\circ$ that simultaneously renders all matrices $U_\circ^T M_n U_\circ$ upper triangular: $$\label{schur decomposition} {\rm low}(U_\circ^T M_n U_\circ ) = 0 \qquad {\rm for \ all } \quad n=1, \dots N,$$ where low$(A)$ is the strictly lower-diagonal part of $A$ defined by $[\mbox{low}(A)]_{ij} = A_{ij}$ if $i>j$ and 0 otherwise. On the other hand, when $\sigma>0$ the noisy matrices $\hat M_n$ in cannot be jointly triangularized exactly. The problem of [approximate joint triangularization]{} can be defined as the following optimization problem over the manifold of orthogonal matrices ${\mathbb O}(d)$: $$\label{joint triangularization} \min_{U \in {\mathbb O}(d)} {\cal L}(U) = \sum_{n=1}^N \ \\| {\rm low}(U^\top \hat M_n U) \\|^2 \, .$$ In words, we are seeking an orthogonal matrix $U$ such that the matrices $\hat T_n = U^T \hat M_n U$ are approximately upper triangular. This is a nonconvex problem that is expected to be hard to solve to global optimality in general. When $\sigma > 0$, the global minimum of ${\cal L}(U)$ will not be zero in general, and for any feasible $U \in {\mathbb O}(d)$ some of the entries below the main diagonal of each $\hat T_n$ may be nonzero. The estimands of interest here could be the joint triangularizer $U$ and/or the approximate joint eigenvalues on the diagonals of $\hat T_n$. Applications of (approximate) joint matrix triangularization range from algebraic geometry [@corless1997reordered], to signal processing [@haardt_simultaneous_1998], to tensor decomposition [@sardouie_canonical_2013; @colombo2016icml]. When the ground-truth matrices $M_n$ are symmetric, the models and are equivalent and $V,U_\circ$ are both orthogonal. However, when the matrices $M_n$ are non-symmetric, the matrix $V$ in is a general nonsingular matrix, while the matrix $U_\circ$ in is still orthogonal. Since the optimization in is over a ‘nice’ manifold, approximate joint triangularization is expected to be an easier problem than approximate joint diagonalization, the latter involving optimization over the manifold of invertible matrices [@afsari2008sensitivity]. Two types of methods have been proposed for optimizing , Jacobi-like methods [@haardt_simultaneous_1998], and Newton-like methods that optimize directly on the matrix manifold ${\mathbb O}(d)$ [@afsari2004some; @colombo2016icml]. Both methods are of iterative nature and their success depends on a good initialization. Contributions ------------- We are interested in theoretical guarantees for solutions $U$ computed by [arbitrary]{} algorithms that optimize . Note that the objective function is continuous in the parameter $\sigma$. This implies that, for $\sigma$ small enough, the approximate joint triangularizers of $\hat M_n$ can be expected to be perturbations of the exact triangularizers of $M_n$. To formalize this, we express each feasible matrix $U$ in as a perturbation of an exact triangularizer $U_\circ$ of the ground-truth matrices $M_n$ in , that is $$\label{expansion Ustar} U = U_\circ e^{\alpha X}, \quad {\rm where } \quad X = -X^\top , \quad \\| X \\| = 1, \quad \alpha > 0 ,$$ where $X$ is a skew-symmetric matrix and $e$ denotes matrix exponential. Such an expansion holds for any pair $U,U_\circ$ of orthogonal matrices (see for example @absil_optimization_2009). The scalar $\alpha$ in can be interpreted as the ‘distance’ between $U$ and $U_\circ$. #### Perturbation bounds. We provide two different types of bounds on the parameter $\alpha$: A priori bounds that are based on ground-truth quantities (such as the ground-truth matrices, the sample size, and in some applications also the assumed probability distribution generating the data), and [a posteriori]{} bounds that involve solely observable quantities (such as the observed matrices and the current solution). While the former bounds are attractive theoretically as they can capture general perturbation effects on the matrix decomposition factors, the latter bounds can have more practical use, such as for instance in nonconvex optimization [@pang1987posteriori] and the design of optimized algorithms [@prudhomme2003practical]. [A priori analysis:]{} In Theorem \[theorem alpha\] and Theorem \[theorem X\] we provide two bounds that together offer a complete first-order characterization of the approximate triangularizers in terms of ground-truth quantities. The corresponding inequalities depend on the noise level, the condition number of the joint eigenvectors matrix, a joint eigengap parameter, the number of ground-truth matrices, and their norm. Theorem \[theorem X\] is the extension of the result derived by @cardoso1994perturbation for symmetric matrices. [A posteriori analysis:]{} In Theorem \[theorem alpha star\] we provide an error bound on the perturbation parameter $\alpha$, which is based on observable quantities that can be computed from the input matrices $\hat M_n$. In particular, the bound involves the value of ${\cal L}(U)$ evaluated at each candidate $U$, and various functions of the observed matrices $\hat M_n$ and their approximate joint eigenvalues. The only non-observable quantity appearing in the bound is the noise parameter $\sigma$ in , which, for instance in the case of joint matrix decomposition problems arising from empirical moment matching (see, e.g., @AnimaJMLR14), can be bounded by a function of the sample size. The bound in Theorem \[theorem alpha star\] is global, in the sense that it does not depend on the initialization, and can be used to characterize the output of any algorithm that optimizes . #### Global guarantees for locally convergent algorithms. Beyond the purely theoretical analysis of approximate joint matrix triangularization, we also address the practical problem of computing an approximate joint triangularizer in . Due to the nonconvexity of , locally convergent algorithms are guaranteed to converge to a given local optimum if the algorithm is started in the corresponding basin of attraction. The continuity in the parameter $\sigma$ of the objective function ${\cal{L}}(U)$ in can be used to show that, under certain conditions, a finite set of local minimizers of enjoy global success guarantees in terms of their distance to the ground-truth matrices. In Theorem we provide a condition under which it is always possible to initialize a locally convergent algorithm in the basin of attraction of such a provably good minimizer. Related work ------------ The problem addressed here has two main antecedents: The work of @konstantinov1994nonlocal on the perturbation of the Schur decomposition of a single matrix, and the work of @cardoso1994perturbation on the perturbation of joint diagonalizers. Our analysis can be viewed as an extension of the analysis of @konstantinov1994nonlocal to the multiple matrices case, and an extension of the analysis of @cardoso1994perturbation to joint matrix triangularization. We note that joint matrix triangularization is equivalent to joint spectral decomposition when the commuting matrices are symmetric. The proof of Theorem \[theorem X\] exploits the same idea of @cardoso1994perturbation, but with a few key technical differences that pertain to non-symmetric / non-orthogonal matrices. We are not aware of other works dealing with the perturbation of joint matrix triangularizers. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, our bound in Theorem \[theorem alpha star\] is the first [a posteriori]{} error bound for joint matrix decomposition problems. From an algorithmic point of view, various approaches to approximate joint matrix triangularization have been proposed in the literature. The simplest one is a matrix-pencil technique (see for example @corless1997reordered) where a linear combination of the input matrices is decomposed using established methods for the Schur decomposition of a single matrix. The solution obtained in that case is, however, not optimal and depends on the particular matrix pencil. A more standard way to formulate an approximate joint decomposition problem is to introduce a nonconvex objective function, as in , whose variables are the target shared matrix components [@cardoso1996jacobi; @haardt_simultaneous_1998; @abed1998least; @fu2006balanced; @Kuleshov15]. The nonconvex optimization problem is then solved via iterative methods that typically belong to two classes, Jacobi-like methods [@cardoso1996jacobi; @Kuleshov15], and matrix manifold optimization methods [@afsari2004some; @colombo2016icml]. Jacobi-like algorithms rely on the decomposition of the variables into single-parameter matrices (such as Givens rotations), whereas in a matrix manifold approach the objective is optimized directly on the matrix manifold. As demonstrated recently [@colombo2016icml], a Gauss-Newton method that optimizes directly on the matrix manifold ${\mathbb O}(d)$ can outperform the Jacobi-like method in terms of runtime by, roughly, one order of magnitude, for a statistically equivalent quality of the computed solutions. Finally, the problem of obtaining global guarantees for joint matrix decomposition algorithms has been considered by @Kuleshov15, but only for the case of matrix joint diagonalization. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first that provides global solution guarantees for the joint matrix triangularization problem, corroborating the strong empirical results that have been reported in the literature [@haardt_simultaneous_1998; @abed1998least]. Conventions ----------- All matrices, vectors and numbers are real. Let $A$ be a $d \times d$ matrix, then $A^T$ is the transpose of $A$, $A^{-1}$ is the inverse of $A$ and $A^{-T}$ is the inverse of the transpose of $A$. $A_{ij}$ (or $[A]_{ij}$) is the $(i,j)$ entry of $A$. The $i$th singular value of $A$ is denoted by $\sigma_{i}(A)$ and $\kappa(A) = \frac{\sigma_{max}(A)}{\sigma_{min}(A)}$ is the condition number of $A$. The matrix commutator $[A,B]$ is defined by $[A,B]=AB-BA$ and $\\| A \\| $ is the Frobenius norm defined by $\\| A \\|^2 = {\rm Tr}(A^T A) = \sum_{i,j} A_{ij}^2$. The Kronecker product is denoted by $\otimes$. Depending on the context, we use $1$ to denote a vector of ones or the identity matrix. ${\mathbb O}(d)$ is the manifold of orthogonal matrices $U$ defined by $U^T U = 1$. $T_{{\mathbb O}(d)}$ is the tangent space of ${\mathbb O}(d)$, i.e. the set of skew-symmetric matrices satisfying $A = - A^T$. ${\rm vec}(A)$ is the column wise vectorization of $A$. ${\rm low}(A)$ and ${\rm up}(A)$ are the strictly lower-diagonal and strictly upper-diagonal part of $A$ defined by $$[ {\rm low}\left(A \right)]_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} A_{ij} & {\rm if} \ i>j \\ 0 & {\rm if} \ i \leq j \end{array} \right.$$ $$[{\rm up}\left(A \right) ]_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} A_{ij} & {\rm if} \ i<j \\ 0 & {\rm if} \ i \geq j \end{array} \right.$$ ${\rm Low} \in \{0,1\}^{n^2\times n^2}$ and ${\rm Up}\in \{0,1\}^{n^2\times n^2}$ are linear operators defined by ${\rm vec}({\rm low}(A)) = {\rm Low} \ {\rm vec}(A)$ and ${\rm vec}({\rm up}(A)) = {\rm Up} \ {\rm vec}(A)$ respectively. $P_{\rm Low} \in \{0,1\}^{\frac{n (n-1)}{2} \times n^2}$ is the projector to the sub-space of (vectorized) strictly lower-diagonal matrices defined by $P_{\rm Low} P_{\rm Low}^T = 1$ and $P_{\rm Low}^T P_{\rm Low} = {\rm Low}$. For example, letting $d=4$, one has $$\begin{aligned} {\rm Low} &=& {\rm diag}\left([0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0]]\right) = {\rm diag}\left( 1^T P_{\rm low}^T \right) \\[5pt] P_{\rm low} &=& \left( \begin{array}{cccc cccc cccc cccc} 0&1&0&0& 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&1&0& 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&1& 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&0\\ % 0&0&0&0& 0&0&1&0& 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&1& 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&0\\ % 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&0& 0&0&0&1& 0&0&0&0\\ \end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for ${\rm Up}$ and $P_{\rm up}$. Exact joint triangularizers =========================== Consider the set of simultaneously diagonalizable matrices ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ \hat M_n \|_{\sigma = 0} \}_{n=1}^N$, with $\hat M_n$ defined in . A joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ is an orthogonal matrix $U_{\circ}$ such that $${\rm low}( U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} ) = 0 \qquad {\rm for \ all } \quad n=1, \dots N$$ The condition under which ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ admits a finite number of joint triangularizers is established by the following lemma. \[lemma non-degeneracy condition\] Let ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ \hat M_n \|_{\sigma = 0} \}_{n=1}^N$, with $\hat M_n$ defined in . Then if $$\label{non-degeneracy condition lemma} {\rm for \ every } \qquad i \neq i' \qquad {\rm there \ exists } \qquad n \in \{1, \dots, N \} \qquad {\rm s.t.} \quad \Lambda_{ni} \neq \Lambda_{ni'}$$ ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ admits $2^d d!$ exact joint triangularizers. A priori perturbation analysis ================================ Consider the approximate joint triangularization problem defined in and the expansion . Two theoretical bounds are provided in this section. The first one is an inequality for the parameter $\alpha$. The second one is an expression for the skew-symmetric matrix $X = -X^T$ that appears in . The explicit form of $X$ is given in terms of the ground-truth matrices $M_n$ and the noise matrices $\sigma W_n$. Both bounds are valid up to second order terms in the perturbation parameters $\alpha $ and $\sigma$, i.e. they hold up to $O((\alpha+\sigma)^2)$ terms. \[theorem alpha\] Let ${\cal M}_{\sigma} =\{ \hat M_n \}_{n=1}^N $ and ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ \hat M_n \|_{\sigma = 0} \}_{n=1}^N$ with $\hat M_n$ defined in . Assume ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ is such that is satisfied. Then there exists $U_\circ$, which is an exact joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ}$, such that an approximate joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\sigma}$ can be written as $$\label{approximate triangularizer theorem} U = U_{\circ} e^{\alpha X} \qquad X = -X^T \qquad \\|X \\| = 1$$ with $\alpha>0$ obeying $$\label{bound alpha theorem} \alpha \leq 2 \sqrt 2 \sigma \\| \tilde T^{-1} \\|_2 \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n\\|^2}\sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| W_n\\|^2} + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2)$$ where $M_n$ and $W_n$ are defined in , $\tilde T = \sum_{n=1}^N \tilde t_n^T \tilde t_n$ with $\tilde t_n = P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} \otimes ) P_{\rm low}^T$, and $\\| \tilde T^{-1}\\|_2$ is the spectral norm of the inverse of $\tilde T$. It is possible to find a more explicit upper bound of , given in terms of the ground matrices and $\sigma$. This result is provided by the following lemma \[lemma bound non spectral\] Let $\alpha$ be defined as in Theorem \[theorem alpha\], then $$\alpha \leq \frac{ 2 \sigma \sqrt{d(d-1)} \kappa(V)^4}{\gamma} \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n\\|^2 } \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| W_n\\|^2} + O((\alpha+\sigma)^2) \qquad \gamma = \min_{i < i'} \sum_{n=1}^N( \Lambda_{ni} -\Lambda_{ni'} )^2$$ where $V$, $M_n$, $W_n$ and $\Lambda$ are defined in . \[theorem X\] Let $U = U_{\circ} e^{\alpha X}$ be the approximate joint triangularizer defined in Theorem \[theorem alpha\]. An approximate expression for the matrix $\alpha X$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \alpha X = E -E^T \qquad E = {\rm mat}(P_{\rm low}^T x) \qquad \label{vec x first order} x = - \sigma \left( \sum_{n=1}^N \tilde t_n^T \tilde t_n \right)^{-1} \sum_{n=1}^N \tilde t^T_n P_{\rm low} {\rm vec}(U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ}) + O((\alpha+\sigma)^2) \end{aligned}$$ where $ \tilde t_n = P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} \otimes 1)P_{\rm low}^T $, with $M_n$ and $W_n$ defined in . #### Remarks on the theorems: The proof of these bounds is based on a first-order characterization of the approximate joint triangularizer $U$, which is defined as a stationary point of . The inequalities on the parameter $\alpha$ come from the analysis of the associated stationarity equation $\nabla {\cal L} = 0$, via a first order expansion around $U_\circ$, an exact joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\sigma= 0}$. A posteriori perturbation analysis {#section a posteriori} ==================================== The result of this section is an [a posteriori]{} bound on the magnitude of the approximation error: \[theorem alpha star\] Let ${\cal M}_{\sigma} =\{ \hat M_n \}_{n=1}^N $ and ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ \hat M_n \|_{\sigma = 0} \}_{n=1}^N$ with $\hat M_n$ defined in . Assume that ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ satisfies and the noise matrices $W_n$ defined in obey $\\| W_n\\| \leq 1$. Let $U$ be a feasible solution of the optimization problem . Then there exists $U_\circ$, which is an exact joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ}$, such that $U$ can be written as $$\label{approximate triangularizer} U = U_\circ e^{\alpha X} , \qquad X = -X^\top, \qquad \\|X \\| = 1, \qquad \alpha >0 ,$$ with $\alpha$ obeying $$\label{alpha bound} \alpha \leq \sqrt 2 \\| \beta \\| \\| \hat T_{\beta}^{-1} \\|_2 (\sqrt{{\cal L}(U)} + \sigma \sqrt{N} )+ O((\sigma+\alpha)^2)$$ where $\beta = [\beta_1, \dots, \beta_N] \in {\mathbf R}^{N}$, $\hat T_{\beta} = \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n P_{\rm low}(1 \otimes U^T \hat M_n^T U - U^T \hat M_n^T U \otimes 1) P_{\rm low}^T$, $\\| T^{-1}_{\beta} \\|_2 $ is the spectral norm of $T^{-1}_{\beta}$ and ${\cal L}(U)$ is defined in . #### Remarks on the theorem: Assuming an a priori knowledge of $\sigma$, the inequality depends only on quantities that can be computed from the observed matrices $\hat M_n$. The technique we have used to obtain the [a posteriori]{} bound follows an idea of @konstantinov1994nonlocal and is based on the perturbation equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{intro konstantinov} U^\top \bigg( \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n (M_n + \sigma W_n )\bigg) U &= \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n ( T_n + \varepsilon_n) , \qquad {\rm low}(T_n) = 0 , \qquad & \varepsilon_n = {\rm low} \bigg( U^\top\Big( \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n \hat M_n \Big) U \bigg)\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta = [\beta_1, \dots, \beta_N]$. The difference from the single matrix case studied by @konstantinov1994nonlocal is that the lower-diagonal terms $\varepsilon_n$ may be nonzero because an exact joint triangularizer may not exist. Global guarantees for locally convergent algorithms =================================================== The existence of at least one approximate joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\sigma} = \{ \hat M_n \}_{n=1}^N$ that is close to an exact triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ \hat M_n \|_{\sigma=0}\}_{n=1}^N$ is guaranteed by the continuity of in the noise parameter $\sigma$. The distance between such an approximate joint triangularizer, $U$, and the exact triangularizer, $U_{\circ}$, is bounded by the Theorem \[theorem alpha\]. If it is possible to compute a good initialization, a locally convergent algorithm is expected to converge to such $U$. The following theorem provides a way to compute such a good initialization, under certain conditions on the noise parameter $\sigma$. \[theorem convergence\] Let ${\cal M}_{\sigma} =\{ \hat M_n \}_{n=1}^N $ and ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ \hat M_n \|_{\sigma = 0} \}_{n=1}^N$ with $\hat M_n$ defined in . Assume that ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ satisfies and the noise matrices $W_n$ defined in obey $\\| W_n\\| \leq 1$. Let $\beta = [\beta_1, \dots, \beta_N] \in {\mathbf R}^N$ such that $$\min_{i<i'} \|{\rm Re}(\lambda_i(\hat M_\beta)-\lambda_{i'}(\hat M_\beta))\| >0 \qquad \hat M_\beta=\sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n \hat M_n ,$$ then a descent algorithm initialized with an orthogonal matrix $U_{init}$ such that ${\rm low}(U_{init}^T \hat M_\beta U_{init}) = 0 $ (obtained via the Schur decomposition of $\hat M_\beta$) converges to an approximate joint triangularizer defined by Theorem \[theorem alpha\] if the noise parameter $\sigma$ obeys $$\sigma \leq \frac{2 \varepsilon }{ \sqrt{2N} \\| \hat T^{-1}_\beta\\|_2 A_{\alpha} + A_{\sigma} } + O(\sigma^2)$$ where $$\varepsilon = \frac{\gamma}{2 \kappa(V)^4} \qquad \gamma = \min_{i<i'} \sum_{n=1}^N(\Lambda_{ni}-\Lambda_{ni'})^2$$ $$\hat T_\beta = P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes U^T_{init} \hat M^T_\beta U_{init} - U^T_{init} \hat M_\beta U_{init} \otimes 1) P_{\rm low} \qquad A_\alpha = 32 \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n\\|^2 \qquad A_\sigma = 16 \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2}$$ with $M_n$, $V$ and $\Lambda$ defined in . #### Remarks on the theorem: The proof of the theorem consists of two steps: \(i) We first characterize the convex region containing an exact joint triangularizer $U_{\circ}$, in terms of $\alpha_{max}$, the distance from $U_{\circ}$. This is obtained by requiring that the Hessian of computed at $U = U_{\circ} e^{\alpha X} $ is positive definite for all $X$ (with $\\|X \\|=1 $) if $\alpha \leq \alpha_{\max}$. \(ii) Then we find a condition on the noise parameter for which the orthogonal matrix $U_{init}$, which is used to initialize the algorithm, belongs to the convex region characterized in the previous step. Letting $U_{init}=U_{\circ} e^{\alpha_{init}X_{init}}$, this is equivalent to $\alpha_{init} \leq \alpha_{max}$. Global success guarantees for the solution $U$ computed by a local hill-climbing algorithm can be obtained by combining Theorem \[theorem convergence\] and Theorem \[theorem alpha\]. Applications to tensor decomposition ==================================== Observable matrices ------------------- Consider an order the $N \times N \times N$ tensor of the form $$\label{tensor} \hat {\mathbb T} = {\mathbb T} + \sigma {\mathbb E} \qquad {\mathbb T}_{nn' n''} = \sum_{i=1}^d Z_{ni} Z_{n'i} Z_{n''i} \qquad n,n',n'' = 1,\dots N \$$ where $\sigma >0$ and ${\mathbb E}$ is an arbitrary noise term satisfying $\\|{\mathbb E} \\|\leq \varepsilon$, with $\\|{\mathbb E} \\|^2 = \sum_{n n' n''}{\mathbb E}_{n n' n''}^2$. We define the $d \times d$ ‘observable’ matrices associated with the tensor $\hat {\mathbb T}$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{observable matrices general R} \hat M_{n}= \hat m_n \ \hat m^{-1} \qquad n=1,\dots, N \qquad \hat m = \sum_{n=1}^N \hat m_n \end{aligned}$$ where, for general $d\leq N$, $\hat m_n$ are dimension-reduced tensor slices defined by $$\begin{aligned} \hat m_n = U_d^T \tilde m_n V_d \qquad [\tilde m_n]_{n'n''}=\hat {\mathbb T}_{n n' n''} \qquad n,n',n''=1,\dots N \end{aligned}$$ with $U_d$ and $V_d$ being $N\times d$ Stiefel matrices obtained by staking the first $d$ left and right singular vectors of $\sum_{n=1}^N \tilde m_n$. The definition makes sense only if $\hat m$ is invertible, i.e. if the $d$th singular value of $\sum_{n=1}^N \tilde m_n$ is non-vanishing. Assuming $d = N$ there is no need of introducing the dimension reduction matrices $U_d$ and $V_d$ and the observable matrices are then defined by $$\label{observable matrices} \hat M_{n}= \hat m_n \ \hat m^{-1} \qquad [\hat m_n]_{n' n''}=\hat {\mathbb T}_{n n' n''} \qquad n,n',n''=1,\dots, N \quad (d = N) \qquad \hat m = \sum_{n=1}^N \hat m_n$$ where $\hat m$ is assumed to be invertible. A more general definition of $\hat m$ would be $\hat m_{\theta} = \sum_{n=1}^N \theta_n \hat m_n$ where $\theta$ is an arbitrary $N$-dimensional vector. In what follows we consider the case $d=N$ and $\theta = 1$ but generalizations to $d\leq N $ and $\theta \neq 1$ are straightforward. Observable matrices of the form cannot be defined if $d>N$. Given and , it is easy to prove the following lemma \[lemma observable matrices\] If $Z$ is invertible and $[1^T Z]_i \neq 0$ for all $i=1, \dots, d$, the observable matrices $\hat M_n$ defined in can be expanded as follows $$\begin{aligned} \label{observable matrices expansion} \hat M_{n} = M_n + \sigma W_n + O(\sigma^2) \qquad M_n = Z {\rm diag}({\bf e}_n^T Z) \left( {\rm diag}(1^T Z)\right)^{-1} Z^{-1} \qquad W_n = e_n m^{-1} + m_n m^{-1} e m^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $ n= 1,\dots, N$, the vector ${\bf e}_n$ is the $n$th basis vector, and $$[e_n]_{n'n''}=E_{nn'n''} \qquad e=\sum_{n=1}^{N} e_n \qquad [m_n]_{n'n''}={\mathbb T}_{nn'n''} \qquad m = \sum_{n=1}^{N} m_n \, .$$ If ${\mathbb E}$ in obeys $\\| {\mathbb E} \\| \leq \varepsilon $, then $$\\| M_n \\| \leq \frac{ d \ \kappa(Z)^2 \max \| Z \|}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \qquad \\| W_n \\| \leq \frac{\varepsilon \ \kappa(Z)^2 \ \sqrt{d}}{\\| Z \\|^2 \min \| 1^T Z \|} \left(1 + \frac{ d \ \kappa(Z)^2 \max \| Z \|}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \right)$$ Estimation of the tensor components $Z$ --------------------------------------- Lemma \[lemma observable matrices\] implies that $Z$ can be obtained, up to normalization constants, from the estimated joint eigenvalues of the nearly jointly diagonalizable matrices . Let $U$ be an approximate joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\sigma} = \{ \hat M_n \}_{n=1}^N$ obeying the bound in Theorem \[theorem alpha\]. The corresponding estimation of $Z$ is given by $$\label{estimation Z} \frac{Z^_{ni}}{[1^T Z^]_i} = [ U^T \hat M_n U ]_{ii} \qquad n=1,\dots,N \qquad i=1,\dots,d$$ where $[1^T Z^]_i$ is an undetermined column-rescaling factor and we assume $ N = d$. Under the conditions that $Z$ is invertible and $[1^T Z]_i\neq 0$ for all $i=1,\dots,d$, the difference between the estimated tensor components and the ground-truth tensor components $Z$ is bounded by the following theorem. \[main theorem\] Let $\hat {\mathbb T}$ be the tensor defined in and assume $N=d$, $Z$ is invertible, and $[1^T Z]_i \neq 0$ for all $i=1,\dots d$. Let $U$ be an approximate joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\sigma} = \{ \hat M_n \}_{n=1}^N$, with $\hat M_n$ defined in , and $\frac{Z^_{ni}}{[1^T Z^]_i} = [ U^T \hat M_n U]_{ii}$ for all $n=1, \dots N$ and $i=1, \dots d$. Then, if $U$ obeys the bound in Theorem \[theorem alpha\], $Z_$ is such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{main bound} \left\| \frac{Z_{ni}^}{[1^TZ^]_i} - \frac{Z_{ni}}{[1^TZ]_i} \right\| \leq 4\sigma \frac{\sqrt{d(d-d)} \kappa(Z)^4}{\gamma} {\rm M}^2 {\rm W} + \sigma {\rm W} + O(\sigma^2)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\gamma = \frac{1}{N}\min_{i\neq i'} \sum_{n=1}^{N} (Z_{n i}-Z_{n i'})^2 \qquad {\rm M} \leq \frac{ N \kappa(Z)^2 \max \| Z \|}{\min \| 1^T Z \|}\qquad {\rm W} \leq \frac{\varepsilon \sqrt{N} \kappa(Z)^2 }{\\| Z \\|^2 \min \| 1^T Z \|} \left(1 + \frac{ N \kappa(Z)^2 \max \| Z \|}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \right)$$ #### Remark on the theorem: Theorem \[main theorem\] provides a first order approximation of the estimation error and it is valid up to terms proportional to $\sigma^2$. The assumption on $[1^T Z]_i$ can be relaxed by defining $\hat m$ as $\hat m_{\theta} = \sum_{n=1}^N \theta_n \hat m_n $, where $\theta$ is any $N$-dimensional vector for which $[\theta^T Z]_i\neq 0$ for all for $i=1,\dots, d$. The normalization constants $[\theta^T Z^]_i$ can then be obtained from $\hat m_{\theta} = \sum_{n=1}^N \theta_n \hat m_n $ and the corresponding estimates $\frac{Z^_{ni}}{[\theta^T Z]_i}$ by solving the following matrix equation $$\begin{aligned} \hat m_{\theta} = Z^\frac{1}{{\rm diag}(\theta^T Z^)} {\rm diag}(\theta^T Z^)^3 \left(Z^ \frac{1}{{\rm diag}(\theta^T Z^)} \right)^T \quad \qquad \left[ Z^ \frac{1}{{\rm diag}(\theta^T Z^)} \right]_{ni} =[U^T \hat M_n U ]_{ii}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by using and the a posteriori* error analysis of Section \[section a posteriori\] it is possible to obtain analogous bounds that depend only on the observable matrices . Other lemmas and proofs ======================= Proof of Lemma \[lemma non-degeneracy condition\] ------------------------------------------------- Lemma \[lemma non-degeneracy condition\] establishes a sufficient condition for the existence of $2^d d!$ exact joint triangularizers of ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ \hat M_n \|_{\sigma=0}\}_{n=1}^N$, with $\hat M_n$ defined in . The proof consists of showing that, if holds (i) there exist $2^d d!$ exact joint triangularizers of t${\cal M}_{\circ}$ and (ii) it is impossible to find more than $2^d d!$ such orthogonal matrices. Lemma \[lemma linear combination\] can be used to prove that, when is fulfilled, it is possible to define a linear combination of the matrices $M_n \in {\cal M}_{\circ}$ with distinct eigenvalues. Let $M$ be such linear combination of the matrices $M_n$. Since any real $d\times d$ matrix with distinct eigenvalues admits $2^d d!$ triangularizers, $M$ admits $2^d d!$ triangularizers. Now, since $[M_n,M_{n'}] = 0$ one has $$\label{commutation linear combination} [M, M_n] = 0 \qquad \forall \ n=1,\dots,N$$ implying that all $2^d d!$ triangularizers of $M$ exactly triangularize all $M_n \in {\cal M}_{\circ}$. This is due to the fact that commuting matrices are always joint triangularizable and implies that ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ has at least $2^d d!$ joint triangularizers. But the commutation relation also implies that any possible additional triangularizer of a matrix $M_n \in {\cal M}_{\circ}$ would exactly triangularize $M$. This contradicts the fact that $M$ admits only $2^d d!$ exact triangularizers and proves the lemma. $\square$ Proof of Theorem \[theorem alpha\] ----------------------------------- The stationary point of are defined by the equation $\nabla {\cal L} = 0$ where $\nabla {\cal L}$ is the gradient of ${\cal L}$ and ${\cal L}$ is defined in . According to Lemma \[lemma stationarity equation\], if $U $ is a stationary point of , then $$\label{stationarity equation} \nabla {\cal L} = S - S^T = 0 \qquad S = \sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U^T \hat M^T_n U , {\rm low}( U^T \hat M_n U) \right]$$ Now, let $U = U_{\circ} e^{\alpha X}$, where $U_{\circ}$ is an exact triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ \hat M_n\|_{\sigma=0}\}_{n=1}^N$, $\hat M_n$ are defined in , $X = -X^T$ and one can assume $\\|X \\| = 1$ and $\alpha>0$. The expansion of $S$ in $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ reads $$\begin{aligned} S &=& S\|_{(\alpha=0,\sigma=0)} + \alpha \partial_\alpha S\|_{\sigma = 0} + \sigma \partial_\sigma S\|_{\alpha=0} + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2) \\ & = & \sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} , {\rm low}( [U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}, \alpha X ] ) \right] + \sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} , {\rm low}( U_{\circ}^T \sigma W_n U_{\circ} ) \right] + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2)\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\partial_\alpha f = \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha} f \|_{\alpha = 0}$ and $\partial_\sigma f = \frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma} f \|_{\sigma = 0}$. Note that, for all $n=1, \dots, N$, $ [ U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} , {\rm low}( A)] $ is strictly lower-triangular for any $A$ because $ {\rm up}(U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ}) = 0$. The latter follows from the fact that $U_{\circ}$ is an exact triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ and hence $ U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}$ is upper triangular, for all $n=1, \dots, N$. Considering only the lower-diagonal part of the stationarity equation one obtains the necessary condition $$\label{necessary condition} 0 = {\rm low}(S - S^T) = {\rm low}(\alpha \partial_\alpha S\|_{\sigma = 0} + \sigma \partial_\sigma S\|_{\alpha=0} ) + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2))$$ since the first order terms of $S^T$ are upper triangular. The projected stationarity equation reads $$\begin{aligned} \label{S alpha} {\rm low}\left( \sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} , {\rm low}( [U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}, \alpha X ] ) \right] \right) = - {\rm low}\left(\sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} , {\rm low}( U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ} ) \right] \right) + O((\alpha+\sigma)^2) \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since ${\rm low}(U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}) = 0$ for all $n=1, \dots, N$ one has $${\rm low}( [U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}, \alpha X ] ) = {\rm low}( [U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}, {\rm low}(\alpha X) ] )$$ This means that the linear operator defined by $${\cal T} {\rm low} (X) = {\rm low} \left( \sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} , {\rm low}( [U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}, {\rm low} (X) ] ) \right] \right)$$ maps the subspace of strictly lower dimensional matrices into itself. This is a $\frac{d(d-1)}{2}$-dimensional subspace that has the same degrees of freedom as the set of $d \times d$ skew-symmetric matrices. Each $d \times d$ skew-symmetric matrix is mapped into this subspace by means of the projection $P_{\rm low} {\rm vec}(X)$. Conversely, letting $x$ be an element of this subspace, the corresponding $d \times d$ skew-symmetric matrix $X$ is given by $X = {\rm mat}(P_{\rm low}^T x) - {\rm mat}(P_{\rm low}^T x)^T$. Let $T$ be the linear operator defined by the vectorization of $$T = \sum_{n=1}^N t_n^T t_n \qquad t_n = {\rm Low} (1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} \otimes ){\rm Low}$$ Its reduction to the subspace of strictly lower-diagonal matrices can be written as $$\tilde T = P_{\rm low} T P_{\rm low}^T = \sum_{n=1}^N \tilde t_n^T \tilde t_n \qquad \tilde t_n = P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} \otimes )P_{\rm low}^T$$ Then one has $$\label{linearization S alpha} P_{\rm low}{\rm vec}({\cal T} {\rm low} (\alpha X)) = \tilde T P_{\rm low}{\rm vec}(\alpha X)$$ The $\frac{d(d-1)}{2} \times \frac{d(d-1)}{2}$ $\tilde T$ is positive definite if the non-degeneracy condition in is fulfilled (see Lemma \[lemma T\]). Under this assumption $$\label{solution X} \alpha P_{\rm low} {\rm vec}(X) = - \tilde T^{-1} \ P_{\rm low} {\rm vec}\left(\sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} , {\rm low}( U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ} ) \right] \right) + O((\alpha+\sigma)^2)$$ Taking the norm of both sides one has $$\begin{aligned} \label{final eq alpha} \alpha \leq 2 \sqrt{2} \sigma \\| \tilde T^{-1} \\|_2 \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n\\|^2 } \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| W_n\\|^2 } \end{aligned}$$ where we have used $\\|{\rm low}(X)\\| = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \\| X\\|$, $\\| X \\| = 1$ and $$\begin{aligned} \left\\| P_{\rm low} {\rm vec}\left(\sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} , {\rm low}( U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ} ) \right] \right) \right\\| \leq 2 \sigma \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n\\|^2 } \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| W_n\\|^2 } \end{aligned}$$ from $\\| \sum_{n=1}^N t^T_n {\rm vec}( U_{\circ}^T \sigma W_n U_{\circ} ) \\| \leq \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\|t^T_n \\|^2 }\sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| \sigma W_n\\|^2} $, $\\| t_n\\|^2 \leq 4 \\| M_n\\|^2$. $\square$ Proof of Lemma \[lemma bound non spectral\] ------------------------------------------- Consider the inequality on the perturbation parameter $\alpha$ given in . Lemma \[lemma T\] states that the matrix $\tilde T$ is positive definite if the non-degeneracy condition is fulfilled and in this case $$\\| \tilde T^{-1} \\|_2 \leq \sqrt{\frac{d(d-1)}{2} } \frac{\kappa(V)^4}{\gamma} \qquad \gamma = \min_{i<i'} \sum_{n=1}^N (\Lambda_{ni} - \Lambda_{ni'})^2$$ This implies $$\alpha \leq \frac{2 \sigma \sqrt{d(d-1)} \kappa(V)^4}{\gamma} \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n\\|^2 } \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| W_n\\|^2 }$$ $\square$ Proof of Theorem \[theorem X\] ------------------------------- Theorem \[theorem X\] follows from where one can use $$\begin{aligned} P_{\rm low} {\rm vec} \left(\sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} , {\rm low}( U_{\circ}^T \sigma W_n U_{\circ} ) \right] \right) = \sigma \sum_{n=1}^N \tilde t^T_n P_{\rm low}(U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ}) \end{aligned}$$ to obtain $$P{\rm low} {\rm vec}(\alpha X) = - \sigma \left(\sum_{n=1}^N \tilde t^T_n \tilde t_n \right)^{-1} \sum_{n=1}^N \tilde t^T_n P_{\rm low}(U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ})$$ with $\tilde t_n = P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} \otimes 1 ) P_{\rm low}^T$. $\square$ Proof of Theorem \[theorem alpha star\] --------------------------------------- Let $\sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n \hat M_n$ be a general linear combination of the input matrices, where $\beta_n$, $n=1, \dots, N$ are arbitrary real numbers. Let $U_\circ$ be an exact joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ}$, and $U$ be a feasible solution of the joint triangularization problem . By construction $U$ is an orthogonal matrix and can be written as $U = U_\circ e^{\alpha X}$, with $X = -X^\top $, $\\|X \\| = 1$ and $\alpha >0$. For any choice of $\beta$ one has $$U^\top \left( \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n \hat M_n \right) U = \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n (\hat T_n + \varepsilon_n) \qquad {\rm low}(\hat T_n) = 0 \quad \varepsilon_n = {\rm low}(U^\top \hat M_n U)$$ By projecting onto the strictly lower-diagonal part and considering the expansion $U = U_\circ e^{\alpha X}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n \varepsilon_n & = & \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n {\rm low}\left(e^{ - \alpha X} U_\circ^\top M_n U_{\circ}e^{\alpha X} + e^{ - \alpha X} U_\circ^\top \sigma W_n U_\circ e^{\alpha X} \right) \\ \label{equation konstantinov} & = &\sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n {\rm low}\left( [U_\circ^\top M_n U_\circ, \alpha X] + U_\circ^\top \sigma W_n U_\circ \right) + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2)\end{aligned}$$ For any $X$, one has ${\rm low}([U_\circ^\top M_n U_\circ, X]) ={\rm low}([ U_\circ^\top M_n U_\circ,{\rm low}(X)])$ because $U_\circ^\top M_n U_\circ$ is upper triangular. The identity can be rewritten as $${\rm low}\left([U_\circ^\top \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n M_n U_\circ, {\rm low}(\alpha X)]\right) = \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n {\rm low}\left( \varepsilon_n - U_\circ^\top \sigma W_n U_\circ \right)$$ whose vectorization reads $$\label{vectorized equation} T_{\beta} {\rm vec}(\alpha X) = {\rm vec}\left( {\rm low}\left(\sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n\varepsilon_n - \sigma W_{\beta}\right) \right) \qquad T_{\beta} = {\rm Low}(1 \otimes M_{\beta}^\top - M_{\beta} \otimes 1) {\rm Low}$$ where $M_{\beta} = \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n U_\circ^\top M_n U_\circ $ and $W_{\beta} = \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n U_\circ^\top W_n U_\circ$. The reduction of $T_{\beta}$ to the subspace of strictly lower-diagonal matrices is $$\tilde T_{\beta} = P_{\rm low} T_{\beta} P_{\rm low} ^T = P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes M_{\beta}^\top - M_{\beta} \otimes 1) P_{\rm low}^T$$ Lemma \[lemma T beta\] can be used to show that $\tilde T_\beta$ is invertible if $M_{\beta}$ is invertible and $\lambda_{i}(M_\beta) \neq \lambda_{i'}(M_\beta)$ for all $i\neq i'$. Under this assumption one can write $$\alpha {\rm vec}(X) = \tilde T_{\beta}^{-1} {\rm vec}\left( {\rm low}\left(\sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n\varepsilon_n - \sigma W_{\beta}\right) \right) + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2)$$ and, by taking the norm in both sides, $$\begin{aligned} \alpha &\leq& \sqrt 2 \\| \tilde T_{\beta}^{-1}\\|_2 \\| \beta \\| \left( \sqrt{ \sum_{r=1}^N \\| \varepsilon_n \\|^2 } + \sigma \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| W_n\\|^2 } \right) + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2) \\ & \leq & \sqrt 2 \\| \tilde T_{\beta}^{-1}\\|_2 \left( \sqrt{ {\cal L}(U)} + \sigma \sqrt N\right) + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2) \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the assumption $\\|\beta \\|=1$ and $\\| W_n \\| \leq 1$. Finally, one has $$\begin{aligned} \tilde T_{\beta} &=& \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n P_{\rm low}(1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M_n^T U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M_n^T U_{\circ} \otimes 1) P_{\rm low}^T \\ & = & \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n P_{\rm low}(1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T \hat M_n^T U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T \hat M_n^T U_{\circ} \otimes 1) P_{\rm low}^T + O(\sigma)\\ & = & \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes U^T \hat M_n^T U - U^T \hat M_n^T U \otimes 1) P_{\rm low} + O(\sigma+\alpha) \\ & = & \hat T_{\beta} + O(\sigma+\alpha)\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\hat T_\beta = \sum_{r=1}^N \beta_n P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes U^T \hat M_n^T U - U^T \hat M_n^T U \otimes 1) P_{\rm low}$. It follows that $\\| \tilde T^{-1}_{\beta} \\|_2 = \\|\hat T^{-1}_{\beta}\\|_2 + O(\sigma+\alpha)$ and hence $$\begin{aligned} \alpha & \leq & \sqrt 2 \\| \hat T_{\beta}^{-1}\\|_2 \left( \sqrt{ {\cal L}(U)} + \sigma \sqrt N\right) + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2)\end{aligned}$$ $\square$ Proof of Theorem \[theorem convergence\] ----------------------------------------- The Hessian of at $U$ is positive definite if, for all $X$ such that $X = -X^T$, $\langle X , \nabla^2 {\cal L} X \rangle >0$, where $$\langle X , \nabla^2 {\cal L}(U) X \rangle = \frac{d^2}{dt^2} {\cal L}(Ue^{t X})\|_{t=0}$$ Lemma \[lemma hessian\] shows that this is the case if $$\label{alpha max} U = U_{\circ} e^{\alpha Y} \qquad Y = -Y^T \qquad \\| Y \\| = 1 \qquad \alpha\leq \alpha_{max} \qquad \alpha_{max} = \frac{2 \varepsilon - \sigma A_{\sigma}}{A_\alpha} + O((\alpha+\sigma)^2)$$ $$\varepsilon = \frac{\gamma}{2 \kappa(V)^4} \qquad \gamma = \min_{j<j'} \sum_{n=1}^N(\Lambda_{nj}-\Lambda_{nj'})^2 \qquad A_\alpha = 32 \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n\\|^2 \qquad A_\sigma = 16 \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2}$$ where we have assumed $\\| W_n \\| \leq 1$. The condition under which the Hessian of at $U_{\circ}$ is positive definite is $\alpha_{max}>0$. If $U$ is a minimizer of ${\cal L}(U)$, this condition ensures that $U_{\circ}$ belongs to the convex region centered in $U$. Now, assume that it is possible to find a vector $\beta = [\beta_1, \dots , \beta_N]$ such that $\\| \beta\\|=1$ and the operator $T_{\beta}$ defined by $$\label{initial T} T_{\beta} = P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes U^T_{init} \hat M^T_\beta U_{init} - U^T_{init} \hat M_\beta U_{init} \otimes 1) P_{\rm low} \qquad U_{int} \in {\mathbb O}(d) \ {\rm s.t.} \ {\rm low}(U_{int}^T \hat M_\beta U_{int}) = 0 \qquad \hat M_\beta = \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n \hat M_{n}$$ is invertible. The orthogonal matrix $U_{int} $ is defined by the Schur decomposition of $\hat M_\beta$. According to Lemma \[lemma T beta\], $T_{\beta} $ is invertible if $\hat M_\beta$ is invertible and has real separated eigenvalues, i.e. if $\lambda_i(\hat M_\beta)$ are real for all $i=1, \dots, d$ and $\min_{i<i'} \|\lambda_i(\hat M_\beta) - \lambda_i(\hat M_\beta)\| >0$. Finding such a $\hat M_\beta$ is possible if $\sigma$ is small enough. This is a consequence of Lemma \[lemma linear combination\] and standard eigenvalues perturbation results. Otherwise, the separation of the eigenvalues of $\hat M_\beta$ can be checked numerically, since $\hat M_\beta$ is an observable quantity. Now, let $M_\beta = \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n M_n$, $W_\beta = \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n W_n$ and $U_{\circ}\in {\mathbb O}(d) $ be such that ${\rm low}(U_{\circ}^T M_\beta U_{\circ}) = 0$. By writing $U_{\circ} = U_{init} e^{\alpha Y}$ one has $$U_{\circ}^T M_\beta U_{\circ} = e^{-\alpha Y} U^T_{init} (\hat M_\beta - \sigma W_\beta) U_{init} e^{\alpha Y}$$ Since ${\rm low}(U_{\circ}^T M_\beta U_{\circ}) = 0$ this implies $$\label{equation konstantinov init} {\rm low}\left( e^{-\alpha Y} U_{init}^T (\hat M_\beta - \sigma W_\beta) U_{init} e^{-\alpha Y} \right) = 0 \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad {\rm low}\left( [ U^T_{init} \hat M_\beta U_{init} , \alpha Y] \right) = {\rm low}\left( U_{init}^T \sigma W_\beta U_{init}\right) + O(\alpha^2)$$ The strictly lower-diagonal part of $ [ A , \alpha Y] $ is equal to the strictly lower diagonal part of $[ A , {\rm low}(\alpha Y)]$, if $A$ is upper-triangular. Then, by considering the projection to the subspace of strictly lower diagonal matrices of (see proof of Theorem \[theorem alpha\] for more details), one obtains $$T_\beta P_{\rm low}{\rm vec}(\alpha Y) = P_{\rm low} {\rm vec}\left( U^T_{init} \sigma W_\beta U_{init}\right) + O(\alpha^2)$$ with $T_\beta$ defined in . Since $T_\beta$ is invertible one has $$P_{\rm low}{\rm vec}(\alpha Y) = T_\beta^{-1}P_{\rm low} {\rm vec}\left( U^T_{init} \sigma W_\beta U_{init}\right)$$ and taking the norm in both sides $$\alpha \leq \sqrt 2 \\| T^{-1}_\beta \\| \\| P_{\rm low} {\rm vec}\left( U^T_{init} \sigma \hat W_\beta U_{init}\right) \\| + O(\alpha^2)$$ where $ \\| T_{\beta}^{-1} \\|_{2}$ is the spectral norm of $T^{-1}_{\beta}$. This implies that the initialization matrix $U_{init}$ obtained from the Schur decomposition of $\hat M_\beta$ can be written as $U_{init} = U_{\circ} e^{- \alpha Y}$, with $\alpha$ obeying $$\alpha \leq \alpha_{init} \qquad \alpha_{init} = \sigma \sqrt{2 N} \\| T^{-1}_{\beta} \\|_{2} + O(\alpha_{init}^2)$$ where we have used $ \\| {\rm Low} {\rm vec}\left( U_{init}^T W_\beta U_{init}\right) \\| \leq \sqrt N \\| \beta \\| = \sqrt N$, since $\\| W_n \\| \leq 1$ and $\\| \beta \\| = 1$ by assumption. Now, the initialization matrix $U_{init}$ belongs to the convex region containing $U_{\circ}$ if $\alpha < \alpha_{max}$, with $\alpha_{max}$ given in . It follows that a descent algorithm initialized with $U_{init}$ converges to the minimum of the convex region containing $U_{\circ}$ if $$\sigma \sqrt{2 N} \\| T^{-1}_{\beta} \\|_{2} \leq \frac{2 \varepsilon - \sigma A_{\sigma}}{A_\alpha} + O(\sigma^2)$$ or equivalently $$\sigma \leq \frac{2 \varepsilon}{ \sqrt{2N} \\| T^{-1}_\beta\\|_2 A_{\alpha} + A_{\sigma} } + O(\sigma^2)$$ $\square$ Proof of Lemma \[lemma observable matrices\] -------------------------------------------- Let $m_n$ be defined by $[m_n ]_{n'n''} = {\mathbb T}_{nn'n''}$ for all $n,n',n''=1, \dots, N$. From the definition of tensor slice $[\hat m_n ]_{n'n''} = \hat {\mathbb T}_{nn'n''}$ on has $\hat m_n = m_n + \sigma e_n$, where the noise term is defined by $[e_n]_{n'n''}=E_{nn'n''}$. Let $m = \sum_n m_n$ and $e=\sum_n e_n$, then, from the definition of ${\mathbb T}$ given in on has $$\hat m_n = m_n + \sigma e_n\qquad m_n = Z {\rm diag}({\bf e}_n^T Z) Z^T \qquad \hat m = m + \sigma e \qquad m = Z {\rm diag}(1^T Z) Z^T$$ and $$\hat M_n = \hat m_n \hat m^{-1} = (m_n + \sigma e_n)(m + \sigma e)^{-1} = m_n m^{-1} + \sigma \left( e_n m^{-1} + m_n m^{-1} e m^{-1} \right) + O(\sigma^2)$$ where it is easy to check that $$m_n m^{-1} = Z {\rm diag}({\bf e}_n^T Z) Z^T \left( Z {\rm diag}(1^T Z) Z^T\right)^{-1} = Z {\rm diag}({\bf e}_n^T Z) \left( {\rm diag}(1^T Z)\right)^{-1} Z^{-1}$$ where we have assumed $d = N$ and the matrices $Z$ to be invertible. From the definitions above it follows $$\begin{aligned} \\| m_n \\| & = & \\| Z {\rm diag}({\bf e}_n^T Z) Z^T \\| \\ & \leq & \\| Z \\|^2 \\| {\rm diag}({\bf e}_n^T Z) \\| \\ & \leq & \\| Z \\|^2 \sqrt{N} \max_n \| Z_{ni} \| \\ & \leq & \\| Z \\|^2 \sqrt{N} \max \| Z \|\end{aligned}$$ and, assuming $ [1^T Z]_{i} \neq 0$ for all $i=1,\dots,d$, $$\begin{aligned} \\| m^{-1} \\| & = & \\| \left(\sum_{n=1}^N m_n \right)^{-1} \\| \\ & = & \\| Z^{-T} \left( {\rm diag}(1^T Z) \right)^{-1} Z^{-1} \\| \\ & \leq & \\| Z^{-1} \\|^2 \\| ({\rm diag}(1^T Z))^{-1} \\| \\ & = & \\| Z^{-1} \\|^2 \frac{ \sqrt{N}}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \end{aligned}$$ This implies, for all $n=1,\dots,N$, $$\begin{aligned} \\| M_n \\| & = & \\| m_n m^{-1} \\| \\ & \leq & \\| m_n \\| \\| m^{-1} \\| \\ & \leq & N \kappa(Z)^2 \frac{ \max \| Z \|}{\min \| 1^T Z \|}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \\| W_n \\| & = & \\| e_n m^{-1} + m_n m^{-1} e m^{-1} \\| \\ & \leq &\varepsilon \\| m^{-1} \\|(1 + \\| m_n \\| \\| m^{-1} \\|) \\ & \leq &\varepsilon\\| Z^{-1} \\|^2 \frac{ \sqrt{N}}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \left(1 + N \kappa(Z)^2 \frac{ \max \| Z \|}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \right)\\ & \leq & \varepsilon \frac{\kappa(Z)^2}{\\| Z \\|^2} \frac{ \sqrt{N}}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \left(1 + N \kappa(Z)^2 \frac{ \max \| Z \|}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \right) \end{aligned}$$ $\square$ Proof of Theorem \[main theorem\] {#proof main theorem} --------------------------------- Lemma \[lemma observable matrices\] shows that the matrices $\hat M_n$ are approximately jointly diagonalizable. Let ${\cal M}_{\sigma} = \{ \hat M_n \}_{n=1}^N$ and ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ \hat M_n \|_{\sigma=0} \}_{n=1}^N$. Assume that ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ is such that is satisfied. In this case the solutions of are characterized by the Theorem \[theorem alpha\]. Now, let $U_$ be a minimizer of , then $U_$ can be written as $U_* = U_{\circ} e^{\alpha_* X_} $, with $\\|X_\\|=1$, $X_* = -X_^T$ and $\alpha_$ obeying the bound given by Theorem \[theorem alpha\]. According to , the approximate joint triangularizer $U_$ can be used to estimate the element of the tensor component $Z$. The distance between the estimated joint eigenvalues and the exact eigenvalues of a set of nearly jointly diagonalizable matrices is bounded by Lemma \[lemma eigenvalues\]. Using the result of Theorem \[lemma bound non spectral\] and Lemma \[lemma eigenvalues\] with the definition one obtains $$\left\| \frac{Z_{ni}^}{[1^TZ^]_i} - \frac{Z_{ni}}{[1^TZ]_i} \right\| \leq 4 N \sigma \frac{\sqrt{d(d-1)} \kappa(V)^4}{\gamma} {\rm M}^2 {\rm W} + \sigma {\rm W} + O(\sigma^2)$$ for all $i=1, \dots, d$ and all $n=1, \dots,N$. From Lemma \[lemma observable matrices\] on has $${\rm M} \leq N \kappa(Z)^2 \frac{ \max \| Z \|}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \qquad {\rm W} \leq \varepsilon \frac{\kappa(Z)^2}{\\| Z \\|^2} \frac{ \sqrt{N}}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \left(1 + N \kappa(Z)^2 \frac{ \max \| Z \|}{\min \| 1^T Z \|} \right)$$ from which the claim of the theorem. $\square$ Auxiliary lemmas ---------------- \[lemma linear combination\] If holds it is possible to find $\beta = [\beta_1, \dots, \beta_N]$ such that $$M = \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n M_n$$ has real distinct eigenvalues. #### Proof of Lemma \[lemma linear combination\] Let $\beta = [\beta_1, \dots, \beta_N]$, then the eigenvalues of $M = \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n M_n$ are $$\lambda_i(M) = \sum_{n=1}^N \beta_n \Lambda_{in} \qquad i=1, \dots, d$$ We want to show that implies that it is possible to find $\beta_1, \dots, \beta_N$ such that $\lambda_i \neq \lambda_{i'}$ for all $i\neq i'$, with $i,i'=1,\dots,d$. This can be seen as follows. It is aways possible to choose $\tilde m_2$ such that $\lambda_1(\tilde m_2) \neq \lambda_2(\tilde m_2)$. Now, assume that $\tilde m_n$ is such that $\lambda_i(\tilde m_n) \neq \lambda_j(\tilde m_n)$ for all $i\neq j$ and $i,j \leq n$. Consider $\lambda_{n+1}(\tilde m_n)$. We want to show that it is possible to find a matrix $m_{n+1}$ and a coefficient $\beta_{n+1}$ such that the first $n+1$ eigenvalues of $\tilde m_{n+1} = \tilde m_n + \beta_{n+1} m_{n+1}$ are distinct, that is $\lambda_i(\tilde m_{n+1}) \neq \lambda_j(\tilde m_{n+1})$ for all $i\neq j$ and $i,j \leq n+1$. If $\lambda_{n+1}(\tilde m_n) \neq \lambda_i(\tilde m_n)$ for all $i \leq n$, one has $\tilde m_{n+1} = \tilde m_n$. Otherwise, there exists an $i \leq n$ such that $\lambda_{n+1}(\tilde m_n) = \lambda_i(\tilde m_n)$. Note that, since $\lambda_i(\tilde m_n) \neq \lambda_j(\tilde m_n)$ for all $i\neq j$ and $i,j \leq n$, there is only one such $i$. Let $m_{n+1}$ be the matrix in ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ satisfying $\lambda_{n+1}(\tilde m_n) \neq \lambda_i(\tilde m_n)$ and $$\beta_{n+1} \in {\mathbf R} \qquad {\rm s.t.} \qquad \beta_{n+1} \neq 0 \quad {\rm and} \quad \beta_{n+1} \neq \frac{\lambda_{i}(\tilde m_{n}) - \lambda_{j}(\tilde m_{n})}{\lambda_{j}(m_{n+1}) - \lambda_{i}(m_{n+1})} \qquad {\rm for \ all} \quad i \neq j \quad i,j \leq n$$ Then it is easy to check that the first $n+1$ eigenvalues of $\tilde m_{n+1} = \tilde m_{n} + \beta_{n+1} m_{n+1}$ are distinct. The matrix $M$ is then constructed by repeating the above procedure until $n+1 = d$. $\square$ \[lemma stationarity equation\] Let $U$ be a stationary point of , then $$\label{stationarity equation lemma} S - S^T = 0 \qquad S = \sum_{n=1}^N \left[ U^T \hat M^T_n U , {\rm low}( U^T \hat M_n U) \right]$$ #### Proof of Lemma \[lemma stationarity equation\] Let $f(U)$ be a function defined on ${\mathbb O}(d)$. The directional derivatives of $f$ at $U$ in the direction $X$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned} D_X f(U) &=& \langle \nabla f(U), X \rangle \\ & = & \frac{d}{dt}f(U e^{Xt})\|_{t=0} \end{aligned}$$ where $X = -X^T$ and the scalar product in the tangent space is defined by $\langle A,B \rangle= {\rm Tr}(A^T B)$. In particular, for one has $$\begin{aligned} \langle X , \nabla {\cal L}(U,{\cal M}_{\sigma}) \rangle & = &\left. \frac{d}{dt}{\cal L}(U e^{Xt},{\cal M}_{\sigma}) \right\|_{t=0} \\ & = & \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} \left( [U^T \hat M^T_n U,X]{\rm low}(U^T \hat M_n U) + [U^T \hat M_n U,X]{\rm up}(U^T \hat M^T_n U) \right) \\ & = - & \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} \left( X[ U^T \hat M^T_n U,{\rm low}(U^T \hat M_n U)] + X[U^T \hat M_n U,{\rm up}(U^T \hat M^T_n U)] \right) \\ \label{gradient identification} & = & \langle X , S - S^T \rangle\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $S = \sum_{n=1}^N [ U^T \hat M^T_n U,{\rm low}(U^T \hat M_n U)]$ and used $\sum_{n=1}^N [U^T \hat M_n U,{\rm up}(U^T \hat M^T_n U)] = - S^T $. From one has $\nabla {\cal L}(U,{\cal M}_{\sigma}) = S - S^T$ and follows from the stationarity condition $\nabla {\cal L} = 0$. $\square$\ \[lemma T\] Let ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{ M_n = V {\rm diag}([\Lambda_{n1}, \dots , \Lambda_{nd}]) V^{-1} \}_{n=1}^N$ be a set of jointly diagonalizable matrices such that $$\gamma = \min_{i>i'} \sum_{n=1}^N (\Lambda_{ni} - \Lambda_{ni'})^2 >0$$ and let $U_{\circ}$ be an exact triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ} $. Then the operator $$T = \sum_n t^T_n t_n \qquad t_n = P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} \otimes 1 )P_{\rm low}^T % \in {\mathbf R}^{ d(d-1)/2 \times d(d-1)/2 }$$ is invertible and $$\sigma_{\min}(T) \geq \frac{\gamma}{\kappa(V)^4} \qquad \\| T^{-1} \\| \leq \sqrt{\frac{d(d-1)}{2}} \frac{\kappa(V)^4}{\gamma}$$ #### Proof of Lemma \[lemma T\] Since $U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}$ is upper-triangular for all $n=1, \dots, N$, the matrices $(1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} \otimes 1)$ are block upper-triangular matrices and their diagonal blocks are lower triangular. For all $n=1, \dots, N$ one has $U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} = U_{\circ}^T V \Lambda_n V^{-1} U_{\circ}$ where we have defined $\Lambda_n = {\rm diag}([\Lambda_{n1}, \dots, \Lambda_{nd}])$. Then $$\begin{aligned} t_n &=& P_{\rm low} (1\otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} \otimes 1) P_{\rm low} \\ & = & P_{\rm low} (U_{\circ}^T V \otimes U_{\circ}^TV^{-T}) (1 \otimes \Lambda_n - \Lambda_n \otimes 1) (V^{-1}U_{\circ}\otimes V^{T}U_{\circ}) P_{\rm low}^T \\ & = & P_{\rm low} (U_{\circ}^T V \otimes U_{\circ}^TV^{-T}) P_{\rm low}^T P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes \Lambda_n - \Lambda_n \otimes 1) P_{\rm low}^T P_{\rm low} (V^{-1}U_{\circ}\otimes V^{T}U_{\circ}) P_{\rm low}^T \\ & = & \tilde V \Gamma_n \tilde V^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\Gamma_n =P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes \Lambda_n - \Lambda_n \otimes 1) P_{\rm low}^T $ and $\tilde V = P_{\rm low} (U_{\circ}^TV \otimes U_{\circ}^TV^{-T}) P_{\rm low}^T$, $\tilde V^{-1} = P_{\rm low} (V^{-1}U_{\circ}\otimes V^{T}U_{\circ}) P_{\rm low}^T $ and the last equality follows form the fact that $U_{\circ}^T V$ is upper triangular (see Lemma \[lemma low insertion\]). The positive semi-definite matrix $T$ can be rewritten as $$T = \sum_{n=1}^N t_n^T t_n = W^T W \qquad W = [\tilde V^{-T} \Gamma_1 \tilde V^T , \dots, \tilde V^{-T} \Gamma_N \tilde V^T]^T = (1 \otimes \tilde V) [\Gamma_1 , \dots, \Gamma_N ]^T \tilde V^{-1}$$ A bound on the smallest singular value of $T$ can be obtained as follows $$\begin{aligned} \label{sigma min T} \sigma_{min}(T) &=& \sigma_{min}\left( \tilde V^{-T} [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n] (1 \otimes \tilde V^{T}) (1 \otimes \tilde V) [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n]^T \tilde V^{-1} \right) \\ &\geq & \sigma_{min}(\tilde V^{-1})^2 \sigma_{min}\left( [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n] (1 \otimes \tilde V^{T}) (1 \otimes \tilde V) [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n]^T) \right) \\ & = & \sigma_{min}(\tilde V^{-1})^2 \left( \min_{\\|x \\| = 1} x^T [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n] (1 \otimes \tilde V^{T}) (1 \otimes \tilde V) [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n]^T x \right) \\ & \geq & \sigma_{min}(\tilde V^{-1})^2 \sigma_{min}(1 \otimes \tilde V)^2 \left( \min_{\\|x \\| = 1} x^T [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n] [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n]^T x \right) \\ & \geq & \sigma_{min}(\tilde V^{-1})^2 \sigma_{min}(\tilde V)^2 \left( \min_{\\|x \\| = 1} x^T [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n] [\Gamma_1, \dots , \Gamma_n]^T x \right) \\ & \geq & \sigma_{min}(\tilde V^{-1})^2 \sigma_{min}(\tilde V)^2 \left( \min_{\\|x \\| = 1} x^T {\rm diag}\left( \left[ \sum_n [\Gamma_n]^2_{11}, \dots, \sum_n [\Gamma_n]^2_{\tilde d \tilde d } \right] \right) x \right) \end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\tilde d = \frac{d(d-1)}{2} $. The minimization problem between brackets is solved by ${\bf e}_{i_} $ with $i_* = {\rm arg} \min_{i} \sum_{n=1}^N [\Gamma_n]^2_{ii} $ and one has $$\gamma = {\bf e}_{i_}^T {\rm diag}\left( \left[ \sum_n [\Gamma_n]^2_{11}, \dots, \sum_n [\Gamma_n]^2_{\tilde d \tilde d } \right] \right) {\bf e}_{i_} = \min_{j<j'} \sum_{n=1}^N (\Lambda_{nj} - \Lambda_{nj'})^2$$ where $i_$ and $(j_,j_') = {\rm arg} \min_{j<j'} \sum_{n=1}^N (\Lambda_{nj} - \Lambda_{nj'})^2$ are related by $$i = f(j,j') \qquad f(j,j') = \sum_{k=1}^{j-1}(d-k)+j'-j \qquad {\rm for} \quad j < j'$$ This implies $$\sigma_{\min}(T) \geq \frac{\gamma}{\kappa(V)^4} \qquad \\|T^{-1} \\| \leq \sqrt{\frac{d(d-1)}{2} } \frac{\kappa(V)^4}{ \gamma}$$ where we have used $$\sigma_{min}(\tilde V) = \sigma_{min}(P_{\rm low}(V\otimes V^{-T}) P_{\rm low}^T ) \geq \sigma_{min}(V) \sigma_{min}(V^{-1}) = \frac{ \sigma_{min}(V)}{\sigma_{max}(V)} = \frac{1}{\kappa(V)}$$ $$\sigma_{min}(\tilde V^{-1}) = \sigma_{min}(P_{\rm low}(V^{-1}\otimes V^T) P_{\rm low}^T ) \geq \sigma_{min}(V^{-1}) \sigma_{min}(V) = \frac{\sigma_{min}(V)}{\sigma_{max}(V)} = \frac{1}{\kappa(V)}$$ $\square$\ \[lemma low insertion\] Let $A$ be an upper triangular (invertible) matrix and $\Sigma$ a diagonal matrix, then for any $B$ $${\rm Low} (A \otimes A^{-T}) (1 \otimes \Sigma -\Sigma \otimes 1) (A^{-1} \otimes A^{T}) {\rm Low} = {\rm Low} (A \otimes A^{-T}) {\rm Low} (1 \otimes \Sigma -\Sigma \otimes 1){\rm Low} (A^{-1} \otimes A^{T}) {\rm Low}$$ #### Proof of Lemma \[lemma low insertion\] Let $B$ be any matrix of the same dimension as $A$, $$\begin{aligned} M_1 & = & {\rm mat}\left( {\rm Low} (A \otimes A^{-T}) (1 \otimes \Sigma -\Sigma \otimes 1) (A^{-1} \otimes A^{T}) {\rm Low} \right) \\ & = &{\rm mat}\left( {\rm Low} (1 \otimes \Sigma -\Sigma \otimes 1) (A^{-1} \otimes A^{T}){\rm vec}\left( {\rm low}(B) \right) \right) \\ & = &{\rm mat}\left( {\rm Low} (A \otimes A^{-T}) (1 \otimes \Sigma -\Sigma \otimes 1) {\rm vec}\left( A^T {\rm low}(B) A^{-T} \right) \right) \\ & = &{\rm mat}\left( {\rm Low} (A \otimes A^{-T}) {\rm vec}\left( [\Sigma, A^T {\rm low}(B) A^{-T}] \right) \right)\\ & = &{\rm mat}\left( {\rm Low} {\rm vec}\left( A^{-T} [\Sigma, A^T {\rm low}(B) A^{-T} ] A^{T} \right) \right) \\ & = &{\rm low}\left( A^{-T} [\Sigma, A^{T} {\rm low}(B) A^{-T}] A^{T} \right) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} M_2 & = & {\rm mat}\left( {\rm Low} (A \otimes A^{-T}) {\rm Low}(1 \otimes \Sigma -\Sigma \otimes 1){\rm Low} (A^{-1} \otimes A^{T}){\rm Low} {\rm vec}(B) \right) \\ & = &{\rm mat}\left( {\rm Low} (A \otimes A^{-T}) {\rm Low} (1 \otimes \Sigma -\Sigma \otimes 1) {\rm vec}\left( {\rm low}\left( A^{T} {\rm low}(B) A^{-T}\right) \right) \right) \\ & = &{\rm mat}\left( {\rm Low} (A \otimes A^{-T}) {\rm Low} {\rm vec}\left( [\Sigma, {\rm low}\left( A^{T} {\rm low}(B) A^{-T}\right) ] \right) \right)\\ & = &{\rm mat}\left( {\rm Low} {\rm vec}\left(A^{-T}{\rm low}\left( [\Sigma, {\rm low}\left(A^{T} {\rm low}(B) A^{-T} \right) ]\right) A^{T} \right) \right)\\ & = & {\rm low}\left( A^{-T} \ {\rm low}\left([\Sigma, {\rm low}\left(A^{T} {\rm low}(B) A^{-T}\right) ] \right) A^{T} \right) \end{aligned}$$ Then $M_1 = M_2$ can be shown by observing that $A^{T} {\rm low}(B) A^{-T}$ is a lower-diagonal matrix if $A$ is upper triangular. Then, for every lower-diagonal matrix $C$, one has $$[\Sigma, C] = [\Sigma, {\rm low}(C) + {\rm diag}(C)] = [\Sigma, {\rm low}(C) ] = {\rm low}([\Sigma, {\rm low}(C) ])$$ because diagonal matrices always commute and the commutator of a strictly lower diagonal matrix with a diagonal matrix is strictly lower diagonal. $\square$\ \[lemma T beta\] Let $A$ be an upper triangular matrix with real nonzero eigenvalues. If $A$ is invertible and the eigenvalues of $A$ satisfy $\lambda_{i}(A) \neq \lambda_{i'}(A)$ for all $i \neq i'$ the matrix $$T_{A} = P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes A^T - A \otimes 1) P_{\rm low}^T$$ is invertible. #### Proof of Lemma \[lemma T beta\] From the spectral decomposition of the matrix $A$ one has $A = V \Lambda V^{-1} $, with $V$ upper triangular and $\Lambda$ diagonal, and $$\begin{aligned} T_{A} &=& P_{\rm low} (V \otimes V^{-T})(1 \otimes \Lambda - \Lambda \otimes 1)(V^{-1} \otimes V^{T}) P_{\rm low}^T \\ &=& P_{\rm low} (V \otimes V^{-T}){\rm Low}(1 \otimes \Lambda -\Lambda \otimes 1){\rm Low} (V^{-1} \otimes V^{T}) P_{\rm low}^T \end{aligned}$$ where the second equality follows from the fact that $ (V^{-1} \otimes V^{T}) P_{\rm low}^T \tilde a = {\rm Low}(V^{-1} \otimes V^{T}) P_{\rm low}^T \tilde a$ for any $\frac{d(d-1)}{2}$-dimensional vector $\tilde a$ and $(1 \otimes \Lambda -\Lambda \otimes 1){\rm Low} a = {\rm Low} (1 \otimes \Lambda -\Lambda \otimes 1){\rm Low} a $ for any $d$-dimensional vector $a$. The smallest singular value of $T_A$ obeys $$\begin{aligned} \sigma_{\min}(T_A) &\geq & C_1^2 C_2\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} C_1 = \sigma_{\min}(V^{-1})\sigma_{\min}(V) = \frac{\sigma_{\min}(V)}{\sigma_{\max}(V)} \qquad C_2 = \min \{ \\| P_{\rm low} (1 \otimes \Lambda -\Lambda \otimes 1)P_{\rm low}^T x \\| , \\|x \\|=1\} = \min_{i<i'} \| \lambda(A)_{i}-\lambda(A)_{i'} \|\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $T_A$ is invertible if $V$ is full rank and $\lambda_i(A) \neq \lambda_{i'}(A)$ for all $i \neq i'$, which are both fulfilled by assumption. $\square$ \[lemma hessian\] The Hessian of ${\cal L}$ at $U = U_{\circ} e^{\alpha Y}$, where $U_{\circ}$ is an exact triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{\hat M_n \|_{\sigma=0} \}_{n=1}^N$ and $Y = -Y^T$, $\\| Y \\| =1$, is positive definite for all $Y$ if $$\alpha \leq \alpha_{max} \qquad \alpha_{max} = \frac{2 \varepsilon - \sigma A_{\sigma}}{A_\alpha} + O((\alpha+\sigma)^2)$$ $$\varepsilon = \frac{\gamma}{2 \kappa(V)^4} \qquad \gamma = \min_{j<j'} \sum_{n=1}^N(\Lambda_{nj}-\Lambda_{nj'})^2 \qquad A_\alpha = 32 \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n\\|^2 \qquad A_\sigma = 16 \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2}$$ #### Proof of Lemma \[lemma hessian\] Let $${\cal L}(U,{\cal M_{\sigma}}) = \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}(g_n^T g_n) \qquad g_n= {\rm low}(U^T \hat M_n U)$$ Then we have $\langle X , \nabla {\cal L}(U) \rangle = \frac{d}{dt} {\cal L}(Ue^{t X})\|_{t=0} = \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}(\dot g_n^T g_n + g_n^T \dot g_n)$ where $X=-X^T$ and $\dot g_n= \frac{d}{dt} g_n(Ue^{tX}) \|_{t=0} = {\rm low}([U^T \hat M_n U,X])$. The second derivative in the direction $X$ defines the Hessian of ${\cal L}$ at $U$ via $$\label{second order directional derivative} \langle X , \nabla^2 {\cal L}X \rangle = \frac{d^2}{dt^2} {\cal L}(Ue^{t X})\|_{t=0} = \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}( 2 \dot g_n^T \dot g_n + \ddot g_n^T g_n + g_n^T \ddot g_n)$$ where $\ddot g_n = \frac{d^2}{dt^2} g_n(Ue^{tX})\|_{t=0} = {\rm low}([[U^T \hat M_n U,X],X])$. Let $f(U, {\cal M}_{\sigma})$ be a general function of $U = U_{\circ} e^{\alpha Y}$, where $U_{\circ}$ is an exact triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ} = \{\hat M_n \|_{\sigma=0} \}_{n=1}^N$ and $Y = -Y^T$, $\\| Y \\| =1$, and the empirical matrices $\hat M_n$. The double expansion, respect to the parameter $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ is $$f = f \|_{(\alpha=0, \sigma=0)} + \alpha \partial_\alpha f \|_{\sigma=0} + \sigma \partial_\sigma f \|_{\alpha=0} + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2)$$ Now, consider the double expansion of the functions $g_n$, $\dot g_n$ and $\ddot g_n$. In the first order approximation one obtains $$\begin{aligned} \label{expansion hessian} \langle X , \nabla^2 {\cal L} X \rangle &=& \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} \left( 2 \dot g_n^T\dot g_n + \sigma (\dot g_n^T \partial_{\sigma} \dot g_n + \partial_{\sigma}\dot g_n^T \dot g_n ) + \alpha ( \dot g_n^T \partial_{\alpha} \dot g_n + \dot g_n^T\partial_{\alpha}\dot g_n) +\right.\\ && \left. \sigma(\ddot g_n^T \partial_\sigma g_n + \partial_\sigma g_n^T \ddot g_n ) + \nonumber \alpha(\ddot g_n^T \partial_{\alpha} g_n + \partial_\alpha g_n^T \ddot g_n ) \right) + O((\alpha + \sigma)^2) \end{aligned}$$ where the first term is always nonnegative. Now, the Hessian of ${\cal L}$ at $U$ is positive definite if $\langle X , \nabla^2 {\cal L} X \rangle$, for all $X$ such that $X = -X^T$. The non negativity of is guaranteed by the following condition $$2 \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} (\dot g_n^T\dot g_n ) \geq \alpha \tilde A_\alpha + \sigma \tilde A_{\sigma} +O((\alpha+\sigma)^2)$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \tilde A_\alpha = \left\| \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} \left( \dot g_n^T \partial_{\alpha} \dot g_n+ \dot g_n^T\partial_{\alpha}\dot g_n + \ddot g_n^T \partial_{\alpha} g_n+ \partial_\alpha g_n^T \ddot g_n \right) \right\|\qquad \tilde A_{\sigma} = \left\| \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} \left( \dot g_n^T \partial_{\sigma} \dot g_n +\partial_{\sigma}\dot g_n^T \dot g_n + \ddot g_n^T \partial_\sigma g_n+ \partial_\sigma g_n^T \ddot g_n \right) \right\| \end{aligned}$$ We seek some $\varepsilon$, $A_\alpha$ and $A_\sigma$ such that $$\label{condition upper-lower bounds} \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} (\dot g_n^T\dot g_n ) \geq \varepsilon \\| X \\|^2 \qquad A_\alpha\\| X \\|^2 \geq \tilde A_\alpha \qquad A_{\sigma} \\| X \\|^2 \geq \tilde A_{\sigma}$$ Given $\varepsilon$, $A_\alpha$ and $A_\sigma$ satisfying , the non negativity of the Hessian is implied by $$2 \varepsilon \geq \alpha A_{\alpha} + \sigma A_{\sigma}$$ from which the condition on $\alpha$ stated by the lemma. The explicit form of $\varepsilon$, $A_\alpha$ and $A_\sigma$ are provided by Lemma \[lemma varepsilon\] and Lemma \[lemma A upper bounds\]. $\square$ \[lemma varepsilon\] A possible choice of $\varepsilon >0$ satisfying is given by $$\varepsilon = \frac{\gamma}{2 \kappa(V)^4} \qquad \gamma = \min_{j<j'} \sum_{n=1}^N(\Lambda_{nj}-\Lambda_{nj'})^2$$ with $V$ and $\Lambda$ defined in . #### Proof of Lemma \[lemma varepsilon\] This can be seen as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}( \dot g_n^T\dot g_n) & = & \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}\left( {\rm low}\left([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ},X]\right)^T {\rm low}\left([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ},X] \right) \right)\\ & = & \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}\left( {\rm low}\left([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ},{\rm low}(X)]\right)^T {\rm low}\left([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ},{\rm low}(X)] \right) \right)\\ & = & \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm vec}\left( {\rm low}\left([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ},{\rm low}(X)]\right) \right)^T {\rm vec}\left( {\rm low}\left([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ},{\rm low}(X)]\right) \right) \\ & = & \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm vec}(X)^T {\rm Low} (1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ}\otimes 1)^T {\rm Low}\\ &&\quad (1 \otimes U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ} - U_{\circ}^T M^T_n U_{\circ}\otimes 1) {\rm Low} {\rm vec}(X) \qquad \\ & = & {\rm vec}(X)^T P_{\rm low} \left(\sum_{n=1}^N t^T_n t_n\right) P_{\rm low}^T {\rm vec}(X)\\ & = & {\rm vec}(X)^T P_{\rm low} T P_{\rm low}^T {\rm vec}(X)\end{aligned}$$ where we have used ${\rm Low} = P_{\rm low} P_{\rm low}^T$ and the definition of $T$ given in Lemma \[lemma T\]. For every $X$ such that $X = -X^T$ one has $\\| {\rm low}(X)\\| = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \\| X \\|$. In particular $${\rm vec}(X)^T P_{\rm low} T P_{\rm low} {\rm vec}(X) \geq \frac{1}{2} \\| X \\|^2 \sigma_{\min}(T)$$ and using the result of Lemma \[lemma T\] one obtains $$\sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}( \dot g_n^T\dot g_n) \geq \frac{\gamma}{2 \kappa(V)^4} \\| X \\|^2$$ and hence $\varepsilon = \frac{\gamma}{2 \kappa(V)^4} $. $\square$ \[lemma A upper bounds\] A possible choice of $A_\alpha$ and $A_{\sigma}$ satisfying is given by $$A_\alpha = 32 \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n\\|^2 \qquad A_\sigma = 16 \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2}$$ #### Proof of Lemma \[lemma A upper bounds\] Let $a_\alpha$, $b_\alpha$, $a_\sigma$ and $b_\sigma$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} (\dot g_n^T \partial_{\alpha} \dot g_n) & = & \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}\left( {\rm low}([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} ,X])^T {\rm low}([[U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} ,Y],X]) \right) \\ & \leq & \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| {\rm low}([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} ,X]) \\|^2} \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| {\rm low}([[U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} ,Y],X]\\|^2 }\\ & \leq & \\| X \\|^2 \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N 4 \\| M_n \\|^2} \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N 16 \\| M_n \\|^2 } \\ & \leq & 8 \\| X \\|^2 \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2\\ & = & a_\alpha \\| X \\|^2\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} (\ddot g_n^T \partial_{\alpha} g_n) & = &\sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}\left( {\rm low}([[U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ},X],X])^T {\rm low}([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} ,Y]) \right) \\ & \leq & 8 \\| X \\|^2 \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2\\ & = &b_\alpha \\| X \\|^2\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} (\dot g_n^T \partial_{\sigma} \dot g_n) & = & \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}\left( {\rm low}([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} ,X])^T {\rm low}([U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ},X]) \right) \\ & \leq & \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| {\rm low}([U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} ,X]) \\|^2} \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N \\| {\rm low}([U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ} ,X]\\|^2 }\\ & \leq & \\| X \\|^2 \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N 4 \\| M_n \\|^2} \sqrt{ \sum_{n=1}^N 4 \\| W_n \\|^2 } \\ & \leq & 4 \\| X \\|^2 \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2}\\ & = &a_{\sigma} \\| X \\|^2\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr} (\ddot g_n^T \partial_{\sigma} g_n) & = &\sum_{n=1}^N {\rm Tr}\left( {\rm low}([[U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ} ,X],X])^T {\rm low}(U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ}) \right) \\ & \leq & 4 \\| X \\|^2 \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2}\\ & = & b_{\sigma} \\| X \\|^2\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $a_\alpha = 8 \sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2 = b_\alpha$, $a_\sigma = 4 \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N \\| M_n \\|^2} = b_\sigma$, used $\\| Y \\| = 1$ and $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{n=1}^{N} {\rm Tr}(A_n B_n) &=& \sum_{n=1}^{N} {\rm vec}(A^T_n)^T {\rm vec}(B_n) \\ &=& {\rm Tr} \left( [{\rm vec}(A^T_1),\dots, {\rm vec}(A^T_N)]^T [ {\rm vec}(B_1), \dots, {\rm vec}(B_N)] \right) \\ &=& {\rm vec}\left( [{\rm vec}(A^T_1),\dots, {\rm vec}(A^T_N)]\right)^T {\rm vec}\left([ {\rm vec}(B_1), \dots, {\rm vec}(B_N)] \right) \\ &\leq & \\| {\rm vec}\left( [{\rm vec}(A^T_1),\dots, {\rm vec}(A^T_N)]\right) \\| \\| {\rm vec}\left([ {\rm vec}(B_1), \dots, {\rm vec}(B_N)] \right) \\| \\ & = & \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^{N} \\| {\rm vec}(A^T_n) \\|^2 }\sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^{N} \\| {\rm vec}(B_n) \\|^2} \\ & = & \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^{N} \\| A_n \\|^2 } \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^{N} \\|B_n \\|^2} \end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\tilde A_\alpha \leq 2 \\| X \\|^2( a_\alpha + b_\alpha ) \qquad \tilde A_\sigma \leq 2 \\| X \\|^2 ( a_\sigma + b_\sigma )$$ $\square$ \[lemma eigenvalues\] Let $U$ and $U_{\circ}$ be respectively the approximate joint triangularizers of ${\cal M}_{\sigma}$ and the exact joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ defined in Theorem \[theorem alpha\]. For all $n=1, \dots, N$ and all $i=1, \dots,d $, let $\hat \lambda_i(\hat M_n) = [U^T \hat M_n U]_{ii}$ and $\lambda_i(M_n) = [U^T_{\circ} M_n U_{\circ}]_{ii}$. Then, for all $n=1, \dots, N$ and all $i=1, \dots, d$ , $$\label{bound eigenvalues lemma} \left\| \hat \lambda_i(\hat M_n) - \lambda_i(M_n)\right\| \leq 2 \alpha \\| M_n \\| + \sigma \\| W_n \\| + O(\alpha^2)$$ with $\alpha$ defined in Theorem \[theorem alpha\]. #### Proof of Lemma \[lemma eigenvalues\] Let $U$ and $U_{\circ}$ be respectively the approximate joint triangularizers of ${\cal M}_{\sigma}$ and the exact joint triangularizer of ${\cal M}_{\circ}$ defined in Theorem \[theorem alpha\]. Then $ U = U_{\circ} e^{\alpha X} $ with $X = -X^T$, $ \\|X \\| = 1 $ and $\alpha >0$ obeying . Neglecting all second order terms one has $$\begin{aligned} \left\| \hat \lambda_i(\hat M_n) - \lambda_i(M_n)\right\| &=& \left\| [U^T \hat M_n U]_{ii} - [U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}]_{ii} \right\| \\ &=& \left\| [e^{-\alpha X} U_{\circ}^T (M_n+\sigma W_n) U_{\circ} e^{-\alpha X} ]_{ii} - [U_{\circ}^T M_n U_{\circ}]_{ii} \right\| \\ &=& \left\| [ U^T_{\circ} M_n U_{\circ} \alpha X - \alpha X U^T_{\circ} M_n U_{\circ} ]_{ii} +\sigma [U_{\circ}^T W_n U_{\circ}]_{ii} \right\| + O(\alpha^2) \\ & \leq & 2 \alpha \\| M_n \\| + \sigma \\|W_n \\| + O(\alpha^2) \end{aligned}$$ $\square$ Abed-Meraim, K. and Hua, Y. (1998). A least-squares approach to joint [S]{}chur decomposition. In [Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 1998. Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on]{}, volume 4, pages 2541–2544. IEEE. Absil, P.-A., Mahony, R., and Sepulchre, R. (2009). . Princeton University Press. Afsari, B. (2008). Sensitivity analysis for the problem of matrix joint diagonalization. , 30(3):1148–1171. Afsari, B. and Krishnaprasad, P. S. (2004). Some gradient based joint diagonalization methods for [ICA]{}. In [Independent Component Analysis and Blind Signal Separation]{}, pages 437–444. Springer. Anandkumar, A., Ge, R., Hsu, D., Kakade, S., and Telgarsky, M. (2014). Tensor decompositions for learning latent variable models. , 15:2773–2832. Balle, B., Quattoni, A., and Carreras, X. (2011). A spectral learning algorithm for finite state transducers. In [Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases]{}, pages 156–171. Springer. Cardoso, J. (1994). Perturbation of joint diagonalizers. . Cardoso, J.-F. and Souloumiac, A. (1996). Jacobi angles for simultaneous diagonalization. , 17(1):161–164. Colombo, N. and Vlassis, N. (2016). Tensor decomposition via joint matrix [S]{}chur decomposition. In [International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)]{}. Corless, R. M., Gianni, P. M., and Trager, B. M. (1997). A reordered [S]{}chur factorization method for zero-dimensional polynomial systems with multiple roots. In [Proceedings of the 1997 international symposium on Symbolic and algebraic computation]{}, pages 133–140. ACM. De Lathauwer, L. (2006). A link between the canonical decomposition in multilinear algebra and simultaneous matrix diagonalization. , 28(3):642–666. Fu, T., Jin, S., and Gao, X. (2006). Balanced simultaneous [S]{}chur decomposition for joint eigenvalue estimation. In [Communications, Circuits and Systems Proceedings, 2006 International Conference on]{}, volume 1, pages 356–360. IEEE. Haardt, M. and Nossek, J. A. (1998). Simultaneous [S]{}chur decomposition of several nonsymmetric matrices to achieve automatic pairing in multidimensional harmonic retrieval problems. , 46(1):161–169. Horn, R. A. and Johnson, C. R. (2012). . Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition. Konstantinov, M., Petkov, P. H., and Christov, N. (1994). Nonlocal perturbation analysis of the [S]{}chur system of a matrix. , 15(2):383–392. Kuleshov, V., Chaganty, A., and Liang, P. (2015). Tensor factorization via matrix factorization. In [18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS)]{}. Pang, J.-S. (1987). A posteriori error bounds for the linearly-constrained variational inequality problem. , 12(3):474–484. Prudhomme, S., Oden, J. T., Westermann, T., Bass, J., and Botkin, M. E. (2003). Practical methods for a posteriori error estimation in engineering applications. , 56(8):1193–1224. Sardouie, S. H., Albera, L., Shamsollahi, M. B., and Merlet, I. (2013). Canonical polyadic decomposition of complex-valued multi-way arrays based on simultaneous [S]{}chur decomposition. In [Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2013 IEEE International Conference on*]{}, pages 4178–4182. IEEE. [^1]: LCSB, University of Luxembourg [^2]: Adobe Research, San Jose, CA	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We investigate the behavior of systems of interacting diffusion processes, known as volatility-stabilized market models in the mathematical finance literature, when the number of diffusions tends to infinity. We show that, after an appropriate rescaling of the time parameter, the empirical measure of the system converges to the solution of a degenerate parabolic partial differential equation. A stochastic representation of the latter in terms of one-dimensional distributions of a time-changed squared Bessel process allows us to give an explicit description of the limit.' author: - \| [BY M. SHKOLNIKOV]{}\ \ [Stanford University]{} title: '[LARGE VOLATILITY-STABILIZED MARKETS]{}[^1]' --- Introduction ============ Recently, Fernholz and Karatzas [@fk] have introduced two types of systems of interacting diffusion processes, the volatility-stabilized market models and the rank-based market models, in the context of stochastic portfolio theory. Both of them serve as models for the evolution of capitalizations in large financial markets and incorporate the fact that stocks of firms with smaller market capitalization tend to have higher rates of returns and be more volatile. In a previous paper [@sh] the author gave a description of the joint dynamics of the market capitalizations in rank-based models, when the number of firms tends to infinity (see also [@jo] for related results). Here, the corresponding limit is investigated in the context of volatility-stabilized models. The dynamics of the capitalizations in volatility-stabilized models is given by the unique weak solution to the following system of stochastic differential equations: $$\begin{aligned} \label{sde1} dX_i(t)=\frac{\eta}{2}S(t)dt+\sqrt{X_i(t)S(t)}\;dW_i(t),\quad 1\leq i\leq N,\end{aligned}$$ which is endowed with an initial distribution of the vector $(X_1(0),\dots,X_N(0))$ on $[0,\infty)^N$. Hereby, $\eta$ is a real number greater than $1$, $S(t)=X_1(t)+\dots+X_N(t)$ and $W_1,\dots,W_N$ is a collection of $N$ independent standard Brownian motions. We refer to section 12 of [@fk] for a construction of a weak solution to and an explanation why it is unique. We will analyze the limit of the path of empirical measures $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{X_i(t)}$ corresponding to , after a suitable rescaling of the time parameter, when $N$ tends to infinity. The slowdown of the time by a factor of $N$ is needed to observe a non-degenerate limiting behavior. Heuristically, this can be inferred from the appearance of the process $S(t)=X_1(t)+\dots+X_N(t)$, an order $N$ object, in the drift and diffusion coefficients of the processes $X_1,\dots,X_N$. We show that the limit of the sequence of laws of $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{X_i(t/N)}$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ exists and that under the limiting measure the degenerate linear parabolic equation below must be satisfied in the weak sense with probability $1$. Using a stochastic representation of the solution to , we can determine the latter explicitly. Hence, our results allow to approximate the evolution of the capitalizations in a large volatility-stabilized market by the solution of the limiting equation . Moreover, in the context of stochastic portfolion theory (see e.g. [@fe], [@fk]) one is interested in the behavior of the rank statistics of the vector $(X_1(t),\dots,X_N(t))$ of capitalizations. Since these are given by the $\frac{1}{N},\frac{2}{N},\dots,\frac{N}{N}$-quantiles of the empirical measure $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{X_i(t)}$, our results can be also used to approximate the evolution of any finite number of ranked capitalizations by the evolution of the corresponding quantiles of the solution to the partial differential equation . In addition, the stochastic representation mentioned above shows that the solution to the equation is given by the one-dimensional distributions of a time-changed squared Bessel process and, thus, establishes a new connection between volatility-stabilized market models and squared Bessel processes (see [@fk] for further connections). The latter were analyzed in much detail in the works [@py1], [@py2] and [@ry] among others. Independently from the field of stochastic portfolio theory, systems of interacting diffusion processes play a major role in statistical physics. In particular, systems of diffusions interacting through their empirical measure (mean field) were studied in the literature by many authors, see e.g. [@ga], [@mc], [@da], [@fu], [@le], [@nt1], [@nt2], [@oe]. We remark that the system can be cast into the framework of [@ga], since the drift and the diffusion coefficients in the $i$-th equation of the system can be expressed as functions of the empirical measure of the particle system and the position of the $i$-th particle. However, the generator of the particle system is not uniformly elliptic on $[0,\infty)^N$ and the same is true on $[0,\infty)$ for the elliptic differential operator on the right-hand side of the equation . For this reason, the results of [@ga] do not carry over directly to our setting. Nonetheless, we adapt some of the techniques developed there to our case. The time-varying mass partition $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_i(t)=\frac{X_i(t)}{X_1(t)+\dots+X_N(t)},\quad 1\leq i\leq N\end{aligned}$$ is referred to as the collection of market weights in the mathematical finance literature and describes the capitalizations of the firms as fractions of the total capitalization of the market. The collection of market weights has the remarkable property of being extremely stable over time for all major financial markets (see [@fe] for plots of the market weights in multiple real-world markets). This was explained to a large extent in the context of rank-based market models in [@cp] and [@ps]. The model incorporates the empirically observed fact that the capitalizations of firms with a small market weight tend to have a higher rate of growth and to fluctuate more wildly. Indeed, this becomes apparent from the dynamics of the logarithmic capitalizations corresponding to : $$\begin{aligned} d(\log X_i(t))=\frac{\eta-1}{2\alpha_i(t)}\;dt+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha_i(t)}}\;dW_i(t),\quad 1\leq i\leq N\end{aligned}$$ and the assumption $\eta>1$. A detailed analysis of the evolution of the market weights under the model and the corresponding invariant measure can be found in [@pa]. We assume the following condition on the initial values $X_1(0),\dots,X_N(0)$ of the capitalizations. [\[ass\] The laws of $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{X_i(0)}$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ on $M_1([0,\infty))$, the space of probability measures on $[0,\infty)$ endowed with the topology of weak convergence of measures, converge weakly to $\delta_\lambda$ for some $\lambda\in M_1([0,\infty))$ with a finite first moment, the quantities ${\mathbb E}[S(0)]$ and ${\mathbb E}[S(0)^2]$ are finite for all $N\in{\mathbb N}$, and it holds $$\begin{aligned} \label{m_lambda} \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{{\mathbb E}[S(0)]}{N}=m_\lambda,\quad\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{{\mathbb E}[S(0)^2]}{N^2}=m_\lambda^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $m_\lambda=\int_{[0,\infty)} x\;\lambda(dx)$. In addition, we make the non-degeneracy assumption $m_\lambda>0$.]{} We remark at this point that Assumption \[ass\] is, in particular, satisfied if the random variables $X_1(0),\dots,X_N(0)$ are i.i.d. and distributed according to a measure $\lambda$ with finite two first moments and $m_\lambda>0$. This is a consequence of Varadarajan’s Theorem in the form of Theorem 11.4.1 in [@du2]. In order to formulate our main results we introduce the following set of notations. We write $M_1({\mathbb R})$ and $M_1([0,\infty))$ for the spaces of probability measures on the real line and the non-negative half-line, respectively. We metrize both spaces in a way compatible with the topology of weak convergence of measures. Moreover, for a positive real number $T$, we let $C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))$ and $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$ be the spaces of continuous functions from $[0,T]$ to $M_1({\mathbb R})$ and from $[0,T]$ to $M_1([0,\infty))$, respectively, endowed with the topology of uniform convergence. In addition, we introduce the time-changed capitalization processes $Y_i(t)=X_i(t/N)$, $t\geq0$, $1\leq i\leq N$ and the corresponding path of empirical measures ${\varrho}^N(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{Y_i(t)}$, $t\in[0,T]$ on an arbitrary finite time interval $[0,T]$, which is considered to be fixed from now on. Finally, we let $Q^N_T$ be the distribution of the random variable ${\varrho}^N(t)$, $t\in[0,T]$ on $C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))$. The main results of this paper are summarized in the following theorem. \[main\_result\] Under Assumption \[ass\] the following statements are true. (a) The sequence $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ converges weakly to a limit $Q^\infty_T$. Moreover, $Q^\infty_T$ is a Dirac delta measure, whose unique atom ${\varrho}$ is given by the unique distributional solution of the Cauchy problem $$\begin{aligned} &&\frac{\partial{\varrho}}{\partial t}=-\frac{\eta}{2}e^{\frac{\eta t}{2}}m_\lambda\frac{\partial{\varrho}}{\partial x} +\frac{1}{2}e^{\frac{\eta t}{2}}m_\lambda \frac{\partial^2(x{\varrho})}{\partial x^2},\label{pde}\\ &&{\varrho}(0)=\lambda \label{pdeic}\end{aligned}$$ in $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$, where $m_\lambda=\int_{[0,\infty)} x\;\lambda(dx)$. (b) Let $Z(t)$, $t\geq0$ be a squared Bessel process satisfying the stochastic initial value problem $$\begin{aligned} &&dZ(t)=\frac{\eta}{2}\;dt+\sqrt{Z(t)}\;d\beta(t),\;t\geq0,\\ &&{\mathcal L}(Z(0))=\lambda,\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ is a standard Brownian motion and ${\mathcal L}(Z(0))$ denotes the law of $Z(0)$. Then the unique distributional solution to the Cauchy problem , in $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$ is given by the one-dimensional distributions of the time-changed process $Z\Big(\int_0^t e^{\eta s/2}m_\lambda\;ds\Big)$, $t\in[0,T]$. (c) Let ${\varrho}(t)$, $t\in[0,T]$ be the only atom of the measure $Q^\infty_T$. Then for every $t\in(0,T]$ the measure ${\varrho}(t)$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure $Leb$ on $[0,\infty)$ and the corresponing density is given by $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d{\varrho}(t)}{dLeb}(y)=\int_{[0,\infty)} \frac{2}{J(t)}\Big(\frac{y}{x}\Big)^{(\eta-1)/2}\exp\Big(-\frac{2(x+y)}{J(t)}\Big)I_{\eta-1}\Big(\frac{4\sqrt{xy}}{J(t)}\Big)\lambda(dx),\end{aligned}$$ where $J(t)=\int_0^t e^{\eta s/2}m_\lambda\;ds$ and $I_{\eta-1}$ is the Bessel function of the first kind of index $\eta-1$. [Remarks.]{} (1) By a distributional solution of the problem , in $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$ we mean an element ${\varrho}$ of $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$ which satisfies the system , , where ${\mathcal S}({\mathbb R})$ is the space of Schwartz functions on ${\mathbb R}$ and $(\gamma,f)$ denotes $\int_{\mathbb R}f\;d\gamma$ for any $f\in {\mathcal S}({\mathbb R})$, $\gamma\in M_1({\mathbb R})$. (2) In [@sh] the limiting dynamics was derived (under some assumptions) for a different class of interacting diffusion processes, which go by the name of rank-based models in the context of stochastic portfolio theory. There, the limiting equation for the cumulative distribution function of the empirical measure of the logarithmic capitalizations was given by the porous medium equation, that is, a nonlinear non-degenerate parabolic partial differential equation. It was also shown there that its weak solution $w$ can be represented by the one-dimensional distributions of the process with the dynamics $$\begin{aligned} dX(t)=\mu(w(t,X(t)))\;dt+\sigma(w(t,X(t)))\;d\beta(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are functions depending on the parameters of the model. In contrast, the partial differential equation is a linear degenerate parabolic differential equation, which admits the stochastic representation of Theorem \[main\_result\] (b). Hence, although the rank-based and the volatility-stabilized models share multiple common features (such as the monotone dependence of the drift and diffusion coefficients of the logarithmic capitalizations on the market weights), their limiting behavior differs significantly. Indeed, it was shown in [@ar] that the weak solution of the porous medium equation may fail to be differentiable in the spatial variable for all $t\geq0$ in contrast to the findings in Theorem \[main\_result\] (c) for the equation . In addition, a big difference from the applicational point of view is the explicitness of the solution to the equation , whereas (in general) no explicit formula for the weak solution of the porous medium equation is known. It is also remarkable that with the usual parametrizations of the two models as in [@fk], the time in the volatility-stabilized models has to be slowed down by a factor of $N$ to observe non-degenerate limiting behavior, whereas this is not the case in the rank-based market models. (3) Let $d$ be a metric on $M_1({\mathbb R})$ which metrizes the topology of weak convergence of probability measures (such as the Levy metric or any other metric in section 11.3 of [@du2]), and let $d_{[0,T]}$ be the metric on $C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))$ given by $$\begin{aligned} d_{[0,T]}(\xi_1,\xi_2)=\sup_{t\in[0,T]} d(\xi_1(t),\xi_2(t)).\end{aligned}$$ Then $d_{[0,T]}$ makes the space $C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))$ into a separable metric space (see e.g. Theorem 2.4.3 in [@sr]). Moreover, combining part (a) of Theorem \[main\_result\] with problem 6 in chapter 9.3 of [@du2], we conclude that the sequence ${\varrho}^N$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ converges to the path of measures ${\varrho}$ of Theorem \[main\_result\] (c) in probability on $(C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R})),d_{[0,T]})$, that is, $$\begin{aligned} \forall{\varepsilon}>0:\;\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}{\mathbb P}(\sup_{t\in[0,T]} d({\varrho}^N(t),{\varrho}(t))>{\varepsilon})=0.\end{aligned}$$ This gives an alternative way of stating part (a) of Theorem \[main\_result\]. (4) The transition densities of the squared Bessel process $Z$ in Theorem \[main\_result\] (b) are known (see e.g. Corollary 1.4 in chapter XI of [@ry]), so that part (c) of Theorem \[main\_result\] is a direct consequence of parts (a) and (b) of Theorem \[main\_result\]. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Part (a) of Theorem \[main\_result\] is proven in sections 2.1 and 2.2. Its proof is divided into three parts. Firstly, in Proposion \[tightness\] it is shown that the sequence $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ is tight. Its proof relies on the characterization of compact subsets of $C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))$ obtained in [@ga] and a characterization of compact subsets of $C([0,T],{\mathbb R})$, the space of continuous real-valued functions on $[0,T]$ endowed with the topology of uniform convergence, given in [@sv]. Secondly, in Proposition \[convergence\] we prove that under every limit point of the sequence $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ the Cauchy problem , is satisfied in the distributional sense with probability $1$. Here, we use arguments from the theory of convergence of semimartingales in the spirit of [@js]. The main challenge in these two parts is to deal with the unboundedness of the drift and diffusion coefficients in the dynamics of the processes $Y_1,\dots,Y_N$. Thirdly, in Proposition \[uniqueness\] we demonstrate that the problem , has a unique distributional solution in the space $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$. This is achieved by transforming the uniqueness problem into an existence problem and by applying existence results on boundary value problems for non-degenerate linear parabolic equations on bounded subsets of $[0,T]\times{\mathbb R}$, on which the differential operator of equation is uniformly parabolic. After that, we give the proof of part (b) of Theorem \[main\_result\] in section 2.3 using methods of stochastic calculus. Law of large numbers ==================== Tightness --------- In this subsection we will combine the characterization of relatively compact sets in the space $C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))$ of [@ga] with a characterization of relatively compact subsets of $C([0,T],{\mathbb R})$ in [@sv] to prove the tightness of the sequence $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$. [\[tightness\] The sequence $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ is tight on $C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))$.\ \ ]{} [Proof.]{} 1) Let $C_c({\mathbb R})$ be the space of compactly supported continuous functions on ${\mathbb R}$ endowed with the topology of uniform convergence. We fix an arbitrary ${\varepsilon}>0$ and a countable dense subset $\{f_1,f_2,\dots\}$ of $C_c({\mathbb R})$ such that each $f_r$ is twice continuously differentiable. Moreover, for every $\gamma\in M_1({\mathbb R})$ and every function $f$ on ${\mathbb R}$, which is integrable with respect to $\gamma$, we write $(\gamma,f)$ for $\int_{\mathbb R}f\;d\gamma$. From the proof of Lemma 1.3 in [@ga] we see that it is enough to find a compact set $K_0$ in $M_1({\mathbb R})$ and compact sets $K_1,K_2,\dots$ in $C([0,T],{\mathbb R})$ such that for all $N\in{\mathbb N}$: $$\begin{aligned} &&Q^N_T(\{\xi\in C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))\|\forall t\in[0,T]:\;\xi(t)\in K_0\})\geq 1-{\varepsilon},\\ &&Q^N_T(\{\xi\in C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))\|(\xi(.),f_r)\in K_r\})\geq 1-{\varepsilon}\cdot 2^{-r},\; r\geq1. \end{aligned}$$ To define $K_0$ we introduce the function ${\varphi}(x)=\|x\|$ and use the non-negativity of the processes $Y_1,\dots,Y_N$ together with the dynamics of the processes $X_1,\dots,X_N$ to conclude $$\begin{aligned} d({\varrho}^N(t),{\varphi})=\frac{\eta S^Y(t)}{2N} dt + \frac{1}{N^{3/2}}\sum_{i=1}^N \sqrt{Y_i(t)S^Y(t)} dB_i(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $B_i(t)=N^{1/2} W_i(t/N)$, $1\leq i\leq N$, $S^Y(t)=Y_1(t)+\dots+Y_N(t)$. From the representation of $X_1,\dots,X_N$ as time-changed squared Bessel processes (see equations (12.7)-(12.9) in [@fk]) and remark (ii) after Corollary 1.4 in chapter XI of [@ry] (note that their dimension parameter $\delta$ corresponds to our $2\eta$) it follows that the return time to $0$ of the processes $X_1,\dots,X_N$ is infinity with probability $1$. Hence, the process $B(t)=\sum_{i=1}^N \int_0^t \frac{\sqrt{Y_i(s)}}{\sqrt{S^Y(s)}} dB_i(s)$, $t\geq0$ is well-defined and a standard Brownian motion by Levy’s Theorem. As a consequence we have $$\begin{aligned} d({\varrho}^N(t),{\varphi})=\frac{\eta}{2}({\varrho}^N(t),{\varphi}) dt + \frac{({\varrho}^N(t),{\varphi})}{\sqrt{N}} dB(t).\end{aligned}$$ The latter equation is a Black-Scholes stochastic differential equation and it is well-known that its unique strong solution is given by $$\begin{aligned} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;({\varrho}^N(t),{\varphi})=({\varrho}^N(0),{\varphi})\exp\Big((\eta/2-(2N)^{-1})t+N^{-1/2} B(t)\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for every $C>0$ and all $N\in{\mathbb N}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} &&{\mathbb P}\Big((\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} ({\varrho}^N(t),{\varphi}))>C\Big)\\ &\leq&{\mathbb P}\Big(({\varrho}^N(0),{\varphi})\exp(N^{-1/2}\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} B(t))>C\exp(-(\eta/2-(2N)^{-1})T)\Big).\end{aligned}$$ A routine computation involving Chebyshev’s inequality and shows that the sequence of random variables $({\varrho}^N(0),{\varphi})\exp(N^{-1/2}\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} B(t))$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ converges in probability to the constant $m_\lambda$. Hence, by choosing $C$ large enough, one can make the latter upper bound smaller than ${\varepsilon}$ for all $N\in{\mathbb N}$. Thus, we can let $K_0$ be the closure of the set $$\begin{aligned} \{\gamma\in M_1({\mathbb R})\|(\gamma,{\varphi})\leq C\} \end{aligned}$$ in $M_1({\mathbb R})$, which is compact by Prokhorov’s Theorem. 2\) To prove the existence of the sets $K_1,K_2,\dots$ with the desired properties it suffices to show that for any fixed $r\in{\mathbb N}$ the sequence of probability measures $Q^{N,f_r}_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ on $C([0,T],{\mathbb R})$ induced by $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ through the mapping $\xi\mapsto(\xi(.),f_r)$ is tight. To this end, we fix an $r\in{\mathbb N}$ and aim to deduce the tightness of the sequence $Q^{N,f_r}_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ from Theorem 1.3.2 of [@sv]. To do this, we need to show $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\theta\uparrow\infty}\inf_{N\in{\mathbb N}} Q^{N,f_r}_T(\|y(0)\|\leq\theta)=1\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \forall\Delta>0:\; \lim_{\zeta\downarrow0}\limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty} Q^{N,f_r}_T\Big(\sup_{(s,t)\in A_\zeta}\|y(t)-y(s)\|>\Delta\Big)=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $A_\zeta=\{(s,t)\|0\leq s\leq t\leq T,t-s\leq\zeta\}$. The first assertion follows immediately by considering $\theta>\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}\|f_r(x)\|$. To prove the second assertion, we first rewrite it in terms of $X_1,\dots,X_N$: $$\begin{aligned} \forall\Delta>0:\;\lim_{\zeta\downarrow0}\limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty} {\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{(s,t)\in A_{\zeta,N}}\frac{1}{N}\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^N (f_r(X_i(t))-f_r(X_i(s)))\Big\|>\Delta\Big)=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{\zeta,N}=\{(s,t)\|0\leq s\leq t\leq T/N,t-s\leq\zeta/N\}$. Next, we apply Ito’s formula to the process $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N f_r(X_i(t))$, $t\geq0$ and conclude that it holds $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N f_r(X_i(t))=D(t)+M(t),\;t\geq0,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;D(t)&=&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \int_0^t \frac{\eta}{2}f_r'(X_i(u))S(u)+\frac{1}{2}f_r''(X_i(u))X_i(u)S(u)\;du,\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;M(t)&=&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \int_0^t f_r'(X_i(u))\sqrt{X_i(u)S(u)}\;dW_i(u).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for every fixed $\Delta>0$ the latter limit can be bounded from above by $$\begin{aligned} &&\lim_{\zeta\downarrow0}\limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t\leq T/N,t-s\leq\zeta/N}\|D(t)-D(s)\|>\Delta/2\Big)\\ &+&\lim_{\zeta\downarrow0}\limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t\leq T/N,t-s\leq\zeta/N}\|M(t)-M(s)\|>\Delta/2\Big),\end{aligned}$$ which we will call expression (\). We will show that the first summand in (\) is zero in step 3 and that the second summand is equal to zero in step 4. 3\) To bound the first summand from above, we set $$\begin{aligned} R=\max(\eta/2\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}\|f'_r(x)\|,1/2\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}\|f''_r(x)\|) \end{aligned}$$ and use the definition of the process $D$ to make the estimates $$\begin{aligned} &&{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t\leq T/N,t-s\leq\zeta/N}\|D(t)-D(s)\|>\Delta/2\Big)\\ &\leq&{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t\leq T/N,t-s\leq\zeta/N}\int_s^t S(u)+S(u)^2/N\;du\geq\frac{\Delta}{2R}\Big)\\ &\leq&{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T/N}(S(t)+S(t)^2/N)\geq\frac{\Delta N}{2R\zeta}\Big)\\ &=&{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T/N} S(t)\geq\frac{-1+\sqrt{1+2\Delta/(R\zeta)}}{2}N\Big).\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the latter upper bound further, we use the dynamics of the processes $X_1,\dots,X_N$ to find $$\begin{aligned} dS(t)=S(t)\frac{\eta N}{2} dt + \sum_{i=1}^N \sqrt{X_i(t)S(t)} dW_i(t) =S(t)\frac{\eta N}{2} dt + S(t) d\widetilde{B}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{B}(t)=\sum_{i=1}^N \int_0^t \frac{\sqrt{X_i(s)}}{\sqrt{S(s)}}dW_i(s)$, $t\geq0$ is a standard Brownian motion due to the same argument as for the process $B$ in step 1 of this proof. Thus, $S$ satisfies the Black-Scholes stochastic differential equation and is given explicitly by $$\begin{aligned} \label{Sexplicitly} S(t)=S(0)\exp\Big((\eta N/2-1/2)t+\widetilde{B}(t)\Big),\;t\geq0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the latter upper bound is not greater than $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb P}\Big(\frac{S(0)}{N}\exp\Big((\eta N/2-1/2)T/N+\sup_{0\leq t\leq T/N}\widetilde{B}(t)\Big)\geq \frac{-1+\sqrt{1+2\Delta/(R\zeta)}}{2}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ From and Chebyshev’s inequality it follows that the sequence of random variables $$\begin{aligned} \frac{S(0)}{N}\exp\Big((\eta N/2-1/2)T/N+\sup_{0\leq t\leq T/N}\widetilde{B}(t)\Big),\;N\in{\mathbb N}\end{aligned}$$ converges to the constant $m_\lambda e^{\eta T/2}$ in probability in the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$. Thus, the latter probability converges to $0$ in the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ for all $\zeta$ small enough. 4\) To show that the second summand in expression (\) is zero, we first note that for every pair $0\leq s\leq t\leq T/N$ with $t-s\leq\zeta/N$ there is a $k\in{\mathbb N}$ with $s,t\in[k\zeta/N,(k+2)\zeta/N]$. We use this observation and the union bound to conclude $$\begin{aligned} &&{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t\leq T/N,t-s\leq\zeta/N}\|M(t)-M(s)\|>\Delta/2\Big)\\ &\leq&\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor T/\zeta\rfloor-1}{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{k\zeta/N\leq t\leq (k+2)\zeta/N} \|M(t)-M(k\zeta/N)\|>\Delta/4\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $\lfloor.\rfloor$ denotes the function taking a real number to its integer part. Next, we use to compute $$\label{Smoments}\begin{split} &{\mathbb E}[S(t)]={\mathbb E}[S(0)]\exp(\eta Nt/2),\\ &{\mathbb E}[S(t)^2]={\mathbb E}[S(0)^2]\exp((\eta N+1)t). \end{split}$$ The inequality $f'_r(X_i(t))^2 X_i(t)S(t)\leq \sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}\|f'_r(x)\|^2 S(t)^2$, Fubini’s Theorem and imply that the process $M(t)$, $t\geq0$ is a martingale. Applying the $L^2$-version of Doob’s maximal inequality for non-negative submartingales we obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor T/\zeta\rfloor-1}{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{k\zeta/N\leq t\leq (k+2)\zeta/N} \|M(t)-M(k\zeta/N)\|>\Delta/4\Big)\\ &\leq&\frac{16}{\Delta^2} \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor T/\zeta\rfloor-1}{\mathbb E}[(M((k+2)\zeta/N)-M(k\zeta/N))^2].\end{aligned}$$ By the Ito isometry the latter expression can be computed to $$\begin{aligned} &&\frac{16}{\Delta^2 N^2} \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor T/\zeta\rfloor-1} \sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbb E}\Big[\int_{k\zeta/N}^{(k+2)\zeta/N} f_r'(X_i(u))^2X_i(u)S(u)\;du\Big]\\ &\leq&\frac{32\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}\|f'_r(x)\|^2}{\Delta^2N^2}{\mathbb E}\Big[\int_0^{(\lfloor T/\zeta\rfloor+1)\zeta/N} S(u)^2\;du\Big].\end{aligned}$$ By Fubini’s Theorem (note that the integrand is non-negative) and one deduces that the right-hand side is equal to $$\begin{aligned} \frac{32\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}\|f'_r(x)\|^2{\mathbb E}[S(0)^2]}{\Delta^2 N^2(\eta N+1)}\Big(\exp\Big((\eta N+1)(\lfloor T/\zeta\rfloor+1)\zeta/N\Big)-1\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Using we conclude that the latter expression tends to $0$ in the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ for any fixed $\zeta>0$. [$\Box$]{} Identification of the limit point --------------------------------- In this section we will uniquely characterize the limit points of the sequence $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ and thereby complete the proof of Theorem \[main\_result\] (a). To this end, we fix a convergent subsequence $Q^{N_k}_T$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$ of the sequence $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$ and let $Q^\infty_T$ be its limit. By the Skorokhod Representation Theorem in the form of Theorem 3.5.1 in [@du], there exist $C([0,T],M_1({\mathbb R}))$-valued random variables $\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$ with laws $Q^{N_k}_T$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$ converging to a limiting random variable $\widetilde{{\varrho}}_\infty$ with law $Q^\infty_T$ almost surely. We start with the following lemma. [\[averageprocess\] The sequence of functions $t\mapsto(\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k(t),x)$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$ converges in the space $C([0,T],{\mathbb R})$ to $t\mapsto m_\lambda e^{\eta t/2}$ in probability in the limit $k\rightarrow\infty$.\ \ ]{} [Proof.]{} First, we fix a $k\in{\mathbb N}$ and with a minor abuse of notation write $S(t)$ for $X_1(t)+\dots+X_{N_k}(t)$. By equation , we have for every ${\varepsilon}>0$: $$\begin{aligned} &&{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} \Big\|(\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k(t),x)-m_\lambda e^{\eta t/2}\Big\|>{\varepsilon}\Big)\\ &=&{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} \Big\|\frac{S(0)}{N_k}\exp\Big(\eta/2-1/(2N_k))t+N_k^{-1/2}W(t)\Big)-m_\lambda e^{\eta t/2}\Big\|>{\varepsilon}\Big)\\ &\leq&{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} \Big\|\frac{S(0)}{N_k}\exp\Big(-t/(2N_k)+N_k^{-1/2}W(t)\Big)-m_\lambda\Big\|>{\varepsilon}e^{-\eta T/2}\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $W(t)=N_k^{1/2}\widetilde{B}(t/N_k)$, $t\geq0$ is a standard Brownian motion. By Girsanov’s Theorem the process $\frac{S(0)}{N_k}\exp\Big(-t/(2N_k)+N_k^{-1/2}W(t)\Big)-m_\lambda$, $t\geq0$ is a martingale. Hence, we can apply the $L^2$-version of Doob’s maximal inequality for non-negative submartingales to estimate the latter upper bound from above by $$\begin{aligned} &&\frac{e^{\eta T}}{{\varepsilon}^2} {\mathbb E}\Big[\Big(\frac{S(0)}{N_k}\exp\Big(-T/(2N_k)+N_k^{-1/2}W(T)\Big)-m_\lambda\Big)^2\Big]\\ &=&\frac{e^{\eta T}}{{\varepsilon}^2}\Big(\frac{{\mathbb E}[S(0)^2]}{N_k^2}{\mathbb E}\Big[\exp\Big(-\frac{T}{N_k}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{N_k}}W(T)\Big)\Big] -2m_\lambda\frac{{\mathbb E}[S(0)]}{N_k}+m_\lambda^2\Big)\\ &=&\frac{e^{\eta T}}{{\varepsilon}^2}\Big(\frac{{\mathbb E}[S(0)^2]}{N_k^2}e^{T/N_k}-2m_\lambda\frac{{\mathbb E}[S(0)]}{N_k}+m_\lambda^2\Big).\end{aligned}$$ It follows from that the latter expression tends to $0$ in the limit $k\rightarrow\infty$. This finishes the proof of the lemma. [$\Box$]{} Now, we are ready to prove that the system , must hold in the distributional sense almost surely under any limit point of the sequence $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$. [\[convergence\] Let $Q^\infty_T$ be the limit of a convergent subsequence $Q^{N_k}_T$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$ of the sequence $Q^N_T$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$. Then under $Q^\infty_T$ the system , is satisfied in the distributional sense almost surely. Moreover, if $\widetilde{{\varrho}}_\infty$ is a random variable with law $Q^\infty_T$, then it holds $\widetilde{{\varrho}}_\infty\in C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty))$ with probability $1$.\ \ ]{} [Proof.]{} 1) Fix a $Q^\infty_T$ as in the statement of the proposition. Let $\{g_1,g_2,\dots\}$ be a dense subset of the space ${\mathcal S}({\mathbb R})$ of Schwartz functions on ${\mathbb R}$ with respect to the topology of uniform convergence of functions and their first and second derivatives, such that each $g_r$ is infinitely differentiable with compact support. We claim that in order to prove the first assertion of the proposition it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned} &&({\varrho}(t),g_r)-({\varrho}(0),g_r)=m_\lambda\int_0^t e^{\frac{\eta s}{2}}\Big({\varrho}(s),\frac{\eta}{2}g_r'+\frac{1}{2}xg_r''\Big)\;ds \label{inteq},\\ &&{\varrho}(0)=\lambda \label{inteqic}\end{aligned}$$ holds for all $r\in{\mathbb N}$ and $t\in[0,T]$ with probability $1$ under $Q^\infty_T$. Indeed, this would imply that the system , is satisfied for all $g\in{\mathcal S}({\mathbb R})$ and all $t\in[0,T]$ with probability $1$ under $Q^\infty_T$. This would yield the first assertion of the proposition. 2\) Since a countable union of null sets is a null set, it is enough to show that the system , is satisfied for a fixed function $g_r$ and all $t\in[0,T]$ with probability $1$ under $Q^\infty_T$. It is clear that equation is satisfied with probability $1$ due to Assumption \[ass\]. In order to show that equation holds, we use Ito’s formula to compute $$\begin{aligned} d\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N g_r(X_i(t))=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \Big(\frac{\eta}{2}g_r'(X_i(t))S(t)+\frac{1}{2}g_r''(X_i(t))X_i(t)S(t)\Big)dt\\ +\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N g_r'(X_i(t))\sqrt{X_i(t)S(t)} dW_i(t).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, one has the dynamics $$\begin{aligned} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;d({\varrho}^N(t),g_r)=D_r(t)\;dt+\frac{1}{N^{3/2}}\sum_{i=1}^N g_r'(Y_i(t))\sqrt{Y_i(t)S^Y(t)} dB_i(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} D_r(t)&=&\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{i=1}^N \Big(\frac{\eta}{2}g_r'(Y_i(t))S^Y(t)+\frac{1}{2}g_r''(Y_i(t))Y_i(t)S^Y(t)\Big)\\ &=&\Big({\varrho}^N(t),\frac{\eta}{2}g_r'+\frac{1}{2}xg_r''\Big)\cdot({\varrho}^N(t),x),\end{aligned}$$ $t\geq0$, and $B_i(t)=N^{1/2} W_i(t/N)$, $1\leq i\leq N$, $S^Y(t)=Y_1(t)+\dots+Y_N(t)$ as before. Moreover, the inequality $$\begin{aligned} \|g_r'(Y_i(t))\|\sqrt{Y_i(t)S^Y(t)}\leq\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}\|g_r'(x)\| S^Y(t),\end{aligned}$$ Fubini’s Theorem and show that the process $$\begin{aligned} \;\;\;\;\;\;M_r(t)=\frac{1}{N^{3/2}}\sum_{i=1}^N \int_0^t g_r'(Y_i(u))\sqrt{Y_i(u)S^Y(u)} dB_i(u),\;t\geq0\end{aligned}$$ is a martingale. Hence, using the $L^2$-version of Doob’s maximal inequality for non-negative submartingales and the Ito isometry, we obtain for every ${\varepsilon}>0$: $$\begin{aligned} &&{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} \Big\|({\varrho}^N(t),g_r)-({\varrho}^N(0),g_r)-\int_0^t D_r(u)\;du\Big\|>{\varepsilon}\Big)\\ &&\leq{\varepsilon}^{-2}{\mathbb E}[M_r(T)^2]\\ &&=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2 N^3}\sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbb E}\Big[\int_0^T g_r'(Y_i(u))^2 Y_i(u)S^Y(u) du\Big]\\ &&\leq\frac{\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}\|g_r'(x)\|^2}{{\varepsilon}^2 N^3}{\mathbb E}\Big[\int_0^T S^Y(u)^2\;du\Big]. \end{aligned}$$ Using $S^Y(u)=S(u/N)$, $u\geq0$, Fubini’s Theorem and we can compute the latter upper bound to $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}\|g_r'(x)\|^2}{{\varepsilon}^2 N^3}\cdot\frac{N\;{\mathbb E}[S(0)^2]}{\eta N+1}\Big(e^{(\eta N+1)T/N}-1\Big).\end{aligned}$$ This expression tends to $0$ in the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ due to . 3\) Next, we recall the definition of the random variables $\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$ and $\widetilde{{\varrho}}_\infty$ prior to Lemma \[averageprocess\]. In view of the latter, we may and will assume that the sequence of functions $t\mapsto(\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k(t),x)$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$ converges to $t\mapsto m_\lambda e^{\eta t/2}$ in the space $C([0,T],{\mathbb R})$ with probability $1$ (otherwise we pass to a suitable subsequence). It follows that the random variables $\Xi_k$ given by $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{0\leq t\leq T} \Big\|(\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k(t),g_r)-(\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k(0),g_r) -\int_0^t (\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k(u),\eta/2 g_r'+x/2g_r'')\cdot(\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k(u),x)\;du\Big\|,\end{aligned}$$ converge almost surely in the limit $k\rightarrow\infty$ to $$\begin{aligned} \sup_{0\leq t\leq T} \Big\|(\widetilde{{\varrho}}_\infty(t),g_r)-(\widetilde{{\varrho}}_\infty(0),g_r) -\int_0^t (\widetilde{{\varrho}}_\infty(u),\eta/2 g_r'+x/2g_r'')\cdot m_\lambda e^{\eta u/2}\;du\Big\|,\end{aligned}$$ which we call $\Xi_\infty$. Finally, using the Portmanteau Theorem and the final result of step 2 we obtain for every ${\varepsilon}>0$: $$\begin{aligned} &&{\mathbb P}(\Xi_\infty>{\varepsilon})\leq\liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty}{\mathbb P}(\Xi_k>{\varepsilon})\\ &&=\liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty}{\mathbb P}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} \Big\|({\varrho}^{N_k}(t),g_r)-({\varrho}^{N_k}(0),g_r)-\int_0^t D_r(u)\;du\Big\|>{\varepsilon}\Big)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Since the law of $\widetilde{{\varrho}}_\infty$ is given by $Q^\infty_T$, it follows that equation holds $Q^\infty_T$-almost surely. 4\) To prove the second assertion of the proposition, we note that $\widetilde{{\varrho}}_k(t)([0,\infty))=1$ holds for all $k\in{\mathbb N}$ and $t\in[0,T]$ almost surely. This is a consequence of the representation of $X_1,\dots,X_N$ as time-changed squared Bessel processes (see equations (12.7)-(12.9) in [@fk]) and the properties of the latter (see e.g. chapter XI of [@ry]). Thus, the Portmanteau Theorem implies $\widetilde{{\varrho}}_\infty(t)([0,\infty))=1$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ on the same set of full probability. [$\Box$]{} In view of Propositions \[tightness\] and \[convergence\], the proof of Theorem \[main\_result\] (a) is complete, once we show that the solution of the Cauchy problem $$\begin{aligned} \;\;\;\;\;\;&&\forall g\in{\mathcal S}({\mathbb R}):\; ({\varrho}(t),g)-({\varrho}(0),g)=m_\lambda\int_0^t e^{\frac{\eta s}{2}}\Big({\varrho}(s),\frac{\eta}{2}g'+\frac{1}{2}xg''\Big)\;ds \label{inteq2},\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;&&{\varrho}(0)=\lambda \label{inteq2ic}\end{aligned}$$ in $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$ is unique. [\[uniqueness\] The solution of the Cauchy problem , in the space $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty))$ is unique.\ \ ]{} [Proof.]{} 1) Let $\mu,\nu\in C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$ be two solutions of the problem , . Moreover, define the operator $$\begin{aligned} Lh=\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}-m_\lambda e^{\frac{\eta t}{2}}\frac{\eta}{2}\frac{\partial h}{\partial x} -m_\lambda e^{\frac{\eta t}{2}}\frac{x}{2}\frac{\partial^2 h}{\partial x^2}\end{aligned}$$ acting on the space $C^{1,2}_c([0,T]\times{\mathbb R})$ of continuous real-valued functions on $[0,T]\times{\mathbb R}$ having compact support in $(0,T)\times{\mathbb R}$, a continuous time derivative and two continuous spatial derivatives. For the same reason as in the remark preceeding Theorem A.1 in [@ga], the problem , is equivalent to the problem $$\label{inteq3}\begin{split} \forall h\in C^{1,2}_c([0,T]\times{\mathbb R}):({\varrho}(t),h(t,.))-({\varrho}(0),h(0,.))=\int_0^t ({\varrho}(s),(Lh)(s,.))ds \end{split}$$ with initial condition ${\varrho}(0)=\lambda$. This follows by an approximation of functions $h\in C^{1,2}_c([0,T]\times{\mathbb R})$ by functions on $[0,T]\times{\mathbb R}$ which are Schwartz functions in $x$ for every fixed $t$ and piecewise constant in $t$. Since for all $h\in C^{1,2}_c([0,T]\times{\mathbb R})$ it holds $(\mu(T),h(T,.))=(\nu(T),h(T,.))=0$, we conclude from : $$\begin{split} \forall h\in C^{1,2}_c([0,T]\times{\mathbb R}):\;\int_0^T (\mu(s),(Lh)(s,.))\;ds=\int_0^T (\nu(s),(Lh)(s,.))\;ds. \end{split}$$ 2\) In view of the latter equation, it suffices to show that the space $$\begin{aligned} Lh,\;h\in C^{1,2}_c([0,T]\times{\mathbb R}) \end{aligned}$$ contains all functions on $[0,T]\times{\mathbb R}$ of the form $(t,x)\mapsto l(t)r(x)$, where $l$ is an infinitely differentiable function on $[0,T]$ with compact support contained in $[t_0,t_1]$ for some $0<t_0<t_1<T$ and $r$ is an infinitely differentiable function on ${\mathbb R}$ with compact support contained in $[a,b]$ for some $0<a<b$. To this end, we first let ${\mathcal R}$ be a bounded closed rectangle of the form $[\widetilde{t}_0,\widetilde{t}_1]\times[\widetilde{a},\widetilde{b}]$ which is contained in $(0,T)\times{\mathbb R}$ and such that $[t_0,t_1]\times[a,b]$ is contained in the interior of ${\mathcal R}$. By Theorem 9 in section 1.5 of [@fr] there exists a function $h:{\mathcal R}\rightarrow{\mathbb R}$ such that the derivatives $\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}$, $\frac{\partial h}{\partial x}$, $\frac{\partial^2 h}{\partial x^2}$ exist and are continuous on ${\mathcal R}$ and it holds $(Lh)(t,x)=l(t)r(x)$ in the strong sense on ${\mathcal R}$. Next, we apply the maximum principle in the form of Lemma 4 in section 2.1 of [@fr] on the rectangles $$\begin{aligned} [\widetilde{t}_0,\widetilde{t}_1]\times[\widetilde{a},a],\;[t_1,\widetilde{t}_1]\times[\widetilde{a},\widetilde{b}], \;[\widetilde{t}_0,\widetilde{t}_1]\times[b,\widetilde{b}],\;[\widetilde{t}_0,t_0]\times[\widetilde{a},\widetilde{b}] \end{aligned}$$ to the functions $h$ and $-h$ to conclude that the function $h$ is constant on the complement of $[t_0,t_1]\times[a,b]$ in ${\mathcal R}$. Hence, without loss of generality we may assume that $h$ is constantly equal to zero on the complement of $[t_0,t_1]\times[a,b]$ in ${\mathcal R}$ (otherwise we subtract a constant from $h$). Thus, we can extend $h$ to a function $\widetilde{h}\in C^{1,2}_c([0,T]\times{\mathbb R})$ such that $\widetilde{h}=h$ on ${\mathcal R}$ and $\widetilde{h}=0$ on the complement of ${\mathcal R}$. It follows that $(L\widetilde{h})(t,x)=l(t)r(x)$ holds in the strong sense on $[0,T]\times{\mathbb R}$, which finishes the proof. [$\Box$]{} Stochastic representation of the limit point -------------------------------------------- In this subsection we prove part (b) of Theorem \[main\_result\].\ \ [Proof of Theorem \[main\_result\] (b).]{} In view of Proposition \[uniqueness\] it suffices to show that the one-dimensional distributions $\xi(t)$, $t\in[0,T]$ of the process $\Gamma(t)=Z\Big(\int_0^t e^{\eta s/2}m_\lambda\;ds\Big)$, $t\in[0,T]$ form a distributional solution to the Cauchy problem , in $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$. It is clear that $\xi(t)$, $t\in[0,T]$ satisfies and that it is an element of $C([0,T],M_1([0,\infty)))$, since the squared Bessel process $Z$ has continuous paths and takes values in $[0,\infty)$ (see e.g. chapter XI in [@ry]). To prove that $\xi(t)$, $t\in[0,T]$ satisfies , we use the time-change formalism for Brownian motion (see e.g. [@ok], chapter 8.5) to deduce $$\begin{aligned} d\Gamma(t)&=&\frac{d}{dt}\Big(\int_0^t e^{\eta s/2}m_\lambda\;ds\Big)\frac{\eta}{2}\;dt +\sqrt{\frac{d}{dt}\Big(\int_0^t e^{\eta s/2}m_\lambda\;ds\Big)}\sqrt{\Gamma(t)}\;d\widetilde{\beta}(t)\\ &=&e^{\eta t/2}m_\lambda\frac{\eta}{2}\;dt+e^{\eta t/4}\sqrt{m_\lambda}\sqrt{\Gamma(t)}\;d\widetilde{\beta}(t),\end{aligned}$$ $t\geq0$, where $\widetilde{\beta}$ is an appropriate standard Brownian motion. Hence, Ito’s formula shows $$\begin{aligned} g(\Gamma(t))-g(\Gamma(0))&=&\int_0^t m_\lambda e^{\eta s/2}\Big(\frac{\eta}{2}g'(\Gamma(s))+\frac{1}{2}\Gamma(s)g''(\Gamma(s))\Big)\;ds\\ &+&\int_0^t g'(\Gamma(s))e^{\eta s/4}\sqrt{m_\lambda}\sqrt{\Gamma(s)}\;d\widetilde{\beta}(s)\end{aligned}$$ for all $g\in{\mathcal S}({\mathbb R})$ and $t\in[0,T]$. Moreover, the expectations ${\mathbb E}[\Gamma(t)]$, $t\in[0,T]$ are finite and uniformly bounded (this is evident from the definition of squared Bessel processes in chapter XI of [@ry] if $2\eta$ is an integer; in the general case, this can be deduced by comparing $Z$ with a squared Bessel process of integer index $2\eta'>2\eta$ using, for example, the comparison theorems of section 3 in chapter IX of [@ry]). Thus, by taking the expectation in the latter equation and applying Fubini’s Theorem we get $$\begin{aligned} \;\;\;\;\;\;(\xi(t),g)-(\xi(0),g)=\int_0^t \Big(\xi(s),m_\lambda e^{\eta s/2}\Big(\frac{\eta}{2}g'+\frac{1}{2}xg''\Big)\Big)\;ds\end{aligned}$$ for all $g\in{\mathcal S}({\mathbb R})$ and $t\in[0,T]$. Thus, $\xi(t)$, $t\in[0,T]$ solves the equation in the distributional sense. [$\Box$]{} Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The author thanks Amir Dembo for his comments on this work. He is also grateful to Adrian Banner, Robert Ferholz, Ioannis Karatzas and Vassilios Papathanakos who brought the question on the large $N$ behavior of volatility-stabilized market models to his attention. [9]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Aronson D. G.</span> (1969). Regularity Properties of Flows Through Porous Media. SIAM J. Appl. Math.* 17 461-467. [MR0265774](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0265774) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chatterjee S., Pal S.</span> (2010). A phase transition behaviour for Brownian motions interacting through their ranks. Probab. Theory Related Fields 147 123-159. [MR2594349](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2594349) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dawson D. A.</span> (1983). Critical dynamics and fluctuations for a mean field model of cooperative behavior. J. Statist. Phys. 31 29-85. [MR0711469](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0711469) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dudley R. M.</span> (1999). Uniform central limit theorems. Cambridge University Press. [MR1720712](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1720712) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dudley R. M.</span> (2002). Real analysis and probability. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York. [MR1932358](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1932358) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fernholz E. R.</span> (2002). Stochastic Portfolio Theory. Springer, New York. [MR1894767](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1894767) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fernholz E. R., Karatzas, I.</span>. (2009). Stochastic Portfolio Theory: An Overview. Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Methods in Finance (Alain Bensoussan and Qiang Zhang Editors), Special Volume of the Handbook of Numerical Analysis. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Friedman A.</span> (1964). Partial differential equations of parabolic type. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. [MR0181836](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0181836) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Funaki T.</span> (1984). A certain class of diffusion processes associated with nonlinear parabolic equations. Probab. Theory Related Fields 67 331-348. [MR0762085](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0762085) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Gärtner J.</span> (1988). On the McKean-Vlasov Limit for Interacting Diffusions. Math. Nachr. [137]{} 197-248. [MR0968996](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0968996) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jourdain B.</span> (2000). Diffusion processes associated with nonlinear evolution equations for signed measures. Methodol. Comput. Appl. Probab. 2:1 69-91. [MR1783154](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1783154) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jacod J., Shiryaev A. N.</span> (2003). Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes. 2nd ed. Springer, Berlin. [MR1943877](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1943877) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Leonard C.</span> (1986). Une loi des grands nombres pour des systemes de diffusions avec interaction et a coefficients non bornes. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare 22 237-262. [MR0850759](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0850759) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">McKean H. P.</span> (1969). Propagation of chaos for a class of nonlinear parabolic equations. Lecture Ser. Differ. Equ. 2 41-57. [MR0233437](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0233437) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Nagasawa M., Tanaka H.</span> (1985). A diffusion process in a singular mean-drift-field. Probab. Theory Related Fields 68 247-269. [MR0771466](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0771466) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Nagasawa M., Tanaka H.</span> (1987). Diffusion with interactions and collisions between coloured particles and the propagation of chaos. Probab. Theory Related Fields 74 161-198. [MR0871250](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0871250) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Oelschlaeger K.</span> (1984). A martingale approach to the law of large numbers for weakly interacting stochastic processes. Ann. Probab. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">12</span> 458-479. [MR0735849](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0735849) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Oksendal B.</span> (1998). Stochastic differential equations. 5th ed. Springer, Berlin. [MR2001996](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2001996) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pal S.</span> (2009). Analysis of the market weights under the volatility-stabilized market models. To appear in the Ann. Appl. Probab. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0656. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pal S., Shkolnikov M.</span> (2010). Concentration of measure for systems of Brownian particles interacting through their ranks. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2443 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pitman J., Yor M.</span> (1981). Bessel processes and infinitely divisible laws. Stochastic integrals (Proc. Sympos., Univ. Durham, Durham, 1980) 285-370. Lecture Notes in Math. 851. Springer, Berlin. [MR0620995](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0620995) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pitman J., Yor M.</span> (1982). A Decomposition of Bessel Bridges. Probab. Theory Related Fields 59 425-457. [MR0656509](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=0656509) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Revuz D., Yor M.</span> (1999). Continuous martingales and Brownian motion. 3rd ed. Springer, Berlin. [MR1725357](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1725357) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shkolnikov M.</span> (2010). Large systems of diffusions interacting through their ranks. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4611. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Srivastava, S. M.</span> (1998). A course on Borel sets. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 180. Springer, New York. [MR1619545](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1619545) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Stroock D. W., Varadhan S. R. S.</span> [Multidimensional Diffusion Processes]{} (2005). Springer, Berlin. [MR2190038](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2190038) [^1]: Research supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0806211. Primary 60J60; secondary 60J70, 91G80. interacting diffusion processes, hydrodynamic limit, volatility-stabilized models, Bessel processes, degenerate parabolic partial differential equations.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Inclusive non-diffractive photoproduction of $\rho(770)^0$, $K^(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ mesons is investigated with the H1 detector in $ep$ collisions at HERA. The corresponding average $\gamma p$ centre-of-mass energy is $210$ GeV. The mesons are measured in the transverse momentum range $0.5<p_T<7$ GeV and the rapidity range $\|y_{lab}\|<1$. Differential cross sections are presented as a function of transverse momentum and rapidity, and are compared to the predictions of hadroproduction models.' --- \#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [\#2]{} (\#3) \#4]{} DESY $08-172$ ISSN $0418-9833$\ February $2009$ [Inclusive Photoproduction of , and Mesons at HERA\ ]{} H1 Collaboration Accepted by F.D. Aaron$^{5,49}$, C. Alexa$^{5}$, V. Andreev$^{25}$, B. Antunovic$^{11}$, S. Aplin$^{11}$, A. Asmone$^{33}$, A. Astvatsatourov$^{4}$, S. Backovic$^{30}$, A. Baghdasaryan$^{38}$, E. Barrelet$^{29}$, W. Bartel$^{11}$, K. Begzsuren$^{35}$, O. Behnke$^{14}$, A. Belousov$^{25}$, N. Berger$^{40}$, J.C. Bizot$^{27}$, V. Boudry$^{28}$, I. Bozovic-Jelisavcic$^{2}$, J. Bracinik$^{3}$, G. Brandt$^{11}$, M. Brinkmann$^{11}$, V. Brisson$^{27}$, D. Bruncko$^{16}$, A. Bunyatyan$^{13,38}$, G. Buschhorn$^{26}$, L. Bystritskaya$^{24}$, A.J. Campbell$^{11}$, K.B. Cantun Avila$^{22}$, F. Cassol-Brunner$^{21}$, K. Cerny$^{32}$, V. Cerny$^{16,47}$, V. Chekelian$^{26}$, A. Cholewa$^{11}$, J.G. Contreras$^{22}$, J.A. Coughlan$^{6}$, G. Cozzika$^{10}$, J. Cvach$^{31}$, J.B. Dainton$^{18}$, K. Daum$^{37,43}$, M. Deák$^{11}$, Y. de Boer$^{11}$, B. Delcourt$^{27}$, M. Del Degan$^{40}$, J. Delvax$^{4}$, A. De Roeck$^{11,45}$, E.A. De Wolf$^{4}$, C. Diaconu$^{21}$, V. Dodonov$^{13}$, A. Dossanov$^{26}$, A. Dubak$^{30,46}$, G. Eckerlin$^{11}$, V. Efremenko$^{24}$, S. Egli$^{36}$, A. Eliseev$^{25}$, E. Elsen$^{11}$, A. Falkiewicz$^{7}$, P.J.W. Faulkner$^{3}$, L. Favart$^{4}$, A. Fedotov$^{24}$, R. Felst$^{11}$, J. Feltesse$^{10,48}$, J. Ferencei$^{16}$, D.-J. Fischer$^{11}$, M. Fleischer$^{11}$, A. Fomenko$^{25}$, E. Gabathuler$^{18}$, J. Gayler$^{11}$, S. Ghazaryan$^{38}$, A. Glazov$^{11}$, I. Glushkov$^{39}$, L. Goerlich$^{7}$, N. Gogitidze$^{25}$, M. Gouzevitch$^{28}$, C. Grab$^{40}$, T. Greenshaw$^{18}$, B.R. Grell$^{11}$, G. Grindhammer$^{26}$, S. Habib$^{12,50}$, D. Haidt$^{11}$, M. Hansson$^{20}$, C. Helebrant$^{11}$, R.C.W. Henderson$^{17}$, E. Hennekemper$^{15}$, H. Henschel$^{39}$, M. Herbst$^{15}$, G. Herrera$^{23}$, M. Hildebrandt$^{36}$, K.H. Hiller$^{39}$, D. Hoffmann$^{21}$, R. Horisberger$^{36}$, T. Hreus$^{4,44}$, M. Jacquet$^{27}$, M.E. Janssen$^{11}$, X. Janssen$^{4}$, V. Jemanov$^{12}$, L. Jönsson$^{20}$, A.W. Jung$^{15}$, H. Jung$^{11}$, M. Kapichine$^{9}$, J. Katzy$^{11}$, I.R. Kenyon$^{3}$, C. Kiesling$^{26}$, M. Klein$^{18}$, C. Kleinwort$^{11}$, T. Kluge$^{18}$, A. Knutsson$^{11}$, R. Kogler$^{26}$, V. Korbel$^{11}$, P. Kostka$^{39}$, M. Kraemer$^{11}$, K. Krastev$^{11}$, J. Kretzschmar$^{18}$, A. Kropivnitskaya$^{24}$, K. Krüger$^{15}$, K. Kutak$^{11}$, M.P.J. Landon$^{19}$, W. Lange$^{39}$, G. Laštovička-Medin$^{30}$, P. Laycock$^{18}$, A. Lebedev$^{25}$, G. Leibenguth$^{40}$, V. Lendermann$^{15}$, S. Levonian$^{11}$, G. Li$^{27}$, K. Lipka$^{12}$, A. Liptaj$^{26}$, B. List$^{12}$, J. List$^{11}$, N. Loktionova$^{25}$, R. Lopez-Fernandez$^{23}$, V. Lubimov$^{24}$, L. Lytkin$^{13}$, A. Makankine$^{9}$, E. Malinovski$^{25}$, P. Marage$^{4}$, Ll. Marti$^{11}$, H.-U. Martyn$^{1}$, S.J. Maxfield$^{18}$, A. Mehta$^{18}$, K. Meier$^{15}$, A.B. Meyer$^{11}$, H. Meyer$^{11}$, H. Meyer$^{37}$, J. Meyer$^{11}$, V. Michels$^{11}$, S. Mikocki$^{7}$, I. Milcewicz-Mika$^{7}$, F. Moreau$^{28}$, A. Morozov$^{9}$, J.V. Morris$^{6}$, M.U. Mozer$^{4}$, M. Mudrinic$^{2}$, K. Müller$^{41}$, P. Murín$^{16,44}$, B. Naroska$^{12, \dagger}$, Th. Naumann$^{39}$, P.R. Newman$^{3}$, C. Niebuhr$^{11}$, A. Nikiforov$^{11}$, G. Nowak$^{7}$, K. Nowak$^{41}$, M. Nozicka$^{11}$, B. Olivier$^{26}$, J.E. Olsson$^{11}$, S. Osman$^{20}$, D. Ozerov$^{24}$, V. Palichik$^{9}$, I. Panagoulias$^{l,}$$^{11,42}$, M. Pandurovic$^{2}$, Th. Papadopoulou$^{l,}$$^{11,42}$, C. Pascaud$^{27}$, G.D. Patel$^{18}$, O. Pejchal$^{32}$, E. Perez$^{10,45}$, A. Petrukhin$^{24}$, I. Picuric$^{30}$, S. Piec$^{39}$, D. Pitzl$^{11}$, R. Plačakytė$^{11}$, R. Polifka$^{32}$, B. Povh$^{13}$, T. Preda$^{5}$, V. Radescu$^{11}$, A.J. Rahmat$^{18}$, N. Raicevic$^{30}$, A. Raspiareza$^{26}$, T. Ravdandorj$^{35}$, P. Reimer$^{31}$, E. Rizvi$^{19}$, P. Robmann$^{41}$, B. Roland$^{4}$, R. Roosen$^{4}$, A. Rostovtsev$^{24}$, M. Rotaru$^{5}$, J.E. Ruiz Tabasco$^{22}$, Z. Rurikova$^{11}$, S. Rusakov$^{25}$, D. Šálek$^{32}$, D.P.C. Sankey$^{6}$, M. Sauter$^{40}$, E. Sauvan$^{21}$, S. Schmitt$^{11}$, C. Schmitz$^{41}$, L. Schoeffel$^{10}$, A. Schöning$^{11,41}$, H.-C. Schultz-Coulon$^{15}$, F. Sefkow$^{11}$, R.N. Shaw-West$^{3}$, I. Sheviakov$^{25}$, L.N. Shtarkov$^{25}$, S. Shushkevich$^{26}$, T. Sloan$^{17}$, I. Smiljanic$^{2}$, Y. Soloviev$^{25}$, P. Sopicki$^{7}$, D. South$^{8}$, V. Spaskov$^{9}$, A. Specka$^{28}$, Z. Staykova$^{11}$, M. Steder$^{11}$, B. Stella$^{33}$, G. Stoicea$^{5}$, U. Straumann$^{41}$, D. Sunar$^{4}$, T. Sykora$^{4}$, V. Tchoulakov$^{9}$, G. Thompson$^{19}$, P.D. Thompson$^{3}$, T. Toll$^{11}$, F. Tomasz$^{16}$, T.H. Tran$^{27}$, D. Traynor$^{19}$, T.N. Trinh$^{21}$, P. Truöl$^{41}$, I. Tsakov$^{34}$, B. Tseepeldorj$^{35,51}$, J. Turnau$^{7}$, K. Urban$^{15}$, A. Valkárová$^{32}$, C. Vallée$^{21}$, P. Van Mechelen$^{4}$, A. Vargas Trevino$^{11}$, Y. Vazdik$^{25}$, S. Vinokurova$^{11}$, V. Volchinski$^{38}$, M. von den Driesch$^{11}$, D. Wegener$^{8}$, Ch. Wissing$^{11}$, E. Wünsch$^{11}$, J. Žáček$^{32}$, J. Zálešák$^{31}$, Z. Zhang$^{27}$, A. Zhokin$^{24}$, T. Zimmermann$^{40}$, H. Zohrabyan$^{38}$, and F. Zomer$^{27}$ Introduction ============ High energy particle collisions, which give rise to large multiplicities of produced hadrons, provide an opportunity to study the hadronisation process, whereby the quarks and gluons produced in the initial interaction become colourless hadrons. Since most of these hadrons are produced at low values of transverse momentum, perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD) is not applicable to this process, which is described instead using phenomenological models, the most successful of which are the string [@string] and the cluster [@cluster] fragmentation models. These can provide a reasonable description of the hadronisation process provided the many free parameters they contain are tuned to the data. The production of long-lived hadrons and resonances at high energies has been studied in detail in electron-positron ($e^+e^-$) collisions at LEP using $Z^0$ decays [@delphireview]. Measurements in high energy hadronic interactions have so far been restricted to long-lived hadrons and hadrons containing heavy quarks. Recently, the production of the hadronic resonances $\rho(770)^0$, $K^(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ has been measured in heavy-ion and proton-proton ($pp$) collisions at RHIC [@STAR]. The electron-proton ($ep$) collider HERA allows the study of particle production in quasi-real photon-proton ($\gamma p$) collisions. The comparison of RHIC and HERA results is of particular interest, since the nuclear density at HERA is much lower than that at RHIC while the $\gamma p$ and nucleon-nucleon collision energies are similar. In this paper, measurements of the inclusive non-diffractive photoproduction of the resonances $\rho(770)^0$, $K^(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ at HERA are presented for the first time. The measurements are based on the data recorded with the H1 detector during the year 2000, when positrons of energy $27.6$ GeV collided with $920$ GeV protons at an $ep$ centre-of-mass energy of $319$ GeV, providing on average a $\gamma p$ centre-of-mass energy of $\langle W\rangle =210$ GeV. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of ${\cal L}=36.5$ pb$^{-1}$. Phenomenology and Monte Carlo Simulation ======================================== The H1 coordinate system has as its origin the position of the nominal interaction vertex. The outgoing proton beam direction defines the positive $z$-axis and is also referred to as the “forward" direction. The polar angle $\theta$ is defined with respect to this direction. The pseudorapidity is given by $\eta_{lab}=-\ln(\tan(\theta/2))$. The laboratory frame rapidity $y_{lab}$ of a particle with energy $E$ and longitudinal momentum $p_z$ is given by $y_{lab}=0.5\ln[(E+p_z)/(E-p_z)]$. The invariant differential cross section for meson production can be expressed as a function of the meson’s transverse momentum $p_T$ and its rapidity $y_{lab}$, assuming azimuthal symmetry. Hadrons produced in hadronic collisions are approximately uniformly distributed in the central rapidity range, while their transverse momentum spectra fall steeply with increasing $p_T$. It is convenient to parametrise the invariant differential cross section of the produced hadrons with a power law distribution, $$\frac{1}{\pi}\,\frac{d^2\sigma^{\gamma p}}{dp_T^2\,dy_{lab}} = \frac{A}{(E_{T_0}+E_{T}^{kin})^n}\; , \label{pawer}$$ where $E_T^{kin} = \sqrt{m_0^2+p_T^2}-m_0$ is the transverse kinetic energy, $m_0$ is the nominal resonance mass, $A$ is a normalisation factor independent of $p_T$ and $E_{T_0}$ a free parameter. When $E_T^{kin}\lesssim E_{T_0}$, the power law function (\[pawer\]) behaves like a Boltzmann distribution $\exp(-E_T^{kin}/T)$, with $T=E_{T_0}/n$. This exponential behaviour of hadronic spectra follows from a thermodynamic model of hadroproduction [@therm]. In this framework, the parameter $T$ plays the role of the temperature at which hadronisation takes place. At high $E_T^{kin}$, the power law originates from a convolution of the parton densities of the colliding particles with the cross sections of parton-parton interactions. The normalisation coefficient $A$ is related to the single differential cross section $d\sigma/dy_{lab}$ obtained after the integrating equation (\[pawer\]) over $p_T^2$: $$A = \frac{d\sigma}{dy_{lab}}\, \frac{(n-1)(n-2)(E_{T_0})^{n-1}}{2\pi (E_{T_0}+(n-2)m_0)} \; . \label{power2}$$ Monte Carlo calculations are used both to correct the data and in comparisons with the measurements. Direct and resolved photoproduction events are simulated using the PYTHIA [@PYTHIA] and the PHOJET [@PHOJET] Monte Carlo generators. In both cases, the hadronisation is based on the string fragmentation model [@JETSET]. For data corrections, the parameter settings obtained by the ALEPH collaboration [@BEC] are used for the fragmentation of partons. The effects of Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) on the invariant mass spectra of like-sign and unlike-sign pion pairs are included using a Gaussian parametrisation of the correlation function [@BEC]. The photoproduction events generated using PYTHIA and PHOJET are passed through the simulation of the H1 detector based on GEANT [@GEANT] and through the same reconstruction and analysis chain as used for the data. Experimental Conditions ======================= H1 Detector ----------- The H1 detector is described in detail elsewhere [@Abt:1997xv]. A brief account of the components that are most relevant to the present analysis is given here. The $ep$ interaction region is surrounded by two large concentric drift chambers (CJCs), operated inside a $1.16$ T solenoidal magnetic field. Charged particles are measured in the pseudorapidity range $-1.5<\eta_{lab}<1.5$ with a transverse momentum resolution of $\sigma_{p_T}/p_T\approx0.005\cdot p_T/$GeV$\; \oplus \; 0.015$ [@ptsigma]. The specific energy loss $dE/dx$ of the charged particles is measured in this detector with a relative resolution of $7.5\%$ for a minimum ionising track [@dedx]. A finely segmented electromagnetic and hadronic liquid argon calorimeter (LAr) covers the range $-1.5<\eta_{lab}<3.4$. The energy resolution of this calorimeter is $\sigma(E)/E = 0.11/\sqrt{E/\text{GeV}}$ for electromagnetic showers and $\sigma(E)/E = 0.50/\sqrt{E/\text{GeV}}$ for hadrons as measured in test beams [@lar]. Photoproduction events are selected with a crystal Cerenkov calorimeter (positron tagger) located close to the beam pipe at $z=-33.4$ m, which measures the energy deposited by positrons scattered at angles of less than $5$ mrad. Another Cerenkov calorimeter, located at $z=-103$ m (photon tagger), is used to determine the luminosity by measuring the rate of photons emitted in the Bethe-Heitler process $ep\to ep\gamma$. Event Selection --------------- Photoproduction events are selected by a trigger which requires a scattered positron to be measured in the positron tagger, an event vertex determined from charged tracks and three or more charged tracks reconstructed in the CJCs, each with transverse momentum $p_T>0.4$ GeV. The photon virtuality $Q^2$ is smaller than $0.01$ GeV$^2$, due to the positron tagger acceptance. The photon energy is determined from the difference between the positron beam energy and the energy measured in the positron tagger. In order to reduce the non-$ep$ background and to ensure good reconstruction of the event kinematics, the following criteria are applied: - [Events are selected if the reconstructed $\gamma p$ centre-of-mass energy lies within the interval $174<W<256$ GeV for which good positron detection efficiency is established. This corresponds to an average $\gamma p$ centre-of-mass energy of $ \langle W\rangle = 210$ GeV.]{} - [Events are rejected if a photon with energy $E_\gamma>2$ GeV is detected in the photon tagger. This suppresses the background arising from random coincidences of Bethe-Heitler events in the positron tagger with beam-gas interactions in the main H1 detector.]{} - [Events are selected if the $z$ coordinate of the event vertex, reconstructed using the CJCs, lies within $35$ cm of the mean position for $ep$ interactions.]{} Background from elastic and diffractive events is suppressed by the above trigger requirements. To further reduce the contribution of diffractive processes, the presence of an energy deposit of at least $500$ MeV is required in the forward region of the LAr, defined by $2.03<\eta_{lab}<3.26$. Monte Carlo studies show that, with this requirement, less than $1\%$ of the final event sample consists of diffractive events with $X_{{I\!\!P}}<0.05$, where $X_{{I\!\!P}}=M_X^2/W^2$ and $M_X$ is the invariant mass of the diffractive system. In total, about $1.8\times10^6$ events satisfy the above selection criteria. Selection of , and Mesons ------------------------- The mesons are identified using the $\rho(770)^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^(892)^0\to K^+\pi^-$ or $\overline{K}^(892)^0\to K^-\pi^+$ and $\phi(1020)\to K^+K^-$ decays[^1]. Charged tracks reconstructed in the CJCs with $p_T>0.15~$GeV and pseudorapidity $\|\eta_{lab}\|<1.5$ are considered as charged pion or kaon candidates. Since most of the charged particles in $ep$ collisions are pions, no attempt to identify pions is made, while identification criteria for charged kaons are applied for the extraction of the $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ signals. This is done by measuring the momentum-dependent specific energy loss $dE/dx$ in the CJCs. This method gives a significant improvement in the signal-to-background ratio for low $p_T$ mesons, $p_T<1.5$ GeV, where the $dE/dx$ resolution allows good particle identification. For high $p_T$ mesons, $p_T>1.5$ GeV, the $dE/dx$ method is inefficient and therefore particle identification criteria are not applied. Such tracks are considered as both pion and kaon candidates and their four-momenta are determined from the track measurements using the corresponding mass hypothesis [@pdg]. Vector meson candidates are reconstructed from these four-momenta. The kinematic range for the reconstructed neutral mesons is restricted to $\|y_{lab}\|<1$ and $p_T>0.5$ GeV. To extract the $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ signals, the distributions of respective invariant masses of their decay products, $m_{\pi^+\pi^-}$, $m_{K^\pm\pi^\mp}$ and $m_{K^+ K^-}$, are fitted using a function composed of three parts: $$F(m)=B(m)+\sum R(m)+\sum S(m). \label{invfit}$$ The terms correspond to contributions from the combinatorial background, $B(m)$, from reflections which result from decays other than the signal under consideration, $R(m)$, and from the relevant signal, $S(m)$, respectively. The combinatorial background function is taken to be: $$B(m) = (a_0+a_1m+a_2m^2+a_3m^3)\cdot B^0(m)\, ,$$ where $a_0$, $a_1$, $a_2$ and $a_3$ are free parameters, and $B^0(m)$ is the invariant mass distribution of the like-sign charged particle combinations: $\pi^\pm\pi^\pm$ for the $\rho^0$ and $K^\pm\pi^\pm$ for the $K^{0}$. The shape of the combinatorial background for $\phi$ is described by the following function: $$B(m) = b_1(m^2-4m_K^2)^{b_2} e^{-b_3 m}\, ,$$ where $b_1$, $b_2$ and $b_3$ are free parameters and $m_K$ is the kaon mass. The second term, $\sum R(m)$, in (\[invfit\]) represents the sum of the reflections; for example, charged particles from the decay $K^{0}\to K^\pm \pi^\mp$ with the kaon misidentified as a charged pion will give rise to structure in the $m_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ spectrum and must be taken into account as a separate contribution. In addition, there are two other contributions to the $m_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ spectrum in the mass region of interest. These arise from the decays $\omega(782)\rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\omega(782)\rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-\pi^0$ in which the $\pi^0$ is not observed. For the $\omega(782)$ meson, the production rate relative to that of the $\rho^0$ is varied within the range $1.0\pm0.2$, which is consistent with measurements of the $\omega(782)/\rho^0$ ratio in hadronic collisions [@reflection_ISR] and in $Z^0$ boson decays [@reflection_LEP]. The $\omega(782)$ branching ratios are taken from [@pdg]. The five major reflections in the $m_{K^\pm\pi^\mp}$ spectrum are due to: the decay $\rho^0\rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$ with the $\pi^+$ or $\pi^-$ misidentified as a charged kaon; the decays $\omega(782)\rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\omega(782)\rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-\pi^0$ with the $\pi^0$ not observed and with one of the $\pi^+$ or $\pi^-$ mesons misidentified as a charged kaon; the decay $\phi\rightarrow K^+K^-$ with one of the kaons misidentified as a charged pion and a self-reflection from the $K^{0}$, where the pion and kaon are interchanged. For the $m_{K^+K^-}$ spectrum, there are no reflections from known resonances in the invariant mass region of interest. Therefore, the shapes of the reflections are taken from Monte Carlo calculations. The contribution of the reflections from the $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ mesons is tied to the production rates determined in this analysis and is therefore iteratively calculated. The function $S(m)$ used to describe the signal in (\[invfit\]) is a convolution of a relativistic Breit-Wigner function $BW(m)$ and a detector resolution function $r(m,m')$. The relativistic Breit-Wigner function $$BW(m)=A_0\,\frac{m_0\,m\,\Gamma(m)}{(m^2-m_{0}^{2})^2+m_{0}^{2}\,\Gamma^{2}(m)}\;, \label{relbw}$$ is used with $$\Gamma(m)=\Gamma_{0}\left(\frac{q}{q_0}\right)^{2l+1}\frac{m_0}{m}\;,$$ where $A_0$ is a normalisation factor, $\Gamma_{0}$ is the resonance width, $l=1$ for vector mesons, $m_0$ is the resonance mass, $q$ is the momentum of the decay products in the rest frame of the parent meson, and $q_0$ is their momentum at $m=m_0$. The cross sections cited in this paper assume that the meson signal is defined as the integral of the relativistic Breit-Wigner function (\[relbw\]) in the region $\pm2.5\Gamma_0$ around the mass $m_0$. Monte Carlo studies show that a non-relativistic Breit-Wigner function with width $\Gamma_{res}$ provides a good description of the detector resolution function: $$r(m,m') = \frac{1}{2\pi}\,\frac{\Gamma_{res}}{(m-m')^2+(\Gamma_{res}/2)^2}\;. \label{resol}$$ For the $K^{0}$ analysis, the resolution parameter is determined from Monte Carlo with $\Gamma_{res}=12$ MeV. It is small compared to the width of the $K^{0}$ meson ($50.3\pm0.6$ MeV) [@pdg], leading only to a small change in the shape of the resonance. For the $\phi$, $\Gamma_{res}$ is comparable to the width of the $\phi$ meson ($\Gamma_0=4.26\pm0.05$ MeV) [@pdg]. As a result, the shape of the $\phi$ signal is significantly changed, and hence the detector resolution $\Gamma_{res}$ is taken as a free parameter in the fit. It is found to vary from $3.4$ MeV to $6.0$ MeV, increasing with the $p_T$ of the $\phi$ meson. For the $\rho^0$ meson, the detector resolution is significantly smaller than its width. However, BEC between the $\rho^0$ decay pions and other pions in the event strongly distort the $\rho^0$ line shape. The BEC plays an important role in broadening the $\rho^0$ mass peak and in shifting it towards lower masses. Similar effects are observed in $pp$ and heavy-ion collisions at RHIC [@STAR] and in $e^+e^-$ collisions at LEP using $Z^0$ decays [@reflection_LEP]. It is therefore important to check that the Monte Carlo model used for the extraction of the cross sections describes the di-pion spectra in the data. The data spectra and the Monte Carlo simulations with and without BEC are shown in figure \[bec\]. The Monte Carlo model with BEC is in a good agreement with the data in the region of the $\rho^0$ resonance, whereas the model without BEC fails to describe the di-pion mass spectrum. The results of fitting the function (\[invfit\]) to the $m_{\pi^+\pi^-}$ data in the mass range from $0.45$ to $1.7~$GeV with the contributions due to the combinatorial background and the reflections are shown in figure \[fig:signal\]a$)$, and after combinatorial background subtraction in figure \[fig:signal\]b$)$. In this mass range, the signal from the $K^0_S$, $f_0(980)$ and $f_2(1270)$ mesons is taken into account. The $K^0_S$ signal is fitted using a Gaussian centred on the nominal mass and with fixed width. The relativistic Breit-Wigner function given in equation (\[relbw\]) is used for the $f_0(980)$ and $f_2(1270)$ mesons. In the fit, the resonance masses $m_0$ and the yields are free parameters. The $\rho^0$ and $f_2(1270)$ widths are fixed to the Particle Data Group [@pdg] values and the $f_0(980)$ width is fixed to $70$ MeV. Due to the small signal and the non-trivial background behaviour, which lead to large uncertainties, cross sections for $f_0(980)$ and $f_2(1270)$ meson production are not measured here. The $K^{0}$ signal is measured under the assumption that there is no difference between the particle and antiparticle production rates, and the signal obtained from the $m_{K^\pm \pi^\mp}$ spectrum is divided by $2$ to determine the $K^{0}$ rate in the following. The result of fitting the function (\[invfit\]) to the $m_{K^\pm\pi^\mp}$ data in the mass range from $0.7$ to $1.2~$GeV with the contributions due to the combinatorial background and the reflections is shown in figure \[fig:signal\]c$)$. In the fit, the $K^{0}$ width is fixed to the nominal value while the mass parameter is left free. The result for the $K^{0}$ mass is compatible with the world average [@pdg]. The result of fitting function (\[invfit\]) to the $m_{K^+K^-}$ data in the mass range from $0.99$ to $1.06~$GeV, together with the background contribution, is shown in figure \[fig:signal\]d$)$. In the fit, the $\phi$ width, $\Gamma_0$, is fixed to the nominal value while the mass is left a free parameter and is found to be compatible with the world average [@pdg]. Cross Section Determination and Systematic Errors ------------------------------------------------- The invariant differential cross section for $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ meson production is measured in the $y_{lab}$ region from $-1$ to $1$ in seven bins in transverse momentum from $0.5$ to $7$ GeV. It is calculated according to: $$\frac{1}{\pi}\,\frac{d^2\sigma^{\gamma p}}{dp_T^2\,dy_{lab}} = \frac{N} {\pi \cdot {\cal L}\cdot BR \cdot \Phi_\gamma\cdot \epsilon \cdot \Delta p_T^2\cdot \Delta y_{lab}} \, ,$$ where $N$ is the number of mesons from the fit in each bin. The corresponding bin widths are $\Delta y_{lab}=2$ and $\Delta p_T^2 = 2p_T^{bin}\Delta p_T$. Bin centre corrections based on equation (\[pawer\]) are applied to define the value of $p_T^{bin}$ at which the differential cross section is measured. ${\cal L}$ denotes the integrated luminosity and $\epsilon$ the efficiency. The branching fractions $BR$ are taken from [@pdg] and are equal to $1$, $0.67$ and $0.49$ for $\rho^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$, $K^{0}\to K^\pm\pi^\mp$ and $\phi\to K^+K^-$, respectively. The photon flux $\Phi_\gamma = 0.0127$ is calculated using the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation [@Weizs]. The single differential cross section for $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ meson production for $p_T>0.5$ GeV is measured in four bins in rapidity from $-1$ to $1$ according to: $$\frac{d\sigma^{\gamma p}}{dy_{lab}} = \frac{N} {{\cal L}\cdot BR \cdot \Phi_\gamma\cdot \epsilon \cdot \Delta y_{lab}} \, .$$ Here, the bin width is $\Delta y_{lab}=0.5$. The fit procedure described in the previous section is repeated to determine the number of mesons, $N$, in each measurement bin, calculated as an integral over the signal function (\[relbw\]) within $\pm2.5\Gamma_0$ around the meson mass. Similarly, the total visible cross section for $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ meson production is measured from the number of mesons fitted in the range $\|y_{lab}\|<1$ and $p_T>0.5$ GeV. The efficiency is given by $\epsilon=\epsilon_{rec}\cdot {\cal A}_{etag}\cdot {\cal A}_3\cdot\epsilon_{trig}$. The reconstruction efficiency for the mesons, $\epsilon_{rec}$, includes the geometric acceptance and the efficiency for track reconstruction. It is calculated using Monte Carlo data and is at least $45\%$ at low $p_T$ and rises to about $90\%$ with increasing $p_T$. For the acceptance determination, the Monte Carlo generators are reweighted to model the observed $p_T$-dependences. The average acceptance of the positron tagger, ${\cal A}_{etag}$, is about $50\%$, as determined in [@H1total]. The trigger acceptance, ${\cal A}_3$, arises from the requirement that at least three tracks are reconstructed in the CJCs with $p_T>0.4$ GeV. It is determined from Monte Carlo simulations with PYTHIA and PHOJET and varies from $50\%$ to $95\%$. The trigger efficiency, $\epsilon_{trig}$, is calculated from the data using monitor triggers. It is about $90\%$. The efficiencies and acceptances as calculated from the PYTHIA and PHOJET simulation are found to be consistent. Small residual differences, attributed to different track multiplicity predictions, are taken into account in the systematic uncertainties of the measurement. The statistical error varies from $7$ to $15\%$ for the $\rho^0$, $10$ to $18\%$ for the $K^{0}$ and $13$ to $24\%$ for the $\phi$ meson cross sections. The systematic errors arise from the uncertainties in the track reconstruction efficiency ($4\%$) and the trigger efficiency (up to $6\%$), the variation of the $f_0(980)$ width by $\pm30$ MeV in the $\rho^0$ fit (up to $7\%$), the uncertainties in the $dE/dx$ kaon identification procedure ($6\%$ for the $K^{0}$ and $12\%$ for the $\phi$) and the luminosity calculation ($2\%$), the variation of the background shape ($5\%$) and the variation of the assumptions about the normalisation of the contributions from the reflections ($4\%$ for the $\rho^0$ and up to $15\%$ for the $K^{0}$). The total systematic error varies from $10$ to $12\%$ for the $\rho^0$, $11$ to $21\%$ for the $K^{0}$ and $10$ to $17\%$ for the $\phi$ meson cross sections. Results and Discussion ====================== The inclusive non-diffractive photoproduction cross sections for $\rho^0(770)$, $K^{0}(892)$ and $\phi(1020)$ mesons in the kinematic region $Q^2<0.01$ GeV$^2$, $174<W<256$ GeV, and for $p_T>0.5$ GeV and $\|y_{lab}\|<1$ are found to be: $$\phantom{} \sigma_{vis}^{\gamma p}(\gamma p \rightarrow \rho^0 X) \phantom{0}\, = 25600 \pm 1800 \pm 2700 \text{ nb;}$$ $$\sigma_{vis}^{\gamma p}(\gamma p \rightarrow K^{0} X) = \phantom{0}6260 \pm \phantom{0}350 \pm \phantom{0}860 \text{ nb;}$$ $$\, \sigma_{vis}^{\gamma p}(\gamma p \rightarrow \phi X) \phantom{00}= \phantom{0}2400 \pm \phantom{0}180 \pm \phantom{0}340 \text{ nb.}$$ The first error is statistical and the second systematic. Note that the $K^{0}$ cross section is the sum of the particle and antiparticle contributions divided by $2$. The differential cross sections for the photoproduction of $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$, and $\phi$ mesons are presented in tables $1$ and $2$ and in figure \[fig:sigma\]. Within the rapidity range of this measurement, the resonance production rates are constant as a function of rapidity, within errors. The transverse momentum spectra of the $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ mesons can be parametrised by function (\[pawer\]), where $d\sigma/dy_{lab}$ in equation (\[power2\]) corresponds to the average value of the cross section over central rapidities, $\langle d\sigma/dy_{lab}\rangle_{\|y_{lab}\|<1}$. In the fit, the value of the power $n$ is fixed to be $6.7$, as derived previously from measurements of charged particle spectra by the H1 collaboration [@H1pions] which gave $n=6.7\pm0.3$. The power law distribution, with this value of $n$, describes $K^0_S$ meson, $\Lambda^0$ baryon [@HERA_L0] and $D^{\pm}$ meson production [@HERA_charmed] at HERA, as is shown in figure \[fig:allxsec\]. A similar shape of the transverse momentum distribution, but with different values of the parameters $n$ and $E_{T_0}$, was reported for charged particles produced in hadronic collisions [@UA1charged]. The results of the fits of the data to function (\[pawer\]) are shown in figure \[fig:sigma\]a$)$. In table $3$, the parameters of the fit and the average transverse kinetic energy $\langle E_T^{kin}\rangle$, the average transverse energy $\langle E_T\rangle=\langle E_T^{kin}\rangle +m_0$ and the average transverse momentum $\langle p_T\rangle = \sqrt{\langle E_T\rangle^2-m_0^2}$ derived from (\[pawer\]) are presented. The errors include the experimental uncertainty on the value of $n$. Also given are the $\langle p_T\rangle$ values measured at RHIC in $pp$ and Au-Au collisions [@STAR] . It is interesting to observe that the resonances with different masses, lifetimes and strangeness content are produced with about the same value of the average transverse kinetic energy $\langle E_T^{kin}\rangle$. This observation supports the thermodynamic picture of hadronic interactions [@therm], in which the primary hadrons are thermalised during the interaction. The values of $\langle p_T\rangle$ for $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ mesons are similar in $\gamma p$ and $pp$ collisions with about the same centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} \approx 200$ GeV, while these values are all higher in Au-Au collisions. The PYTHIA and PHOJET models do not describe the shape of the measured $p_T$ spectra. Moreover, contrary to the data, the Monte Carlo $p_T$ spectra are not described by the power law function (\[pawer\]). These observations are illustrated in figures \[fig:sigma\]c$)$ and \[fig:sigma\]d$)$. The measurements in the visible kinematic range of the $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ mesons, $p_T>0.5$ GeV and $\|y_{lab}\|<1$, are extrapolated to the full $p_T$ range using the parametrisation (\[pawer\]) to determine the total inclusive non-diffractive photoproduction cross sections. The extrapolation factors are of order two. In the rapidity interval $\|y_{lab}\|<1$ and integrated over the full $p_T$ range the following cross section ratios are obtained: $$\,R(K^{0}/\rho^0) =0.221\pm0.036\, ;$$ $$\quad\, R(\phi/\rho^0) =0.078\pm0.013\, ;$$ $$\;\, R(\phi/K^{0}) =0.354\pm0.060\, .$$ The errors are given by the statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature. PYTHIA and PHOJET, with the strangeness suppression factor $\lambda_s = 0.286$ [@BEC], predict the ratios $0.200$, $0.055$ and $0.277$, respectively, which are similar to the measured values, but are all somewhat lower than these. In table $4$, $R(\phi/K^{0})$ is compared to the corresponding ratios measured by STAR in $pp$ and Au-Au collisions [@STAR] at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. Although the rapidity ranges at the H1 and RHIC experiments differ[^2], the resulting ratios for $pp$ and $\gamma p$ interactions are very close. However, the corresponding result in Au-Au collisions is observed to be higher. Conclusions =========== First measurements of the inclusive non-diffractive photoproduction of $\rho(770)^0$, $K^(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ mesons at HERA are presented. The differential cross sections for the production of these resonances as a function of transverse momentum are described by a power law distribution while the single differential cross sections as a function of rapidity are observed to be flat in the visible range. Despite their different masses, lifetimes and strangeness content, these resonances are produced with about the same value of the average transverse kinetic energy. This observation supports a thermodynamic picture of hadronic interactions. The description of the shape of the $\rho^0$ resonance produced in $\gamma p$ collisions at HERA is improved by taking Bose-Einstein correlations into account. A similar effect is observed in $pp$ and heavy-ion collisions at RHIC and in $e^+e^-$ annihilation at LEP, using $Z^0$ decays. The cross section ratios $R(K^{0}/\rho^0)$, $R(\phi/\rho^0)$ and $R(\phi/K^{0})$ are determined, and $R(\phi/K^{0})$ is compared to results obtained in $pp$ and heavy-ion collisions by the STAR experiment at RHIC. The ratio $R(\phi/K^{0})$ measured in $\gamma p$ interactions is in agreement with the $pp$ results, while this ratio is observed to be smaller than the result obtained in Au-Au collisions. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We are grateful to the HERA machine group whose outstanding efforts have made this experiment possible. We thank the engineers and technicians for their work in constructing and maintaining the H1 detector, our funding agencies for financial support, the DESY technical staff for continual assistance and the DESY directorate for support and for the hospitality which they extend to the non-DESY members of the collaboration. [99]{} B. Andersson [et al.]{}, Phys. Rept. [97]{} (1983) 31. G.C. Fox and S. Wolfram, Nucl. Phys. B $\bf 168$ (1980) 285. A. Boehrer, Phys. Rept. [291]{} (1997) 107 and the references therein. STAR Collaboration, J. Adams, [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [92]{} (2004) 092301;\ STAR Collaboration, C. Adler [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. C [71]{} (2005) 064902;\ STAR Collaboration, J. Adams [et al.]{}, Phys. Lett. B [612]{} (2005) 181. R. Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim. Suppl. [3]{} (1965) 147. T. Sjöstrand, L. Lonnblad, S. Mrenna, LU-TP-01-21, “PYTHIA $6.2$ physics and manual”, hep-ph/0108264 (2001). R. Engel, Z. Phys. C [66]{} (1995) 203;\ R. Engel and J. Ranft, Phys. Rev. D [54]{} (1996) 4244;\ PHOJET Monte Carlo generator, version 10. T. Sjöstrand, Comput. Phys. Commun. [82]{} (1994) 74. ALEPH Collaboration, S. Schael [et al.]{}, Phys. Lett. B [606]{} (2005) 265; ALEPH Collaboration, G. Rudolph, private communication. R. Brun [et al.]{}, GEANT3 User’s Guide, CERN-DD/EE/84-1. H1 Collaboration, I. Abt [et al.]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [386]{} (1997) 310; [ibid.]{} 348. C. Kleinwort for the H1 Collaboration, “H1 Alignment Experience”, Proceedings of the “First LHC Detection Alignment Workshop”, edited by Blusk [et al.]{}, CERN (2006), CERN-2007-04, p.41. J. Steinhart, “Die Messung des totalen $c\bar{c}$-Photoproduktions-Wirkungsquerschnittes von $\Lambda_c$-Baryonen unter Verwendung der verbesserten $dE/dx$-Teilchenidentifikation am H1-Experiment bei HERA”, Ph.D. thesis, Hamburg University (1999), available at http://www-h1.desy.de/publications/theses\_list.html H1 Calorimeter Group, B. Andrieu [et al.]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [336]{} (1993) 499;\ H1 Calorimeter Group, B. Andrieu [et al.]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [350]{} (1994) 57. W.-M. Yao [et al.]{}, J. Phys. G [33]{} (2006) 1. Bonn-Hamburg-Munich Collaboration, V. Blobel [et al.]{}, Phys. Lett. B [48]{} (1974) 73. OPAL Collaboration, P.D. Acton [et al.]{}, Z. Phys. C [56]{} (1992) 521;\ ALEPH Collaboration, D. Busculic [et al.]{}, Z. Phys. C [69]{} (1996) 379. C.F. Weizs$\ddot{\text{a}}$cker, Z. Phys. [88]{} (1934) 612;\ E.J. Williams, Phys. Rev. [45]{} (1934) 729. H1 Collaboration, S. Aid [et al.]{}, Z. Phys. C [69]{} (1995) 27. H1 Collaboration, I. Abt [et al.]{}, Phys. Lett. B [328]{} (1994) 176;\ H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff [et al.]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [10]{} (1999) 363. H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff [et al.]{}, Z. Phys. C [76]{} (1997) 213. H1 Collaboration, A. Aktas [et al.]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [50]{} (2007) 251. UA1 Collaboration, C. Albajar [et al.]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [335]{} (1990) 261;\ CDF Collaboration, F. Abe [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [61]{} (1988) 1819. --------------- ------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- $p_T$ \[GeV\] $p_T^{bin}$ $\rho^0$ $(K^{0}+\overline{K}^{0})/2$ $\phi$ $[0.5,0.75]$ $0.63$ $\phantom{.}5610\pm\phantom{.0}870\pm\phantom{.0}590$ $\phantom{.}1190\pm\phantom{.0}130\pm\phantom{.0}200$ $\phantom{.00}383\pm\phantom{.000}54\pm\phantom{.000}60$ $[0.75,1.0]$ $0.87$ $\phantom{.}2440\pm\phantom{.0}180\pm\phantom{.0}260$ $\phantom{.0}621\pm\phantom{.00}68\pm\phantom{.00}80$ $\phantom{.00}264\pm\phantom{.000}34\pm\phantom{.000}37$ $[1.0,1.5]$ $1.22$ $680\pm\phantom{.00}55\pm\phantom{.00}70$ $\phantom{.0}176\pm\phantom{.00}18\pm\phantom{.00}21$ $\phantom{.000}76\pm\phantom{.000}12\pm\phantom{.000}11$ $[1.5,2.0]$ $1.72$ $\phantom{.0}142\pm\phantom{.00}15\pm\phantom{.00}15$ $\phantom{0}48.0\pm\phantom{00}5.2\pm\phantom{00}5.1$ $\phantom{00}19.1\pm\phantom{000}3.3\pm\phantom{000}1.9$ $[2.0,3.0]$ $2.41$ $\phantom{0}29.9\pm\phantom{00}2.3\pm\phantom{00}3.1$ $\phantom{0}8.96\pm\phantom{0}0.90\pm\phantom{0}0.98$ $\phantom{00}3.48\pm\phantom{00}0.76\pm\phantom{00}0.34$ $[3.0,4.0]$ $3.43$ $\phantom{0}3.06\pm\phantom{0}0.42\pm\phantom{0}0.33$ $\phantom{0}1.21\pm\phantom{0}0.17\pm\phantom{0}0.14$ $\phantom{00}0.46\pm\phantom{00}0.11\pm\phantom{00}0.08$ $[4.0,7.0]$ $5.09$ $0.276\pm0.037\pm0.033$ $0.079\pm0.014\pm0.009$ $0.0335\pm0.0081\pm0.0057$ --------------- ------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- : Inclusive non-diffractive photoproduction invariant differential cross sections $d^2\sigma/\pi\, dp_T^2\,dy_{lab}$ for $\rho(770)^0$, $K^(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ mesons in the rapidity range $\|y_{lab}\|<1.0$ in bins of $p_T$. The first error is statistical and the second systematic. For each bin in $p_T$ the range as well as the bin-centred value $p_T^{bin}$ are given. --------------- -------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------- $y_{lab}$ $\rho^0$ $(K^{0}+\overline{K}^{0})/2$ $\phi$ $[-1.0,-0.5]$ $11.0\pm1.0\pm1.2$ $3.36\pm0.35\pm0.72$ $1.44\pm0.25\pm0.22$ $[-0.5,0.0]$ $13.1\pm1.1\pm1.4$ $2.52\pm0.27\pm0.36$ $1.08\pm0.12\pm0.16$ $[0.0,0.5]$ $10.4\pm1.5\pm1.1$ $3.07\pm0.30\pm0.44$ $1.44\pm0.13\pm0.22$ $[0.5,1.0]$ $14.6\pm1.3\pm1.5$ $4.28\pm0.44\pm0.79$ $1.61\pm0.33\pm0.25$ --------------- -------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------- : Inclusive non-diffractive photoproduction single differential cross sections $d\sigma/dy_{lab}$ for $\rho(770)^0$, $K^(892)^0$ and $\phi(1020)$ mesons in the transverse momentum range $p_T>0.5$ GeV in bins of $y_{lab}$. The first error is statistical and the second systematic. $\rho^0$ $(K^{0}+\overline{K}^{0})/2$ $\phi$ ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- $\gamma p$ (H1) $\langle d\sigma/dy_{lab}\rangle_{\|y_{lab}\|<1}$ \[$\mu$b\] $23.6\pm2.7$ $\phantom{.}5.22\pm0.60\phantom{.0}$ $\phantom{.}1.85\pm0.23\phantom{.0}$ $T$ \[GeV\] $\phantom{0}0.151\pm0.011$ $0.166\pm0.012$ $0.170\pm0.012$ $\langle E_T\rangle$ \[GeV\] $\phantom{0}1.062\pm0.018 $ $1.205\pm0.020$ $1.333\pm0.022$ $\langle E_T^{kin}\rangle$ \[GeV\] $\phantom{0}0.287\pm0.018$ $0.313\pm0.020$ $0.314\pm0.022$ $\langle p_T\rangle$ \[GeV\] $\phantom{0}0.726\pm0.027$ $0.810\pm0.030$ $0.860\pm0.035$ $pp$ (STAR) $\langle p_T\rangle_{pp}$ \[GeV\] $\phantom{0}0.616\pm0.062$ $0.81\pm0.14$ $0.82\pm0.03$ Au-Au (STAR) $\langle p_T\rangle_{AuAu}$ \[GeV\] $\phantom{00}0.83\pm0.10\phantom{0}$ $1.08\pm0.14$ $0.97\pm0.02$ : The parameters $\langle d\sigma/dy_{lab}\rangle_{\|y_{lab}\|<1}$ and $T=E_{T_0}/n$ for $\rho^0$, $K^{0}$ and $\phi$ mesons from a fit of function (\[pawer\]) to the differential cross sections. The average transverse energy $\langle E_T\rangle$, kinetic energy $\langle E_T^{kin}\rangle$ and momentum $\langle p_T\rangle$ are also presented. The errors correspond to the quadratically summed statistical and systematic errors. Also shown are measurements in $pp$ and Au-Au interactions at nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV [@STAR] at central rapidities. Experiment Measurement $R(\phi/K^{0})$ ------------ ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ H1 $\gamma p$, $\langle W\rangle=210$ GeV, $\|y_{lab}\|<1$ $0.354\pm0.060$ STAR $pp$, $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV, $\|y\|<0.5$ $0.35\pm0.05$ Au-Au, $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV, $\|y\|<0.5$ $0.63\pm0.15$ : The ratio $R(\phi/K^{0})$ of the total cross-sections for $\phi$ and $K^{0}$ production obtained in $\gamma p$ collisions (H1) at $\langle W\rangle=210$ GeV. The errors correspond to the quadratically summed statistical and systematic errors. Also shown are measurements in $pp$ and Au-Au interactions at nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV [@STAR] at central rapidities. (15.0,10.0) (15.0,10.0) (17.0,16.0) (15.0,10.0) [^1]: In the following, the notation $K^{0}$ is used to refer to both the $K^{0}$ and $\overline{K}^{0}$ mesons unless explicitly stated otherwise. [^2]: The difference in rapidity between the laboratory frame and the $\gamma p$ frame is about two units at H1.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We construct a general measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior in open quantum systems. This measure is based on the trace distance which quantifies the distinguishability of quantum states. It represents a functional of the dynamical map describing the time evolution of physical states, and can be interpreted in terms of the information flow between the open system and its environment. The measure takes on nonzero values whenever there is a flow of information from the environment back to the open system, which is the key feature of non-Markovian dynamics.' author: - 'Heinz-Peter Breuer' - 'Elsi-Mari Laine' - Jyrki Piilo title: 'Measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems' --- The prototype of a Markov process in an open quantum system is given by a quantum dynamical semigroup, i.e., by the solutions of a master equation for the reduced density matrix with Lindblad structure [@GORINI; @LINDBLAD]. However, in realistic physical systems the assumption of a Markovian dynamics can only be an approximation that relies on a number of mostly rather drastic simplifications. In complex quantum systems one therefore often encounters dynamical processes which deviate not only quantitatively but also qualitatively from the relatively simple behavior predicted by a Markovian time evolution [@BREUER2007]. In view of the large variety of conceptually different analytical methods and numerical simulation techniques that have been developed to treat non-Markovian systems in recent years (see, for example, Refs. [@Piilo2007; @EISI; @HPB08; @BREUER2004a; @PASCAZIO; @LIDAR; @LENDI; @BUDINI; @BARNETT; @WILKIE; @CRESSER; @KOSSAKOWSKI]), the following questions arise: How can one rigorously define quantum non-Markovianity and how can one quantify the degree of non-Markovian behavior in a way which does not refer to any specific representation or approximation of the dynamics, e.g. to a master equation with a given structure? In order to answer these questions one needs a measure for the non-Markovianity of the quantum dynamics of open systems which, in mathematical terms, represents a functional of the dynamical map that describes the time evolution of physical states. Here, we construct such a measure for non-Markovianity. This measure is based on the trace distance of two quantum states which describes the probability of successfully distinguishing these states. The basic idea underlying our construction is that Markovian processes tend to continuously reduce the distinguishability between any two states, while the essential property of non-Markovian behavior is the growth of this distinguishability. Interpreting the loss of distinguishabilty of states as a flow of information from the open system to its environment, one is thus led to a simple, intuitive picture, namely that the key feature of non-Markovian dynamics is a reversed flow of information from the environment back to the open system. An important consequence of this picture is that the dynamical map of non-Markovian processes must necessarily be non-divisible, a property that is known to play also a decisive role in the classification of quantum channels [@WOLF]. To construct the measure for non-Markovianity we first need a measure for the distance of two quantum states $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$. Such a measure is given by the trace distance (see, e.g., Ref. [@NIELSEN]) which is defined by $$D(\rho_1,\rho_2) = \frac{1}{2}{\mathrm{tr}}\|\rho_1-\rho_2\|,$$ where $\|A\|=\sqrt{A^{\dagger}A}$. The trace distance $D$ represents a natural metric on the space of density matrices, i.e., on the space of physical states, satisfying $0\leq D \leq 1$. Besides many other interesting properties, it has a clear physical interpretation in terms of the distinguishability of quantum states. Suppose that Alice prepares a quantum system in one of two states $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$, each with probability $\frac{1}{2}$, and gives the system to Bob who performs a measurement to decide whether the system was in the state $\rho_1$ or $\rho_2$. One can show that the quantity $\frac{1}{2}[1+D(\rho_1,\rho_2)]$ is then equal to the probability that Bob can successfully identify the state of the system. Thus, the trace distance can be interpreted as a measure for the distinguishability of two quantum states. A further remarkable feature of the trace distance is given by the fact that all completely positive and trace preserving (CPT) maps $\Phi$ are contractions for this metric [@RUSKAI], $$\label{contraction-1} D(\Phi\rho_1,\Phi\rho_2) \leq D(\rho_1,\rho_2).$$ This means that no trace preserving quantum operation can ever increase the distinguishability of two states. Suppose now that we have a quantum process given by a Markovian master equation, $$\label{QMEQ-1} \frac{d}{dt}\rho(t) = {\mathcal{L}}\rho(t),$$ with a generator in Lindblad form [@GORINI; @LINDBLAD], $$\label{LINDBLAD-GEN} {\mathcal{L}}\rho = -i[H,\rho] + \sum_i \gamma_i\left[ A_i\rho A^{\dagger}_i - \frac{1}{2}\left\{A^{\dagger}_iA_i,\rho\right\} \right],$$ involving a time-independent Hamiltonian $H$ as well as time-independent Lindblad operators $A_i$ and positive relaxation rates $\gamma_i\geq 0$. Such a master equation leads to a dynamical semigroup of CPT maps $\Phi(t) = \exp({\mathcal{L}}t)$, $t \geq 0$, which describes the dynamics of the density matrix through the relation $\rho(t)=\Phi(t)\rho(0)$. By use of the semigroup property $\Phi(\tau+t)=\Phi(\tau)\Phi(t)$ it easily follows from Eq. (\[contraction-1\]) that for all $\tau,t\geq 0$ we have $$\label{contraction-2} D(\rho_1(\tau+t),\rho_2(\tau+t)) \leq D(\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t)),$$ where $\rho_{1,2}(t)=\Phi(t)\rho_{1,2}(0)$. Thus, for all quantum dynamical semigroups $\Phi(t)$ the trace distance of the states $\rho_{1,2}(t)$, corresponding to any fixed pair of initial states $\rho_{1,2}(0)$, is a monotonically decreasing function of time. This is a general feature of quantum Markov processes, implying that under a Markovian evolution any two initial states generally become less and less distinguishable as time increases. We can interpret this loss of distinguishability as a certain flow of information from the system to the environment which continuously reduces our ability to distinguish the given states. The inequality (\[contraction-2\]) holds for a much larger class of quantum processes than those described by a master equation of the form (\[QMEQ-1\]). In fact, suppose we have a time-local master equation of the form $$\label{QMEQ-2} \frac{d}{dt}\rho(t) = {\mathcal{K}}(t)\rho(t)$$ with a time-dependent generator ${\mathcal{K}}(t)$. One can show that in order to preserve the Hermiticity and trace of the density matrix this generator must be of the form [@GORINI; @BREUER2004a] $$\begin{aligned} \label{TCL-GENERATOR} {\mathcal{K}}(t)\rho &=& -i[H(t),\rho] \\ &~& + \sum_i \gamma_i(t)\left[ A_i(t)\rho A^{\dagger}_i(t) - \frac{1}{2}\left\{A^{\dagger}_i(t)A_i(t),\rho\right\} \right], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the Hamiltonian $H(t)$, the Lindblad operators $A_i(t)$ and the relaxation rates $\gamma_i(t)$ depend on time. If the relaxation rates are positive functions, $\gamma_i(t)\geq 0$, the generator (\[TCL-GENERATOR\]) is seen to be in the Lindblad form (\[LINDBLAD-GEN\]) for each fixed $t\geq 0$. Such processes with $\gamma_i(t)\geq 0$ may be called time-dependent Markovian although the corresponding dynamical maps $\Phi(t)$ do not lead to a quantum dynamical semigroup. With the help of the chronological time-ordering operator ${\mathrm{T}}$ we can define a two-parameter family of CPT maps $\Phi(t_2,t_1)$ by means of $$\label{TWO-FAMILY} \Phi(t_2,t_1) = {\mathrm{T}}\exp\left[ \int_{t_1}^{t_2} dt' {\mathcal{K}}(t') \right].$$ The dynamical map which transforms the initial states at time $0$ into the states at time $t$ can then be written as $\Phi(t)=\Phi(t,0)$. The important point to note is that this dynamical map has the property of being divisible in the sense that for all $\tau,t\geq 0$ the CPT map $\Phi(\tau+t,0)$ can be written as composition of the two CPT maps $\Phi(\tau+t,t)$ and $\Phi(t,0)$, $$\label{DIVISIBILITY} \Phi(\tau+t,0) = \Phi(\tau+t,t)\Phi(t,0).$$ We remark that for a dynamical semigroup on has $\Phi(t_2,t_1)=\Phi(t_2-t_1)$ such that Eq. (\[DIVISIBILITY\]) reduces to $\Phi(\tau+t)=\Phi(\tau)\Phi(t)$. Since in Eq. (\[DIVISIBILITY\]) not only $\Phi(\tau+t,0)$ and $\Phi(t,0)$ but also $\Phi(\tau+t,t)$ is a CPT map, we conclude that the relation (\[contraction-2\]) holds true for all time-dependent Markovian quantum processes defined by the master equation (\[QMEQ-2\]) with $\gamma_i(t)\geq 0$. We define the rate of change of the trace distance by $$\label{SIGMA} \sigma(t,\rho_{1,2}(0)) = \frac{d}{dt}D(\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t)).$$ For a given quantum process $\Phi(t)$, this quantity depends on time $t$ and on the initial states $\rho_{1,2}(0)$ with corresponding time-evolutions $\rho_{1,2}(t) = \Phi(t,0)\rho_{1,2}(0)$. As has been demonstrated above, we have $\sigma\leq 0$ for all quantum processes for which the divisibility property (\[DIVISIBILITY\]) holds, i.e., for all dynamical semigroups and all time-dependent Markovian processes. We remark that Eq. (\[contraction-1\]) not only holds for CPT maps, but also for the larger class of positive and trace-preserving maps [@RUSKAI]. Thus, $\sigma\leq 0$ holds true also for Markovian master equations which are not in Lindlbad form but preserve positivity. There are however many physical processes for which $\sigma$ is larger than zero for certain times. It is this type of processes which we define as non-Markovian. Hence, a process is said to be non-Markovian if there exists a pair of initial states $\rho_{1,2}(0)$ and a certain time $t$ such that $\sigma(t,\rho_{1,2}(0))> 0$. Physically, this means that for non-Markovian dynamics the distinguishability of the pair of states increases at certain times. We interpret this as a flow of information from the environment back to the system which enhances the possibility of distinguishing the two states. While Markovian processes tend to wash out more and more characteristic features of the two states, non-Markovian processes lead to an uncovering of these features. We emphasize that the temporary backflow of information represents a natural feature occurring in many physical systems which does not imply that there is no thermalization for long times. How can one construct a measure for non-Markovianity on the basis of this definition? Clearly, such a quantity should measure the total increase of the distinguishability over the whole time-evolution, i.e., the total amount of information which flows from the environment back to the system. This suggests defining a measure ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)$ for the non-Markovianity of the quantum process $\Phi(t)$ by means of the relation $$\label{MEASURE-1} {\mathcal{N}}(\Phi) = \max_{\rho_{1,2}(0)} \int_{\sigma > 0} dt \; \sigma(t,\rho_{1,2}(0)).$$ Here, the time-integration is extended over all time intervals $(a_i,b_i)$ in which $\sigma$ is positive, and the maximum is taken over all pairs of initial states. In view of Eq. (\[SIGMA\]) we can thus write this definition as $$\label{MEASURE-2} {\mathcal{N}}(\Phi) = \max_{\rho_{1,2}(0)} \sum_i \Big[ D(\rho_1(b_i),\rho_2(b_i)) - D(\rho_1(a_i),\rho_2(a_i)) \Big].$$ To calculate this quantity one first determines for any pair of initial states the total growth of the trace distance over each time interval $(a_i,b_i)$ and sums up the contributions of all intervals. ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)$ is then obtained by determining the maximum over all pairs of initial states. ![(Color online) (a) The rate of change $\sigma$ of the trace distance as a function of time $t$ and detuning $\Delta$ for the initial pair of states $\rho_1(0)=\|+\rangle\langle +\|$ and $\rho_2(0)=\|-\rangle\langle -\|$. (b) The black regions represent the regions in which $\sigma$ is positive. \[sigma-twolevel\]](sigma_COL_V10.pdf "fig:") ![(Color online) (a) The rate of change $\sigma$ of the trace distance as a function of time $t$ and detuning $\Delta$ for the initial pair of states $\rho_1(0)=\|+\rangle\langle +\|$ and $\rho_2(0)=\|-\rangle\langle -\|$. (b) The black regions represent the regions in which $\sigma$ is positive. \[sigma-twolevel\]](bw_V10.pdf "fig:") By construction, we have ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)=0$ for all processes which have the divisibility property (\[DIVISIBILITY\]). In the following we discuss two simple examples for which our measure of non-Markovianity is greater than zero. The aim is to illustrate how to determine this quantity in specific cases and how non-Markovianity is related to a violation of the divisibility property and to the emergence of negative rates in master equations of the structure (\[QMEQ-2\]). The first example describes a two-level system with excited state $\|+\rangle$ and ground state $\|-\rangle$ which interacts with a reservoir of field modes. The exact interaction picture master equation [@BREUER2007] describing the dynamics of the density matrix is of form of Eq. (\[QMEQ-2\]) with the generator (\[TCL-GENERATOR\]), where $H(t)=0$ and we have only a single time-independent Lindblad operator $A=\sigma_-$ and a time-dependent rate $\gamma(t)$. The function $\gamma(t)$ is determined by the spectral density $J(\omega)$ of the reservoir. We investigate the case of a Lorentzian spectral density $J(\omega)=\gamma_0\lambda^2/2\pi[(\omega_0-\Delta-\omega)^2+\lambda^2]$, the center of which is detuned from the transition frequency $\omega_0$ of the two-level system by an amount $\Delta$, and work in the weak coupling limit $\gamma_0/\lambda = 0.01$ (damped Jaynes-Cummings model). For sufficiently large detunings $\Delta$, the function $\gamma(t)$ then describes an exponentially damped oscillation and takes on negative values within certain intervals of time corresponding to a revival of the coherence in the system [@BREUER2007; @Piilo2007]. We emphasize that this does not imply a violation of the complete positivity of the corresponding dynamical map $\Phi(t)$ because the necessary and sufficient condition for the complete positivity of $\Phi(t)$ is given by $\Gamma(t)\equiv\int_0^t dt' \gamma(t') \geq 0$, which is indeed satisfied here. However, the trace distance increases for those $t$ for which $\gamma(t)<0$, i.e., we have $\sigma(t,\rho_{1,2}(0))>0$ for these times. This point is illustrated in Fig. \[sigma-twolevel\] which shows $\sigma$ as a function of time $t$ and detuning $\Delta$ for the pure initial states $\rho_1(0)=\|+\rangle\langle +\|$ and $\rho_2(0)=\|-\rangle\langle -\|$. For these initial states one finds the simple expression $$\sigma(t,\rho_{1,2}(0))=-\gamma(t)\exp[-\Gamma(t)],$$ which shows that a positive $\sigma$ and an increase of the trace distance is linked to a negative rate in the master equation. Thus, the appearance of negative rates signifies a violation of the divisibility property (\[DIVISIBILITY\]) and a flow of information from the environment back to the system. The maximization over the pair of initial states $\rho_{1,2}(0)$ in expression (\[MEASURE-1\]) can be performed by drawing a sufficiently large sample of random pairs of initial states. The results are shown in Fig. \[max-twolevel\] and provide strong numerical evidence that the maximum is attained for the initial states $\rho_1(0)=\|+\rangle\langle +\|$ and $\rho_2(0)=\|-\rangle\langle -\|$. This result could have been expected since $\rho_2(0)$ represents the invariant state and $\rho_1(0)$ has the largest distance to this state. According to Fig. \[max-twolevel\] ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)$ exhibits a non-monotonic behavior: The increase of the number of intervals in which $\sigma > 0$ is overcompensated for large $\Delta$ by the decrease of the size of $\sigma$ in these intervals. ![(Color online) The non-Markovianity ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)$ for the damped Janes-Cummings model as a function of the detuning $\Delta$. Blue dots: 1000 randomly drawn pairs of pure and mixed initial states. Red circles: The initial pair $\rho_1(0)=\|+\rangle\langle +\|$ and $\rho_2(0)=\|-\rangle\langle -\|$ which leads to the maximum in Eq. (\[MEASURE-1\]). \[max-twolevel\]](twolmax.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"} For the previous example the non-Markovianity ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)$ was found to take on finite, positive values. Our second example represents a rather extreme case, demonstrating that there are also processes for which ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)$ is infinite. We consider a central spin with Pauli operator $\bm{\sigma}$ which interacts with a bath of $N$ spins with Pauli operators $\bm{\sigma}^{(k)}$ through the Hamiltonian $H=A\sum_{k=1}^N \sigma_z\sigma_z^{(k)}$, where $A$ is a coupling constant. This simple model can easily be solved exactly [@BREUER2004b]. Assuming the initial state of the bath to be a maximally mixed state, one finds that the populations of the density matrix of the central spin stay constant in time, while the coherences are multiplied by the factor $f(t)=\cos^N(2At)$. This leads to a simple formula for the trace distance of the states $\rho_1(t)$ and $\rho_2(t)$, $$D(\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t)) = \sqrt{a^2+f^2(t)\|b\|^2},$$ where $a=\rho^{++}_1(0)-\rho^{++}_2(0)$ denotes the difference of the populations, and $b=\rho^{+-}_1(0)-\rho^{+-}_2(0)$ the difference of the coherences of the two initial states. It follows that the trace distance oscillates periodically between $D_{\max}=\sqrt{a^2+\|b\|^2}$ and $D_{\min}=\|a\|$. This can be interpreted as a periodic oscillation of the distinguishability of the two states, i.e., as a periodic exchange of information between the central spin and the spin bath. The maximal growth of the trace distance occurs if one takes as initial states the two eigenstates of $\sigma_x$, or any other pair of states corresponding to antipodal points on the equator of the Bloch sphere, such that $a=0$ and $\|b\|=1$. The trace distance then oscillates periodically between the values $1$ and $0$. The sum in Eq. (\[MEASURE-2\]) therefore diverges and we obtain ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)=+\infty$, which implies that a Markovian approximation of the system dynamics is never possible. One can formally write a master equation of the form (\[QMEQ-2\]) with $H=0$, a single Lindblad operator $A=\sigma_z$ and the rate $\gamma(t)=AN\tan(2At)$, which shows again the connection between the growth of the trace distance and the emergence of negative rates. Summarizing, we have constructed a measure ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)$ for the non-Markovianity of quantum processes in open systems. The definition (\[MEASURE-1\]) of the measure neither relies on any specific representation or approximation of the dynamics, nor does it presuppose the existence of a master equation or of invariant states. The exact determination of the measure generally requires solving the complete reduced system dynamics which could be a difficult task for more complex problems. However, any observed growth of the trace distance is a clear signature for non-Markovian behavior and leads to a lower bound for ${\mathcal{N}}(\Phi)$. The measure for non-Markovianity introduced here could therefore be useful also for the experimental validation of theoretical models or approximation schemes. To detect non-Markovianity experimentally one has to perform a state tomography on different ensembles at different times in order to decide whether or not the trace distance has increased. A great advantage of the present approach is given by the fact that it allows to plan experiments which test non-Markovianianity without knowing anything about the properties of the environment or about the structure of the system-environment interaction. Hence, we think that our measure is a useful tool for the characterization of non-Markovianity, both in theoretical descriptions and in experiments. This work has been supported by the Academy of Finland (Project Nos. 115982, 115682) and the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation. [xx]{} V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. [17]{}, 821 (1976). G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys. [48]{}, 119 (1976). H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, [The Theory of Open Quantum Systems]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007). J. Piilo, S. Maniscalco, K. Härkonen and K.-A. Suominen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [100]{}, 180402 (2008); J. Piilo, K. Härkonen, S. Maniscalco and K.-A. Suominen, Phys. Rev. A [79]{}, 062112 (2009); H. P. Breuer and J. Piilo, EPL [85]{}, 50004 (2009). M. M. Wolf, J. Eisert, T. S. Cubitt, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. [101]{}, 150402 (2008). H. P. Breuer and B. Vacchini, Phys. Rev. Lett. [101]{}, 140402 (2008); Phys. Rev. E [79]{}, 041147 (2009). H. P. Breuer, Phys. Rev. A [70]{}, 012106 (2004). D. Chruściński, A. Kossakowski and S. Pascazio, arXiv:0906.5122v1 \[quant-ph\]. H. Krovi, O. Oreshkov, M. Ryazanov, and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A [76]{}, 052117 (2007). A. J. van Wonderen and K. Lendi, Europhys. Lett. [71]{}, 737 (2005); J. Phys. A [39]{}, 14511 (2006). A. A. Budini, Phys. Rev. A [74]{}, 053815 (2006). S. M. Barnett and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A [64]{}, 033808 (2001). J. Wilkie and Y. M. Wong, J. Phys. A [42]{}, 015006 (2009). S. Daffer, K. Wodkiewicz, J. D. Cresser, and J. K. McIver, Phys. Rev. A [70]{}, 010304(R) (2004). A. Kossakowski and R. Rebolledo, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. [15]{}, 135 (2008); Open Syst. Inf. Dyn., to be published. M. M. Wolf and J. I. Cirac, Commun. Math. Phys. [279]{}, 147 (2008). M.A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, [Quantum Computation and Quantum Information]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000). M. B. Ruskai, Rev. Math. Phys. [6]{}, 1147 (1994). H. P. Breuer, Eur. Phys. J. D [29]{}, 105 (2004).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We determine the stability/instability of the tangent bundles of the Fano varieties in a certain class of two orbit varieties, which are classified by Pasquier in 2009. As a consequence, we show that some of these varieties admit unstable tangent bundles, which disproves a conjecture on stability of tangent bundles of Fano manifolds.' address: 'Department of Mathematics, Graduate school of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan' author: - Akihiro KANEMITSU title: Fano manifolds and stability of tangent bundles --- A Fano manifold $X$ is, by definition, a smooth projective variety $X$ whose anti-canonical divisor $-K_X$ is ample. From a differential geometric viewpoint, it is very important to detect which Fano manifolds admit Kähler-Einstein metrics and, after the celebrated works [@Tia97; @Don02; @Ber16; @CDS15a; @CDS15b; @CDS15c; @Tia15], it has been accomplished that the existence of a Kähler-Einstein metric on a given Fano manifold $X$ is equivalent to a purely algebraic stability condition for $X$, called $K$-polystability. As is well-known, not every Fano manifold admits a Kähler-Einstein metric. For example, Matsushima proved that the existence of a Kähler-Einstein metric on a Fano manifold $X$ implies the reductivity of the automorphism group of $X$ [@Mat57]. The automorphism group of a Fano manifold $X$ is, however, not always reductive. Also it is usually very difficult to determine whether or not a given Fano manifold $X$ admits a Kähler-Einstein metric, though the existence of such a metric is rephrased by the $K$-polystability of the Fano manifold $X$ in question. Therefore it would be useful to study several variants of stability conditions on Fano manifolds. As such a variant, stability of tangent bundles (in the sense of Mumford-Takemoto) has attracted several attention of researchers. By the Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence, the polystability of the tangent bundle is equivalent to the existence of a Hermitian-Einstein metric on the bundle [@Kob82; @Lub83; @Don85; @UY86; @Don87], and hence the polystability of the tangent bundle is weaker than the existence of a Kähler-Einstein metric. Also, thanks to its simplicity, the stability of the tangent bundle is rather easy to handle in the framework of algebraic geometry. Moreover it is expected that, for a given Fano manifold $X$, the (in)stability of the tangent bundle reflects very well the geometry of $X$. For example, a folklore conjecture[^1] claims the following: \[conj:stab\] Let $X$ be a Fano manifold. Assume that the Picard number $\rho _X$ of $X$ is one. Then the tangent bundle $\Theta_X$ is (semi)stable. Conjecture \[conj:stab\] has been confirmed in the following cases: 1. $r_X =1$ [@Rei78 Theorem 3], where $r_X$ is the Fano index of $X$; 2. Smooth complete intersections in the projective space ${\mathbf{P}}^m$ [@Sub91] [@PW95 Corollary 1.5]; 3. $\dim X \leq 5$ [@Hwa98; @PW95]; 4. $\dim X =6$ (semistability of $\Theta_X$) [@Hwa98]; 5. $r_X \geq \dim X -2$ [@PW95]; 6. $r_X > \frac{\dim X+1}{2}$ and the fundamental divisor $H_X$ is very ample [@HM99b; @Hwa01], where the Fano index $r_X$ is defined as the largest integer that divides $-K_X$ in the Picard group $\operatorname{Pic}(X)$, and the fundamental divisor $H_X$ is the divisor $-K_X/r_X$. Note that, in [@PW95], the case $r_X =n-2$ is studied under the condition that $\left\|-K_X\right\|$ contains enough smooth members, while the condition is lately proved to hold automatically by [@Amb99; @Mel99] (cf. [@Muk89]). See also [@Tia92; @Hwa00; @BS05; @Bis10; @Iye14; @Liu18] for other related works on stability of tangent bundles. It would be noteworthy that there is a variant of Conjecture \[conj:stab\], which addresses (in)stability of tangent bundles for all Fano manifolds (not necessarily $\rho_X =1$); it is expected that the instability of $\Theta_X$ reflects the Mori-theoretic geometry of the variety $X$, and hence that it is “realized” by a Mori contraction $\pi \colon X \to Y$. See, e.g., [@Ste96] and [@Pet01 Conjecture 3.21] for this variant of Conjecture \[conj:stab\]. The purpose of this paper is to study Conjecture \[conj:stab\] for a certain class of Fano manifolds, which are classified by Pasquier. Boris Pasquier, in his article [@Pas09], classified Fano manifolds with the following condition: \[cond:Pas\] $X$ is a (smooth) Fano manifold with $\rho _X =1$. Under the natural action of the identity component $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$ of the automorphism group of $X$, the variety $X$ decomposes into two orbits $X^0 \bigsqcup Z$, where $X^0$ is the open orbit and $Z$ is the closed orbit. Moreover, the blow-up $\operatorname{Bl}_Z X$ of $X$ along $Z$ is again an $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$-variety with two orbits $X^0$ and the exceptional divisor $E$. His result can be summarized as follows: \[thm:Pas\] Let $X$ be a Fano manifold which satisfies Condition \[cond:Pas\]. Then one of the following conditions holds: 1. \[thm:Pas\_h\] $X$ is a horospherical variety, $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$ is not reductive, and the isomorphic class of $X$ is uniquely determined by a triple $(D,\omega_Y, \omega_Z)$, where $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z)$ is one of the following triples: 1. \[thm:Pas\_h\_bn\] $(B_n,\omega_{n-1},\omega_n)$ ($n \geq 3$); 2. \[thm:Pas\_h\_b3\] $(B_3,\omega_1,\omega_3)$; 3. \[thm:Pas\_h\_c\] $(C_n,\omega_k,\omega_{k-1})$ ($n \geq 2$, $k \in \{\,2,\dots, n \,\}$); 4. \[thm:Pas\_h\_f\] $(F_4,\omega_2,\omega_3)$; 5. \[thm:Pas\_h\_g\] $(G_2,\omega_1,\omega_2)$. 2. \[thm:Pas\_f\] $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$ is a semi-simple group of type $F_4$, and $X$ is isomorphic to an $F_4$-variety, which we will denote by ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$. 3. \[thm:Pas\_g\] $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$ is a semi-simple group of type $A_1 \times G_2$, and $X$ is isomorphic to an $A_1 \times G_2$-variety, which we will denote by ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$. In particular, if $X$ is one of the manifolds as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\], then $X$ does not admit Kähler-Einstein metrics since its automorphism group is not reductive. On the other hand, with Conjecture \[conj:stab\] in his mind, one may expect the stability of the tangent bundles of all Fano manifolds in Theorem \[thm:Pas\]. This expectation or Conjecture \[conj:stab\] is, however, no longer true in general; the purpose of this paper is to prove the following theorem: \[thm:stab\] Let $X$ be a Fano manifold as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\]. 1. Then the tangent bundle of $X$ is not semistable in the following cases: - Case \[thm:Pas\_h\] \[thm:Pas\_h\_bn\] with $n \geq 4$; - Case \[thm:Pas\_h\] \[thm:Pas\_h\_f\]. 2. In the remaining cases, the tangent bundle of $X$ is stable. The present article is organized as follows: Section \[sect:prelim\] presents preliminaries; we will review basic concepts of stability of vector bundles and foliations on varieties. Then we will introduce a set $\Phi^G$ of foliations on $X$, and provide propositions which ensure that the set $\Phi^G$ is non-empty if $\Theta_X$ is unstable. In Section \[sect:Pas\], we will describe the geometry of the varieties as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\], mainly based on [@Pas09] and [@GPPS19]. In Section \[sect:CF\], we will introduce canonical foliations on the varieties as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] and then provide a criterion of the stability of tangent bundles in terms of canonical foliations. Then the proof of Theorem \[thm:stab\] will be performed. In the last section, we will give several remarks. Given a torsion free sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}$ on a smooth projective variety $X$, we will consider its first Chern class $c_1({\mathcal{E}})$ as an element of the Chow group $A^1(X)$. If $A^1(X) \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}$, then we will denote by $H_X$ the ample generator of $A^1(X)$ and we may identify the first Chern class with an integer. For a vector bundle ${\mathcal{E}}$ on a variety $X$, we will denote by ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}})$ the Grothendieck projectivization of ${\mathcal{E}}$, i.e., ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}}) = \operatorname{Proj}(\bigoplus_{i\geq0} \operatorname{Sym}^i{\mathcal{E}})$. A morphism $f \colon X \to Y$ is called a projective bundle if there is a vector bundle ${\mathcal{E}}$ on $Y$ such that $X \simeq {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}})$ and the morphism $f$ is the natural projection. We will denote by $\xi_{\mathcal{E}}$ the relative tautological divisor of ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}})$. We will use the same convention for the projectivization of a vector space $V$. Therefore ${\mathbf{P}}(V)$ parametrizes the hyperplanes in $V$. Set ${\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(V) \coloneqq {\mathbf{P}}(V^{\vee})$, which parametrizes the $1$-dimensional subspaces in $V$. For a smooth variety $X$ (resp. a smooth morphism $\pi \colon X \to Y$), we will denote by $\Theta _X$ (resp. $\Theta_\pi$) the tangent bundle of $X$ (resp. the relative tangent bundle of $\pi$). The author wishes to express his gratitude to Professors Gianluca Occhetta and Luis Eduardo Solá Conde for helpful discussions on the geometry of horospherical varieties. He is also grateful to Professors Kento Fujita and Yuji Odaka for helpful comments and discussions on $K$-stability of Fano manifolds. He also wishes to thank Professor Shigeru Mukai for various discussions, mainly for discussions on the geometry of a Mukai manifold ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$. Preliminaries {#sect:prelim} ============= Stability of vector bundles --------------------------- Here we briefly recall the concept of stability of vector bundles in the sense of Mumford-Takemoto. Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $n$, and fix an ample Cartier divisor $H$ on $X$. Given a (nonzero) torsion-free sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}$ of rank $r$ on $X$, we define its first Chern class $c_1({\mathcal{E}})$ as the divisor class of the line bundle $(\bigwedge^r {\mathcal{E}})^{\vee \vee}$. Then the slope of ${\mathcal{E}}$ with respect to the polarization $H$ is defined as the averaged degree of the first Chern class: $$\mu ({\mathcal{E}}) \coloneqq \frac{c_1({\mathcal{E}}) \cdot H^{n-1}}{\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}}.$$ Recall that a subsheaf ${\mathcal{F}}\subset {\mathcal{E}}$ is said to be saturated if the quotient ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathcal{F}}$ is torsion free. Let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be a torsion free sheaf on a smooth projective variety $X$. Then the sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}$ is called stable (resp. semistable) if, for any (nonzero) saturated subsheaf ${\mathcal{F}}\subsetneq {\mathcal{E}}$, the inequality $\mu ({\mathcal{F}}) < \mu ({\mathcal{E}})$ (resp. $\mu ({\mathcal{F}}) \leq \mu ({\mathcal{E}})$) holds. \[rem:stab\] 1. Recall that a sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}$ is called polystable if ${\mathcal{E}}\simeq {\mathcal{E}}_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathcal{E}}_k$ for some stable sheaves ${\mathcal{E}}_i$ with $\mu({\mathcal{E}}_1) = \cdots = \mu({\mathcal{E}}_k)$. By the definition, we have the following implications for a torsion free sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}$: $$\text{stable} \Longrightarrow \text{polystable} \Longrightarrow \text{semistable}.$$ Note that, for an indecomposable sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}$, its stability is equivalent to the polystability. 2. Let $X$ be a Fano manifold with $\rho_X =1$. In the rest of this paper, we will only consider the polarization on $X$ given by the fundamental divisor $H_X$. Note that the tangent bundle $\Theta _X$ of $X$ is indecomposable by [@CP02 Proposition 3.1]. Thus, the stability of $\Theta_X$ is equivalent to its polystability, and hence it is also equivalent to the existence of a Hermitian-Einstein metric on $\Theta_X$ by the Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence. Let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be a torsion free sheaf on $X$. Assume that ${\mathcal{E}}$ is not semistable. Then, by the definition, ${\mathcal{E}}$ admits a saturated subsheaf ${\mathcal{F}}$ with $\mu ({\mathcal{F}}) > \mu ({\mathcal{E}})$. It is well known that the set $$\{\, \mu({\mathcal{F}}) \mid \text{${\mathcal{F}}$ is a subsheaf of ${\mathcal{E}}$} \,\}$$ is bounded from above, and there exists a unique maximal subsheaf ${\mathcal{E}}_{\max}$, called the maximal destabilizing subsheaf of ${\mathcal{E}}$, which attains the maximum slope: $$\mu({\mathcal{E}}_{\max}) = \max \{\, \mu({\mathcal{F}}) \mid \text{${\mathcal{F}}$ is a subsheaf of ${\mathcal{E}}$} \,\}.$$ Note that, by the maximality of ${\mathcal{E}}_{\max}$, the sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}_{\max}$ is semistable and saturated in ${\mathcal{E}}$. \[rem:inv\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and ${\mathcal{E}}$ a torsion free sheaf on $X$. An automorphism of the pair $(X,{\mathcal{E}})$ is defined as a pair $(g,\varphi)$ of isomorphisms $g \colon X \to X$ and $\varphi \colon {\mathcal{E}}\to g^* {\mathcal{E}}$. Then, by the uniqueness of the maximal destabilizing subsheaves, the subsheaf ${\mathcal{E}}_{\max}$ is preserved by any automorphism of the pair $(X,{\mathcal{E}})$, i.e., ${\mathcal{E}}_{\max} = g^* {\mathcal{E}}_{\max}$ via the identification $\varphi$. Foliations and algebraicity of leaves ------------------------------------- Now we restrict our attention to the case of tangent bundles and recall several concepts regarding foliations. Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety. A foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ on $X$ is a saturated subsheaf ${\mathcal{F}}\subset \Theta _X$ that is closed under the Lie bracket, i.e., $[{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}] \subset {\mathcal{F}}$, where $[{{-}},{{-}}]$ is the Lie bracket. We will denote by $\operatorname{Sing}{\mathcal{F}}$ the closed subset on which $\Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}}$ is not locally free. Thus, on $X\setminus \operatorname{Sing}{\mathcal{F}}$, the sequence $$0 \to {\mathcal{F}}\to \Theta_X \to \Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}}\to 0$$ is an exact sequence of vector bundles. Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be a foliation or, more generally, a subsheaf of $\Theta _X$. Assume that an algebraic group $G$ acts on $X$. Then ${\mathcal{F}}$ is said to be $G$-invariant if, for any $g \in G$, the image of the natural composition map $${\mathcal{F}}\to \Theta_X \to g^\Theta_X$$ coincides with $g^{\mathcal{F}}$. Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be a foliation on $X$. Then the Frobenius theorem on integrability says that, if $x \in X \setminus \operatorname{Sing}{\mathcal{F}}$, then there exist an analytic open neighborhood $U$ of $x \in X$ and a closed analytic submanifold $L_U \subset U$ such that $\Theta_{L_U} = {\mathcal{F}}\|_{L_U}$ as subsheaves in $\Theta_X\|_{L_U}$. A (connected) complex manifold $Y$ or, more precisely, a pair $(Y,\iota)$ of a complex manifold $Y$ and a holomorphic map $\iota \colon Y \to X \setminus \operatorname{Sing}{\mathcal{F}}$ is called an integral manifold if $\iota$ is a one-to-one immersion and its differential $\mathrm{d}\iota$ identifies $\Theta_Y$ with $\iota^* {\mathcal{F}}$. Then the global version of the Frobenius theorem asserts that, for $x \in X\setminus\operatorname{Sing}{\mathcal{F}}$, there exists a unique maximal integral manifold $L_x$ that contains $x$, called leaf through $x \in X$ (cf. [@War83 Theorem 1.64]). By an abuse of notation, we will denote by the same symbol $L_x$ the image of $L_x$ in $X$. 1. A leaf $L$ is called algebraic if $L$ is open in its Zariski closure in $X$. 2. A foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ is said to be algebraically integrable if a leaf $L$ through a general point $x \in X$ is algebraic. As is observed by Miyaoka [@Miy87a; @Miy87b], the maximal destabilizing subsheaf of the tangent bundle $\Theta_X$ plays an important role in the classification theory of algebraic varieties. An easy but fundamental observation is that the maximal destabilizing subsheaf of $\Theta_X$ defines a foliation if it satisfies a weak positivity condition (see, e.g., [@SB92 Lemma 9.1.3.1] for a proof): \[prop:MDS\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and $\Theta_{X,\max}$ the maximal destabilizing subsheaf of $\Theta _X$. If $\mu (\Theta_{X,\max}) >0$, then $\Theta_{X,\max}$ defines a foliation. Also, it was observed by Bogomolov-McQuillan or Bost [@BM01; @Bos01] that the positivity of a foliation also ensures the algebraicity of leaves, which answers a question of Miyaoka [@Miy87b Remark 8.9] (cf. [@MP97] and [@SB92]): \[thm:AL\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and ${\mathcal{F}}$ a foliation. Assume that a projective curve $C$ is contained in $X\setminus \operatorname{Sing}{\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}\|_C$ is ample. Then any leaf $L_x$ through $x \in C$ is algebraic. See also [@KSCT07] for an account of the above theorem. Definition of $\Phi_G$ ---------------------- Let $X$ be a Fano manifold (with $\rho_X =1$) and assume that $\Theta _X$ is not semistable. Then, by Proposition \[prop:MDS\], the maximal destabilizing subsheaf $\Theta_{X,\max}$ defines a foliation on $X$. By the Mehta-Ramanathan restriction theorem, the restriction of $\Theta_{X,\max}$ to a general complete intersection curve $C = \bigcap_{i=1}^{n-1} D_i$, where $D_i \in \left\|m_i H_X\right\|$ for $m_i \gg0$, is still a semistable bundle on $C$. Then, by Hartshorne’s criterion [@Har71 Theorem 2.4], the bundle $\Theta_{X,\max}\|_C$ is ample, and hence $\Theta_{X,\max}$ defines an algebraically integrable foliation. Note that, by Remark \[rem:inv\], this foliation is $\operatorname{Aut}(X)$-invariant. Summarizing, we have a natural $\operatorname{Aut}(X)$-invariant algebraically integrable foliation $\Theta_{X,\max}$, if $\Theta _X$ is not semistable. Let $X$ be a Fano manifold with $\rho_X=1$ and assume that an algebraic group $G$ acts on $X$. Then we define: $$\Phi^G \coloneqq \{\, {\mathcal{F}}\subsetneq \Theta_X \mid \text{${\mathcal{F}}$ is a $G$-invariant algebraically integrable foliation}\,\}.$$ Note that we assume ${\mathcal{F}}\neq \Theta_X$ in the above definition. Also, for a real number $a \in {\mathbf{R}}$, we define $\Phi^{G}_{>a}$ (resp. $\Phi^{G}_{\geq a}$) as the subset of $\Phi^G$ consisting of the foliations with $\mu({\mathcal{F}}) >a$ (resp. $\mu({\mathcal{F}}) \geq a$). We also define: $$\phi^G \coloneqq \max \{\, \mu({\mathcal{F}}) \mid {\mathcal{F}}\in \Phi_{G} \,\}.$$ Then, by the discussion above, we have the following: \[prop:notss\] Let $X$ be a Fano manifold with $\rho_X =1$ and $G$ an algebraic group acting on $X$. Assume that $\Theta _X$ is not semistable. Then $\Phi^G_{> \mu(\Theta_X)}$ is non-empty. The following proposition ensures that a similar set $\Phi^G_{\geq \mu(\Theta_X)}$ is also non-empty if $\Theta_X$ is not stable: \[prop:nots\] Let $X$ and $G$ be as in Proposition \[prop:notss\]. Assume that $\Theta _X$ is not stable. Then $\Phi^G_{\geq \mu(\Theta_X)}$ is non-empty. By Proposition \[prop:notss\], we may assume that $\Theta _X$ is semistable but not stable. By Remark \[rem:stab\], $\Theta_X$ is not polystable. Set $\mu \coloneqq \mu(\Theta_X)$. There exists a $G$-invariant semistable saturated subsheaf ${\mathcal{E}}\subsetneq \Theta_X$ with $\mu({\mathcal{E}}) = \mu$. Since $\Theta _X$ is semistable but not stable, we can find a stable saturated subsheaf ${\mathcal{E}}_1 \subsetneq \Theta_X$ such that $\mu({\mathcal{E}}_1) = \mu$. Note that ${\mathcal{E}}_1$ is reflexive. If ${\mathcal{E}}_1$ is $G$-invariant, then we have nothing to prove. Otherwise we can find an element $g_1 \in G$ such that $g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1 \not \subset {\mathcal{E}}_1$ and hence $ {\mathcal{E}}_1 \cap g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1 \neq g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1$. Consider the following exact sequence: $$0 \to {\mathcal{E}}_1 \cap g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1 \to {\mathcal{E}}_1 \oplus g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1 \to {\mathcal{E}}_1 + g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1\to 0.$$ Since ${\mathcal{E}}_1 \oplus g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1$ is reflexive and since ${\mathcal{E}}_1 + g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1$ is torsion free, it follows that $ {\mathcal{E}}_1 \cap g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1$ is reflexive. Assume $ {\mathcal{E}}_1 \cap g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1 \neq 0 $. Then $\mu( {\mathcal{E}}_1 \cap g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1) < \mu$ by the stability of $g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1$. This implies that $\mu({\mathcal{E}}_1 + g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1) > \mu$, which contradicts to the semistability of $\Theta_X$. Thus we have $ {\mathcal{E}}_1 \cap g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1 = 0 $, and hence ${\mathcal{E}}_1 + g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1$ is a direct sum in $\Theta_X$. Set ${\mathcal{E}}_2 \coloneqq {\mathcal{E}}_1 + g_1^{\mathcal{E}}_1$. If ${\mathcal{E}}_2$ is not $G$-invariant, then we can find $g_2 \in G$ such that $g_2^{\mathcal{E}}_1 \not \subset {\mathcal{E}}_2$. Then by considering the following sequence $$0 \to {\mathcal{E}}_2 \cap g_2^{\mathcal{E}}_1 \to {\mathcal{E}}_2 \oplus g_2^{\mathcal{E}}_1 \to {\mathcal{E}}_2 + g_2^{\mathcal{E}}_1\to 0,$$ we see that ${\mathcal{E}}_3 \coloneqq {\mathcal{E}}_2 + g_2^{\mathcal{E}}_1$ is a direct sum in $\Theta_X$ again. Eventually this procedure terminates, and produces a $G$-invariant polystable subsheaf ${\mathcal{E}}\subset \Theta_X$ with $\mu({\mathcal{E}}) = \mu$. Since $\Theta_X$ is not polystable, we have ${\mathcal{E}}\neq \Theta_X$. Finally we will prove that ${\mathcal{E}}$ is saturated in $\Theta_X$. Note that ${\mathcal{E}}$ is reflexive since it is a direct sum of reflexive sheaves. Let $\widehat {\mathcal{E}}$ be the saturation of ${\mathcal{E}}$ in $\Theta_X$. Then the semistability of $\Theta _X$ and ${\mathcal{E}}$ implies $\mu(\widehat {\mathcal{E}}) = \mu$. Thus the map ${\mathcal{E}}\to \widehat {\mathcal{E}}$ is a generic isomorphism between reflexive sheaves with same slopes, and hence it is an isomorphism By the above claim, the following set is non-empty: $$\Phi \coloneqq \{\, {\mathcal{E}}\subsetneq \Theta_X \mid \text{${\mathcal{E}}$ is a $G$-invariant semistable saturated subsheaf with $\mu({\mathcal{E}}) = \mu$} \,\}.$$ Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be an element of $\Phi$. ${\mathcal{F}}$ is an algebraically integrable foliation. By Theorem \[thm:AL\], it is enough to see that ${\mathcal{F}}$ defines a foliation or, equivalently, that the O’Neil tensor $\wedge^2 {\mathcal{F}}\to \Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}}$, which is induced from the Lie bracket, is a zero map. For this, we will follow the argument of [@SB92 Lemma 9.1.3.1]. Note that, since $\Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}}$ is torsion free, the natural map $\Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}}\to (\Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}})^{\vee\vee}$ is injective. Hence it is enough to prove that there are no nontrivial morphisms $(\wedge^2{\mathcal{F}})^{\vee\vee } \to (\Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}})^{\vee\vee}$. Since ${\mathcal{F}}$ is semistable, the sheaf $(\wedge^2 {\mathcal{F}})^{\vee\vee}$ is a semistable sheaf whose slope is $2\mu$. On the other hand, the semistability of $\Theta _X$ together with the fact $\mu (\Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}}) =\mu$ implies that $\Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}}$ is also semistable, and so is $(\Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}})^{\vee\vee}$. Since $\mu >0$, we have $2\mu >\mu$. Thus there are no nontrivial morphisms $(\wedge^2 {\mathcal{F}})^{\vee\vee} \to (\Theta_X/{\mathcal{F}})^{\vee\vee} $. This completes the proof. Pasquier’s classification and their geometry {#sect:Pas} ============================================ Here we recall descriptions of Fano varieties in Pasquier’s classification (=Theorem \[thm:Pas\]), based on [@Pas09] or [@GPPS19]. Almost all results in this section can be found in the literature, except for the explicit calculations on the geometry of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$ (= Propositions \[prop:bl\_PF\] and \[prop:bl\_PG\]), for which we will include a proof for the convenience of readers. Preliminaries: associated triples and notations ----------------------------------------------- In what follows, we will employ basic terminologies regarding algebraic groups and Lie algebras. Let $R$ be a root system with its associated Dynkin diagram $D(R)$ (with respect to a choice of a set $\Delta$ of simple roots). Denote by $I$ the index set of $\Delta$. Thus each $i \in I$ corresponds to an element in $\alpha_i \in \Delta$. We will denote by $\omega_i$ the fundamental weight corresponding to $\alpha_i$. \[def:triples\] Let $X$ be a Fano manifold as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\]. Then we define its associated triple* $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z)$, which consists of a Dynkin diagram $D$ and weights $\omega_Y$ and $\omega_Z$, as follows: - For varieties as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\], we simply associate the triple indicated in the theorem. Hence $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z)$ is one of the following triples: 1. $(B_n,\omega_{n-1},\omega_n)$ ($n \geq 3$); 2. $(B_3,\omega_1,\omega_3)$; 3. $(C_n,\omega_k,\omega_{k-1})$ ($n \geq 2$, $k \in \{\,2,\dots,n\,\}$); 4. $(F_4,\omega_2,\omega_3)$; 5. $(G_2,\omega_1,\omega_2)$. - For ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$, set $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z) \coloneqq (F_4,\omega_1,\omega_3)$. - For ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$, set $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z) \coloneqq (A_1\times G_2, \omega_1,\omega_0 + \omega_2)$. Here we use the following convention for the labeling of nodes of Dynkin diagrams: ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $B_n$ ${ { \SelectTips{}{12} \objectmargin={0pt} \objectheight={30pt} \objectwidth={5pt} \xygraph{!{<0cm,0cm>;<0.7cm,0cm>:<0cm,0.7cm>::} \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 1} -[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 2} -\|{\cdots}[r] \circ -[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle n-1}-@2{-}\|(.6)@{>}[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle n} }} }$ $C_n$ ${ { \SelectTips{}{12} \objectmargin={0pt} \objectheight={30pt} \objectwidth={5pt} \xygraph{!{<0cm,0cm>;<0.7cm,0cm>:<0cm,0.7cm>::} \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 1} -[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 2} -\|{\cdots}[r] \circ -[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle n-1}-@2{-}\|(.5)@{<}[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle n} }} }$ $F_4$ ${ { \SelectTips{}{12} \objectmargin={0pt} \objectheight={20pt} \objectwidth={5pt} \xygraph{!{<0cm,0cm>;<0.7cm,0cm>:<0cm,0.7cm>::} \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 1}-[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 2} -@2{-}\|(.6)@{>}[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 3}-[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 4} }} }$ $G_2$ ${ { \SelectTips{}{12} \objectmargin={0pt} \objectheight={20pt} \objectwidth={5pt} \xygraph{!{<0cm,0cm>;<0.7cm,0cm>:<0cm,0.7cm>::} \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 1}-@3{-}\|(.6)@{>}[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 2} }} }$ $A_1 \times G_2$ ${ { \SelectTips{}{12} \objectmargin={0pt} \objectheight={20pt} \objectwidth={5pt} \xygraph{!{<0cm,0cm>;<0.7cm,0cm>:<0cm,0.7cm>::} \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 0}-@0{-}[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 1}-@3{-}\|(.6)@{>}[r] \circ=!D{\scriptstyle 2} }} }$ ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z)$ be an associated triple as in Definition \[def:triples\]. In the following, $G$ denotes a (simply connected) semi-simple algebraic group whose Dynkin diagram is $D$. More precisely, $G$ satisfies the following: Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be the Lie algebra of $G$ and fix a Cartan subalgebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$ of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Then, by considering the Cartan decomposition of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ (with respect to ${\mathfrak{h}}$), we have the associated root system $R$ of $G$. By choosing a set $\Delta$ of simple roots of $R$, we have the Dynkin diagram $D(R)$ of $R$. Then we suppose the condition $D(R) = D$. Furthermore, we use the following notations: - $V_Y$ (resp. $V_Z$) is the irreducible $G$-representation with highest weight $\omega_{Y}$ (resp. $\omega_Z$); - $v_Y$ (resp. $v_Z$) is the corresponding highest weight vector; - $[v_Y]$ (resp. $[v_Z]$) is the corresponding point in ${\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(V_{Y})$ (resp. ${\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(V_Z)$); - $P_Y$ (resp. $P_Z$) is the stabilizer of $[v_Y]$ in ${\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(V_{Y})$ (resp. $[v_Z]$ in ${\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(V_{Z})$), which is the parabolic subgroup in $G$ corresponding to the weight $\omega_Y$ (resp. $\omega_Z$); - $Y \coloneqq G/P_Y$ and $Z \coloneqq G/P_Z$ (later we will see that $Z$ is contained in $X$ as a closed orbit with respect to $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$, thus there will be no confusion with this notation, cf. Condition \[cond:Pas\]); - $P_{Y,Z}$ is the parabolic subgroup $P_Y \cap P_Z$; - $p_Y \colon G/P_{Y,Z} \to G/P_Y =Y$ and $p_Z \colon G/P_{Y,Z} \to G/P_Z =Z$ are the natural projections. Note that $P_Y$ is a maximal* parabolic subgroup, and this implies that $\operatorname{Pic}(Y) \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}$. We will denote by ${\mathcal{O}}_Y(1)$ the ample generator of $\operatorname{Pic}(Y)$. If $P_Z$ is also a maximal parabolic subgroup, then we will use a similar notation. If $G$ is a semisimple algebraic group and $P$ is a maximal parabolic subgroup, then the Fano index of $G/P$ can be read off from the combinatoric data of the Dynkin diagram (see, e.g., [@Sno93]). Geometry of smooth horospherical varieties with Picard rank one --------------------------------------------------------------- Let $X$ be a Fano manifold as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\]. We now turn to explain how we can recover the variety $X$ from the associated triple $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z)$. For more details we refer the reader to [@Pas09] and [@GPPS19]. Note that, if $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z)$ is an associated triple as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\], then the projections $p_Y$ and $p_Z$ are projective space bundles. Moreover, $p_Z^* {\mathcal{O}}_{Z}(1)$ gives a relative tautological bundle of the projective bundle $p_Y$. We will denote by ${\mathcal{E}}_Y$ the bundle $(p_Y)_p_Z^ {\mathcal{O}}_{Y}(1)$. Thus $G/P_{Y,Z}$ is isomorphic to the projectivization of ${\mathcal{E}}_Y$ over $Y$. \[prop:bl\_h\] Let $X$ be a Fano variety as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\] and $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z)$ the associated triple of $X$. Then the following hold: 1. $X$ is the $G$-orbit closure of the point $[v_Y \oplus v_Z] \in {\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(V_Y \oplus V_Z)$. 2. The closed orbit of $X$ under the action of $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$ is isomorphic to $Z = G/P_Z$, which is naturally embedded into ${\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(V_Y \oplus V_Z)$ as follows: $$G/P_Z = G\cdot[v_Z] \subset {\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(V_{Z}) \subset {\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(V_Y \oplus V_Z).$$ 3. The blow up ${\widetilde X}\coloneqq \operatorname{Bl}_Z X$ admits a contraction $\pi \colon {\widetilde X}\to Y = G/P_Y$, which yields the following diagram: $$\xymatrix{ E \ar@{_{(}->}[d] \ar[r]^-{\varphi\|_E} & Z =G/P_Z \ar@{_{(}->}[d] \\ {\widetilde X}\ar[d]_-{\pi} \ar[r]^-{\varphi} & X\\ Y = G/P_Y,& }$$ where $E$ is the exceptional divisor of the blow-up $\varphi$. 4. $E \simeq G/P_{Y,Z}$. Moreover $\pi\|_E$ and $\varphi\|_E$ are the natural projections $p_Y$ and $p_Z$. 5. $\pi$ is a projective bundle given by ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}}_Y \oplus {\mathcal{O}}_Y(1))$, and $E$ is the projective subbundle ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}}_Y) \subset {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}}_Y \oplus {\mathcal{O}}_Y(1))$. 6. $\operatorname{Pic}({\widetilde X}) = {\mathbf{Z}}\pi^H_Y \oplus {\mathbf{Z}}\varphi^H_{X} $; 7. $\xi_{{\mathcal{E}}_Y \oplus {\mathcal{O}}_Y(1)} = \varphi^H_X$ and $E =\varphi^H_X -\pi^* H_Y$. With the above proposition, one can compute several invariants of $X$. We need the following data of numerical invariants for the proof of Theorem \[thm:stab\]: \[prop:bl\_h\_num\] Let $X$ be a Fano variety as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\] and $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z)$ the associated triple of $X$. Then the numbers $\dim Y$, $c_1(Y)$, $\dim Z$, $c_1(Z)$, $\dim X$ and $c_1(X)$ are as follows: Associated triple $\dim Y$ $c_1(Y)$ --------------------------------- ------------------------- ---------- $(B_n,\omega_{n-1},\omega_{n})$ $\dfrac{(n+4)(n-1)}{2}$ $n+1$ $(B_3,\omega_{1},\omega_{3})$ $5$ $5$ $(C_n,\omega_{k},\omega_{k-1})$ $\dfrac{k(4n+1-3k)}{2}$ $2n+1-k$ $(F_4,\omega_{2},\omega_{3})$ $20$ $5$ $(G_2,\omega_{1},\omega_{2})$ $5$ $3$ Associated triple $\dim Z$ $c_1(Z)$ --------------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------- $(B_n,\omega_{n-1},\omega_{n})$ $\dfrac{n(n+1)}{2}$ $2n$ $(B_3,\omega_{1},\omega_{3})$ $6$ $6$ $(C_n,\omega_{k},\omega_{k-1})$ $\dfrac{(k-1)(4n+4-3k)}{2}$ $2n+2-k$ $(F_4,\omega_{2},\omega_{3})$ $20$ $7$ $(G_2,\omega_{1},\omega_{2})$ $5$ $5$ Associated triple $\dim X$ $c_1(X)$ --------------------------------- ------------------------- ---------- $(B_n,\omega_{n-1},\omega_{n})$ $\dfrac{n(n+3)}{2}$ $n+2$ $(B_3,\omega_{1},\omega_{3})$ $9$ $7$ $(C_n,\omega_{k},\omega_{k-1})$ $\dfrac{k(4n-3k+3)}{2}$ $2n-k+2$ $(F_4,\omega_{2},\omega_{3})$ $23$ $6$ $(G_2,\omega_{1},\omega_{2})$ $7$ $4$ Let $X$ be a Fano variety as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\] and $(D,\omega_Y,\omega_Z)$ be the associated triple. Then the homogeneous variety $G/P_{Y,Z}$ admits two projective bundles $p_Y$ and $p_Z$, and $X$ is the smooth drum associated to $G/P_{Y,Z}$ in the sense of [@ORSCW19]. See [@ORSCW19 Section 4] for a general treatment of drums and their relation to the torus actions. Geometry of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$ ------------------------------------------------ Here we will describe the geometry of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$ and its blow-up along the closed orbit. We will denote by $F_4$ the exceptional group of type $F_4$ (with an abuse of notation). Note that the closed orbit of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$ is isomorphic to $Z = F_4/P_Z$ [@Pas09 Proof of Proposition 2.13]. Let $L(P_Y)$ be a Levi subgroup of $P_Y$. Then $L(P_Y)$ is a reductive group whose commutator subgroup is a semisimple group of type $C_3$. Recall that the simply connected semisimple algebraic group of type $C_3$ is isomorphic the symplectic group $\operatorname{Sp}(6)$ with respect to a symplectic vector space $({\mathbf{C}}^6,\omega \in \bigwedge^2 {\mathbf{C}}^6)$. Denote by $P(\omega_i)$ the parabolic subgroup corresponding to $\omega_i$. Then, the homogeneous variety $C_3/P(\omega_1)$ is isomorphic to the symplectic Grassmann variety $\operatorname{SG}(6,1)$, which parametrizes the isotropic $1$-dimensional quotients of the symplectic vector space $({\mathbf{C}}^6,\omega)$. Since every $1$-dimensional quotient of ${\mathbf{C}}^6$ is isotropic, we have $\operatorname{SG}(6,1) \simeq {\mathbf{P}}({\mathbf{C}}^6)$. With this notation, the homogeneous variety $C_3/P(\omega_2)$ is naturally isomorphic to the symplectic Grassmann variety $\operatorname{SG}(6,2)$, which parametrizes the isotropic $2$-dimensional quotients of the symplectic vector space. Then the variety $\operatorname{SG}(6,2)$ admits a natural embedding into the Grassmann variety $\operatorname{Gr}(6,2)$ and, under the Plücker embedding $\operatorname{Gr}(6,2) \to {\mathbf{P}}(\wedge^2{\mathbf{C}}^6)$, the subvariety $\operatorname{SG}(6,2)$ is the hyperplane section of $\operatorname{Gr}(6,2)$ corresponding to the symplectic form $\omega$. Note that, under the natural action of $\operatorname{Sp}(6)$, the variety $\operatorname{Gr}(6,2)$ decomposes into two orbits $(\operatorname{Gr}(6,2)\setminus \operatorname{SG}(6,2)) \bigsqcup \operatorname{SG}(6,2)$. \[prop:bl\_PF\] The following hold: 1. The blow up ${\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{F_4}}\coloneqq \operatorname{Bl}_Z {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$ admits a contraction $\pi \colon {\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{F_4}}\to Y = F_4/P_Y$, which yields the following diagram: $$\xymatrix{ E \ar@{_{(}->}[d] \ar[r]^-{\varphi\|_E} & Z = F_4/P_Z \ar@{_{(}->}[d] \\ {\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{F_4}}\ar[d]_-{\pi} \ar[r]^-{\varphi} & {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}\\ Y = F_4/P_Y,& }$$ where $E$ is the exceptional divisor of the blow-up $\varphi$. 2. $\pi$ is a smooth morphism whose fibers are isomorphic to $\operatorname{Gr}(6,2)$. 3. $E$ is isomorphic to $F_4/P_{Y,Z}$. Moreover $\pi\|_E$ and $\varphi\|_E$ are the natural projections $p_Y$ and $p_Z$. 4. $\dim {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}= 23$. 5. $-K_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}} = 8 H_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}}$. 6. $\operatorname{Pic}({\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{F_4}}) \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}\pi^H_Y \oplus {\mathbf{Z}}\varphi^H_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}} $. 7. $E = - \pi ^* H_Y + \varphi^* H_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}}$. 8. $-K_{\pi} = -6 \pi ^* H_Y + 6 \varphi^* H_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}} = 6E$. Let $Q$ be the maximal parabolic subgroup corresponding to the fourth node of $F_4$ and denote by $f \colon F_4/(P_Y \cap Q) \to F_4/P_Y =Y$ and $g \colon F_4/(P_Y \cap Q) \to F_4/Q$ the natural projections. Then any $f$-fiber is isomorphic to $C_3/P(\omega_1) \simeq {\mathbf{P}}^5$, and $g^{\mathcal{O}}_{F_4/Q}(1)$ gives a relative tautological bundle of the ${\mathbf{P}}^5$-bundle $f$. Denote by ${\mathcal{M}}$ the rank $6$ vector bundle $f_g^{\mathcal{O}}_{F_4/Q}(1)$. Then $F_4/(P_Y \cap Q) \simeq {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}})$ and the tautological divisor $\xi_{\mathcal{M}}$ defines the contraction $g$. Note that $g$ is a ${\mathbf{Q}}^5$-bundle and $f^H_Y$ restricts to the class of hyperplane section on each fiber ${\mathbf{Q}}^5$, where ${\mathbf{Q}}^5$ is the $5$-dimensional smooth hyperquadric. Note also that $c_1(Y) =8$. Thus, by adjunction and the canonical bundle formula for ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}})$, we have $$-K_{{\mathbf{Q}}^5} = -K_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}})}\|_{{\mathbf{Q}}^5} = (8-c_1({\mathcal{M}})) H_{{\mathbf{Q}}^5}.$$ Thus we have $c_1({\mathcal{M}}) = 3$. Now we will prove: The blow up ${\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{F_4}}$ is isomorphic to the Grassmann variety $\operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}},2)$, which parametrizes two dimensional quotients of ${\mathcal{M}}\otimes k(y)$ at each point $y \in Y$. Since ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is $F_4$-homogeneous, the variety $\operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}}, 2)$ admits an action of $F_4$. Note that, under the action of $F_4$, the variety $\operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}},2)$ contains $F_4/P_{Y,Z}$ as a closed orbit. If we consider the subvariety $F_4/P_{Y,Z} \subset \operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}},2)$ as a divisor, we will denote it by $D$. Let $\pi' $ be the natural projection $\operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}},2) \to Y$. If we fix a point $y \in Y$ (corresponding to the unit of $F_4$), then the $\pi'$-fiber over $y$ is isomorphic to $\operatorname{Gr}(6,2)$, and this Grassmann variety admits an action of $P_Y$. Then, under this action, the variety $\operatorname{Gr}(6,2)$ decomposes into two orbits $(\operatorname{Gr}(6,2)\setminus \operatorname{SG}(6,2)) \bigsqcup \operatorname{SG}(6,2)$. This implies that $\operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}},2)$ is a two orbit variety with respect to the action of $F_4$, and the closed orbit is isomorphic to $F_4/P_{Y,Z}$. Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{Q}}$) be the universal subbundle (resp. quotient bundle) on $\operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}},2)$. Then the bundle $\det {\mathcal{Q}}$ is a globally generated line bundle. Note that $\det {\mathcal{Q}}$ is not ample and restricts to $p_Z^* {\mathcal{O}}_Z(1)$ on $F_4/P_{Y,Z}$. Let $\eta$ be the divisor class corresponding to $\det {\mathcal{Q}}$. Then the line bundle $\det {\mathcal{S}}$ corresponds to the divisor $-\eta + {\pi'} ^* c_1({\mathcal{M}})$. Since the relative tangent bundle $\Theta_{\pi'}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{Q}}\otimes {\mathcal{S}}^{\vee}$, we have $$-K_{\pi'} = 6\eta - 2{\pi'}^c_1({\mathcal{M}}) = 6\eta - 6{\pi'}^H_Y.$$ This implies that $$-K_{\operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}},2)} = 6\eta + 2{\pi'}^H_Y.$$ Since $-K_{F_4/P_{Y,Z}} = 5p_Z^H_Z + 3p_Y^H_Y$, we see that the divisor $D$ on $\operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}},2)$ belongs to $\|\eta - {\pi'}^H_Y\|$. Therefore the restriction $-D\|_D$ gives the relative tautological divisor for the ${\mathbf{P}}^2$-bundle $p_Z$. Thus the contraction $\varphi' \colon \operatorname{Gr}({\mathcal{M}},2) \to X'$ defined by the divisor $\eta$ is the smooth blow-down along $D$, which is compatible with $p_Z$ [@Nak70; @FN71]. Therefore $X'$ satisfies Condition \[cond:Pas\] whose closed orbit is isomorphic to $Z$. By Theorem \[thm:Pas\], we have $X' \simeq {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$. The rest of the assertion follows from what we have proved. Geometry of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ ----------------------------------------------------------- Similarly to the case of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$, we will describe the geometry of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ and its blow-up along the closed orbit. Here we also denote by $A_1\times G_2$ the simply connected semisimple algebraic group of type $A_1\times G_2$ (with an abuse of notation). Note that the closed orbit of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ is isomorphic to $Z =(A_1\times G_2) /P_Z \simeq {\mathbf{P}}^1 \times {\mathbf{Q}}^5$ [@Pas09 Proof of Proposition 2.13]. In the following, we will denote by $K(G_2)$ the $5$-dimensional contact Fano manifold of type $G_2$, which is isomorphic to $Y= (A_1\times G_2) /P_Y$. \[prop:bl\_PG\] The following hold: 1. The blow up ${\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}\coloneqq \operatorname{Bl}_Z {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ admits a contraction $\pi \colon {\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}\to Y = (A_1\times G_2) /P_Y \simeq K(G_2)$, which yields the following diagram: $$\xymatrix{ E \ar@{_{(}->}[d] \ar[r]^-{\varphi\|_E} & Z \simeq{\mathbf{P}}^1 \times {\mathbf{Q}}^5 \ar@{_{(}->}[d] \\ {\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}\ar[d]_-{\pi} \ar[r]^-{\varphi} & {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}\\ Y = (A_1\times G_2) /P_Y \simeq K(G_2),& }$$ where $E$ is the exceptional divisor of $\varphi$. 2. $\pi$ is a ${\mathbf{P}}^3$-bundle. 3. $E$ is isomorphic to $ (A_1\times G_2) /P_{Y,Z}$ (the complete flag variety of type $A_1\times G_2$). Moreover $\pi\|_E = p_Y$ and $\varphi\|_E =p_Z$. 4. $\dim {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}= 8$. 5. $-K_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}} = 6 H_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}}$. 6. $\operatorname{Pic}({\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}) \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}\pi^H_Y \oplus {\mathbf{Z}}\varphi^H_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}} $. 7. $E = - \pi ^* H_Y + 2 \varphi^* H_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}}$. 8. $-K_{\pi} = -2 \pi ^* H_Y + 4 \varphi^* H_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}} =2E$. The proof proceeds similar to that of Proposition \[prop:bl\_PF\]. Let $Q_1$ (resp. $Q_2$) be the maximal parabolic subgroup corresponding to the first (resp. second) node of $G_2$. Denote by $f \colon G_2/(Q_1 \cap Q_2) \to G_2/Q_1 \simeq Y$ and $g \colon G_2/(Q_1 \cap Q_2) \to G_2/Q_2 \simeq {\mathbf{Q}}^5 $ the natural projections. Then $f$ and $g$ are ${\mathbf{P}}^1$-bundles. Moreover $g^{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{Q}}^5}(1)$ (resp. $f^{\mathcal{O}}_{Y}(1)$) gives a relative tautological bundle of $f$ (resp. $g$). Denote by ${\mathcal{M}}$ the rank $2$ vector bundle $f_g^{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{Q}}^5}(1)$. Then $G_2/(Q_1\cap Q_2) \simeq {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}})$ and the tautological divisor $\xi_{\mathcal{M}}$ defines the contraction $g$. Note also that $c_1(Y) =3$ and $c_1({\mathcal{M}}) = 1$. Now we prove: ${\widetilde{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}})$. Since ${\mathcal{M}}$ is a $G_2$-homogeneous vector bundle on ${\mathcal{M}}$, the variety ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}})$ admits an action of $G_2$. Moreover, by considering ${\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}}$ as the tensor product ${\mathcal{O}}_Y^{\oplus 2} \otimes {\mathcal{M}}$, we have a natural action of $A_1 \times G_2$ on ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}})$. Via the Segre embedding, we can equivariantly embed ${\mathbf{P}}^1 \times {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}) \simeq (A_1\times G_2) /P_{Y,Z}$ into ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}})$. Then one can check that, under the action of $A_1 \times G_2$, the variety ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}})$ decomposes into two orbits ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}}) \setminus ({\mathbf{P}}^1 \times {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}})) \bigsqcup ({\mathbf{P}}^1 \times {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}))$. When we consider the subvariety ${\mathbf{P}}^1 \times {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}})$ as a divisor, we will denote it by $D$. Since ${\mathcal{M}}$ is globally generated, the bundle ${\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}}$ and hence the divisor $\xi_{{\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}}}$ are globally generated. Note that $\xi_{{\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}}}$ restricts to $p_Z^* {\mathcal{O}}_Z(1)$ on ${\mathbf{P}}^1 \times {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}) \simeq (A_1\times G_2) /P_{Y,Z}$, where ${\mathcal{O}}_Z(1)$ is the line bundle $\operatorname{pr}_1^{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{P}}^1}(1) \otimes \operatorname{pr}_2^ {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbf{Q}}^5}(1)$ on ${\mathbf{P}}^1 \times {\mathbf{Q}}^5 =Z$. We will denote by $H_Z$ the divisor class of the bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_Z(1)$. Let $\pi'$ be the natural projection ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus {\mathcal{M}}) \to Y$. By the canonical bundle formula for ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}})$, we have $$-K_{\pi'} = 4\xi_{{\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}}}- {\pi'}^c_1({\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}}) = 4\xi_{{\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}}}- 2{\pi'}^H_Y.$$ This implies that $$-K_{{\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}})} = 4\xi_{{\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}}} + {\pi'}^H_Y.$$ Since $-K_{(A_1\times G_2) /P_{Y,Z}} = 2 p_Y^H_Y + 2p_Z^H_Z$, we see that the divisor $D$ on ${\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}})$ belongs to $\|2\xi_{{\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}}} - {\pi'}^H_Y\|$. Therefore the restriction $-D\|_D$ gives a relative tautological divisor for the ${\mathbf{P}}^1$-bundle $p_Z$. Thus the contraction $\varphi' \colon {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}}) \to X'$ defined by the divisor $\xi_{{\mathcal{M}}\oplus{\mathcal{M}}}$ is the smooth blow-down which contracts the divisor $D$ compatibly with $p_Z$ [@Nak70; @FN71]. Therefore $X'$ satisfies Condition \[cond:Pas\] whose closed orbit is isomorphic to $Z$. By Theorem \[thm:Pas\], we have $X' \simeq {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$. The rest of the assertion follows from the above claim. 1. Originally the variety ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ is defined as follows [@Pas09 Definition 2.12]: Let ${\mathbf{O}}$ be the (complexified) octonions, and $\operatorname{Im}{\mathbf{O}}$ be the purely imaginary octonions. We will denote by $(x \cdot y)$ the Cayley product on ${\mathbf{O}}$. Consider two elements $z_1$, $z_2 \in \operatorname{Im}{\mathbf{O}}$ such that $(z_1 \cdot z_1) = (z_1 \cdot z_2) =(z_2 \cdot z_2) =0$ and $[z_1] \neq [z_2]$ in ${\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(\operatorname{Im}{\mathbf{O}})$. Then the variety ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ is the $(A_1 \times G_2)$-orbit closure of the point $[z_1 \oplus z_2]\in {\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(\operatorname{Im}{\mathbf{O}}\oplus \operatorname{Im}{\mathbf{O}})$. From this definition, one can show that $${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}= \{\, [x_1\oplus x_2] \in {\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}(\operatorname{Im}{\mathbf{O}}\oplus \operatorname{Im}{\mathbf{O}}) \mid (x_1 \cdot x_1) = (x_1 \cdot x_2) =(x_2 \cdot x_2) =0 \,\}.$$ It is well known (see, e.g., [@Tev05 Example 2.15]) that (a component of)the orthogonal Grassmann variety $\operatorname{OG}(5,10)$ has a similar defining equation: $$\operatorname{OG}(5,10) = \{\, [x_1\oplus x_2] \in {\mathbf{P}}_{\operatorname{sub}}({\mathbf{O}}\oplus {\mathbf{O}}) \mid (x_1\cdot \overline{x_1}) = (x_1\cdot \overline{x_2})= (x_2\cdot \overline{x_2}) \,\}.$$ This implies that the variety ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ is a codimension two linear section of $\operatorname{OG}(5,10)$, and hence the variety ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ is a Mukai 8-fold of genus seven [@Muk89]. Now the stability of $\Theta_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}}$ follows from [@PW95 Theorem 3]. Later we will provide a different proof of the stability of $\Theta_{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}}$ based on our approach. 2. In [@Kuz18 Section 6], it is proved that there exist two isomorphic classes for Mukai $8$-folds with genus seven, and that one of these varieties $X_{\operatorname{gen}}$ degenerates to the other one $X_{\operatorname{sp}}$. One can check that ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}\simeq X_{\operatorname{gen}}$. Canonical foliations and stability of tangent bundles {#sect:CF} ===================================================== Canonical foliations -------------------- Let $X$ be a Fano manifold as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] and $Z$ its closed orbit (under the action of $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$). Then, by Propositions \[prop:bl\_h\], \[prop:bl\_PF\] and \[prop:bl\_PG\], we have the following diagram with a smooth morphism $\pi$: $$\label{eq:diagram} \begin{gathered} \xymatrix{ E \ar@{_{(}->}[d] \ar[r]^-{\varphi\|_E} & Z \ar@{_{(}->}[d] \\ {\widetilde X}= \operatorname{Bl}_Z X \ar[d]_-{\pi} \ar[r]^-{\varphi} & X \\ Y. & } \end{gathered}$$ The canonical foliation ${\mathcal{F}}\subset \Theta _X$ is the foliation defined by the image of the map $\varphi_\Theta_{\pi} \to \varphi_ \Theta_{{\widetilde X}} \to \Theta_X$, i.e., the saturation of the image of $\varphi_\Theta_{\pi}$ in $\Theta_X$. The following is a key lemma for Theorem \[thm:stab\]: \[lem:stab\] Let $X$ be a Fano manifold as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] and ${\mathcal{F}}$ be the canonical foliation on $X$. Then $\Phi^{\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)} = \{{\mathcal{F}}\}$. Assume moreover that $\Theta_X$ is not stable (resp. not semistable). Then $\Phi^{\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)}_{\geq \mu(\Theta_X)} = \{{\mathcal{F}}\}$ (resp. $\Phi^{\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)}_{> \mu(\Theta_X)} = \{{\mathcal{F}}\}$). Take an element ${\mathcal{F}}' \in \Phi^{\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)}$ and denote by $L_x$ the leaf of ${\mathcal{F}}'$ through a general point $x \in X$. Since ${\mathcal{F}}'$ is $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$-invariant, the leaves are preserved by the action of $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$, i.e., $g(L_x)=L_{g(x)}$ for any $g \in \operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$. In particular, $g(\overline{L_x})=\overline{L_{g(x)}}$ for any $g \in \operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$. Consider the quotient map $f \colon X \dashrightarrow \operatorname{Chow}(X)$ with respect to the foliation ${\mathcal{F}}'$, which sends a general point $x \in X$ to the point $\Bigl[ \overline{L_x} \Bigr]$. Then the map $f$ is $\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)$-equivariant with respect to the natural actions on $X$ and $\operatorname{Chow}(X)$. Thus, by the equivariant version of the Hironaka resolution of indeterminacy [@RY02] and by virtue of Condition \[cond:Pas\], we can resolve the map $f$ after blowing up $X$ along $Z$. Now the first assertion is clear. Assume that $\Theta_X$ is not stable (resp. not semistable). Then, by Proposition \[prop:nots\] (resp. Proposition \[prop:notss\]), the set $\Phi^{\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)}_{\geq \mu(\Theta_X)}$ (resp. $\Phi^{\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)}_{> \mu(\Theta_X)}$) is non-empty, and the last assertion follows. Proof of Theorem \[thm:stab\] ----------------------------- Recall that we have diagram . Note also that, if $X$ is a variety as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\], then there is a bundle ${\mathcal{E}}_Y $ on $Y$ such that ${\widetilde X}\simeq {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}}_Y \oplus{\mathcal{O}}_Y(1))$ (Proposition \[prop:bl\_h\]). In the following, we will denote by ${\mathcal{G}}\coloneqq {\mathcal{E}}_Y \oplus {\mathcal{O}}_Y(1)$. \[prop:CF\_num\] Let $X$ be a Fano manifold as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\], and ${\mathcal{F}}$ its canonical foliation. Then $\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}= \operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y$ and $c_1({\mathcal{F}}) = (\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y -c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y))H_X$. The first assertion is clear from the construction of the canonical foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$. We now turn to prove the second assertion. By the canonical bundle formula for projective bundles, we have $$c_1(\Theta_{\pi}) = (\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y+1)\xi_{\mathcal{G}}-(c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y) +1)\pi^H_Y.$$ By Proposition \[prop:bl\_h\], $$\begin{aligned} c_1(\Theta_{\pi}) &= (\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y+1)\xi_{\mathcal{G}}-(c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y)+1) \pi^H_Y\\ &= (\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y-c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y))\varphi^H_X +(c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y)+1)E.\end{aligned}$$ Now the second assertion follows from the facts that the foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ is determined by $\Theta_\pi$ and that $\varphi$ is the blow-down of the divisor $E$. \[lem:CF\_num\] Let $X$ be a Fano manifold as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\]. Then, for each associated triple, the numbers $\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y$ and $c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y)$ are as follows: Associated triple $\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y$ $c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y)$ ------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------ $(B_n,\omega_{n-1},\omega_n)$ $2$ $1$ $(B_3,\omega_1,\omega_3)$ $4$ $2$ $(C_n,\omega_k,\omega_{k-1})$ $k$ $k-1$ $(F_4,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ $3$ $2$ $(G_2,\omega_1,\omega_2)$ $2$ $1$ By Proposition \[prop:bl\_h\], the exceptional divisor $E$ is isomorphic to $G/P_{Y,Z} \simeq {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}}_Y)$. Thus $\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y = \dim X - \dim Y$. By the canonical bundle formula for $G/P_{Y,Z} \simeq {\mathbf{P}}({\mathcal{E}}_Y)$, we have $$\begin{aligned} -K_{G/P_{Y,Z}}& = (\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y) \xi_{{\mathcal{E}}_Y} +(c_1(Y) - c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y)) p_Y^H_Y \\ &= (\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{E}}_Y) p_Z^H_Z +(c_1(Y) - c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y))p_Y^H_Y.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $p_Z$ is a projective bundle. Thus, by restricting $ -K_{G/P_{Y,Z}}$ to a $p_Z$-fiber ${\mathbf{P}}^{\dim X- \dim Z - 1}$, we have $$\dim X- \dim Z =c_1(Y)-c_1({\mathcal{E}}_Y),$$ and the assertions follow from Proposition \[prop:bl\_h\_num\]. Now we can determine the rank and the first Chern class of the canonical foliations for all varieties as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\]: \[prop:CF\] Let $X$ be a Fano manifold as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\], and ${\mathcal{F}}$ its canonical foliation. Then, for each associated triple, the numbers $\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}$ and $c_1({\mathcal{F}})$ are as follows: Associated triple $\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}$ $c_1({\mathcal{F}})$ ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ ---------------------- $(B_n,\omega_{n-1},\omega_n)$ $2$ $1$ $(B_3,\omega_1,\omega_3)$ $4$ $2$ $(C_n,\omega_k,\omega_{k-1})$ $k$ $1$ $(F_4,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ $3$ $1$ $(G_2,\omega_1,\omega_2)$ $2$ $1$ $(F_4,\omega_1,\omega_3)$ $8$ $0$ $(A_1\times G_2,\omega_1,\omega_0 + \omega_2)$ $3$ $0$ For the case \[thm:Pas\_h\] of Theorem \[thm:Pas\], the assertion follows from Proposition \[prop:CF\_num\] and Lemma \[lem:CF\_num\]. For the remaining cases, the assertions are consequences of Proposition \[prop:bl\_PF\] and Proposition \[prop:bl\_PG\]. Now we can complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:stab\]. By Lemma \[lem:stab\], it is enough to compare $\mu ({\mathcal{F}})$ with $\mu (\Theta_X)$ or, equivalently, $\dfrac{c_1({\mathcal{F}})}{\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}}$ with $\dfrac{c_1(\Theta_X)}{\operatorname{rank}\Theta _X}$. By Propositions \[prop:bl\_h\_num\], \[prop:bl\_PF\], \[prop:bl\_PG\] and \[prop:CF\], these numbers $\dfrac{c_1({\mathcal{F}})}{\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}}$ and $\dfrac{c_1(\Theta_X)}{\operatorname{rank}\Theta _X}$ are as follows, and we have the assertion: Associated triple $\dfrac{c_1({\mathcal{F}})}{\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}}$ $\dfrac{c_1(\Theta_X)}{\operatorname{rank}\Theta _X}$ $\dfrac{c_1({\mathcal{F}})}{\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}}> \dfrac{c_1(\Theta_X)}{\operatorname{rank}\Theta _X}$ ? ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $(B_n,\omega_{n-1},\omega_n)$ $1/2$ $\dfrac{n+2}{n(n+3)/2}$ [“$>$” if and only if $n \geq 4$]{} $(B_3,\omega_1,\omega_3)$ $1/2$ $\dfrac{7}{9}$ “$<$” $(C_n,\omega_k,\omega_{k-1})$ $1/k$ $\dfrac{2n-k+2}{k(4n-3k+3)/2}$ “$<$” $(F_4,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ $1/3$ $\dfrac{6}{23}$ “$>$” $(G_2,\omega_1,\omega_2)$ $1/2$ $\dfrac{4}{7}$ “$<$” $(F_4,\omega_1,\omega_3)$ $0$ $\dfrac{8}{23}$ “$<$” $(A_1\times G_2,\omega_1,\omega_0 + \omega_2)$ $0$ $\dfrac{6}{8}$ “$<$” Several remarks {#sect:rem} =============== As mentioned in the introduction, every Fano manifold as in Theorem \[thm:Pas\] \[thm:Pas\_h\] does not admit Kähler-Einstein metrics. By [@Del19 Corollary 5.7], they are not $K$-semistable. On the other hand, for $X = {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$ or ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$, this author does not know whether or not $X$ admits a Kähler-Einstein metric (and whether or not $X$ is $K$-semistable) at this moment. After a fundamental work on a characterizations of projective spaces and hyperquadrics [@ADK08], Araujo and Druel started the study of Fano foliations in a series of papers [@AD14; @AD16; @AD17]; A foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ on a smooth projective variety $X$ is called Fano* if the first Chern class $c_1({\mathcal{F}})$ is ample. For such a foliation, its index $r_{\mathcal{F}}$ is defined as the largest integer which divides $c_1({\mathcal{F}})$ in $\operatorname{Pic}(X)$. As is similar to the case of the classification of Fano manifolds, the structure of a Fano foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ is rather simple if its index $r_{\mathcal{F}}$ is relatively large with respect to $\operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}$. For example, Fano foliations with $r_{\mathcal{F}}\geq \operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}$ are completely classified [@DC05 Théorème 3.8], [@ADK08]. The next largest index cases, i.e., the cases with $r_{\mathcal{F}}= \operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}-1 $ and $r_{\mathcal{F}}= \operatorname{rank}{\mathcal{F}}-2 $ are called del Pezzo and Mukai foliations respectively, and these foliations are intensively studied in the above quoted papers [@AD14; @AD16; @AD17]. See also [@Fig19] for a study of del Pezzo foliations, and [@Ara19] for an account of this topic on Fano foliations. From this point of view, the canonical foliations on horospherical manifolds give several new examples of Fano, del Pezzo or Mukai foliations. It would be noteworthy that, contrary to the horospherical cases, the canonical foliations on ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{F_4}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 \times G_2}}$ have trivial first Chern classes, and hence $\phi^{\operatorname{Aut}^0(X)} = 0$. [^1]: It is written in [@Ara19 Remark 2.13] that this conjecture is due to Iskovskikh.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In this work we derive evolution equations for the nonlinear behavior of a coasting beam under the influence of a resonator impedance. Using a renormalization group approach we find a set of coupled nonlinear equations for the beam density and resonator voltage. Under certain conditions, these may be analytically solved yielding solitary wave behavior, even in the presence of significant dissipation in the resonator. We find long-lived perturbations, i.e. droplets, which separate from the beam and decelerate toward a quasi-steady state, in good agreement with simulation results.' address: \| [Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory ]{}\ [P. O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA]{} author: - ' S. I. Tzenov and P. L. Colestock' title: 'Fermilab-Pub-98-258 Solitary Waves on a Coasting High-Energy Stored Beam' --- Introduction. ============= Observations of long-lived wave phenomena have been made in stored high-energy beams for many years. For the most part, these have been ignored or avoided as pathological conditions that degraded the performance of the machine. However, in recent experiments, as well as in simulations, observations have been made which suggest the occurrence of solitary waves in high-energy stored beams under certain conditions. Both from the point of view of scientific curiosity as well as the importance of understanding the formation of halo in such beams, it is worthwhile to study the physics of these nonlinear waves. Of particular interest is the saturated state associated with high-intensity beams under the influence of wakefields, or in the frequency domain, machine impedance. In stored beams, especially hadron beams where damping mechanisms are relatively weak, a tenuous equilibrium may develop between beam heating due to wake-driven fluctuations and damping from a variety of sources. This state may well be highly nonlinear and may depend on the interaction of nonlinear waves in order to determine the final equilibrium state. It is our interest in this work to elucidate the conditions under which nonlinear waves may occur on a high-energy stored beam. This will then lay the groundwork for a future study of the evolution of the beam under the influence of these nonlinear interactions. We note that much work has been carried out already on solitary waves, [@goldman], [@thornhill], [@robinson], and references contained therein, including those occurring on a beam under the influence of internal space charge forces [@fedele], [@bisognano]. Our situation is new in that we consider the specific form of a wakefield associated with a high-energy beam, namely when space charge forces are negligible. This leads to a specific form of a solitary wave in a dissipative system, one which has received limited attention in the literature thus far [@nicholson], [@pereira1], [@pereira2]. We have made both experimental observations and carried out simulations which show the long-lived behavior of the nonlinear waves even in this dissipative case. It is our aim to shed light on this case. In this work we adopt an approach which is commonly employed in fluid dynamics to arrive at a set of model equations for solitary waves on a coasting beam under the influence of wakefields. It is based on the renormalization group (RG) analytical approach, which is akin to an envelope analysis of the wave phenomena. The method in the form we will use it was introduced by Goldenfeld [@chen] and expanded upon by Kunihiro[@kunihiro]. In Section II we derive the amplitude equations for a resonator impedance following the standard renormalization group approach. This results in a nonlinear set of equations for the wave amplitude and beam density. In Section III we proceed to find analytic solutions for this set which does indeed admit solitary waves. In Section IV we give the conclusions of this study and outline the procedure for applying these results to the study of the steady-state fluctuations on a stored beam. Derivation of the Amplitude Equations. ====================================== Our starting point is the system of equations $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial T}+v\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta }+\lambda V% \frac{\partial f}{\partial v}=0,$$ $$\frac{\partial ^2V}{\partial T^2}+2\gamma \frac{\partial V}{\partial T}% +\omega ^2V=\frac{\partial I}{\partial T}, \label{kinetic}$$ $$I\left( \theta ;T\right) =\int dvvf\left( \theta ,v;T\right)$$ for the longitudinal distribution function $f\left( \theta ,v;T\right) $ of an unbunched beam and the voltage variation per turn $% V\left( \theta ;T\right) $. To write down the equations (\[kinetic\]) the following dimensionless variables $$T=\omega _st\quad ;\quad v=\frac{\stackrel{.}{\theta }}{\omega _s}=1+\frac{% k_o\epsilon }{\omega _s}\quad ;\quad \omega =\frac{\omega _R}{\omega _s}% \quad ;\quad \gamma =\frac \omega {2Q},$$ $$\lambda =\frac{e^2{R}k_o\gamma }\pi$$ have been used, where $\omega _s$ is the angular revolution frequency of the synchronous particle, $\epsilon $ is the energy error, $% \omega _R$ is the resonator frequency, $Q$ is the quality factor of the resonator and ${R}$ is the resonator shunt impedance. Furthermore $$k_o=-\frac{\eta \omega _s}{\beta _s^2E_s}$$ is the proportionality constant between the frequency deviation and energy deviation of a non synchronous particle with respect to the synchronous one, while $\eta =\alpha _M-\gamma _s^{-2}$ $\left( \alpha _M% \text{ - momentum compaction factor}\right) $ is the phase slip coefficient. The voltage variation per turn $V$ and the beam current $I$ entering eqs. (\[kinetic\]) have been rescaled as well from their actual values $V_a$ and $I_a$ according to the relations $$V_a=2e\omega _s\gamma {R}V\qquad ;\qquad I_a=e\omega _sI.$$ Let us now pass to the hydrodynamic description of the longitudinal beam motion $$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial T}+\frac \partial {\partial \theta }\left( \rho u\right) =0,$$ $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial T}+u\frac{\partial u}{\partial \theta }=\lambda V-% \frac{\sigma _v^2}\rho \frac{\partial \rho }{\partial \theta },$$ $$\frac{\partial ^2V}{\partial T^2}+2\gamma \frac{\partial V}{\partial T}% +\omega ^2V=\frac \partial {\partial T}\left( \rho u\right) ,$$ where $$\rho \left( \theta ;T\right) =\int dvf\left( \theta ,v;T\right) \qquad ;\qquad \rho \left( \theta ;T\right) u\left( \theta ;T\right) =\int dvvf\left( \theta ,v;T\right)$$ $$\sigma _v=\frac{\left\| k_o\right\| \sigma _\epsilon }{\omega _s}$$ and $\sigma _\epsilon $ is the r.m.s. of the energy error that is proportional to the longitudinal beam temperature. Rescaling further the variables $\rho $ and $V$ according to $$\rho _a=\rho _o\rho \qquad ;\qquad V_a=2e\omega _s\rho _o\gamma {R}V\qquad ;\qquad \lambda =\frac{e^2{R}\gamma k_o\rho _o}\pi$$ and taking onto account that the dependence of all hydrodynamic variables on $\theta $ is slow $\left( \sim \varepsilon \theta \right) $ compared to the dependence on time we write the gas-dynamic equations as $$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial T}+\varepsilon \frac \partial {\partial \theta }\left( \rho u\right) =0,$$ $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial T}+\varepsilon u\frac{\partial u}{\partial \theta }=\lambda V-\varepsilon \frac{\sigma _v^2}\rho \frac{\partial \rho }{% \partial \theta }, \label{hydro}$$ $$\frac{\partial ^2V}{\partial T^2}+2\gamma \frac{\partial V}{\partial T}% +\omega ^2V=\frac \partial {\partial T}\left( \rho u\right) .$$ Here $\varepsilon $ is a formal perturbation parameter, which is set to unity at the end of the calculations and should not be confused with the energy error variable. We will derive slow motion equations from the system (\[hydro\]) by means of the renormalization group (RG) approach [@chen], [@kunihiro]. To do so we perform a naive perturbation expansion $$\rho =1+\sum\limits_{m=1}^\infty \varepsilon ^m\rho _m\qquad ;\qquad u=1+\sum\limits_{m=1}^\infty \varepsilon ^mu_m\qquad ;\qquad V=\sum\limits_{m=1}^\infty \varepsilon ^mV_m$$ around the stationary solution $$\rho ^{\left( 0\right) }=1\qquad ;\qquad u^{\left( 0\right) }=1\qquad ;\qquad V^{\left( 0\right) }=0.$$ The first order equations are $$\frac{\partial \rho _1}{\partial T}=0\qquad ;\qquad \frac{\partial u_1}{% \partial T}=\lambda V_1\qquad ;\qquad \frac{\partial ^2V_1}{\partial T^2}% +2\gamma \frac{\partial V_1}{\partial T}+\omega ^2V_1=\frac{\partial u_1}{% \partial T}$$ with obvious solution $$V_1\left( \theta ;T\right) =E\left( \theta ;T_o\right) e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}+E^{}\left( \theta ;T_o\right) e^{-i\omega _1^{}\Delta T}, \label{volt1}$$ $$u_1\left( \theta ;T\right) =u_o\left( \theta ;T_o\right) +\lambda \left[ \frac{E\left( \theta ;T_o\right) }{i\omega _1}e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}-\frac{% E^{}\left( \theta ;T_o\right) }{i\omega _1^{}}e^{-i\omega _1^{}\Delta T}\right] , \label{veloc1}$$ $$\rho _1\left( \theta ;T\right) =R_o\left( \theta ;T_o\right) . \label{dens1}$$ In expressions (\[volt1\]-\[dens1\]) the following notations have been introduced $$\omega _1=\omega _q+i\gamma \qquad ;\qquad \omega _q^2=\omega _o^2-\gamma ^2\qquad ;\qquad \omega _o^2=\omega ^2-\lambda ,$$ $$\Delta T=T-T_o,$$ where the amplitudes $E\left( \theta ;T_o\right) $, $u_o\left( \theta ;T_o\right) $, $R_o\left( \theta ;T_o\right) $ are yet unknown functions of $\theta $ and the initial instant of time $T_o$. Proceeding further we write down the second order equations $$\frac{\partial \rho _2}{\partial T}+\frac \partial {\partial \theta }\left( \rho _1+u_1\right) =0,$$ $$\frac{\partial u_2}{\partial T}+\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial \theta }% =\lambda V_2-\sigma _v^2\frac{\partial \rho _1}{\partial \theta },$$ $$\frac{\partial ^2V_2}{\partial T^2}+2\gamma \frac{\partial V_2}{\partial T}% +\omega ^2V_2=\frac \partial {\partial T}\left( u_2+\rho _1u_1+\rho _2\right) .$$ Solving the equation for the voltage $$\frac{\partial ^2V_2}{\partial T^2}+2\gamma \frac{\partial V_2}{\partial T}% +\omega _o^2V_2=-2\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial \theta }-\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) \frac{dR_o}{d\theta }+\lambda R_oV_1$$ that can be obtained by combining the second order equations, and subsequently the other two equations for $u_2$ and $\rho _2$ we find $$V_2\left( \theta ;T\right) =-\frac 1{\omega _o^2}\left[ 2u_o^{\prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime }\right] +\frac{\lambda \Delta T}{% 2i\omega _q}\left( R_oE+\frac{2iE^{\prime }}{\omega _1}\right) e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}+c.c.$$ $$u_2\left( \theta ;T\right) =-\left\{ u_o^{\prime }+\sigma _v^2R_o^{\prime }+% \frac \lambda {\omega _o^2}\left[ 2u_o^{\prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime }\right] \right\} \Delta T+\frac \lambda {\omega _1^2}E^{\prime }e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}+$$ $$+\frac{\lambda ^2}{2i\omega _q\omega _1^2}\left( R_oE+\frac{2iE^{\prime }}{% \omega _1}\right) e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}-\frac{\lambda ^2\Delta T}{2\omega _q\omega _1}\left( R_oE+\frac{2iE^{\prime }}{\omega _1}\right) e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}+c.c.$$ $$\rho _2\left( \theta ;T\right) =-\left( R_o^{\prime }+u_o^{\prime }\right) \Delta T+\frac \lambda {\omega _1^2}E^{\prime }e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}+c.c.$$ where the prime implies differentiation with respect to $\theta $. In a similar way we obtain the third order equations $$\frac{\partial \rho _3}{\partial T}+\frac \partial {\partial \theta }\left( \rho _2+R_ou_1+u_2\right) =0,$$ $$\frac{\partial u_3}{\partial T}+u_1\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial \theta }+% \frac{\partial u_2}{\partial \theta }=\lambda V_3-\sigma _v^2\left( \frac{% \partial \rho _2}{\partial \theta }-R_o\frac{dR_o}{d\theta }\right) ,$$ $$\frac{\partial ^2V_3}{\partial T^2}+2\gamma \frac{\partial V_3}{\partial T}% +\omega ^2V_3=\frac \partial {\partial T}\left( u_3+R_ou_2+\rho _2u_1+\rho _3\right) .$$ Solving the equation for the voltage $$\frac{\partial ^2V_3}{\partial T^2}+2\gamma \frac{\partial V_3}{\partial T}% +\omega _o^2V_3=-2u_2^{\prime }-2u_1u_1^{\prime }-\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) \rho _2^{\prime }+\lambda R_oV_2-2\left( R_ou_1\right) ^{\prime }+\lambda \rho _2V_1$$ that can be obtained by combining the third order equations, and subsequently the other two equations for $u_3$ and $\rho _3$ we obtain $$V_3\left( \theta ;T\right) =-\frac 1{\omega _o^2}\left\{ 2u_ou_o^{\prime }+% \frac \lambda {\omega _o^2}\left[ 2R_ou_o^{\prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_oR_o^{\prime }\right] +2\left( R_ou_o\right) ^{\prime }\right\}$$ $$-\frac{2\gamma }{\omega _o^4}\left\{ 2\left[ u_o^{\prime \prime }+\sigma _v^2R_o^{\prime \prime }+\frac \lambda {\omega _o^2}\left( 2u_o^{\prime \prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime \prime }\right) \right] +\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) \left( u_o^{\prime \prime }+R_o^{\prime \prime }\right) \right\}$$ $$+\frac{\Delta T}{\omega _o^2}\left\{ 2\left[ u_o^{\prime \prime }+\sigma _v^2R_o^{\prime \prime }+\frac \lambda {\omega _o^2}\left( 2u_o^{\prime \prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime \prime }\right) \right] +\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) \left( u_o^{\prime \prime }+R_o^{\prime \prime }\right) \right\}$$ $$+\frac 1{\omega _o^2}\left\{ -\frac{2\lambda ^2}{\omega _o^2}\left( \left\| E\right\| ^2\right) ^{\prime }+\lambda ^2\left( \frac{E^{\prime }E^{}}{% \omega _1^2}+\frac{EE^{\prime }}{\omega _1^{2}}\right) \right\} e^{-2\gamma \Delta T}+$$ $$\frac{\lambda \Delta T}{2i\omega _q}\left\{ -\left( \sigma _v^2+3\right) \frac{E^{\prime \prime }}{\omega _1^2}+\frac \lambda {\omega _q\omega _1^2}% \left[ i\left( R_oE\right) ^{\prime }-\frac{2E^{\prime \prime }}{\omega _1}% \right] +\frac{2i}{\omega _1}\left[ \left( u_o+R_o\right) E\right] ^{\prime }\right\} e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}$$ $$+\frac{\lambda \Delta T}{4\omega _q^2}\left( 1-i\omega _q\Delta T\right) $$ $$\ast \left\{ \frac \lambda {\omega _1\omega _q}\left[ \left( R_oE\right) ^{\prime }+\frac{2iE^{\prime \prime }}{\omega _1}\right] +\frac{\lambda R_o}{% 2i\omega _q}\left( R_oE+\frac{2iE^{\prime }}{\omega _1}\right) -\left( u_o^{\prime }+R_o^{\prime }\right) E\right\} e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}+c.c.$$ $$u_3\left( \theta ;T\right) =\left( \sigma _v^2R_oR_o^{\prime }-u_ou_o^{\prime }\right) \Delta T+\frac{\lambda ^2}{2\gamma \omega _o^2}% \frac{\partial \left\| E\right\| ^2}{\partial \theta }e^{-2\gamma \Delta T}-$$ $$-\frac \lambda {\omega _o^2}\left\{ 2u_ou_o^{\prime }+\frac{\lambda R_o}{% \omega _o^2}\left[ 2u_o^{\prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime }\right] +2\left( R_ou_o\right) ^{\prime }\right\} \Delta T-$$ $$-\frac{2\gamma \lambda }{\omega _o^4}\left\{ 2\left[ u_o^{\prime \prime }+\sigma _v^2R_o^{\prime \prime }+\frac \lambda {\omega _o^2}\left( 2u_o^{\prime \prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime \prime }\right) \right] +\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) \left( u_o^{\prime \prime }+R_o^{\prime \prime }\right) \right\} \Delta T$$ $$-\frac \lambda {2\gamma \omega _o^2}\left\{ -\frac{2\lambda ^2}{\omega _o^2}% \frac{\partial \left\| E\right\| ^2}{\partial \theta }+\lambda ^2\left( \frac{% E^{\prime }E^{}}{\omega _1^2}+\frac{EE^{\prime }}{\omega _1^{2}}\right) \right\} e^{-2\gamma \Delta T}+$$ $$+\text{ oscillating terms and terms proportional to }\left( \Delta T\right) ^2,$$ $$\rho _3\left( \theta ;T\right) =-\left( R_ou_o\right) ^{\prime }T+$$ $$+\text{ oscillating terms and terms proportional to }\left( \Delta T\right) ^2.$$ Collecting most singular terms that would contribute to the amplitude equations when applying the RG procedure, and setting $\varepsilon =1$ we write down the following expressions for $V_{RG}$, $u_{RG}$ and $\rho _{RG}$ $$V_{RG}\left( \theta ;T,T_o\right) =Ee^{i\omega _1\Delta T}+$$ $$\frac{\lambda \Delta T}{2i\omega _q}\left\{ R_oE+\frac{2i}{\omega _1}\left[ \left( 1+u_o+R_o\right) E\right] ^{\prime }-\left( \sigma _v^2+3\right) \frac{E^{\prime \prime }}{\omega _1^2}-\frac i{2\omega _q}\left( u_o+R_o\right) ^{\prime }E\right\} e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}$$ $$+\frac{\lambda ^2\Delta T}{2i\omega _q^2}\left\{ \frac{\omega _1+2\omega _q}{% 2\omega _1^2\omega _q}\left[ i\left( R_oE\right) ^{\prime }-\frac{2E^{\prime \prime }}{\omega _1}\right] +\frac{R_o}{4\omega _q}\left( R_oE+\frac{% 2iE^{\prime }}{\omega _1}\right) \right\} e^{i\omega _1\Delta T}+c.c. \label{pert1}$$ $$u_{RG}\left( \theta ;T\right) =u_o-\left\{ u_o^{\prime }+\sigma _v^2R_o^{\prime }+\frac \lambda {\omega _o^2}\left[ 2u_o^{\prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime }\right] \right\} \Delta T+$$ $$+\left( \sigma _v^2R_oR_o^{\prime }-u_ou_o^{\prime }\right) \Delta T+\frac{% \lambda ^2}{2\gamma \omega _o^2}\frac{\partial \left\| E\right\| ^2}{\partial \theta }e^{-2\gamma \Delta T}-$$ $$-\frac{\lambda \Delta T}{\omega _o^2}\left\{ 2u_ou_o^{\prime }+\frac{\lambda R_o}{\omega _o^2}\left[ 2u_o^{\prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime }\right] +2\left( R_ou_o\right) ^{\prime }\right\} -$$ $$-\frac{2\gamma \lambda \Delta T}{\omega _o^4}\left\{ 2\left[ u_o^{\prime \prime }+\sigma _v^2R_o^{\prime \prime }+\frac \lambda {\omega _o^2}\left( 2u_o^{\prime \prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime \prime }\right) \right] +\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) \left( u_o^{\prime \prime }+R_o^{\prime \prime }\right) \right\}$$ $$-\frac \lambda {2\gamma \omega _o^2}\left\{ -\frac{2\lambda ^2}{\omega _o^2}% \frac{\partial \left\| E\right\| ^2}{\partial \theta }+\lambda ^2\left( \frac{% E^{\prime }E^{}}{\omega _1^2}+\frac{EE^{\prime }}{\omega _1^{2}}\right) \right\} e^{-2\gamma \Delta T}, \label{pert2}$$ $$\rho _{RG}\left( \theta ;T\right) =R_o-\left[ R_o^{\prime }+u_o^{\prime }+\left( R_ou_o\right) ^{\prime }\right] \Delta T. \label{pert3}$$ The amplitudes $E$, $u_o$ and $R_o$ can be renormalized so as to remove the secular terms in the above expressions (\[pert1\]-\[pert3\]) and thus obtain the corresponding RG equations. Not entering into details let us briefly state the basic features of the RG approach[@kunihiro]. The perturbative solution (\[pert1\]-\[pert3\]) can be regarded as a parameterization of a 3D family of curves $\left\{ \Re _{T_o}\right\} =\left( R_o\left( T_o\right) ,\ u_o\left( T_o\right) ,\ E\left( T_o\right) \right) $ with $T_o$ being a free parameter. It can be shown that the RG equations are precisely the envelope equations for the one -parameter family $\left\{ \Re _{T_o}\right\} :$ $$\left. \left( \frac{\partial R_o}{\partial T_o},\ \frac{\partial u_o}{% \partial T_o},\ \frac{\partial E}{\partial T_o}\right) \right\| _{T_o=T}=0.$$ It is straightforward now to write down the RG equations in our case as follows: $$\frac{\partial R_o}{\partial T}+\frac \partial {\partial \theta }\left( R_o+u_o+R_ou_o\right) =0, \label{densenv}$$ $$\frac{\partial u_o}{\partial T}+\frac \partial {\partial \theta }\left( u_o+\sigma _v^2R_o\right) +u_o\frac{\partial u_o}{\partial \theta }-\sigma _v^2R_o\frac{\partial R_o}{\partial \theta }+\frac{\lambda ^2}{\omega _o^2}% \frac{\partial \left\| E\right\| ^2}{\partial \theta }e^{-2\gamma T}=$$ $$=-\frac{2\lambda }{\omega _o^2}\left[ u_o^{\prime }+u_ou_o^{\prime }+\left( R_ou_o\right) ^{\prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) \frac{R_o^{\prime }}2% \right] -\frac{\lambda ^2R_o}{\omega _o^4}\left[ 2u_o^{\prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime }\right] -$$ $$-\frac{2\gamma \lambda }{\omega _o^4}\left\{ 2u_o^{\prime \prime }+2\sigma _v^2R_o^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2\lambda }{\omega _o^2}\left[ 2u_o^{\prime \prime }+\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) R_o^{\prime \prime }\right] +\left( \sigma _v^2+1\right) \left( R_o^{\prime \prime }+u_o^{\prime \prime }\right) \right\} -$$ $$-\frac \lambda {\omega _o^2}\left[ \frac{2\lambda ^2}{\omega _o^2}\frac{% \partial \left\| E\right\| ^2}{\partial \theta }-\lambda ^2\left( \frac{% E^{\prime }E^{}}{\omega _1^2}+\frac{EE^{\prime }}{\omega _1^{2}}\right) \right] e^{-2\gamma T}, \label{velenv}$$ $$\frac{2i\omega _q}\lambda \left( \frac \partial {\partial T}+\frac \partial {% \partial \theta }\right) E=R_oE+\frac{2i}{\omega _1}\left[ \left( 1+u_o+R_o\right) E\right] ^{\prime }-\frac{\sigma _v^2+3}{\omega _1^2}% E^{\prime \prime }-$$ $$-\frac i{2\omega _q}\left( 1+u_o+R_o\right) ^{\prime }E+$$ $$+\frac \lambda {\omega _q}\left\{ \frac{\omega _1+2\omega _q}{2\omega _1^2\omega _q}\left[ i\left( R_oE\right) ^{\prime }-\frac{2E^{\prime \prime }% }{\omega _1}\right] +\frac{R_o}{4\omega _q}\left( R_oE+\frac{2iE^{\prime }}{% \omega _1}\right) \right\} . \label{voltenv}$$ In deriving eq. (\[voltenv\]) we have assumed that the voltage envelope function $E$ depends on its arguments as $E\left( \theta -T_o;T_o\right) $. Neglecting higher order terms we finally obtain the desired equations governing the evolution of the amplitudes $$\frac{\partial \widetilde{\rho }}{\partial T}+\frac \partial {\partial \theta }\left( \widetilde{\rho }\widetilde{u}\right) =0, \label{dense}$$ $$\frac{\partial \widetilde{u}}{\partial T}+\widetilde{u}\frac{\partial \widetilde{u}}{\partial \theta }=-\frac{\sigma _v^2}{\widetilde{\rho }}\frac{% \partial \widetilde{\rho }}{\partial \theta }-\frac{\lambda ^2}{\omega _o^2}% \frac{\partial \left\| \widetilde{E}\right\| ^2}{\partial \theta }, \label{vele}$$ $$\frac{2i\omega _q}\lambda \left( \frac \partial {\partial T}+\frac \partial {% \partial \theta }+\gamma \right) \widetilde{E}=\left( \widetilde{\rho }% -1\right) \widetilde{E}-\frac{\sigma _v^2+3}{\omega _1^2}\frac{\partial ^2% \widetilde{E}}{\partial \theta ^2}+$$ $$+\frac{2i}{\omega _1}\frac \partial {\partial \theta }\left( \widetilde{\rho }\widetilde{u}\widetilde{E}\right) +\frac i{2\omega _q}\widetilde{E}\frac{% \partial \widetilde{\rho }}{\partial T}, \label{volte}$$ where $$\widetilde{\rho }=1+R_o\qquad ;\qquad \widetilde{u}=1+u_o\qquad ;\qquad \widetilde{E}=Ee^{-\gamma T}.$$ Eliminating $\widetilde{u}$ from equations (\[dense\]) and (\[vele\]) we get $$\frac{\partial ^2\widetilde{\rho }}{\partial T^2}-\sigma _v^2\frac{\partial ^2\widetilde{\rho }}{\partial \theta ^2}=\frac{\lambda ^2}{\omega _o^2}\frac{% \partial ^2\left\| \widetilde{E}\right\| ^2}{\partial \theta ^2}, \label{zakharov1}$$ $$\frac{2i\omega _q}\lambda \left( \frac \partial {\partial T}+\frac \partial {% \partial \theta }+\gamma \right) \widetilde{E}=-\frac{\sigma _v^2+3}{\omega _1^2}\frac{\partial ^2\widetilde{E}}{\partial \theta ^2}+\frac{2i}{\omega _1}% \frac{\partial \widetilde{E}}{\partial \theta }+\left( \widetilde{\rho }% -1\right) \widetilde{E}. \label{zakharov2}$$ Solution of the Amplitude Equations. ==================================== Let us perform a scaling of variables in the amplitude equations (\[zakharov1\]), (\[zakharov2\]) according to the relations $$\tau =\frac{\lambda T}{2\omega _q}\qquad ;\qquad \Theta =\frac{\omega _o\theta }{\sqrt{\sigma _v^2+3}}\qquad ;\qquad \psi =\frac{\left\| \lambda \right\| \widetilde{E}}{\sigma _v\omega _o}.$$ The amplitude equations take now the form $$\frac{\partial ^2\widetilde{\rho }}{\partial \tau ^2}-c_u^2\frac{\partial ^2% \widetilde{\rho }}{\partial \Theta ^2}=c_u^2\frac{\partial ^2\left\| \psi \right\| ^2}{\partial \Theta ^2} \label{scale1}$$ $$i\left( \frac \partial {\partial \tau }+\frac{ab\omega _o}2\frac \partial {% \partial \Theta }\right) \psi +i\gamma b\psi =-\frac{\omega _o^2}{\omega _1^2% }\frac{\partial ^2\psi }{\partial \Theta ^2}+ia\frac{\omega _o}{\omega _1}% \frac{\partial \psi }{\partial \Theta }+\left( \widetilde{\rho }-1\right) \psi , \label{scale2}$$ where $$a=\frac 2{\sqrt{\sigma _v^2+3}}\qquad ;\qquad b=\frac{2\omega _q}\lambda \qquad ;\qquad c_u=\frac{2\sigma _v\omega _q\omega _o}{\left\| \lambda \right\| \sqrt{\sigma _v^2+3}}.$$ From equation (\[scale1\]) one finds approximately $$\widetilde{\rho }=1-\left\| \psi \right\| ^2. \label{caviton}$$ Equation (\[caviton\]) when substituted into (\[scale2\]) yields $$i\left( \frac \partial {\partial \tau }+\frac{ab\omega _o}2\frac \partial {% \partial \Theta }\right) \psi +i\gamma b\psi =-\frac{\omega _o^2}{\omega _1^2% }\frac{\partial ^2\psi }{\partial \Theta ^2}+ia\frac{\omega _o}{\omega _1}% \frac{\partial \psi }{\partial \Theta }-\left\| \psi \right\| ^2\psi . \label{schrod}$$ Noting that $$\omega _1=\omega _oe^{i\omega _{\arg }}\qquad \quad ;\qquad \quad \omega _{\arg }=\arctan \frac \gamma {\omega _q}$$ and introducing the new variable $$x=\Theta +a\tau -\frac{ab\omega _o}2\tau =\frac{\omega _o}{\sqrt{\sigma _v^2+3}}\left( \theta -T+\frac{\lambda T}{\omega _o\omega _q}\right)$$ we rewrite the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (\[schrod\]) in the form [@pereira1] $$i\frac{\partial \psi }{\partial \tau }+i\gamma b\psi =-\left( 1-\frac{% 2i\gamma }{\omega _o}\right) \frac{\partial ^2\psi }{\partial x^2}+\frac{% a\gamma }{\omega _o}\frac{\partial \psi }{\partial x}-\left\| \psi \right\| ^2\psi . \label{nlse}$$ Next we examine the linear stability of the solution $$\psi _o\left( x;\tau \right) =A_oe^{i\left( kx-\Omega \tau \right) }, \label{solut}$$ where $$\Omega =k^2-A_o^2-\frac{i\gamma }{\omega _o}\left( 2k^2-ak+\omega _ob\right) .$$ In the case the energy of the beam is above transition energy $% \left( k_o<0\right) $ the solution (\[solut\]) is exponentially decaying for $$1-\sqrt{1+\frac{8\omega _o\left\| b\right\| }{a^2}}<\frac{4k}a<1+\sqrt{1+\frac{% 8\omega _o\left\| b\right\| }{a^2}}$$ To proceed further let us represent the field envelope function $\psi $ as $$\psi \left( x;\tau \right) ={A}\left( x;\tau \right) e^{i\varphi \left( x;\tau \right) }$$ and write the equations for the amplitude ${A}$ and the phase $% \varphi $ $${A}_\tau +\gamma b{A}=-{A\varphi }_{xx}-2{A}_x\varphi _x+\frac{2\gamma }{% \omega _o}\left( {A}_{xx}-{A\varphi }_x^2\right) +\frac{a\gamma }{\omega _o}{% A}\varphi _x, \label{ampl}$$ $${A}\varphi _\tau ={A}_{xx}-{A\varphi }_x^2+{A}^3+\frac{2\gamma }{\omega _o}% \left( {A\varphi }_{xx}+2{A}_x\varphi _x\right) -\frac{a\gamma }{\omega _o}{A% }_x. \label{phase}$$ When $\gamma =0$ the above system admits a simple one-soliton solution of the form $$\varphi \left( x;\tau \right) =kx-\Omega \tau +\alpha ,$$ $${A}\left( x;\tau \right) =\frac{\sqrt{2}K}{\cosh \left[ K\left( x-2k\tau +\beta \right) \right] }\qquad ;\qquad K^2=k^2-\Omega >0.$$ Define now the quantities $${N}\left( \tau \right) =\int dx\left\| \psi \left( x;\tau \right) \right\| ^2\qquad ;\qquad {P}\left( \tau \right) =\frac i2\int dx\left( \psi \frac{% \partial \psi ^{}}{\partial x}-\psi ^{}\frac{\partial \psi }{\partial x}% \right) .$$ These are the first two (particle density and momentum respectively) from the infinite hierarchy of integrals of motion for the undamped $\left( \gamma =0\right) $ nonlinear Schrödinger equation [@zakharov]. When damping is present $\left( \gamma \neq 0\right) $ they are no longer integrals of motion and their dynamics is governed by the equations $$\frac{d{N}}{d\tau }+2\gamma b{N}=-\frac{4\gamma }{\omega _o}\int dx\left\| \frac{\partial \psi }{\partial x}\right\| ^2+\frac{2a\gamma }{\omega _o}{P}, \label{integral1}$$ $$\frac{d{P}}{d\tau }+2\gamma b{P}=\frac{2i\gamma }{\omega _o}\int dx\left( \frac{\partial ^2\psi }{\partial x^2}\frac{\partial \psi ^{}}{\partial x}-% \frac{\partial ^2\psi ^{}}{\partial x^2}\frac{\partial \psi }{\partial x}% \right) +\frac{2a\gamma }{\omega _o}\int dx\left\| \frac{\partial \psi }{% \partial x}\right\| ^2. \label{integral2}$$ Instead of solving equations (\[ampl\]) and (\[phase\]) for the amplitude ${A}$ and the phase $\varphi $ we approximate the solution of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (\[nlse\]) with a one-soliton travelling wave $$\psi \left( x;\tau \right) =\frac{\sqrt{2}\eta \left( \tau \right) }{\cosh \left\{ \eta \left( \tau \right) \left[ x-\mu \left( \tau \right) +\beta \right] \right\} }\exp \left\{ i\left[ \sigma \left( \tau \right) x-\Omega \left( \tau \right) +\alpha \right] \right\} , \label{kink}$$ where $$\mu \left( \tau \right) =2\int d\tau \sigma \left( \tau \right) \qquad ;\qquad \Omega \left( \tau \right) =\int d\tau \left[ \sigma ^2\left( \tau \right) -\eta ^2\left( \tau \right) \right] .$$ Substituting the sample solution (\[kink\]) into the balance equations (\[integral1\]), (\[integral2\]) and noting that $${N}\left( \tau \right) =4\eta \left( \tau \right) \qquad ;\qquad {P}\left( \tau \right) =4\eta \left( \tau \right) \sigma \left( \tau \right)$$ we obtain the following system of equations $$\frac{d\eta }{d\tau }+2\gamma b\eta =-\frac{4\gamma }{\omega _o}\left( \frac{% \eta ^3}3+\eta \sigma ^2\right) +\frac{2a\gamma }{\omega _o}\eta \sigma ,$$ $$\frac{d\left( \eta \sigma \right) }{d\tau }+2\gamma b\eta \sigma =-\frac{% 4\gamma }{\omega _o}\left( \eta ^3\sigma +\eta \sigma ^3\right) +\frac{% 2a\gamma }{\omega _o}\left( \frac{\eta ^3}3+\eta \sigma ^2\right) ,$$ or $$\frac{d\eta }{d\tau }+2\gamma b\eta =-\frac{4\gamma }{\omega _o}\left( \frac{% \eta ^3}3+\eta \sigma ^2\right) +\frac{2a\gamma }{\omega _o}\eta \sigma , \label{kinkamp}$$ $$\frac{d\sigma }{d\tau }=-\frac{8\gamma }{3\omega _o}\eta ^2\sigma +\frac{% 2a\gamma }{3\omega _o}\eta ^2. \label{kinkphase}$$ In order to solve equations (\[kinkamp\]) and (\[kinkphase\]) we introduce the new variables $$\xi \left( \tau \right) =\eta ^2\left( \tau \right) \qquad ;\qquad \kappa \left( \tau \right) =\sigma \left( \tau \right) -\frac a4$$ so that the system (\[kinkamp\]), (\[kinkphase\]) is cast into the form $$\frac{d\xi }{d\tau }=4\gamma b_1\xi -\frac{8\gamma }{3\omega _o}\xi ^2-\frac{% 8\gamma }{\omega _o}\xi \kappa ^2\qquad ;\qquad \frac{d\kappa }{d\tau }=-% \frac{8\gamma }{3\omega _o}\xi \kappa , \label{system}$$ where $$b_1=\frac{a^2}{8\omega _o}-b>0.$$ A particular solution of the system of equations (\[system\]) can be obtained for $\kappa =0$. Thus $$\sigma =\frac a4\qquad ;\qquad \eta ^2\left( \tau \right) =3\omega _ob_1% \frac{\eta ^2\left( 0\right) e^{4\gamma b_1\tau }}{3\omega _ob_1+2\eta ^2\left( 0\right) \left( e^{4\gamma b_1\tau }-1\right) }.$$ Solving equation (\[dense\]) for $\widetilde{u}$, provided $% \widetilde{\rho }$ is given by (\[caviton\]) and (\[kink\]) one finds $$\widetilde{u}\left( x;\tau \right) =\frac{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma _v^2+3}\cosh ^2z}{2\omega _o\omega _q\left( \cosh ^2z-2\eta ^2\right) }$$ $$\ast \left[ C+4\gamma \eta \left( b_1-\frac{2\eta ^2}{\omega _o}\right) \tanh z+\frac{16\gamma \eta ^3}{3\omega _o}\tanh ^3z+a\frac{\eta ^2-\cosh ^2z% }{\cosh ^2z}\right] ,$$ where $$z\left( x;\tau \right) =\eta \left( \tau \right) \left[ x-\mu \left( \tau \right) +\beta \right] ,$$ $$C=a\left[ 1-\eta ^2\left( 0\right) \right] +\frac{2\omega _o\omega _q}{% \lambda \sqrt{\sigma _v^2+3}}\left[ 1-2\eta ^2\left( 0\right) \right] \left[ 1+u_o\left( 0\right) \right] .$$ The solutions for the mean velocity of the soliton and the corresponding voltage amplitude are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. We note that the solitary wave corresponds to a self-contained droplet of charge which separates (decelerates) from the core of the beam and approaches a fixed separation at sufficiently long times. The reason for this behavior is the fact that the driving force due to the wake decays rapidly as the soliton detunes from the resonator frequency. At sufficient detuning, the wake no longer contains enough dissipation to cause further deceleration. The resonator voltage decreases in a corresponding fashion. It is interesting to note that the charge contained in the soliton remains self-organized over very long times despite the presence of dissipation. This situation is rather unique and is due to the peculiar character of the wake force from the resonator. In Figs. 3 and 4 we show the corresponding mean velocity and voltage from a coasting beam simulation previously reported. The behavior is manifestly similar to that predicted by Eq. (35), (53) and (61) , though no attempt has been made to check the precise scaling of the physical quantities. Conclusions =========== In this work we have derived a set of equations for solitary waves on a coasting beam using a renormalization group approach. This procedure has led to a specific set of evolution equations in the practical case of a cavity resonator of finite Q. The resulting set of equations can be solved analytically under certain assumptions, and this leads to an explicit form for the soliton and its behavior over time. We find, in contrast to other solitary waves in the presence of dissipation, that solitons can persist over long times and do so by decelerating from the core of the beam. This deceleration leads to detuning and the decay of the driving voltage. The result is that a nearly steady state is reached, albeit with a gradually decreasing soliton strength, but fixed maximum energy separation. Good qualitative agreement between the analytic results and the simulations have been observed. We note that such a process may well indicate a method by which well-defined droplets can occur in the halo of intense stored beams. Further study of this problem, and the application of the RG approach to bunched-beam evolution will be considered in future work. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS =============== The authors gratefully acknowledge the continuing support of D. Finley and S. Holmes for the pursuit of this erudite topic. The authors also gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Alejandro Aceves and Jim Ellison. [9]{} R. Fedele, G. Miele, L. Palumbo and V.G. Vaccaro, ” Thermal Wave Model for Nonlinear Longitudinal Dynamics in Particle Accelerators,” Physics Letters A, 179, 407, (1993) J.J. Bisognano, Solitons and particle beams, [Particles and fields series 47, High Brightness Beams for Advanced Accelerator Applications*]{}, AIP Conference Proceedings 253, College Park MD, (1991). L.-Y. Chen, N. Goldenfeld and Y. Oono, “Renormalization Group and Singular Perturbations: Multiple Scales, Boundary Layers, and Reductive Perturbation Theory,” Phys. Rev. E 54, 376, (1996). T. Kunihiro, “The Renormalization Group Method Applied to Asymptotic Analysis of Vector Fields,” Prog. of Theoretical Physics, 97, 179 (1997). M. Goldman, “Strong Turbulence of Plasma Waves,” Rev. of Modern Physics, 56, 709 (1984). S. G. Thornhill, D. terHaar, “Langmuir Turbulence and Modulational Instability,” Physics Reports, 43, 43-99 (1978). P. A. Robinson, “Nonlinear Wave Collapse and Strong Turbulence,” Rev. of Modern Physics, 69, 507 (1997). V. E. Zakharov and A. B. Shabat, “Exact Theory of Two-Dimensional Self-Focussing and One-Dimensional Self-Modulation of Waves in Nonlinear Media,” Sov. Phys. JETP, 34, 62 (1972). D. R. Nicholson and M. V. Goldman, “Damped Nonlinear Schroedinger Equation,” Phys. of Fluids, 19, 1621 (1976). N. R. Pereira and L. Stenflo, “Nonlinear Schroedinger Equation Including Growth and Damping,” Phys. of Fluids, 20, 1733 (1977). N. R. Pereira, “Solution of the Damped Nonlinear Schroedinger Equation,” Phys. of Fluids, 20, 1735 (1997).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'S. Dhawan A. Flörs B. Leibundgut K. Maguire W. Kerzendorf S. Taubenberger M. Van Kerkwijk J. Spyromilio' bibliography: - 'Suhail.bib' date: 'Received; accepted ' title: 'Nebular spectroscopy of SN 2014J: Detection of stable nickel in near infrared spectra' --- Introduction ============ Type Ia supernovae (SNeIa) have long been identified as thermonuclear explosions of C/O white dwarfs [WD; @1960ApJ...132..565H]. Following a simple calibration [@1993ApJ...413L.105P] they are excellent distance indicators used extensively in cosmology [@1998AJ....116.1009R; @1999ApJ...517..565P]. There remain several open questions regarding the physics of SNeIa, e.g. progenitor channel, mass of the progenitor, explosion mechanism, (see for reviews). Many attempts to address these issues have concentrated on photometric and spectroscopic observations of SNeIa near maximum light (i.e. the photospheric phase). However, at late times, as the ejecta thin and the core of the ejecta is revealed, additional diagnostics of the explosion mechanism become accessible. The elegance of SNeIa lies in the fact that both the energy of the explosion and the electromagnetic display are due to the burning of the core to and its subsequent decay. Direct or indirect measurements of the mass and topology of provide some of the best probes of the explosion physics. The decay of to and on to stable proceeds through the emission of $\gamma$-rays and positrons which power the electromagnetic display. Nebular phase spectroscopy enables a direct view into the core of the ejecta and provides key insights into the progenitor and explosion properties of SNeIa, complementary to the early time observations which contain information about the outer layers of the ejecta. The evolution of the cobalt to iron line ratios in nebular spectra have been used to demonstrate radioactive decay as the mechanism powering SNeIa [@1994ApJ...426L..89K] and a combination of optical and NIR spectra have provided constraints on the iron mass in the ejecta . Moreover, correlations of nebular-phase line velocities with photospheric-phase velocity gradients have indicated asymmetries in the explosion mechanism [@2010Natur.466...82M; @2010ApJ...708.1703M; @2018MNRAS.tmp..796M]. Most nebular-phase studies of SNeIa [e.g. @2013MNRAS.430.1030S; @2017MNRAS.472.3437G] have concentrated on optical wavelengths. Since the iron and cobalt features in the NIR are relatively unblended compared to the optical, it is an interesting wavelength region to study the line profiles. Some studies have used the \[\]1.644$\mu$m feature to probe the kinematic distribution of the radioactive ejecta [@2004ApJ...617.1258H; @2006ApJ...652L.101M] and have also tried to constrain the central density and magnetic field of the progenitor WD [@2014ApJ...795...84P; @2015ApJ...806..107D]. @2007ApJ...661..995G have used mid-IR nebular spectra to explore the explosion mechanism and electron capture elements. The presence of large amounts of stable isotopes of nickel (e.g. and ) has been suggested as an indicator of burning at high central densities and therefore would favour higher progenitor masses, contributing to evidence for a Chandrasekhar-mass progenitor scenario for some supernovae [@2004ApJ...617.1258H]. SN2014J in M82 is one of the nearest SNIa in decades and has been extensively studied [e.g. @2014ApJ...790....3K; @2014Sci...345.1162D; @2014MNRAS.443.2887F; @2014MNRAS.445.4427A; @2015ApJ...804...66V; @2016MNRAS.457..525G; @2016MNRAS.460.1614V]. It is heavily reddened by host galaxy dust, but shows spectral features of a normal SNIa [@2014ApJ...788L..21A]. The extinction law and properties of the dust along the line of sight have been extensively discussed by a number of authors (@2014ApJ...795L...4K, @2014MNRAS.443.2887F, @2014ApJ...784L..12G). Imaging of the supernova reveals the presence of clear echoes [@2017ApJ...834...60Y]. Estimates of the $^{56}$Ni mass using the timing of the NIR second maximum and $\gamma$-ray observations [@2015ApJ...812...62C] infer masses of 0.64$\pm$0.13$M_{\odot}$ and 0.62$\pm$0.13 $M_{\odot}$, respectively, consistent with the estimate for a normal SNIa . Optical spectra of SN2014J in the nebular phase are remarkably similar to the ‘normal’ SNe2011fe and 2012cg [@2015MNRAS.453.3300A]. In this work we present the first detection of a spectral line at 1.939$\mu$m in an SNIa, a forbidden \[\] transition ($^4$F$_{9/2}$–$^2$F$_{7/2}$), indicating the presence of stable nickel isotopes [e.g., see @2018MNRAS.474.3187W]. We use the ratios of the \[\] lines to measure the parameters describing the host galaxy extinction and evaluate the line shifts and profiles for the spectra. We present the data in Section \[sec-obs\], analyse them in Section \[sec-ana\], discuss our results in Section \[sec-dis\] and conclude in Section \[sec-conc\]. Observations and data reduction {#sec-obs} =============================== SN2014J was discovered in M82 at the University of London Observatory on Jan 21st 2014 [@2014CBET.3792....1F]. We adopt MJD56671.7 as the epoch of explosion [@2014ApJ...784L..12G]. We present NIR spectra of SN2014J, obtained using GNIRS on Gemini-North. The dates and phases are shown in Table\[tab:log\]. The observations were made using the Gemini fast turnaround program [@2014SPIE.9149E..10M] under proposal GN-2015A-FT-3. The spectra were obtained in cross-dispersed (XD) mode with a central wavelength of 1.65$\mu$m and have a wavelength coverage from 0.825 to 2.5$\mu$m. The spectra were reduced using the standard Gemini IRAF[^1] package. The final spectra were extracted using the IRAF task apall which extracts one-dimensional sums across the apertures. For the first epoch (March) we used the A0 star HIP32549 from the Gemini archive (not observed on the same night) for telluric correction corrections but we are unable to colour correct our data since no suitable standard on the same night was observed. The March spectrum is therefore only used for measurements of line shifts and profiles but not for line ratios. For the second (April) and third (May) epochs, we use the A7 star HIP50685 obtained on the same nights as the observations of the supernova for both telluric and spectrophotometric calibration. Given that the features we are studying lie in regions of variable atmospheric transmission, we have checked our standard star observations against atmospheric transmission models of the atmosphere. We find that the transmission of the standard star is compatible with the Mauna Kea atmospheric models from the Gemini web site[^2] for 50 mm of water vapour and an airmass of 2.0. The individual features of the atmosphere are reproduced well by the spectrum at the appropriate instrumental resolution. No discernible continuum is present in the $J$ and $H$ bands in any of our data. In the $K$ band we cannot exclude the presence of an underlying continuum although this may have an instrumental contibution as well as an astronomical one. The spectra are shown in Figure\[fig:spectra\]. Analysis {#sec-ana} ======== Nickel detection ---------------- In our data (see Figure \[fig:spectra\]), we note the presence of a weak line at a wavelength coincident with the central wavelength of a \[\] transition. In Figure \[fig:model\_ni2\] we fit the feature and present the first clear detection of the $^4$F$_{9/2}$–$^2$F$_{7/2}$ \[\] 1.939 $\mu$m line in the spectra of a Type Ia supernova. Since the e-folding timescale of radioactive nickel is 8.8d [@1994ApJS...92..527N] and the spectra are taken at $\sim$ 450d, this would indicate that the detection of the \[\] line indicates the presence of a stable nickel isotope. In our spectra there is no evidence for the $^2$D$_{5/2}$–$^4$F$_{7/2}$ line of \[\] at 1.0718$\mu$m, which has an A value two orders of magnitude lower than the 1.939$\mu$m line. Our modeling of the atmospheric transmission and the standard star spectra suggest that, if the line were strong, we should observe the center of the line and the blue wing. Given the extinction and our assumed excitation conditions (see Section \[fit\]) we cannot use the absence of a strong line at 1.0718$\mu$m to challenge the identification of the 1.939$\mu$m line. ![The May spectrum and a model using an \[\] NLTE atom (magenta) with a line width of 11000kms$^{-1}$ redshifted by 800kms$^{-1}$ from the laboratory rest frame. In the 1.8–2$\mu$m region weak \[\] lines (blue) and \[\] lines (green) are also present. Shortwards of the central wavelength of this line the transmission is low and the noise in the spectrum increases (grey shaded region). This region has not been used in the fitting algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:model_ni2"}](Fits_zoom.pdf){width=".47\textwidth"} Fitting the spectrum {#fit} -------------------- The NIR spectrum of SN2014J is dominated by forbidden lines of singly ionised iron and singly ionised cobalt. In particular the prominent features at the long end of the $J$ window (around 1.26 $\mu$m) and most of the $H$-band emission arise from multiplets a$^6$D–a$^4$D and a$^4$F–a$^4$D of \[\], respectively, while the feature around 0.86$\mu$m has contributions from the \[\] a$^4$F–a$^4$P multiplet and from \[\] a$^3$F–b$^3$F. Additional contributions from \[\] a$^5$F–b$^3$F are present in the $H$ band (at 1.547$\mu$m). The line identification is provided in Table \[tab:lines\]. Fitting the $J$ and $H$ band spectra is relatively straightforward. The $K$ band is very faint but the transitions in the $K$ band are not expected to be strong. The model we use (Flörs et al. in preparation) uses NLTE excitation of singly and doubly ionised iron group elements. For the purposes of fitting only the NIR data, the only contributing features are from the singly ionised species and a one zone model, convolved with a Gaussian line profile, suffices to provide an excellent fit. The atomic data for our NLTE models are from @2016MNRAS.456.1974S, , , . The free parameters are the electron density and temperature of the gas, the ratio of iron to cobalt to nickel, the line width, the offset from the systemic velocity of the supernova that the singly ionised transitions of the iron group elements may exhibit and the extinction. We explore the parameter space with the nested-sampling algorithm Nestle (https://github.com/kbarbary/nestle) and a $\chi^2$ likelihood. Uniform priors are used for all parameters except the electron density. For this we assume a lower bound of 10$^5$cm$^{-3}$. As has also been observed for other SNIa at this epoch, our spectrum shows no evidence for neutral iron lines. The strong lines of the \[\] a$^5$D–a$^5$F multiplet at 1.4$\mu$m are in a poor transmission region but still remain undetected. The lowest-excitation and therefore presumably strongest \[\] line in the 2$\mu$m region at 1.9804$\mu$m from multiplet a$^5$F–a$^3$F is also not seen. The infrared spectrum provides some evidence in the $K$ band for doubly ionised iron but it is well known from combined optical and infrared spectra [e.g. @1992MNRAS.258P..53S] that strong transitions of \[\] and \[\] are present in the 4000 to 6000Å region. As discussed in the introduction, from earlier work it has been determined that SN2014J made $\approx$0.6M$_\odot$ of $^{56}$Ni. A simple distribution of this mass of Nickel and its daughter elements in singly ionised state in a volume expanding for the age of the supernova at 8000kms$^{-1}$ sets the electron density to be at least 10$^5$cm$^{-3}$. The fits are shown in Figure \[fig:fits\]. Additional constraints arise from a few higher excitation lines in the 8600Å region but these are extremely sensitive to the choice of atomic data. For the purposes of this work we note that we can fit these lines and that the fits are consistent with our derived properties but we do not draw conclusions based on this aspect of our data. ![image](figure4_modelfit.pdf){width=".98\textwidth"} Extinction {#ssec-ext} ---------- The two strongest lines in the spectrum are the \[\] 1.257$\mu$m a$^6$D$_{9/2}$–a$^4$D$_{7/2}$ and the 1.644$\mu$m \[\] a$^4$F$_{9/2}$–a$^4$D$_{7/2}$ which arise from the same upper level. In the absence of additional contributions to the features at these wavelengths and optical depth effects the observed line ratio and can be used to determine the extinction between the $J$ and $H$ bands as it depends solely on the Einstein A-values these transitions. Additional constraints, independent of the excitation conditions come from the \[\] lines at 1.547$\mu$m (a$^5$F$_4$–b$^3$F$_4$) and 1.0191$\mu$m (a$^3$F$_4$–b$^3$F$_4$) which also come from the same upper level. From our model fits of these features we can ensure that blending is taken consistently into account. We constrain the @1989ApJ...345..245C prescription for the extinction in the range shown in Figure\[fig:rv\]. The NIR data are compatible with both high and low values of $R_V$. The degeneracy between $A_V$ and $R_V$ arises from the short wavelength lever arm between the $J$ and $H$ windows. Line shifts and widths ---------------------- As noted by [@2010ApJ...708.1703M] some typeIa supernovae exhibit a shift of the line centres of the singly ionised iron group lines relative to the systemic velocity of the supernova and also with respect to the doubly ionised features. In the absence of doubly ionised features in our data we cannot identify a differential velocity shift. However, the lines in our data exhibit a $\sim$800kms$^{-1}$ redshift which is $\sim$600kms$^{-1}$ in excess of the M82 recession velocity. The \[\], \[\] and \[\] lines exhibit the same shifts within the errors, although the constraint on the \[\] is weak and degenerate with the width. The profiles of the iron and cobalt lines are well fit by a simple Gaussian line shape for each individual component of the multiplets. We find that a Full Width Half Maximum of 8600$\pm$150kms$^{-1}$ fits the \[\] and \[\] data. The \[\] line width is $\sim$11000kms$^{-1}$, somewhat higher than that needed to fit the iron and cobalt lines. It is thus clear that the stable iron group elements are not at the lowest velocities, unlike the predictions from 1-D $M_{ch}$ models. However, we find that the model predictions from 3-D delayed detonation explosions of @2013MNRAS.429.1156S which predict stable isotopes at intermediate velocities are consistent with our observations. The somewhat higher velocity of the Nickel may be an artifact of our continuum placement which has been conservatively assumed to be non-existent. A small residual continuum, possibly from incomplete background subtraction, would result in the \[\] velocity being consistent with the other lines (see Section \[fit\]). Discussion {#sec-dis} ========== @2018MNRAS.474.3187W argued that the \[\] 1.939 $\mu$m line is relatively unblended compared to the strong \[\] feature at 7378Å in the optical and therefore a more suitable test for the presence of large amounts of stable Nickel. @2018MNRAS.474.3187W used models of @2013MNRAS.429.2127B and @2017MNRAS.470..157B to model the optical and NIR spectra in the nebular regime. That study (see @2018MNRAS.474.3187W figure 13) shows a dramatic variation in the strength of the 1.939$\mu$m line for their models, however, we note that their synthetic spectra are at epochs $\sim$ 200d before the spectra presented here. The mass of stable nickel, however, in the models of @2018MNRAS.474.3187W only varies by a factor of 3 between the different models used ($\sim$0.011 to 0.03M$_\odot$). Compared to their yields, the $M_{ch}$ models of @2013MNRAS.429.1156S are slightly higher in the range between 0.03 and 0.07 $M_{\odot}$. The appearance of the spectrum is particularly sensitive to the ionisation conditions in the models and therefore the derivation of masses from lines arising from a single ionisation stage, such as we have attempted here, is challenging. Our confirmation of the presence of the 1.939$\mu$m line, which arises from the same upper level as the 7378Å line confirms the identification of \[\] by @2018MNRAS.tmp..796M. Ionisation and masses of Fe$^+$ and Ni$^+$ ------------------------------------------ From our fitting we determine an un-blended flux for 1.644$\mu$m line and infer the mass of the emitting iron. For a distance to M82 of 3.5Mpc [@2006Ap.....49....3K] and our measured flux for the 1.644$\mu$m line we determine a mass of $\sim$0.18$\,M_{\odot}$ for Fe$^+$ at the epoch of the SN spectrum. We note that without the high density prior from the [$\rm ^{56}Ni$]{} mass, our spectra allow for low densities and high excitation conditions which can give Fe$^+$ yields as low as 0.01 M$_\odot$ (the masses reported here are the weighted mean for the +450 and +478d spectra). We note the strength of the 1.533$\mu$m a$^4$F$_{9/2}$–a$^4$D$_{5/2}$ line and the presence of a blue shoulder at the 1.644$\mu$m feature (at 1.6$\mu$m) due to the a$^4$F$_{7/2}$–a$^4$D$_{3/2}$ \[\] line at 1.599$\mu$m. The ratios of these lines to the 1.644$\mu$m line are sensitive to the electron density, and the 1.54$\mu$m feature as well as the shoulder drop for electron densities below 10$^5$cm$^{-3}$ (see also ). Here again we have avoided placing a disproportionate weight on a particular feature in our likelihood function. We only note that this presents corroborating evidence for high electron densities, consistent with the inference on the density from the [$\rm ^{56}Ni$]{} mass prior, hence increasing our confidence in the Fe$^{+}$ mass determination. Using the derived mass of Fe$^{+}$, the total iron mass prior and assuming the only the singly and doubly ionised species are present, we get an ionisation fraction of $\approx$1.7. This value is consistent with calculations from theory ($\sim$ 1.6) in the literature @1980PhDT.........1A. We can now proceed to derive a value of 0.016$\pm$0.005M$_\odot$ for the Ni$^+$ mass based on the emissivity of the 1.939$\mu$m line and the other derived parameters from our fits. Similarly, assuming that all the Ni exists in singly and doubly ionised state and that ionisation fractions for nickel as for iron [see @2018MNRAS.474.3187W for caveats] then we estimate that approximately 0.053$\pm$0.018M$_\odot$ of stable nickel is present in SN2014J. While this is higher than the predictions for the different models, it is within 3 $\sigma$ of the predicted range of estimates. We observed a complex of weak \[Fe III\] lines in the $K$-band. Using the Fe$^{++}$ mass derived above (0.42 M$_\odot$), the distance to M82 (3.5 Mpc) and the observed flux in the region between 21000 and 24000 Å ($0.75\pm0.2\times10^{-14}$ ergs$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$) we derive an emissivity of $\sim 2 \cdot 10^{-18}$ erg s$^{-1}$atom$^{-1}$. This is consistent with the derived line emissivity from the NLTE calculations with a temperature of 4000 K and N$_e$ of 10$^5$ cm$^{-3}$. However, these estimates are highly sensitive to the temperature and N$_e$ values, placement of the continuum and hence, only offer a consistency check. Extinction by host galaxy dust ------------------------------ Measurements from maximum light photometry would point to a high $E(B-V)$ [1.37 mag, see @2014ApJ...788L..21A]. The authors find a non-standard reddening law describing the colour excesses at maximum light. Fitting a @1989ApJ...345..245C reddening law the authors also find a preference for $R_V$ $\sim$ 1.4, significantly smaller than the typical Milky Way value of 3.1. This is confirmed by spectro-polarimetry data in , who also demonstrate the preference for low $R_V$ in other highly reddened SNeIa, a trend that has been observed with multi-band observations of large samples of nearby SNe . The low $R_V$ would indicate smaller dust grains in the host of SN 2014J than in the Milky Way. UV spectrophotometry [@2015ApJ...805...74B], the wavelength independence of the polarisation angle and modeling the optical light curves [@2018MNRAS.473.1918B] point towards an interstellar origin of the dust. We note however, that @2014MNRAS.443.2887F find that a mixture of [typical]{} dust in a combination of interstellar reddening and circumstellar scattering provides good fits to the early multi-wavelength data. For this case an R$_V$ of 2.6 is derived by @2014MNRAS.443.2887F. We find that the extinction derived from our NIR spectra using the \[\] and \[\] line ratios is compatible with maximum light estimates for the reddening. Conclusions {#sec-conc} =========== In this study we have presented NIR spectra of SN2014J in the nebular phase. The dominant component of these spectra are \[\] and \[\] lines. We detect, for the first time, a \[\] line at 1.939 $\mu$m, confirming the presence of stable nickel isotopes. The \[\] and \[\] lines are Gaussian with a width of 8600kms$^{-1}$ whereas the \[\] lines at at least as wide and possibly wider at 11000kms$^{-1}$. This indicates that the stable nickel is likely not at low velocities but rather at intermediate velocities, as predicted by multi-D $M_{ch}$ models. Our line profiles show no evidence for flat-tops. The host galaxy extinction has been estimated from the NIR \[\] line ratios and is seen to be consistent with the inference from near-maximum photometry and polarimetry. Combining our spectral modelling with a prior on the [$\rm ^{56}Ni$]{}mass from maximum light and $\gamma$-ray observations, we obtain a mass of stable nickel of 0.053M$_\odot$. We would like to thank the staff at Gemini-North, especially Tom Geballe and Rachel Mason for their help during the observations and data reduction. BL and ST acknowledge support by TRR33 “The Dark Universe” of the German Research Foundation. KM acknowledges support from the UK STFC through an Ernest Rutherford Fellowship. [^1]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation [^2]: http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/telescopes-and-sites/observing-condition-constraints/ir-transmission-spectra	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We construct a cosmological model of late acceleration based on the new agegraphic dark energy model in the framework of Brans-Dicke cosmology where the new agegraphic energy density $\rho_{D}= 3n^2 m^2_p /\eta^{2}$ is replaced with $\rho_{D}= {3n^2\phi^2 }/({4\omega \eta^2}$). We show that the combination of Brans-Dicke field and agegraphic dark energy can accommodate $w_D = -1 $ crossing for the equation of state of noninteracting dark energy. When an interaction between dark energy and dark matter is taken into account, the transition of $w_D $ to phantom regime can be more easily accounted for than when resort to the Einstein field equations is made. In the limiting case $\alpha = 0$ $(\omega\rightarrow \infty)$, all previous results of the new agegraphic dark energy in Einstein gravity are restored. address: \| Department of Physics, Shahid Bahonar University, P.O. Box 76175, Kerman, Iran\ Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM), Maragha, Iran author: - 'Ahmad Sheykhi [^1]' title: 'Interacting new agegraphic dark energy in non-flat Brans-Dicke cosmology' --- Introduction\[Int\] =================== One of the most dramatic discoveries of the modern cosmology in the past decade is that our universe is currently accelerating [@Rie]. A great variety of scenarios have been proposed to explain this acceleration while most of them cannot explain all the features of universe or they have so many parameters that makes them difficult to fit. For a recent review on dark energy proposals see [@Pad]. Many theoretical studies on the dark energy problem are devoted to understand and shed the light on it in the framework of a fundamental theory such as string theory or quantum gravity. Although a complete theory of quantum gravity has not established yet today, we still can make some attempts to investigate the nature of dark energy according to some principles of quantum gravity. The holographic dark energy and the agegraphic dark energy (ADE) models are just such examples, which are originated from some considerations of the features of the quantum theory of gravity. That is to say, the holographic and ADE models possess some significant features of quantum gravity. The former, that arose a lot of enthusiasm recently [@Coh; @wang], is motivated from the holographic hypothesis [@Suss1] and has been tested and constrained by various astronomical observations [@Xin]. The later (ADE) is based on the uncertainty relation of quantum mechanics together with the gravitational effect in general relativity. The ADE model assumes that the observed dark energy comes from the spacetime and matter field fluctuations in the universe [@Cai1; @Wei2]. Following the line of quantum fluctuations of spacetime, Karolyhazy et al. [@Kar1] discussed that the distance $t$ in Minkowski spacetime cannot be known to a better accuracy than $\delta{t}=\beta t_{p}^{2/3}t^{1/3}$ where $\beta$ is a dimensionless constant of order unity. Based on Karolyhazy relation, Maziashvili [@Maz] argued that the energy density of spacetime fluctuations is given by $$\label{rho0} \rho_{D} \sim \frac{1}{t_{p}^2 t^2} \sim \frac{m^2_p}{t^2},$$ where $t_{p}$ and $m_p$ are the reduced Planck time and mass, respectively. On these basis, Cai wrote down the energy density of the original ADE as [@Cai1] $$\label{rhoso} \rho_{D}=\frac{3n^2m^2_p}{T^2},$$ where $T$ is the age of the universe and the numerical factor $3n^2$ is introduced to parameterize some uncertainties, such as the species of quantum fields in the universe. However, the original ADE model has some difficulties [@Cai1]. In particular, it suffers from the difficulty to describe the matter-dominated epoch. Therefore, a new model of ADE was proposed [@Wei2], while the time scale is chosen to be the conformal time $\eta$ instead of the age of the universe, which is defined by $dt= ad\eta$, where $t$ is the cosmic time. It is worth noting that the Karolyhazy relation $\delta{t}= \beta t_{p}^{2/3}t^{1/3}$ was derived for Minkowski spacetime $ds^2 = dt^2-d\mathrm{x^2}$ [@Kar1; @Maz]. In case of the FRW universe, we have $ds^2 = dt^2-a^2d\mathrm{x^2} = a^2(d\eta^2-d\mathrm{x^2})$. Thus, it might be more reasonable to choose the time scale in Eq. (\[rhoso\]) to be the conformal time $\eta$ since it is the causal time in the Penrose diagram of the FRW universe. The new ADE contains some new features different from the original ADE and overcome some unsatisfactory points. The ADE models have been examined and constrained by various astronomical observations [@age; @shey0]. On the other front, it is quite possible that gravity is not given by the Einstein action, at least at sufficiently high energies. In string theory, gravity becomes scalar-tensor in nature. The low energy limit of string theory leads to the Einstein gravity, coupled non-minimally to a scalar field [@Wit1]. Although the pioneering study on scalar-tensor theories was done several decades ago [@BD], it has got a new impetus recently as it arises naturally as the low energy limit of many theories of quantum gravity such as superstring theory or Kaluza-Klein theory. Because the agegraphic energy density belongs to a dynamical cosmological constant, we need a dynamical frame to accommodate it instead of Einstein gravity. Therefore the investigation on the agegraphic models of dark energy in the framework of Brans-Dicke theory is well motivated. In the framework of Brans-Dicke cosmology, holographic models of dark energy have also been studied [@Pavon2]. Our aim in this paper is to construct a cosmological model of late acceleration based on the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity and on the assumption that the pressureless dark matter and new ADE do not conserve separately but interact with each other. NEW ADE in Branse-Dicke Theory\[NEW\] ===================================== We start from the action of Brans-Dicke theory which in the canonical form can be written [@Arik] $$S=\int{ d^{4}x\sqrt{g}\left(-\frac{1}{8\omega}\phi ^2 {R}+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi \partial_{\nu}\phi +L_M \right)},\label{act1}$$ where ${R}$ is the scalar curvature and $\phi$ is the Brans-Dicke scalar field. The non-minimal coupling term $\phi^2 R$ replaces with the Einstein-Hilbert term ${R}/{G}$ in such a way that $G^{-1}_{\mathrm{eff}}={2\pi \phi^2}/{\omega}$ where $G_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the effective gravitational constant as long as the dynamical scalar field $\phi$ varies slowly. The signs of the non-minimal coupling term and the kinetic energy term are properly adopted to $(+---)$ metric signature. The new ADE model will be accommodated in the non-flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe which is described by the line element $$\begin{aligned} ds^2=dt^2-a^2(t)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2d\Omega^2\right),\label{metric} \end{aligned}$$ where $a(t)$ is the scale factor, and $k$ is the curvature parameter with $k = -1, 0, 1$ corresponding to open, flat, and closed universes, respectively. A closed universe with a small positive curvature ($\Omega_k\simeq0.01$) is compatible with observations [@spe]. Varying action (\[act1\]) with respect to metric (\[metric\]) for a universe filled with dust and ADE yields the following field equations $$\begin{aligned} &&\frac{3}{4\omega}\phi^2\left(H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi} ^2+\frac{3}{2\omega}H \dot{\phi}\phi=\rho_m+\rho_D,\label{FE1} \\ &&\frac{-1}{4\omega}\phi^2\left(2\frac{{\ddot{a}}}{a}+H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right)-\frac{1}{\omega}H \dot{\phi}\phi-\frac{1}{2\omega} \ddot{\phi}\phi -\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{\omega}\right)\dot{\phi}^2=p_D,\label{FE2}\\ &&\ddot{\phi}+3H \dot{\phi}-\frac{3}{2\omega}\left(\frac{{\ddot{a}}}{a}+H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right)\phi=0, \label{FE3}\end{aligned}$$ where the dot is the derivative with respect to time and $H=\dot{a}/a$ is the Hubble parameter. Here $\rho_D$, $p_D$ and $\rho_m$ are, respectively, the dark energy density, dark energy pressure and energy density of dust (dark matter). We shall assume that Brans-Dicke field can be described as a power law of the scale factor, $\phi\propto a^{\alpha}$. A case of particular interest is that when $\alpha$ is small whereas $\omega$ is high so that the product $\alpha \omega$ results of order unity [@Pavon2]. This is interesting because local astronomical experiments set a very high lower bound on $\omega$; in particular, the Cassini experiment implies that $\omega>10^4$ [@Bert]. Taking the derivative with respect to time of relation $\phi\propto a^{\alpha}$, we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{dotphi} &&\dot{\phi}=\alpha H \phi, \\ &&\ddot{\phi}=\alpha^2 H^2\phi+\alpha\phi\dot{H}.\label{ddotphi}\end{aligned}$$ The energy density of the new ADE can be written [@Wei2] $$\label{rhosn} \rho_{D}= \frac{3n^2 m_{p}^2}{\eta^2},$$ where the conformal time is given by $$\eta=\int_0^a{\frac{da}{Ha^2}}.$$ In the framework of Brans-Dicke cosmology, we write down the new agegraphic energy density of the quantum fluctuations in the universe as $$\label{rho1n} \rho_{D}= \frac{3n^2\phi^2 }{4\omega \eta^2}.$$ where $\phi^2={\omega}/{2\pi G_{\mathrm{eff}}}$. In the limit of Einstein gravity, $G_{\mathrm{eff}}\rightarrow G$, expression (\[rho1n\]) recovers the standard new agegraphic energy density in Einstein gravity. We define the critical energy density, $\rho_{\mathrm{cr}}$, and the energy density of the curvature, $\rho_k$, as $$\begin{aligned} \label{rhocr} \rho_{\mathrm{cr}}=\frac{3\phi^2 H^2}{4\omega},\hspace{0.8cm} \rho_k=\frac{3k\phi^2}{4\omega a^2}.\end{aligned}$$ We also introduce, as usual, the fractional energy densities such as $$\begin{aligned} &&\Omega_m=\frac{\rho_m}{\rho_{\mathrm{cr}}}=\frac{4\omega\rho_m}{3\phi^2 H^2}, \label{Omegam} \\ &&\Omega_k=\frac{\rho_k}{\rho_{\mathrm{cr}}}=\frac{k}{H^2 a^2}\label{Omegak}\\ &&\Omega_D=\frac{\rho_D}{\rho_{\mathrm{cr}}}=\frac{n^2}{H^2\eta^2} \label{OmegaDn}.\end{aligned}$$ Noninteracting case ------------------- Let us begin with the noninteracting case, in which the dark energy and dark matter evolves according to their conservation laws $$\begin{aligned} &&\dot{\rho}_D+3H\rho_D(1+w_D)=0,\label{consq}\\ &&\dot{\rho}_m+3H\rho_m=0, \label{consm}\end{aligned}$$ where $w_D=p_D/\rho_D$ is the equation of state parameter of the new ADE. Differentiating Eq. (\[rho1n\]) and using Eqs. (\[dotphi\]) and (\[OmegaDn\]) we have $$\begin{aligned} \dot{\rho}_D=2H\rho_D\left(\alpha-\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_D}}{na}\right)\label{rhodotn}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this equation in the conservation law (\[consq\]), we obtain the equation of state parameter of the new ADE $$\begin{aligned} w_D=-1-\frac{2\alpha}{3}+\frac{2}{3na}\sqrt{\Omega_D}\label{wDn}.\end{aligned}$$ It is important to note that when $\alpha=0$, the Brans-Dicke scalar field becomes trivial and Eq. (\[wDn\]) reduces to its respective expression in new ADE in general relativity [@Wei2] $$\begin{aligned} w_D=-1+\frac{2}{3na}\sqrt{\Omega_D}\label{wDnstand}.\end{aligned}$$ In this case ($\alpha=0$), the present accelerated expansion of our universe can be derived only if $n>1$ [@Wei2]. Note that we take $a=1$ for the present time. In addition, $w_D$ is always larger than $-1$ and cannot cross the phantom divide $w_D =-1$. However, in the presence of the Brans-Dicke field ($\alpha>0$) the condition $n>1$ is no longer necessary to derive the present accelerated expansion. Besides, from Eq. (\[wDn\]) one can easily see that $w_D$ can cross the phantom divide provided $na\alpha>\sqrt{\Omega_D}$. If we take $\Omega_D=0.73$ and $a=1$ for the present time, the phantom-like equation of state can be accounted if $n\alpha>0.85$. For instance, for $n=1$ and $\alpha=0.9$, we get $w_D=-1.03$. Therefore, with the combination of new agegraphic energy density with the Brans-Dicke field $w_D$ of noninteracting new ADE can cross the phantom divide. Let us examine the behavior of $w_D$ in two different stages. In the late time where $\Omega_D \rightarrow 1$ and $a \rightarrow\infty$ we have $w_D=-1-\frac{2\alpha}{3}$. Thus $w_D<-1$ for $\alpha>0$. This implies that in the late time $w_D$ necessary crosses the phantom divide in the framework of Brans-Dicke theory. In the early time where $\Omega_D \rightarrow 0$ and $a\rightarrow 0$ we cannot find $w_D$ from Eq. (\[wDn\]) directly. Let us consider the matter-dominated epoch, $H^2\propto\rho_m\propto a^{-3}$. Therefore $\sqrt{a}da\propto dt=ad\eta$. Thus $\eta\propto \sqrt{a}$. From Eq. (\[rho1n\]) we have $\rho_D\propto a^{2\alpha-1}$. Putting this in conservation law, $\dot{\rho}_D+3H\rho_D(1+w_D)=0$, we obtain $w_D=-{2}/{3}-2\alpha/3$. Substituting this $w_D$ in Eq. (\[wDn\]) we find that $\Omega_D=n^2a^2/4$ in the matter dominated epoch as expected. We will see below that this is exactly the result one obtains for $\Omega_D$ from its equation of motion in the matter-dominated epoch. Since in our model the dynamics of the scale factor is governed not only by the dark matter and new ADE, but also by the Brans-Dicke field, the signature of the deceleration parameter, $q=-\ddot{a}/(aH^2)$, has to be examined carefully. When the deceleration parameter is combined with the Hubble parameter and the dimensionless density parameters, form a set of useful parameters for the description of the astrophysical observations. Dividing Eq. (\[FE2\]) by $H^2$, and using Eqs. (\[dotphi\]), (\[ddotphi\]) and (\[rho1n\])-(\[OmegaDn\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} q=\frac{1}{2\alpha+2}\left[(2\alpha+1)^2+2\alpha(\alpha\omega-1)+\Omega_k+3\Omega_D w_D\right]\label{q1}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $w_D$ from Eq. (\[wDn\]), we reach $$\begin{aligned} q&=&\frac{1}{2\alpha+2}\left[(2\alpha+1)^2+2\alpha(\alpha\omega-1)+\Omega_k -(2\alpha+3)\Omega_D+\frac{2}{na}{\Omega^{3/2}_D}\right]\label{q2n}.\end{aligned}$$ When $\alpha=0$, Eq. (\[q2n\]) restores the deceleration parameter of the new ADE in general relativity [@shey0] $$\begin{aligned} q=\frac{1}{2}(1+\Omega_k)-\frac{3}{2}\Omega_D+\frac{\Omega^{3/2}_D}{na}\label{q3n}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain the equation of motion for $\Omega_D$. Taking the derivative of Eq. (\[OmegaDn\]) and using relation ${\dot{\Omega}_D}=H{\Omega'_D}$, we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{OmegaD2n} {\Omega'_D}=\Omega_D\left(-2\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}-\frac{2}{na }\sqrt{\Omega_D}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $x=\ln{a}$. Using relation $q=-1-\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{OmegaD3n} {\Omega'_D}=2\Omega_D\left(1+q-\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_D}}{na}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ is given by Eq. (\[q2n\]). Let us examine the above equation for matter dominated epoch where $a\ll1$ and $\Omega_D \ll1$. Substituting $q$ from Eq. (\[q2n\]) in (\[OmegaD3n\]) with $\Omega_k\ll1$, $\alpha\ll1$ and $\alpha \omega\approx 1$, this equation reads as $$\begin{aligned} \label{OmegaD4n} \frac{d\Omega_D}{da}\simeq\frac{\Omega_D}{a} \left(3-\frac{2}{na}\sqrt{\Omega_D}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Solving this equation we find $\Omega_D =n^2 a^2/4$, which is consistent with our previous result. Therefore, all things are consistent. The confusion in the original ADE is removed in this new model. Interacting case ---------------- Next we generalize our study to the case where the pressureless dark matter and the new ADE do not conserve separately but interact with each other. Given the unknown nature of both dark matter and dark energy there is nothing in principle against their mutual interaction and it seems very special that these two major components in the universe are entirely independent. Indeed, this possibility is receiving growing attention in the literature [@Ame] and appears to be compatible with SNIa and CMB data [@Oli]. The total energy density satisfies a conservation law $$\label{cons} \dot{\rho}+3H(\rho+p)=0.$$ However, since we consider the interaction between dark matter and dark energy, $\rho_{m}$ and $\rho_{D}$ do not conserve separately; they must rather enter the energy balances $$\begin{aligned} &&\dot{\rho}_m+3H\rho_m=Q, \label{consmI} \\&& \dot{\rho}_D+3H\rho_D(1+w_D)=-Q,\label{consqI}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q =\Gamma\rho_D$ stands for the interaction term with $\Gamma>0$. Using Eqs. (\[dotphi\]) and (\[rhocr\]), we can rewrite the first Friedmann equation (\[FE1\]) as $$\begin{aligned} \label{rhos} \rho_{\mathrm{cr}}+\rho_k=\rho_m+\rho_D+\rho_{\phi},\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned} \label{rhophi} \rho_{\phi}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\alpha H^2\phi^2\left(\alpha-\frac{3}{\omega}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Dividing Eq. (\[rhos\]) by $\rho_{\mathrm{cr}}$, this equation can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{Fried2new} \Omega_m+\Omega_D+\Omega_{\phi}=1+\Omega_k,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{Omegaphi} \Omega_{\phi}=\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{\rho_{\mathrm{cr}}}=-2\alpha\left(1-\frac{\alpha\omega}{3}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We also assume $\Gamma=3b^2(1+r)H$ where $r={\rho_m}/{\rho_D}$ and $b^2$ is a coupling constant. Therefore, the interaction term $Q$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{Q} Q=3b^2H\rho_D(1+r),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{r} r&=&\frac{\Omega_m}{\Omega_D} =-1+{\Omega^{-1}_D}\left[1+\Omega_k+2\alpha\left(1-\frac{\alpha\omega}{3}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Combining Eqs. (\[rhodotn\]), (\[Q\]) and (\[r\]) with Eq. (\[consqI\]) we can obtain the equation of state parameter $$\begin{aligned} w_D&=&-1-\frac{2\alpha}{3}+\frac{2}{3na}\sqrt{\Omega_D}-b^2 {\Omega^{-1}_D}\left[1+\Omega_k+2\alpha\left(1-\frac{\alpha\omega}{3}\right)\right]\label{wDnInt}.\end{aligned}$$ When $\alpha=0$, Eq. (\[wDnInt\]) recovers its respective expression of interacting new ADE model in general relativity [@shey0]. From Eq. (\[wDnInt\]) we see that with the combination of the new ADE and Brans-Dicke field, the transition of $w_D $ from the phantom divide can be more easily accounted than in Einstein gravity. For completeness we also present the deceleration parameter for the interacting case $$\begin{aligned} q&=&\frac{1}{2\alpha+2}\left[(2\alpha+1)^2+2\alpha(\alpha\omega-1)+\Omega_k-(2\alpha+3)\Omega_D +\frac{2}{na}{\Omega^{3/2}_D}\right. \nonumber\ \\ && \left.-3b^2\left(1+\Omega_k+2\alpha\left(1-\frac{\alpha\omega}{3}\right)\right)\right]\label{q2nInt}.\end{aligned}$$ In the limiting case $\alpha=0$, Eq. (\[q2nInt\]) restores the deceleration parameter for the standard interacting new ADE in a non-flat universe [@shey0] $$\begin{aligned} q&=&\frac{1}{2}(1+\Omega_k)-\frac{3}{2}{\Omega_D} +\frac{\Omega^{3/2}_D}{na}-\frac{3b^2}{2}(1+\Omega_k)\label{q3Int}.\end{aligned}$$ For flat universe, $\Omega_k=0$, and we recover exactly the result of [@Wei2]. The equation of motion for $\Omega_D$ takes the form (\[OmegaD3n\]), where $q$ is now given by Eq. (\[q2nInt\]). Conclusions\[CONC\] =================== An interesting attempt for probing the nature of dark energy within the framework of quantum gravity is the so-called ADE proposal. Since ADE models belong to a dynamical cosmological constant, it is more natural to study them in the framework of Brans-Dicke theory than in Einstein gravity. In this paper, we studied a cosmological model of late acceleration based on the new ADE model in the framework of non-flat Brans-Dicke cosmology where the new agegraphic energy density $\rho_{D}= {3n^2 m^2_p}/\eta^{2}$ is replaced with $\rho_{D}= {3n^2\phi^2 }/({4\omega \eta^2})$. With this replacement in Brans-Dicke theory, we found that the acceleration of the universe expansion will be more easily achieved for than when the standard new ADE in general relativity is employed. Interestingly enough, we found that with the combination of Brans-Dicke field and ADE the equation of state of noninteracting new ADE can cross the phantom divide. This is in contrast to Einstein gravity where the equation of state of noninteracting new ADE cannot cross the phantom divide [@Wei2]. When an interaction between dark energy and dark matter is taken into account, the transition to phantom regime for the equation of state of new ADE can be more easily accounted for than when resort to the Einstein field equations is made. [99]{} A.G. Riess, et al., Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009; S. Perlmutter, et al., Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565; P. de Bernardis, et al., Nature 404 (2000) 955. T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep. [[380]{}]{}, (2003) 235; E.J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15 (2006) 1753. A. Cohen, D. Kaplan, A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 4971; M. Li, Phys. Lett. B 603 (2004) 1; Q. G. Huang, M. Li, JCAP 0408 (2004) 013; S.D. H. Hsu, Phys. Lett. B 594 (2004) 13. D. Pavon, W. Zimdahl, Phys. Lett. B 628 (2005) 206; B. Wang, Y. Gong and E. Abdalla, Phys. Lett. B 624 (2005) 141; B. Wang, C. Y. Lin and E. Abdalla, Phys. Lett. B 637 (2005) 357; B. Wang, C. Y. Lin. D. Pavon and E. Abdalla, Phys. Lett. B 662 (2008) 1; M. R. Setare, S. Shafei, JCAP 09 (2006) 011; M. R. Setare, E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Lett. B 666 (2008) 111. G. ’t Hooft, gr-qc/9310026; L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377. X. Zhang, F. Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 043524; X. Zhang, F. Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 023502; B. Feng, X. Wang, X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 607 (2005) 35. R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 657 (2007) 228. H. Wei and R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 660 (2008) 113. F. Karolyhazy, Nuovo.Cim. A 42 (1966) 390; F. Karolyhazy, A. Frenkel and B. Lukacs, in Physics as natural Philosophy edited by A. Shimony and H. Feschbach, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, (1982); F. Karolyhazy, A. Frenkel and B. Lukacs, in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time edited by R. Penrose and C.J. Isham, Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1986). M. Maziashvili, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16 (2007) 1531; M. Maziashvili, Phys. Lett. B 652 (2007) 165. H. Wei and R. G. Cai, Eur. Phys. J. C 59 (2009) 99; H. Wei and R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 663 (2008) 1; K. Y. Kim, H. W. Lee, Y. S. Myung, Phys.Lett. B 660 (2008) 118. A. Sheykhi, Phys. Lett. B 680 (2009) 113. M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, [Superstring Theory]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987). C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124 (1961) 925. N. Banerjee, D. Pavon, Phys. Lett. B 647 (2007) 447; M. R. Setare, Phys. Lett. B 644 (2007) 99; A. Sheykhi, Phys. Lett. B 681 (2009) 205. M. Arik, M.C. Calik, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21 (2006) 1241. D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 175; C. L. Bennett, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 1. B. Bertotti, L. Iess and P. Tortora, Nature, 425 (2003) 374; V. Acquaviva, L. Verde, JCAP 12 (2007) 001. L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 043501; L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 043511; L. Amendola and C. Quercellini, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 023514; W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Phys. Lett. B 521 (2001) 133; W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Gen. Rel. Grav. 35 (2003) 413. G. Olivares, F. Atrio, D. Pavon, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 063523. [^1]: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'A. Brandenburg' - 'E. A. Spiegel' title: Modeling a Maunder Minimum --- Introduction ============ The sun shows variability on a broad range of time scales, from milliseconds to millennia and on to even longer scales. Here we are interested in the time scales associated with the solar cycle and its grand minima. A salient manifestation of the cyclic behavior is seen in the sunspot number, whose annual mean oscillates on a scale of eleven years (or twenty-two years, if one goes by magnetic polarity variations). The term “cycle” is used to describe this oscillation in the sense that the sunspot number qualitatively performs the same kind of oscillation approximately every eleven years, with an amplitude that varies in a way that is reminiscent of some chaotic oscillators. However, it has been found that we do not have sufficient data to decide whether the global solar magnetic variation is chaotic, in the sense that its temporal behavior may be that of a low-order deterministic dynamical system (Spiegel & Wolf 1987). Nevertheless, a chaotic oscillator offers a natural way to model various irregularities of the solar cycle (Spiegel 1977; Tavakol 1978; Ruzmaikin 1981). Like certain simple chaotic systems, the sun repeats itself magnetically over and over again, but never quite the same way twice, much in the manner of simple chaotic oscillators. On the other hand, the simplest chaotic dynamos (Allan 1962; Robbins 1979) do not exhibit the kind of strong intermittency such as was seen in the Maunder Minimum (Eddy 1978) when the amplitude of the oscillation in sunspot numbers went nearly to zero for seventy-five years in the time of Newton. This behavior is suggestive of the possibility that a strongly intermittent chaotic oscillator needs to be invoked in trying to understand the solar oscillation. Oscillators that behave this way are known (Spiegel 1981; Fautrelle & Childress 1982) but, when they are in the active phase, their variations do not normally resemble those of the sunspot number. In modeling the solar magnetic variability with simple oscillators, it is not obvious how to connect the output of the models with the sunspot number. It may therefore not be damning if the variations produced by a model do not reproduce even qualitatively the variations seen in the sunspot number. Nevertheless, in terms of nonlinear lumped models, whose behavior is purely temporal, it has been possible to produce variations of the cyclic behavior that resemble those seen in the grand minima qualitatively either by modulation (Weiss et al. 1984) or intermittency (Platt et al. 1993b). But the solar variability is manifestly spatio-temporal and lumped models can at best provide clues to the actual processes involved in the solar cycle. Here we describe an attempt to go beyond models with purely temporal variations to models showing spatio-temporal variations that also produce analogues of the grand solar minima. An earlier version of this paper was composed in the early nineties and some added remarks were inspired by discussions at the Enrico Fermi School in Varenna (Cini Castagnoli & Provenzale 1997). In the meantime a lot of new work has emerged, but we feel that the ideas presented here are still relevant. Particularly important has been the work of Beer et al. (1998) in demonstrating the persistence of a solar activity cycle throughout the time of the Maunder Minimum. Such behavior emerged from a purely temporal model (Pasquero 1996) as well as from a one-dimensional dynamo model (Tobias 1996) with small turbulent magnetic Prandtl number (so that the viscous diffusion timescale is much longer than that for magnetic diffusion time). Similar results — also for small turbulent magnetic Prandtl numbers — have been obtained for two-dimensional models by incorporating quenching in the $\Lambda$-effect that drives the differential rotation (Küker et al. 1999). Intermittent behavior in dynamo models has been studied further by Tworkowski et al. (1998) using time-dependent alpha-quenching, and by Charbonneau et al. (2005) using algebraic alpha-quenching. However, intermittency can equally well occur in stochastically forced models (e.g. John et al. 2002). In the following, we discuss the spatio-temporal variability of similarly forced dynamo models in two dimensions assuming axisymmetry. Spatio-temporal variability =========================== The spatio-temporal dynamics of the solar cycle as seen in spacetime diagrams like the Maunder butterfly diagram suggest that solitary waves may play an active part in the solar activity cycle (Proctor & Spiegel 1991). A nonlinear version of Parker’s (1955) dynamo waves (Worledge et al. 1997) or solitary waves arising from another overstability could be the mechanism of the drifting of the center of activity in latitude through the cycle. The finite width of the activity zone at any given time suggests that the waves in question are themselves confined or guided by a layer of some corresponding thickness. The picture that we adopt here is the now conventional one that the layer is the tachocline, though such a layer has been variously considered to lie deep in the convection zone (DeLuca 1986), just below it (Spiegel & Weiss 1980) or occupy the full convective zone (Brandenburg 2005). It might operate on the standard ingredients of a dynamo — differential rotation and cyclonic convection — from which we here make a model. Since we first wrote those lines, the layer has been well studied both observationally and theoretically (Hughes et al. 2006). It mediates the transition between the outer differentially rotating layers of the convection zone and the inner core with its nearly constant angular velocity. It has been renamed the tachocline (Spiegel & Zahn 1992) in keeping with its gain in respectability. Here we use mean field theory (Moffatt 1978; Krause & Rädler 1980) with the effects of small scale motions subsumed into turbulent diffusivity and the $\alpha$-effect. Though mean field dynamos may not tell the whole story of the solar magnetic fluctuations (e.g. Hoyng 1987; 1988), they will suit our purpose of modeling the intermittency signaled by the Maunder Minimum. In modeling solar intermittency, we need to be aware that there are several forms of intermittency that have been isolated in dynamical systems theory. However, there is a particular one that models the solar grand minima quite well (Pasquero 1996) and that has come to be called on/off intermittency (Platt et al. 1993a; see also Spiegel 1994). \[In fact, this form of intermittency was fashioned (Spiegel 1981) with grand minima in mind.\] On/off intermittency is like the intermittency detected in the output of a probe in a turbulent fluid registering abrupt changes as laminar and turbulent fluid regions flow past it. One may think of this as a series of bursts or chaotic relaxation oscillations. What characterizes models that have been made of this process (e.g. Spiegel 1981; Ott & Chen 1990; Pikovsky & Grassberger 1991) is that the (potentially) unstable oscillator performing the cycle is driven to instability through coupling to an aperiodic driver that is continuously chaotic or stochastic. The role of the driver is to move the system into and out of the unstable state. Observations of the bursts cannot readily distinguish the chaotic driver from a stochastic alternative which works equally well (von Hardenberg et al. 1997), and the number of degrees of freedom involved in such an object in the solar case will be hard to determine (but see Heagy et al. 1994). Fortunately, the qualitative features of the process do not depend sensitively on this difference, and we shall use a stochastic driver here. In our present considerations, the action of the driver is meant to model the influence of the convective solar dynamo and the on/off oscillator represents the tachocline. Here we introduce on/off intermittency into a working model of the solar cycle (Rüdiger & Brandenburg 1995) that has not previously produced grand minima. Modulational grand minima in dynamo models have been found by Tobias. In the case of a distributed dynamo (Brandenburg 2005), on/off behavior may similarly be produced. The effects of stochastic noise on mean field $\alpha\Omega$ dynamos have been studied previously (Choudhuri 1992; Moss et al. 1992; Hoyng et al. 1994), mainly to model irregularities of the solar cycle on time scales comparable to the solar cycle itself or shorter. Moss et al. (1992) suggested that a modulation of the solar cycle on longer timescales of the order of centuries should also be possible. More recently, work along those lines (Schmitt et al. 1996) has introduced the on/off intermittency mechanism into a mean-field style of dynamo, as had been used already in a lumped model of the solar cycle (Platt et al. 1993b). The present paper is similarly based on a relatively realistic model of the solar dynamo in being spatio-temporal and into which we introduce the on/off intermittency mechanism. The main difference between our work and that of Schmitt et al. is that we consider a standard $\alpha$-effect while they introduced a lower cutoff excluding field generation below a field strength of 1 kG at the base of the convection zone. This kind of filtering is analogous to Durney’s (1995) introduction of a critical field value in the tachocline above which a magnetic tube is ejected. This also produces grand minima in spatio-temporal models. Another difference with the calculation of Schmitt et al.is that we consider the full sun whereas they studied only a single hemisphere and produced one-winged butterflies. This relates to another aspect of the problem that our model is intended to bring out. It is very difficult to have both hemispheres go completely inactive for appreciable times. The probability of a complete turnoff is exceedingly low and it seems unlikely that any propagative intermittency mechanism with retardation effects could turn off the magnetic activity globally in models with large spatial extent. The model described here does however produce lowered solar activity over large portions of its computational domain and therefore gives the kind of reduction in total overall activity that is consistent with what was seen in the Maunder Minimum. The hemispheric asymmetry has been modeled by Knobloch et al. (1998; see also Weiss 1993) and this work is related to the problem of making an extended system demonstrate on/off intermittency. The problem has something in common with that involved in laying a rug. Once the rug is nailed down, if there is a bump somewhere, there seems to be no way to squeeze it out of existence. We have observed the same behavior with the dynamo model. If we produce a grand minimum locally somewhere in space, we find invariably that there is usually some excitation elsewhere. While we can get a whole hemisphere to be quiet at one time, the other one may still show activity. The output of the dynamo model is therefore somewhat like the sun in intermission — on the global scale there is usually some weak activity somewhere and it does have cycles. \[Pasquero (1996) has shown how this may be achieved in the purely temporal oscillators as well.\] As we have learned at the Fermi School on the Interaction of the Solar Cycle with Terrestrial Activity in June of 1996, certain terrestrial data have much more in common with the output of the dynamo models than the sunspot number. Moreover, some of these terrestrial data are very convincing proxy data for the solar activity (Beer et al. 1990; 1994; 1996; Solanki et al. 2004), while others may mimic the sunspot number. \[There are also auroral indicators of solar activity recorded in classical antiquity (Stothers 1979, Solow 2005).\] To a great extent, the issue is at heart one of knowing how to compare the output of dynamo models to the various measures of solar activity. We describe next some particulars of the model itself, including the manner in which the fluctuations are introduced. Readers who are not interested in such detailed information should skip directly to Sect. 4 where we outline the main results. In these, we focus on models with a rather high noise level exceeding the electromotive force from the $\alpha$-effect by an order of magnitude since we expect the global convective dynamo action to be more vigorous than that of the tachocline. The model ========= We use a mean-field model of the dynamo action in the tachocline (Rüdiger & Brandenburg 1995) with an anisotropic $\alpha$-effect and a turbulent magnetic diffusivity. Magnetic buoyancy is also included as it is in the more elaborate model of Jiang et al. (2007; see further references therein). The prescribed angular velocity is taken from the observational findings of helioseismology (Christensen-Dalsgaard & Schou 1988). To obtain a 22 yr magnetic cycle period, we introduce a scaling factor in the magnetic diffusivity of 0.5 and, to get a butterfly diagram with sufficient activity at low latitudes, we introduce a suitable latitude dependence in $\alpha$. In the original model calculations, the value of $\alpha$ was typically set at a value approximately twenty times the critical value for instability. To produce on/off intermittency (Platt et al. 1993a), in the highly supercritical case, we would need very large fluctuations at that value. In this exploratory study, we prefer to operate at more modest parameter values to avoid the need for large fluctuations in the driver. Therefore we choose a slightly subcritical value of $\alpha$ and introduce only modest fluctuations in its magnitude so that the driver can move it into and out of the unstable state easily. For this purpose we introduce a scaling factor $c_\alpha$ in front of certain components of the $\alpha$-tensor (those components which result from the interaction of rotation and stratification). For details see the original discussion of the model (Rüdiger & Brandenburg 1995) where, with $c_\alpha$ = 1, the resulting toroidal magnetic field is a few kgauss and the poloidal field at the surface about 10 gauss. In the cases studied here, however, where the dynamo is just marginally excited, the generated magnetic field is weak, and could not explain the field strength observed in sunspots. This feature of the model can be corrected, as the work of Schmitt et al. (1996) shows. We consider separately two kinds of fluctuation in the model: fluctuations in $\alpha$ or in an imposed electromotive force ${{\vec{\cal E}}}$ representing the effect of the fluctuations in the main solar dynamo. The latter is a more elementary process that does not rely much on dynamo theory. The picture here is that in the bulk of the convection zone a small scale dynamo operates (e.g. Meneguzzi & Pouquet 1989; Nordlund et al. 1992) producing a magnetic field that is highly variable in space and time as represented by ${{\vec{\cal E}}}$. In the bulk of the convection zone the fluctuations are immense, hence even spatial and temporal averages (${{\vec{\cal E}}}=\langle\bm{u}'\times\bm{B}'\rangle$) remain fluctuating, albeit on longer scales (Brandenburg et al. 2008). The angular brackets refer to ensemble averages in principle but, in practice, they are approximated by spatial and temporal coarse graining averages. The error resulting from this approximation is sometimes interpreted as a source of stochastic noise (Hoyng 1987; 1988; 1993; Moss et al. 1992; Brandenburg et al. 2008). As we have mentioned, there is ample reason for expecting fluctuations to appear in any realistic model. We adopt white noise with vanishing mean value and a root mean square value of unity. The temporal power spectrum of the noise is flat for frequencies smaller than $2\pi/\tau$. The value of $\tau$ determines the time span over which long term variability of the resulting mean magnetic field is possible. The amplitude of the noise, $n_{\cal E}$, is measured in terms of the rms velocity of the turbulent motions and the local equipartition field strength. Whichever of the fluctuation mechanisms applies — in the emf or in the $\alpha$ effect — the procedure is similar. For the $\alpha$ case, for example, we add a fraction $n_\alpha$ of the noisy component to the original $\alpha$. Results ======= Fluctuating $\alpha$-effect --------------------------- To regulate the strength of the effect of noise, we introduce a factor $c_\alpha$ in front of the familiar $\alpha$ term, as described in Sect. 3. With everything else fixed, instability occurs when $c_\alpha$ exceeds the critical value $c_\alpha^{\rm(crit)}\approx0.03$. We begin by adopting the subcritical value $c_\alpha=0.02$ and we adjust the fluctuations in $\alpha$ to have a time scale $\tau=3{\,{\rm yr}}$. If the noise level, $n_\alpha$ , is too low, the magnetic field decays to zero, as it does when $n_\alpha$ = 0.02. Short noisy bursts in $\alpha$ are insufficient to bring the magnetic field to appreciable strength. On the other hand, if $n_\alpha$ is rather larger than this, the magnetic field is almost entirely dominated by the noise and cyclic behavior does not occur, except for irregular reversals on the timescale of centuries. Such a case is depicted in Fig. 1, where we show a color-coded representation of the toroidal magnetic field at the bottom of the convection zone as a function of time and latitude. In the following we refer to such representations as butterfly diagrams. A very similar result, with reversals on a long time scale, is found even when the non-random component of $\alpha$ is absent altogether provided there is global shear in the tachocline, as there is in accretion disks (Vishniac & Brandenburg 1997). To get sufficiently large magnetic field strengths, we focus attention on models with $c_\alpha=1$. With $\tau=3{\,{\rm yr}}$ we find long term variability on a time scale of $200$–$500{\,{\rm yr}}$; see Fig. 2. We associate this variability with grand minima (and maxima) as discussed below in Sect. 5 although as noted already, there is never a complete turning off of the cycle at all locations at once. Even if $\tau$ is decreased to a value of $0.3{\,{\rm yr}}$, say, long term variability still occurs, but individual cycles may vary significantly in amplitude as seen in Fig. 3. Such behavior is found only if the fluctuations of $\alpha$ are sufficiently larger than the average value; here a factor of five is needed. Individual fluctuations of $\alpha$ can still be much larger because we have assumed an exponential distribution for the probability density of $\alpha$ fluctuations. ![ Butterfly diagrams of the toroidal field at the base of the convection zone for $c_\alpha=0.02$, $n_\alpha=5$ and $\tau=3{\,{\rm yr}}$. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1){width="\columnwidth"} ![image](fig2){width="\textwidth"} Magnetic noise -------------- If we introduce an external stochastic emf, as described in Sect. 3, we find a qualitatively similar behavior to that with fluctuating $\alpha$; see Fig. 4. Fluctuations of various kinds can evidently produce long time intermittency. The model shows two distinct activity waves, one migrating equatorward and the other poleward. The two waves seem to be modulated independently, in each hemisphere. So do the modulations in the two hemispheres seem to be only weakly coupled, with little tendency to form a dipole structure. It may be that the approximate antisymmetry of the toroidal magnetic field of the sun, suggested by Hale’s polarity law, may not be a very stable feature, and that other types of (a)symmetry might have occurred in the past. Other, more regular parity variations of the magnetic field have previously been seen in nonlinear models (Brandenburg et al. 1989a,b; 1990; Jennings & Weiss 1991; Sokoloff & Nesme-Ribes 1994). Interpretation ============== In the model described here, the seat of the solar activity cycle is in the solar tachocline, the layer that matches the differential rotation of the solar convection zone to the (nearly) rigid rotation of the inner sun (Hughes et al. 2006). While the precise hydromagnetic process that drives the activity has not yet been securely identified, we have assumed that the process may be modeled as an $\alpha\omega$ dynamo for the purpose of exploring the cause of the grand minima of solar activity. However, as we have already implied, any of several overstabilities might equally serve our purposes. As we have tacitly assumed, the differential rotation in the tachocline is likely to be significant in such instabilities. In particular it is likely to give rise to a toroidal field. Given a suitable depth dependence of the strength of this field, an instability driven by magnetic buoyancy (Parker 1979) may arise and, especially in the presence of a stable density stratification, it may drive waves of excitation (Proctor & Spiegel 1991). Another possible driver for such waves may be magnetorotational instability (Balbus & Hawley 1998). Parfrey & Menou (2007) have studied the local instability of the tachocline and found instability at high latitudes and stability at low latitudes. However, their calculation did not include a toroidal field and, as Knobloch (1992) has observed, an azimuthal field can cause a Hopf bifurcation in MRI. As we may reasonably expect to find a toroidal field in the tachocline, this overstability is another mechanism that could perhaps engender waves whose description would typically be by the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation (Aranson & Kramer 2002). A related calculation is described by Kitchatinov and Rüdiger (2007); see also Cally (2003), Gilman et al. (2007), Rüdiger & Kitchatinov (2007), and Zahn et al. (2007). ![ Butterfly diagrams of the toroidal field at the base of the convection zone for $c_\alpha=1$, $n_\alpha=5$ and $\tau=0.3{\,{\rm yr}}$. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="\columnwidth"} ![ Butterfly diagrams of the toroidal field at the base of the convection zone for $c_\alpha=1$, $n_{\cal E}=1$ and $\tau=3{\,{\rm yr}}$. []{data-label="fig4"}](fig4){width="\columnwidth"} Given that the tachocline is poised to drive hydromagnetic activity, by dynamo processes or otherwise, we have also assumed that the ambience is highly fluctuating. Here we have in mind that the main dynamo in the sun is a global convective dynamo. It is this process that is presumably responsible for the magnetic carpet (Simon et al. 2001) in a continuous process that is thought to produce rapidly fluctuating fields of moderate strength (Priest et al. 2002). In view of the complications in the theory of this process, we have simply modeled the highly fluctuating fields in of the solar convection zone as a stochastic process. In the mechanism of on/off intermittency that we have introduced here, the fluctuations produced by the main dynamo move the tachocline into and out of states of instantaneous overstability. This mechanism produces, as we have noted, longer response times in the model tachocline than the time scales of the fluctuations that give rise to more intense field concentrations. \[We have seen a similar kind of symbiosis in the simulations of the geodynamo by Glatzmaier & Roberts (1995)\]. The details of the process are complicated but, in gross, when the local field fluctuations produced are too weak, the grouping of flux ropes into a sunspot field is not achieved, even though much of the normal activity continues in the convection zone. To illustrate how such details may relate to the observed spot numbers, we have mapped the activity to the butterfly diagram with a particular functional of the field in the tachocline for the present purposes. Like the sun, the model we have studied here manifests spatio-temporal intermittency but the magnetic activity almost never turns off everywhere. That is, our results suggest that simple dynamo models, with either fluctuating emfs and/or with magnetic noise injected into the bulk of the convection zone, can produce intermittency on sufficiently long time scales, but they do not switch off globally over the whole sun, in both hemispheres at once. It seems likely that this feature is inherent in all models with propagative behavior and that it cannot be expected that the cycle-producing processes of the sun switches off everywhere for several cycles as might be imagined on the basis of certain lumped models (such as Platt et al. 1993b). When we first produced the present results, we thought this feature was a deficiency. But as Ribes & Nesme-Ribes (1993) have reported, even during the Maunder Minimum, a weak solar cycle continued. Thus a globally depleted activity level is more like what is wanted and we have gotten that from the model in keeping with the historical records as interpreted by Ribes and Nesme-Ribes. There still remains the need for an additional physical feature that relates to the production of sunspots, or more specifically, strong flux tubes of sufficiently large cross-section. That is the message of the procedures of Durney (1995) and Schmitt et al.(1996). A simple way of formulating this problem is to say that the sunspot number, which is a global parameter, is, as already mentioned, a functional of the various fields produced in the model. To get that functional, we need to operate with an explicit sunspot production mechanism. Let $R(t)$ be the average magnetic field strength between $\pm10^\circ$ and $\pm30^\circ$ latitude, but allow only those areas where the field exceeds the root mean square value by 30 percent to contribute to this average. This quantity is plotted in Fig. 5. Note that $R(t)$ shows periods with almost vanishing magnetic activity as in a Maunder Minimum. The grand minima on this interpretation of the output of the models result from what may be regarded as lean cycles magnetically. If there are magnetic droughts, they are only local, not global, though the magnetic means may be low. In that sense, the sunspot number, though valuable for having focused our attention on an interesting feature of the magnetodynamics, may in some ways be a misleading indicator of what is happening overall. ![ Time series of $\|B\|$ (dotted line) and the activity parameter $R$ (solid line) for the same run as in Fig. 2. Note that the scale for $\|B\|$ increases downwards, in order to mimic the approximate anticorrelation between the $^{10}$Be data and the sunspot number. []{data-label="fig5"}](fig5){width="\columnwidth"} This view is supported by studies of other indicators of solar activity than the sunspot number. The most complete records of variations that may result from solar activity fluctuations are found in the $^{10}$Be records from ice cores (Beer et al. 1990; 1994; 1996). The $^{10}$Be variations are plausibly attributed to modulation of the cosmic ray flux by the magnetic field in the solar wind (Beer et al. 1996). In Fig. 6 we reproduce data kindly provided by Dr. Jürg Beer comparing the $^{10}$Be records with the sunspot number for nearly four centuries. We see that a cyclic modulation is very much in evidence during the Maunder Minimum, with a rather modest reduction in its amplitude compared to that of the sunspot number. ![ $^{10}$Be data (solid line) together with the sunspot number (dotted line), as provided by Dr. Jürg Beer. The data are from a shallow core (300 m) drilled at Dye 3, Greenland, in 1986. The data were filtered using a spectral filter with a cut-off of 6 years and interpolated using a cubic spline. The younger part (1783-1985) is published in (Beer et al. 1990), and the whole record appeared in Beer et al. (1994). []{data-label="fig6"}](fig6){width="\columnwidth"} The situation as brought out in the cited papers of Beer et al. is that various measures of solar activity are not perfectly correlated. If we were to think of the output of a model solar dynamo as we would one of these other measures, we would not be surprised that it does not necessarily represent all of them faithfully. Unfortunately, there is as yet no clear theoretical indication which one of them a model should most closely represent. If, in a grand minimum, there is high magnetic activity in only one hemisphere, it is not unreasonable that the modulations of $^{10}$Be should continue with reasonable strength. The question for the theory then is what is the relationship between the variations produced by the models and (say) the sunspot number. This is particularly difficult since the sunspots seem to be produced well within the sun and not at the surface, whereas some of the other activity measures are no doubt superficially produced. Even if we do have a good model of the cyclic mechanism, we also need to understand how sunspots form and surface before we can predict their number. Nor is it unimportant to try to predict the sunspot number, or something akin to it, for it is this quantity that seems to be connected to some climatological variations. The most striking evidence of this is the discovery in tree ring data (Douglass 1927) that “the sunspot curve flattens out in a striking manner ... from 1670 or 1680 to 1727.” This discovery was made by A.E. Douglas before he had “received a letter from Professor E. Maunder ... calling attention to the prolonged dearth of sunspots between 1645 and 1715.” As Douglass and others have argued, variations in tree ring thickness in turn are connected to rainfall, so it is not an idle project to try to understand how to go from the workings of a solar dynamo to the manufacture of sunspots. In summary, solar activity waves at high and low latitudes and in the two hemispheres, lead somewhat independent, weakly correlated lives and fluctuate separately under the influence of noise. Spatial variations of the solar cycle during the Maunder Minimum are not an immediate indicator of the sunspot number and, if the sunspots have their origin well beneath the solar surface, we must go another step in the discussion before we obtain results that are fully consistent with historic records of sunspots as summarized by Ribes and Nesme-Ribes (1993). It is not at all obvious what we may conclude about subconvective activity from observed surface activity. We are grateful to Dr. Jürg Beer for his help and advice and for providing the data for Fig. 6. This was made possible by our participation in the E. Fermi School organized by Drs. J. Cini-Castagnoli and A. Provenzale. We thank Dr. David Moss for making useful suggestions about the manuscript and Dr. A. Solow for a discussion of his work. A.B. is grateful for the hospitality of the Astronomy Department at Columbia University, where most of this work was carried out with support from the AFOSR under under contract number F49620-92-J-0061. Allan, D.W.: 1962, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 58, 671 Aranson, I.S., Kramer, L.: 2002, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74, 99 Balbus, S.A., Hawley, J.F.: 1998, ReMP 70, 1 Beer, J., Blinov, A., Bonani, G., Hofmann, H.J., Finkel, R.C.: 1990, Nat 347, 164 Beer, J., Joos, F., Lukasczyk, Ch., Mende, W., Rodriguez, J., Siegenthaler, U., Stellmacher, R.: 1994, in: E. Nesme-Ribes (ed.), [The Solar Engine and Its Influence on Terrestrial Atmosphere and Climate]{}, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, p. 221 Beer, J., Mende, W., Stellmacher, R. White, O.R.: 1996, in: P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley, J. Jouzel (eds.), [Climatic Variations and Forcing Mechanisms for the Last 2000 Years]{}, Springer -Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, p. 501 Beer, J., Tobias, S., Weiss, N.: 1998, SoPh 181, 237 Brandenburg, A.: 2005, ApJ 625, 539 Brandenburg, A., Krause, F., Meinel, R., Moss, D., Tuominen, I.: 1989a, A&A 213, 411 Brandenburg, A., Krause, F., Tuominen, I.: 1989b, in: M. Meneguzzi, A. Pouquet, P.L. Sulem (eds.), [Turbulence and Nonlinear Dynamics in MHD Flows]{} Elsevier Science Publ. B.V., North-Holland, p. 35 Brandenburg, A., Meinel, R., Moss, D., Tuominen, I.: 1990, in: J.O. Stenflo (ed.), [Solar Photosphere: Structure, Convection and Magnetic Fields]{}, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, p. 379 Brandenburg, A., Rädler, K.-H., Rheinhardt, M., Käpylä, P. J.: 2008, ApJ 676, arXiv: 0710.4059 Cally, P.S.: 2003, MNRAS 339, 957 Charbonneau, P., St-Jean, C., Zacharias, P.: 2005, ApJ 619, 613 Choudhuri, A.R.: 1992, A&A 253, 277 Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Schou, J.: 1988, in: E.J. Rolfe (ed.), [Proc. Symp. Seismology of the Sun and Sun-like Stars]{}, ESA SP-286, p. 149 Cini Castagnoli, G., Provenzale, A. (Eds.): 1997, Past and Present variability of the solar-terrestrial system: Measurement, Data Analysis and Theoretical Models, (IOS Press, Amsterdam), 311 DeLuca, E. E.: 1986, [Dynamo theory for the interface between the Convection Zone and the Radiative Interior of a Star]{}, Thesis, U. Colorado, NCARCT-104 Douglass, A.E.: 1927, Sci LXV, 220 Durney, B.R.: 1995, SoPh 166, 231 Eddy, J.A.: 1978, in: J.A. Eddy (ed.), [The New Solar Physics]{}, AAAS Selected Symposium 17, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, p. 11 Fautrelle, Y., Childress, C.: 1982, GApFD 22, 235 Gilman, P.A., Dikpati, M., Miesch, M.S.: 2007, ApJS 170, 203 Glatzmaier, G.A., Roberts, P.H.: 1995, Nat 377, 203 Heagy, J.F., Platt, N., Hammel, S.M.: 1994, PhRvE 49, 1140 Hughes, D. W., Rosner, R., Weiss, N. O.: 2006, [The Solar Tachocline]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Jennings, R., Weiss, N.O.: 1991, MNRAS 252, 249 Jiang, J., Chatterjee, P., Choudhuri, A.R.: 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1527 John, T., Behn, U., Stannarius, R.: 2002, PhRvE 65, 046229 Hoyng, P.: 1987, A&A 171, 357 Hoyng, P.: 1988, ApJ 332, 857 Hoyng, P.: 1993, A&A 272, 321 Hoyng, P., Schmitt, D., Teuben, L. J. W.: 1994, A&A 289, 265 Kitchatinov, L.L., Rüdiger, G.: 2007, Astron. Nachr. 328, 1150 Krause, F., Rädler, K.-H.: 1980, [Mean Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory]{}, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin; also Pergamon Press, Oxford Knobloch, E.: 1992, MNRAS 255, 25 Knobloch, E., Tobias, S.M., Weiss, N.O.: 1998, MNRAS 297, 1123 Küker, M., Arlt, R., Rüdiger, G.: 1999, A&A 343, 977 Meneguzzi, M., Pouquet, A.: 1989, JFM 205, 297 Moffatt, H. K.: 1978, [Magnetic Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Moss, D., Brandenburg, A., Tavakol, R.K., Tuominen, I.: 1992, A&A 265, 843 Nordlund, Å., Brandenburg, A., Jennings, R.L., Rieutord, M., Ruokolainen, J., Stein, R.F., Tuominen, I.: 1992, ApJ 392, 647 Ott, E., Chen, Q.: 1990, PhRvL 65, 2935 Parfrey, K. P., Menou, K.: 2007, ApJ 667, L207 Parker, E. N.: 1955, ApJ 121, 293 Parker, E. N.: 1979, [Cosmical Magnetic Fields: Their Origin and their Activity]{}, (International Monographs on Physics) Pasquero, C.: 1996, [Model li di variabilit‘a solare]{}, Tesi di Laurea, Facultà di Scienza M.F.N., Università di Torino Pikovsky, A.S., Grassberger, P.: 1991, J. Phys. A 24, 4587 Platt, N., Spiegel, E.A., Tresser, C.: 1993a, PhRvL 70, 279 Platt, N., Spiegel, E.A., Tresser, C.: 1993b, GApFD 73, 146 Priest, E.R., Heyvaerts, J.F., Title, A.M.: 2002, ApJ 576, 533 Proctor, M. R. E., Spiegel E. A.: 1991, in: D. Moss, G. Rüdiger, I. Tuominen (eds), [The Sun and Cool Stars]{}, Springer-Verlag, p. 117 Ribes, J.C., Nesme-Ribes, E.: 1993, A&A 276, 549 Robbins, K. A.: 1979, SIAM J. Applied Math. 36, 457 Rüdiger, G., Brandenburg, A.: 1995, A&A 296, 557 Rüdiger, G., Kitchatinov, L.L.: 2007, NJPh 9, 302 Ruzmaikin, A. A.: 1981, Comments Astrophys. 9, 85 Schmitt, D., Schüssler, M., Ferriz-Mas, A.: 1996, A&A 311, L1 Simon, G.W., Title, A.M., Weiss, N.O.: 2001, ApJ 561, 427 Sokoloff, D.D., Nesme-Ribes, E.: 1994, A&A 288, 293 Solanki, S. K., Usoskin, I. G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M., Beer, J.; 2004, Nat 431, 1084 Spiegel, E.A.: 1977, in: E.A. Spiegel, J.-P. Zahn (eds.), [Problems in Stellar Convection]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, New York, p. 1 Spiegel, E.A.: 1981, in: R.H.G. Helleman (ed.), [Nonlinear Dynamics]{}, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 357, p.305 Spiegel, E.A.: 1994, in: M.R.E. Proctor, A.D. Gilbert (eds.), [Lectures on Solar and Planetary Dynamos: Introductory Lectures]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 245 Spiegel, E.A., Weiss, N.O.: 1980, Nat 287, 616 Spiegel, E.A., Wolf, A.N.: 1987, in: J.R. Buchler, H. Eichhorn (eds.), [Chaotic Phenomena in Astrophysics]{}, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 497, p. 55 Spiegel, E.A., Zahn, J.-P.: 1992, A&A, 265, 106 Solow, A.R.: 2005, EPSL 232, 67 Stothers, R.: 1979, A&A 77, 121 Tavakol, R.K.: 1978, Nat 276, 802 Tobias, S.M.: 1996, A&A 307, L21 Tworkowski, A., Tavakol, R., Brandenburg, A., Brooke, J.M., Moss, D., Tuominen, I.: 1998, MNRAS 296, 287 Vishniac, E.T., Brandenburg, A.: 1997, ApJ 475, 263 von Hardenberg, J. Graf, Paparella, F., Platt, N., Provenzale, A., Spiegel, E.A., Tresser, C.: 1997, PhRvE 55, 58 Weiss, N.O., Cattaneo, F., Jones, C.A.: 1984, GApFD 30, 305 Weiss, N.O.: 1993, in: F. Krause, K.-H. Rädler, G. Rüdiger (eds.), [The Cosmic Dynamo]{}, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, p. 219 Worledge, D., Knobloch, E., Tobias, S., Proctor, M.: 1997, RSPSA 453, 119 Zahn, J.-P., Brun, A.S., Mathis, S.: 2007, A&A 474, 145	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'A generalized Weyl integrable geometry (GWIG) is obtained from simultaneous affine transformations of the tangent and cotangent bundles of a (pseudo)-Riemannian manifold. In comparison with the classical Weyl integrable geometry (CWIG), there are two generalizations here: interactions with an arbitrary dark field, and, anisotropic dilation. It means that CWIG already has interactions with a [null]{} dark field. Some classical mathematics and physics problems may be addressed in GWIG. For example, by derivation of Maxwell’s equations and its sub-sets, the conservation, hyperbolic, and elliptic equations on GWIG; we imposed interactions with arbitrary dark fields. Moreover, by using a notion analogous to Penrose conformal infinity, one can impose boundary conditions canonically on these equations. As a prime example, we did it for the elliptic equation, where we obtained a singularity-free potential theory. Then we used this potential theory in the construction of a non-singular model for a point charged particle. It solves the difficulty of infinite energy of the classical vacuum state.' author: - Fereidoun Sabetghadam title: Dark Fields do Exist in Weyl Geometry --- \[type=editor, auid=,bioid=, prefix=, role=, orcid=0000-0001-8412-8324\] Affine transformations ,Weyl integrable geometry ,Dark fields ,Maxwell’s equation ,Non-singular potential theory ,Finite-size charged particle ,Classical vacuum energy Introduction {#intro} ============ Given a (psudo)-Riemannian ${\mathsf d}$-manifold $(M,g)$, a Weyl integrable manifold is defined by $(M,[g],\lambda)$, where $[g]$ is the conformal class in which ${g}^\prime \sim {g}$ iff ${g}^\prime=e^{2\lambda(x)}{g}$ with smooth $\lambda:M\rightarrow {\Bbb R}$ where $x\in M$ [@Folland]. Our manifolds are finite-dimensional ${\mathsf d}<\infty$, and we study the classical fields. The quantum and relativistic fields may be considered as the extensions. The idea of relating Weyl geometry with the dark fields has a long history [@Scholz2019]. Half a century ago, Dirac [@Dirac1973] in seeking gauge-invariant general relativity modified Weyl geometry. The new geometry interpreted later as the necessity of the presence of a dark matter [@Israelit1992]. In the next years, more or less similar ideas have appeared from time to time in different forms in the works of different researchers [@Cheng1988; @Maeder2020]. Here we obtain a generalized Weyl integrable geometry (GWIG) by affine transformations of the pair “[vector space– dual space]{}” at each point $x\in M$. An arbitrary pair “(vector field, 1-form)” appears in these transformations which can be interpreted as dark fields. A direct result of the approach is that the classical Weyl integrable geometry (CWIG) has already included interactions with a [null]{} dark field. The author first met a nave version of the transformations in imposition of the no-slip conditions on the Navier-Stokes equations [@Sabetghadam2015] (without aware of Weyl geometry). However, soon Weyl geometry presented itself. In the sequel, we first provide our suggested transformation in $\S$ \[Affin\_trans\], which is used in obtaining GWIG and its properties in $\S$ \[Revised\_IWG\]. Our physical applications are provided in sections \[electromagnetism\]–\[non-sing\] and appendix \[append1\], where we obtained Maxwell, conservation, hyperbolic and elliptic equations on GWIG, and some theorems for their general solutions. Finally we provide a summary in $\S$ \[conclusion\]. A tensorial affine transformation {#Affin_trans} ================================= We transform both tangent and cotangent bundles of a (pseudo)-Riemannian manifold simultaneously. The transformations are affine; and the affinity parameters are tensorial (not scalars), to admit anisotropy. Consider a (pseudo)-Riemannian $\mathsf d$-manifold $(M,g)$ and its tangent and cotangent fiber bundles $(TM \xrightarrow{\pi_v} M)$ and $(T^M\xrightarrow{\pi_{\alpha}} M)$, containing the tangent vectors $v\in\Gamma(TM)$ and the differential 1-forms $\alpha\in\Omega^1(M)$.\ We define the bundlemorphisms $\pmb{\mathfrak F}:=(\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^v,v_d},\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^\alpha,\alpha^d}):(\widehat{T}M,\widehat{T}^M)\hookrightarrow(TM,T^M)$ that $(v,\alpha)\mapsto(\widehat{v},\widehat{\alpha})$ as: :=\_[\^v,v\_d]{}(v):=([1]{}-[\^v]{})(v) +[\^v]{}(v\_d), \[f\]\ :=\_[\^,\^d]{}():=([1]{}-[\^]{})()+[\^]{}(\^d), \[f\\] where $\pmb{\mathcal K}^v\in{\rm Aut}(TM)$ and $\pmb{\mathcal K}^\alpha\in{\rm Aut}(T^M)$ are defined as: [\^v]{}():=[diag]{}([K]{}\^v\_j):=[diag]{}(1-(1-)\^[[w]{}\^v\_j]{}), \[K\]\ [\^]{}():=[diag]{}([K]{}\^\_j):=[diag]{}(1-(1-)\^[[w]{}\^\_j]{}), \[K\\] for the suitable choices of $v_d\in \Gamma(TM)$, $\alpha^d\in\Omega^1(M)$, $\pmb{\mathsf w}^v:=\{{\mathsf w}^v_j\}_{j=0}^{\mathsf d-1}$ and $\pmb{\mathsf w}^\alpha:=\{{\mathsf w}^\alpha_j\}_{j=0}^{\mathsf d-1}$ where ${\mathsf w}^v_j,{\mathsf w}^\alpha_j\in {\Bbb R}$ are anisotropic Weyl weights; and $\kappa: M\to \ell$ is a free scalar affinity parameter, that is, $\ell:=[0,1)$. The usefulness of transformations (\[f\])–(\[K\\]) is manifested via the following statement and note: \[the00\] For $\alpha=g(v)$, we have $\widehat{\alpha}=h(\widehat{v})$ where: $$\label{metric00} h:=\left(\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^\alpha,\alpha^d}\right)\circ g \circ \left(\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^v,v_d}\right)^{-1}.$$ The above diagram should commute. \(1) [$v$]{}; (2) \[right=of 1\] [$\widehat{v}$]{}; (3) \[below=of 2\] [$\widehat{\alpha}$]{}; (4) \[left=of 3\] [$\alpha$]{}; (1) – node \[midway,above\] [${f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^v,v_d}$]{} (2); (1) – node \[midway,left\][$g$]{} (4); (2) – node \[midway,right, red\] [$h=({f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^{\alpha},\alpha^d})\circ g \circ ({f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^v,v_d})^{-1}$]{} (3); (4) – node \[midway,below\] [${f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^\alpha,\alpha^d}$]{} (3); \[note2\_n\] We emphasize that: $\left(\pmb{\mathcal K}^v(0),\pmb{\mathcal K}^\alpha(0)\right)=({\bf 0},{\bf 0})$ and $\left(\pmb{\mathcal K}^v(1),\pmb{\mathcal K}^\alpha(1)\right)=({\bf 1},{\bf 1})$. It results in the following interesting properties for the bundlemorphisms $\pmb{\mathfrak{F}}$: 1. Everywhere that $\kappa(x)=0$, we have $\pmb{\mathfrak{F}}=\left({{\rm id}_{{\rm Aut}(TM)}},{\rm id}_{{\rm Aut}(T^M)}\right)$, that is, $(\widehat{v},\widehat{\alpha})=(v,\alpha)$, which means the genuine Riemannian geometry. 2. Everywhere that $\kappa(x)\to 1$, we have $\lim_{\kappa\to 1}\left(\pi_v^{-1}(x),\pi_\alpha^{-1}(x)\right)=(v_d,\alpha^d)_x$, that is, the vector spaces $(\widehat{T}_xM,\widehat{T}^_xM)$ shrink to the (vector, covector) $\left((v_d)_x,(\alpha^d)_x\right)$. \[item2\] 3. Meanwhile, we have $\widehat{\alpha}=h(\widehat{v})$ for any $0\leq\kappa<1$. On the contrary to item \[item2\] above, one can suppose that some primary vector filed and 1-form $(v_d,\alpha^d)$ have been expanded to the bundles $(\widehat{T}M,\widehat{T}^M)$. Based on this interpretation, we suggest the name “primary fields” instead of the “dark fields” for $(v_d,\alpha^d)$. On one spacetime manifold, different physical quantities may have different $(\pmb{\mathsf w}^v,v_d)$ and $(\pmb{\mathsf w}^\alpha,\alpha^d)$, and therefore, different $\pmb{\mathfrak{F}}$. Here we distinguish the displacements on the spacetime manifold from the other tangent vector fields. A generalized Weyl integrable geometry (GWIG) {#Revised_IWG} ============================================= We distinguish the displacements on the spacetime manifold from the other tangent vector fields; and for each one we define a sub-set of transformations (\[f\])-(\[K\\]). Then, together, they form the generalized Weyl integrable geometry that includes interaction with the dark (primary) fields. These are provided in the following two sub-sections. Displacement on the spacetime manifold {#spacetimea-man} -------------------------------------- For the displacement vectors (on the spacetime manifold), we suggest $\alpha^d=v_d=0$, which is consistent with the classical picture of the space-time manifold. Moreover, we define ${\mathsf w}^\alpha_j=:{\mathsf z}_j$, and we assume ${\mathsf w}^v_j=0$. Therefore: $$\label{eq15} \pmb{\mathfrak{F}}_X:=\left(\pmb{f}_{\pmb{0},0},\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf z},0}\right) =(\pmb{1},\pmb{\chi}),$$ where $\pmb{\mathsf z}:=\{{\mathsf z}_j\}_{j=0}^{\mathsf d-1}$, $\mathsf{z}_j\in {\Bbb R}$; and $$\pmb{\chi}:={\rm diag}(\chi_j):={\rm diag}\Big((1-\kappa)^{{\mathsf z}_j}\Big). \label{chi}$$ We emphasize that $\pmb{\chi}(0)={\bf 1}$ and $\pmb{\chi}(1)={\bf 0}$. \[rem\_2\] By the term ‘dilation’, one usually means dilation in spacetime. Therefore, we consider $\pmb{\mathsf z}$ as the set of parameters that defines the dilations, and we call $\pmb{\chi}$ as the dilation tensor. Then, other functions on $M$ may have their own $\left(v_d,\pmb{\mathsf w}^v(\pmb{\mathsf z})\right)$ and $\left(\alpha^d,\pmb{\mathsf w}^\alpha(\pmb{\mathsf z})\right)$. Note that anisotropic dilations are permitted because ${\mathsf z}_j$ may be different. Moreover, since $\pmb{\chi}$ is diagonal, we will use $\chi_j=\chi^j$ wherever it is needed in Einstein summation convention. The relation between the displacement vector fields and their associated differential 1-forms is obtainable directly from theorem \[the00\]: \[coroll\_1\] Let $\xi\in TM$ be a displacement vector field on the manifold $(M,g)$, and $(\xi)^\flat=:\eta\in T^M$. Then, under the transformation $\pmb{\mathfrak{F}}_X$, we have $\widehat{\eta}=\widehat{g}(\xi)$, where $\widehat{g}=\pmb{\chi}\circ g$. The above diagram should commute. \(1) [$\xi$]{}; (2) \[below=of 1\] [$\eta$]{}; (3) \[right=of 2\] [$\widehat{\eta}$]{}; (1) – node \[midway,left\] [$g$]{} (2); (2) – node \[midway,below\][$\pmb{\chi}$]{} (3); (1) – node \[midway,right, red\] [$~~\widehat{g}=\pmb{\chi}\circ g$]{} (3); Unless for the isotropic dilation, $\widehat{g}$ is not symmetric. Moreover, for $\mathsf{z}_j > 0 $ by $\kappa=0$, we have $\widehat{g}=g$, and $\lim_{\kappa \to 1}\widehat{g}=0$. Now, let $\{\partial_j,dx^j\}_{j=0}^{\mathsf d-1}$ be the [standard]{} local frames on $(TM,T^M)$, where $dx^i(\partial_j)=\delta^i_{\;j}$. Then, under $\pmb{\mathfrak{F}}_X$ they transform as: \_j=\_j, \[partial\_1\]\ \^j=(dx\^j)=\^jdx\^j=(1-)\^[z\_j]{}dx\^j. \[dual\_f\_1\] That is, merely the dual frame is affected while the coordinate vectors are remained unchanged. The following definition and theorem relate this geometry with the classical Weyl integrable geometry: \[Def3\] We distinguish a Riemannian observer $\mathscr{R}:=\{\partial_j,\widehat{dx}^j\}_{j=0}^{\mathsf{d}-1}$ from a Weylian observer $\mathscr{W}:=\{\partial_j,dx^j\}_{j=0}^{\mathsf{d}-1}$. Choosing $\{\widehat{dx}^j\}_{j=0}^{\mathsf{d}-1}$ as the dual basis is not a part of transformation $\pmb{\mathfrak{F}}_X$. It is just choosing a new basis on a transformed vector space, equivalent to choosing $\widehat{dx}^i(\partial_{j})={\rm diag}(\chi^i)$, instead of the conventional choice $dx^i(\partial_{j})=\delta^i_{\;j}$. \[Def4\] The representations of $\widehat{g}$ on $\mathscr R$ and $\mathscr W$ are denoted by $(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr R})_{ij}$ and $(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr W})_{ij}$, that is: $$\widehat{g}=:(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr R})_{ij}\; \widehat{dx}^i\otimes \widehat{dx}^j=:(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr W})_{ij}\;dx^i\otimes dx^j.$$ One can write: $$(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr W})_{ij}=\chi_j\; g_{ij},$$ and: $$(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr R})_{ij}=e^{{\Lambda}_i}(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr W})_{ij}e^{{\Lambda}_j},$$ in which we defined ${\Lambda}:={\rm diag}({\mathsf z}_j\lambda)$, such that $e^{-{\Lambda}}:=\chi$, where $\chi$ is the matrix representation of $\pmb \chi$. The proofs are immediate. Note that by the above definitions $\kappa(x)$ is related to Weyl dilation function $\lambda(x)$ by: $$\label{kap_lamb_rel} e^{-\lambda(x)}:=1-\kappa(x),$$ which means for $\kappa\in [0,1)$, we have $\lambda\in [0,+\infty)$. Manifestly, in $\widehat{g}=\pmb{\chi}\circ g$, by ${\mathsf z}_j=2$ the classical Weyl metric ${g}_{\mathscr W}=e^{-2\lambda(x)}g_{\mathscr R}$ is retrieved. \[single\_metric\] As a summary, $\pmb{\mathfrak{F}}_X$ associates $\widehat{g}=\pmb{\chi}(g)$ to $M$. Then, $\widehat{g}$ has two representations on ${\mathscr R}$ and ${\mathscr W}$ as $(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr W})_{ij}=\chi_j\;g_{ij}$, and $(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr R})_{ij}=e^{{\Lambda}_i}(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr W})_{ij}e^{{\Lambda}_j}=\chi_i^{-1}\;g_{ij}$. Other tangent vector fields --------------------------- For the tangent vector fields, other than displacements on the spacetime, we choose another su-bset of (\[f\])-(\[K\\]) as follows. Manifestly, $(v_d,\alpha^d)$ are the fixed points of $(\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^v,v_d},\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w}^\alpha,\alpha^d})$. In the most general form, they are related to each other by $\alpha^d=\pmb{T}(g(v_d))$, where $\pmb{T}\in{\rm Aut}(T^M)$. In the present work we merely study the classical fields. Therefore, we restrict ourselves to the case that $\pmb{T}={\rm id}_{T^M}$. Moreover, we need only one set of Weyl weights $\pmb{\mathsf w}$. Summarily: \^d=g(v\_d)=(v\_d)\^, \[alph\_v\]\ \^v=\^=(). \[wj\] Therefore, the transformation for a general tangent vector field (and its dual) reads: $$\pmb{\mathfrak{F}}_V:=\left(\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w},v_d},\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w},(v_d)^\flat}\right).$$ Then, by writing the relation between a transformed vector $\widehat{v}$ and its associated 1-form $\widehat{\alpha}$ as $\widehat{\alpha}=h(\widehat{v})$, theorem \[the00\] implies: $$\label{g-g} h=\left(\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w},(v_d)^\flat}\right)\circ g \circ \left(\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w},v_d}\right)^{-1}.$$ There are two important cases that $h=g$: \[corol1\] In the following two cases, for $v=(\alpha)^\sharp$, we have $\widehat{v}=(\widehat{\alpha})^\sharp$, that is, $h=g$: 1. ${\mathsf w}_j$ s are the same, say ${\mathsf w}_j=\mathsf{w}$; 2. $g$ is diagonal. They can be checked directly from Eq. (\[g-g\]). A summary --------- The bundle morphism $\pmb{\mathfrak F}_X$ acts on the tangent and cotangent bundles of a spacetime (pseudo)-Riemannian ${\mathsf d}$-manifold $(M,g)$. It affects the dual frame bundle, and leaves the frame bundle unchanged. Accordingly, two observers $\mathscr R$ and $\mathscr W$ may be defined that differ in their dual frames. Moreover, $\pmb{\mathfrak F}_X$ affects the other fields on $M$; the affections which is modeled by another bundlemorphism $\pmb{\mathfrak F}_V$. Therefore, the pair $(\pmb{\mathfrak F}_X,\pmb{\mathfrak F}_V)$ defines GWIG. It may be observed by $\mathscr R$ or $\mathscr W$. $\mathscr R$ and $\mathscr W$ observations {#R-W} ------------------------------------------ $\mathscr R$ and $\mathscr W$ have different dual frames. Therefore, they observe functions differently. Here we summarize the differences, that are especially evident in the extreme situations $\kappa=0$ and $\kappa\to 1$. 1. For $\kappa=0$, we have $(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr R})_{ij}=(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr W})_{ij}=g_{ij}$; and $\lim_{\kappa\to 1}(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr R})_{ij}=\infty$ while $\lim_{\kappa\to 1}(\widehat{g}_{\mathscr W})_{ij}=0$. 2. An arbitrary transformed 1-form $\widehat{\alpha}$ has the representations $\widehat{\alpha}_j$ and ${ \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\widehat{\alpha}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \widehat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\widehat{\alpha}}}}_j$ on $\mathscr R$ and $\mathscr W$ respectively, that is: $$\widehat{\alpha}=\widehat{\alpha}_j\;\widehat{dx}^j={ \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\widehat{\alpha}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \widehat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\widehat{\alpha}}}}_j\;{dx}^j.$$ It means ${ \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\widehat{\alpha}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \widehat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\widehat{\alpha}}}}_j=\chi_j\;\widehat{\alpha}_j$. On the other hand, $\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w},\alpha^d}$ yields $\widehat{\alpha}_j=(1-\mathcal{K}_j)\alpha_j+\mathcal{K}_j\alpha_j^d$.\ Now, an interesting property is that while $\lim_{\kappa\to 1}\widehat{\alpha}_j=\alpha_j^d$, we have $\lim_{\kappa\to 1}{ \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\widehat{\alpha}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \widehat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\widehat{\alpha}}}}_j=0$, that is: > “Everywhere that $\kappa\to 1$, what that measuers as $\alpha^d$ by $\mathscr R$, it measuers as zero by $\mathscr W$.” Based on this property, we will suggest a notion, analogous to Penrose conformal infinity, which enables us to impose canonically the boundary conditions on the solutions of Maxwell’s equations. 3. The components of the vector fields $\widehat{v}_j$are the same for both $\mathscr R$ and $\mathscr W$, because their frame bundles are the same. Consequently, the scalar products have different results on $\mathscr R$ and $\mathscr W$, that is, $\mathfrak{r}_{\mathscr R}:=\widehat{\alpha}(\widehat{v})=\widehat{\alpha}_j\widehat{v}^j$, while $\mathfrak{r}_{\mathscr W}:=\widehat{\alpha}(\widehat{v})={ \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\widehat{\alpha}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \widehat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\widehat{\alpha}}}}_j\widehat{v}^j=\chi_j\widehat{\alpha}_j\widehat{v}^j$. Now, as one can see: $\lim_{\kappa\to 1}\mathfrak{r}_{\mathscr R}= \alpha^d_iv_d^i$, while $\lim_{\kappa\to 1}\mathfrak{r}_{\mathscr W}=0$. 4. \[item4-3\] There is an arbitrariness in definition of the volume forms on a non-Riemannian manifold [@Eisenhart1926]. The genuine Riemannian volume form $\mathcal{V}=\sqrt{\|{\rm det}(g)\|} d{\mathscr{V}}$ is an invariant of $\pmb{\mathfrak F}_X$. On the other hand, by definition of the volume form $\widehat{\mathcal{V}}=:\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{\mathscr R}\;\widehat{d\mathscr{V}}$, where $\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{\mathscr R}=\sigma \sqrt{\|\rm{det}(g)\|}$ and $\sigma:=\sqrt{\|{\rm det}(\chi^{-1})\|}=(1-\kappa)^{-\frac{1}{2}\Sigma{\mathsf z}_j}$ is the dilation density; we have $\lim_{\kappa\to 1}\widehat{\mathcal{V}}=0$, while $\lim_{\kappa\to 1}\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{\mathscr R}=\infty$. In other words, by the above definitions: > “Action of $\pmb{\mathfrak F}_X$ decreases the volume $\widehat{\mathcal V}$ and increases the density $\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{\mathscr R}$, such that the initial Riemannian volume ${\mathcal V}=\widehat{\mathcal V}\|_{\kappa=0}$ remains constant.” We are ready to study Maxwell’s equations on this GWIG. Maxwell’s equations in the presence of dark (primary) fields {#electromagnetism} ============================================================ On ${\Bbb R}^{(1,3)}$, consider the source-free Maxwell’s equations: d[F]{}=0, \[Maxwell\_1\]\ =0,\[Maxwell\_2\] where $\bf F$ is the Faraday’s 2-form. Eq. (\[Maxwell\_1\]) implies ${\bf F}=dA$ where $A$ is a gauge field. Now, we assume that there is a dilation distribution $\pmb{\chi}$ and a dark (primary) electromagnetic 4-potential $A^d=(v_d)^\flat$ on ${\Bbb R}^{(1,3)}$, such that $(\pmb{\mathfrak F}_X,\pmb{\mathfrak F}_V)$ acts on its tangent and cotangent bundles. Therefore, $A$ can be written as: $$\label{AR} A=\pmb{f}_{\pmb{\mathsf w},\alpha^d}^{-1}(\widehat{A})= \Big({\bf 1}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}}\Big)^{-1}\big(\widehat{A}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}}(A^d)\big),$$ resulting in the gauge transformed Faraday’s 2-form: $$ {\bf F}={d}\Big(\big({\bf 1}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}}\big)^{-1}\big(\widehat{A}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}}(A^d)\big)\Big)=:{\bf \widehat{F}}-{\bf F}^d, \label{ext} $$ where: $$\label{new_Fs} {\bf \widehat{F}}:={d}\Big(\big({\bf 1}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}}\big)^{-1}\big(\widehat{A}\big)\Big); \qquad {\bf F}^d:={d}\Bigg(\big({\bf 1}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}}\big)^{-1}\Big({\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}}(A^d)\Big)\Bigg).$$ Substitution in (\[Maxwell\_1\])-(\[Maxwell\_2\]) yields Maxwell’s equations on GWIG: d[**]{}=d[F]{}\^d, \[Ext\_Maxwell\_1\]\ =\^d.\[Ext\_Maxwell\_2\] Some source terms are appeared in the right hand side due to the presence of the primary field $A^d\neq 0$ and non-zero dilations $\pmb{\chi}\neq 0$. In the sequel, we suggest a general solution for system (\[Ext\_Maxwell\_1\]–\[Ext\_Maxwell\_2\]). Moreover, the conservation, hyperbolic, and elliptic equations on GWIG are obtained from this system in Appendix \[append1\]. Furthermore, we shall discuss the solutions of the elliptic equation in details. A general solution for system (\[Ext\_Maxwell\_1\]–\[Ext\_Maxwell\_2\]) {#sec_4.1} ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The internal symmetry of system (\[Ext\_Maxwell\_1\]–\[Ext\_Maxwell\_2\]) might be enough as a proof for the following statement: \[theorem1\] For the given smooth $A^d$ and ${\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}}$, if $\widehat{A}$ solve system (\[Ext\_Maxwell\_1\]–\[Ext\_Maxwell\_2\]), then it can be written locally as $$\label{theorem-eq-1} \widehat{A}=({\bf 1}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}}^{\alpha})(A)+{\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}}A^d,$$ where $A$ solves system (\[Maxwell\_1\]–\[Maxwell\_2\]). [$\blacksquare$]{} Now, note that $\lim_{\kappa \to 1}\widehat{A}=A^d$. This is the way that we impose boundary conditions on system (\[Maxwell\_1\]–\[Maxwell\_2\]). Depending on the distribution of $A^d$, it can be Dirichlet or Neumann boundary condition, but here we merely study the Dirichlet one. Moreover, we do not study the dynamics of $\kappa$, that is, we assume that there is a given stationary $\kappa\neq \kappa(x^0)$, and we assume that ${\bf F}^d$ is smooth enough. It is comparable with Penrose conformal infinity, as we let $\lambda\to \infty$ (equivalently $\kappa\to 1$). However, here this is the dual frame that goes to zero, and the initial Riemannian volume remains unchanged (see item \[item4-3\] of $\S$ \[R-W\]).\ Consider homogeneous Maxwell’s equations as an initial/boundary value problem: d[F]{}=0, x\^0, \[IBV\_1\]\ =0, x\^0, \[IBV\_2\]\ [F]{}=[F]{}\^d, x\^=[0]{}, \[IBV\_3\]\ [F]{}=[F]{}\^d, x\^0>0,x\^j=[0]{}, \[IBV\_4\] where $j=1,...,3$ are the spatial coordinate indices. We assume that the initial data are smooth enough. The equations are defined on $x={\Bbb R}^4\setminus 0$, and the system has Dirichlet initial/boundary conditions at $x^\mu=0$. Now, instead of solution of the above system, we suggest solution of system: d[]{}\_a=d[F]{}\^d, \[Ext\_IBV\_1\]\ \_a=\^d,\[Ext\_IBV\_2\] on ${\Bbb R}^4$, in which $\pmb{\mathcal{K}}^\alpha_a={\rm diag}(1-e^{-{\mathsf w}_j\delta_a})$ is a regularized $\pmb{\mathcal K}^\alpha$ that: \^([R]{}\^40)=0, \[non\_reg\_K\_1\]\ \^(0)=1,\[non\_reg\_K\_2\] and $\lambda(x)=:\lim_{a\to 0}\lambda_a(x)=:\lim_{a\to 0}\delta_a(x)$ is substituted in Eq. (\[kap\_lamb\_rel\]), in which $\delta_a(x)$ is the four dimensional regularized Dirac delta function, regularized by the radius $a$ of a four dimensional ball placed on $x=0$.\ Now, if $\widehat{A}_a$ solves system (\[Ext\_IBV\_1\])–(\[Ext\_IBV\_2\]), then theorem \[theorem1\] guarantees that ${\bf F}=\lim_{a\to 0}\widehat{\bf F}_a$, where: $${\bf \widehat{F}}_a:={d}\Big(\big({\bf 1}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}^{\alpha}_a}\big)^{-1}\big(\widehat{A}_a\big)\Big).$$ As an example of the above procedure, we shall use it in finding the solution of the (singularity-free) Laplace equation (\[mod\_Laplace\_1\]) on GWIG. A singularity-free potential theory {#gen_potential_theory} =================================== In Eq. (\[mod\_Laplace\_1\]), we assume ${\mathsf z}_j=1$, ${\mathsf w}_j={\mathsf w}$, and we define: $$\label{kappa_2} \tilde{\kappa}(x):=1-(1-\kappa)^{\mathsf w}=1-e^{-{\mathsf w}\lambda(x)}=\frac{e^{\mathsf{w}\lambda(x)}-1}{e^{\mathsf{w}\lambda(x)}},$$ for the convinience. Then, recalling $\nabla(e^{\mathsf{w}\lambda})/e^{\mathsf{w}\lambda}=\mathsf{w}\nabla \lambda$, one can write Eq. (\[mod\_Laplace\_1\]) as: $$\widehat{\Delta}\widehat{\phi}=\widehat{\Delta}(\tilde{\kappa}\phi^d), \label{Mod_Lap_1} $$ where $$\label{Mod_Lap_2} \widehat{\Delta}:=\Delta+2\mathsf{w}\nabla\lambda\cdot \nabla+\mathsf{w}\left(\Delta\lambda+\mathsf{w}(\nabla\lambda)^2\right).$$ Now, Theorem \[theorem1\] is applicable directly: \[corol\_1\] For the given smooth $\phi^d$ and $\tilde{\kappa}$, if $\widehat{\phi}$ solves equation (\[Mod\_Lap\_1\]), then it can be written locally as $$\label{corr-eq-1} \widehat{\phi}=(1-\tilde{\kappa})\phi^h+\tilde{\kappa}\phi^d,$$ where $\phi^h=\phi_{\rm Riemannian}$ is harmonic, that is, $\Delta\phi^h=0$. As an example, we use Eq. (\[Mod\_Lap\_1\]) and corollary \[corol\_1\] to address a classical physics problem, that is, obtaining a non-singular and stable model for a finite size (non-point) charged particle. A non-singular model for a finite-size fixed charged particle {#non-sing} ============================================================= The longstanding difficulty of defining a non-singular point source in the classical potential theory can be solved in the above generalized Weyl potential theory (introduced by Eq. (\[Mod\_Lap\_1\])). This is mainly because infinite dilation removes zero volumes (as item \[item4-3\] in $\S$ \[R-W\] emphasizes). It is aimed to find a model for a fixed (non-moving) charged particle, with an electric charge $Q$ and a radius $a\to 0$, placed at the origin of a spherical coordinate. By definition of a regularized three dimensional Dirac delta function $\delta({\bf r})=:\lim_{a\to 0}\delta_a({\bf r})$, we denote the regularized $\tilde{\kappa}$ as $\kappa_a(\bf{r})$ (see Eq. (\[kappa\_2\])). Then, by assuming $\mathsf{w}=2$, and substitution of $\lambda({\bf r}):=\delta_{a}({\bf r})$ in Eq. (\[Mod\_Lap\_1\]), one obtains: $$\label{Eq18} \widehat{\Delta}\widehat{\phi}=\widehat{\Delta}(\kappa_{a} \phi^d),$$ where $$\label{Eq19} \widehat{\Delta}:=\Delta +4\nabla\delta_{a}\cdot\nabla+2\left(\Delta\delta_{a}+2(\nabla\delta_{a})^2\right).$$ The solution of Eq. (\[Eq18\]) is our model for the charged particle. From Eq. (\[kappa\_2\]), one can see that $\kappa_a(r)$ is a regularized indicator function: [\_[a0]{}\_a([r]{})=\_[a0]{}()=[1]{}([r]{})=]{}\[indicator\_func\] 1, for [r]{}=0 ,\ 0, for [r*]{}0, It means that ${\rm supp}\left( \widehat{\Delta}(\kappa_{a} \phi^d) \right) $ (the R.H.S of Eq. (\[Eq18\])) is the neighborhood of ${\bf r}=0$. In the classical potential theory, by $a\to 0$ the Riemannian volume of the particle goes to zero, in contrast to here that it remains unchanged (see item \[item4-3\] in $\S$ \[R-W\]). Therefore, the singularity is removed. It also removes the classical difficulty of infinite energy of the vacuum, if we add the condition $\lambda\neq\infty$ to the definition of the (classical) vacuum state. The solution can be obtained from corollary \[corol\_1\]. It is just needed to find $\phi^h$ and $\phi^d$. We shall find them in non-dimensionalized form, denoting by $(\breve{\cdot})$ symbol. The harmonic solution $\phi^h$ ------------------------------ This is the solution outside the particle, that is, on Riemannian geometry. From the classical potential theory: $$\label{harmonic_1} \breve{\phi}^h(\breve{r})=\frac{1}{\breve{r}},$$ where $\breve{r}:=r/a$, $\breve{\phi}^h:=\phi_h/\phi_a$, and $\phi_a:=\phi(a)=Q/(4\pi\epsilon_0 a)$, and $\epsilon_0$ is the vacuum permittivity. The dark field solution $\phi^d$ -------------------------------- Inside the particle, where $\kappa_a\to 1$, we have $\phi\to\phi^d$, regardless of the particular distribution of $\phi^d$. Therefore, one can construct locally a suitable non-singular $\phi^d$. Here we consider merely the case of a constant $\phi^d$, resulting in imposition of Dirichlet boundary condition on the classical Laplace equation [^1]. Recalling the gauge freedom of the potential theory, if $\phi^h$ is a solution, then $\phi^h+\phi^\prime$ is also a solution for any arbitrary $\phi^\prime$. Then, by considering Eq. (\[corr-eq-1\]), one can conclude that, $\phi^d$ is arbitrary. Here, without loss of generality, we choose: $$\label{dark_1} \phi^d=\phi_a.$$ ![The values of $\breve{\phi}$, $\breve{E}$, and $\breve{\varrho}$ are shown versus $\breve{r}$ inside and outside of the particle. Moreover, $\breve{\phi}$ and $\breve{E}$ are compared with the classical $\breve{r}^{-1}$ and $\breve{r}^{-2}$.[]{data-label="FIG_1"}](particle.pdf) The model --------- Suitable $\phi^h$ and $\phi^d$ are found. Therefore, by substitution of (\[harmonic\_1\]) and (\[dark\_1\]) in (\[corr-eq-1\]), and definition of $\breve{\phi}:=\widehat{\phi}/\phi_a$, one obtains: $$\label{particle_model_1} \breve{\phi}(\breve{r}):=\frac{\widehat{\phi}(r)}{\phi_a}=\frac{1}{\breve{r}}+\big(1-\frac{1}{\breve{r}}\big)\kappa_{a}(\breve{r}). $$ This is the solution of Eq. (\[Eq18\]), which is our non-singular model for a finite size charged particle with a constant $\phi^d$. It can be checked easily that it is smooth on ${\Bbb R}^3$ for any $a\to 0$.\ Before investigation of the model, we obtain the following quantities: 1. Eqs. (\[mod\_Laplace\_1\]) and (\[Eq18\]), are obtained for the components of $\eta^{-1}(\widehat{A})$ on $TM$. As a result, $\widehat{\phi}$ is defined on $(M,g)$. Therefore, we define the electric field $\widehat{\bf E}\in\Gamma(TM)$ as $\widehat{\bf E}:=-(d\widehat{\phi})^\sharp$, and its non-dimensional form: $$\label{E_eq} {\bf{\breve{E}}}(\breve{r}):=\frac{{\bf E}(r)}{{E}(a)}=-\frac{\partial\breve{\phi}}{\partial{\breve{r}}}=\Big(\frac{1-\kappa_a}{\breve{r}^2}-\frac{\breve{r}-1}{\breve{r}}\kappa_a^\prime\Big)\partial_{\breve{r}},$$ where ${E}(a):=Q/(4\pi\epsilon_0 a^2)$ and $\kappa_a^\prime:=\partial_{\breve{r}}\kappa_a$ is the derivative of $\kappa_a$ with respect to $\breve{r}$. It should be noted that for $\kappa_a=\kappa_a^\prime=0$, we have $\widehat{\bf E}={\bf E}=(d\phi)^\sharp$. 2. By definition of the electric charge density $q:=\widehat{\varrho} {d{\mathcal V}}$, where $\epsilon_0 ^{-1}\widehat{\varrho}=\delta d (\widehat{\phi})=div(\widehat{\bf E})$, one can write: $$\label{chrge_dens} \breve{\varrho}(\breve{r}):=\frac{\widehat{\varrho}(r)}{\varrho_0}=\left(\frac{2}{3\breve{r}}\right)\kappa_a^\prime+\frac{1}{3}\left(1-\frac{1}{\breve{r}} \right)\kappa_a^{\prime\prime},$$ where $\varrho_0:=Q/(4/3\pi a^3)$ is the uniform electric charge density, and $\kappa_a^{\prime\prime}:=\partial^2_{\breve{r}}\kappa_a$. In Fig. \[FIG\_1\] the quantities ${\phi}$ and $\tilde{E}:={\bf{\tilde{E}}}\cdot{\bf{\hat{r}}}$ and $\tilde{q}$ are shown versus $\tilde{r}$. The figure is obtained for the particular regularized Dirac delta function: $$\label{delt_p} \delta_a(\tilde{r}):=\frac{\beta}{a}\frac{e^{-\tilde{r}}}{(1+e^{-\tilde{r}})^2},$$ where the adjustment constant $\beta\approx 10$ is chosen such that ${\rm supp}(\kappa_a(\tilde{r}))\sim a$.\ The following points are noticeable about the model: 1. The model is not completely scale-free.\ For a fixed Riemannian radius $a$, the particle and its surroundings (Riemannian and Weylian as a whole), may be expanded or be contracted freely; because $\kappa>0$ is defined relative to the Riemannian geometry $\kappa=0$. But, for a Riemannian observer, the model depends on $a$. 2. It is easy to show that $\phi^d$ is arbitrary. In fact, for a null dark (primary) field $\phi^d=0$, one would get $$\label{null_1} \breve{\phi}(\breve{r})=\frac{1-\kappa_{a}}{\breve{r}},$$ instead of Eq. (\[particle\_model\_1\]), sharing main properties with it. 3. Eq. (\[chrge\_dens\]) may be seen as a geometric interpretation of the electric charges. As it shows: > “[The electric charge is a result of change of dilation of the electric field.]{}” In general, consider the Laplace equation with the Dirichlet boundary condition: \[Laplace\_3\] =0, x\^30; \[Laplace\_3\_1\]\ (0)=\^d. \[Laplace\_3\_2\] As a special case of the solution provided in $\S$ \[sec\_4.1\], we suggest solution of Eq. (\[Eq18\]) instead of system (\[Laplace\_3\_1\])-(\[Laplace\_3\_2\]), which according to corollary \[corol\_1\] has the solution $\varphi=\lim_{a\to 0} \varphi_{\delta_a}$, where: $$\label{lap_sol} \varphi_{\delta_a}=(1-\kappa_a)\frac{\varphi^d}{r^2}+\kappa_a\varphi^d. $$ The superiority of the above solution, in comparison to the classical fundamental solutions, is obvious; it remains smooth by $a\to 0$. Conclusions {#conclusion} =========== By affine transformations of the pair “vector space–dual space”, both dilation and arbitrariness of the physical gauges, are included in the geometric vector spaces. Application of these transformations on the pair tangent–cotangent bundles of a (pseudo)-Riemannian manifold results in a generalized Weyl integrable geometry (GWIG), containing some primary fields which can be interpreted as the dark fields. In this framework, the classical Weyl integrable geometry (CWIG) has already included interactions with null dark fields. The GWIG introduces a new internal symmetry in Maxwell’s equations by which the interactions with the primary (dark) fields are explainable. The gauge-free conservation, hyperbolic and elliptic equations are derived on GWIG from Maxwell’s equations. In GWIG, an infinitely dilated manifold consists of isolated points, each one has a pair tangent “vector–covector” of the primary fields, instead of the tangent “vector space–dual space”. Based on this property, a method, comparable with Penrose conformal infinity, is suggested that imposes canonically the boundary conditions on Maxwell’s equations and its sub-sets. A singularity-free potential theory is constructed from the gauge-free elliptic equation on GWIG. The theory is singularity–free because by approaching dilation to infinity, the values remain defined. The potential theory is used in the construction of a non-singular model for a classical (non-quantum) fixed (non-moving) finite-size charged particle. It solves the old difficulty of infinite energy of the classical vacuum. Conservation, parabolic and elliptic equations on the GWIG {#append1} ========================================================== To be comparable with their classical counterparts, we obtain these equations with respect to a Riemannian observer $\mathscr R$ (see $\S$ \[R-W\]). We will use both $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ for the convenience, but they are related via Eq. (\[kap\_lamb\_rel\]). On the spacetime manifold $({\Bbb R}^4,\eta)$, where $\eta:={\rm diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$, we consider a dilation tensor $\pmb{\chi}:={\rm diag}(e^{-{\mathsf z}_j\lambda})$ inducing Weyl weights $\pmb{\mathsf w}=\pmb{\mathsf w}(\pmb{\mathsf z})$. The morphisms $(\pmb{\mathfrak F}_X,\pmb{\mathfrak F}_V)$ are then defined on the manifold, resulting in the metric $\widehat{\eta}_{\mathscr R}=\chi^{-1}(\eta)={\rm diag}(e^{{\mathsf z}_0\lambda},-e^{{\mathsf z}_1\lambda},-e^{{\mathsf z}_2\lambda},-e^{{\mathsf z}_3\lambda})$. Moreover, assume that there is a dark (primary) 1-form $\alpha^d=(v_d)^{\flat}$ on the manifold. \[Rem5\] In what follows, we need the four-gradient with respect to $\mathscr R$. According to corollary \[coroll\_1\], it reads: $\partial^\mu=\widehat{\eta}^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu$. Moreover, note that $\eta$ is diagonal. Therefore, according to corollary \[corol1\], $\widehat{A}^\mu=\eta^{\mu\nu}\widehat{A}_\nu$. The procedure is exactly the same as the procedure of obtaining the classical conservation, hyperbolic and elliptic equations from the classical Maxwell’s equations, that is: the gauge fixing $\delta A\equiv 0$ sets $d\delta A=0$. Then by satisfying $\delta {\bf F}=0$, we set $\delta d A=0$ indeed. Together, they result in: $$\label{derham1} {\Delta}_H A:=(d\delta+\delta d)A={\Delta}_H\Big(\big({\bf 1}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}}\big)^{-1}\big(\widehat{A}-{\pmb{\mathcal K}}(A^d)\big)\Big)=0,$$ where $\Delta_H$ is the Hodge-de Rham Laplacian. However, depending on whether the fields are non-stationary $\partial_t:=\partial_0\neq 0$ or stationary $\partial_t=0$, we obtain different types of equations. The non-stationary fields ------------------------- For the non-stationary fields $\partial_t\neq 0$, the gauge fixing ([i.e.]{}, Lorenz condition) $\delta A=0$ reads: $$\label{lor_1} -\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(e^{{\mathsf w}_0\lambda}\big(\widehat{A}_0-{\mathcal K}^\alpha_0A^d_0\big)\right)+\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}\left(e^{{\mathsf w}_j\lambda}\big(\widehat{A}_j-{\mathcal K}^\alpha_jA^d_j\big) \right)=0.$$ Then, by writing $\partial^\mu=\widehat{\eta}^{\mu\nu}{\partial}_\nu$, $\widehat{A}^\mu=\eta^{\mu\nu}\widehat{A}_\nu$ (see remark \[Rem5\]), and $({A}^d)^\mu=\eta^{\mu\nu}(A^d)_\nu$, the divergence of $\widehat{A}^\mu$ may be written as: $$\label{Ext_Lor} e^{-{\mathsf z}_0\lambda}\partial_0\left(e^{{\mathsf w}_0\lambda}\widehat{A}^0\right)+e^{-{\mathsf z}_j\lambda}\partial_j\left(e^{{\mathsf w}_j\lambda}\widehat{A}^j \right)={\mathcal R}_1, $$ where: $${\mathcal R}_1:=e^{-{\mathsf z}_\mu\lambda}\partial_\mu\Big(e^{\mathsf w_\mu\lambda}(1-e^{-\mathsf w_\mu\lambda})(A^d)^\mu \Big).$$ Equation (\[Ext\_Lor\]) is the conservation equation on GWIG, and its solution yields Lorenz gauge $\widehat{A}_\mu$ on GWIG. Substitution of $\widehat{A}$ in Maxwell’s equations results in four decoupled equations with a generic form: $$\label{mod_wave_1} -\partial^2_{0} \Big(e^{\mathsf w_\mu\lambda}\big(\widehat{\phi}-{\mathcal K}_\mu\phi^d\big)\Big)+{\partial^2_{j}}\Big(e^{{\mathsf w}_\mu\lambda}\big(\widehat{\phi}-{\mathcal K}_\mu\phi^d\big)\Big)=0,$$ where $\widehat{\phi}$ and ${\phi}^d$ stand for any $\mu^{\rm th}$ component of $\widehat{A}$, and $A^d$. This equation is equivalent with the equation $\partial^\nu\partial_\nu(\eta^{\mu\sigma}{A}_\sigma)=0$ on $\widehat{T}M$, which is the wave equation on GWIG: $$\label{mod_wave_2} \Big(e^{-{\mathsf z}_0\lambda}\partial^2_{0}-e^{-{\mathsf z}_j\lambda}\partial^2_{j}\Big)(e^{{\mathsf w}_\mu\lambda}\widehat{\phi})={\mathcal R}_2, $$ where $$\label{mod_wave_3} {\mathcal R}_2:=\Big(e^{-{\mathsf z}_0\lambda}\partial^2_{0}-e^{-{\mathsf z}_j\lambda}\partial^2_{j}\Big)\big(e^{\mathsf w_\mu\lambda}(1-e^{{-\mathsf w}_\mu\lambda})\widehat{\phi}^d\big).$$ We emphasis that the behavior of equation may be different because ${\mathsf w}_\mu$ may be different from a component to the other. The stationary fields --------------------- For $\partial_t=0$ where the the geometry is elliptic, the gauge fixing ${\delta} A=0$ results in Coulomb gauge $\widehat{A}$ on GWIG satisfying: $$\label{Columb_1} e^{-{\mathsf z}_j\lambda}\partial_j\Big(e^{{\mathsf w}_j\lambda}\widehat{A}^j\Big)=e^{-{\mathsf z}_j\lambda}\partial_j\Big(e^{\mathsf w_j\lambda}(1-e^{-{\mathsf w}_j\lambda})({A}^d)^j\Big),$$ on $\widehat{T}M$. Substitution in Maxwell’s equations results in four decoupled Laplace equations on GWIG with a generic form: $$\label{mod_Laplace_1} e^{-{\mathsf z}_j\lambda}\partial^2_{j}\big(e^{{\mathsf w}_\mu\lambda}\widehat{\phi}\big)=e^{-{\mathsf z}_j\lambda}\partial^2_{j}\big(e^{\mathsf w_\mu\lambda}(1-e^{-{\mathsf w}_\mu\lambda}){\phi}^d\big). $$ where $\widehat{\phi}$ and $\phi^d$ stand for any $\mu^{\rm th}$ component of $\eta^{-1}(\widehat{A})$ and $\eta^{-1}({A}^d)$. This equation results in a potential theory on GWIG, as it is discussed in $\S$ \[gen\_potential\_theory\]. [00]{} G.B. Folland, Weyl manifolds, J. Differential Geom. 4 (1970), no. 2, 145–153. https://doi:10.4310/jdg/1214429379. E. Scholz, Gauging the Spacetime Metric – Looking Back and Forth a Century Later, 2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01696. P.A.M. Dirac, Long Range Forces and Broken Symmetries, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1973) 333, 403-418, https://doi: 10.1098/rspa.1973.0070. Israelit, M., N., Rosen, Weyl-Dirac geometry and dark matter, Found Phys 22, 555-568 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732923. H. Cheng, Possible Existence of Weyl’s Vector Meson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [61*]{}, (1988) 2182–2184. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.2182 Maeder, A., V.G. Gueorguiev, The Scale-Invariant Vacuum (SIV) Theory: A Possible Origin of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, Universe 2020, 6, 46. https://doi:10.3390/universe6030046. F. Sabetghadam, Exact Imposition of the Regular Rigid Immersed Surfaces on the Solution of the Incompressible Navier–Stokes Equations. 2015, https://doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4800.4001. L.P. Eisenhart, Non-Riemannian Geometry, American Mathematical Society, New York, 1927. [^1]: The type of boundary condition being imposed is dependent on the particular distribution of $\phi^d$. With this regards, the case of a constant right hand side of Eq. (\[Eq18\]), that is, $\widehat{\Delta}(\kappa_{a} \phi^d)=q_d\neq q^d(x)$, might impose the Neumann boundary condition on the classical Laplace equation. We do not treat it in the present article.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The category of double categories and double functors is equipped with a symmetric closed monoidal structure. For any double category $\mathbb A$, the corresponding internal hom functor ${\lsem}\mathbb A,-{\rsem}$ sends a double category $\mathbb B$ to the double category whose 0-cells are the double functors $\mathbb A \to \mathbb B$, whose horizontal and vertical 1-cells are the horizontal and vertical pseudotransformations, respectively, and whose 2-cells are the modifications. Some well-known functors of practical significance are checked to be compatible with this monoidal structure.' address: 'Wigner Research Centre for Physics, H-1525 Budapest 114, P.O.B. 49, Hungary' author: - Gabriella Böhm date: Jan 2019 title: The Gray monoidal product of double categories --- Introduction {#sec:intro .unnumbered} ============ The category ${\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}}$ of 2-categories and 2-functors carries different monoidal structures. The simplest one is given by the Cartesian product. It is symmetric and closed. For any 2-category $\mathcal A$, the internal hom functor $\langle\mathcal A,-\rangle$ sends a 2-category $\mathcal B$ to the 2-category of 2-functors $\mathcal A\to \mathcal B$, 2-natural transformations, and modifications. This is, however, often too restrictive. For example, important examples of 2-categories which are intuitively monoidal, fail to be monoids for that [@BaezNeuchl; @KapranovVoevodsky; @SchommerPries]. A well established generalization is the so-called [Gray monoidal product]{} [@Gray]. It is also symmetric and closed and for any 2-category $\mathcal A$ the corresponding internal hom functor $[\mathcal A,-]$ sends a 2-category $\mathcal B$ to the 2-category of 2-functors $\mathcal A\to \mathcal B$, [pseudonatural]{} transformations, and modifications. The Cartesian monoidal structure is more restrictive than the Gray one in the sense that the identity functor on ${\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}}$ is a monoidal functor from the former to the latter one. The category $\mathsf{DblCat}$ of double categories and double functors is also symmetric closed monoidal via the Cartesian product $\times$. For any double category $\mathbb A$, the corresponding internal hom functor $\langlebar\mathbb A,-\ranglebar$ sends a double category $\mathbb B$ to the double category whose 0-cells are the double functors $\mathbb A \to \mathbb B$, whose horizontal and vertical 1-cells are the horizontal and vertical transformations, respectively, and whose 2-cells are the modifications; see [@GrandisPare]. The analogue of the Gray monoidal product on $\mathsf{DblCat}$, however, has apparently not yet been discussed in the literature. The current paper addresses this question. For any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$, there is a bigger double category ${\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B{\rsem}$ in which the 0-cells are still the double functors $\mathbb A\to \mathbb B$. The horizontal and vertical 1-cells are, however, the horizontal and vertical [pseudo]{} (or strong) transformations of [@GrandisPare]. The 2-cells are their modifications. In Section \[sec:existence\] we prove that for any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$, there is a representing object $\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb A$ of the functor $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb B,{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb - {\rsem}):\mathsf {DblCat} \to \mathsf{Set}$. Constructing the associativity and unit constraints, as well as the symmetry, in Section \[sec:coherence\] we show that $\otimes$ equips $\mathsf {DblCat}$ with a symmetric monoidal structure. In order to support this choice of monoidal structure on $\mathsf {DblCat}$, in Section \[sec:examples\] monoidality of the following functors is checked. - The identity functor $(\mathsf {DblCat},\times) \to (\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$. - The functors $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes) \to ({\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}},\otimes)$ sending double categories to their horizontal – or vertical – 2-categories (for the Gray monoidal product $\otimes$ on ${\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}}$). - The square (or quintet) construction functor ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}:({\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}},\otimes) \to (\mathsf {DblCat}, \otimes)$ due to Ehresmann [@Ehresmann]. - The functor ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}:(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes) \to (\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$, sending a double category to the double category of its monads by Fiore, Gambino and Kock [@FioreGambinoKock]. We also give an explicit description of monoids in $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$ which generalize the strict monoidal double categories of [@BruniMeseguerMontanari]; that is, the monoids in $(\mathsf {DblCat},\times)$. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} --------------- Financial support by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office – NKFIH (grant K124138) is gratefully acknowledged. Existence {#sec:existence} ========= In this section we construct an adjunction $-\otimes \mathbb D \dashv {\lsem}\mathbb D,-{\rsem}$ of endofunctors on the category $\mathsf{DblCat}$ of double categories, for any double category $\mathbb D$. Our line of reasoning is similar to [@BourkeGurski Proposition 3.10]. The occurring double functor $\otimes:\mathsf{DblCat} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{DblCat}$ is our candidate Gray monoidal product on $\mathsf{DblCat}$. Mac Lane’s coherence conditions are checked in Section \[sec:coherence\]. The category of double categories {#sec:DblCat} --------------------------------- We begin with introducing the category $\mathsf{DblCat} $ of double categories and double functors, and recording some of its basic properties. A [double category]{} is an internal category in the category $\mathsf{Cat}$ of categories and functors. A [double functor]{} in an internal functor in $\mathsf{Cat}$. Double categories are the objects, and double functors are the morphisms of the category $\mathsf{DblCat}$. So a double category consists of 0-cells, also called objects, (interpreted as the objects of the category of objects), vertical 1-cells (which are the morphisms of the category of objects), horizontal 1-cells (the objects of the category of morphisms) and 2-cells (the morphisms of the category of morphisms). They can be composed vertically (in the category of objects and the category of morphisms, respectively) and horizontally (via the composition functor of the double category). As usual in the literature (see e.g. [@GrandisPare]), we denote 2-cells as squares surrounded by the appropriate horizontal and vertical source and target 1-cells. We denote by $1$ both horizontal and vertical identity 1-cells; and also identity 2-cells for the horizontal or vertical composition. Usually we neither make notational difference between the compositions of horizontal and vertical 1-cells; both are denoted by a dot (if not a diagram is rather drawn). By [@FiorePaoliPronk Theorem 4.1] and its proof, $\mathsf{DblCat}$ is locally finitely presentable — so in particular cocomplete — and complete. Its terminal object $\mathbbm 1$ is the double category of a single object and only identity higher cells. Consider the double category $\mathbb G$ which is freely generated by a single 2-cell. In more detail, $\mathbb G$ has four objects, we denote them by $X$, $Y$, $V$ and $Z$. There are identity horizontal and vertical identity 1-cells for each object as well as non-identity horizontal and vertical 1-cells $$\xymatrix{X \ar[r]^-t & Y} \qquad \xymatrix{V \ar[r]^-b & Z} \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \raisebox{17pt}{$\xymatrix{X \ar[d]^-l \\ V} \qquad \xymatrix{Y \ar[d]^-r \\ Z}$}.$$ There are vertical identity 2-cells at each horizontal 1-cell, horizontal identity 2-cells at each vertical 1-cell, and a single non-identity 2-cell $$\xymatrix{X \ar[r]^-t \ar[d]_-l \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \tau}} & Y \ar[d]^-r \\ V \ar[r]_-b & Z.}$$ The functor $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb G,-):\mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{Set}$ sends a double category $\mathbb A$ to the set of double functors $\mathbb G \to \mathbb A$, which can be identified with the set of 2-cells in $\mathbb A$. A double functor $\mathsf F$ is sent to its 2-cell part, which is an isomorphism in $ \mathsf{Set}$ if and only if $\mathsf F$ is bijective on the 2-cells. Since this includes bijectivity also on the identity 2-cells of various kinds, it is equivalent to $\mathsf F$ being bijective on all kinds of cells; that is, its being an isomorphism in $\mathsf{DblCat}$. By the so obtained conservativity of the functor $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb G,-):\mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{Set}$ we conclude that $\mathbb G$ is a strong generator of the finitely complete category $\mathsf{DblCat}$ with coproducts, see [@BorceuxI Proposition 4.5.10]. The double categories of double functors {#sec:[A,B]} ---------------------------------------- Using similar constructions to those in [@GrandisPare Section 7], any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$ determine a double category ${\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B{\rsem}$ as follows. The are the double functors $\mathbb A \to \mathbb B$. The are the [horizontal pseudotransformations]{} (called [strong horizontal transformations]{} in [@GrandisPare Section 7.4]). A horizontal pseudotransformation $x:\mathsf F\to \mathsf G$ consists of the following data. - For any 0-cell $A$ of $\mathbb A$, a horizontal morphism in $\mathbb B$ on the left; - for any vertical 1-cell $f$ in $\mathbb A$, a 2-cell in $\mathbb B$ in the middle; - for any horizontal 1-cell $h$ in $\mathbb A$, a [vertically invertible]{} 2-cell in $\mathbb B$ on the right: $$\xymatrix@C=25pt{\mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} & \mathsf GA} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix@C=25pt@R=25pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Ff} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_f}} & \mathsf GA \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Gf} \\ \mathsf FB \ar[r]_-{x_B} & \mathsf GB} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix@C=25pt@R=25pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^h}} & \mathsf FC \ar[r]^-{x_C} & \mathsf GC \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf FA \ar[r]_-{x_A} & \mathsf GA \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Gh} & \mathsf GC.}$$ These ingredients are subject to the following axioms. (i) [Vertical functoriality]{}, saying that for the identity vertical 1-cell $1$ on any object $A$ in $\mathbb A$, $x_1$ is equal to the vertical identity 2-cell on the left; and for any composable vertical 1-cells $f$ and $g$ in $\mathbb A$, the equality on the right holds: $$\xymatrix@C=25pt@R=62pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf GA \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf FA \ar[r]_-{x_A} & \mathsf GA} \qquad \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Ff} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_f}} & \mathsf GA \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Gf} \\ \mathsf FB \ar[r]\|-{\,x_B\,} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Fg} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_g}} & \mathsf GB \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Gg} \\ \mathsf FD \ar[r]_-{x_D} & \mathsf GD} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix@C=28pt@R=28pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar[dd]_-{\mathsf F(g.f)} \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_{g.f}}} & \mathsf GA \ar[dd]^-{\mathsf G(g.f)} \\ \\ \mathsf FD \ar[r]_-{x_D} & \mathsf GD.}$$ (ii) [Horizontal functoriality]{}, saying that for the identity horizontal 1-cell $1$ on any object $A$, $x^1$ is equal to the same vertical identity 2-cell on the left; and for any composable horizontal 1-cells $h$ and $k$ in $\mathbb A$, the equality on the right holds: $$\xymatrix@C=25pt@R=62pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf GA \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf FA \ar[r]_-{x_A} & \mathsf GA} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf FC \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fk} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^k}} & \mathsf FE \ar[r]^-{x_E} & \mathsf GE \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf FA \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Fh} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^h}} & \mathsf FC \ar[r]_-{x_C} & \mathsf GC \ar@{=}[d] \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Gk} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf GE \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf FA \ar[r]_-{x_A} & \mathsf GA \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Gh} & \mathsf GC \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Gk} & \mathsf GE} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix@C=28pt@R=28pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf F(k.h)} \ar@{=}[dd] \ar@{}[rrdd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^{k.h}}} & \mathsf FE \ar[r]^-{x_E} & \mathsf GE \ar@{=}[dd] \\ \\ \mathsf FA \ar[r]_-{x_A} & \mathsf GA \ar[r]_-{\mathsf G(k.h)} & \mathsf GE.}$$ (iii) [Naturality]{}, saying that for any 2-cell $\omega$ in $\mathbb A$, $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Ff} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf F\omega}} & \mathsf FC \ar[d]\|-{\mathsf Fg} \ar[r]^-{x_C} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_g}} & \mathsf GC \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Gg} \\ \mathsf FB \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Fk} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^k}} & \mathsf FD \ar[r]_-{x_D} & \mathsf GD \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf FB \ar[r]_-{x_B} & \mathsf GB \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Gk} & \mathsf GD} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^h}} & \mathsf FC \ar[r]^-{x_C} & \mathsf GC \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Ff} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_f}} & \mathsf GA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Gh} \ar[d]\|-{\mathsf Gf} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf G\omega}} & \mathsf GC \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Gg} \\ \mathsf FB \ar[r]_-{x_B} & \mathsf GB \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Gk} & \mathsf GD.}$$ The are the [vertical pseudotransformations]{} (called [strong vertical transformations]{} in [@GrandisPare Section 7.4]). A vertical pseudotransformation $y:\mathsf F\to \mathsf H$ consists of the following data. - For any 0-cell $A$ of $\mathbb A$, a vertical 1-cell in $\mathbb B$ on the left; - for any horizontal 1-cell $h$ in $\mathbb A$, a 2-cell in $\mathbb B$ in the middle; - for any vertical 1-cell $f$ in $\mathbb A$, a horizontally invertible 2-cell in $\mathbb B$ on the right: $$\xymatrix@R=65pt{\mathsf FA \ar[d]^-{y_A} \\ \mathsf HA} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix@C=25pt@R=65pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_h}} & \mathsf FC \ar[d]^-{y_C} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Hh} & \mathsf HC} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix@C=25pt@R=25pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y^f}} & \mathsf FA \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Ff} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Hf} & \mathsf FB \ar[d]^-{y^B} \\ \mathsf HB \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf HB.}$$ These ingredients are subject to the following axioms. (i) [Horizontal functoriality]{}, saying that for the identity horizontal 1-cell $1$ on any object $A$ in $\mathbb A$, $y_1$ is equal to the horizontal identity 2-cell on the left; and for any composable horizontal 1-cells $h$ and $k$ in $\mathbb A$, the equality on the right holds: $$\xymatrix@C=25pt@R=23pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf FA \ar[d]^-{y_A} \\ \mathsf HA \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf HA} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_h}} & \mathsf FC \ar[d]\|-{y_C} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fk} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_k}} & \mathsf FE \ar[d]^-{y_E} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Hh} & \mathsf HC \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Hk} & \mathsf HE} \raisebox{-18pt}{$=$} \xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar[rr]^-{\mathsf F(k.h)} \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_{k.h}}} && \mathsf FE \ar[d]^-{y_E} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[rr]_-{\mathsf H(k.h)} && \mathsf HE.}$$ (ii) [Vertical functoriality]{}, saying that for the identity vertical 1-cell $1$ on any object $A$, $y^1$ is equal to the same horizontal identity 2-cell on the left; and for any composable vertical 1-cells $f$ and $g$ in $\mathbb A$, the equality on the right holds: $$\xymatrix@C=25pt@R=102pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf FA \ar[d]^-{y_A} \\ \mathsf HA \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf HA} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle y^f}} & \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Ff} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf FA \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Ff} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Hf} & \mathsf FB \ar[d]^-{y_B} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle y^g}} & \mathsf FB \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Fg} \\ \mathsf HB \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Hg} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf HB \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Hg} & \mathsf FD \ar[d]^-{y_D} \\ \mathsf HD \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf HD \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf HD} \raisebox{-58pt}{$\ =$} \xymatrix@C=25pt@R=24pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rddd]\|-{{\displaystyle y^{g.f}}} & \mathsf FA \ar[dd]^-{\mathsf F(g.f)} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[dd]_-{\mathsf H(g.f)} \\ & \mathsf FD \ar[d]^-{y_D} \\ \mathsf HD \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf HD.}$$ (iii) [Naturality]{}, saying that for any 2-cell $\omega$ in $\mathbb A$, $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle y^f}} & \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Ff} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf F\omega}} & \mathsf FC \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Fg} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Hf} & \mathsf FB \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fk} \ar[d]_-{y_B} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_k}} & \mathsf FD \ar[d]^-{y_D} \\ \mathsf HB \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf HB \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Hk} & \mathsf HD} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_h}} & \mathsf FC \ar[d]^-{y_C} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle y^g}} & \mathsf FA \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Fg} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Hh} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Hf} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf H\omega}} & \mathsf HC \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Hg} & \mathsf FD \ar[d]^-{y_D} \\ \mathsf HB \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Hk} & \mathsf HD \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf HD.}$$ The are the [modifications]{}. A modification on the left is given by a collection of 2-cells in $\mathbb B$ on the right, for all 0-cells $A$ of $\mathbb A$: $$\xymatrix@C=25pt@R=25pt{ \mathsf F \ar[r]^-{x} \ar[d]_-y \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Theta}} & \mathsf G \ar[d]^-v \\ \mathsf H \ar[r]_-z & \mathsf K} \qquad \qquad \qquad \xymatrix@C=25pt@R=25pt{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Theta_A}} & \mathsf GA \ar[d]^-{v_A} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[r]_-{z_A} & \mathsf KA}$$ satisfying the following axioms. (i) For any horizontal 1-cell $h$ in $\mathbb A$, $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_h}} & \mathsf FC \ar[r]^-{x_C} \ar[d]\|-{y_C} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Theta_C}} & \mathsf GC \ar[d]^-{v_C} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Hh} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle z^h}} & \mathsf HC \ar[r]_-{z_C} & \mathsf KC \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf HA \ar[r]_-{z_A} & \mathsf KA \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Kh} & \mathsf KC} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^h}} & \mathsf FC \ar[r]^-{x_C} & \mathsf GC \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Theta_A}} & \mathsf GA \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Gh} \ar[d]\|-{v_A} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v_h}} & \mathsf GC \ar[d]^-{v_C} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[r]_-{z_A} & \mathsf KA \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Kh} & \mathsf KC.}$$ (ii) For any vertical 1-cell $f$ in $\mathbb A$, $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Theta_A}} & \mathsf GA \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]^-{v_A} \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle v^f}} & \mathsf GA \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Gf} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[r]^-{z_A} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Hf} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle z_f}} & \mathsf KA \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Kf} & \mathsf GB \ar[d]^-{v_B} \\ \mathsf HB \ar[r]_-{z_B} & \mathsf KB \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf KB} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix{ \mathsf FA \ar[d]_-{y_A} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle y^f}} & \mathsf FA \ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Ff} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_f}} & \mathsf GA \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Gf} \\ \mathsf HA \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Hf} & \mathsf FB \ar[r]^-{x_B} \ar[d]_-{y_B} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Theta_B}} & \mathsf GB \ar[d]^-{v_B} \\ \mathsf HB \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf HB \ar[r]_-{z_B} & \mathsf KB.}$$ The identity horizontal pseudotransformation has the components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf F A \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{\mathsf F f} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf F A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf F f} \\ \mathsf F B \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf B} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf F A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf F h} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf F C \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf F C \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf F A \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf F A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf F h} & \mathsf F C;}$$ while the composite of some horizontal pseudotransformations $\xymatrix@C=15pt{\mathsf F \ar[r]^-x & \mathsf G \ar[r]^-z & \mathsf H}$ has the components $$\xymatrix@R=28pt{ \mathsf F A\ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar[dd]_-{\mathsf Ff} \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_f}} & \mathsf GA \ar[r]^-{z_A} \ar[dd]\|-{\mathsf Gf} \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle z_f}} & \mathsf HA \ar[dd]^-{\mathsf H f} \\ \\ \mathsf F B \ar[r]_-{x_B} & \mathsf GB \ar[r]_-{z_B} & \mathsf H B} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf F A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Fh} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^h}} & \mathsf F C \ar[r]^-{x_C} & \mathsf G C \ar[r]^-{z_C} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf H C \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf F A\ar[r]^-{x_A} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf G A\ar[r]^-{\mathsf Gh} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle z^h}} & \mathsf G C \ar[r]_-{z_C} & \mathsf H C \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf F A \ar[r]_-{x_A} & \mathsf GA \ar[r]_-{z_A} & \mathsf H A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Hh} & \mathsf H C}$$ for any horizontal 1-cell $h$ and vertical 1-cell $f$ in $\mathbb A$. Symmetric formulae apply to the vertical pseudotransformations. The components of the horizontal composite of modifications are the horizontal composites of their components, and the components of the vertical composite of modifications are the vertical composites of their components. Throughout, we identify any double category $\mathbb A$ with the isomorphic double category ${\lsem}\mathbbm 1,\mathbb A {\rsem}$. The functor ${\lsem}-,- {\rsem}:\mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat}\to \mathsf{DblCat}$ {#sec:[-,-]} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this section we interpret the map, sending a pair of double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$ to the double category ${\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}$ of Section \[sec:\[A,B\]\], as the object map of a functor in the title. So we need to construct its morphism map, sending a pair of double functors $\mathsf F:\mathbb A'\to \mathbb A$ and $\mathsf G:\mathbb B\to \mathbb B'$ to a double functor ${\lsem}\mathsf F,\mathsf G {\rsem}:{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\to {\lsem}\mathbb A',\mathbb B' {\rsem}$. Its part sends a double functor $\xymatrix@C=13pt{ \mathbb A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf H} & \mathbb B}$ to the composite $\xymatrix@C=13pt{ \mathbb A' \ar[r]^-{\mathsf F} & \mathbb A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf H} & \mathbb B \ar[r]^-{\mathsf G} & \mathbb B'.}$ The part sends a horizontal pseudotransformation $\xymatrix@C=15pt{ \mathsf H \ar[r]^-x & \mathsf H'}$ to the horizontal pseudotransformation with the components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{GHF} A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf G x_{\mathsf FA}} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf{GHF} f} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf G x_{\mathsf Ff}}} & \mathsf{GH'F} A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf{GH'F} f} \\ \mathsf{GHF} B \ar[r]_-{\mathsf G x_{\mathsf FB}} & \mathsf{GH'F}B} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf{GHF} A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf{GHF} h} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf G x^{\mathsf Fh}}} & \mathsf{GHF} C \ar[r]^-{\mathsf G x_{\mathsf FC}} & \mathsf{GH'F} C \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf{GHF} A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf G x_{\mathsf FA}} & \mathsf{GH'F} A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf{GH'F} h} & \mathsf{GH'F} C}$$ for any horizontal 1-cell $h$ and vertical 1-cell $f$ in $\mathbb A'$. Symmetrically, the part sends a vertical pseudotransformation $y$ to the vertical pseudotransformation with the components $$\xymatrix@R=27pt{ \mathsf{GHF} A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf{GHF} h} \ar[dd]_-{\mathsf G y_{\mathsf FA}} \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf G y_{\mathsf Fh}}} & \mathsf{GHF} C \ar[dd]^-{\mathsf G y_{\mathsf FC}} \\ \\ \mathsf{GH^{\prime \prime}F} A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf{GH^{\prime \prime}F} h} & \mathsf{GH^{\prime \prime}F} C} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf{GHF} A \ar[d]_-{\mathsf G y_{\mathsf FA}} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf G y^{\mathsf Ff}}} & \mathsf{GHF} A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf{GHF} f} \\ \mathsf{GH^{\prime \prime}F} A \ar[d]_-{\mathsf{GH^{\prime \prime}F} f} & \mathsf{GHF} B \ar[d]^-{\mathsf G y_{\mathsf FB}} \\ \mathsf{GH^{\prime \prime}F} B \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf{GH^{\prime \prime}F} B }$$ for any horizontal 1-cell $h$ and vertical 1-cell $f$ in $\mathbb A'$. Finally, the part sends a modification in the first diagram to the modification with components in the second diagram: $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf H \ar[r]^-{x} \ar[d]_-y \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Theta}} & \mathsf H' \ar[d]^-v \\ \mathsf H^{\prime \prime} \ar[r]_-z & \mathsf H^{\prime \prime \prime }} \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf {GHF}A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Gx_{\mathsf FA}} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Gy_{\mathsf FA}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf G\Theta_{\mathsf FA}}} & \mathsf{GH'F}A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Gv_{\mathsf FA}} \\ \mathsf {GH^{\prime \prime} F}A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Gz_{\mathsf FA}} & \mathsf {GH^{\prime \prime \prime }F}A.}$$ The extranatural transformation $\mathfrak l$ {#sec:l} ---------------------------------------------- In this section we construct an extranatural transformation $$\xymatrix@C=60pt{ \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \times \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \ar[r]^-{{\lsem}-,- {\rsem}\times ! \times !} \ar[d]_(.07){\xymatrix@C=3pt@R=17pt{ \ar[rrd] & \ar[rrrrd] &&& \ar[lllld] & \ar[lld] \\ &&&&&}\hspace{2.3cm}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\mbox{\rotatebox{270}{$\Longrightarrow$} \raisebox{-12pt}{$\displaystyle {\mathfrak l}$}}}} & \mathsf{DblCat} \\ \mathsf{DblCat} \times \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \ar[r]_-{{\lsem}\mathbb -,- {\rsem}^{\mathsf{op}}\times {\lsem}\mathbb -,- {\rsem}} & \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \ar[u]_-{{\lsem}-,- {\rsem}} }$$ where $!$ in the top row denotes the unique functor to the terminal category, and in the left column the depicted symmetry natural isomorphism — that is, the appropriate flip map — occurs. We denote by lower indices that $\mathfrak l$ is [ordinary natural]{} in the first two arguments, and an upper index reminds us that it is [extranatural]{} in the last two factors. At any object of the form $\mathbb A,\mathbb B,\mathbb D,\mathbb D$, it is given by the following double functor $\mathfrak l^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}:{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\to {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb D, \mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}$. The part sends a double functor $\mathsf G:\mathbb A \to \mathbb B$ to the double functor ${\lsem}1,\mathsf G {\rsem}:{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A {\rsem}\to {\lsem}\mathbb D, \mathbb B {\rsem}$ of Section \[sec:\[-,-\]\]. The part sends a horizontal pseudotransformation $\xymatrix@C=12pt{\mathsf G \ar[r]^-x & \mathsf {G'}}$ to the horizontal pseudotransformation ${\lsem}1,\mathsf G {\rsem}\to {\lsem}1,\mathsf G' {\rsem}$ with the following components, for any horizontal pseudotransformation $p$ and vertical pseudotransformation $q$ between double functors $\mathsf H ,\mathsf H':\mathbb D \to \mathbb A$. - The horizontal pseudotransformation with components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{GH}A \ar[r]^-{x_{\mathsf H A}} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf{GH}f} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_{\mathsf H f}}} & \mathsf{G'H}A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf{G'H}f} \\ \mathsf{GH}B \ar[r]_-{x_{\mathsf H B}} & \mathsf{G'H}B} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf{GH}A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf{GH} h} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^{\mathsf H h}}} & \mathsf{GH}C \ar[r]^-{x_{\mathsf H C}} & \mathsf{G'H}C \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf{GH}A \ar[r]_-{x_{\mathsf H A}} & \mathsf{G'H}A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf{G'H} h} & \mathsf{G'H}C}$$ for any horizontal 1-cell $h$ and vertical 1-cell $f$ in $\mathbb D$. - The modification with components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{GH}A \ar[r]^-{x_{\mathsf H A}} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf G q_A} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_{q_A}}} & \mathsf{G'H}A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf G' q_A} \\ \mathsf{GH'}A \ar[r]_-{x_{\mathsf H' A}} & \mathsf{G'H'}A}$$ for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb D$. - The vertically invertible modification with components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{GH}A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf G p_A} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle x^{p_A}}} & \mathsf{GH'}A \ar[r]^-{x_{\mathsf H' A}} & \mathsf{G'H'}A \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf{GH}A \ar[r]_-{x_{\mathsf H A}} & \mathsf{G'H}A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf G' p_A} & \mathsf{G'H'}A}$$ for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb D$. Symmetrically, the part sends a vertical pseudotransformation $y$ from $\mathsf G$ to $\mathsf G'$ to the vertical pseudotransformation from ${\lsem}1,\mathsf G{\rsem}$ to ${\lsem}1,\mathsf G'{\rsem}$ with the following components, for any horizontal pseudotransformation $p$ and vertical pseudotransformation $q$ between double functors $\mathsf H ,\mathsf H':\mathbb D \to \mathbb A$. - The vertical pseudotransformation with components $$\xymatrix@R=27pt{ \mathsf{GH}A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf{GH} h} \ar[dd]_-{y_{\mathsf H A}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_{\mathsf H h}}} & \mathsf{GH}C \ar[dd]^-{y_{\mathsf H C}} \\ &\\ \mathsf{G'H}A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf{G'H} h} & \mathsf{G'H}C} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf{GH}A \ar[d]_-{y_{\mathsf H A}} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y^{\mathsf H f}}} & \mathsf{GH}A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf{GH} f} \\ \mathsf{G'H}A \ar[d]_-{\mathsf{G'H} f} & \mathsf{GH} B \ar[d]^-{y_{\mathsf H B}} \\ \mathsf{G'H}B \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf{G'H}B}$$ for any horizontal 1-cell $h$ and vertical 1-cell $f$ in $\mathbb D$. - The modification with components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{GH}A \ar[d]_-{y_{\mathsf H A}} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf G p_A} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_{p_A}}} & \mathsf{GH'}A \ar[d]^-{y_{\mathsf {H'} A}} \\ \mathsf{G'H}A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf{G'} p_A} & \mathsf{G'H}A}$$ for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb D$. - The horizontally invertible modification with components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{GH}A \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{y_{\mathsf H A}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y^{q_A}}} & \mathsf{GH}A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf{G} q_A} \\ \mathsf{G'H}A \ar[d]_-{\mathsf{G'} q_A} & \mathsf{GH'}A \ar[d]^-{y_{\mathsf {H'} A}} \\ \mathsf{G'H'}A \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf{G'H'}A}$$ for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb D$. The part sends a modification in the first diagram to the modification with components in the second diagram, for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb D$: $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf G \ar[r]^-x \ar[d]_-y \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Gamma}} & \mathsf{G'} \ar[d]^-v \\ \mathsf{G^{\prime \prime}} \ar[r]_-z & \mathsf{G^{\prime \prime \prime }}} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf {GH} A \ar[r]^-{x_{\mathsf H A}} \ar[d]_-{y_{\mathsf H A}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Gamma_{\mathsf H A}}} & \mathsf{G'H} A \ar[d]^-{v_{\mathsf H A}} \\ \mathsf{G^{\prime \prime}H} A \ar[r]_-{z_{\mathsf H A}} & \mathsf{G^{\prime \prime \prime}H} A.}$$ For any double categories $\mathbb A$, $\mathbb B$, $\mathbb C$ and $\mathbb D$, direct computation verifies the commutativity of $$\label{eq:l_comm} \xymatrix@C=18pt{ {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\ar[rr]^-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}} \ar[d]_-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C}_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}} && {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[d]^-{{\lsem}1,\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C}_{\mathbb D,\mathbb B} {\rsem}} \\ {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb A {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]_-{\raisebox{-10pt}{${}_{ \mathfrak l^{{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb D {\rsem}}_{{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb A {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb B {\rsem}}}$}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb D {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb A {\rsem}{\rsem}, {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb D {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]_-{\raisebox{-10pt}{${}_{ {\lsem}\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C}_{\mathbb D ,\mathbb A },1 {\rsem}}$}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A {\rsem}, {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb D {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}{\rsem}}$$ and the equality of $$\label{eq:l_id} \xymatrix{ {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb A}_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb A {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{{\lsem}1_{\mathbb A},1 {\rsem}} & {\lsem}\mathbbm 1, {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}\cong {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}}$$ to the identity double functor, where $1_{\mathbb A}:\mathbbm 1 \to {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb A {\rsem}$ is the double functor sending the single object of $\mathbbm 1$ to the identity double functor $1_{\mathbb A}:\mathbb A \to \mathbb A$. The extranatural transformation $\mathfrak r$ {#sec:r} --------------------------------------------- In this section we construct another extranatural transformation $$\xymatrix@C=60pt{ \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \times \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \ar[r]^-{{\lsem}-,-{\rsem}\times !\times !} \ar[d]_(.07){ \xymatrix@C=3pt@R=17pt{ \ar[rrrrd] && \ar[lld] & \ar[rrd] && \ar[lllld] \\ &&&&&}\hspace{2.3cm}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\mbox{\rotatebox{270}{$\Longrightarrow$} \raisebox{-12pt}{$\mathfrak r$}}}} & \mathsf{DblCat} \\ \mathsf{DblCat} \times \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \ar[r]_-{{\lsem}-,-{\rsem}^{\mathsf{op}} \times {\lsem}-,-{\rsem}} & \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \ar[u]_-{{\lsem}-,-{\rsem}}}$$ where again, $!$ in the top row denotes the unique functor to the terminal category, and in the left column the depicted symmetry natural isomorphism — that is, the appropriate flip map — occurs. As in Section \[sec:l\], we denote by lower indices that $\mathfrak r$ is [ordinary natural]{} in the first two arguments, and an upper index reminds us that it is [extranatural]{} in the last two factors. At any object of the form $\mathbb A,\mathbb B,\mathbb D,\mathbb D$, it is given by the following double functor $\mathfrak r^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}:{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\to {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb D {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem}{\rsem}$. The part sends a double functor $\mathsf F:\mathbb A \to \mathbb B$ to the double functor ${\lsem}\mathsf F,1{\rsem}:{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb D {\rsem}\to {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem}$ in Section \[sec:\[-,-\]\]. The part sends a horizontal pseudotransformation $\xymatrix@C=12pt{\mathsf F \ar[r]^-x & \mathsf {F'}}$ to the horizontal pseudotransformation ${\lsem}\mathsf F,1{\rsem}\to {\lsem}\mathsf F',1{\rsem}$ with the following components, for any horizontal pseudotransformation $p$ and vertical pseudotransformation $q$ between double functors $\mathsf H ,\mathsf H':\mathbb B \to \mathbb D$. - The horizontal pseudotransformation with components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf {HF}A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Hx_A} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf {HF} f} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf Hx_f}} & \mathsf {HF'}A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf {HF'} f} \\ \mathsf {HF}B \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Hx_B} & \mathsf {HF'}B} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf {HF}A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf {HF} h} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf Hx^h}} & \mathsf {HF} C \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Hx_C} & \mathsf {HF'} C \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf {HF}A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Hx_A} & \mathsf {HF'}A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf {HF'} h} & \mathsf {HF'} C}$$ for horizontal 1-cells $h$ and vertical 1-cells $f$ in $\mathbb A$. - The modification with the components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf {HF}A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Hx_A} \ar[d]_-{q_{\mathsf F A}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle q_{x_A}}} & \mathsf {HF'}A \ar[d]^-{q_{\mathsf F' A}} \\ \mathsf {H'F}A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf H'x_A} & \mathsf {H'F'}A}$$ for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb A$. - The vertically invertible modification with the components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{HF} A \ar[r]^-{p_{\mathsf F A}} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle (p^{x_A})^{-1}}} & \mathsf{H'F} A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf{H'} x_A} & \mathsf{H'F'} A \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf{HF} A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf H x_A} & \mathsf{HF'} A \ar[r]_-{p_{\mathsf{F'} A}} & \mathsf{H'F'} A}$$ for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb A$. Symmetrically, the part sends a vertical pseudotransformation $y$ from $\mathsf F$ to $\mathsf F'$ to the vertical pseudotransformation ${\lsem}\mathsf F,1{\rsem}$ to ${\lsem}\mathsf F',1{\rsem}$ with the following components, for any horizontal pseudotransformation $p$ and vertical pseudotransformation $q$ between double functors $\mathsf H ,\mathsf H':\mathbb B \to \mathbb D$. - The vertical pseudotransformation with components $$\xymatrix@R=27pt{ \mathsf {HF}A \ar[dd]_-{\mathsf Hy_A} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf {HF} h} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf Hy_h}} & \mathsf {HF}C \ar[dd]^-{\mathsf Hy_C} \\ & \\ \mathsf {HF'}A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf {HF'} h} & \mathsf {HF'}C} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf {HF}A \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Hy_A} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf Hy^f}} & \mathsf {HF}A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf {HF} f} \\ \mathsf {HF'} A \ar[d]_-{\mathsf {HF'} f} & \mathsf {HF}B \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Hy_B} \\ \mathsf {HF'} B \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf {HF'} B}$$ for horizontal 1-cells $h$ and vertical 1-cells $f$ in $\mathbb A$. - The modification with the components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf {HF}A \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Hy_A} \ar[r]^-{p_{\mathsf F A}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle p_{y_A}}} & \mathsf {H'F}A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf H'y_A} \\ \mathsf {HF'}A \ar[r]_-{p_{\mathsf F' A}} & \mathsf {H'F'}A}$$ for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb A$. - The horizontally invertible modification with the components $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{HF} A \ar[d]_-{\mathsf{H} y_A} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (q^{y_A})^{-1}}} & \mathsf{HF} A \ar[d]^-{q_{\mathsf F A}} \\ \mathsf{HF'} A \ar[d]_-{q_{\mathsf{F'} A}} & \mathsf{H'F} A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf H' y_A} \\ \mathsf{H'F'} A \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf{H'F'} A}$$ for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb A$. The part sends a modification in the first diagram to the modification with components in the second diagram, for any 0-cell $A$ in $\mathbb A$: $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf F \ar[r]^-x \ar[d]_-y \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Phi}} & \mathsf{F'} \ar[d]^-v \\ \mathsf{F^{\prime \prime}} \ar[r]_-z & \mathsf{F^{\prime \prime \prime }}} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf {HF} A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf H x_A} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf H y_A} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf H \Phi_A}} & \mathsf{HF'} A \ar[d]^-{\mathsf H v_A} \\ \mathsf{HF^{\prime \prime}} A \ar[r]_-{\mathsf H z_A} & \mathsf{HF^{\prime \prime \prime}} A.}$$ Direct computation verifies the commutativity of $$\xymatrix@C=45pt{ {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{{\lsem}1,\mathfrak r^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbbm 1,\mathbb B} {\rsem}} \ar[d]_-{\mathfrak r^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}} & {\lsem}\mathbb A, {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb D {\rsem},\mathbb D {\rsem}{\rsem}\\ {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb D {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]_-{\mathfrak r^{\mathbb D}_{{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb D {\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem}}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem},\mathbb D {\rsem}, {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb D {\rsem},\mathbb D {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[u]_-{{\lsem}\mathfrak r^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbbm 1,\mathbb A},1{\rsem}}}$$ and the equality of $$\xymatrix@C=45pt{ {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\mathfrak r^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbbm 1,\mathbb {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem}}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem},\mathbb D {\rsem},\mathbb D {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{{\lsem}\mathfrak r^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbbm 1,\mathbb A},1{\rsem}} & {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem}}$$ to the identity double functor, for any double categories $\mathbb A$, $\mathbb B$ and $\mathbb D$. It follows from these properties that the double functors $$\label{eq:f} \mathfrak f^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbb A, \mathbb B}=\Bigl( \xymatrix@C=45pt{ {\lsem}\mathbb A,{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb D {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\mathfrak r^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbb A,{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb D {\rsem}}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb D {\rsem},\mathbb D {\rsem}, {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{{\lsem}\mathfrak r^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbbm 1,\mathbb B},1{\rsem}} & {\lsem}\mathbb B,{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb D {\rsem}{\rsem}}\Bigr)$$ constitute an idempotent natural transformation $$\xymatrix@C=40pt{ \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \ar[r]^-{1\times {\lsem}-,\mathbb D {\rsem}} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf {flip}} \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\mbox{\rotatebox{270}{$\Longrightarrow$} \raisebox{-12pt}{$\mathfrak f^{\mathbb D}$}}}} & \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \ar[r]^-{{\lsem}-,- {\rsem}} & \mathsf{DblCat} \\ \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \ar[rr]_-{1\times {\lsem}-,\mathbb D {\rsem}} && \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \ar[u]_-{{\lsem}-,- {\rsem}}}$$ for any double category $\mathbb D$. This $\mathfrak f$ is natural in its lower indices by the naturality of $\mathfrak r$. It is natural in the upper index as well (here the upper index no longer refers to extranaturality). In order to see that, both naturality and extranaturality of $\mathfrak r$ are needed. The extranatural transformation $\mathfrak r$ in this section and $\mathfrak l$ in Section \[sec:l\] together render commutative the following diagram, for any double categories $\mathbb A$, $\mathbb B$ and $\mathbb D$. $$\label{eq:l-r_pentagon} \scalebox{1}{$ \xymatrix@C=34pt{ {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B{\rsem}\ar[rr]^-{\mathfrak l^{{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A{\rsem}}_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}} \ar[d]_-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb D}_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}} && {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A{\rsem},\mathbb A {\rsem},{\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A{\rsem}\mathbb B{\rsem}\ar[d]^-{{\lsem}\mathfrak r^{\mathbb A}_{\mathbbm1,\mathbb D},1{\rsem}} \\ {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A{\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb B{\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\mathfrak r^{\mathbb B}_{{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A{\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb B{\rsem}}} \ar@/_1.3pc/[rr]_-{\mathfrak f^{\mathbb B}_{{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A{\rsem},\mathbb D}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb B{\rsem},\mathbb B {\rsem}, {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A{\rsem},\mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{{\lsem}\mathfrak r^{\mathbb B}_{\mathbbm1,\mathbb D},1{\rsem}} & {\lsem}\mathbb D,{\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb A{\rsem},\mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}}$}$$ Representability of the functor $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb G,{\lsem}\mathbb G,-{\rsem}):\mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{Set}$ {#sec:represent} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this section we investigate the functor in the title, for the double category $\mathbb G$ of Section \[sec:DblCat\]. By the description of $\mathbb G$ in Section \[sec:DblCat\], for any double category $\mathbb A$ the double functors $\mathbb G \to {\lsem}\mathbb G,\mathbb A{\rsem}$ correspond bijectively to the 2-cells of ${\lsem}\mathbb G,\mathbb A{\rsem}$. The 0-cells at the corners of such a 2-cell are double functors denoted as $(A,-):\mathbb G \to \mathbb A$, for all 0-cells $A\in \{X,Y,Z,V\}$ of $\mathbb G$. The top and bottom horizontal 1-cells are horizontal pseudotransformations labelled by the horizontal 1-cells $h\in \{t,b\}$ in $\mathbb G$. We denote their components by $$\xymatrix{ (A,P) \ar[r]^-{(h,P)} \ar[d]_-{(A,v)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (h,v)}} & (C,P) \ar[d]^-{(C,v)} \\ (A,Q) \ar[r]_-{(h,Q)} & (C,Q)} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ (A,P) \ar[r]^-{(A,n)} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{ {\displaystyle (h,n)}} & (A,R) \ar[r]^-{(h,R)} & (C,R) \ar@{=}[d] \\ (A,P) \ar[r]_-{(h,P)} & (C,P) \ar[r]_-{(C,n)} & (C,R)}$$ for any horizontal 1-cell $n$ and vertical 1-cell $v$ in $\mathbb G$. They satisfy the naturality condition $$\label{eq:nat_h} \xymatrix{ (A,X) \ar[r]^-{(A,t)} \ar[d]_-{(A,l)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (A,\tau)}} & (A,Y) \ar[r]^-{(h,Y)} \ar[d]\|-{(A,r)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (h,r)}} & (C,Y) \ar[d]^-{(C,r)} \\ (A,Z) \ar[r]_-{(A,b)} \ar@{=}[d] & (A,V) \ar[r]_-{(h,V)} \ar@{}[d]\|-{{\displaystyle (h,b)}} & (C,V) \ar@{=}[d] \\ (A,Z) \ar[r]_-{(h,Z)} & (C,Z) \ar[r]_-{(C,b)} & (C,V)} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix{ (A,X) \ar[r]^-{(A,t)} \ar@{=}[d] & (A,Y) \ar[r]^-{(h,Y)} \ar@{}[d]\|-{{\displaystyle (h,t)}} & (C,Y) \ar@{=}[d] \\ (A,X) \ar[r]^-{(h,X)} \ar[d]_-{(A,l)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (h,l)}} & (C,X) \ar[r]^-{(C,t)} \ar[d]\|-{(C,l)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (C,\tau)}} & (C,Y) \ar[d]^-{(C,r)} \\ (A,Z) \ar[r]_-{(h,Z)} & (C,Z) \ar[r]_-{(C,b)} & (C,V).}$$ Symmetrically, the left and right vertical 1-cells are vertical pseudotransformations labelled by the vertical 1-cells $w \in \{ l,r \}$ of $\mathbb G$; with components denoted by $$\xymatrix@R=30pt{ (A,P) \ar[r]^-{(A,n)} \ar[dd]_-{(w,P)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (w,n)}} & (A,R) \ar[dd]^-{(w,R)} \\ &\\ (B,P) \ar[r]_-{(B,n)} & (B,R)} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ (A,P) \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{(w,P)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{ {\displaystyle (w,v)}} & (A,P) \ar[d]^-{(A,v)} \\ (B,P) \ar[d]_-{(B,v)} & (A,Q) \ar[d]^-{(w,Q)} \\ (B,Q) \ar@{=}[r] & (B,Q)}$$ for any horizontal 1-cell $n$ and vertical 1-cell $v$ in $\mathbb G$. They satisfy the naturality condition $$\label{eq:nat_v} \xymatrix{ (A,X) \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{(w,X)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (w,l)}} & (A,X) \ar[r]^-{(A,t)} \ar[d]\|-{(A,l)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (A,\tau)}} & (A,Y) \ar[d]^-{(A,r)} \\ (B,X) \ar[d]_-{(B,l)} & (A,Z) \ar[r]^-{(A,b)} \ar[d]_-{(w,Z)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (w,b)}} & (A,V) \ar[d]^-{(w,V)} \\ (B,Z) \ar@{=}[r] & (B,Z) \ar[r]_-{(B,b)} & (B,V)} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix{ (A,X) \ar[r]^-{(A,t)} \ar[d]_-{(w,X)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (w,t)}} & (A,Y) \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]\|-{(w,Y)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (w,r)}} & (A,Y) \ar[d]^-{(A,r)} \\ (B,X) \ar[r]^-{(B,t)} \ar[d]_-{(B,l)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (B,\tau)}} & (B,Y) \ar[d]^-{(B,r)} & (A,V) \ar[d]^-{(w,V)} \\ (B,Z) \ar[r]_-{(B,b)} & (B,V) \ar@{=}[r] & (B,V). }$$ Finally, the 2-cell itself is a modification with components denoted by $$\xymatrix{ (X,A) \ar[r]^-{(t,A)} \ar[d]_-{(l,A)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (\tau,A)}} & (Y,A) \ar[d]^-{(r,A)} \\ (Z,A) \ar[r]_-{(b,A)} & (V,A)}$$ for all 0-cells $A\in \{X,Y,Z,V\}$ of $\mathbb G$. They satisfy the horizontal compatibility conditions $$\label{eq:mod_h} \xymatrix{ (X,A) \ar[r]^-{(X,h)} \ar[d]_-{(l,A)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (l,h)}} & (X,C) \ar[r]^-{(t,C)} \ar[d]\|-{(l,C)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (\tau,C)}} & (Y,C) \ar[d]^-{(r,C)} \\ (Z,A) \ar[r]_-{(Z,h)} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle (b,h)}} & (Z,C) \ar[r]_-{(b,C)} & (V,C) \ar@{=}[d] \\ (Z,A) \ar[r]_-{(b,A)} & (V,A) \ar[r]_-{(V,h)} & (V,C)} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix{ (X,A) \ar[r]^-{(X,h)} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle (t,h)}} & (X,C) \ar[r]^-{(t,C)} & (Y,C) \ar@{=}[d] \\ (X,A) \ar[r]^-{(t,A)} \ar[d]_-{(l,A)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (\tau,A)}} & (Y,A) \ar[r]^-{(Y,h)} \ar[d]\|-{(r,A)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (r,h)}} & (Y,C) \ar[d]^-{(r,C)} \\ (Z,A) \ar[r]_-{(b,A)} & (V,A) \ar[r]_-{(V,h)} & (V,C)}$$ for all horizontal 1-cells $h\in \{t,b\}$ in $\mathbb G$; and the vertical compatibility conditions $$\label{eq:mod_v} \xymatrix{ (X,A) \ar[r]^-{(t,A)} \ar[d]_-{(l,A)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (\tau,A)}} & (Y,A) \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]\|-{(r,A)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (r,w)}} & (Y,A) \ar[d]^-{(Y,w)} \\ (Z,A) \ar[r]^-{(b,A)} \ar[d]_-{(Z,w)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (b,w)}} & (V,A) \ar[d]^-{(V,w)} & (Y,B) \ar[d]^-{(r,B)} \\ (Z,B) \ar[r]_-{(b,B)} & (V,B) \ar@{=}[r] & (V,B)} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix{ (X,A) \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{(l,A)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (l,w)}} & (X,A) \ar[r]^-{(t,A)} \ar[d]\|-{(X,w)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (t,w)}} & (Y,A) \ar[d]^-{(Y,w)} \\ (Z,A) \ar[d]_-{(Z,w)} & (X,B) \ar[d]_-{(l,B)} \ar[r]^-{(t,B)} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (\tau,B)}} & (Y,B) \ar[d]^-{(r,B)} \\ (Z,B) \ar@{=}[r] & (Z,B) \ar[r]_-{(b,B)} & (V,B) }$$ for all vertical 1-cells $w\in \{l,r\}$ in $\mathbb G$. From all that we can read off that the functor $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb G,{\lsem}\mathbb G,-{\rsem}):\mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{Set}$ is represented by the following double category. - The are pairs $(A,B)$ of 0-cells in $\mathbb G$. - There are two kinds of non-identity $(A,h)$ and $(h,A)$; both are ordered pairs of a 0-cell $A$, and a horizontal 1-cell $h\in\{t,b\}$ in $\mathbb G$. - Symmetrically, there are two kinds of non-identity $(A,v)$ and $(v,A)$; both are ordered pairs of a 0-cell $A$, and a vertical 1-cell $v\in\{l,r\}$ in $\mathbb G$. - There are non-identity of ordered pairs - $(A,\tau)$ and $(\tau, A)$, for all 0-cells $A$ in $\mathbb G$ - $(h,v)$ and $(v,h)$ for horizontal 1-cells $h\in\{t,b\}$ and vertical 1-cells $v\in\{l,r\}$ in $\mathbb G$ - vertically invertible 2-cells $(h,n)$ for horizontal 1-cells $h,n\in\{t,b\}$ in $\mathbb G$ - horizontally invertible 2-cells $(v,w)$ for vertical 1-cells $v,w\in\{l,r\}$ in $\mathbb G$. All further cells are generated by their compositions modulo the associativity and unitality conditions, the middle four interchange law, and the identities , , and . Representability of the functors $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A,{\lsem}\mathbb B,-{\rsem}):\mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{Set}$ {#sec:left_adjoint} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In this section we investigate the functors in the title, for any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$. Consider a functor $\mathsf U:\mathsf C \to \mathsf C'$ between locally presentable categories. Bourke and Gurski’s [@BourkeGurski Lemma 3.9] says that the functor $\mathsf C'(X,\mathsf U(-)):\mathsf C \to \mathsf{Set}$ is representable for all objects $X$ — that is, $\mathsf U$ possesses a left adjoint — if and only if $\mathsf C'(G_i,\mathsf U(-)):\mathsf C \to \mathsf{Set}$ is representable for all $G_i$ in a strong generator of $\mathsf C'$. The category $\mathsf{DblCat}$ is locally presentable by [@FiorePaoliPronk Theorem 4.1]. The double category $\mathbb G$ in Section \[sec:represent\] is a strong generator of $\mathsf{DblCat}$; see Section \[sec:DblCat\]. So from the representability result of Section \[sec:represent\] we conclude by Bourke and Gurski’s lemma that the functor $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb B,{\lsem}\mathbb G,-{\rsem}):\mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{Set}$ is representable for any double category $\mathbb B$. The 0-cell part of the iso double functor yields a bijection $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb B,{\lsem}\mathbb G,\mathbb A {\rsem}) \cong \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb G,{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb A {\rsem})$ for any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$; which is natural in $\mathbb A$ by the extranaturality and naturality of $\mathfrak r$. Therefore also the functor $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb G,{\lsem}\mathbb B,- {\rsem}):\mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{Set}$ is representable for any double category $\mathbb B$. Applying again Bourke and Gurski’s lemma, we obtain the representability of $\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A,{\lsem}\mathbb B,-{\rsem})$ for any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$. In other words, the functor ${\lsem}\mathbb B,-{\rsem}: \mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{DblCat}$ possesses a left adjoint for any double category $\mathbb B$ which we denote by $-\otimes \mathbb B$. By the functoriality in $\mathbb B$, it gives raise to a double functor $\otimes:\mathsf{DblCat} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{DblCat}$. For any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$, an explicit description of $\mathbb A \otimes \mathbb B$ can be given analogously to Section \[sec:represent\]. Coherence {#sec:coherence} ========= This section is devoted to the proof that the double functor $\otimes:\mathsf{DblCat} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{DblCat}$ of Section \[sec:left\_adjoint\] renders $\mathsf{DblCat}$ a symmetric monoidal category (which is then closed with the internal hom functors ${\lsem}\mathbb B,-{\rsem}$, for all double categories $\mathbb B$). In what follows, the unit of the adjunction $-\otimes \mathbb B \dashv {\lsem}\mathbb B,-{\rsem}$ will be denoted by $\eta^{\mathbb B}_{\mathbb A}: \mathbb A\to {\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb A \otimes \mathbb B{\rsem}$, and the counit will be denoted by $\epsilon^{\mathbb B}_{\mathbb A}: {\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb A {\rsem}\otimes \mathbb B \to \mathbb A$, for all double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$. The associativity natural isomorphism {#sec:alpha} ------------------------------------- For any double category $\mathbb C$, consider the natural transformation $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \ar[r]^-\otimes \ar[d]_-{1\times {\lsem}-,\mathbb C {\rsem}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\mbox{\rotatebox{270}{$\Longrightarrow$} \raisebox{-12pt}{$\mathfrak a^{\mathbb C}$}}}} & \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \ar[d]^-{ {\lsem}-,\mathbb C {\rsem}} \\ \mathsf{DblCat}^{\mathsf{op}} \times \mathsf{DblCat} \ar[r]_-{{\lsem}-,\mathbb - {\rsem}} & \mathsf{DblCat}}$$ with the components $$\mathfrak a^{\mathbb C}_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}:=\Bigl( \xymatrix{ {\lsem}\mathbb A\otimes \mathbb B, \mathbb C{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb B}_{\mathbb A\otimes \mathbb B, \mathbb C}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb A\otimes \mathbb B {\rsem}, {\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb C {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{{\lsem}\eta^{\mathbb B}_{\mathbb A},1 {\rsem}} & {\lsem}\mathbb A,{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb C {\rsem}{\rsem}} \Bigr)$$ at any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$. It is natural in $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb C$ by the naturality of $\mathfrak l$ and $\eta$ (the upper index $\mathbb C$ of $\mathfrak a$ no longer refers to extranaturality). It is natural in $\mathbb B$ as well which follows by the extranaturality of $\mathfrak l$ and $\eta$ together with the naturality of $\mathfrak l$. The 0-cell parts of the iso double functors in yield bijections in the columns of the commutative diagram $$\label{eq:a_inv} \xymatrix@C=15pt{ \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb D,{\lsem}\mathbb A \otimes\mathbb B,\mathbb C {\rsem}) \ar[rr]^-{\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb D,\mathfrak a^{\mathbb C})} \ar[d]_-{\mathfrak f^{\mathbb C}_0} && \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb D, {\lsem}\mathbb A ,{\lsem}\mathbb B, \mathbb C {\rsem}{\rsem}) \\ \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A \otimes \mathbb B,{\lsem}\mathbb D,\mathbb C {\rsem}) \ar[r]_-{\raisebox{-10pt}{${}_\cong$}} & \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A, {\lsem}\mathbb B,{\lsem}\mathbb D, \mathbb C {\rsem}{\rsem}) \ar[r]_-{\raisebox{-10pt}{${}_{\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A,\mathfrak f^{\mathbb C})}$}} & \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A, {\lsem}\mathbb D,{\lsem}\mathbb B, \mathbb C {\rsem}{\rsem}) . \ar[u]_-{\mathfrak f^{{\lsem}\mathbb B, \mathbb C {\rsem}}_0}}$$ Since all of the occurring maps but the top row are known to be bijections, we conclude that so is the top row. Whence by Yoneda’s lemma $\mathfrak a^{\mathbb C}$ is a natural isomorphism. Using the adjunction isomorphisms in the first and last steps, we obtain a natural isomorphism $$\xymatrix@R=20pt{ \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A \otimes (\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb C),\mathbb D) \ar[r]^-\cong & \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A , {\lsem}\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb C,\mathbb D{\rsem}) \ar[d]^-{\mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A , \mathfrak a^{\mathbb D})} \\ & \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A , {\lsem}\mathbb B ,{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb D{\rsem}{\rsem}) \ar[r]_-\cong & \mathsf{DblCat}((\mathbb A \otimes \mathbb B) \otimes \mathbb C,\mathbb D).}$$ By Yoneda’s lemma again, it determines a natural isomorphism $\alpha_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B,\mathbb C}:(\mathbb A \otimes \mathbb B) \otimes \mathbb C \to \mathbb A \otimes (\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb C)$ which is our candidate associativity natural isomorphism. The pentagon condition {#sec:pentagon} ---------------------- By Yoneda’s lemma, Mac Lane’s pentagon condition on the natural isomorphism $\alpha$ of Section \[sec:alpha\] is equivalent to the commutativity of the exterior of the diagram of Figure \[fig:pent\]; hence also to the commutativity of the diagram of Figure \[fig:pent\_eq\]. The left column in Figure \[fig:pent\_eq\] is equal to ${\lsem}\alpha_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B,\mathbb C},1{\rsem}$. The triangles marked by $(\ast)$ commute by the naturality of $\mathfrak l$ and a triangle condition on the adjunction $-\otimes \mathbb C \dashv {\lsem}\mathbb C,-{\rsem}$, yielding the commutative diagram $$\label{eq:eps_a_l} \xymatrix{ {\lsem}\mathbb P,\mathbb K{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C}} \ar[d]_-{{\lsem}\epsilon^{\mathbb C},1{\rsem}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb P {\rsem}, {\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb K {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[d]_-{{\lsem}{\lsem}1,\epsilon^{\mathbb C}{\rsem},1{\rsem}} \ar@/^1.7pc/@{=}[rd] \\ {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb P {\rsem}\otimes \mathbb C, \mathbb K {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C}} \ar@/_1.3pc/[rr]_-{\mathfrak a^{\mathbb K}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb C, {\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb P {\rsem}\otimes \mathbb C {\rsem}, {\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb K {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{{\lsem}\eta^{\mathbb C},1{\rsem}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb P {\rsem}, {\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb K {\rsem}{\rsem}}$$ for any double categories $\mathbb C$, $\mathbb P$ and $\mathbb K$. The region marked by $(\ast\ast)$ commutes by and extranaturality of $\mathfrak l$, yielding the commutative diagram $$\scalebox{.94}{$ \xymatrix@C=2pt@R=35pt{ {\lsem}\mathbb P{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb K {\rsem}\ar[rr]^-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb C}} \ar[d]_-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C}} \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{\eqref{eq:l_comm}} && {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb B \! \otimes \! \mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb P {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb B \! \otimes \! \mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb K {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[d]_-{{\lsem}1,\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C}{\rsem}} \ar@/^6.5pc/[dd]^(.24){{\lsem}1,\mathfrak a^{\mathbb K}{\rsem}} \\ {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb P {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb K {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\raisebox{10pt}{${}_{\mathfrak l^{{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb C{\rsem}}}$}} \ar[d]_-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb B}} & {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B \! \otimes \! \mathbb C{\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb P {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B \! \otimes \! \mathbb C{\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb K {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\raisebox{10pt}{${}_{{\lsem}\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C},1 {\rsem}}$}} \ar[d]^-{{\lsem}1, {\lsem}\eta^{\mathbb C},1 {\rsem}{\rsem}} & {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb B \! \otimes \! \mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb P {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B \! \otimes \! \mathbb C{\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb K {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[d]_-{{\lsem}1, {\lsem}\eta^{\mathbb C},1 {\rsem}{\rsem}} \\ {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb P {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb K {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\raisebox{10pt}{${}_{{\lsem}{\lsem}\eta^{\mathbb C},1 {\rsem}, 1{\rsem}}$}} \ar@/_1.3pc/[rr]_-{{\lsem}\mathfrak a^{\mathbb P}, 1{\rsem}} & {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B \! \otimes \! \mathbb C{\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb P {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb K {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\raisebox{10pt}{${}_{{\lsem}\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C},1 {\rsem}}$}} & {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb B \! \otimes \! \mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb P {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb K {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}}$}$$ for any double categories $\mathbb B$, $\mathbb C$, $\mathbb P$ and $\mathbb K$. The unitality natural isomorphisms {#sec:unitors} ---------------------------------- For any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb K$ there are natural isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned} \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A,\mathbb K)&\cong& \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A,{\lsem}\mathbbm 1,\mathbb K{\rsem})\cong \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A \otimes \mathbbm 1 ,\mathbb K) \\ \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A,\mathbb K)&\cong& \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbb A,{\lsem}\mathbbm 1,\mathbb K{\rsem}) \stackrel{\mathfrak f^{\mathbb K}_0} \longrightarrow \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbbm 1,{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb K{\rsem}) \cong \mathsf{DblCat}(\mathbbm 1 \otimes \mathbb A ,\mathbb K)\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak f^{\mathbb K}_0$ denotes the 0-cell part of the iso double functor . By Yoneda’s lemma, they induce respective natural isomorphisms $\varrho$ and $\lambda$ with the components $$\varrho_{\mathbb A}=\Bigl( \xymatrix@C=12pt{ \mathbb A \otimes \mathbbm 1 \ar[r]^-\cong & {\lsem}\mathbbm 1, \mathbb A {\rsem}\otimes \mathbbm 1 \ar[r]^-{\epsilon^{\mathbbm 1}} & \mathbb A}\Bigr) \quad \textrm{and}\quad \lambda_{\mathbb A}=\Bigl( \xymatrix@C=12pt{ \mathbbm 1 \otimes \mathbb A \ar[rr]^-{1_A \otimes 1} && {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb A{\rsem}\otimes \mathbb A \ar[r]^-{\epsilon^{\mathbb A}} & \mathbb A}\Bigr)$$ at any double category $\mathbb A$ (where $1_A:\mathbbm 1 \to {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb A{\rsem}$ is the double functor which sends the single object of $\mathbbm 1$ to the identity double functor $1_A:\mathbb A \to \mathbb A$). They are our candidate unitality natural isomorphisms. The triangle conditions {#sec:triangle} ----------------------- By Yoneda’s lemma, Mac Lane’s triangle condition on the natural isomorphisms $\alpha$ of Section \[sec:alpha\] and $\lambda,\varrho$ of Section \[sec:unitors\] is equivalent to the commutativity of the exterior of Figure \[fig:triang\] for any double categories $\mathbb A$, $\mathbb B$ and $\mathbb K$; hence also to the commutativity of $$\label{eq:triang} \xymatrix@C=55pt{ {\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb K{\rsem}\ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^-{{\lsem}\lambda,1{\rsem}} \ar[r]_-{{\lsem}\epsilon^{\mathbb B},1{\rsem}} \ar@/_1.5pc/[rd]_-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb B}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{\qquad \eqref{eq:eps_a_l}} & {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb B{\rsem}\otimes \mathbb B,\mathbb K{\rsem}\ar[d]^-{\mathfrak a^{\mathbb K}} \ar[r]_-{{\lsem}1_{\mathbb B} \otimes 1,1{\rsem}} & {\lsem}\mathbbm 1 \otimes \mathbb B,\mathbb K{\rsem}\ar[d]^-{\mathfrak a^{\mathbb K}} \\ & {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb B{\rsem},{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb K{\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[r]_-{{\lsem}1_{\mathbb B} ,1{\rsem}} & {\lsem}\mathbbm 1 ,{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb K{\rsem}{\rsem}}$$ whose left-bottom path is ; that is, the canonical (usually omitted) isomorphism. The symmetry {#sec:symm} ------------ The natural isomorphism $$\xymatrix@C=15pt{ \mathsf{DblCat}( \mathbb B \otimes \mathbb A,\mathbb K ) \ar[r]^-\cong & \mathsf{DblCat}( \mathbb B ,{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb K {\rsem}) \ar[r]^-{\mathfrak f^{\mathbb K}_0} & \mathsf{DblCat}( \mathbb A ,{\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb K {\rsem}) \ar[r]^-\cong & \mathsf{DblCat}( \mathbb A \otimes \mathbb B,\mathbb K)}$$ constructed from the 0-cell part of $\mathfrak f$ in induces a natural isomorphism $\varphi:\otimes \to \otimes .\mathsf{flip}$ with the components $$\varphi_{\mathbb A ,\mathbb B}=\Bigl(\xymatrix@C=12pt{ \mathbb A \otimes \mathbb B \ar[rr]^-{\mathfrak r^{\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb A}_{\mathbbm 1,\mathbb A} \otimes 1} && {\lsem}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb A {\rsem},\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb A {\rsem}\otimes \mathbb B \ar[rr]^-{{\lsem}\eta^{\mathbb A},1{\rsem}\otimes 1} && {\lsem}\mathbb B,\mathbb B \otimes \mathbb A {\rsem}\otimes \mathbb B \ar[r]^-{\epsilon^{\mathbb B}} & \mathbb B \otimes \mathbb A}\Bigr)$$ at any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$. It is our candidate symmetry. The hexagon condition {#sec:hexagon} --------------------- By Yoneda’s lemma, the hexagon condition on the natural isomorphisms $\alpha$ of Section \[sec:alpha\] and $\varphi$ of Section \[sec:symm\] is equivalent to the commutativity of the exterior of Figure \[fig:hex\] for any double categories $\mathbb A$, $\mathbb B$, $\mathbb C$ and $\mathbb K$. Hence it follows by the commutativity of the diagram of Figure \[fig:hex\_eq\] whose left-bottom path is equal to $\mathfrak a^{\mathbb K}$. In order to see that the left column of Figure \[fig:hex\_eq\] is equal to $\mathfrak l^{\mathbb A}$, apply twice to obtain the commutative diagram $$\label{eq:l-r_square} \xymatrix@C=27pt{ {\lsem}\mathbb A{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B {\rsem}\ar[rr]^-{\mathfrak l ^{{\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C, \mathbb A {\rsem}, \mathbb A {\rsem}} _{\mathbb A, \mathbb B }} \ar[ddd]_-{\mathfrak l^{\mathbb C}_{\mathbb A, \mathbb B }} \ar[rd]^-{\mathfrak l^{{\lsem}\mathbb C, \mathbb A {\rsem}}_{\mathbb A, \mathbb B }} & \ar@{}[rd]\|-{\eqref{eq:l-r_pentagon}} & {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[d]^-{{\lsem}\mathfrak r^{\mathbb A}_{\mathbbm 1, {\lsem}\mathbb C, \mathbb A{\rsem}},1{\rsem}} \\ \ar@{}[rd]\|-{\eqref{eq:l-r_pentagon}} & {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C {\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C {\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A{\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[r]^-{\mathfrak f^{\mathbb B} _{{\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C, \mathbb A {\rsem}, \mathbb A {\rsem}, {\lsem}\mathbb C, \mathbb A{\rsem}}} \ar[d]^-{{\lsem}\mathfrak r^{\mathbb A}_{\mathbbm 1, \mathbb C},1{\rsem}} & {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C {\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[dd]^-{{\lsem}1,{\lsem}\mathfrak r^{\mathbb A}_{\mathbbm 1, \mathbb C},1{\rsem}{\rsem}} \\ & {\lsem}\mathbb C {\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C {\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A{\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B {\rsem}{\rsem}\ar[rd]^-{\mathfrak f^{\mathbb B}_{\mathbb C,{\lsem}\mathbb C,\mathbb A {\rsem}}} \\ {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C {\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C {\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}\ar[ru]^-{\mathfrak f^{\mathbb B}_{{\lsem}\mathbb C, \mathbb A {\rsem},\mathbb C}} \ar@{=}[rr] && {\lsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\lsem}\mathbb C {\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb A {\rsem}{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}{\lsem}\mathbb C {\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}\mathbb B {\rsem}\hspace{-1pt} {\rsem}}$$ for any double categories $\mathbb A$, $\mathbb B$ and $\mathbb C$. The region of Figure \[fig:hex\_eq\] marked by $(\ast)$ commutes by the extranaturality of $\mathfrak l$. Examples {#sec:examples} ======== Although our notions of (horizontal and vertical) pseudotransformations and of corresponding modification in Section \[sec:\[A,B\]\] may look quite natural, admittedly no higher principle fixes their choice. Therefore there is no [a’priori good]{} resulting Gray monoidal product of double categories. In this final section we support our construction by relating it to existing structures. Namely, we verify the monoidality of some well-known functors between our monoidal category $(\mathsf{DblCat},\otimes)$ and some other monoidal categories which occur in the literature quite frequently. Monoidal functors between closed monoidal categories {#sec:functors} ---------------------------------------------------- In any closed monoidal category we may take the mate $$\mathfrak a^C_{A,B}:= \xymatrix@C=1pt@R=1pt{ \Bigl( [A\! \otimes \!B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}C] \ar[r]^-{\eta^A} & [A{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}[A\!\otimes \! B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}C] \! \otimes \! A] \ar[rr]^-{[1,\eta^B]} && [A{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}[B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}([A\!\otimes \!B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}C] \!\otimes \!A) \!\otimes \! B]\hspace{-1pt}] \ar[rrrr]^-{[1,[1,\alpha]]} &&&& \\ & [A{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}[B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}[A\!\otimes\! B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}C] \!\otimes \! (A \!\otimes \!B)\hspace{-1pt}\hspace{-1pt}]\hspace{-1pt}] \ar[rr]^-{[1,[1,\epsilon^{A\otimes B}]]} && [A{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}[B{\hspace{-1pt} , \hspace{-2pt}}C]\hspace{-1pt}] \Bigr)}$$ of the associativity isomorphism $\alpha$ under the adjunctions $-\otimes X \dashv [X,-]$ for $X$ being the objects $A$, $B$ and $A\otimes B$; and its mate $$\label{eq:gen_l} \mathfrak l^C_{A,B} :=\Bigl((\xymatrix{ [A,B] \ar[r]^-{[\epsilon^C,1]} & [[C,A]\otimes C,B] \ar[r]^-{\mathfrak a^B} & [[C,A],[C,B]] }\Bigr).$$ Consider now a functor $\mathsf H$ between closed monoidal categories. Some natural transformation $\mathsf H_2:\mathsf H(-) \otimes \mathsf H(-) \to \mathsf H(-\otimes -)$ (for both monoidal products denoted by $\otimes$) and a morphism $\mathsf H_0:I \to \mathsf H I$ (for both monoidal units denoted by $I$) render $\mathsf H$ monoidal if and only if the mate $$\chi_{A,B}:=\Bigl(\! \xymatrix@C=10pt{ \mathsf H [A,B] \ar[r]^-{\eta^{\mathsf H A}} & [\mathsf H A,\mathsf H [A,B] \otimes \mathsf H A] \ar[rr]^-{[1,\mathsf H_2]} && [\mathsf H A,\mathsf H ([A,B] \otimes A)] \ar[rr]^-{[1,\mathsf H \epsilon^A]} && [\mathsf H A,\mathsf H B] } \! \Bigr)$$ of $\mathsf H_2$ under the adjunctions $-\otimes A \dashv [A,-]$ and $-\otimes \mathsf H A \dashv [\mathsf H A,-]$ makes the following diagrams commute. The left and right unitality conditions translate to the commutativity of the respective diagrams in $$\label{eq:unit} \xymatrix@C=12pt@R=49pt{ I \ar[r]^-{\eta^{\mathsf H A}} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf H_0} & [\mathsf H A,I \otimes \mathsf H A] \ar[r]^-{[1,\lambda]} & [\mathsf H A,\mathsf H A] \\ \mathsf H I \ar[r]_-{\mathsf H \eta^A} & \mathsf H [A,I \otimes A] \ar[r]_-{\mathsf H [1,\lambda]} & \mathsf H [A,A]\ar[u]_-\chi} \quad \xymatrix@C=3pt@R=15pt{ \mathsf H A \ar[r]^-{\eta^I} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf H \eta^I} & [I,\mathsf H A \otimes I] \ar[rr]^-{[1,\varrho]} && [I,\mathsf H A] \\ \mathsf H [I,A\otimes I] \ar[d]_-{\mathsf H [1,\varrho]} \\ \mathsf H [I, A] \ar[rrr]_-\chi &&& [\mathsf H I,\mathsf H A]\ar[uu]_-{[\mathsf H_0,1]}}$$ for all objects $A$ of the domain category. The associativity condition translates to the commutativity of $$\label{eq:assoc} \xymatrix{ \mathsf H[A,B] \ar[r]^-\chi \ar[d]_-{\mathsf H\mathfrak l^C} & [\mathsf H A,\mathsf H B] \ar[r]^-{\mathfrak l^{\mathsf H C}} & [[\mathsf H C,\mathsf H A] ,[\mathsf H C,\mathsf H B] ] \ar[d]^-{[\chi,1]} \\ \mathsf H [[ C,A] ,[C,B]] \ar[r]_-\chi & [\mathsf H [ C,A] ,\mathsf H [C,B]] \ar[r]_-{[1,\chi]} & [\mathsf H [ C,A] ,[\mathsf H C,\mathsf H B]] }$$ for all objects $A$, $B$ and $C$ of the domain category. The closed monoidal category $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$ {#sec:ox} --------------------------------------------------------- For the closed monoidal category $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$ of Section \[sec:existence\] and Section \[sec:coherence\], $$\xymatrix{ \mathbbm 1 \ar[r]^-{\eta^{\mathbb A}} & {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbbm 1 \otimes \mathbb A{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{{\lsem}1,\lambda{\rsem}} & {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb A{\rsem}}$$ is equal to $1_{\mathbb A}$; that is, the double functor sending the single object of $\mathbbm 1$ to the identity double functor $1_{\mathbb A}:\mathbb A \to \mathbb A$ for any double category $\mathbb A$. The double functor $$\xymatrix{ \mathbb A \ar[r]^-{\eta^{\mathbbm 1}} & {\lsem}\mathbbm 1,\mathbb A \otimes \mathbbm 1{\rsem}\ar[r]^-{{\lsem}1,\varrho {\rsem}} & {\lsem}\mathbbm 1,\mathbb A{\rsem}}$$ is the canonical isomorphism for any double category $\mathbb A$. The double functor of is equal to that in Section \[sec:l\]. Monoids in $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$ {#sec:monoid} --------------------------------------- Monoidal 2-categories can be defined at different levels of generality. The most restrictive one in the literature is a monoid in the category of 2-categories and 2-functors with respect to the Cartesian monoidal structure. This is known as a strict monoidal 2-category. The most general one is a single object tricategory [@GordonPowerStreet]; known as a monoidal bicategory. In between them are the so-called Gray monoids; these are again monoids in the category of 2-categories and 2-functors, but in this case with respect to the Gray monoidal structure [@Gray]. Their importance stems from the coherence result of [@GordonPowerStreet], proving that any monoidal bicategory is equivalent to a Gray monoid (as a tricategory). Analogously, a strict monoidal double category [@BruniMeseguerMontanari] is a monoid in the category of double categories and double functors with respect to the Cartesian monoidal structure. In [@Shulman; @GrandisPare:Intercategories_fw] it was generalized to a pseudomonoid in the 2-category of (pseudo) double categories and [pseudo]{} double functors and, say, vertical transformations. However, no double category analogues of Gray monoids and of monoidal bicategories seem to be available in the literature. While the considerations in this paper do not promise any insight how to define most general monoidal (pseudo) double categories, monoids in $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$ are natural candidates for the double category analogue of Gray monoid. In this section we give their explicit characterization, similar to the characterization of Gray monoids in [@BaezNeuchl Lemma 4]. A monoid in $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$ is equivalently a monoidal functor from the terminal double category $\mathbbm 1$ (with the trivial monoidal structure) to $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$. It can be described in terms of the data in Section \[sec:functors\]. Namely, a monoid structure on a double category $\mathbb A$ translates to double functors $I:\mathbbm 1 \to \mathbb A$ and $M:\mathbb A \to {\lsem}\mathbb A, \mathbb A{\rsem}$ which render commutative the diagrams of and . Spelling out the details, this amounts to the following data. - A distinguished 0-cell $I$. - For any 0-cells $X$ and $Y$, a 0-cell $X \ast Y$. - For any 0-cell $Y$ and any horizontal 1-cell on the left below, horizontal 1-cells on the right: $$\xymatrix@C=15pt{X \ar[r]^-h & X'} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix@C=20pt{X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{h \ast Y} & X' \ast Y} \ \textrm{and} \ \xymatrix@C=20pt{Y \ast X \ar[r]^-{Y \ast h} & Y \ast X'.}$$ - For any 0-cell $Y$ and any vertical 1-cell on the left below, vertical 1-cells on the right: $$\xymatrix@R=18pt{X \ar[d]^-v \\ X'} \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \xymatrix@R=18pt{X \ast Y \ar[d]^-{v \ast Y} \\ X' \ast Y} \quad \raisebox{-15pt}{$\textrm{and}$} \quad \xymatrix@R=18pt{Y \ast X \ar[d]^-{Y \ast v} \\ \ Y \ast X'.}$$ - For any 0-cell $Y$ and any 2-cell on the left below, 2-cells on the right: $$\xymatrix@C=15pt{ X \ar[r]^-h \ar[d]_-v \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \omega}} & X' \ar[d]^-w \\ X^{\prime \prime} \ar[r]_-{k} & X^{\prime \prime \prime}} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix@C=15pt{ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{h \ast Y} \ar[d]_-{v \ast Y} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \omega\ast Y }} & X' \ast Y \ar[d]^-{w \ast Y} \\ X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y \ar[r]_-{k\ast Y } & X^{\prime \prime \prime}\ast Y } \quad \raisebox{-19pt}{$\textrm{and}$}\quad \xymatrix@C=15pt{ Y \ast X \ar[r]^-{Y \ast h} \ar[d]_-{Y \ast v} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle Y \ast \omega}} & Y \ast X' \ar[d]^-{Y \ast w} \\ Y \ast X^{\prime \prime} \ar[r]_-{Y \ast k} & Y \ast X^{\prime \prime \prime}.}$$ - For any horizontal 1-cell $h$ and any vertical 1-cell $q$, 2-cells $$\xymatrix@C=15pt{ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{h \ast Y} \ar[d]_-{X \ast q} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle h\ast q}} & X' \ast Y \ar[d]^-{X' \ast q} \\ X\ast Y' \ar[r]_-{h\ast Y' } & X'\ast Y' } \quad \textrm{and} \quad \xymatrix@C=15pt{ Y \ast X \ar[r]^-{Y \ast h} \ar[d]_-{q \ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle q\ast h}} & Y \ast X' \ar[d]^-{q \ast X'} \\ Y' \ast X \ar[r]_-{Y' \ast h} & Y' \ast X'.}$$ - For any horizontal 1-cells $h$ and $p$, a vertically invertible 2-cell $$\xymatrix{ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X \ast p} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle h\ast p}} & X \ast Y' \ar[r]^-{h \ast Y'} & X' \ast Y' \ar@{=}[d] \\ X \ast Y \ar[r]_-{h\ast Y} & X' \ast Y \ar[r]_-{X' \ast p} & X' \ast Y'.}$$ - For any vertical 1-cells $v$ and $q$, a horizontally invertible 2-cell $$\xymatrix{ X \ast Y \ar[d]_-{v \ast Y} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v\ast q}} & X \ast Y \ar[d]^-{X \ast q} \\ X' \ast Y \ar[d]_-{X'\ast q} & X\ast Y' \ar[d]^-{v\ast Y'} \\ X' \ast Y' \ar@{=}[r] & X' \ast Y'.}$$ One can memorize this as the rule that a pair of an $n$ dimensional and an $m$ dimensional cell is sent by the operation $\ast$ to an $n+m\leq 2$ dimensional cell. These data are subject to the following conditions. (i) For any 0-cell $X$, $X\ast -$ and $-\ast X$ are double functors $\mathbb A \to \mathbb A$. (ii) $I\ast - =1_{\mathbb A}=-\ast I$. (iii) For any 0-cells $X$ and $Y$, the following equalities of double functors hold. $$X\ast (Y\ast -) = (X \ast Y)\ast -\quad \quad X\ast (-\ast Y) = (X \ast -)\ast Y\quad \quad -\ast (X\ast Y) = (- \ast X)\ast Y$$ (iv) For any 0-cell $X$, any horizontal 1-cells $h,p$ and any vertical 1-cells $v,q$, the following equalities of 2-cells hold.\ $ \begin{array}{lll} h\ast (X \ast q) =(h\ast X) \ast q \ \, & (X\ast h)\ast q = X \ast (h \ast q) \ \, & h\ast (q\ast X) =(h\ast q) \ast X \\ v\ast (X\ast p)=(v\ast X) \ast p & (X \ast v) \ast p = X \ast (v \ast p) & v\ast (p\ast X)=(v\ast p) \ast X \\ h \ast (X\ast p) = (h \ast X) \ast p & (X \ast h) \ast p = X \ast (h \ast p) & h \ast (p\ast X) = (h \ast p) \ast X \\ v \ast (X\ast q) = (v \ast X) \ast q & (X \ast v) \ast q = X \ast (v \ast q) & v \ast (q\ast X) = (v \ast q) \ast X \end{array} $ (v) For any 0-cell $X$, we denote by $1_X$ the horizontal identity 1-cell; and by $1^X$ the vertical identity 1-cell on $X$. For any horizontal 1-cell $h$ and any vertical 1-cell $v$, the following equalities of 2-cells hold.\ $h\ast 1^X =\raisebox{17pt}{$\xymatrix{ \ar[r]^-{h\ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} \ar@{=}[d] & \ar@{=}[d] \\ \ar[r]_-{h\ast X} &}$}=h\ast 1_X$ and $v\ast 1_X =\raisebox{17pt}{$\xymatrix{ \ar[d]_-{v\ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} \ar@{=}[r] & \ar[d]^-{v\ast X} \\ \ar@{=}[r] &}$}=v\ast 1^X$\ $1^X\ast h =\raisebox{17pt}{$\xymatrix{ \ar[r]^-{X \ast h} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} \ar@{=}[d] & \ar@{=}[d] \\ \ar[r]_-{X\ast h} &}$}=1_X\ast h$ and $1_X\ast v =\raisebox{17pt}{$\xymatrix{ \ar[d]_-{X \ast v} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} \ar@{=}[r] & \ar[d]^-{X \ast v} \\ \ar@{=}[r] &}$}=1^X\ast v$ (vi) We denote the vertical composition (of vertical 1-cells and of 2-cells) by an upper dot, and the horizontal composition (of horizontal 1-cells and of 2-cells) by a lower dot. For any composable pairs of horizontal 1-cells $h,h'$ and $p,p'$ and for any composable pairs of vertical 1-cells $v,v'$ and $q,q'$, the following hold.\ $h\ast(q'{\raisebox{3pt}{$\cdot$}}q)=(h\ast q'){\raisebox{3pt}{$\cdot$}}(h\ast q)$ and $(h'.h)\ast q=(h'\ast q).(h\ast q)$\ $v\ast (p'.p)=(v\ast p').(v\ast p)$ and $(v'{\raisebox{3pt}{$\cdot$}}v)\ast p=(v'\ast p) {\raisebox{3pt}{$\cdot$}}(v\ast p)$\ $h\ast (p'.p)$ and $(h'.h)\ast p$ are equal to the respective 2-cells $$\xymatrix@C=18pt{ X\!\ast \! Y \ar[r]^-{X\ast p} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X\!\ast \! Y' \ar[r]^-{X\ast p'} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle h\ast p'}} & X \!\ast \! Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[r]^-{h\ast Y^{\prime\prime} } & X' \!\ast \! Y^{\prime\prime} \ar@{=}[d] \\ X\!\ast \! Y \ar[r]^-{X\ast p} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle h \ast p}} & X \!\ast \! Y' \ar[r]^-{h\ast Y'} & X'\!\ast \! Y' \ar[r]^-{X' \ast p'} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X' \!\ast \! Y^{\prime\prime} \ar@{=}[d] \\ X \!\ast \! Y \ar[r]_-{h\ast Y} & X' \!\ast \! Y \ar[r]_-{X'\ast p} & X'\!\ast \! Y' \ar[r]_-{X' \ast p'} & X' \!\ast \! Y^{\prime\prime} } \quad \xymatrix@C=18pt{ X\!\ast \! Y \ar[r]^-{X\ast p} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle h\ast p}} & X\!\ast \! Y' \ar[r]^-{h\ast Y'} & X' \!\ast \! Y' \ar[r]^-{h'\ast Y'} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X^{\prime\prime} \!\ast \! Y' \ar@{=}[d] \\ X\!\ast \! Y \ar[r]^-{h\ast Y} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X' \!\ast \! Y \ar[r]^-{X'\ast p} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle h' \ast p}} & X'\!\ast \! Y' \ar[r]^-{h' \ast Y'} & X^{\prime\prime} \!\ast \! Y'\ar@{=}[d] \\ X \!\ast \! Y \ar[r]_-{h\ast Y} & X' \!\ast \! Y \ar[r]_-{h'\ast Y} & X^{\prime\prime} \!\ast \! Y \ar[r]_-{X^{\prime\prime} \ast p} & X^{\prime\prime} \!\ast \! Y' }$$ $v\ast (q'{\raisebox{3pt}{$\cdot$}}q)$ and $(v'{\raisebox{3pt}{$\cdot$}}v)\ast q$ are equal to the respective 2-cells $$\xymatrix@C=15pt{ X \ast Y \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{v\ast Y} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v\ast q}} & X \ast Y \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]^-{X\ast q} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X \ast Y \ar[d]^-{X\ast q} \\ X' \ast Y \ar[d]_-{X'\ast q} & X \ast Y' \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{v\ast Y'} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v\ast q'}} & X \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{X\ast q'} \\ X' \ast Y' \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{X'\ast q'} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X' \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{X'\ast q'} & X \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[d]^-{v\ast Y^{\prime\prime}} \\ X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar@{=}[r] & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar@{=}[r] & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime}.} \qquad \xymatrix@C=15pt{ X \ast Y \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{v\ast Y} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X \ast Y \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{v\ast Y} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v\ast q}} & X \ast Y \ar[d]^-{X\ast q} \\ X' \ast Y \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{v'\ast Y} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v'\ast q}} & X' \ast Y \ar[d]^-{X'\ast q} & X \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{v\ast Y'} \\ X^{\prime\prime} \ast Y \ar[d]_-{X^{\prime\prime}\ast q} & X' \ast Y' \ar[d]_-{v'\ast Y'} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X' \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{v'\ast Y'} \\ X^{\prime\prime} \ast Y' \ar@{=}[r] & X^{\prime\prime} \ast Y' \ar@{=}[r] & X^{\prime\prime} \ast Y'.}$$ (vii) For every 2-cell $\omega$, horizontal 1-cell $h$ and vertical 1-cell $v$, the following naturality conditions hold. $$\xymatrix@C=20pt@R=20pt{ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X \ast p} \ar[d]_-{X\ast q} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle X\ast \omega}} & X \ast Y' \ar[r]^-{h \ast Y'} \ar[d]\|-{X \ast r} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle h\ast r}} & X'\ast Y' \ar[d]^-{X'\ast r} \\ X\ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[r]_-{X \ast s} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle h\ast s}} & X \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ar[r]_{h\ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime}} & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ar@{=}[d] \\ X \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[r]_-{h \ast Y^{\prime\prime}} & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[r]_-{X' \ast s} & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime}} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix@C=20pt@R=20pt{ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X \ast p} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle h\ast p }} & X \ast Y' \ar[r]^-{h \ast Y'} & X' \ast Y' \ar@{=}[d] \\ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{h \ast Y} \ar[d]_-{X\ast q} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle h\ast q}} & X' \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X' \ast p} \ar[d]\|-{X'\ast q\ } \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle X'\ast \omega}} & X' \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{X' \ast r} \\ X \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[r]_-{h \ast Y^{\prime\prime}} & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[r]_-{X' \ast s} & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime} }$$ $$\xymatrix@C=20pt@R=20pt{ X \ast Y \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{v\ast Y} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v \ast q}} & X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X \ast p} \ar[d]\|-{X\ast q} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle X\ast \omega}} & X \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{X \ast r} \\ X' \ast Y \ar[d]_-{X'\ast q} & X \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[r]^-{X \ast s} \ar[d]_-{v \ast Y^{\prime\prime} } \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v \ast s}} & X \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ar[d]^-{v \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime}} \\ X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar@{=}[r] & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[r]_-{X'\ast s} & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime}} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix@C=20pt@R=20pt{ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X \ast p} \ar[d]_-{v\ast Y} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v \ast p}} & X \ast Y' \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]\|-{\ v\ast Y'} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle v\ast r}} & X \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{X \ast r} \\ X' \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X' \ast p} \ar[d]_-{X'\ast q} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle X'\ast \omega}} & X' \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{X' \ast r} & X \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ar[d]^-{v\ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime}} \\ X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime} \ar[r]_-{X'\ast s} & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ar@{=}[r] & X' \ast Y^{\prime\prime\prime} }$$ $$\xymatrix@C=20pt@R=20pt{ Y \ast X \ar[r]^-{Y\ast h} \ar[d]_-{q\ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle q\ast h}} & Y \ast X' \ar[r]^-{p\ast X'} \ar[d]\|-{q\ast X'} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \omega \ast X'}} & Y' \ast X' \ar[d]^-{r\ast X'} \\ Y^{\prime\prime} \ast X \ar[r]_-{Y^{\prime\prime} \ast h} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle s\ast h}} & Y^{\prime\prime} \ast X' \ar[r]_-{s\ast X'} & Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast X' \ar@{=}[d] \\ Y^{\prime\prime} \ast X \ar[r]_-{s\ast X} & Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast X \ar[r]_-{Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast h} & Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast X'} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix@C=20pt@R=20pt{ Y \ast X \ar[r]^-{Y\ast h} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle p \ast h}} & Y \ast X' \ar[r]^-{p\ast X'} & Y' \ast X' \ar@{=}[d] \\ Y \ast X \ar[r]^-{p\ast X} \ar[d]_-{q\ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \omega \ast X}} & Y' \ast X \ar[r]^-{Y'\ast h} \ar[d]\|-{r\ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle r\ast h}} & Y' \ast X' \ar[d]^-{r\ast X'} \\ Y^{\prime\prime} \ast X \ar[r]_-{s\ast X} & Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast X \ar[r]_-{Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast h} & Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast X'}$$ $$\xymatrix@C=20pt@R=20pt{ Y \ast X \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{q\ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle q\ast v}} & Y \ast X \ar[r]^-{p\ast X} \ar[d]\|-{Y \ast v} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle p\ast v}} & Y' \ast X \ar[d]^-{Y' \ast v} \\ Y^{\prime\prime} \ast X \ar[d]_-{Y^{\prime\prime} \ast v} & Y \ast X' \ar[r]^-{p\ast X'} \ar[d]_-{q\ast X'} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \omega \ast X'}} & Y' \ast X' \ar[d]^-{r\ast X'} \\ Y^{\prime\prime} \ast X' \ar@{=}[r] & Y^{\prime\prime} \ast X' \ar[r]_-{s\ast X'} & Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast X'} \raisebox{-38pt}{$=$} \xymatrix@C=20pt@R=20pt{ Y \ast X \ar[r]^-{p\ast X} \ar[d]_-{q\ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \omega \ast X}} & Y' \ast X \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]\|-{r\ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle r\ast v}} & Y' \ast X \ar[d]^-{Y' \ast v} \\ Y^{\prime\prime} \ast X \ar[d]_-{Y^{\prime\prime} \ast v} \ar[r]^-{s\ast X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle s\ast v}} & Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast X \ar[d]^-{Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast v} & Y' \ast X' \ar[d]^-{r\ast X'} \\ Y^{\prime\prime} \ast X' \ar[r]_-{s\ast X'} & Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast X' \ar@{=}[r] & Y^{\prime\prime\prime} \ast X'}$$ In part (vii) we see the naturality conditions on the horizontal and vertical pseudotransformations obtained as the images of 1-cells under the double functor $M:\mathbb A \to {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb A{\rsem}$; and the compatibility conditions on the modifications obtained as the images of 2-cells under $M$. The conditions in (i-v-vi) come from two sources: from the requirements that $M$, and the image of any 0-cell under it, are double functors; and from the functoriality conditions on the horizontal and vertical pseudotransformations obtained as the images of 1-cells under $M$. Condition (i) expresses the unitality, and (iii-iv) express the associativity of the monoid. There seems to be no evident way to interpret a monoid $\mathbb A$ in $(\mathsf{DblCat},\otimes)$ like above as a monoidal double category in the sense of [@Shulman Definition 2.9] and [@GrandisPare:Intercategories_fw Section 3.1]. Using the notation of this section, one can easily introduce multiplication maps $\mathbb A\times \mathbb A \to \mathbb A$ on the various cells. They are associative with the unit $I$: - A pair of $X$ and $Y$ is sent to $X\ast Y$. - A pair of $h$ and $k$ is sent to the horizontal 1-cell on the left; and a pair of $f$ and $g$ is sent to the vertical 1-cell on the right: $$\xymatrix{ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{h\ast Y} & X' \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X'\ast k} & X' \ast Y'} \qquad \qquad \raisebox{30pt}{$\xymatrix@R=15pt{ X \ast Y \ar[d]^-{f\ast Y} \\ X' \ast Y \ar[d]^-{X'\ast g} \\ X' \ast Y'.}$}$$ - A pair of $\omega$ and $\vartheta$ is sent to $$\xymatrix{ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{h\ast Y} \ar[d]_-{f\ast Y} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \omega \ast Y}} & X' \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X'\ast p} \ar[d]\|-{g\ast Y} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle g \ast p}} & X' \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{g\ast Y'} \\ X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y \ar[r]^-{k\ast Y} \ar[d]_-{X^{\prime \prime} \ast q} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle k \ast q}} & X^{\prime \prime \prime} \ast Y \ar[d]\|-{X^{\prime \prime \prime} \ast q} \ar[r]^-{X^{\prime \prime \prime} \ast p} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle X^{\prime \prime \prime} \ast \vartheta}} & X^{\prime \prime \prime} \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{X^{\prime \prime \prime} \ast r} \\ X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y^{\prime \prime} \ar[r]_-{k\ast Y^{\prime \prime} } & X^{\prime \prime \prime} \ast Y^{\prime \prime} \ar[r]_-{X^{\prime \prime \prime} \ast s} & X^{\prime \prime \prime} \ast Y^{\prime \prime \prime}.}$$ However, these maps do [not]{} constitute a double functor or at least a pseudo double functor in the sense of [@GrandisPare:dbladj Section 2.1], [@Shulman Definition 2.7]. Recall that a [pseudo double functor]{} in these references is defined to strictly preserve the composition in one direction; and up-to a coherent natural family of invertible 2-cells in the other direction. These maps above, however, do not preserve any of the horizontal and vertical compositions in the strict sense, only up-to coherent natural families $$\xymatrix@C=15pt{ X \ast Y \ar[r]^-{h\ast Y} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X' \ast Y \ar[r]^-{X' \ast p} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle k\ast p}} & X' \ast Y' \ar[r]^-{k\ast Y'} & X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y' \ar[r]^-{X^{\prime \prime} \ast s} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y^{\prime \prime} \ar@{=}[d] \\ X \ast Y \ar[r]_-{h\ast Y} & X' \ast Y \ar[r]_-{k\ast Y} & X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y \ar[r]_-{X^{\prime \prime} \ast p} & X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y' \ar[r]_-{X^{\prime \prime} \ast s} & X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y^{\prime \prime}} \qquad \raisebox{42pt}{$ \xymatrix@R=15pt@C=12pt{ X \ast Y \ar[d]_-{f\ast Y} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X \ast Y \ar[d]^-{f\ast Y} \\ X' \ast Y \ar[d]_-{g\ast Y} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle g\ast q}} & X' \ast Y \ar[d]^-{X' \ast q} \\ X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y \ar[d]_-{X^{\prime \prime} \ast q} & X' \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{g\ast Y'} \\ X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y' \ar[d]_-{X^{\prime \prime} \ast r} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y' \ar[d]^-{X^{\prime \prime} \ast r} \\ X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y^{\prime \prime} \ar@{=}[r] & X^{\prime \prime} \ast Y^{\prime \prime}}$}$$ of vertically, respectively, horizontally invertible 2-cells. Succinctly, monoids in $(\mathsf{DblCat},\otimes)$ determine monoids in the Cartesian monoidal category whose objects are double categories and whose morphisms are pseudo-pseudo double functors (rather than strict–pseudo double functors in [@GrandisPare:dbladj]). By this reason, there seems to be no easy way to regard a monoid in $(\mathsf{DblCat},\otimes)$ in this section as a suitably degenerate [intercategory]{} [@GrandisPare:Intercategories; @GrandisPare:Intercategories_fw]. Monoidality of the functor ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}:(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes) \to (\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$ due to Fiore, Gambino and Kock [@FioreGambinoKock] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To any double category $\mathbb A$, the double category ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$ of monads in $\mathbb A$ was associated in [@FioreGambinoKock]. This construction can be seen as the object map of the functor in the title, which sends a morphism; that is, a double functor $\mathsf F:\mathbb A \to \mathbb B$ to the double functor ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathsf F):{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A) \to {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$ of ‘componentwise’ action. As the nullary part of the candidate monoidal structure, we take the evident iso double functor $\xymatrix@C=12pt{\mathbbm 1 \ar[r]^-\cong & {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbbm 1)}$. For any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$, for the double functors $ \chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}: {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\to {\lsem}{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A), {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B) {\rsem}$ encoding the binary part, we propose the following. A in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}$ is by definition a monad $( (\xymatrix@C=12pt{\mathbb A \ar[r]^-{\mathsf T} & \mathbb B}, \xymatrix@C=12pt{{\mathsf T} \ar[r]^-t & {\mathsf T}}), \theta,\tau)$ in the horizontal 2-category of ${\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}$. We have to associate to it a 0-cell in ${\lsem}{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A), {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B) {\rsem}$; that is, a double functor $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}((\mathsf T,t),\theta,\tau):{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)\to {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$. Evaluation at any 0-cell $X$ of $\mathbb A$ gives a 0-cell $((\mathsf T X,t_X),\theta_X,\tau_X)$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$. The image of any 0-cell $((X,x),\mu,\eta)$ of ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$ under the double functor ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathsf T)$ is a 0-cell $((\mathsf TX, \mathsf T x),\mathsf T \mu,\mathsf T \eta)$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$. Between these monads in the horizontal 2-category of $\mathbb B$, there is a distributive law $t^x$. It induces a 0-cell in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$, $$\Bigl(\! (\mathsf TX,\! \xymatrix@C=12pt{\mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{t_X} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Tx} & \mathsf TX}\!\!)\! ,\! \raisebox{38pt}{$\xymatrix@C=12pt{ \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{t_X} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Tx} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle t^x}} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{t_X} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Tx} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf TX \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{t_X} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle \theta_X}} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{t_X} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Tx} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf T \mu}} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Tx} & \mathsf TX \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf TX \ar[rr]_-{t_X} && \mathsf TX \ar[rr]_-{\mathsf Tx} && \mathsf TX}$}\! , \! \raisebox{38pt}{$\xymatrix@C=12pt@R=63pt{ \mathsf TX \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \tau_X}} & \mathsf TX \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf T\eta}} & \mathsf TX \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf TX \ar[r]_-{t_X} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Tx} & \mathsf TX}$}\! \Bigr).$$ It will be the image of the $((X,x),\mu,\eta)$ of ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$ under the double functor $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}((\mathsf T,t),\theta,\tau):{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)\to {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$. On the $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}((\mathsf T,t),\theta,\tau)$ acts as $$\Bigl(\xymatrix@C=15pt{X \ar[r]^-f & Y}, \raisebox{38pt}{$\xymatrix@C=15pt@R=63pt{ X \ar[r]^-f \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle \varphi}} & Y \ar[r]^-y & Y \ar@{=}[d] \\ X \ar[r]_-x & X \ar[r]_-f & Y}$} \Bigr) \mapsto \Bigl(\xymatrix@C=15pt{ \mathsf T X \ar[r]^-{\mathsf T f} & \mathsf T Y}, \raisebox{38pt}{$\xymatrix@C=15pt{ \mathsf T X \ar[r]^-{\mathsf T f} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle t^f}} & \mathsf T Y \ar[r]^-{ t_Y} & \mathsf T Y \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Ty} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf T Y \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf TX \ar[r]^-{t_X} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf T X \ar[r]^-{\mathsf T f} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf T \varphi}} & \mathsf T Y \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Ty} & \mathsf T Y \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf TX \ar[r]_-{t_X} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]_-{\mathsf T x} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Tf} & \mathsf T Y}$}\Bigr)$$ and on the it acts as $$\Bigl(\raisebox{18pt}{$\xymatrix{X \ar[d]^-g \\ Z}$}, \raisebox{18pt}{$\xymatrix{ X \ar[r]^-x \ar[d]_-g \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \gamma}} & X \ar[d]^-g \\ Z \ar[r]_-z & Z}$}\Bigr) \mapsto \Bigl(\raisebox{18pt}{$\xymatrix{\mathsf TX \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Tg} \\ \mathsf TZ}$}, \raisebox{18pt}{$\xymatrix{ \mathsf TX \ar[d]_-{\mathsf Tg} \ar[r]^-{t_X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle t_g}} & \mathsf TX \ar[d]\|-{\mathsf Tg} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Tx} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \mathsf T \gamma}} & \mathsf TX \ar[d]^-{\mathsf Tg} \\ \mathsf TZ \ar[r]_-{t_Z} & \mathsf TZ \ar[r]_-{\mathsf T z} & \mathsf TZ}$}\Bigr).$$ Finally, $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}((\mathsf T,t),\theta,\tau)$ sends a $\omega$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$ to the 2-cell $\mathsf T \omega$ of ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$. A in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}$ is a monad morphism $$\Bigl( \xymatrix@C=15pt{\mathsf T \ar[r]^-p & \mathsf T'}, \raisebox{18pt}{$\xymatrix@C=15pt{ \mathsf T \ar[r]^-p \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle \pi}} & \mathsf T' \ar[r]^-{t'} & \mathsf T' \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf T \ar[r]_-t & \mathsf T \ar[r]_-p & \mathsf T'}$}\Bigr)$$ in the horizontal 2-category of ${\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B{\rsem}$ (so that in particular $p$ is a horizontal pseudotransformation and $\pi$ is a modification). The double functor $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}$ should send it to a horizontal 1-cell in ${\lsem}{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A),{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B){\rsem}$; that is, the following horizontal pseudotransformation $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}((T,t),\theta,\tau)\to \chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}((T',t'),\theta',\tau')$. It consists of the horizontal 1-cell in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$ $$\Bigl( \xymatrix@C=15pt{\mathsf T X \ar[r]^-{p_X} & \mathsf {T'} X}, \raisebox{39pt}{$\xymatrix@C=15pt{ \mathsf T X \ar[r]^-{p_X} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle \pi_X}} & \mathsf {T'} X \ar[r]^-{t'_X} & \mathsf {T'} X \ar[r]^-{\mathsf {T'}x} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf {T'} X \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf TX \ar@{=}[d] \ar[r]^-{t_X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle 1}} & \mathsf T X \ar[r]^-{p_X} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle (p^x)^{-1}}} & \mathsf {T'} X \ar[r]^-{\mathsf{T'}x} & \mathsf {T'} X \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf TX \ar[r]_-{t_X} & \mathsf T X \ar[r]_-{\mathsf Tx} & \mathsf TX \ar[r]_-{p_X} & \mathsf {T'}X }$}\Bigr)$$ for all 0-cells $((X,x),\mu,\eta)$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$ together with the 2-cell $p_g$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$ for all vertical 1-cells $g$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$, and the vertically invertible 2-cell $p^h$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$ for all horizontal 1-cells $h$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$. A $$\Bigl( \raisebox{18pt}{$\xymatrix{\mathsf T \ar[d]^-r \\ \mathsf T'}$}, \raisebox{18pt}{$\xymatrix{ \mathsf T \ar[d]_-r \ar[r]^-t \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \varrho}} & \mathsf T \ar[d]^-r \\ \mathsf {T'} \ar[r]_-{t'} & \mathsf {T'}}$}\Bigr)$$ of ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}$ is sent by $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}$ to the vertical pseudotransformation from $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}((T,t),\theta,\tau)$ to $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}((T',t'),\theta',\tau')$ which consists of the following data. For all 0-cells $((X,x),\mu,\eta)$ of ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$ the vertical 1-cell in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$ $$\Bigl( \raisebox{18pt}{$\xymatrix{\mathsf TX \ar[d]^-{r_X} \\ \mathsf {T'}X}$}, \raisebox{18pt}{$\xymatrix{ \mathsf TX \ar[d]_-{r_X} \ar[r]^-{t_X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \varrho_X}} & \mathsf TX \ar[d]\|-{r_X} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf Tx} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle r_x}} & \mathsf TX \ar[d]^-{r_X} \\ \mathsf {T'}X \ar[r]_-{t'_X} & \mathsf {T'}X \ar[r]_-{\mathsf T'x} & \mathsf {T'}X}$}\Bigr);$$ for all horizontal 1-cells $h$ of ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$ the 2-cell $r_h$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$; and for all vertical 1-cells $g$ of ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$ the horizontally invertible 2-cell $r^g$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B)$. The double functor $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}$ sends a $\omega$ in ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}$ to the modification whose component at every 0-cell $((X,x),\mu,\eta)$ of ${\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A)$ is $\omega_X$. These double functors $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}: {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}{\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\to {\lsem}{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb A), {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbb B) {\rsem}$ constitute a natural transformation $\chi:{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}{\lsem}-,-{\rsem}\to {\lsem}{\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(-), {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(-){\rsem}$. It is not hard (although a bit long) to see that the double functors of Section \[sec:ox\], the trivial isomorphism $\mathbbm 1 \cong {\mathbb M\mathsf{nd}}(\mathbbm 1)$ and the double functors $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}$ constructed above, satisfy the conditions of and $\eqref{eq:assoc}$. This proves the monoidality of the functor in the title of the section (which sends then monoids as in Section \[sec:monoid\] to monoids in the same sense). The closed monoidal category $(\mathsf {DblCat},\times)$ {#sec:x} -------------------------------------------------------- Recall that for any double category $\mathbb A$, the internal hom functor $\langlebar \mathbb A,-\ranglebar : \mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{DblCat}$ of the closed monoidal category in the title sends an object; that is, a double category $\mathbb B$ to the following double subcategory $\langlebar \mathbb A,\mathbb B \ranglebar$ of ${\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}$. - The are still the double functors $ \mathbb A \to \mathbb B$. - The are the [horizontal transformations]{} of [@GrandisPare]. That is, those horizontal pseudotransformations $x$ (see Section \[sec:\[A,B\]\]) whose 2-cell parts $x^h$ are vertical identity 2-cells for all horizontal 1-cells $h$ in $\mathbb A$. - Symmetrically, the are the [vertical transformations]{} of [@GrandisPare]. That is, those vertical pseudotransformations $y$ (see Section \[sec:\[A,B\]\]) whose 2-cell parts $y^f$ are horizontal identity 2-cells for all vertical 1-cells $f$ in $\mathbb A$. - Finally, the are the modifications of [@GrandisPare] (this is the same notion as in Section \[sec:\[A,B\]\]). The functor $\langlebar \mathbb A,-\ranglebar : \mathsf{DblCat} \to \mathsf{DblCat}$ sends a morphism; that is, a double functor $\mathsf H:\mathbb B \to \mathbb C$ to the restriction $\langlebar \mathbb A,\mathsf H\ranglebar: \langlebar \mathbb A,\mathbb B \ranglebar \to \langlebar \mathbb A,\mathbb C \ranglebar$ of the double functor ${\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathsf H{\rsem}: {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\to {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb C {\rsem}$ in Section \[sec:\[-,-\]\]. For any double category $\mathbb A$, the double functor $$\xymatrix{ \mathbbm 1 \ar[r]^-{\eta^{\mathbb A}_\times} & \langlebar \mathbb A,\mathbbm 1 \times \mathbb A\ranglebar \ar[r]^-{\langlebar 1,\lambda_\times\ranglebar} & \langlebar \mathbb A,\mathbb A\ranglebar}$$ is $1_{\mathbb A}$, sending the single object of $\mathbbm 1$ to the identity double functor $1_{\mathbb A}:\mathbb A \to \mathbb A$; and the double functor $$\xymatrix{ \mathbb A \ar[r]^-{\eta^{\mathbbm 1}_\times} & \langlebar \mathbbm 1,\mathbb A \times \mathbbm 1\ranglebar \ar[r]^-{\langlebar 1,\varrho_\times \ranglebar} & \langlebar \mathbbm 1,\mathbb A\ranglebar}$$ is the canonical isomorphism $\mathbb A\cong \langlebar \mathbbm 1,\mathbb A\ranglebar \cong {\lsem}\mathbbm 1,\mathbb A{\rsem}$. For any double categories $\mathbb A$, $\mathbb B$ and $\mathbb C$, the double functor $ \mathfrak l^{\mathbb C}_\times: \langlebar \mathbb A,\mathbb B \ranglebar \to \langlebar \langlebar \mathbb C,\mathbb A\ranglebar,\langlebar \mathbb C,\mathbb B \ranglebar \ranglebar $ of is constituted by the following maps. - It sends a ; that is, a double functor $\mathsf F:\mathbb A \to \mathbb B$ to the double functor $\langlebar \mathbb C,\mathsf F \ranglebar: \langlebar \mathbb C,\mathbb A\ranglebar \to \langlebar \mathbb C,\mathbb B \ranglebar$. - It sends a ; that is, a horizontal transformation $\xymatrix@C=12pt{\mathsf F \ar[r]^-x & \mathsf G}$ to the horizontal transformation $\langlebar \mathbb C,\mathsf F \ranglebar \to \langlebar \mathbb C,\mathsf G \ranglebar$ whose component at any vertical transformation on the left — between double functors $\mathbb C \to \mathbb A$ — is the modification on the right: $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf H \ar[d]^-q \\ \mathsf {H'}} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf{FH} \ar[r]^-{x_{\mathsf H-}} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf F q_-} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle x_{q_-}}} & \mathsf{GH} \ar[d]^-{\mathsf G q_-} \\ \mathsf{FH'} \ar[r]_-{x_{\mathsf {H'}-}} & \mathsf{GH'}. }$$ - Symmetrically, it sends a ; that is, a vertical transformation on the left — between double functors $\mathbb A \to \mathbb B$ — to the vertical transformation whose component at any horizontal transformation $ \xymatrix@C=12pt{ \mathsf H \ar[r]^-p & \mathsf {H'}}$ — between double functors $\mathbb C \to \mathbb A$ — is the modification on the right: $$\xymatrix{\mathsf F \ar[d]^-y \\ \mathsf J} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf{FH} \ar[d]_-{y_{\mathsf H-}} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf F p_-} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle y_{p_-}}} & \mathsf{FH'} \ar[d]^-{y_{\mathsf {H'}-}} \\ \mathsf{JH} \ar[r]_-{\mathsf J p_-} & \mathsf{JH'}. }$$ - Finally, it sends a modification on the left to the modification whose component at a double functor $\mathsf H:\mathbb C \to \mathbb A$ is the modification on the right: $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf F \ar[r]^-x \ar[d]_-y \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Theta}} & \mathsf G \ar[d]^-v \\ \mathsf J \ar[r]_-z & \mathsf K} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf {FH} \ar[r]^-{x_{\mathsf H -}} \ar[d]_-{y_{\mathsf H -}} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \Theta_{\mathsf H-}}} & \mathsf {GH} \ar[d]^-{v_{\mathsf H -}} \\ \mathsf {JH} \ar[r]_-{z_{\mathsf H -}} & \mathsf {KH}. }$$ Monoidality of the identity functor $(\mathsf {DblCat},\times) \to (\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The evident inclusion double functors $\langlebar \mathbb A,\mathbb B \ranglebar \rightarrowtail {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}$, for all double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$, define a natural transformation $\langlebar -,- \ranglebar \rightarrowtail {\lsem}-,- {\rsem}$. Together with the double functors in Section \[sec:ox\] and those in Section \[sec:x\], and the identity double functor $\xymatrix@C=12pt{\mathbbm 1 \ar@{=}[r] & \mathbbm 1}$ as the nullary part of the stated monoidal structure, they clearly satisfy the conditions in and . With this we infer the monoidality of the functor in the title of the section. In particular, a strict monoidal double category [@BruniMeseguerMontanari] – which is a monoid in $(\mathsf{DblCat},\times)$ – gives rise to a monoid in $(\mathsf{DblCat},\otimes)$ – described in Section \[sec:monoid\]. The closed monoidal category $({\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}},\otimes)$ ----------------------------------------------------------------- In this section we regard the category ${\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}}$ of 2-categories and 2-functors as a closed monoidal category via the Gray monoidal product $\otimes$ in [@Gray]. Recall that, for any 2-category $\mathcal A$, the internal hom functor $[\mathcal A,-]:{\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}}\to {\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}}$ sends an object; that is, a 2-category $\mathcal B$ to the 2-category $[\mathcal A,\mathcal B]$ of 2-functors $\mathcal A \to \mathcal B$, pseudonatural transformations, and modifications. It sends a morphism; that is, a 2-functor $\mathsf F: \mathcal B \to \mathcal C$ to the 2-functor $[\mathcal A,\mathsf F]:[\mathcal A,\mathcal B] \to [\mathcal A,\mathcal C]$ given by postcomposition with $\mathsf F$. The 2-functor $$\xymatrix{ {\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}}\ar[r]^-{\eta^{\mathcal A}} & [\mathcal A,{\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}}\otimes \mathcal A] \ar[r]^-{[1,\lambda]} & [\mathcal A,\mathcal A]}$$ is $1_{\mathcal A}$, the 2-functor sending the single object of the terminal 2-category ${\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}}$ to the identity 2-functor $1_{\mathcal A}:\mathcal A \to \mathcal A$. The 2-functor $$\xymatrix{ \mathcal A \ar[r]^-{\eta^{\scalebox{.6}{${\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}}$}}} & [{\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}},\mathcal A\otimes {\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}}] \ar[r]^-{[1,\varrho]} & [{\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}},\mathcal A]}$$ is the canonical isomorphism. For any 2-categories $\mathcal A$, $\mathcal B$ and $\mathcal C$, the 2-functor $\mathfrak l^{\mathcal C}_{\mathcal A,\mathcal B}:[\mathcal A,\mathcal B] \to [[\mathcal C,\mathcal A], [\mathcal C,\mathcal B]]$ in has the following maps. - It sends a ; that is, a 2-functor $\mathsf H:\mathcal A \to \mathcal B$ to the 2-functor $[\mathcal C,\mathsf H]:[\mathcal C,\mathcal A] \to [\mathcal C,\mathcal B]$. - It sends a ; that is, a pseudonatural transformation $\psi:\mathsf H \to \mathsf {H'}$ to the pseudonatural transformation $[\mathcal C,\mathsf H] \to [\mathcal C,\mathsf H']$ whose component at any pseudonatural transformation $\varphi:\mathsf F \to \mathsf {F'}$ between 2-functors $\mathcal C \to \mathcal A$ is $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf{HF} \ar[d]_-{\psi_{\mathsf F-}} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf H \varphi_-} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\mbox{\rotatebox{270}{$\Longrightarrow$} \raisebox{-12pt}{$\psi_{\varphi_-}$}}}} & \mathsf{HF'} \ar[d]^-{\psi_{\mathsf {F'}-}} \\ \mathsf{H'F} \ar[r]_-{\mathsf {H'} \varphi_-} & \mathsf{H'F'}.}$$ - It sends a ; that is, a modification $\omega$ to the modification whose component at any 2-functor $\mathsf F:\mathcal C \to \mathcal A$ is $\omega_{\mathsf F-}$. Monoidality of the functors $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes) \to ({\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}},\otimes)$ sending double categories to their horizontal – or vertical – 2-categories -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider the functor $\mathcal H:\mathsf {DblCat} \to {\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}}$ which sends a double category $\mathbb A$ to its so-called horizontal 2-category. The 0-cells of $\mathcal H \mathbb A$ are the 0-cells of $\mathbb A$, the 1-cells of $\mathcal H \mathbb A$ are the horizontal 1-cells of $\mathbb A$ and the 2-cells of $\mathcal H \mathbb A$ are those 2-cells of $\mathbb A$ which are surrounded by identity vertical 1-cells (and arbitrary horizontal 1-cells). Compositions in $\mathcal H \mathbb A$ are inherited from $\mathbb A$. The functor $\mathcal H$ sends a morphism; that is, a double functor $\mathsf F: \mathbb A \to \mathbb B$ to the 2-functor $\mathcal H \mathsf F:\mathcal H \mathbb A \to \mathcal H \mathbb B$ which acts on the various cells as $\mathsf F$ does. The horizontal 2-category of the terminal double category $\mathbbm 1$ is the terminal 2-category ${\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}}$. So we may choose the nullary part $\mathcal H_0$ of the candidate monoidal structure on $\mathcal H$ to be the identity 2-functor ${\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}}\to {\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}}$. As the 2-functor $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}:\mathcal H {\lsem}\mathbb A,\mathbb B {\rsem}\to [\mathcal H \mathbb A, \mathcal H \mathbb B]$ for any double categories $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$, encoding the binary part, we propose the following. - A ; that is, a double functor $\mathsf F:\mathbb A \to \mathbb B$ is sent to the 2-functor $\mathcal H \mathsf F:\mathcal H \mathbb A \to \mathcal H \mathbb B$. - A ; that is, a horizontal pseudotransformation $x:\mathsf F \to \mathsf G$ is sent to the pseudonatural transformation $\mathcal H \mathsf F \to \mathcal H \mathsf G$ whose component at any 1-cell of $\mathcal H \mathbb A$ — that is, horizontal 1-cell $h:A\to C$ of $\mathbb A$ — is the 2-cell $x^h:x_C.\mathsf F h\to \mathsf G h.x_A$ of $\mathcal H \mathbb B$. - A ; that is, a modification of the form , is sent to the modification whose component at any 0-cell of $\mathcal H \mathbb A$ — that is, 0-cell $A$ of $\mathbb A$ — is the 2-cell $\omega_A:x_A \to z_A$ of $\mathcal H \mathbb B$. The so defined 2-functors $\chi_{\mathbb A,\mathbb B}$ constitute a natural transformation $\chi:\mathcal H {\lsem}-,- {\rsem}\to [\mathcal H -, \mathcal H -]$ and satisfy the conditions in and . Hence there is a corresponding monoidal structure on $\mathcal H$. In particular, applying $\mathcal H$ to a monoid in $(\mathsf {DblCat},\otimes)$ as in Section \[sec:monoid\], we obtain a monoid in $({\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}},\otimes)$ (known as a [Gray monoid]{} [@GordonPowerStreet]). Symmetric considerations verify monoidality of the functor $\mathsf V:\mathsf {DblCat} \to {\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}}$, sending a double category to its vertical 2-category. Monoidality of the functor ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}:({\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}},\otimes) \to (\mathsf {DblCat}, \otimes)$ due to Ehresmann --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ehresmann’s [square-]{} or [quintet construction]{} [@Ehresmann] sends a 2-category $\mathcal A$ to the following double category ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal A)$. The 0-cells of ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal A)$ are the 0-cells of $\mathcal A$. Both the horizontal and the vertical 1-cells of ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal A)$ are the 1-cells of $\mathcal A$. A 2-cell of ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal A)$ with boundaries is a 2-cell $r.t \to b.l$ of $\mathcal A$. For any 2-functor $\mathsf F:\mathcal A \to \mathcal B$ there is a double functor ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathsf F):{\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal A) \to {\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal B)$ which acts on the various cells as $\mathsf F$ does. Applying the so defined functor ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}$ to the terminal 2-category ${\scalebox{1.15}{${ \textit{\fontfamily{qzc}\selectfont1}}$}}$, we obtain the terminal double category $\mathbbm 1$. So as the nullary part of the candidate monoidal structure on ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}$, we may choose the identity double functor $\mathbbm 1 \to \mathbbm 1$. For any 2-categories $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal B$, for the double functor ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}[\mathcal A,\mathcal B] \to {\lsem}{\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal A),{\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal B) {\rsem}$ encoding the binary part, the following choices can be made. - A ; that is, a 2-functor $\mathsf H:\mathcal A \to \mathcal B$ is sent to the double functor ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathsf H):{\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal A) \to {\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal B)$. - A ; that is, a pseudonatural transformation $p:\mathsf H \to \mathsf K$ is sent to the horizontal pseudotransformation whose components at any 1-cell $f:X\to Y$ of $\mathcal A$ are the 2-cells in ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal B)$ $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf H X \ar[r]^-{p_X} \ar[d]_-{\mathsf H f} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle (p_f)^{-1}}} & \mathsf {H'}X \ar[d]^-{\mathsf {H'} f} \\ \mathsf H Y \ar[r]_-{p_Y} & \mathsf {H'} Y} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf H X \ar@{=}[d] \ar[r]^-{\mathsf H f} \ar@{}[rrd]\|-{{\displaystyle p_f}} & \mathsf H Y \ar[r]^-{p_Y} & \mathsf {H'} Y \ar@{=}[d] \\ \mathsf H X \ar[r]_-{p_X} & \mathsf {H'}X \ar[r]_-{\mathsf {H'} f} & \mathsf {H'} Y.}$$ - A ; which is again a pseudonatural transformation $p:\mathsf H \to \mathsf K$ is sent to the vertical pseudotransformation whose components at any 1-cell $f:X\to Y$ of $\mathcal A$ are the 2-cells in ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal B)$ $$\xymatrix@R=55pt{ \mathsf H X \ar[d]_-{p_X} \ar[r]^-{\mathsf H f} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle p_f}} & \mathsf H Y \ar[d]^-{p_Y} \\ \mathsf {H'}X \ar[r]_-{\mathsf {H'} f} & \mathsf {H'} Y} \qquad \qquad \xymatrix@R=20pt{ \mathsf H X \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_-{p_X} \ar@{}[rdd]\|-{{\displaystyle p_f}} & \mathsf H X \ar[d]^-{\mathsf H f} \\ \mathsf {H'}X \ar[d]_-{\mathsf {H'} f} & \mathsf H Y \ar[d]^-{p_Y} \\ \mathsf {H'} Y \ar@{=}[r] & \mathsf {H'} Y.}$$ - A ; that is, a modification of 2-functors on the left, is sent to the modification of double functors whose component at any 0-cell of ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal A)$ — that is, any 0-cell $X$ of $\mathcal A$ — is the 2-cell of ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal B)$ on the right: $$\xymatrix{ \mathsf H \ar[r]^-p \ar[d]_-q \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\mbox{\rotatebox{270}{$\Longrightarrow$} \raisebox{-12pt}{$\omega$}}}} & \mathsf {H'} \ar[d]^-r \\ \mathsf {H^{\prime\prime}} \ar[r]_-s & \mathsf {H^{\prime\prime\prime}} } \qquad \qquad \xymatrix{ \mathsf HX \ar[r]^-{p_X} \ar[d]_-{q_X} \ar@{}[rd]\|-{{\displaystyle \omega_X}} & \mathsf {H'} X\ar[d]^-{r_X} \\ \mathsf {H^{\prime\prime}} X\ar[r]_-{s_X} & \mathsf {H^{\prime\prime\prime}} X.}$$ The resulting double functors ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}[\mathcal A,\mathcal B] \to {\lsem}{\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal A),{\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(\mathcal B) {\rsem}$ constitute a natural transformation ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}[-,-] \to {\lsem}{\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(-),{\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}(-) {\rsem}$ and satisfy the conditions in and . So they render monoidal the functor in the title of the section. In particular, applying the functor ${\mathbb S\mathsf{qr}}$ to a Gray monoid — that is, a monoid in $({\mathsf{2{\text -}Cat}},\otimes)$ — a monoid in $(\mathsf {DblCat}, \otimes)$ is obtained (which may not be a monoidal bicategory in the sense of [@Shulman Definition 2.9]). Diagrams ======== Large size diagrams, used in the earlier sections, are collected in this appendix, after the bibliography. [10]{} John C. Baez and Martin Neuchl, [Higher-dimensional algebra. I. Braided monoidal 2-categories,]{} Advances in Mathematics 121 no. 2 (1996) 196–244. Francis Borceux, [Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 1, Basic category theory]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1994. John Bourke and Nick Gurski, [The Gray Tensor Product Via Factorisation,]{} Applied Categorical Structutes 25 no. 4 (2017) 603–624. Roberto Bruni, José Meseguer and Ugo Montanari, [Symmetric monoidal and cartesian double categories as a semantic framework for tile logic,]{} Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 12 no. 1 (2002) 53–90. Charles Ehresmann, [Catégories structurées III. Quintettes et applications covariantes,]{} in: “Séminaire Ehresmann. Topologie et géométrie différentielle" 5 (1963) 1–21. Thomas M. Fiore, Nicola Gambino and Joachim Kock, [Monads in double categories,]{} Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 215 no. 6 (2011) 1174–1197. Thomas M. Fiore, Simona Paoli and Dorette Pronk, [Model structures on the category of small double categories,]{} Algebraic & Geometric Topology 8 (2008) 1855–1959. Robert Gordon, Anthony John Power and Ross Street, [Coherence for tricategories,]{} Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 117 no. 558 (1995). Marco Grandis and Robert Paré, [Limits in double categories,]{} Cahiers de Topologie et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques 40 no. 3 (1999) 162–220. Marco Grandis and Robert Paré, [Adjoint for double categories,]{} Cahiers de Topologie et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques, 45 no. 3 (2004) 193–240. Marco Grandis and Robert Paré, [Intercategories,]{} Theory and Applications of Categories 30 no. 38 (2015) 1215–1255. Marco Grandis and Robert Paré, [Intercategories: A framework for three-dimensional category theory,]{} Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 221 no. 5 (2017) 999–1054. John W. Gray, [Formal category theory: adjointness for 2-categories,]{} Lecture Notes in Mathematics 391 Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1974. Mikhail M. Kapranov and Vladimir Voevodsky, [2-categories and Zamolodchikov tetrahedra equations,]{} in: “Algebraic groups and their generalizations: quantum and infinite-dimensional methods" William J. Haboush, Brian J. Parshall (eds.) pp. 177–259 Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics 56, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI 1994. Christopher Schommer-Pries, [The Classification of Two-Dimensional Extended Topological Field Theories.]{} Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2009. available at [arXiv:1112.1000](https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1000). Michael A. Shulman, [Constructing symmetric monoidal bicategories,]{} [arXiv: 1004.0993](https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0993).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In a recent article, we described how the microscopic structure of density-density correlations in the fluid interfacial region, for systems with short-ranged forces, can be understood by considering the resonances of the local structure factor occurring at specific parallel wave-vectors $q$. Here, we investigate this further by comparing approximations for the local structure factor and correlation function against three new examples of analytically solvable models within square-gradient theory. Our analysis further demonstrates that these approximations describe the correlation function and structure factor across the whole spectrum of wave-vectors, encapsulating the cross-over from the Goldstone mode divergence (at small $q$) to bulk-like behaviour (at larger $q$). As shown, these approximations are exact for some square-gradient model potentials, and never more than a few percent inaccurate for the others. Additionally, we show that they very accurately describe the correlation function structure for a model describing an interface near a tricritical point. In this case, there are no analytical solutions for the correlation functions, but the approximations are near indistinguishable from the numerical solutions of the Ornstein-Zernike equation.' author: - 'A.O. Parry' - 'C. Rascón' bibliography: - 'wetting.bib' title: 'Correlation function structure in square-gradient models of the liquid-gas interface: Exact results and reliable approximations.' --- Introduction ============ The nature of density-density correlations at the liquid-gas interface has attracted enourmous attention since Buff, Lovett and Stilinger showed that, at long wavelengths, these correlations can be understood using a mesoscopic description where the area of the interface is resisted by the surface tension [@BLS1965; @Zittartz1967; @Wertheim1976; @Weeks1977; @Evans1979; @Evans1981; @Rowlinson1982; @Aarts2004]. This capillary wave model of the interface, which regards it as a drumskin under tension, is an excellent description of the interfacial region for wavelengths much larger than the bulk liquid correlation length, and has been successfully used to understand fundamental interfacial phase transitions such as roughnening and wetting [@Dietrich1988; @Schick1990; @Forgacs1991]. However, the question of how density-density correlations behave at shorter lengthscales, comparable with the bulk correlation length, has proved considerably more difficult to answer [@Rochin1991; @Napiorkowski1993; @Parry1994; @Robledo1997; @Mecke1999; @Fradin2000; @Blokhuis2008; @Blokhuis2009; @Parry2014; @Hofling2015; @Chacon2016; @Hernandez2016; @Parry2016; @Macdowell2017; @Hernandez2018]. For instance, plausible attempts to extend the capillary wave description by introducing a scale-dependent surface tension have run into numerous difficulties and have failed to connect with detailed simulation studies of the correlation function $G$ and its integral, the structure factor $S$ [@Hofling2015]. In recent articles [@Parry2016; @Parry2019], we have shown that the properties of the correlation function and structure factor can be determined directly using the formalism of Density Functional Theory (DFT), without having to resort to extended mesoscopic theories. Indeed, we showed that this approach quantitatively explains the results of the largest simulation study of correlation functions near the liquid-gas interface in a system with truncated Lennard-Jones interactions, which as mentioned above are not consistent with mesoscopic approaches. In particular, we showed that the higher wave-vector behaviour of the structure factor is determined by a hierarchy of resonances occurring at specific values of the wavevector $q$, which further precise the connection between the structure factor $S$ and the underlying two-point correlation function $G$. The existence of these resonances constrains strongly the structure of these two functions, allowing us to put forward a family of robust aproximations for $G$ and $S$ across all wavevectors. The purpose of the present paper is to further check the validity of these approximations for a number of models, including some which are analytically solvable and have not been reported previously. Our paper is arranged as follows: In the first section, we recall the basics of the DFT formalism, focusing on square-gradient theory and the general relation between the structure factor and correlation function determined by the resonances. In the following section, we present exact analytical results for a number of models, which, in section 3, are compared with the aforementioned approximations. We also report results for correlation function structure for interfaces near a tricritical point. A summary and conclusions finish the paper. Formalism ========= DFT and Square-Gradient Theory ------------------------------ Within Density Functional Theory, the equilibrium density profile, surface tension and correlation functions are obtained from the Grand Potential functional $\Omega[\rho]=F[\rho]-\int\!d{\bf r}\,(\mu-V({\bf r}))\,\rho({\bf r})$, where $\rho({\bf r})$ is the density distribution, $\mu$ is the chemical potential, and $V({\bf r})$ is the external potential [@Evans1979]. The equilibrium density profile is obtained from minimization of $\Omega[\rho]$ $$\label{one} \frac{\delta\Omega[\rho]}{\delta\rho({\bf r})}=0$$ while the direct correlation function of the inhomogeneous fluid $$C({\bf r},{\bf r}')=\frac{1}{k_B T}\,\frac{\delta^2\,F[\rho]}{\delta\rho({\bf r})\delta\rho({\bf r}')}$$ is obtained as the second derivative of the intrinsic Helmholtz Free-energy functional $F[\rho]$, which must be evaluated at the equilibrium fluid density. Hereafter, we use units in which $k_BT=1$. From $C({\bf r},{\bf r}')$, we can then determine the equilibrium density-density correlation function $G({\bf r}',{\bf r})$ via the solution of the Ornstein-Zernike equation $$\int d{\bf r}''\;C({\bf r},{\bf r}'')\,G({\bf r}'',{\bf r}')\;=\;\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}')$$ Consider the mean-field square-gradient theory based on the model Grand Potential functional [@Evans1979] $$\Omega[\rho]=\int\!\! d{\bf{r}}\,\left(\frac{f}{2}(\nabla \rho)^2+\Delta\phi(\rho)\right) \label{SGT}$$ where, for simplicity, we set $f=1$, since this does not appear in our final results. This is the simplest microscopic theory of the interfacial region, applicable to systems with short-ranged forces. Although it does not allow for dispersion forces, the capillary wave broadening of the interface or packing effects at a molecular scale, it still provides invaluable insight into interfacial properties. Below the critical temperature $T_c$, the bulk free-energy density $\phi(\rho)$ has a standard double well structure describing the coexistence of liquid and gas phases with densities $\rho_l$ and $\rho_g$, respectively, for which $\phi(\rho_l)=\phi(\rho_g)$. The shifted potential $\Delta\phi(\rho)\equiv\phi(\rho)-\phi(\rho_b)$ simply subtracts a bulk contribution. The second derivatives of the potential $\phi''(\rho_b)=\kappa_b^2$ then determine the inverse correlation length $\kappa_b\equiv 1/\xi_b$ of the bulk liquid ($b=l$) or gas ($b=g$) phase. These characterise the exponential decay of the bulk correlation function $G_b(r)$ (where $r$ is the intermolecular separation) the three-dimensional Fourier transform of which identifies the bulk factor $$S_b(q)\;=\;\frac{S_b(0)}{\,1+\xi_b^2q^2\,} \label{BulkS}$$ where $S_b(0)=(\Delta \phi''(\rho_b))^{-1}$ is the bulk compressibility. It is also convenient to introduce the 2D Fourier transform of $G_b(r)$ along the $x$-$y$ plane, which is determined as $$G_b(z;q)\;=\;\frac{1}{2\kappa_q}\,e^{-\kappa_q z}$$ where $\kappa_q\equiv\sqrt{\kappa_b^2+q^2}$. As we are going to concentrate on systems with an Ising symmetry, we drop the subscript $b$ hereafter, except for $S_b(q)$ and $G_b(z;q)$, in order to emphasise that these are bulk functions. We suppose that a planar interface of macroscopic area separates the bulk phases near the $z=0$ plane. The equilibrium density profile $\rho(z)$ is determined by (\[one\]) and satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\frac{d^2\rho}{dz^2}=\Delta\phi'(\rho) \label{EL}$$ subject to boundary conditions $\rho(\infty)=\rho_l$ and $\rho(-\infty)=\rho_g$. This has the first integral determining that $$\rho'(z)=\sqrt{2\Delta\phi} \label{first}$$ and leads to the famous van der Waals formula for the surface tension $$\sigma=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\!\!\!\! dz\,\; \rho '(z)^2 \label{st}$$ where more generally there is a pre-factor $f$, which, recall, we have set to $1$. For this model, the direct correlation function reduces to $$C({\bf r},{\bf r}')=\left(-\nabla^2_{{\bf r}}+\phi''(\rho({\bf r}))\right)\,\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}')$$ and, therefore, its 2D Fourier transform along the interface is the delta function operator $$C(z,z';q)=\left(-\partial^2_z+q^2+\phi''(\rho(z))\right)\,\delta(z-z')$$ Thus, the Ornstein-Zernike (OZ) equation for the 2D Fourier transform of the density-density correlation function $G$ reduces to the differential equation $$\Big(-\partial^2_z+q^2+\phi''\big(\rho(z)\big)\Big)\;G(z,z';q)\;=\;\delta(z-z') \label{OZGTG}$$ The local structure factor is defined as the integral $$S(z;q)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\!\!\!\!dz'\;\,G(z,z';q)$$ and, therefore, satisfies $$\left(-\partial^2_z+q^2+\phi''(\rho(z))\right)\,S(z;q)=1 \label{OZGTS}$$ Five Properties of $S$ and $G$ ------------------------------ [A) Wertheim-Weeks Goldstone mode.]{} In the limit of $q\to 0$, the structure factor necessarily has a Goldstone mode divergence $$S(z;q)\;=\; \frac{\;\Delta\rho\,\rho'(z)\;}{\sigma q^2}\;+\;\cdots \label{GM}$$ where $\Delta\rho\equiv\rho_l\!-\!\rho_g$, and the higher-order terms are of order $q^0$. This result, which is consistent with an exact sum-rule analysis due to Wertheim-Weeks [@Wertheim1976] and the expectations of capillary-wave theory [@Weeks1977; @Parry2016], follows directly from the spectral expansion of the two-point function $$G(z,z'q)\;=\;\sum_n \frac{\;\psi^_n(z)\,\psi_n(z')\,}{E_n+q^2} \label{spectral}$$ as first shown by Evans [@Evans1979]. Here, the eigenfunctions satisfy the Schrödinger-like equation $$\Big(\!-\partial_z^2+\Delta\phi''\big(\rho(z)\big)\Big)\,\psi_n(z)\;=\;E_n\,\psi_n(n) \label{OZschrod}$$ The low $q$ divergence (\[GM\]) then follows from noting that the normalised ground-state $\psi_0(z)\propto\rho'(z)$ has zero energy ($E_0=0$) by virtue of the Euler-Lagrange equation (\[EL\]). That is the correlation function must contain the small $q$ divergence $$G(z,z';q)\;=\; \frac{\;\rho'(z)\,\rho'(z')\;}{\sigma q^2}\;+\;\cdots \label{GMG}$$ integration of which gives (\[GM\]).\ [B) Integral Sum-Rule.]{} Multiplying equation (\[OZGTS\]) by $\rho'(z)$ and integrating over all $z$, we find $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty\!\!\!\! dz\;\, \rho'(z)\Big(-\partial_z^2+q^2+\Delta\phi''\big(\rho(z)\big)\Big)\, S(z;q)\;=\;\Delta\rho$$ which, on using the Euler-Lagrange equation (\[EL\]), reduces to $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty\!\!\!\! dz\;\, \rho'(z)\, S(z;q)\;=\;\frac{\,\Delta\rho\,}{q^2} \label{Sumrule}$$ which, more generally, contains a factor $f$ in the denominator. Thus, any complicated wave-vector dependence present in $S(z;q)$ may be eliminated by taking a weighted integral over the interfacial region, leaving only a pure Goldstone mode. This result can also be obtained from the spectral expansion (\[spectral\]), noting that $\rho'(z)$ is proportional to the lowest-order eigenfunction $\psi_0(z)$.\ [C) Large $z$ decay.]{} At fixed $q$, the structure factor either side of the interface decays towards its bulk liquid or gas value as $z\to \|\infty\|$ according to $$S(z;q)\;=\; S_b(q)\;+\;\frac{\Delta\rho\,\rho'(z)}{\,\sigma_1\, q^2(1+\xi^2q^2)\,}\;+\;\cdots \label{PRE}$$ where the higher-order terms are of order $\mathcal{O}\big(e^{-\kappa_q\|z\|},e^{-2\kappa\|z\|}\big)$ and decay faster than $\rho'(z)\propto e^{-\kappa \|z\|}$ [@Parry2016]. The surface tension-like coefficient appearing in the denominator of (\[PRE\]) (referred to as $\sigma_b(0)$ in [@Parry2016]) is given by $$\sigma_1\;=\;\kappa\,\Delta\rho\,\frac{\Delta \phi''(\rho_b)}{\,\|\Delta\phi'''(\rho_b)\|\,} \label{sigma1}$$ and is determined entirely by the appropriate bulk liquid or gas quantities. Thus, in the absence of a perfect Ising symmetry, the coefficient $\sigma_1$ is [different]{} either side of the interface. In addition, even if Ising symmetry is present, the coefficient $\sigma_1$ is not equal to the surface tension in general, although intriguingly this is true for the standard quartic potential (see below). The crucial insight from the result (\[PRE\]) is that the whole wave-vector dependence of the leading-order exponentially decaying term is related directly to the bulk structure factor. Indeed, it arises explicitly from the combination $\,S_b(q)S_b(i\sqrt{\kappa_b^2-q^2})\propto 1/q^2( 1+\xi^2q^2)\,$ [@Parry2016].\ [D) Resonances.]{} The asymptotic expression (\[PRE\]) appears to contain a Goldstone mode divergence as $q\to 0$ but is not consistent with the Wertheim-Weeks result (\[GM\]) since in general $\sigma_1\ne\sigma$. This discrepancy is explained by noting that, in the limit $q\to 0$, the terms of order $\mathcal{O}\big(e^{-\kappa_q\|z\|}\big)$ appearing in $S(z;q)$ must also be included, in order to capture the full divergence correctly. These themselves can be related to a hierarchy of resonances that occur at specific wavevectors $q=\sqrt{3}\kappa$, $\sqrt{8}\kappa$, $\sqrt{15}\kappa$, $\cdots$ Provided the potential $\phi(\rho)$ has an analytic expansion about the bulk density, these determine that the local structure factor throughout the interfacial region can be written as [@Parry2019] $$\label{Sres} S(z;q)=S_b(q)+\frac{\Delta\rho\,\rho'(z)}{\sigma_1\,q^2(1+\xi^2q^2)}+\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho'(0)}\sum_{n=2}^\infty\;\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_n}\;\frac{ G(0,z;q)-G(0,z;\sqrt{n^2-1}\kappa)}{(1+\xi^2 q^2)(1-\frac{\xi^2 q^2}{n^2-1})}$$ In this expression, the origin $z=0$ is chosen to be at the point where $\rho'(z)$ is maximum. The resonances are weighted by generalised surface tension-like coefficients $\sigma_n$, which can be determined from the correlation function, satisfying the relation $$\frac{1}{\sigma}=\frac{1}{\sigma_{1}}+\frac{1}{\sigma_{2}}+\frac{1}{\sigma_{3}}+\cdots \label{sigsum}$$ This ensures that, in the limit $q\to 0$, the local structure factor exhibits the required Goldstone mode divergence. It is also straightforward to show that the expression (\[Sres\]) satisfies the integral sum-rule (\[Sumrule\]).\ [E) Reliable Approximations.]{} The additional relation between $S$ and $G$ provided by the resonances, Eq. (\[Sres\]), constrains strongly the properties of both functions and provides a scheme for classifying different model potentials according to the presence (or absence) of specific resonances. It also leads to new classes of fully integrable models for which the density profile, surface tension, and correlation functions can be determined analytically. These will be discussed in the following section. Perhaps more importantly, it also points towards a very robust approximation applicable to all potentials for the structure factor at the origin. To this end, let us suppose that $G(0,0;q)\approx\rho'(0)^2/\sigma q^2 + \mathcal{C}$, containing the Goldstone mode and an unknown correction term which we approximate as a constant $\mathcal{C}$. Subtitution into (\[Sres\]) leads to $$\frac{S(0;q)}{S_b(q)}\;\approx\; 1 + \frac{\Delta\rho\rho'(0)}{\sigma q^2\,S_b(0)} \label{Sapp}$$ which is independent of the constant $\mathcal{C}$ [@Parry2019]. Indeed, this expression is the exact result for the quartic Landau potential [@Parry2016]. Similarly, an analysis of the correlation function structure for different model potentials reveals that the correlation function at the origin is always well approximated by $$\frac{G(0,0;q)}{G_b(0;q)}\;\approx\;\, 1\;+\;\frac{\rho'(0)^2}{\sigma q^2G_b(0;0)} \label{Gapp}$$ which is also the exact result for the quartic Landau potential [@Parry2014]. Thus, at the origin (and only at the origin), the approximate rule of factoring out a bulk background [and]{} a multiplicative correction to the Goldstone mode describes accurately the correlation function and structure factor over the whole range of wave-vectors. In the next section, we test these approximations against examples of fully integrable model potentials, only some of which have been reported recently.\ Fully Integrable Models ======================= Landau Quartic Potential ------------------------ Before we discuss new examples of analytically solvable square-gradient theories, we recall the results for the Landau quartic potential [@Zittartz1967; @Parry2014] $$\phi(\rho)=-\frac{t}{2}(\rho-\rho_c)^2+\frac{u}{4}(\rho-\rho_c)^4 \label{m4}$$ Here $\rho_c=(\rho_l+\rho_g)/2$ is the critical density, $t\propto T_c-T$ and $u>0$ is a positive constant. We can also write this as: $$\Delta\phi(\rho)\;=\;\frac{\;\kappa^2}{2}\,\frac{\,(\rho-\rho_l)^2\,(\rho-\rho_g)^2}{\Delta\rho^2} \label{m42}$$ where the dependence on the correlation length is explicit (see Fig.\[Fig1\]). The solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation (\[EL\]) leads to the celebrated result for the profile [@Evans1979; @Rowlinson1982] $$\rho(z)\;=\;\rho_c\,+\,\frac{\Delta\rho}{2}\tanh\left(\frac{\kappa z}{2}\right) \label{m4rho}$$ and, via (\[st\]), to the surface tension $$\sigma\;=\;\frac{\;\kappa\Delta\rho^2}{6} \label{m4sigma}$$ The OZ equation (\[OZGTS\]) reads $$\left(-\partial^2_z+q^2+\kappa^2-\frac{\,3\kappa^2}{2}\,\text{sech}^2\left(\frac{\,\kappa z}{2}\right)\right)\,S(z;q)\;=\;1$$ which has the solution [@Parry2014] $$S(z;q)\;=\; S_b(q)\,+\,\frac{\Delta\rho\,\rho'(z)}{\,\sigma q^2(1+\xi^2q^2)} \label{m4S}$$ A remarkable feature of the quartic potential is that the coefficient $\sigma_1$ describing the asymptotic decay of $S(z;q)$, Eq. (\[sigma1\]), is identical to the surface tension $$\sigma_1\;=\;\frac{\;\kappa\Delta\rho^2}{6}$$ with all other coefficients $\;\sigma_2=\sigma_3=\cdots=\sigma_n=\infty$, implying that the resonances are absent. It also follows that the approximation (\[Sapp\]) for the local structure factor $S(0;q)$ is exact. For this model, the OZ equation for the correlation function (\[OZGTG\]) is $$\label{m4OZ} \left(-\partial^2_z+q^2+\kappa^2-\frac{\,3\kappa^2}{2}\,\text{sech}^2\left(\frac{\,\kappa z}{2}\right)\right)\,G(z,z';q)\;=\;\delta(z-z')$$ which, ordering the positions $z>z'$, has the solution [@Zittartz1967] $$\label{m4Gzz} G(z,z';q)\;=\;\alpha(q)\;\,\psi_-(z;q)\,\psi_+(z';q)$$ where $$\begin{array}{ccl@{\,}l} \psi_-(z;q) & = & e^{-\kappa_q z} & \Big(\tanh^2\left(\frac{\kappa z}{2}\right)+2\,\xi\kappa_q\tanh\left(\frac{\kappa z}{2}\right)+1+\frac{4}{3}q^2\xi^2\Big)\\[.35cm] \psi_+(z;q) & = & e^{\kappa_q z} & \Big(\tanh^2\left(\frac{\kappa z}{2}\right)-2\,\xi\kappa_q\tanh\left(\frac{\kappa z}{2}\right)+1+\frac{4}{3}q^2\xi^2\Big) \end{array}$$ and $$\alpha(q)\;=\;\displaystyle\frac{3\,\kappa^2}{8\,\kappa_q\,q^2\left(1+\frac{4}{3}q^2\xi^2\right)}$$ When both particles are at the origin, the expression for the correlation function simplifies to $$G(0,0;q)=\frac{3+4\,q^2\xi^2}{8\,q^2\xi^2\kappa_q}$$ which can be rewritten as $$G(0,0;q)=\frac{1}{2\kappa_q}+\frac{\rho'(0)^2}{\sigma q^2\sqrt{1+q^2\xi^2}} \label{m4G}$$ showing that the approximation (\[Gapp\]) is exact. A Model with a Single Resonance ------------------------------- The quartic potential (\[m4\]) is a special example of a model that generates no resonances in $S(z;q)$. The natural generalization of this is the class of models which generate just a single resonance occurring at, say, $q=\sqrt{n^2-1}\,\kappa$. That is, models for which $\sigma_n=\sigma$ at one specific value of $n$, with all other weights $\sigma_{m}=\infty$ for $m\ne n$. In this case, the structure factor would have the form $$S(z;q)\;=\;S_b(q)+\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho'(0)}\frac{\;G(0,z;q)-G(0,z;\sqrt{n^2-1}\,\kappa)}{(1+q^2\xi^2)(1-\frac{q^2\xi^2}{n^2-1})} \label{SRMS}$$ for that particular value of $n$ we have chosen [@Parry2019]. Substituting this expression into the Ornstein-Zernike equation (\[OZGTS\]) for $S(z;q)$ determines that it is indeed a solution, provided that the two-point function satisfies [@Parry2019] $$G(0,z;\sqrt{n^2-1}\,\kappa)\;\propto\; \phi''(\rho(z))-\kappa^2 \label{rq}$$ It follows that the potentials $\phi(\rho)$ that display single resonances satisfy the non-linear fourth order equation $$2\Delta\phi\, \phi ''''+\phi'\phi'''\;=\; (\phi''-\kappa^2)(\phi''+\kappa^2(n^2-1)) \label{SRMPhi}$$ with boundary conditions $\,\Delta\phi(\rho_l)=\phi'(\rho_l)=\phi'(\rho_c)=0\,$ and $\,\phi''(\rho_l)=\kappa^2\,$.\ For $n=1$, the solution of (\[SRMPhi\]) recovers the Landau quartic potential, and eq. (\[SRMS\]) reduces to (\[m4S\]), as can be seen directly by analytic continuation and taking the limit $n\to 1$.\ For $n=2$, solution of (\[SRMPhi\]) leads to $$\Delta\phi(\rho)\;=\; \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle\frac{\;\kappa^2}{2}(\rho-\rho_g)^2 \left(1-2\,\frac{(\rho-\rho_g)^{2}}{\Delta\rho^{2}}\right) & \text{for}\;\;\rho_g\le\rho\le\rho_c \\[.5cm] \displaystyle\frac{\;\kappa^2}{2}(\rho-\rho_l)^2\left((1-2\,\frac{(\rho-\rho_l)^{2}}{\Delta\rho^{2}}\right) & \text{for}\;\;\rho_c\le\rho\le\rho_l \end{array}\right. \label{SRMPhi2}$$ which is continuous and differentiable at $\rho=\rho_c$ (see Fig.\[Fig1\]). For this model potential, the local structure factor has the form $$S(z;q)\;=\;S_b(q)+\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho'(0)}\,\frac{\,G(0,z;q)-G(0,z;\sqrt{3}\kappa)}{(1+q^2\xi^2)(1-\frac{q^2\xi^2}{3})} \label{SRMS2}$$ showing a single resonance at $q=\sqrt{3}\,\kappa$ together with a Goldstone mode divergence as $q\to 0$ arising implicitly from the singularity in the two-point function. This then further reduces to $$\label{SRMSzq} S(z;q)\;=\;S_b(q)+\sqrt{8}\,\xi\;\frac{\,G(0,z;q)-G(0,z;\sqrt{3}\kappa)}{(1+q^2\xi^2)(1-\frac{q^2\xi^2}{3})}$$ on using the result $\rho'(0)=\kappa\Delta\rho/\sqrt{8}$, which follows from (\[first\]).\ The density profile and surface tension for the potential (\[SRMPhi2\]) can be determined analytically. For example, direct integration of (\[first\]) yields, $$\rho(z)\;=\;\rho_b\,\mp\,\Delta\rho\,\frac{(2+\sqrt{2})e^{-\kappa \|z\|}}{\,3+2\sqrt{2}+e^{-2\kappa \|z\|}} \label{rhotoy}$$ with the minus (plus) sign applying on the liquid (gas) side of the interface, while for the surface tension we find $$\sigma\;=\;\frac{1}{3}\left(1-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\right)\kappa\,\Delta \rho^2 \label{sigmatoy}$$ which follows from (\[st\]).\ We can continue further and determine results for both the pair-correlation function and structure factor at the resonant wave-vector. From (\[rq\]), it follows that the correlation function must be given by $$G(0,z;\sqrt{3}\,\kappa)\;=\;\frac{\kappa^2-\phi''(\rho(z))}{\,2\,\rho'(0)\,\Delta\phi'''(\rho_c)}$$ where the value of the amplitude follows from simply applying the boundary condition $\partial_z G(0,z=0^+;q)=-1/2$. Substituting the potential (\[SRMPhi2\]) and density profile (\[rhotoy\]), this yields explicitly $$G(0,z;\sqrt{3}\,\kappa)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\kappa}\left(\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{3+2\sqrt{2}}\right)^2\frac{e^{-2\kappa \|z\|}}{\left(1+\frac{1}{3+2\sqrt{2}}\,e^{-2\kappa\|z\|}\right)^2} \label{Grestoy}$$ Integration of the correlation function then determines that, exactly at the resonant wave-vector, the local structure at the interface takes the value $$S(0;\sqrt{3}\,\kappa)\;=\; \left(\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{4+3\sqrt{2}}\right) \xi^2 \label{Srestoy}$$ Thus, even at this relatively large wave-vector, the structure factor at the interface is still nearly double its bulk value $S_b(\sqrt{3}\kappa)=\xi^2/4$.\ The above results for $G(0,z;\sqrt{3}\,\kappa)$ and $S(0;\sqrt{3}\kappa)$ are strongly suggestive that the single-resonance model for $n=2$ is fully integrable. Indeed, this is the case. Consider, for example, the OZ equation for $G(z,z';q)$, which reads $$\label{SRM2OZ} \Big(-\partial^2_z+q^2+\kappa^2-6\kappa^2\,\text{sech}^2\big(\kappa (\|z\|-z_0)\big)\Big)\,G(z,z';q)\;=\;\delta(z-z')$$ where $e^{2\kappa z_0}=1/(3+2\sqrt{2})$ or, equivalently, $\tanh(\kappa z_0)=-\sqrt{2}/2$. The similarity with the OZ equation for the Landau quartic potential (\[m4OZ\]) suggests that we could try to find a similar solution. In particular, we seek solutions of (\[SRM2OZ\]) which are an exponential $e^{\pm\kappa_q z}$ multiplied by a polynomial in $\tanh\big(\kappa(\|z\|-z_0)\big)$ (which turns out to be of second order). This leads to the full analytical solution for the correlation function. If $z\ge z'\ge 0$ (i.e. the particles are on the liquid side), we find that $$\label{SRMG1} G(z,z';q)\;=\;\alpha(q)\;\psi_-(z;q)\,\psi_+(z';q)\;+\;\beta(q)\;\psi_-(z;q)\,\psi_-(z';q)$$ while, if $z\ge 0\ge z'$ (i.e. they are on opposites sides of the interface), $$\label{SRMG2} G(z,z';q)\;=\;\gamma(q)\;\,\overline{\psi}_+(z';q)\,\psi_-(z;q)$$ where $$\begin{array}{ccl@{\,}l} \psi_-(z;q) & = & e^{-\kappa_q z} & \Big(\tanh^2\big(\kappa(z-z_0)\big)+\xi\,\kappa_q\tanh\big(\kappa(z-z_0)\big)+\frac{1}{3} q^2\,\xi^2\Big)\\[.35cm] \psi_+(z;q) & = & e^{\kappa_q z} & \Big(\tanh^2\big(\kappa(z-z_0)\big)-\xi\,\kappa_q\tanh\big(\kappa(z-z_0)\big)+\frac{1}{3} q^2\,\xi^2\Big)\\[.35cm] \overline{\psi}_+(z;q) & = & e^{\kappa_q z} & \Big(\tanh^2\big(\kappa(z+z_0)\big)-\xi\,\kappa_q\tanh\big(\kappa(z+z_0)\big)+\frac{1}{3} q^2\,\xi^2\Big) \end{array}$$ The amplitudes of the correlation function are determined by $$\begin{array}{ccl} \alpha(q)&=&\displaystyle\frac{9}{2\,q^2\xi^2(q^2\xi^2-3)\kappa_q}\\[.5cm] \beta(q)&=&\displaystyle\frac{-3\,\alpha(q)}{(3+\sqrt{2}\,\xi\kappa_q)(3+2\,\xi^2q^2+3\sqrt{2}\,\xi\kappa_q)}\\[.5cm] \gamma(q)&=&\displaystyle\frac{9\,\sqrt{2}}{\xi\,q^2(3+\sqrt{2}\,\xi\kappa_q)(3+2\,\xi^2q^2+3\sqrt{2}\,\xi\kappa_q)} \end{array}$$ When both particles are at the origin, the expression for the correlation function simplifies to $$G(0,0;q)\;=\;\frac{3+2\,q^2\xi^2+3\sqrt{2}\,\xi\kappa_q}{2\,\xi\,q^2\left(3\,\sqrt{2}+2\,\xi\kappa_q\right)} \label{SRMG00}$$ which will be compared with the approximation (\[Gapp\]) below.\ Integration of $G(z,z';q)$, eqs. (\[SRMG1\]) and (\[SRMG2\]), over $z'$ determines the local structure factor $S(z;q)$. However, this can be obtained much more easily by substituting $G(0,z;q)$ into expression (\[SRMSzq\]), which clearly shows the resonance at $q=\sqrt{3}\,\kappa$. Substituting (\[SRMG00\]) into (\[SRMSzq\]), at $z=0$, determines the exact value for the structure at the origin $$\label{SRMS0} S(0;q)\;=\;\frac{6+2\,\xi^2\,q^2+3\sqrt{2}\,\xi\,\kappa_q}{\;q^2\,\left(2+2\,\xi^2\,q^2+3\sqrt{2}\,\xi\,\kappa_q\right)}$$ which, at fixed $q$, is the maximum value of $S(z;q)$ in the interfacial region.\ Finally, we mention that the potentials $\phi(\rho)$ obtained from solving (\[SRMPhi\]) can be determined for other values of $n$, although their Taylor’s expansions about each bulk density no longer truncates. However, it can be shown that these have a scaling form $\Delta\phi(\rho)=\frac{\kappa^2}{2}(\rho\!-\!\rho_l)^2\,W(x)$, where $x\equiv\alpha\big((\rho\!-\!\rho_l)/\Delta\rho\big)^{n}$, and the scaling function $W(x)$ has the expansion $$W(x)\;=\;1\,+\,x\, -\,\frac{(n^2-4)}{4}\;x^2\,-\,\frac{(n^2-1)(n^2-4)}{48\,n^4}\;x^3\;+\;\cdots \label{SRMn}$$ which is valid for $n\ge 1$. The value of the pure number $\alpha$ can then be determined from the condition that $\phi'(\rho_c)=0$. The potential $\Delta\phi(\rho)$ truncates at quartic order for $n=1$ and $n=2$, consistent with the explicit results discussed above. In the limit of $n\to \infty$, the single-resonance potential approaches the shape of a simple double-parabola $$\label{DP} \Delta\phi(\rho)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle\frac{\;\kappa^2}{2}\,(\rho-\rho_l)^2 & \textup{for} \;\;\rho>\rho_c\\[.5cm] \displaystyle\frac{\;\kappa^2}{2}\,(\rho-\rho_g)^2 & \textup{for} \;\;\rho<\rho_c \end{array} \right.$$ and the relation between $S(z;q)$ and $G(0,z;q)$ simplifies to $$S(z;q)\;=\;S_b(q)+\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho'(0)}\,\frac{\;G(0,z;q)\;}{1+q^2\xi^2} \label{SDP}$$ which, like the result (\[m4S\]) for the Landau quartic potential, does not display any resonance. These, however, are the only models (together with piece-wise combinations of them) for which resonances are entirely absent. ### Lower Bound for $S(0;q)$ Using the spectral expansion (\[spectral\]), we note that $$\frac{G(0,0;q)-G(0,0;\sqrt{n^2-1}\,\kappa)}{1-\frac{q^2\xi^2}{n^2-1}}\;=\;\sum_{m=0}^\infty\;\frac{\|\psi_m(0)\|^2}{(E_m+q^2)(\frac{E_m\xi^2}{n^2-1}+1)}$$ where the sum only contains even eigenstates, since all odd eigenfunctions vanish at the origin. Using only the ground-state contribution, we observe that $$\frac{\;G(0,0;q)-G(0,0;\sqrt{n^2-1}\,\kappa)\;}{1-\frac{q^2\xi^2}{n^2-1}}\;>\;\frac{\rho'(0)^2}{\sigma q^2}$$ and substitution into (\[SRMS\]) leads to $$\frac{S(0;q)}{S_b(q)} \;>\; 1 \;+\;\frac{\Delta\rho\,\rho'(0)}{\sigma q^2\, S_b(0)} \label{Stoybound}$$ showing that, for all single-resonance models, the approximation (\[Sapp\]) is, in fact, a lower-bound for $S(0;q)$. Trigonometric Model ------------------- While the previous models contained one resonance, or none at all, we present here a model that contains an infinite number of resonances. These occur at values $q=\sqrt{n^2-1}\,\kappa$ but only for even values of $n$, with the odd values missing, since $\sigma_1=\sigma_3=\sigma_5=\cdots=\infty$. The potential is given by $$\label{TM} \Delta\phi(\rho)\;=\;\frac{\kappa^2\,\Delta\rho^2}{2\,\pi^2}\,\sin^2\left(\frac{\pi\,(\rho-\rho_g)}{\Delta\rho}\right)$$ for $\rho_g\le\rho\le\rho_l$ (see Fig.\[Fig1\]). The absence of odd terms in the Taylor’s expansion of this potential about $\rho_g$ leads to the absence of the odd resonances. Solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation (\[EL\]) determines that the density profile is given by $$\rho(z)\;=\;\rho_g+\frac{2\,\Delta\rho}{\pi}\,\arctan\,e^{\kappa z}$$ leading to a surface tension $$\sigma\;=\;\frac{2\,\kappa\,\Delta\rho^2}{\pi^2}$$ For this model, the OZ equation (\[OZGTG\]) becomes $$\big(-\partial^2_z+q^2+\kappa^2-2\kappa^2\,\text{sech}^2(\kappa z)\big)\,G(z,z';q)\;=\;\delta(z-z')$$ and has a similar solution to the Landau quartic potential. Ordering the particles so that $z\ge z'$, we find that $$\label{TMG} G(z,z';q)\;=\;\frac{\;\,e^{-\kappa_q (z-z')}\,}{2\,\xi^2q^2\,\kappa_q\,}\;\big(\xi\,\kappa_q+\tanh(\kappa z)\big)\big(\xi\,\kappa_q-\tanh(\kappa z')\big)$$ which, at the origin, takes the value $$\label{TMG00} G(0,0;q)\;=\;\frac{\kappa_q}{2\,q^2}$$ Setting $z'=0$ and integrating (\[TMG\]) over $z$ determines the value of the local structure factor at the origin: $$\label{TMS0} S(0;q)\;=\;\frac{1}{q^2}\left(1+\int_0^\infty\!\!\!\!dt\;\;e^{-\sqrt{1+\xi^2q^2}\;t}\;\tanh(t)\right)$$ Although this integral does not have an analytic solution for all $q$, it can be evaluated exactly at the resonances. For example, $S(0,\sqrt{3}\,\kappa)=(\frac{1}{2}+\log 2)\xi^2/3$, and $S(0,\sqrt{8}\,\kappa)=(\frac{1}{3}-\frac{\pi}{16})\xi^2$. Double-Cubic Model ------------------ Our final example of an integrable system corresponds to the potential for the double-cubic model, given by $$\label{DC} \Delta\phi(\rho)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle\frac{\kappa^2}{2}\,(\rho-\rho_l)^2 \left(1+\frac{4}{3}\,\frac{\rho-\rho_l}{\Delta\rho}\right) & \textup{for} \;\;\rho>\rho_c\\[.5cm] \displaystyle\frac{\kappa^2}{2}\,(\rho-\rho_g)^2 \left(1-\frac{4}{3}\,\frac{\rho-\rho_g}{\Delta\rho}\right) & \textup{for} \;\;\rho<\rho_c \end{array} \right.$$ which satisfies $\phi'(\rho_c)=0$, as required (see Fig.\[Fig1\]). Unlike the previous models, this contains all resonances. The density profile follows from solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation (\[EL\]): $$\rho(z)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \rho_l-\displaystyle\frac{3}{4}\,\Delta\rho\;\textup{sech}^2\,\frac{\,\kappa(z-z_0)}{2} & \textup{for} \;\;z>0\\[.5cm] \rho_g+\displaystyle\frac{3}{4}\,\Delta\rho\;\textup{sech}^2\,\frac{\,\kappa(z+z_0)}{2} & \textup{for} \;\;z<0 \end{array} \right.$$ with $e^{\kappa z_0}=(\sqrt{3}-1)/(\sqrt{3}+1)$ or, equivalently, $\tanh(-\kappa z_0/2)=1/\sqrt{3}$. The surface tension, given by (\[st\]), evaluates as: $$\sigma\;=\;\frac{9-2\sqrt{3}}{30}\;\kappa\,\Delta\rho^2$$ which is smaller than the value of $\sigma_1$ determined by (\[sigma1\]), $\sigma_1=\kappa\,\Delta\rho^2/4$. The Ornstein-Zernike equation for the correlation function reads $$\left(-\partial_z^2+\kappa^2+q^2-3\,\kappa^2\textup{sech}^2\frac{\|z\|-z_0}{2}\right)\;G(z,z';q)\;=\;\delta(z-z')$$ which can be solved using the same methods described above. If $z\ge z'\ge 0$, we find that $$G(z,z';q)\;=\;\alpha(q)\;\psi_-(z;q)\,\psi_+(z';q)\;+\;\beta(q)\;\psi_-(z;q)\,\psi_-(z';q)$$ while, if $z\ge 0\ge z'$, $$G(z,z';q)\;=\;\gamma(q)\;\,\overline{\psi}_+(z';q)\,\psi_-(z;q)$$ where $$\begin{array}{ccl@{\,}l} \psi_-(z;q) & = & e^{-\kappa_q z} & \Big(\tau^3+2\,\xi\,\kappa_q\tau^2+(1+\frac{8}{5}\,\xi^2q^2)\tau+\frac{8}{15}\,\xi^3\kappa_q q^2\Big)\\[.35cm] \psi_+(z;q) & = & e^{\kappa_q z} & \Big(\tau^3-2\,\xi\,\kappa_q\tau^2+(1+\frac{8}{5}\,\xi^2q^2)\tau-\frac{8}{15}\,\xi^3\kappa_q q^2\Big)\\[.35cm] \overline{\psi}_+(z;q) & = & e^{\kappa_q z} & \Big(\bar{\tau}^3-2\,\xi\,\kappa_q\bar{\tau}^2+(1+\frac{8}{5}\,\xi^2q^2)\bar{\tau}-\frac{8}{15}\,\xi^3\kappa_q q^2\Big) \end{array}$$ and $$\tau=\tanh\frac{\kappa(z\!-\!z_0)}{2},\hspace{1cm}\bar{\tau}=\tanh\frac{\kappa(z\!+\!z_0)}{2},\hspace{1cm}\kappa_q=\sqrt{\kappa^2+q^2}$$ The amplitudes of the correlation function are determined by $$\begin{array}{ccl} \alpha(q)&=&\displaystyle\frac{225}{\,\xi^2q^2\kappa_q(5-4\,\xi^2q^2)(3+4\,\xi^2q^2)}\\[.5cm] \beta(q)&=&\displaystyle\frac{225\,(5+4\,\xi^2q^2)}{4\,\xi^2q^2\kappa_q(5-4\,\xi^2q^2)(3+4\,\xi^2q^2)\epsilon(q)}\\[.5cm] \gamma(q)&=&-\displaystyle\frac{225}{8\,\xi\,q^2\epsilon(q)} \end{array}$$ where $$\epsilon(q)=\left(5+4\,\xi^2q^2+\frac{12}{\sqrt{3}}\,\xi\,\kappa_q\right)\left(\frac{10}{\sqrt{3}}+\frac{12}{\sqrt{3}}\,\xi^2q^2+\xi\,\kappa_q(5+4\,\xi^2q^2)\right)$$ is a smooth monotonically increasing function of $q$ that displays no divergences.\ With one particle at the origin, the correlation function on the liquid side ($z\ge0$) reduces to $$G(0,z;q)\;=\;\frac{\tau^3+2\,\xi\,\kappa_q\tau^2+(1+\frac{8}{5}\,\xi^2q^2)\tau+\frac{8}{15}\,\xi^3q^2\kappa_q}{4\,\xi\,q^2\Big(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{4\sqrt{3}}{15}\,\xi\,\kappa_q+\frac{4}{15}\,\xi^2q^2\Big)}\;\,e^{-\kappa_q z} \label{DCG0}$$ so that $$G(0,0;q)\;=\;\frac{\frac{4\sqrt{3}}{3}+\frac{8\sqrt{3}}{5}\,\xi^2q^2+2\,\xi\,\kappa_q+\frac{8}{5}\,\xi^3q^2\kappa_q}{4\,\xi\,q^2\Big(1+\frac{4\sqrt{3}}{5}\,\xi\kappa_q+\frac{4}{5}\,\xi^2q^2\Big)} \label{DCG00}$$ Integration of $G(0,z;q)$ determines $S(0;q)$ exactly $$S(0;q)=\frac{\;\frac{2}{3}+\frac{4}{15}\,\xi^2q^2+\sqrt{\frac{1+\xi^2q^2}{3}}-\frac{1}{5}\,q^2\xi\,J(q)\;}{q^2\left(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{4}{5}\sqrt{\frac{1+\xi^2q^2}{3}}+\frac{4}{15}\,\xi^2q^2\right)}$$ where $$J(q)=\int_0^\infty\!\!\!dz\;\;e^{-\sqrt{\kappa^2+q^2}\,z}\,\tanh\left(\frac{\kappa(z\!-\!z_0)}{2}\right)$$ is itself a hyper-geometric function. Again, this integral cannot be solved analytically, except at the resonances. Comparison with Approximations ============================== These analytical results allow us to test the robustness of the approximations (\[Sapp\]) and (\[Gapp\]). Let us consider the models one by one.\ [A) Landau Quartic Model]{}. In this case, as mentioned above, both approximations recover the exact results.\ [B) Single-Resonance Model $n=2$]{}. In order to compare the exact result for $G(0,0;q)$, Eq. (\[SRMG00\]), with the approximation (\[Gapp\]), we can rewrite the former as $$\label{SRMcorr} \frac{G(0,0;q)}{G_b(0;q)}\;=\;\, 1\;+\;\frac{\rho'(0)^2}{\sigma q^2G_b(0;0)}\;\mathcal{C}(q)$$ where the correction term $\mathcal{C}(q)$ would be $1$ if the approximation was exact. Instead, we obtain $$\mathcal{C}(q)\;=\;\frac{2+3\sqrt{2}+(3+\sqrt{2})\sqrt{1+\xi^2 q^2}}{3+3\sqrt{2}+(2+\sqrt{2})\sqrt{1+\xi^2 q^2}}\;\;\approx\;\; 1\;+\;\frac{4\sqrt{2}-5}{14}\,\xi^2q^2+\cdots$$ which is a smooth function that ranges between $1$, for $q=0$, and $(4-\sqrt{2})/2\approx 1.293$, for $q\to\infty$. For example, at the resonance, we have $\mathcal{C}(\sqrt{3}\,\kappa)=(8+5\sqrt{2})/(7+5\sqrt{2})\approx 1.071$. Note, however, that the term containing the correction $\mathcal{C}(q)$ in (\[SRMcorr\]) becomes progressively less important as $q$ increases, indicating that the approximation (\[Gapp\]) is very robust over the whole range of wave vectors.\ We now turn our attention to the local structure factor $S(0;q)$. We have already noted that the approximation (\[Sapp\]) is a lower bound for all single-resonance models. It also contains the correct Goldstone mode divergences as $q\to 0$, and the correct bulk limit as $q\to\infty$, remaining an accurate approximation over the whole range of wave vectors. For example, at the resonance, the inequality (\[Stoybound\]) implies that $S(0;\sqrt{3}\kappa)= 0.414 \,\xi^2>0.386\,\xi^2$ implying that the lower bound on the RHS is only $7\%$ off the exact result. Recall that the approximation (\[Sapp\]) is obtained by substituting $G(0,0;q)\approx\rho'(0)^2/\sigma q^2 + \mathcal{C}$ into the general result (\[Sres\]). For the single-resonance model, however, we know that all $\sigma_n$ are infinite except for $\sigma_2=\sigma$. We can, therefore, substitute the improved approximation (\[Gapp\]) into (\[SRMSzq\]) to obtain an $$S(0;q)\;\approx\; S_b(q)\,\mathcal{A}(q)+\frac{\Delta\rho\,\rho'(0)}{\sigma q^2(1+\xi^2q^2)}\;\mathcal{B}(q) \label{SappImp}$$ where $$\mathcal{A}(q)\;=\;1+\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}(2+\sqrt{1+q^2\xi^2})\sqrt{1+q^2\xi^2}}$$ and $$\mathcal{B}(q)\;=\;\frac{1+\frac{1}{3}q^2\xi^2+\frac{1}{12}q^4\xi^4}{(1+\frac{1}{6}q^2\xi^2\sqrt{1+q^2\xi^2})\sqrt{1+q^2\xi^2}}$$ Fig. \[Fig2\] shows the comparison between the exact results and the approximations discussed here.\ [C) Trigonometric Model]{}. For this model, as with the Landau quartic potential, the approximation (\[Gapp\]) for $G(0,0;q)$ is exact, and recovers the analytical result (\[TMG00\]) identically. In fact, within this model, there is a remarkably simple result for the correlation function even away from the interface. Setting $z=z'$ in (\[TMG\]), we find that $$G(z,z;q)\;=\; \frac{1}{2\,\kappa_q} \left(1+\frac{\text{sech}^2(\kappa\,z)}{q^2\,\xi^2}\right)$$ which can be rewritten $$G(z,z;q)\;=\;\frac{1}{2\kappa_q}+\frac{\rho'(z)^2}{\sigma q^2\sqrt{1+q^2\xi^2}}$$ or, equivalently $$\label{TRGzz} \frac{G(z,z;q)}{G_b(0;q)}\;=\;1+\frac{\rho'(z)^2}{\sigma q^2\,G_b(0;0)}$$ The correlation function $G(z,z;q)$ takes its maximum value at the origin (where $\rho'(z)$ is maximum), and expression (\[TRGzz\]) is therefore equivalent to (\[Gapp\]). As $\|z\|$ increases, the Goldstone mode contribution decreases, and $G(z,z;g)$ approaches its bulk limit $G_b(0;q)$. The approximation for $S(0;q)$ is not exact, but again remains accurate over the whole range of vectors. For example, at the first resonance, $S(0;\sqrt{3}\,\kappa)=0.3906\,\xi^2$, while the approximation (\[Sapp\]) yields $S(0;\sqrt{3}\,\kappa)\approx 0.3803\,\xi^2$. See Fig.\[Fig3\].\ [D) Double-Cubic Model]{}. Following our analysis of the single-resonance model, we rewrite the result in the form (\[SRMcorr\]), allowing for a correction term $\mathcal{C}(q)$, which evaluates as $$\mathcal{C}(q)\;=\;(9-2\sqrt{3})\;\frac{1+\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3}\sqrt{1+\xi^2 q^2}+\frac{4}{5}\,\xi^2 q^2}{5+4\sqrt{3}\sqrt{1+\xi^2 q^2}+4\,\xi^2 q^2}\;\;\approx\;\; 1\;+\;\frac{39\sqrt{2}-66}{115}\,\xi^2q^2+\cdots$$ This correction term is even smaller than for the single-resonance model. It ranges between $1$, for $q=0$, and $(9-2\sqrt{3})/5\approx 1.107$, for $q\to\infty$, and, at the first resonance, $\mathcal{C}(\sqrt{3}\,\kappa)\approx 1.024$. This reflects the fact that the coefficient of $q^2$ in the small $q$ expansion is near negligible, taking the value $0.01348\,\xi^2$. As seen in Fig. \[Fig4\], the maximum error is only about $0.6\%$ for $G(0,0;q)$.\ The approximation for the local structure factor at the origin (\[Sapp\]) is also accurate: It is exact in the limits $q\to 0$ and $q\to\infty$, with a maximum error of about $2.5\%$. See Fig.\[Fig4\].\ [E) Tricritical Model]{}. As a final test of (\[Sapp\]) and (\[Gapp\]), we turn attention to the model potential $$\phi(\rho)=-\frac{t}{2} (\rho-\rho_c)^2+\frac{u}{6}(\rho-\rho_c)^6 \label{FW}$$ or, equivalently, $$\Delta\phi(\rho)\;=\;\frac{\;\kappa^2}{2}(\rho-\rho_l)^2\;\left(1+\frac{10}{3}\;\frac{\rho-\rho_l}{\Delta\rho}+5\,\left(\frac{\rho-\rho_l}{\Delta\rho}\right)^2+4\,\left(\frac{\rho-\rho_l}{\Delta\rho}\right)^3+\frac{4}{3}\,\left(\frac{\rho-\rho_l}{\Delta\rho}\right)^4\right)$$ describing the approach to a bulk tricritical point, occurring at $t=0$ (see Fig.\[Fig1\]) [@Rowlinson1982]. The upper critical dimension for bulk tricriticality is $d^=3$, and the mean-field predictions $\Delta\rho\propto t^\frac{1}{4}$ and $\kappa\propto t^\frac{1}{2}$ remain valid in three dimensions up to minor corrections. From (\[sigma1\]), it follows that $$\sigma_1=\frac{\kappa\Delta\rho^2}{10}$$ which is smaller than the surface tension $\sigma\approx \kappa\Delta\rho^2/7$, obtained from numerical integration of (\[st\]). Clearly, both $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma$ vanish $\propto t$ approaching the tricritical point but with different amplitudes. This means that the remaining weights $\sigma_n/\sigma$ do not vanish as $t\to 0$, implying that the resonances are fully present (in contrast to the standard quartic potential describing the approach to bulk criticality (\[m4\])). Fig. \[Fig5\] compares the approximations (\[Sapp\]) and (\[Gapp\]) for $S(0;q)$ and $G(0,0;q)$ with those obtained from numerical solution of the Ornstein-Zernike equations (\[OZGTS\]) and (\[OZGTG\]) and again demonstrate their extraordinary accuracy and utility over the whole range of wave-vectors. For example, the approximate expression for $G(0,0;q)/G_b(q)$, which recall is exact at low and high $q$, is only $1\%$ inaccurate, at worst, and is barely indistinguishable from the exact numerical result. Finally, we note that, on simply replacing $t$ with $t^\frac{4}{3}$, the same potential (\[FW\]) can be viewed as a phenomenological Fisk-Widom model describing the approach to a bulk critical point with the rational approximations for the three dimensional critical singularities $\Delta\rho\propto t^\frac{1}{3}$, $\kappa\propto t^\frac{2}{3}$ and $\sigma\propto t^\frac{4}{3}$ [@Fisk1969]. Conclusions =========== ----------------------------------- ---------- ----------- \[.1cm\] \[-.25cm\] Landau Quartic EXACT EXACT \[-.25cm\] \[-.25cm\] Single-Resonance Model $-6.7\%$ $-2.0\%$ \[-.25cm\] \[-.25cm\] Trigonometric $-4.4\%$ EXACT \[-.25cm\] \[-.25cm\] Double-Cubic $-2.7\%$ $-0.58\%$ \[-.25cm\] \[-.25cm\] Tricritical $3.2\%$ $-1.3\%$ \[.1cm\] ----------------------------------- ---------- ----------- : Summary of the maximum relative errors of the approximations (\[Sapp\]) for $S(0;q)$ and (\[Gapp\]) for $G(0,0;q)$, when compared with the exact results for the five models shown in Figs. \[Fig2\] to \[Fig5\].[]{data-label="Table1"} In this paper, we have used square-gradient theory to test the robustness of approximations for the microscopic structure factor $S(0;q)$ and correlation function $G(0,0;q)$ at the liquid-gas interface which emerge from an analysis of the resonances occurring in the tails of $S(z;q)$. Comparison with new analytical and numerical results obtained from solution of the Ornstein-Zernike equation shows the remarkable accuracy of these approximations, which are indeed exact for several model potentials $\phi(\rho)$. A summary is given in Table \[Table1\]. While the results presented here are specific to simple square-gradient theory, almost identical results apply to the more microscopic Sullivan model of the interfacial region [@Parry2019]. These results demonstrate further that for systems with short-ranged forces one can essentially determine analytically the microscopic correlation function structure in the interfacial region, in both density-functional theory and simulation studies, without resorting to mesoscopic concepts such as a wave-vector dependent surface tension.\ To finish our paper, we make a number of remarks. Firstly, we have tested if it is possible to improve upon the approximation (\[Sapp\]) for $S(0;q)$, which, recall, arises when we approximate $G(0,0;q)\approx\rho'(0)^2/\sigma q^2 + \mathcal{C}$ in the resonant expansion (\[Sres\]). For example, one may attempt to do this by using the better approximation (\[Gapp\]) for the correlation function, and substitute it into the general result (\[Sres\]). Indeed, we showed that this is possible for the single-resonance model where we know a priori that $\sigma_2=\sigma$. However, in general, the values of the coefficients $\sigma_n$ for $n\ge 2$ are not known and its is necessary to make further approximations. We may, for instance, include only the first resonance at $q=\sqrt{3}\kappa$ and set $1/\sigma_2=1/\sigma- 1/\sigma_1$ to ensure that the correct Goldstone mode divergence is recovered identically in the limit $q\to 0$. We have investigated this and shown that this only improves the accuracy for some model potentials. For the double-cubic model, it reduces the maximum error in $S(0;q)$ from $-6.7\%$ to about $0.088\%$. However, the same approximation does not significantly improve the accuracy of $S(0;q)$ for the trigonometric model and worsens it for the tricritical potential. We must conclude, therefore, that the simple approximation (\[Sapp\]) is the most robust across all model potentials. Secondly, we note that there are further examples of fully integrable square-gradient theories for which the correlation function $G(0,0;q)$ can be determined analytically. Indeed, there is an infinite class of these, corresponding to models for which the density profile satisfies $\rho'(z)\propto \text{sech}^N (\kappa z/N)$. The values $N=1$ and $N=2$ correspond respectively to the trigonometric and Landau quartic potentials where, recall, the result (\[Gapp\]) for $G(0,0;q)$ is exact. The correlation function $G(z,z';q)$ for all these models can be determined exactly and is of the same form (\[m4Gzz\]). Here, the function $\psi(z;q)=e^{-\kappa_q z}P(y)$, where $P(y)$ is a Jacobi polynomial of degree $N$ in $y=\tanh ({\kappa z/N})$. For $N>2$, the result (\[Gapp\]) is no longer exact but can be recast in the form (\[SRMcorr\]), including a small correction term $C(q)$. For example, for $N=3$, we find $C(q)=(1+\frac{6}{5}q^2\xi^2)(1+\frac{9}{8}q^2\xi^2)$, which makes a near negligible correction to the very accurate approximation (\[Gapp\]). These generalised integrable models correspond to potentials $\phi(\rho)$ which, except for $N=1,2$, do not have an analytic expansion about the bulk densities, and have density profiles whose expansions are not analytic in $X=e^{-\kappa z}$. Thus, although these models lie outside the classification of potentials for which the resonant expansion (\[Sres\]) applies, the unexpected agreement further testifies to the robustness of the approximation (\[Gapp\]). Finally, we mention that here we have only considered model systems that display an Ising symmetry. Of course, more generally, a certain degree of asymmetry is to be expected, and the liquid and gas phases are characterised by distinct bulk correlation lengths. For the local structure factor, this issue is not difficult to address and has been discussed in [@Parry2019], where it was shown that the approximation (\[Sapp\]) generalises in a straightforward manner. Indeed, this was used to capture the local structure factor for the Sullivan model near perfectly using an accurate Carnahan-Starling equation of state. The integrable models described here provide a means of studying how the result (\[Gapp\]) for the correlation function generalises when liquid-gas asymmetry is allowed for, and will be discussed in a following paper. AOP acknowledges the EPSRC, UK for grant EP/L020564/1 (Multiscale analysis of complex interfacial phenomena). CR acknowledges the support of the grant PGC2018-096606-B-I00 (MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE). ![\[Fig1\] Potentials $\Delta\phi(\rho)$ for the five models considered here: Landau quartic potential (Eq. (\[m4\])), Single-resonance model for $n=2$ (SRM) (Eq. (\[SRMPhi2\])), Trigonometric model (Eq. (\[TM\])), Double-cubic (DC) model (Eq. (\[DC\])), and Tricritical or Fisk-Widom model (Eq. (\[FW\])). ](Fig1.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![\[Fig2\] Comparison of the exact expressions (\[SRMS0\]) and (\[SRMG00\]) for $S(0;q)$ and $G(0,0;q)$ with the general approximations (\[Sapp\]) and (\[Gapp\]) for the model with a single resonance at $q=\sqrt{3}\,\kappa$. Percentage errors are shown in the insets. For the local structure factor, comparison is also made with the improved approximation (\[SappImp\]). See text for details. ](Fig2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} ![\[Fig3\] Comparison of the exact expression (\[TMS0\]) for $S(0;q)$ with the general approximation (\[Sapp\]) for the trigonometric model. Percentage errors are shown in the inset. For this model, the approximation (\[Gapp\]) for $G(0,0;q)$ recovers the exact analytical result. ](Fig3.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![\[Fig4\] Comparison of the exact expressions (\[SRMS0\]) for $S(0;q)$ and (\[SRMG00\]) for $G(0,0;q)$ with the general approximations (\[Sapp\]) and (\[Gapp\]) for the double-cubic model. Percentage errors are shown in the insets. ](Fig4.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} ![\[Fig5\] Comparison of the general approximations (\[Sapp\]) and (\[Gapp\]) for $S(0;q)$ and $G(0,0;q)$ with the results obtained from solving numerically the OZ equations (\[OZGTS\]) and (\[OZGTG\]) for the tricritical model. Percentage errors are shown in the insets. ](Fig5.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
-4mm -7mm -7mm [Effective Action for Membrane Dynamics in DLCQ $M$ theory on a Two-torus ]{} Seungjoon Hyun[^1], Youngjai Kiem[^2], and Hyeonjoon Shin[^3]\ [ School of Physics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 130-012, Korea ]{} [Abstract]{} The effective action for the membrane dynamics on the background geometry of the $N$-sector DLCQ $M$ theory compactified on a two-torus is computed via supergravity. We compare it to the effective action obtained from the matrix theory, i.e., the (2+1)-dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theory, including the one-loop perturbative and full non-perturbative instanton effects. Consistent with the DLCQ prescription of $M$ theory [a la]{} Susskind, we find the precise agreement for the finite $N$-sector (off-conformal regime), as well as for the large $N$ limit (conformal regime), providing us with a concrete example of the correspondence between the matrix theory and the DLCQ $M$ theory. Non-perturbative instanton effects in the SYM theory conspire to yield the eleven-dimensionally covariant effective action. The original formulation of the matrix theory, a promising candidate for the quantum description of $M$ theory, is given in the infinite momentum frame (IMF) requiring us to consider the large parton number limit [@bfss]. Susskind then proposed the discrete light-cone quantization (DLCQ) version of the matrix theory where one considers the light-like eleventh direction, which was suggested to define the matrix theory in the finite $N$-sector [@susskind]. Becker, Becker, Polchinski, and Tseytlin considered the scattering between two $D$-particles ($M$-momentum) and showed that the matrix side calculation for the effective action precisely reproduces the eleven-dimensional supergravity side calculation up to two loops [@becker]. To find the precise agreement, it is indeed necessary that the background geometry produced by the source $M$-momentum should not be taken as the usual dimensionally uplifted version of the $D$-particle solution along the spatial $M$ theory circle but as the DLCQ version uplifted along the light-cone circle [@hks]. As advocated in [@hyun] and further elaborated in [@hyun2], this tells us that the DLCQ $M$ theory should be compared with the $M$ theory on a non-trivial background rather than on a flat background. Along this line of idea, the same type of background geometry as in [@hks] was utilized in [@suss3] to show the agreement between the DLCQ supergravity and the matrix theory for three-graviton scatterings (see also [@etc]). For the DLCQ $M$ theory compactified on a two-torus, the microscopic description via the matrix theory is given by the $(2+1)$-dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory [@watt; @seiberg]. Taking the same DLCQ prescription for the background geometry of the $N$-sector DLCQ $M$ theory on a two-torus yields a non-asymptotically flat background space-time with the asymptotic geometry of the Anti de Sitter (AdS) type [@hyun; @hyun2]. In the large $N$ and the large eleventh radius $R$ (decompactification) limit while $N/R$ being fixed, the background geometry becomes a tensor product of an AdS space and a sphere, i.e., $AdS_4 \times S^7$. In the same limit, the matrix theory description turns to a conformal field theory (CFT) as the infrared limit of SYM [@hyun2]. This is the case where the holographic AdS/CFT correspondence is conjectured to be valid [@malda; @witten]. According to the motivation of the DLCQ $M$ theory [@susskind], one might hope further that the correspondence between the matrix theory and the DLCQ $M$ theory on the background geometry of [@hyun; @hyun2] persists even in the case of the finite $N$ and the finite $R$. In this paper, we find an explicit example that directly supports this idea; we compute the effective action for the membrane dynamics on the background geometry of the DLCQ $M$ theory on a two-torus via supergravity for the finite value $N$ and $R$. We then show that the effective action up to the fourth order in the membrane velocity exactly reproduces the effective action computed from the (2+1)-dimensional SYM including the one-loop perturbative and [full]{} non-perturbative instanton effects for the finite value of $N$ and $R$, which were recently calculated in [@sethi]. Our effective action also behaves smoothly as we take the limit where $N$ and $R$ goes to infinity while the ratio being fixed. Our analysis shows that the instantons in the matrix theory, the (2+1)-dimensional SYM that does not have a manifest eleven-dimensional covariance, conspire to yield the results that derive from the manifestly covariant eleven-dimensional DLCQ supergravity on the non-asymptotically flat background geometry. In the case of the small value of $R$, the membrane dynamics in string/supergravity theory and its comparison to the matrix theory have been discussed in the literature [@malda2] - [@tsey2]. In [@lif], $D2$-brane scatterings in the asymptotically flat ten-dimensional background geometry were found to be in agreement with the perturbative one-loop SYM. Polchinski and Pouliot [@joe] added the one-instanton correction to the effective action to investigate the effect of the $M$-momentum transfer and found an approximate agreement with the eleven-dimensional supergravity result. The SYM side analysis was generalized in [@dorey] to include the semi-classical multi-instanton effect. A clear physical interpretation of the instanton effects is also given in [@kraus]. In addition to the small $R$ limit, we note that by adopting the asymptotically flat background geometry, it was necessary to take the large $N$ limit to find the agreement in [@lif] - [@kraus], just as what happens in the IMF formulation of [@bfss]. In the context of the DLCQ $M$ theory, an agreement for the finite $N$ and the small value of $R$ for the membrane dynamics was observed in [@tsey2]. In the limit of small $R$, the instanton corrections are suppressed and the agreement in [@tsey2] is up to the perturbative one-loop effect in SYM. The salient feature of our result presented here is the removal of the restriction to the large $N$ and small $R$. By adopting the background geometry of the finite $N$-sector DLCQ $M$ theory proposed in [@hyun; @hyun2] the former restriction is removed. Furthermore, by considering the full non-perturbative instanton corrections on the SYM side, we are able to find the agreement for an arbitrary value of $R$. The conventional range of the validity for the AdS/CFT correspondence is the large $R$ and the large $N$ limit while the ratio being fixed [@malda]. The background geometry of $N$-sector DLCQ $M$ theory compactified on a two-torus is given by the following eleven-dimensional metric [@hyun; @hyun2] $$\label{m2metric} ds^2_{11} = h^{-2/3} (-dt^2+dx_8^2+dx_9^2) +h^{1/3} (dx_1^2 + \cdots + dx_7^2+dx_{11}^2) ,$$ where the eleven-dimensional harmonic function $h$ is given by $$h= \sum_{n = -\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\kappa N}{(r^2+( x_{11} + 2 \pi R n)^2 ) ^3} . \label{m2harmonic}$$ We introduce $r^2 = x_1^2 + \cdots + x_7^2 $ and the torus extends over the $x_8$ and $x_9$ directions. The integer $N$ represents the number of the coincident source membranes and $\kappa$ is a dimensionful constant. The eleventh circle along the $x_{11}$ coordinate has the radius $R$ and the function $h$ contains the contribution from all possible mirror charges to respect the periodicity under the lattice translation $x_{11} \rightarrow x_{11}+ 2 \pi R$. In the limit of large $R$, which corresponds to the decompactification limit of the DLCQ $M$ theory, the metric (\[m2metric\]) becomes that of the $AdS_4 \times S^7$; the eleventh direction becomes indistinguishable from other noncompact directions $( x_1 , \cdots , x_7 ) $ and the transversal $SO(7)$ symmetry gets enhanced to the $SO(8)$ symmetry [@nissan]. Specifically, the summation in the expression for $h$ gets dominated by the $n=0$ term, which has the manifest $SO(8)$ symmetry. This is the limit where we have the large $N$ AdS/CFT correspondence, where the AdS supergravity and the CFT near the infrared fixed point, i.e., the conformal phase of the (2+1)-dimensional SYM, become a dual description to each other. In the limit of the vanishingly small $R$, we can replace the summation in Eq. (\[m2harmonic\]) with an integration and recover the near-horizon geometry of the $N$ $D2$-branes of the type IIA supergravity. Our primary interest will be the case of the arbitrary values of $R$ and $N$. For the purpose of the comparison to the (2+1)-dimensional SYM, which is the dimensional reduction of the ten-dimensional SYM, it is convenient to reshuffle the series summation of Eq. (\[m2harmonic\]) using the Poisson resummation formula: $$\sum^{\infty}_{n=-\infty} f(n) = \sum^{\infty}_{m=-\infty} \int^\infty_{-\infty} d \phi \; f( \phi ) \; e^{2 \pi i m \phi} ~.$$ The resummation can be exactly performed to result the following identity. $$\sum_{n = -\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(r^2+( x_{11} + 2 \pi R n)^2 ) ^3} \ = \ \frac{1}{16 R} \ \Big[ \ \frac{3}{ r^5} + \frac{1}{ r^3} \sum^{\infty}_{m=1} \frac{m^2}{R^2} e^{-mr/R} 2 \cos (mx_{11}/R)$$ $$+ \frac{3}{r^4} \sum^{\infty}_{m=1} \frac{m}{R} e^{-mr/R} 2 \cos (mx_{11}/R) + \frac{3}{r^5} \sum^{\infty}_{m=1} e^{-mr/R} 2 \cos (mx_{11}/R)~ \Big] . \label{resum}$$ We recognize the first term on the right hand side (RHS) as having the structure of the perturbative one-loop term in the $D2$-brane effective action [@lif]. The summation index $m$ on the RHS appears in the form of the $M$-momentum $m/R$. According to the argument of Ref. [@joe], the integer $m$ may be interpreted as the measure of the $M$-momentum transfer between the source and probe membranes. The key observation for our later purpose is that the three infinite series terms on the RHS can be rewritten in terms of the modified Bessel function $K_\nu$ with a half-integer $\nu$, which has the finite number of terms in an expansion [@table] $$\label{bessel} K_{j+1/2} (z) = \left( \frac{\pi}{2 z} \right)^\frac{1}{2} e^{-z} \sum^j_{k=0} \frac{ (j+k)! }{ k! (j-k)! (2z)^k } ~.$$ The function $h$ can then be succinctly written as $$h(r, x_{11}) = \frac{\kappa N}{16 R} \left[ \; \frac{3}{r^5} + \sum^{\infty}_{m=1} \left( \frac{2}{\pi} \right)^\frac{1}{2} \frac{m^2 m^{1/2}}{R^5} \left( \frac{R}{r} \right)^{5/2} K_{5/2} ( mr / R ) 2 \cos (m x_{11} / R ) \; \right] . \label{h}$$ We now consider the dynamics of a probe membrane, which is taken to be spanning the $x_8$, $x_9$ directions and is moving with a constant velocity $v_i=\partial_0 x_i$ in a direction transversal to the probe and $x_{11}$, i.e., $i=1,\cdots , 7$. The action for the probe membrane is $$\label{m2action} S_2 = -T_2 \int d^3x \; \sqrt{ - \det h_{\mu \nu} } + i \mu_2 \int H ~,$$ where $T_2$ is the membrane tension and $H$ is the three-form gauge field of the eleven-dimensional supergravity. The metric $h_{\mu\nu}$ is the induced metric on the world-volume of the probe membrane given by $$h_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu} + \partial_\mu x^I \partial_\nu x^J g_{IJ}~.$$ Here $\mu,~\nu$ are the world-volume indices and $I,~J$ are the indices for the transverse directions to the probe. We plug the metric Eq. (\[m2metric\]) with the function $h$ of Eq. (\[h\]) into the action $S_2$ and expand it in powers of the transverse velocity $v$. The action $S_2$ becomes $$S_2 = \int d^3x \; \left[ \; \frac{1}{2} T_2 v^2 - V_2 + {\cal O} ( (v^2)^3 ) \right] ~,$$ where $V_2$ is the interaction potential given by $$\begin{aligned} V_2 &=& -\frac{1}{8} T_2 h(r,x_{11}) (v^2)^2 \nonumber \\ &=& - \frac{N}{16 R M_p^{3}} (v^2)^2 \nonumber \\ & & \times \Bigg[ \; \frac{3}{r^5} + \sum^{\infty}_{m=1} \left( \frac{2}{\pi} \right)^\frac{1}{2} \frac{m^2 m^{1/2}}{R^5} \left( \frac{R}{r} \right)^{5/2} K_{5/2} (mr/R) 2 \cos (m x_{11}/R ) \; \Bigg] ~. \label{sugrapot}\end{aligned}$$ Going to the last line, we use the fact that $T_2 \kappa = 8 M_p^{-3}$ where $M_p$ is the eleven-dimensional Planck scale [@joe]. It should be noted that the potential is valid for [any]{} value of $R$. If the value of $R$ is very small (or $r \gg R$) and we take $m=1$, the potential is approximated by $$V_2 \approx -\frac{3N}{16 R M_p^3} \frac{(v^2)^2}{r^5} -\frac{N}{16 R^3 M_p^3} \frac{(v^2)^2}{r^3} e^{-r/R} 2 \cos (x_{11}/R) ~. \label{appr}$$ The first term on the RHS is the usual potential between two $D2$-branes in the ten-dimensional type IIA theory [@lif] and the second term is the potential due to the effect of a single $M$-momentum transfer [@joe]. The approximate potential Eq. (\[appr\]) shows a notable feature that there is no $r$ independent $v^4$ term that appeared in [@joe]. Under the large $N$ limit, it is natural to drop this term as was done in, for example, [@lif]. In the DLCQ framework, this term is automatically absent [@hks; @tsey2], and this feature is also present in the case of the exact potential, Eq. (\[sugrapot\]). According to the prescription of Seiberg and Sen, the DLCQ $M$-theory on a two-torus is described by a system of $D2$-branes wrapped on its $T$-dual two-torus [@seiberg]. When the number of $D2$-branes is $N$, the action for the system is just the (2+1)-dimensional $U(N)$ SYM theory. The interaction potential between the source and the probe membranes is given by the effective potential of the SYM theory, and we compare the supergravity effective potential Eq. (\[sugrapot\]) to the effective potential of the SYM theory. We note that our supergravity side calculation is actually for the two-body dynamics of the source and the probe. This enables us to restrict our attention only to the $SU(2)$ SYM theory, as far as the dynamics is concerned. From the gauge theory point of view, we do not give the vacuum expectation values to the scalars that represent the position of the $N$ source membranes, thereby making them localized at one transversal space-time point. In what follows, we thus put the factor $N$ in front of the effective action and omit the trace part [@lif; @tsey2]. We note that to tackle the genuine $N$-body dynamics, we have to use the full $SU(N)$ SYM theory and this problem is the beyond of scope of this paper. Generically, the one-loop effective action $\Gamma^{(1)}$ of the SYM theory is the summation of a perturbative term and $m$-instanton terms. Hereafter, for the notational convenience, we call the perturbative term $0$-instanton sector. The general structure of the effective action [@harvey; @morales] looks schematically like $$\Gamma^{(1)} = N \int d^3 x \left( f^{(0)} u^4 + f^{(2)} u^3 \left[ \psi^2 \right] + f^{(4)} u^2 \left[ \psi^4 \right] + f^{(6)} u \left[ \psi^6 \right] + f^{(8)} \left[ \psi^8 \right] \right) ,$$ where $u^i = \dot{\phi}^i= F_{0 i}$, the $i$-th component of the electric field, $\left[ \psi^p \right] $ denotes a generic $p$ fermion structure, and $f^{(p)}$ represents the bosonic coefficient function of the corresponding $p$ fermion structure. The scalars $\phi^i$ ($i=1, \cdots , 7$) are the seven scalars of the vector multiplet (thereby having the $SO(7)$ symmetry). The function $f^{(p)}$ consists of the instanton summation and we represent it as $f^{(p)} = \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} f_m^{(p)} $ where $m$ is the instanton number. The bosonic zero fermion term $f^{(0)}$ should be compared to what we found on the supergravity side analysis. Recently, Paban, Sethi and Stern [@sethi] exactly computed the eight fermion terms; $[ \psi^8 ]$ consists of terms with zero, two and four scalar structure, and they are determined via the supersymmetry by requiring the absence of nine fermion terms under the supersymmetry transformation. Once $f^{(8)}$ term is calculated from their analysis, the remaining terms are determined by the supersymmetric completion. To ensure the supersymmetry, we have $$\delta \phi^i \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi^i} f^{(p)} \right) \left[ \psi^p \right]_{\rm max} = \delta \phi^i \phi^i \left( \frac{d } {\phi d \phi} f^{(p)} \right) \left[ \psi^p \right]_{\rm max} = - f^{(p+2)} \delta_{\psi} \left[ \psi^{p+2} \right]_{\rm max} ,$$ where $\delta_{\psi}$ is only for the variation of fermion fields. Here, $\left[ \psi^p \right]_{\rm max}$ denotes the $p$ fermion term with the maximum number scalar structure. We note that the function $f^{(p)}$ depends only on the $SO(7)$ invariant combination $\phi^2 = \phi^i \phi^i$. Thus, the function $f^{(0)}_m$ is related to $f^{(8)}_{4, m}$ by $$\left( \frac{d}{\phi d \phi} \right)^4 f^{(0)}_m = k f^{(8)}_{4,m} \ , \label{relat}$$ where $f^{(8)}_{4, m}$ is the coefficient function of the four scalar structure term among $\left[ \psi^8 \right]$ in the $m$-instanton sector $$\sum_{m= -\infty}^{\infty} f^{(8)}_{4,m} (\phi^i \phi^j \phi^k \phi^l T^{ijkl}) .$$ Here $k$ is a constant and $T^{ijkl}$ is the eight fermion structure. From [@sethi], $f^{(8)}_{4,m}$ is given by $$f^{(8)}_{4,m} = m^6 \|m\|^{1/2} \frac{1}{g_{\rm YM}^{28}} \left( \frac{g_{\rm YM}^2}{\phi} \right)^{13/2} K_{13/2} (\|m\| \phi / g_{\rm YM}^2 ) e^{i m \phi^8 /g_{\rm YM}^2 } ~, \label{8f}$$ up to the overall multiplicative constant. The extra scalar $\phi^8$ is the dual magnetic scalar and $g_{\rm YM}$ is the three-dimensional Yang-Mills coupling constant. We remark that Eq. (\[8f\]) gives the perturbative term when we set $m=0$ proportional to $\phi^{-13}$. Noting [@table] $$\left( \frac{d}{z dz} \right)^a (z^{-\nu} K_\nu (z)) = (-1)^a z^{-\nu -a} K_{\nu+a} (z)$$ we conclude $$\label{nonpert} f^{(0)}_m = C m^2 \|m\|^{1/2} \frac{1}{g_{\rm YM}^{12}} \left( \frac{g_{\rm YM}^2}{\phi} \right)^{5/2} K_{5/2} (\|m\| \phi / g_{\rm YM}^2) e^{i m \phi^8 /g_{\rm YM}^2 }$$ from Eq. (\[relat\]), where $C$ is a overall constant. The constant $C$ can not be determined by the argument of [@sethi], but the one-instanton calculation of [@joe] determines it to be $C= (2/\pi)^{1/2} g_{\rm YM}^2/16$. Thus, the bosonic one-loop effective action $\Gamma^{(1)}_B$ from the SYM theory is $$\Gamma^{(1)}_B = N \int d^3x \sum_{m= -\infty}^{\infty} f^{(0)}_m (u^2)^2 \ , \label{symeff}$$ including the full non-perturbative instanton corrections. Since $\Gamma^{(1)}_B = - \int d^3 x V_{\rm SYM}$, the effective potential $V_{\rm SYM}$ is $$\begin{aligned} V_{\rm SYM} &=& - \frac{N}{16} (u^2)^2 \nonumber \\ & \times & \left[ \; \frac{3}{\phi^5} + \sum^{\infty}_{m=1} \left( \frac{2}{\pi} \right)^\frac{1}{2} \frac{m^2 m^{1/2}}{g_{\rm YM}^{10} } \left( \frac{g_{\rm YM}^2}{\phi} \right)^{5/2} K_{5/2} ( m \phi / g_{\rm YM}^2 ) 2 \cos (m \phi^8 / g_{\rm YM}^2 ) \; \right] . \label{sympot}\end{aligned}$$ We note that Eq. (\[sympot\]) is exactly identical to Eq. (\[sugrapot\]) if we identify $\phi_i = x_i / l_s^2 $, $\phi^8 = x_{11} / l_s^2 $, $u = v / l_s^2$, and use $g_{\rm YM}^2 = g_s / l_s$. The string coupling constant $g_s$ and the string length scale $l_s$ are related to the $M$ theory quantities by $g_s = (RM_p )^{3/2}$ and $l_s = ( RM_p^3 )^{-1/2}$. We thus constructed an explicit example that shows the agreement between the matrix theory and the DLCQ $M$ theory on the non-asymptotically flat background geometry of [@hyun], which is consistent with the finite $N$-sector DLCQ prescription of [@susskind]. This example points to the possibility that, at the level of finite $N$, the AdS/CFT correspondence may be elevated to the dual description via the matrix theory of the $M$ theory on the non-asymptotically-flat background geometry of [@hyun]; a qualitative argument toward this effect has already been given in [@hyun2]. Regarding the matrix theory itself, our result clarifies the space-time aspects; for example, the locality along the $M$ theory circle and the eleven-dimensional covariance are not at all manifest from the point of view of the matrix theory. Turning our calculations around, the effective action of the (2+1)-dimensional SYM theory Eq. (\[symeff\]) can be Poisson-resummed back to yield a eleven-dimensional harmonic function proportional to Eq. (\[m2harmonic\]). At the level of the finite $R$, only the $SO(7)$ symmetry is manifest. As we take the limit where $R \rightarrow \infty$ and $N \rightarrow \infty$ while keeping the ratio $N/R$ fixed (the IMF limit), however, Eq. (\[m2harmonic\]) shows that the symmetry enhances to the $SO(8)$ symmetry ($n = 0$ term) and the (2+1)-dimensional magnetic scalar combines with seven other scalars to yield the eight coordinates transversal to the $M$ membranes. This is the expected covariance for the $M$ theory compactified on a two-torus. To recover the eleven-dimensional covariance, the full non-perturbative effects on the gauge theory side should be taken into account. [99]{} T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker, L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. [D 55]{}, 5112 (1997). L. Susskind, hep-th/9704080. K. Becker, M. Becker, J. Polchinski, A. Tseytlin, Phys. Rev. [D 56]{}, 3174 (1997), hep-th/9706072. S. Hyun, Y. Kiem and H. Shin, Phys. Rev. [D 57]{}, 4856 (1998), hep-th/9712021. S. Hyun, to appear in Phys. Lett. [B]{}, hep-th/9802026 S. Hyun and Y. Kiem, hep-th/9805136. J. McCarthy, L. Susskind and A. Wilkins, hep-th/9806136. W. Taylor and M. Van Raamsdonk, hep-th/9806066; Y. Okawa and T. Yoneya, hep-th/9806108. W. Taylor, Phys. Lett. [B 394]{}, 283 (1997), hep-th/9611042. N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [79]{}, 3577 (1997), hep-th/9710009; A. Sen, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [2]{}, 51 (1998), hep-th/9709220. J. Maldacena, hep-th/9711200. S. Gubser, I. Klebanov and A. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. [B 428]{}, 105 (1998), hep-th/9802109; E. Witten, hep-th/9802150. S. Paban, S. Sethi, and M. Stern, hep-th/9808119. J. Maldacena, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [68]{}, 17 (1998), hep-th/9709099. A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [68]{}, 99 (1998), hep-th/9709123. G. Lifschytz and S. D. Mathur, Nucl. Phys. [B499]{}, 283 (1997), hep-th/9612087; O. Aharony and M. Berkooz, Nucl. Phys. [B491]{}, 184 (1997), hep-th/9611215. J. Polchinski and P. Pouliot, Phys. Rev. D [56]{}, 6601 (1997), hep-th/9704029. N. Dorey, V. V. Khoze, and M. P. Mattis, Nucl. Phys. [B 502]{}, 94 (1997), hep-th/9704197. E. Keski-Vakkuri and P. Kraus, hep-th/9804067. I. Chepelev and A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. [B 524]{}, 69 (1998), hep-th/9801120. N. Itzhaki, J. Maldacena, J. Sonnenschein, and S. Yankielowicz, Phys.Rev. D [58]{}, 046004 (1998), hep-th/9802042. I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [Table of Integrals, Series, and Products]{}, 5th ed. (Academic Press, 1994). J. A. Harvey, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [68]{}, 113 (1998), hep-th/9706039. J. F. Morales, C. A. Scrucca, and M. Serone, hep-th/9801183. [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: [email protected] [^3]: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This paper explores the conjecture that the following are equivalent for irreducible rational homology 3-spheres: having left-orderable fundamental group, having non-minimal Heegaard Floer homology, and admitting a co-orientable taut foliation. In particular, it adds further evidence in favor of this conjecture by studying these three properties for more than 300,000 hyperbolic rational homology 3-spheres. New or much improved methods for studying each of these properties form the bulk of the paper, including a new combinatorial criterion, called a foliar orientation, for showing that a 3-manifold has a taut foliation.' address: \| Dept. of Math., MC-382\ University of Illinois\ 1409 W. Green St.\ Urbana, IL 61801\ USA author: - 'Nathan M. Dunfield' bibliography: - '\\jobname.bib' title: \| Floer homology,\ group orderability,\ and taut foliations of\ hyperbolic 3-manifolds --- intro floer disorder foliations representations	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We obtain an infinite family of complete non embedded rotational surfaces in $\mathbb R^3$ whose second fundamental forms have length equal to one at any point. Also we prove that a complete rotational surface with second fundamental form of constant length is either a round sphere, a circular cylinder or, up to a homothety and a rigid motion, a member of that family. In particular, the round sphere and the circular cylinder are the only complete embedded rotational surfaces in $\mathbb R^3$ with second fundamental form of constant length.' address: - 'Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar), Brasil' - 'Departamento de Geometria, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Brasil.' - 'Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar), Brasil' author: - Alexandre Paiva Barreto - Francisco Fontenele - Luiz Hartmann bibliography: - 'BarFonHar.bib' title: Rotational Surfaces with second fundamental form of constant length --- [^1] Introduction ============ A surface $S$ in the $3$-dimensional Euclidean space is called a Weingarten surface if there exists some relation $$\label{relW} W(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=0,$$ among its principal curvatures $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$. Since the principal curvatures of a surface can always be determined from its mean curvature $H$ and its Gaussian curvature $K$, and vice-versa, the relation can always be rewritten as a relation $U(H,K)=0$. Weingarten surfaces is a classical topic in Differential Geometry that began with the works of Weingarten in the middle of the 19th century [@Wei1; @Wei2] and that has been a subject of interest for many authors since then (see Chern [@Che1], Hartman and Winter [@HW], Hopf [@Hop1], Voss [@Vos], Rosenberg and Sá Earp [@RSE], Kühnel and Steller [@KS], López [@Lop1; @Lop3; @Lop; @Lop4], to name just a few). Minimal surfaces, surfaces with constant mean curvature and surfaces with constant Gaussian curvature are classical examples of Weingarten surfaces. Another well known class (generalizing the previous ones) is that of the linear Weingarten surfaces, Weingarten surfaces verifying either the relation $$\label{relLWI} W(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)= a\lambda_{1}+b\lambda_{2}= c$$ or the relation $$\label{relLWII} U(H,K)=aH+bK=c,$$ where $a,b,c\in\mathbb{R}$ are constants such that $a$ and $b$ do not vanish simultaneously. The complete classification of Weingarten surfaces is far from being achieved. The existent results deal mostly with the linear case, sometimes making use of additional topological/geometric hypothesis and/or working with important subclasses of surfaces such as revolution surfaces [@Hop1; @Lop; @KS; @RSE], tubes along curves and cyclic surfaces [@Lop3; @Lop4], ruled surfaces and helicoidal surfaces [@Kuh], translation surfaces [@DGW; @LM], etc. In general, the approaches used to treat the linear case do not apply to the non-linear case. Therefore, results concerning non-linear Weingarten surfaces are more rare [@RSE; @KS]. In this paper we study rotational surfaces in the $3$-dimensional Euclidean space whose second fundamental forms have constant length (recall that the squared length $\|A\|^2$ of the second fundamental form of a surface in $\mathbb R^3$ is defined as the trace of $A^2$, where $A$ is its shape operator). In other words, we study rotational Weingarten surfaces that satisfy the non-linear relation $$\label{relacao segforma cte} W(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=\left( \lambda_{1}\right) ^{2}+\left( \lambda_{2}\right)^{2}=c,$$ or equivalently $$\label{relacao segforma cte2}U(H,K)=4H^{2}-2K=c,$$ for some $c>0$. In this case we prove the following result (notice that since the property of having constant $\|A\|$ is invariant by homotheties in $\mathbb R^3$, we can assume without loss of generality that $c=1$): \[Family\] There are two infinite families $\mathcal F_1$ and $\mathcal F_2$ of complete non embedded rotational surfaces in $\mathbb R^3$ with $\|A\|=1$. The family $\mathcal F_1$ is one parameter and its members are periodic $C^{\infty}$ surfaces, while the members of $\mathcal F_2$ are $C^3$ surfaces. Moreover, any complete rotational $C^2$ surface with $\|A\|=1$ is either a round sphere of radius $\sqrt{2}$, a circular cylinder of radius 1 or, up to a rigid motion in $\mathbb R^3$, a member of one of the two families. \[Embedded\] The only complete embedded rotational $C^2$-surfaces in $\mathbb R^3$ with second fundamental form of constant length are the round sphere and the circular cylinder. Non trivial examples of compact surfaces (embedded or immersed) with second fundamental form of constant length are unknown by the authors. In view of Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.2, one can then formulate the following question: - Is there a compact surface, other than the round sphere, embedded/immersed in the Euclidean 3-space whose second fundamental form has constant length? It is worth to point out that the above question has a negative answer in the class of the compact surfaces with positive Gaussian curvature [@Ale Theorem 5 on p. 347 and Section 4] (see also [@Kor] or [@FS Theorem 2.3]). The importance of the class of hypersurfaces whose second fundamental forms have constant length goes beyond the context of Weingarten surfaces. We mention [@DX] (see also [@Gua]), where it is proved that the generalized cylinders are the only complete embedded self-shrinkers in $\R^3$ with polynomial volume growth whose second fundamental forms have constant length. The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[convexprofcurve\], we prove that the profile curve of any rotational surface in $\mathbb R^3$ with $\|A\|\equiv 1$ is convex, its signed curvature does not change signal. This fact enable us to reduce the study of rotational surfaces with $\|A\|\equiv 1$ to the study of the trajectories of a certain vector field in the plane. The study of this vector field is made in Section \[phasefundvectfield\]. Finally, we prove Theorem \[Family\] in Section \[proofmaintheorem\]. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} --------------- The authors would like to thank Thiago de Melo (IGCE-UNESP) for helpful conversations during the preparation of this work and for his help with the figures. Convexity of the profile curves {#convexprofcurve} =============================== Our goal in this section is to prove that the profile curve $\mathcal{C}$ of any rotational $C^2$-surface $M\subset\mathbb R^3$, whose shape operator $A$ has length $\|A\|\equiv 1$, is convex. By applying a rigid motion of $\mathbb R^3$ if necessary, we can assume that $\mathcal{C}$ is contained in the $xz$-plane and that the axis of revolution is the $x$-axis. Let $\alpha(t)=(x(t),0,z(t)),\;t\in\mathbb (a,b)$, be a parametrization of $\mathcal{C}$ such that $\|\|\alpha'(t)\|\|=1$ and $z(t)>0$ for all $t$, and let $\theta:(a,b)\to\mathbb R$ be a continuous (and, hence, of class $C^1$) function satisfying $$\label{Rot1} \alpha'(t)=(x'(t),0,z'(t))=(\cos\theta(t),0,\sin\theta(t)),\;\;\;t\in (a,b).$$ It is easy to see that the function $\theta$ satisfying is unique up to an integer multiple of $2\pi$. The principal curvatures of $M$ are given by (see [@Lop]) $$\label{Rot2} \lambda_1(t)=\theta'(t),\;\;\;\;\lambda_2(t)=-\frac{\cos\theta(t)}{z(t)}.$$ Since $\|A\|^2=\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2\equiv 1$ by hypothesis, one then has $$\label{Rot3} \theta'(t)^2+\frac{\cos^2\theta(t)}{z^2(t)}=1,\;\;\;t\in (a,b).$$ As we observed in the introduction, the proof of Theorem \[Family\] will be based on a careful study of the trajectories of a suitable vector field in the plane. The fundamental property of the profile curves that makes this approach possible is provided by the following proposition (recall that the signed curvature of $\alpha$ is $\theta'$): \[monotona\] The function $\theta:(a,b)\to\mathbb R$ is monotone. Before proceeding to the proof of Proposition \[monotona\], let us explain how to relate profile curves with the trajectories of a specific vector field. Let $\alpha$ and $\theta$ be as above. Assuming that $\theta$ is monotone, reparametrizing $\alpha$ we can assume that $\theta'\geq 0$. Then, by and , $$\label{sistema} \begin{cases} \theta'(t)=\sqrt{1-\frac{\cos^2\theta(t)}{z^2(t)}},\\ z'(t)=\sin\theta(t). \end{cases}$$ Let $X:\Omega\to\mathbb R^2$ be the (smooth) vector field defined by $$\label{VectorField} X(\theta,z)=\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\cos^2\theta}{z^2}},\sin\theta\right),$$ where $\Omega=\{(\theta,z)\in\mathbb R^2:z>\|\cos\theta\|\}$. As long as $z(t)>\|\cos\theta(t)\|$, the system in can be rewritten as $$\label{Trajetoria} (\theta'(t),z'(t))=X(\theta(t),z(t)),$$ and so the curve $t\mapsto(\theta(t),z(t))$ is a trajectory of $X$. A representation of $\Omega$ and the vector field $X$ can be seen in Figure \[Figura1\]. \[line cap=round,>=latex,x=1cm,y=1cm\] (-.5,-1.) rectangle (7,4.6); plot\[smooth\] (,[abs(cos(r))]{}); ; (0,0) rectangle (6.6,4.6); (1.57075,0) – (1.57075,4) (3.1415,0) – (3.1415,4) (4.7125,0) – (4.7125,4) (6.283,0) – (6.283,4); (0,1) circle (1.2pt) (3.1415,1) circle (1.2pt) (6.2831,1) circle (1.2pt) ; (-.5,0) – (6.8,0)node\[below\][$\theta$]{}; (0,-.5) – (0,4.5)node\[left\][$z$]{}; /łin [1.57075/,3.1415/,4.71225/,6.283/[2]{}]{}[ (0pt,2pt) – (0pt,-2pt); (0,-8pt)node\[fill=white,inner sep=0pt\] [$\l$]{}; ]{} in [1]{}[ (2pt,0pt) – (-2pt,0pt) node\[left\] [ $\y$]{}; ]{} (0,0) node\[below left\] [$0$]{}; Conversely, given a trajectory $\varphi(t)=(\theta(t),z(t)),\;t\in(a,b),$ of $X$ and $t_0\in(a,b)$, consider the curve $\alpha(t)=(x(t),0,z(t)),\;t\in(a,b),$ where $$x(t)=\int_{t_0}^t\cos\theta(s)ds.$$ Using , and one easily proves that the surface in $\mathbb R^3$ obtained by the rotation of the image of $\alpha$ around the $x$-axis satisfies $\|A\|\equiv 1$. In the proof of Proposition \[monotona\], as well as in the proofs of later results, we will use the following technical lemma. In its statement, $\alpha(t)=(x(t),0,z(t))$ and $\theta(t)$ are as in the beginning of this section. \[ThetaLinhaZero\] For any $t\in(a,b)$, the following assertions hold: 1. $\theta'(t)=0$ if, and only if, $z(t)=1$ and $\sin\theta(t)=0$. 2. If $z(t)<1$ then $\|z'(t)\|\geq\|\theta'(t)\|$. 3. If $\theta'(t)=0$, then there exists $\delta>0$ such that $z(s)\geq 1$, $s\in(t-\delta,t+\delta)$. \(i) If $\theta'(t)=0$ then, by , the function $\cos^2\theta/z^2$ attains a maximum at $t$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned} 0&=&\left[\frac{\cos^2\theta}{z^2}\right]'(t) =\left[\frac{-2\theta'\cos\theta\sin\theta z^2-2\cos^2\theta zz'}{z^4}\right](t)\nonumber\\ &=&\frac{-2\cos^2\theta(t)z'(t)}{z^3(t)}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Since $\cos\theta(t)\neq 0$, one obtains from the above equality and that $$\sin\theta(t)=z'(t)=0.$$ Using this information in , one concludes that $z(t)=1$. The converse is an immediate consequence of . \(ii) From and $z(t)<1$ one obtains $$1=\theta'(t)^2+\frac{\cos^2\theta(t)}{z^2(t)}\geq\theta'(t)^2+\cos^2\theta(t),$$ and so $$\theta'(t)^2\leq 1-\cos^2\theta(t)=\sin^2\theta(t)=z'(t)^2.$$ The conclusion now follows by taking square roots in the above inequality. \(iii) Supposing, by contradiction, that the conclusion does not hold, we have $z(t_n)<1$ for some sequence $(t_n)$ that converges to $t$. Since, by (i), $t_n\neq t$ for all $n$, passing to a subsequence and reparametrizing $\alpha$ if necessary, one can assume that $t_n<t$, for all $n$. We claim that $$\label{Rot3bb} z(s)<1,\;\;\;s\in(a,t).$$ Indeed, if $z(c)\geq 1$ for some $c\in(a,t)$ then, since $t_n\to t$ and $z(t_n)<1$ for all $n$, there is $d\in(c,t)$ such that $$\label{Rot3bc} z(d)=\inf\{z(s):c\leq s\leq t\}<1.$$ Hence, $z'(d)=0$. On the other hand, from (i), (ii) and one obtains $\|z'(d)\|\geq\|\theta'(d)\|>0$. This contradiction proves . By (i), (ii) and , $$\label{Rot3bbb} \theta'(s)\neq 0\;\;\text{and}\;\;z'(s)\neq 0,\;\;\;s\in(a,t).$$ Then, by and $z(t)=1$, $$\label{Rot3c} \sin\theta(s)=z'(s)>0,\;\;\;s\in(a,t).$$ Since $\sin\theta(t)=0$ by (i), we have two possibilities: [a)]{} $\theta(t)=2k\pi$, for some $k\in\mathbb Z$. [b)]{} $\theta(t)=(2k+1)\pi$, for some $k\in\mathbb Z$. Assuming a), from one obtains $$\theta(t)+\pi>\theta(s)>\theta(t),\;\;\;s\in(a,t).$$ Then, by the first inequality of , $$\label{Rot3d} \theta'(s)<0,\;\;\;s\in(a,t).$$ From , , and (ii), we obtain $$z'(s)\geq -\theta'(s),\;\;\;s\in(a,t).$$ Hence, for fixed $s_1\in(a,t)$, we have $$1=z(t)=z(s_1)+\int_{s_1}^{t}z'(s)ds\geq z(s_1)-\int_{s_1}^{t}\theta'(s)ds=z(s_1)+\theta(s_1)-\theta(t),$$ and so $$1-z(s_1)\geq\theta(s_1)-\theta(t).$$ It now follows from and the fact that the cosine function is decreasing on $[0,\pi]$, that $$\label{Rot3f} \begin{aligned} \cos(1-z(s_1)) \leq& \ \cos(\theta(s_1)-\theta(t))\\ =& \ \cos\theta(s_1)\cos\theta(t)+\sin\theta(s_1)\sin\theta(t)\\ =& \ \cos\theta(s_1). \end{aligned}$$ Since, by and , $z(s_1)>\|\cos\theta(s_1)\|$, inequalities and imply $$\label{Rot3g} \cos(1-z(s_1))<z(s_1)<1,$$ contradicting the fact, easily verified, that $\cos(1-x)>x$, for all $x\in[0,1)$. A reasoning entirely similar to the above shows that b) cannot occur either. Hence, $z(s)\geq 1$ on a neighbourhood of $t$. [Proof of Proposition \[monotona\]:]{} Suppose, by contradiction, that $\theta$ is not monotone. Then there exists $t_1<t_2<t_3$ in $(a,b)$ such that either i) or ii) below holds: i\) $\theta(t_1)<\theta(t_2)$ and $\theta(t_2)>\theta(t_3)$. ii\) $\theta(t_1)>\theta(t_2)$ and $\theta(t_2)<\theta(t_3)$. Assuming i), we have $$\lambda:=\sup\{\theta(t):t\in[t_1,t_3]\}>\max\{\theta(t_1),\theta(t_3)\}.$$ Define $$\xi:=\inf\{t\geq t_1:\theta(t)=\lambda\},\;\;\;\eta:=\sup\{t\leq t_3:\theta(t)=\lambda\}.$$ Since $\theta$ attains a local maximum at $\xi$ and at $\eta$, we have $\theta'(\xi)=\theta'(\eta)=0$. Then, by Lemma \[ThetaLinhaZero\] (i), $z(\xi)=z(\eta)=1$ and $\sin\theta(\xi)=\sin\theta(\eta)=0$. The latter implies that either $\theta(\xi)=\theta(\eta)=2k\pi$ or $\theta(\xi)=\theta(\eta)=(2k+1)\pi$, for some $k\in\mathbb Z$. If $\theta(\xi)=\theta(\eta)=2k\pi$, one has $\mu\in (\eta,t_3]$, such that $$z'(t)=\sin\theta(t)<0,\;\;\;t\in(\eta,\mu).$$ Then, $z(t)<z(\eta)=1$, for all $t\in(\eta,\mu)$, contradicting Lemma \[ThetaLinhaZero\] (iii). If $\theta(\xi)=\theta(\eta)=(2k+1)\pi$, there exists $\nu\in [t_1,\xi)$ such that $$z'(t)=\sin\theta(t)>0,\;\;\;t\in(\nu,\xi).$$ Then, $z(t)<z(\xi)=1$, for all $t\in(\nu,\xi)$, which also contradicts Lemma \[ThetaLinhaZero\] (iii). A reasoning entirely similar to the above shows that ii) can not occur either. Hence, the function $\theta$ is monotone. Phase portrait of the fundamental vector field {#phasefundvectfield} ============================================== With the aim to prove Theorem \[Family\], we study in this section the trajectories of the vector field $X$ defined by . This study will be carried out through a series of technical lemmas. Since the trajectories of $X$ are invariant by horizontal translations by multiples of $2\pi$ (that is, if $\varphi(t)=(\theta(t),z(t))$ is a trajectory of $X$ then so is the curve $\psi(t)=(\theta(t)+2n\pi,z(t))$ for any $n\in\mathbb Z$), it is sufficient to consider the trajectories that pass through some point $(\theta_0,z_0)\in\Omega$ such that $0\leq\theta_0\leq 2\pi$. \[SuperaBarreira\] Let $(\theta_0,z_0)$ be a point in $\Omega$ such that $0<\theta_0<\pi$ and $z_0\leq 1$. If $\varphi(t)=(\theta(t),z(t)),\;t\in(a,b),$ is the maximal integral curve of $X$ satisfying $\varphi(0)=(\theta_0,z_0)$, then there exists $c\in(0,b)$ such that $z(c)>1$. We can assume that $z_0<1$, for otherwise the conclusion follows immediately from $z'(0)=\sin\theta(0)>0$. Suppose, by contradiction, that the conclusion does not hold. Then, by the definition of $\Omega$, $$\label{Rot12} \theta_0<\theta(t)<\pi,\;\;\;t\in(0,b),$$ and so $$\label{Rot13} z'(t)=\sin\theta(t)>0\;\;\text{and}\;\;z(t)<1,\;\;\;t\in(0,b).$$ Let $$\label{Rot15} \theta_+=\lim_{t\to b}\theta(t)\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;z_+=\lim_{t\to b}z(t).$$ By and , $\frac{\pi}{2}<\theta_+\leq\pi$ and $z_+\leq 1$. From the maximality of $\varphi$ and the fact that $X$ has no singularities in $\Omega$, one obtains $(\theta_+,z_+)\in\partial\Omega$, and so $$\label{Rot16} z_+=\|\cos\theta_+\|=-\cos\theta_+.$$ We have two cases to consider: i\) $\theta_+<\pi$ (and so $z_+<1$). ii\) $\theta_+=\pi$ (and so $z_+=1$). Since the vectors of $X$ on the boundary of $\Omega$ points inward, we can use transversality to conclude that case i) can not occur. However, we will discard this case by a direct argument. Consider the (positive) function $\xi:(0,b)\to\mathbb R$ defined by $\xi(t)=z(t)+\cos\theta(t)$. By and , $$\label{Rot17} \lim_{t\to b}\xi(t)=z_++\cos\theta_+=0.$$ Using now , and , one obtains $$\label{Rot18} \begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to b}\xi'(t)=&\ \lim_{t\to b} \ \Bl \sin\theta(t)-\theta'(t)\sin\theta(t) \Br\\ =&\ \sin\theta_+-\sin\theta_+\sqrt{1-\frac{\cos^2\theta_+}{z_+^2}}\\ =&\ \sin\theta_+>0. \end{aligned}$$ Then, there is $t_0\in(0,b)$ such that $\xi'(t)>\sin\theta_+/2,\;t\in[t_0,b),$ and so $$\label{Rot20} \xi(t)-\xi(t_0)=\int_{t_0}^t\xi'(s)ds>\frac{\sin\theta_+}{2}(t-t_0),\;\;\; t>t_0.$$ Letting $t\to b$ in the above inequality, and using , one obtains $$-\xi(t_0)\geq\frac{\sin\theta_+}{2}(b-t_0)>0,$$ contradicting the fact that $\xi(t)>0$, for all $t$. Suppose now ii). From and Lemma \[ThetaLinhaZero\] (ii), we obtain $z'(t)\geq\theta'(t)$ for all $t\in(0,b)$, and so $$\label{Rot21} 1>z(t)=z(0)+\int_0^tz'(s)ds \geq z(0)+\int_0^t\theta'(s)ds=z_0+\theta(t)-\theta_0,$$ for every $t\in(0,b)$. Taking the limit when $t\to b$ in the above inequality, and using and b), we obtain $$\label{Rot21a} 1\geq z_0+\theta_+-\theta_0=z_0+\pi-\theta_0>\pi-\theta_0,$$ and thus $0<\pi-\theta_0<1$. Choosing $k\in\mathbb N$ such that $$\label{Rot23} \frac{1}{k+1}\leq\pi-\theta_0<\frac{1}{k},$$ one has, since the cosine function is decreasing on $(0,\pi)$, $$0<\cos\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)<\cos(\pi-\theta_0)=-\cos\theta_0\leq\|\cos\theta_0\|.$$ Then, by and the above inequality, $$\frac{\cos^2(1/k)}{z_0^2}<\frac{\cos^2\theta(0)}{z^2(0)}\leq 1,$$ and so $z_0>\cos(1/k)$. Using now that $\cos x>1/(1+x)$ for every $x\in(0,1]$, one concludes that $z_0>k/(k+1)$. Hence, by and , $$1\geq z_0+\pi-\theta_0>\frac{k}{k+1}+\frac{1}{k+1}=1,$$ which is obviously false. This contradiction finishes the proof of the lemma. \[Alcance\] Let $(\theta_0,z_0)\in\Omega$ such that $0\leq\theta_0<\pi$. If $\varphi(t)=(\theta(t),z(t)),\;t\in(a,b),$ is the maximal integral curve of $X$ satisfying $\varphi(0)=(\theta_0,z_0)$, then there exists $t_0\in(0,b)$ such that $\theta(t_0)=\pi$. Assuming, by contradiction, that the conclusion does not hold, one has $0<\theta(t)<\pi,\;t\in(0,b)$, and so $$\label{Rot29} z'(t)=\sin\theta(t)>0,\;\;t\in(0,b).$$ Let $c\in[0,b)$ such that $z(c)>1$ (such a number $c$ exists by Lemma \[SuperaBarreira\]). Since $\theta$ is bounded above and, by and , $$\theta'(t)\geq\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{z^2(t)}}>\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{z^2(c)}}>0,\;\;\;t\in(c,b),$$ one concludes that $b<\infty$. Then, since $z'(t)\leq 1$, one also has that $z$ is bounded. Hence, $\varphi(t)=(\theta(t),z(t))$ converges to a point in $\Omega$ when $t\to b$, but this can not occur because $b<\infty$ (see, for instance, [@Per p. 91]). \[Simetrico\] Given $z_0>1$ and $n\in\mathbb Z$, let $\varphi(t)=(\theta(t),z(t)),\;t\in(a,b),$ be the maximal integral curve of $X$ satisfying $\varphi(0)=(n\pi,z_0)$. Then, $a=-b$ and $\varphi(-t)=R(\varphi(t))$ for every $t\in(-b,b)$, where $R$ denotes the reflection in $\mathbb R^2$ with respect to the line $\theta=n\pi$. In short, $\varphi$ is symmetric with respect to the line $\theta=n\pi$. Consider the curve $\sigma:(-b,-a)\to\Omega$ defined by $$\label{Rot24} \sigma(t)=R(\varphi(-t))=(2n\pi-\theta(-t),z(-t)).$$ It is easy to see that $\sigma$ is an integral curve of $X$. Since $\sigma(0)=(n\pi,z_0)=\varphi(0)$, it follows from the maximality of $\varphi$ that $a=-b$ and $$\varphi(t)=\sigma(t)=R(\varphi(-t)),\;\;\;t\in(-b,b).$$ Lemmas \[Alcance\] and \[Simetrico\] tell us that to obtain a picture of the phase portrait of $X$ it is sufficient to consider the family of trajectories $\{\varphi_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda>1}$, where $\varphi_{\lambda}:(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})\to\Omega$ is the maximal integral curve of $X$ such that $\varphi_ {\lambda}(0)=(\pi,\lambda)$. From Lemma \[Alcance\] and the fact that $z'(t)= \sin\theta(t)$ is positive on $\theta^{-1}((0,\pi)) $, one concludes, for each $\lambda>1$, that the trajectory $\varphi_{\lambda}:(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})\to\Omega$ either crosses the ray $\{(\theta,z)\in\mathbb R^2:\theta=0\;\text{and}\;z>1\}$ or converges to a point $p_{\lambda}\in\partial\Omega$ when $t\to -b_{\lambda}$. Moreover, each point $(\theta,z)\in\partial\Omega$ such that $0\leq\theta<\pi$ is the limit point $p_{\lambda}$ of some $\varphi_{\lambda}$. The later is clear when $\theta\not = 0$ and $\theta \not = \frac{\pi}{2}$, as the vector field $X$ can be continuously extended, without singularities, to a neighbourhood of $(\theta,z)$, and follows easily for the other two values of $\theta$ by a continuity argument. The following lemma shows that two distinct trajectories of the family $\{\varphi_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda>1}$ can not converge to the same point in $\partial\Omega$. Note that this fact does not follow from the standard theory of ordinary differential equations, because the vector field $X$ does not admit a differentiable extension to a neighbourhood of any given point in $\partial\Omega$. \[UnicLimPoint\] With the same notation as above, assume for some $(\theta_0,z_0)\in\partial\Omega$ that $$\label{Rot33A} \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_1}}\varphi_{\lambda_1}(t)=(\theta_0,z_0)=\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_2}}\varphi_{\lambda_2}(t).$$ Then $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$ (and hence $\varphi_{\lambda_1}=\varphi_{\lambda_2}$). Assume, by contradiction, that $\lambda_1\neq\lambda_2$, say $\lambda_1<\lambda_2$. Setting $\varphi_{\lambda_1}=(\theta_1,z_1)$ and $\varphi_{\lambda_2}=(\theta_2,z_2)$, from one obtains that $\theta_1=\theta_1\|_{(-b_{\lambda_1},0]}$ (respectively, $\theta_2=\theta_2\|_{(-b_{\lambda_2},0]}$) is a diffeomorphism from $(-b_{\lambda_1},0]$ (respectively, $(-b_{\lambda_2},0]$) to $(\theta_0,\pi]$. Let $\psi=\theta_2^{-1}\circ\theta_1:(-b_{\lambda_1},0]\to(-b_{\lambda_2},0]$. By the Chain Rule and the Inverse Function Theorem, $$\label{Rot33B} \psi'(t)=(\theta_2^{-1})'(\theta_1(t))\theta_1'(t)= \frac{\theta_1'(t)}{\theta_2'(\psi(t))}>0,\;\;\;t\in(-b_{\lambda_1},0].$$ Since $\lambda_1<\lambda_2$ and $\theta_2(\psi(t))=\theta_1(t)$ for $t\in(-b_{\lambda_1},0]$, we have $z_2(\psi(t)) > z_1(t)$ and so $$\theta_2'(\psi(t))=\sqrt{1-\frac{\cos^2\theta_2(\psi(t))}{z_2^2(\psi(t))}} \geq \sqrt{1-\frac{\cos^2\theta_1(t)}{z_1^2(t)}}=\theta_1'(t),$$ for all $t\in (-b_{\lambda_1},0]$. Using this inequality in , we obtain $$\label{Rot33C} \psi'(t)\leq 1,\;\;\;t\in(-b_{\lambda_1},0].$$ Using again the equality $\theta_2(\psi(t))=\theta_1(t)$, it follows from the Change of Variables Formula that $$\label{Rot33D} \begin{aligned} z_2(0)-z_2(\psi(t))=& \ \int_{\psi(t)}^0z_2'(s)ds=\int_t^0z_2'(\psi(u)) \psi'(u)du\\ =& \ \int_t^0\sin\theta_2(\psi(u))\psi'(u)du =\int_t^0\sin\theta_1(u)\psi'(u)du, \end{aligned}$$ for every $t\in (-b_{\lambda},0]$. Hence, by , $$\label{Rot33E} \begin{aligned} z_2(0)-z_2(\psi(t))=& \ \int_t^0z_1'(u)\psi'(u)du\\ \leq& \ \int_t^0z_1'(u)du =z_1(0)-z_1(t), \;\;\; t\in(-b_{\lambda_1},0]. \end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit when $t\to -b_{\lambda_1}$, and using , one obtains $\lambda_2=z_2(0)\leq z_1(0)=\lambda_1$, contradicting our assumption $\lambda_1<\lambda_2$. Hence $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$. \[line cap=round,>=latex,x=1.5cm,y=1.5cm\] (-.5,-1.) rectangle (7,4.6); (0,0) rectangle (2 \* pi,4.6); (0,0) rectangle (2 \* pi,4.6); (0,0) rectangle (2 \* pi,4.6); (0,0) rectangle (2 \* pi,4.6); (0,0) rectangle (2 \* pi,4.6); plot\[smooth\] (,[abs(cos(r))]{}); (3,3.25) node\[fill=white,above,inner sep=0pt\] [ $\lambda_0$]{}; (3.3,1.45) node\[fill=white,above,inner sep=0pt\] [ $\sqrt{2}$]{}; (3.1415,0) – (3.1415,4) (6.283,0) – (6.283,4); (0,1) circle (1.2pt) (3.1415,1) circle (1.2pt) (6.2831,1) circle (1.2pt) (3.1415,3.22) circle (1.2pt) (3.1415,1.4142) circle (1.2pt); (-.5,0) – (6.8,0)node\[below\][$\theta$]{}; (0,-.5) – (0,4.5)node\[left\][$z$]{}; /łin [1.57075/[/2]{},3.1415/,4.71225/[3/2]{},6.283/[2]{}]{}[ (0pt,2pt) – (0pt,-2pt); (0,-8pt)node\[fill=white,inner sep=0pt\] [$\l$]{}; ]{} in [1]{}[ (2pt,0pt) – (-2pt,0pt) node\[left\] [ $\y$]{}; ]{} (0,0) node\[below left\] [$0$]{}; Proof of Theorem \[Family\] {#proofmaintheorem} =========================== As before, for each $\lambda>1$ denote by $\varphi_{\lambda}(t)=(\theta(t),z(t)),\;t\in(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda}),$ the maximal integral curve of $X$ such that $\varphi_{\lambda}(0)=(\pi,\lambda)$. From Lemma \[UnicLimPoint\] and the discussion that precedes its statement one concludes that there is a unique $\lambda_0>1$ such that $\varphi_{\lambda_0}(t)\to (0,1)$ when $t\to -b_{\lambda_0}$. Moreover, when $\lambda\neq\lambda_0$, the trajectory $\varphi_{\lambda}$ either crosses the ray $\{(\theta,z)\in\mathbb R^2:\theta=0\;\text{and}\;z>1\}$ or converges to a point in $\partial\Omega$ depending on whether $\lambda>\lambda_0$ or $1<\lambda<\lambda_0$ (see Figure \[Figure2\]). For each $\lambda>1$, consider the curve $\alpha_{\lambda}:(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})\to\mathbb R^3$ defined by $\alpha_{\lambda}(t)=(x(t),0,z(t))$, where $$\label{Rot59b} x(t)=\int_0^t\cos\theta(s)ds,$$ and the surface $M_{\lambda}$ of $\mathbb R^3$ obtained by the rotation of the image of $\alpha_{\lambda}$ around the $x$-axis. As we have seen in Section \[convexprofcurve\], the length of the shape operator of $M_{\lambda}$ equals 1 at every point. The detailed classification of the surfaces $M_\lambda$ reads: \[surfaces\] Let $M_{\lambda}$ be as above. \(i) If $\lambda>\lambda_0$ then $M_{\lambda}$ is a complete $C^{\infty}$-surface. Moreover, $M_{\lambda}$ is periodic and has self-intersections. \(ii) $M_{\lambda_0}$ is incomplete, but it can be extended in infinite many ways to a complete $C^3$-surface satisfying $\|A\|\equiv 1$. Any such extension has self-intersections. \(iii) $M_{\sqrt{2}}$ is the sphere with center at $(-\sqrt{2},0,0)$ and radius $\sqrt{2}$ (minus two points). \(iv) If $\sqrt{2}<\lambda<\lambda_0$ or $1<\lambda<\sqrt{2}$ then $M_{\lambda}$ is incomplete and cannot be extended to a surface with $\|A\|\equiv 1$. Concerning the Gaussian curvature of the surfaces obtained in the above theorem, we observe that the only surfaces with positive Gaussian curvature are the surfaces $M_{\lambda}$ with $1<\lambda\leq \sqrt{2}$. For all the others, the Gaussian curvature changes the signal. Theorem \[surfaces\] is a direct consequence of the following result: \[curves\] Let $\alpha_{\lambda}:(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})\to\mathbb R^3$ be as above. \(i) If $\lambda>\lambda_0$ then $b_{\lambda}=+\infty$ and $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is of class $C^{\infty}$. Moreover, $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is periodic and has self-intersections. \(ii) $b_{\lambda_0}<+\infty$ and $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ can be extended in infinite many ways to a profile curve of class $C^3$ defined on $\mathbb R$. Any such extension has self-intersections. \(iii) $\alpha_{\sqrt{2}}$ is a parametrization by arc length of the semicircle in the $xz$-plane with center at $(-\sqrt{2},0,0)$ and radius $\sqrt{2}$. \(iv) If $\sqrt{2}<\lambda<\lambda_0$ or $1<\lambda<\sqrt{2}$ then $b_{\lambda}<+\infty$ and $\alpha_{\lambda}$ cannot be extended to a profile curve defined on an open interval containing $(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})$ properly. [0.4]{} \(0) at (0,0); (x) at (4,0); (y) at (0,3); (0)–(x)node\[below\][$x$]{}; (0)–(y)node\[left\][$z$]{}; at (-.15,1.5) [![Graphic representation of the curves $a_\lambda$[]{data-label="Figure3"}](drawing.pdf "fig:")]{}; (0,1)node\[left\][$1$]{}–(4,1); at (0,0) ; [0.4]{} \(0) at (0,0); (x) at (4,0); (y) at (0,3); (0)–(x)node\[below\][$x$]{}; (0)–(y)node\[left\][$z$]{}; at (-.15,.85) [![Graphic representation of the curves $a_\lambda$[]{data-label="Figure3"}](drawing-1.pdf "fig:")]{}; (0,1)node\[left\][$1$]{}–(4,1); at (0,0) ; [0.4]{} \(0) at (0,0); (x) at (4,0); (y) at (0,3); (0)–(x)node\[below\][$x$]{}; (0)–(y)node\[left\][$z$]{}; at (-.15,.85) [![Graphic representation of the curves $a_\lambda$[]{data-label="Figure3"}](drawing-6.pdf "fig:")]{}; (0,1)node\[left\][$1$]{}–(4,1); at (0,0) ; [0.4]{} \(0) at (0,0); (x) at (4,0); (y) at (0,3); (0)–(x)node\[below\][$x$]{}; (0)–(y)node\[left\][$z$]{}; at (-.15,.85) [![Graphic representation of the curves $a_\lambda$[]{data-label="Figure3"}](drawing-4.pdf "fig:")]{}; (0,1)node\[left\][$1$]{}–(4,1); at (0,0) ; [0.4]{} \(0) at (0,0); (x) at (4,0); (y) at (0,3); (0)–(x)node\[below\][$x$]{}; (0)–(y)node\[left\][$z$]{}; at (2,1.1) [![Graphic representation of the curves $a_\lambda$[]{data-label="Figure3"}](drawing-5.pdf "fig:")]{}; (0,1)node\[left\][$1$]{}–(4,1); (0,1.4142)node\[left\][$\sqrt{2}$]{}–(4,1.4142); [0.4]{} \(0) at (0,0); (x) at (4,0); (y) at (0,3); (0)–(x)node\[below\][$x$]{}; (0)–(y)node\[left\][$z$]{}; at (2,1.2) [![Graphic representation of the curves $a_\lambda$[]{data-label="Figure3"}](drawing-2.pdf "fig:")]{}; (0,1)node\[left\][$1$]{}–(4,1); (0,1.4142)node\[left\][$\sqrt{2}$]{}–(4,1.4142); [0.4]{} \(0) at (0,0); (x) at (4,0); (y) at (0,3); (0)–(x)node\[below\][$x$]{}; (0)–(y)node\[left\][$z$]{}; at (2,1.22) [![Graphic representation of the curves $a_\lambda$[]{data-label="Figure3"}](drawing-3.pdf "fig:")]{}; (0,1)node\[left\][$1$]{}–(4,1); (0,1.4142)node\[left\][$\sqrt{2}$]{}–(4,1.4142); \(i) From $\lambda>\lambda_0$ and the discussion in the beginning of this section one infers that there exists $t_0>0$ such that $\theta(-t_0)=0$. Applying Lemma \[Simetrico\] with $n=0$ and $n=1$ one concludes that $b_{\lambda}=+\infty$. Being the trajectory of a vector field of class $C^{\infty}$, $\varphi_{\lambda}$, and hence $\alpha_{\lambda}$, is of class $C^{\infty}$. We will now prove that $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is periodic. Since, by and Lemma \[Simetrico\], the maps $t\in\mathbb R\mapsto\varphi_{\lambda}(t+2t_0)$ and $t\in\mathbb R\mapsto(\theta(t)+2\pi,z(t))$ are both trajectories of $X$ passing through $(3\pi,\lambda)$, one has $$\label{Rot30} \varphi_{\lambda}(t+2t_0)=\big(\theta(t)+2\pi,z(t)\big),\;\;\;t\in\mathbb R.$$ On the other hand, by one has $$\label{Rot48b} \begin{aligned} x(t+2t_0)=&\ \int_{0}^{t+2t_0}\cos\theta(s)ds\\ =&\int_{0}^{t}\cos\theta(s)ds +\int_{t}^{t+2t_0}\cos\theta(s)ds\\ =&\ x(t)+\int_{t}^{2t_0}\cos\theta(s)ds+\int_{2t_0}^{2t_0+t}\cos\theta(s)ds\\ =&\ x(t)+\int_{t}^{2t_0}\cos\theta(s)ds+\int_{0}^{t}\cos\theta(s+2t_0)ds. \end{aligned}$$ Since $\theta(s+2t_0)=\theta(s)+2\pi$ by , it follows that $$\label{Rot48c} \begin{aligned} x(t+2t_0)=&\ x(t)+\int_{t}^{2t_0}\cos\theta(s)ds +\int_{0}^{t}\cos\theta(s)ds\\ =&\ x(t)+\int_{0}^{2t_0}\cos\theta(s)ds=\ x(t)+x(2t_0),\;\;\;t\in\mathbb R. \end{aligned}$$ Since $z(t+2t_0)=z(t)$ for all $t\in\mathbb R$ by , the curve $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is periodic. To complete the proof of (i), it remains to show that $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is non-embedded. In fact, we will show that the restriction of $\alpha_{\lambda}$ to the interval $(-t_0,t_0)$ has already self-intersections. For that observe first that, since $\theta(-t_0)=0$, $\theta(0)=\pi$ and $\theta'>0$, the function $\theta=\theta\|_{[-t_0,0]}$ is a diffeomorphism from $[-t_0,0]$ to $[0,\pi]$. In particular, there exists a unique $t_1\in(0,t_0)$ such that $\theta(-t_1)=\pi/2$. Let $\xi:[-t_0,-t_1]\to[-t_1,0]$ be defined by $$\label{Rot35} \xi(t)=\theta^{-1}(\pi-\theta(t)).$$ Clearly, $\xi$ is a diffeomorphism, $\xi(-t_0)=0$ and $\xi(-t_1)=-t_1$. Moreover, $$\label{Rot36} \xi'(t)=-\frac{\theta'(t)}{\theta'(\xi(t))}\,,\;\;\;t\in[-t_0,-t_1],$$ and $$\label{Rot36a} \cos\theta(\xi(t))=\cos(\pi-\theta(t))=-\cos\theta(t),\;\;\;t\in[-t_0,-t_1].$$ By and , $$\label{Rot37} \theta'(\xi(t))=\sqrt{1-\frac{\cos^2\theta(\xi(t))}{z^2(\xi(t))}} =\sqrt{1-\frac{\cos^2\theta(t)}{z^2(\xi(t))}}.$$ Since, by , $$z(\xi(t))-z(t)=\int_t^{\xi(t)}z'(s)ds =\int_t^{\xi(t)}\sin\theta(s)ds>0,\;\;\;t\in[-t_0,-t_1),$$ one then has $$\label{Rot39} \theta'(\xi(t))>\sqrt{1-\frac{\cos^2\theta(t)}{z^2(t)}} =\theta'(t),\;\;\;t\in[-t_0,-t_1).$$ Using the informations collected above, we will now compare the values of $x(t)$ for $t=-t_0$, $t=-t_1$ and $t=0$. Since $\pi/2\leq\theta(t)\leq\pi$ for $t\in[-t_1,0]$, from we obtain $$\label{Rot40a} x(-t_1)=\int_0^{-t_1}\cos\theta(s)ds=-\int_{-t_1}^{0}\cos\theta(s)ds>0=x(0).$$ On the other hand, by , and , one has $$\label{Rot41} \begin{aligned} \int_{-t_1}^0\cos\theta(t)dt =& \ \int_{-t_1}^{-t_0}\cos\theta(\xi(s))\xi'(s)ds =\int_{-t_0}^{-t_1}\frac{\cos\theta(\xi(s))\theta'(s)}{\theta'(\xi(s))}ds\\ >&\ \int_{-t_0}^{-t_1}\cos\theta(\xi(s))ds=-\int_{-t_0}^{-t_1}\cos\theta(s)ds. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, by and inequality above, $$\label{Rot42} x(-t_0)=-\int_{-t_0}^0\cos\theta(t)dt =-\int_{-t_0}^{-t_1}\cos\theta(t)dt-\int_{-t_1}^0\cos\theta(t)dt<0.$$ The curve $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is symmetric with respect to the line $x=x(0)=0$. Indeed, by Lemma \[Simetrico\] one has $$\label{Rot43} \theta(t)=2\pi-\theta(-t),\;\;z(t)=z(-t),\;\;\;t>0,$$ and so $$\label{Rot44} \begin{aligned} x(t)=&\ \int_{0}^{t}\cos\theta(s)ds=\int_{0}^{t}\cos\theta(-s)ds\\ =&\ -\int_{0}^{-t}\cos\theta(s)ds=-x(-t), \end{aligned}$$ for every $t>0$. Since $x'>0$ on $(-t_0,-t_1)$ and, by and , $x(-t_0)<0<x(-t_1)$, there exists a unique $t_2\in(t_1,t_0)$ such that $x(-t_2)=0=x(0)$. Then, by , $$\label{Rot48} x(t_2)=-x(-t_2)=0=x(-t_2).$$ Since $z(t_2)=z(-t_2)$ by , it follows that $\alpha_{\lambda}(t_2)=\alpha_{\lambda}(-t_2)$. Hence, the restriction of $\alpha_{\lambda}$ to the interval $(-t_0,t_0)$ has a self-intersec-tion. \(ii) We begin by showing that $b_{\lambda_0}<+\infty$. Let $t_1\in(-b_{\lambda_0},0)$ such that $\theta(t_1)=\pi/2$. For every $t\in(-b_{\lambda_0},t_1]$ we have $$\label{Finito7} \begin{aligned} t_1-t=& \ \int_t^{t_1}1ds=\int_{\theta(t)}^{\pi/2}(\theta^{-1})'(u)du =\int_{\theta(t)}^{\pi/2}\frac{1}{\theta'(\theta^{-1}(u))}du\\ =& \ \int_{\theta(t)}^{\pi/2}\frac{z}{\sqrt{z^2-\cos^2\theta}} (\theta^{-1}(u))du\\ \leq& \lambda_0\int_{\theta(t)}^{\pi/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{z-\cos\theta}} (\theta^{-1}(u))\,du, \end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we used the fact that $1<z\circ\theta^{-1}<\lambda_0$ and the cosine function is nonnegative on $(0,\pi/2]$. There is $C_1>0$ such that $$\label{Finito6} \frac{1}{\sqrt{z(t)-\cos\theta(t)}}\leq\frac{C_1}{\sin^{\frac{3}{4}}\theta(t)},\;\;\;\;t\in(-b_{\lambda_0},t_1].$$ Indeed, since $\theta(t)\to 0$ and $z(t)\to 1$ when $t\to -b_{\lambda_0}$, from we obtain $$\label{ThetaLinhavaiparazero} \lim\limits_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\theta'(t)=0.$$ Then, again by , $$\label{Finito1} \begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\sin^2\theta(t)}{\theta'(t)^2}=& \ \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{z^2(t)}{z(t)+\cos\theta(t)}\, \frac{\sin^2\theta(t)}{z(t)-\cos\theta(t)}\\ =&\ \frac{1}{2}\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\sin^2\theta(t)}{z(t)-\cos\theta(t)}\\ =& \ \frac{1}{2}\lim_{t\to-b_{\lambda_0}} \frac{2\theta'(t)\sin\theta(t)\cos\theta(t)}{\sin\theta(t)(1+\theta'(t))}\\ =&\ \frac{1}{2}\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{2\theta'(t)\cos\theta(t)}{1+\theta'(t)}=0, \end{aligned}$$ and so $$\label{Finito2} \begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{z(t)-\cos\theta(t)}{\sin\theta(t)} =& \ \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}} \frac{\sin\theta(t)(1+\theta'(t))}{\theta'(t)\cos\theta(t)}\\ =& \ \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\sin\theta(t)}{\theta'(t)}=0. \end{aligned}$$ From and the above equality one obtains $$\label{Finito4} \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\theta'(t)^2}{\sin\theta(t)}=\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{z(t)+\cos\theta(t)}{z^2(t)}\,\frac{z(t)-\cos\theta(t)}{\sin\theta(t)}=0.\nonumber$$ Therefore, $$\label{Finito3} \begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\sin^{\frac{3}{2}}\theta(t)}{z(t)-\cos\theta(t)} =& \ \lim_{t\to-b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\frac{3}{2}\theta'(t) \sin^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta(t)\cos\theta(t)}{\sin\theta(t)(1+\theta'(t))}\\ =& \ \frac{3}{2}\lim_{t\to-b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\theta'(t)}{\sin^{\frac{1}{2}} \theta(t)}=0, \end{aligned}$$ and the claim follows. From and , we obtain $$\label{Finito8} t_1-t\leq\lambda_0C_1\int_{\theta(t)}^{\pi/2}\sin^{-\frac{3}{4}}udu,\;\;\; -b_{\lambda_0}<t<t_1.$$ Setting $C_2=\inf\left\{\sin u/u:u\in(0,\frac{\pi}{2}]\right\}$, one has $$\label{Finito9} \sin^{-\frac{3}{4}}u\leq C_2^{-\frac{3}{4}}u^{-\frac{3}{4}},\;\;\;\;u\in(0,\frac{\pi}{2}].$$ Using this information in , we obtain $$\label{Finito10} \begin{aligned} t_1-t\leq\lambda_0C_1C_2^{-\frac{3}{4}}\int_{\theta(t)}^{\pi/2} u^{-\frac{3}{4}}du =& \ 4\lambda_0C_1C_2^{-\frac{3}{4}}u^{\frac{1}{4}}\Big\|_{\theta(t)}^{\pi/2}\\ =&\ 4 \lambda_0C_1C_2^{-\frac{3}{4}}\left[\left(\pi/2\right)^{\frac{1}{4}} -\theta(t)^{\frac{1}{4}}\right]\\ <& \ 4\lambda_0C_1C_2^{-\frac{3}{4}}(\pi/2)^{\frac{1}{4}}, \end{aligned}$$ for every $t\in(-b_{\lambda_0},t_1)$. Therefore, $b_{\lambda_0}<+\infty$. In order to prove that $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ can be extended to a profile curve of class $C^3$ defined on $\mathbb R$, we need to evaluate the limits of $\theta''$ and $\theta'''$ when $t\to -b_{\lambda_0}$. From one obtains, after some work, $$\label{Rot52} \theta''(t)=\frac{\sin\theta(t)}{z(t)\theta'(t)} +\frac{\sin\theta(t)\cos\theta(t)}{z^2(t)} -\frac{\theta'(t)\sin\theta(t)}{z(t)}.$$ Since $\theta(t)\to 0$, $z(t)\to 1$ and $\theta'(t)\to 0$ when $t\to -b_{\lambda_0}$, it follows from and that $$\label{Rot53} \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\theta''(t)=\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\sin\theta(t)}{\theta'(t)}=0.$$ As to $\lim\limits_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\theta'''(t)$, observe that, since $z(t)\to 1$, $\theta(t)\to 0$, $\theta'(t)\to 0$ and $\theta''(t)\to 0$, the derivatives of either of the last two terms on the right hand side of goes to zero when $t\to -b_{\lambda_0}$. Therefore, $$\label{Rot55} \begin{aligned} \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\theta'''(t)=&\ \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\left(\frac{\sin\theta}{z\theta'}\right)'(t)\\ =&\ \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\left\{-\frac{\sin\theta}{z^2}\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta'} +\frac{1}{z}\left(\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta'}\right)'\right\}(t),\\ =&\ \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\left(\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta'}\right)'(t), \end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we used . Since, by , $$\label{Rot55a} \frac{\sin\theta}{\theta'}=\frac{z}{\sqrt{z+\cos\theta}}\, \frac{\sin\theta}{\sqrt{z-\cos\theta}}\,,$$ one has $$\label{Rot57} \begin{aligned} \left(\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta'}\right)'=&\ \left( \frac{\sin\theta}{\sqrt{z+\cos\theta}} -\frac{z\sin\theta(1-\theta')}{2(z+\cos\theta)^{3/2}}\right) \frac{\sin\theta}{\sqrt{z-\cos\theta}}\\ &\ +\cos\theta-\frac{z(1+\theta')}{2\sqrt{z+\cos\theta}}\, \frac{\sin^2\theta}{(z-\cos\theta)^{3/2}}. \end{aligned}$$ The first term on the right hand side goes to zero by and . Hence, $$\label{Rot58} \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\left(\frac{\sin\theta}{\theta'}\right)'=1-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\sin^2\theta}{(z-\cos\theta)^{3/2}}.$$ Using again, one obtains $$\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{\sin^2\theta}{(z-\cos\theta)^{3/2}}=\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\frac{4\cos\theta\sqrt{z+\cos\theta}}{3z(1+\theta')}=\frac{4\sqrt{2}}{3}.$$ It now follows from , and the above equality that $$\label{Rot59} \lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda_0}}\theta'''(t)=1-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{4\sqrt{2}}{3}=\frac{1}{3}.$$ It is possible to extend $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ gluing together copies of $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$. By , and , this extension is (at least) $C^4$ (recall that if a profile curve is of class $C^s$ then its corresponding angle function is of class $C^{s-1}$). Another way to extend $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ is gluing together copies of $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ and horizontal segments with any length and with height equal to 1. By the same equations, these extensions are $C^3$ but not $C^4$ (see Figure \[Figure3\], items (B), (C) and (D), for a sample of these extensions). To complete the proof of (ii), it remains to show that any extension of $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ is non-embedded. But clearly this follows from the fact that $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ has a self-intersection, which in turn can be proved as in (i) (with $b_{\lambda_0}$ playing the role of $t_0$). \(iii) As can be easily seen, the curve $$\label{Rot70} \psi(t)=(\pi+t/\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2}\cos(t/\sqrt{2})),\;\;\; t\in(-\sqrt{2}\pi/2,\sqrt{2}\pi/2),$$ is a trajectory of $X$. Since $\psi(0)=(\pi,\sqrt{2})$, one has $\varphi_{\sqrt{2}}=\psi$. Then, by , $$\alpha_{\sqrt{2}}(t)=(-\sqrt{2}\sin(t/\sqrt{2})-\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{2}\cos(t/\sqrt{2})),\;\;\;t\in(-\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi}{2}, \frac{\sqrt{2}\pi}{2}),$$ which is a parametrization by arc length of the portion of the circle in the $xz$-plane with center $(-\sqrt{2},0,0)$ and radius $\sqrt{2}$ that is above the $x$-axis. \(iv) Let $(\theta_0,z_0)=\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda}}\varphi_{\lambda}(t)$. Since $\lambda\neq\sqrt{2}$ and, by item (iii), $\varphi_{\sqrt{2}}(t)\to(\pi/2,0)$ when $t\to -b_{\sqrt{2}}=-\sqrt{2}\pi/2$, it follows from Lemma \[UnicLimPoint\] that $0<z_0<1$ and either $0<\theta_0<\pi/2$ or $\pi/2<\theta_0<\pi$. Suppose, by contradiction, that $b_{\lambda}=+\infty$. Since $\theta(t)\to\theta_0$ when $t\to -b_{\lambda}$ and either $0<\theta_0<\pi/2$ or $\pi/2<\theta_0<\pi$, there exist $\varepsilon>0$ and $t_1\in\mathbb R$ such that $$\sin\theta(t)>\varepsilon,\;\;\;t\leq t_1.$$ Then, by , $$z(t_1)-z_0>z(t_1)-z(t)=\int_t^{t_1}\sin\theta(s)ds>\varepsilon(t_1-t),$$ for every $t<t_1$, a contradiction. Hence, $b_{\lambda}<\infty$. Suppose, by contradiction, that $\alpha_{\lambda}$ can be extended to a profile curve $\widetilde\alpha_{\lambda}(t)=(\widetilde x(t),0,\widetilde z(t)),\;t\in(a,b),$ where $a<-b_{\lambda}$, say. Let $\widetilde\theta:(a,b)\to\mathbb R$ be a function satisfying $$\widetilde\alpha_{\lambda}'(t)=(\cos\widetilde\theta(t),0,\sin\widetilde\theta (t)),\;t\in(a,b).$$ Since $\widetilde\alpha_{\lambda}'(t)=\alpha_{\lambda}'(t)$ for all $t\in(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})$, and, by , $$\alpha_{\lambda}'(t)=(x'(t),0,z'(t))=(\cos\theta(t),0,\sin\theta(t)), \;\;\;t\in(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda}),$$ one concludes that $\theta$ and the restriction of $\widetilde\theta$ to the interval $(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})$ differ by an integer multiple of $2\pi$. Assuming without loss of generality that $\theta=\widetilde\theta\|_{(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})}$, one has $$\widetilde\theta'(-b_{\lambda})=\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda}}\widetilde\theta'(t)=\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda}}\theta'(t)=0$$ and $$\widetilde z(-b_{\lambda})=\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda}}\widetilde z(t)=\lim_{t\to -b_{\lambda}}z(t)=z_0,$$ which contradicts Lemma \[ThetaLinhaZero\] (i) as $0<z_0<1$. Now we finish the prove of our main theorem. [Completion of proof of Theorem \[Family\]:]{} Let $\alpha_{\lambda}$ and $M_{\lambda}$, $\lambda>1$, be as in the beginning of this section, and let $\mathcal F_1=\{M_{\lambda}:\lambda>\lambda_0\}$. Let $\mathcal A$ be the set of extensions of $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ constructed in the proof of Theorem \[curves\] (ii), and $\mathcal F_2$ the (infinite) family of surfaces obtained by the rotation of the images of the curves in $\mathcal A$ around the $x$-axis. By Theorem \[surfaces\] (i), the surfaces in $\mathcal F_1$ have the properties stipulated in the statement of the theorem. That the surfaces in $\mathcal F_2$ also meet the stipulated conditions is a consequence of the proof of Theorem \[curves\] (ii). This establishes the first part of the theorem. Let $M$ be a complete rotational surface of class $C^2$ satisfying $\|A\|\equiv 1$. Applying a rigid motion if necessary, we can assume that its axis of revolution is the $x$-axis and that its profile curve $\mathcal C$ is contained in the $xz$-plane. Let $\alpha(t)=(x(t),0,z(t))$, $t\in(a,b)$, be a parametrization of $\mathcal C$ such that $z(t)>0$ and $\|\|\alpha'(t)\|\|=1$ for all $t\in(a,b)$. Let $\theta:(a,b)\to\mathbb R$ be a $C^1$-function such that $$(x'(t),0,z'(t))=(\cos\theta(t),0,\sin\theta(t)),\;\;\;t\in(a,b).$$ As we have seen in Section \[convexprofcurve\], the function $\theta$ satisfies $$\theta'^2(t)+\frac{\cos^2\theta(t)}{z^2(t)}=1,\;\;\;t\in(a,b).$$ If $\theta$ is constant, by the above equality one has that $z$ is constant. Then $\sin\theta=z'=0$ and so $z=\|\cos\theta\|\equiv 1$. Being complete, $M$ is then a right circular cylinder of radius 1. Suppose now that $\theta$ is not constant. Since $\theta$ is monotone by Proposition \[monotona\], reparametrizing $\alpha$ if necessary we can assume that $\theta'(t) \geq 0$ for all $t\in(a,b)$. Let $t_0\in(a,b)$ such that $\theta'(t_0)>0$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $0\leq\theta(t_0)<2\pi$. Let $(a_1,b_1)\subset(a,b)$ be the maximal interval containing $t_0$ on which $\theta'>0$. As we have seen in Section \[convexprofcurve\], the map $t\in(a_1,b_1)\mapsto\varphi(t):=(\theta(t),z(t))$ is an integral curve of the vector field $X$ defined by . By the results in Section \[phasefundvectfield\], there is a unique trajectory $\varphi_{\lambda}:(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})\to\Omega$ in the family $\{\varphi_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda>1}$ that passes through $(\theta(t_0),z(t_0))$. Let $s_0\in(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})$ such that $\varphi_{\lambda}(s_0)=(\theta(t_0),z(t_0))=\varphi(t_0)$. Assuming without loss of generality that $t_0=s_0$, it follows from the maximality of $\varphi_{\lambda}$ that $\varphi=\varphi_{\lambda}\|_{(a_1,b_1)}$. Write $\varphi_{\lambda}=(\theta_{\lambda},z_{\lambda})$ and consider its associated profile curve $t\in(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})\mapsto\alpha_{\lambda}(t)=(x_{\lambda}(t),0,z_{\lambda}(t))$ (the beginning of this section). Since $$x_{\lambda}'(t)=\cos\theta_{\lambda}(t)=\cos\theta(t)=x'(t),\;\;\;t\in(a_1,b_1),$$ it holds that $$\label{new} \alpha(t)=\alpha_{\lambda}(t)+(d,0,0),\;\;\;t\in(a_1,b_1),$$ for some $d\in\mathbb R$. [Claim.]{} $a\leq -b_{\lambda}$ and $b\geq b_{\lambda}$. Assuming, by contradiction, that $-b_{\lambda}<a$, one has $-b_{\lambda}<a_1$. Then, since $\theta_{\lambda}'>0$ on $(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})$ and $\theta\|_{(a_1,b_1)}=\theta_{\lambda}\|_{(a_1,b_1)}$, $$\lim_{t\to a_1}\theta'(t)=\lim_{t\to a_1}\theta_{\lambda}'(t)=\theta_{\lambda}'(a_1)>0.$$ From the above inequality and definition of $(a_1,b_1)$ one obtains $a=a_1$. It now follows from that $\alpha$ can be extended to an interval containing $(a,b)$ properly, contradicting the completeness of $M$. This contradiction proves that $a\leq -b_{\lambda}$. In the same way, one proves that $b\geq b_{\lambda}$. It follows from the Claim that $a_1=-b_{\lambda}$. Indeed, if we had $-b_{\lambda}<a_1$, reasoning as above one would obtain $\lim_{t\to a_1}\theta'(t)>0$. On the other hand, from $a<a_1$ one would obtain $\lim_{t\to a_1}\theta'(t)=0$, a contradiction. In the same manner, one proves that $b_1=b_{\lambda}$. Hence $(a_1,b_1)=(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda})$ and, by , $$\label{new3} \alpha(t)=\alpha_{\lambda}(t)+(d,0,0),\;\;\;t\in(-b_{\lambda},b_{\lambda}),$$ for some $d\in\mathbb R$. From one obtains that either $\lambda\geq\lambda_0$ or $\lambda=\sqrt{2}$. In fact, if we had $1<\lambda<\sqrt{2}$ or $\sqrt{2}<\lambda<\lambda_0$, from Theorem \[curves\] (iv) we would obtain that $M$ is a translation of $M_{\lambda}$, and so $M$ would be incomplete, contradicting the hypothesis. In the case $\lambda>\lambda_0$, it follows from and Theorem \[curves\] (i) that $\alpha(t)=\alpha_{\lambda}(t)+(d,0,0)$ for all $t\in\mathbb R$, and therefore $M=M_{\lambda}$ (up to translation). In the case $\lambda=\sqrt{2}$, it follows from and Theorem \[curves\] (iii) that $\alpha(t)=\alpha_{\sqrt{2}}(t)+(d,0,0),\;t\in(-b_{\sqrt{2}},b_{\sqrt{2}})$. Since $M$ is complete, one concludes that $M$ is, up to translation, the sphere with center at $(-\sqrt{2},0,0)$ and radius $\sqrt{2}$. Finally, consider the case $\lambda=\lambda_0$. By , $M$ is an extension of $M_{\lambda_0}$. Since $M$ is complete and, by Theorem \[surfaces\] (ii), $M_{\lambda_0}$ is incomplete, one has $a<-b_{\lambda_0}$ and $b>b_{\lambda_0}$. We will conclude that, up to congruence, $\alpha$ belongs to the family $\mathcal A$ and so $M\in\mathcal F_2$. For that we can assume that $\theta'$ is not identically zero on $(a,-b_{\lambda_0})\cup(b_{\lambda_0},b)$, for otherwise $z=1$ outside $(-b_{\lambda_0},b_{\lambda_0})$ and the conclusion holds trivially. We claim that for any $s\in(a,-b_{\lambda_0})\cup(b_{\lambda_0},b)$ at which $\theta'(s)>0$, there is an open interval $I$ of length $2b_{\lambda_0}$ containing $s$ such that $\alpha(I)$ differs from the image of $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ by a horizontal vector. We will prove the claim in the case $b_{\lambda_0}<s<b$ (the proof in the case $a<s<-b_{\lambda_0}$ is analogous). Denote by $(a_2,b_2)\subset(a,b)$ the maximal interval containing $s$ on which $\theta'>0$. By what we have already proved ( ), $\alpha((a_2,b_2))$ coincides with a horizontal translation of the image of $\alpha_{\lambda}$, for some $\lambda>1$. Since $a_2>-\infty$ and $z(a_2)=1$ (by Lemma \[ThetaLinhaZero\](i), since $\theta'(a_2)=0$), we have $\lambda=\lambda_0$ and the claim is proved. Let $I,J$ be subintervals of $(a,b)$ such that $\alpha(I)$ and $\alpha(J)$ are both horizontal translations of the image of $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$. If the distance between $I$ and $J$ is positive but less than $2b_{\lambda_0}$, then, by the previous claim, one has $\theta'=0$, and hence $z=1$, in the interval between $I$ and $J$. It is now clear that the image of $\alpha$ is made up of curves congruent to $\alpha_{\lambda_0}$ and eventually of horizontal segments of height equal to 1. Therefore, $\alpha\in\mathcal A$ and so $M\in\mathcal F_2$. [^1]: All authors are partially supported by CNPq(Brasil)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We shall show that the abstract and formal rules which govern the quantum kinematic and dynamics can be derived from a law of change of the information content or the degree of uncertainty that the system has a certain configuration in a microscopic time scale, which is singled out uniquely, up to a free parameter, by imposing the condition of Macroscopic Classicality and the principle of Locality. Unlike standard quantum mechanics, however, the system always has a definite configuration all the time as in classical mechanics, following a continuous trajectory fluctuating randomly in time.' author: - Agung Budiyono title: 'Quantum fluctuations from a local-causal information dynamics' --- Motivation ========== The violation of Bell inequality by quantum mechanics is widely believed to lead to a bizarre conclusion that quantum mechanics allows the statistical results of a pair of measurement events spacelike separated from each other to have a stronger correlation than that is allowed by any ‘local-causal’ theory [@Bell; @paper; @CHSH; @inequality; @Bell; @book]. The ‘nonlocal correlation’ has been claimed to be verified in numerous experiments [@Clauser; @experiment; @Aspect; @experiment; @Mandel; @experiment; @Alley; @experiment; @Tapster; @experiment; @Ou; @experiment; @Martienssen; @experiment; @Kwiat; @experiment; @Weihs; @experiment; @Gisin; @experiment; @Rowe; @experiment; @Monroe; @experiment; @Salart; @experiment], in spite of the fact that no experiment hitherto conducted is free from loopholes [@Santos; @loophole; @Brunner; @review]. Such a nonlocality prima facie contradicts the spirit of the special theory of relativity which presumes a finite maximum velocity of interaction given by the velocity of light in vacuum. Further careful investigation however showed that the quantum mechanical nonlocal correlation can not be exploited by one party to influence the statistical results of measurement performed by the other distantly separated party, thus prohibits signaling, in accord with the assertion of the special theory of relativity [@Eberhard; @no-signaling; @GRW; @no-signaling; @Page; @no-signaling; @Jarret; @no-signaling; @Shimony; @0]. The co-existence of nonlocal correlation and no-signaling in quantum mechanics has inspired some authors to ask if quantum mechanics can be derived from a certain balance between some kind of nonlocality and the principle of no-signaling [@Shimony; @1; @Shimony; @2; @Popescu; @no-signaling; @1; @Grunhaus; @no-signaling; @Popescu; @no-signaling; @2]. While it is shown that the constraints put by the nonlocal correlation and no-signaling are [not]{} sufficiently strong to single out quantum mechanics [@Popescu; @no-signaling; @1; @Grunhaus; @no-signaling; @Popescu; @no-signaling; @2], it has renewed an interest in an approach to clarify the meaning of quantum mechanics by deriving its formal mathematical structures and numerous abstract postulates from a set of conceptually simple and physically transparent axioms. In such a program, one attempts to directly answer the most tantalizing foundational question: “why the quantum?” [@Wheeler]. One of the advantages of the program to reconstruct quantum mechanics is that it might provide physical insights for possible natural extensions of quantum mechanics either by modifying the axioms or varying the free parameters that are left unfixed by the axioms. Extension of quantum mechanics is not only necessary to set up precision tests against quantum mechanics, but might turn out to be the necessary step to solve some of the foundational problems of the latter. A lot of works along this line has been reported recently by regarding ‘information’ as the basic ingredient of Natural phenomena [@Rovelli; @Zeilinger; @information; @quantization; @Hardy; @construction; @Simon; @Clifton; @van; @Dam; @Brassard; @Pawlowski; @Goyal; @Oppenheim; @Barnum; @Navascues; @Brukner2; @Masanes; @Chiribella; @Caticha; @Torre; @Fivel] : “all things physical is information-theoretic in origin” thus “It from Bit” [@Wheeler]. In those works, one searches for a set of basic features of [information processing]{} which can be promoted as axioms to reconstruct quantum mechanics. Such an approach is partly motivated by the advancement of quantum information science [@QI]: the fact that quantum mechanics allows information processing tasks that can not be performed at least as efficiently within classical mechanics suggests an intimate relationship between the the foundation of quantum mechanics and the basic features of information processing. This approach thus plays with information within operational-instrumentalist theoretical framework in which the notion of preparation and measurement play central role. Another different way to reconstruct quantum mechanics is to assume that quantum fluctuations is objectively real thus should be properly modeled by a stochastic processes. A lot of efforts have been made within this realist theoretical framework to derive the Schrödinger equation from a stochastic processes [@Fenyes; @Weizel; @Kershaw; @Nelson; @dela; @Pena; @1; @Davidson; @dela; @Pena; @2; @Blanchard; @Guerra; @Garbaczewski; @dela; @Pena; @3; @Markopoulou; @Santos; @dela; @Pena; @4]. The greatest challenge of such an approach is how to explain the nonlocal correlation widely believed to be a feature of quantum mechanics. In the present paper, we shall follow the above second point of view. We shall first propose a statistical model of stochastic deviation from classical mechanics in microscopic regime based on a stochastic fluctuations of infinitesimal stationary action. We shall then show that the abstract and “strange” [@Giulini; @strange] rules of quantization of classical systems can be derived from a specific law of infinitesimal change of the ‘information content’ or the ‘degree of uncertainty’ that ‘the system [has]{} a certain configuration’ along an infinitesimally short path, induced by the stochastic fluctuations of the infinitesimal stationary action. This law for the dynamics of information is shown to be singled out uniquely, up to a free parameter, by imposing the condition of Macroscopic Classicality and the principle of Local-Causality. Note that here, as will be detailed later, information is used to quantify an [actual]{} degree of uncertainty referring directly to an event regardless of measurement. It is then imperative to ask: how to explain the violation of Bell inequality in experiments? Putting the problem aside, we will show that the local-causal statistical model thus developed leads to the derivation the linear Schrödinger equation with Born’s statistical interpretation of wave function and quantum mechanical uncertainty relation, two of the cornerstones of standard quantum mechanics. We shall thus argue that quantization is physical and Planck constant acquires physical interpretation as a statistical average of the stochastic deviation from classical mechanics in a microscopic time scale. Moreover, unlike the standard canonical quantization, the system always has a definite configuration all the time as in classical mechanics, fluctuating randomly with time. A statistical model of microscopic randomness and the dynamics of uncertainty obeying the principle of Locality =============================================================================================================== A class of statistical models of microscopic stochastic deviation from classical mechanics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is a wealth of empirical evidences that phenomena in microscopic regime involve a universal stochastic element. Yet, unlike the Brownian motion, hitherto there is no consensus on the nature and origin of its randomness. Moreover, the prediction of quantum mechanics on the AB (Aharonov-Bohm) effect [@Aharonov-Bohm] and its experimental verification [@Peshkin] suggest that the randomness in microscopic regime can not be adequately described by introducing some kinds of conventional random forces as in Brownian motion. The force has to act at a distance. To discuss the universal randomness in microscopic regime, let us consider the following class of statistical models. Let $q$ denotes the configuration of the system and $t$ is time parameterizing the evolution of the system. Let us assume that the Lagrangian is parameterized by a random variable $\xi$ fluctuating in a microscopic time scale $dt$, whose origin is not our present concern: $L=L(q,\dot{q};\xi)$, where $\dot{q}\doteq dq/dt$. Let us then consider two infinitesimally close spacetime points $(q;t)$ and $(q+dq;t+dt)$ such that $\xi$ is constant. Let us assume that fixing $\xi$, the principle of stationary action is valid to select a path, denoted by $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$, that connects the two points. One must then solve a variational problem $\delta(L dt)=0$ with fixed end points. This leads to the existence of a function, the Hamilton’s principal function denoted by $A(q;t,\xi)$, whose differential along the segment of trajectory is given by [@Rund; @book], for a fixed $\xi$, $$dA=Ldt=p\cdot dq-Hdt, \label{infinitesimal stationary action}$$ where $p(\dot{q})=\partial L/\partial{\dot{q}}$ is the classical momentum and $H(q,p)\doteq p\cdot\dot{q}(p)-L(q,\dot{q}(p))$ is the classical Hamiltonian. The above relation implies the following Hamilton-Jacobi equation: $$\begin{aligned} p=\partial_qA,\hspace{9mm}\nonumber\\ -H(q,p)=\partial_tA. \label{Hamilton-Jacobi condition}\end{aligned}$$ Varying $\xi$, the principle of stationary action will therefore pick up various different paths $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$, all connecting the same two infinitesimally close spacetime points, each might have different values of infinitesimal stationary action $dA(\xi)$. $dA(\xi)$ thus is randomly fluctuating due to the random fluctuations of $\xi$. The system starting with a configuration $q$ at time $t$ may therefore take various different paths randomly to end up with a configuration $q+dq$ at time $t+dt$. We have thus a stochastic processes driven by the random fluctuations of $\xi$ in a microscopic time scale. Hence a complete description of a single event is impossible. Instead, one has to rely on a statistical approach. One can see that the randomness enters into the dynamics in a microscopic time scale in a fundamentally different way from that of the Brownian motion. In the model, it is the infinitesimal stationary action that is randomly fluctuating in a microscopic time scale. By contrast, the randomness in the Brownian motion is induced by some random forces. We have thus assumed that the Lagrangian schema based on energies is more fundamental than the Newtonian schema based on forces. We expect that this will lead to a local-causal explanation of the AB effect. To see another implication of such a difference, let us consider a compound composed of two [interacting]{} subsystems. Within the formalism of Brownian motion, it is then possible to introduce a joint-probability for two random forces each acting locally to a subsystem. By contrast, since action is evaluated in configuration space rather than in ordinary space, then in the statistical model based on a random fluctuations of infinitesimal stationary action, one can [not]{} define a joint-probability density for the fluctuations of infinitesimal stationary action of each subsystem. We have thus a class of stochastic models which differ fundamentally from the conventional Brownian motion. In the following subsections, we shall select one of them by imposing the constraints that the statistical model has a smooth classical limit in macroscopic regime and respects the principle of Locality demanded by the theory of relativity. The dynamics of ‘information’ or ‘uncertainty’ with a smooth Macroscopic Classicality ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To develop a statistical description of the stochastic processes, let us denote the joint-probability density that at time $t$ the configuration of the system is $q$ and a random value of $\xi$ is realized as $\Omega(q,\xi;t)$. We would like to find an equation which describes how $\Omega$ changes along an infinitesimally short trajectory $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$. To do this, instead of working directly with $\Omega$, we shall below consider a quantity defined as $$I(q;t,\xi)\doteq-\ln\Omega(q,\xi;t). \label{information content}$$ This quantity is introduced by Shannon as a measure of information content or the degree of uncertainty of an event. Within the context of the stochastic model under study, fixing $\xi$, it is the information content or the degree of uncertainty that the configuration of the system [is]{} $q$ for the following intuitive reasons: i) it is vanishing if the system definitely has a configuration $q$ so that $\Omega(q)=1$; ii) it is increasing monotonically as the probability that the system has a configuration $q$ is decreasing and iii) it is additive for independent events. Let us first note that the information content or the degree of uncertainty defined above is [objective]{} referring directly to the configuration, thus the [factual]{} state, of the system. It is [not]{} the information that one obtains by performing some measurements over the system of interest. Hence, we shall in the present paper work with information within a realist rather than instrumentalist-operational theoretical model. The latter approach is however followed by most works in the reconstruction of quantum mechanics based on information theory, which is apparently motivated by the central role of measurement in the formalism of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, let us note that the information quantified by $I(q)$ refers to a single event that the system has a particular configuration $q$, rather than the whole possible events of the system distributed according to $\Omega(q)$. The information with regard to the whole possible events is usually quantified by the average of $I(q)$ given by the Gibbs-Shannon entropy which is central in information theory [@if]. The interpretation of $I(q)$ as the amount of information or degree of uncertainty that the system has a configuration $q$ may also be argued within the concept of microcanonical ensemble as follows. First, given the parameters of the system, let $N$ denotes the total number of the microstates accessible by the system. Let us assume that the system may be in one of the microstates equally probably. Let us then assume that $q$ is a ‘macroscopic coarse-grained variable’ of the microstates. Let $N_q$ denotes the number of microstates compatible with $q$. The probability that the system has a configuration $q$ is thus given by $\Omega=N_q/N$. One therefore has $\ln N=I(q)+\ln N_q$. Interpreting $\ln N$ as the amount of information or uncertainty that the system lies in one of the $N$ possible microstates, and $\ln N_q$ as the amount of information or uncertainty that the system lies in one of the $N_q$ microstates compatible with $q$, then it is natural to interpret $I(q)$ as the amount of information or uncertainty that the system has a configuration $q$. To avoid confusion, below we shall only use the term ‘uncertainty’ to refer to information content or degree of uncertainty of an event. Let us proceed to again consider two infinitesimally close spacetime points $(q;t)$ and $(q+dq;t+dt)$ such that $\xi$ is constant, connected by an infinitesimally short path $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$. Let us then assume that as the configuration evolves along $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$, the uncertainty that the system has a configuration $q$ also changes according to the following balance equation: $$dI(q;t,\xi)=-d\ln\Omega(q,\xi;t)=\Sigma(q;t,\xi)dt, \label{infinitesimal change of information content}$$ where $\Sigma$ is a function of $q$, $\xi$ and $t$. Our main goal in the present section is then to find a unique functional form of $\Sigma$ and express it in terms of the physical properties of the system, by imposing a set of conceptually simple and physically transparent axioms. First, it is instructive to impose the condition of Macroscopic Classicality which demands that in a physical regime corresponding to macroscopic world, one should regain the classical mechanics. Since the deviation from classical mechanics, as assumed in the previous subsection, is due to the fluctuations of infinitesimal stationary action induced by the fluctuations of $\xi$, then in the classical limit of macroscopic regime, such fluctuations must be ignorable. In the macroscopic regime, one must therefore regain the dynamics of ensemble of classical trajectories driven by the deterministic flow of classical velocity field. The infinitesimal change of the uncertainty must in this case solely be given by the flux due to the deterministic classical velocity field. Notice then that the uncertainty should increase if the velocity divergence along the infinitesimally short trajectory $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ is positive and vice versa. On the other hand, since the system under consideration is closed, then probability has to be conserved. These two conditions combined suggest that in the macroscopic regime whose mathematical formulation will be clarified later, $\Sigma$ on the right hand side of Eq. (\[infinitesimal change of information content\]) must reduce to $$\Sigma\rightarrow\partial_q\cdot v_c=\theta_c, \label{Macroscopic Classicality}$$ where $v_c$ is the classical velocity field which is related to the classical Hamiltonian and the Hamilton’s principal function via the kinematic part of the Hamilton equation and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation of (\[Hamilton-Jacobi condition\]) as $$v_c=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p}\Big\|_{p=\partial_q A}. \label{classical velocity field}$$ Indeed, inserting Eq. (\[Macroscopic Classicality\]) into Eq. (\[infinitesimal change of information content\]), dividing both sides by $dt$ and taking the limit $dt\rightarrow 0$, one obtains the continuity equation $$\partial_t\Omega+\partial_q\cdot\big(\Omega v_c\big)=0,$$ which guarantees the conservation of probability. Hence the demand of Macroscopic Classicality suggests that the right hand side of Eq. (\[infinitesimal change of information content\]) should be given by the following terms: $$\begin{aligned} dI(q;t,\xi)=\theta(q;t,\xi)dt+\sigma(q;t,\xi),\hspace{0mm}\nonumber\\ \mbox{with}\hspace{2mm}\theta\doteq\partial_q\cdot v,\hspace{20mm} \label{Macroscopic Classicality 0}\end{aligned}$$ where $v$ is a velocity field which in the classical limit of macroscopic regime must approach $v_c$ $$v\rightarrow v_c, \label{Macroscopic Classicality 1}$$ and $\sigma$ is a function of $q$, $\xi$ and $t$ which must be vanishing in the classical limit $$\sigma(q;t,\xi)\rightarrow 0. \label{Macroscopic Classicality 2}$$ $\sigma(q;t,\xi)$ may thus be regarded as the rate of production of uncertainty along the random path $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ due to the fluctuations of $\xi$ in microscopic regime. From the discussion above, especially the demand that $\sigma$ must be vanishing in the classical limit, it is then natural to assume that $\sigma$ is a function of a quantity that measures the deviation from classical mechanics in microscopic regime due to the fluctuations of $\xi$. To identify such a quantity, let us first assume that $\xi$ is the simplest random variable with two possible values, a binary random variable. Without losing generality let us assume that the two possible values of $\xi$ differ from each other only by their signs, namely one is the opposite of the other, $\xi=\pm\|\xi\|$. Suppose that both realizations of $\xi$ lead to the same path so that $dA(\xi)=dA(-\xi)$. Since the stationary action principle is valid for both values of $\pm\xi$, then such a model must recover the classical mechanics. Hence, the non-classical behavior must be measured by the difference of $dA(\xi)$ at $\pm\|\xi\|$, $dA(\xi)-dA(-\xi)$. Now let us proceed to assume that $\xi$ may take continuous values. Let us assume that even in this case the difference of the values of $dA$ at $\pm\xi$, $$Z(q;t,\xi)\doteq dA(q;t,\xi)-dA(q;t,-\xi)=-Z(q;t,-\xi),$$ measures the non-classical behavior of the stochastic processes, namely the larger the difference, the stronger is the deviation from classical mechanics. $\sigma(q;t,\xi)$ should therefore be a function of $Z(q;t,\xi)$: $$\sigma=\sigma\big(Z(q;t,\xi)\big). \label{Macroscopic Classicality 3}$$ For later purpose, let us introduce a new stochastic quantity $S(q;t,\xi)$ so that the differential along the segment of path $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ is given by $$dS(q;t,\xi)=\frac{dA(q;t,\xi)+dA(q;t,-\xi)}{2}=dS(q;t,-\xi). \label{infinitesimal symmetry}$$ Subtracting $dA(q;t,\xi)$ from both sides, one gets $$\begin{aligned} dS(q;t,\xi)-dA(q;t,\xi)=\frac{dA(q;t,-\xi)-dA(q;t,\xi)}{2}\nonumber\\ =-Z(q;t,\xi)/2.\hspace{20mm} \label{average of classical deviation}\end{aligned}$$ $\sigma$ of Eq. (\[Macroscopic Classicality 3\]) may thus be written as a function of $dS(\xi)-dA(\xi)$ $$\sigma=\sigma\big(dS(\xi)-dA(\xi)\big). \label{Macroscopic Classicality 4}$$ Note that the assumed universality of the law of physics demands that the functional form of $\sigma$ must be independent from the details of the system of interest: the number of particles, masses, etc. It must only depend on $dS-dA$. Let us then express the condition of macroscopic classicality of Eqs. (\[Macroscopic Classicality 1\]) and (\[Macroscopic Classicality 2\]) in term of $S$ defined above. Let us first assume that the sign of $\xi$ is fluctuating randomly in a time scale $dt$. Let us then denote the time scale for the fluctuations of $\|\xi\|$ as $\tau_{\xi}$, and assume that it is much larger than $dt$: $$\tau_{\xi}\gg dt.$$ Within a time interval of length $\tau_{\xi}$, the magnitude of $\xi$ is thus effectively constant while its sign fluctuates randomly. In order for the stochastic system to have a smooth classical limit for all time, then it is necessary that the classical mechanics is recovered in a time interval of length $\tau_{\xi}$ during which the magnitude of $\xi$ is effectively constant while its sign fluctuates randomly. As discussed above, for this binary random variable, the classicality is regained when $dA(\xi)=dA(-\xi)$. In this case, one also has $dS(\xi)=dA(\xi)$ by the virtue of Eq. (\[average of classical deviation\]), so that due to Eq. (\[infinitesimal stationary action\]), $S$ satisfies the Hamilton-Jacobi equation of (\[Hamilton-Jacobi condition\]). Taking into account this fact, first, the condition of Macroscopic Classicality of Eq. (\[Macroscopic Classicality 2\]) should be rewritten as $$\lim_{dS\rightarrow dA}\sigma(dS-dA)=0. \label{Macroscopic Classicality 5}$$ Moreover, to attain the condition of Macroscopic Classicality of Eq. (\[Macroscopic Classicality 1\]) it is sufficient to assume that $v$ in Eq. (\[Macroscopic Classicality 0\]) is related to $S$ as follows $$v=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p}\Big\|_{p=\partial_qS}. \label{Macroscopic Classicality 6}$$ One can see that in the limit $dS\rightarrow dA$ one has $\partial_qS\rightarrow\partial_qA$ so that $v\rightarrow v_c$ as expected. Let us emphasize that the above condition is sufficient to recover the classical mechanics only within the time interval of length $\tau_{\xi}$ in which $\|\xi\|$ is constant. While it is also a necessary condition to recover the classical dynamics for the whole time, it is not sufficient. One needs to have more conditions to recover classical mechanics for the whole time. An infinitesimal change of uncertainty respecting the principle of Locality --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let us then proceed to show that imposing the principle of Locality will pick up uniquely, up to a free parameter, the functional form of $\sigma(dS-dA)$. To do this, let us consider a compound of two subsystems, say two particles whose configuration are denoted respectively by $q_1$ and $q_2$. Let us assume that they are spacelike separated from each other so that due to the principle of Locality, there is no mechanical interaction between the two particles. The total Lagrangian is thus decomposable as $L(q_1,q_2,\dot{q}_1,\dot{q}_2)=L_1(q_1,\dot{q}_1)+L_2(q_2,\dot{q}_2)$ and accordingly, $dA(q_1,q_2)$ and $dS(q_1,q_2)$ are also decomposable: $dA(q_1,q_2)=dA_1(q_1)+dA_2(q_2)$ and $dS(q_1,q_2)=dS_1(q_1)+dS_2(q_2)$. $\sigma$ can thus be written as $$\sigma(dS-dA)=\sigma\big((dS_1-dA_1)+(dS_2-dA_2)\big). \label{information production noninteracting}$$ Further, in this case, the classical Hamiltonian is also decomposable $H(q_1,q_2,p_1,p_2)=H_1(q_1,p_1)+H_2(q_2,p_2)$, where $p_i$, $i=1,2$, is the momentum of $i-$particle. Putting this into Eq. (\[Macroscopic Classicality 6\]) and recalling that $dS$ is decomposable, then $\theta$ defined in Eq. (\[Macroscopic Classicality 0\]) is also decomposable $$\theta(q_1,q_2)=\theta_1(q_1)+\theta_2(q_2). \label{decomposability 2}$$ The change of the uncertainty that the compound system has a configuration $q=(q_1,q_2)$ moving along the path $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ thus reads, by the virtue of Eq. (\[information production noninteracting\]) and (\[decomposability 2\]), $$dI(q_1,q_2)=\big(\theta_1+\theta_2\big)dt+\sigma\big((dS_1-dA_1)+(dS_2-dA_2)\big). \label{LIC non-interacting compound system}$$ On the other hand, since the two subsystems are spacelike separated from each other, the principle of Locality demands that the change of the uncertainty that the first (second) subsystem has a configuration $q_1$ ($q_2$), when the compound system moves along an infinitesimally short trajectory $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$, must be independent from what happens with the second (first) subsystem. Otherwise, the uncertainty that one subsystem has a certain configuration can be influenced by the state of the other distantly separated subsystem by varying the control parameters of the latter despite of no interaction. Hence, the change of the uncertainty that each subsystem has a certain configuration must only depend on the corresponding single particle Lagrangian. One therefore has the following pair of decoupled relations: $$\begin{aligned} dI_1(q_1)=\theta_1dt+\sigma(dS_1-dA_1),\nonumber\\ dI_2(q_2)=\theta_2dt+\sigma(dS_2-dA_2), \label{LIC single particle non-interacting}\end{aligned}$$ where $dI_i=-d(\ln\Omega_i)$, and $\Omega_i(q_i)$, $i=1,2$, is the probability density for the configuration of the $i-$particle. $dI_i$ is thus the change of the uncertainty that the $i-$subsystem has a configuration $q_i$. Let us note again that the assumed universality of the law of physics demands that the functional form of $\sigma$ for the whole compound system on the right hand side of Eq. (\[LIC non-interacting compound system\]) must be the same as those for each subsystem on the right hand side of Eq. (\[LIC single particle non-interacting\]). Let us first assume that the probability distribution of the configuration of the compound system is separable: $\Omega(q_1,q_2)=\Omega_1(q_1)\Omega_2(q_2)$. In this case, the total change of the uncertainty that the compound system has a configuration $q=(q_1,q_2)$ as the configuration evolves along $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ is then decomposable as $dI(q_1,q_2)=dI_1(q_1)+dI_2(q_2)$. Now let us consider a general case when the distribution of the configuration of the two spacelike separated subsystems are correlated. One thus has $\Omega(q_1,q_2)=\Omega_{12}(q_1\|q_2)\Omega_2(q_2)$, where $\Omega_{12}(q_1\|q_2)$ is the conditional probability that the configuration of the first subsystem is $q_1$ when the configuration of the second subsystem is $q_2$. As the configuration of the compound system evolves along an infinitesimally short path $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$, the total change of the uncertainty that the compound system has a configuration $q=(q_1,q_2)$ is then $$dI(q_1,q_2)=dI_{12}(q_1\|q_2)+dI_2(q_2), \label{change of information content general}$$ where $dI_{12}=-d\ln\Omega_{12}$ is the infinitesimal change of the uncertainty that the configuration of the first subsystem is $q_1$ when the configuration of the second subsystem is $q_2$. The principle of Locality however demands that, since the two subsystems are spacelike separated from each other, the infinitesimal change of the uncertainty that the first subsystem has a configuration $q_1$ must be independent of the configuration of the second subsystem $q_2$. One must thus have $dI_{12}(q_1\|q_2)=dI_1(q_1)$. Inserting into Eq. (\[change of information content general\]), one therefore concludes that in general the total infinitesimal change of the uncertainty that the two non-interacting subsystems have a configuration $q=(q_1,q_2)$ is decomposable as $$dI(q_1,q_2)=dI_1(q_1)+dI_2(q_2). \label{decomposability 1}$$ Finally inserting Eqs. (\[LIC non-interacting compound system\]) and (\[LIC single particle non-interacting\]) into Eq. (\[decomposability 1\]), in general $\sigma(dS-dA)$ must also satisfy the following decomposability condition: $$\sigma\big((dS_1-dA_1)+(dS_2-dA_2)\big)=\sigma(dS_1-dA_1)+\sigma(dS_2-dA_2). \label{principle of Local-Causality}$$ The above functional equation together with the necessary condition of Macroscopic Classicality of Eq. (\[Macroscopic Classicality 5\]) can then be solved to give the following linear solution: $$\sigma(dS-dA)=\alpha(\xi;t)(dS-dA), \label{Local-Causality 1}$$ where $\alpha$ is a real-valued function independent from $dS-dA$, yet might depend on $t$ and $\xi$, hence is randomly fluctuating with $\xi$ in a microscopic time scale. Let us emphasize that Eq. (\[Local-Causality 1\]) now applies for general cases, not only for a compound of non-interacting subsystems. For the reason that will be clear later, let us introduce a new non-vanishing random variable $\lambda(\xi;t)=2/\alpha$. The change of the uncertainty that the system has a certain configuration along an infinitesimally short path $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ of Eq. (\[infinitesimal change of information content\]) is thus given by $$dI=-d\ln\Omega=\theta dt+\frac{2}{\lambda}(dS-dA). \label{fundamental equation}$$ Further, since $\xi$ is fixed during the time interval $dt$, one can expand all the differentials as $dF=\partial_tF dt+\partial_qF\cdot dq$ to have the following pair of coupled partial differential equations: $$\begin{aligned} -\partial_q\ln\Omega=\frac{2}{\lambda}\Big(\partial_qS-p(\dot{q})\Big),\hspace{8mm}\nonumber\\ -\partial_t\ln\Omega=\frac{2}{\lambda}\Big(H(q,p)+\partial_tS\Big)+\theta(S), \label{fundamental equation 1}\end{aligned}$$ where we have made use of Eq. (\[infinitesimal stationary action\]). The spatial and temporal changes of the uncertainty that the system has a certain configuration are thus related to the momentum and energy of the system, respectively. Let us emphasize that the above pair of equations are valid only for a time interval in which $\xi$ is constant. Let us write the pair of coupled equations of Eq. (\[fundamental equation 1\]) as follows: $$\begin{aligned} p(\dot{q})=\partial_qS+\frac{\lambda}{2}\frac{\partial_q\Omega}{\Omega},\hspace{8mm}\nonumber\\ -H(q,p)=\partial_tS+\frac{\lambda}{2}\frac{\partial_t\Omega}{\Omega}+\frac{\lambda}{2}\theta(S), \label{fundamental equation rederived}\end{aligned}$$ where the momentum and energy are put on the left hand side. The above pair of relations must [not]{} be interpreted that the momentum or velocity and energy of the system are determined [causally]{} by the change of the uncertainty, which is physically absurd. Rather both the momentum and energy provide the source of change of the uncertainty that the system has a certain configuration along an infinitesimally short trajectory $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ as shown explicitly by Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]). Further, it is evident that in the formal limit $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ whose physical meaning will be clarified in the next subsection, Eq. (\[fundamental equation rederived\]) reduces back to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation of (\[Hamilton-Jacobi condition\]). In this sense, Eq. (\[fundamental equation rederived\]) can be regarded as a generalization of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. Unlike the Hamilton-Jacobi equation in which we have a single unknown function $A$, however, to calculate the velocity or momentum and energy, one now needs a pair of unknown functions $S$ and $\Omega$. A stochastic processes with a transition probability given by an exponential distribution of deviation from infinitesimal stationary action ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have started from a stochastic processes in which the system with a configuration $q$ at time $t$ can take one of many possible random paths $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ selected by the principle of stationary action with different random values of $\xi$, to end up with a configuration $q+dq$ at time $t+dt$. We then derived a law of infinitesimal change of the uncertainty of an event along an infinitesimally short path by imposing the condition of Macroscopic Classicality and the principle of Locality. It is then tempting to investigate if the law of change of uncertainty given by Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) completely determines the stochastic processes. To see this, fixing $\xi$, let $\Omega\big(\{(q+dq;t+dt),(q;t)\}\big\|\mathcal{J}(\xi)\big)$ denotes the conditional joint-probability density that the configuration of the system is $q$ at time $t$, tracing the trajectory $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ and end up with a configuration $q+dq$ at time $d+dt$. Using this quantity, the change of probability density $d\Omega$ due to the transport along the path $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ is given by $$d\Omega(q,\xi;t)=\Omega\big(\{(q+dq;t+dt),(q;t)\}\big\|\mathcal{J}(\xi)\big)-\Omega(q,\xi;t).$$ Inserting into Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) one therefore has $$\begin{aligned} \Omega\big(\{(q+dq;t+dt),(q;t)\}\big\|\mathcal{J}(\xi)\big)\hspace{10mm}\nonumber\\ =\big[1-\theta(S)dt-\frac{2}{\lambda}(dS-dA)\big]\Omega(q,\xi;t). \label{pre transition probability}\end{aligned}$$ Let us then consider the case when $\|(dS-dA)/\lambda\|\ll 1$. Equation (\[pre transition probability\]) can then be written approximately as $$\begin{aligned} \Omega\Big(\{(q+dq;t+dt),(q;t)\}\big\|\mathcal{J}(\xi)\Big)\hspace{10mm}\nonumber\\ \approx e^{-\frac{2}{\lambda}(dS(\xi)-dA(\xi))-\theta(S) dt}\times\Omega(q,\xi;t). \label{probability density} \end{aligned}$$ The above relation can obviously be read within the conventional probability theory as follows: the joint-probability density that the system initially at $(q;t)$ traces the segment of trajectory $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ and end up at $(q+dq;t+dt)$, $\Omega\big(\{(q+dq;t+dt),(q;t)\}\big\|\mathcal{J}(\xi)\big)$, is equal to the probability that the configuration of the system is $q$ at time $t$, $\Omega(q,\xi;t)$, multiplied by a ‘transition probability’ between the two infinitesimally close spacetime points via the segment of trajectory $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$ given by $$P((q+dq;t+dt)\|\{\mathcal{J}(\xi),(q;t)\})\propto e^{-\frac{2}{\lambda}(dS(\xi)-dA(\xi))}/\mathcal{Z}, \label{exponential distribution of DISA}$$ where $\mathcal{Z}=\exp(\theta(S) dt)$. Some notes are instructive. First, to guarantee the normalizability of the above transition probability, then the exponent $(dS(\xi)-dA(\xi))/\lambda(\xi)$ must be non-negative for any spacetime point $(q,t)$. This demands that $dS(\xi)-dA(\xi)$ must always have the same sign as $\lambda(\xi)$. On the other hand, from Eq. (\[average of classical deviation\]), one can see that $dS(\xi)-dA(\xi)$ changes its sign as $\xi$ flips its sign. Hence, to guarantee the non-negativity of $(dS(\xi)-dA(\xi))/\lambda(\xi)$, $\lambda$ must also change its sign as $\xi$ flips its sign. This allows us to assume that the sign of $\lambda$ is always the same as that of $\xi$. The time scale for the fluctuations of the sign of $\lambda$ must therefore be the same as the time scale for the fluctuations of $\xi$ given by $dt$. Moreover, the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]), $\sigma$, namely the rate of production of uncertainty due to the fluctuations of infinitesimal stationary action is always non-negative. It is also evident that for the distribution of Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]) to make sense mathematically, the time scale for the fluctuations of $\|\lambda\|$, denoted by $\tau_{\lambda}$, must be much larger than that of $\|\xi\|$. One thus has $$\tau_{\lambda}\gg\tau_{\xi}\gg dt. \label{time scales}$$ In other words, $\|\xi\|$ fluctuates much faster than $\|\lambda\|$, yet both $\xi$ and $\lambda$ always have the same sign fluctuating randomly in the time scale $dt$. Hence, within a time interval of length $\tau_{\lambda}$ during which $\|\lambda\|$ is effectively constant, one may assume that $dS(\xi)-dA(\xi)$ is randomly fluctuating due to the fluctuations of $\|\xi\|$ distributed according to the exponential law of Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]) characterized by $\|\lambda\|$. Next, there is no a priori reason on how the sign of the values of $dS-dA$ should be distributed. Following the principle of indifference (principle of insufficient reason) [@Jaynes; @book], it is then advisable to assume that the sign of $dS-dA$ is distributed equally probably. Further, since the sign of $dS(\xi)-dA(\xi)$ changes as $\xi$ flips its sign, then the sign of $\xi$ must also be fluctuating randomly with equal probability so that the probability density of the value of $\xi$ at any given time, denoted below by $P_{H}(\xi)$, must satisfy the following unbiased condition: $$P_{H}(\xi)=P_{H}(-\xi). \label{God's unbiased}$$ Since the sign of $\lambda$ is always the same as that of $\xi$ then the probability distribution function of $\lambda$ must also satisfy the same unbiased condition. Further, since $P_{H}(\xi)=\int dq\Omega(q,\xi;t)$, then Eq. (\[God’s unbiased\]) demands the following symmetry relation: $$\begin{aligned} \Omega(q,\xi;t)=\Omega(q,-\xi;t). \label{God's fairness}\end{aligned}$$ One also has, from Eq. (\[infinitesimal symmetry\]), the following symmetry relations for the spatiotemporal gradient of $S(q,\xi;t)$: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_qS(q;t,\xi)=\partial_qS(q;t,-\xi),\nonumber\\ \partial_tS(q;t,\xi)=\partial_tS(q;t,-\xi). \label{quantum phase symmetry}\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the pair of relations in Eqs. (\[fundamental equation 1\]) or (\[fundamental equation rederived\]) are valid when $\xi$ is fixed. However, since as discussed above, the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) is insensitive to the sign of $\lambda$ which is always the same as the sign of $\xi$, then the pair of equations in (\[fundamental equation rederived\]) are valid in a microscopic time interval of length $\tau_{\xi}$ during which the magnitude of $\xi$ is constant while its sign may change randomly. To have an evolution for a finite time interval $t>\tau_{\xi}$, one can proceed along the following approximation. First one divides the time into a series of microscopic time intervals of length $\tau_{\xi}$: $t\in[(k-1)\tau_{\xi},k\tau_{\xi})$, $k=1,2,\dots$, and attributes to each interval a random value of $\xi(t)=\xi_k$ according to the probability distribution $P_{H_k}(\xi_k)=P_{H_k}(-\xi_k)$. Hence, during the interval $[(k-1)\tau_{\xi},k\tau_{\xi})$, the magnitude of $\xi(t)=\xi_k$ is kept constant while its sign changes randomly in an infinitesimal time scale $dt$. One then applies the pair of relations in Eqs. (\[fundamental equation 1\]) or (\[fundamental equation rederived\]) during each interval of time with fixed $\|\xi(t)\|=\|\xi_k\|$, consecutively. Since $dA$ is just the infinitesimal stationary action along the short path $\mathcal{J}(\xi)$, $\|dS-dA\|$ may be regarded as the deviation from infinitesimal stationary action, the distribution of which is given by Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]). Such an exponential distribution was firstly suggested heuristically in Ref. [@AgungSMQ4] to model a microscopic stochastic deviation from classical mechanics. An application of the statistical model to model quantum measurement is given recently in Ref. [@AgungSMQ7]. For a fixed value of $\|\lambda\|$ which is valid during a time interval of length $\tau_{\lambda}$, one can see from Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]) that the average deviation from infinitesimal stationary action is given by $$\overline{\|dS-dA\|}=\|\lambda\|/2. \label{average deviation from infinitesimal action}$$ It is then evident that in the regime where the average deviation is much smaller than the infinitesimal stationary action itself, namely $\|dA/\lambda\|\gg 1$, or formally in the limit $\|\lambda\|\rightarrow 0$, Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]) reduces to $$\rightarrow\delta(dS-dA),$$ so that $dS(\xi)\rightarrow dA(\xi)$. Such a regime thus must be identified as the macroscopic regime. This fact suggests that $\|\lambda\|$ must have a very small microscopic value. In this regard, the pair of equations in (\[fundamental equation rederived\]) may be regarded as a generalization of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation of (\[Hamilton-Jacobi condition\]) due to the exponential distribution of deviation from infinitesimal stationary action of Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]). Let us also note that since $\|\lambda\|$ in general may depend on time, then the transition probability is in general [not]{} stationary except when $\lambda=\pm\mathcal{Q}$ all the time, where $\mathcal{Q}$ is a constant. One can also see that the decomposability of the infinitesimal change of the uncertainty for a pair of spacelike separated subsystems given by Eq. (\[decomposability 1\]), which is demanded by the principle of Local-Causality, implies directly the separability of the transition probability of Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]) for the non-interacting subsystems. Namely, for non-interacting two subsystems such that $dA$ and $dS$ are decomposable as $dA(q_1,q_2)=dA_1(q_1)+dA_2(q_2)$ and $dS(q_1,q_2)=dS_1(q_1)+dS_2(q_2)$, respectively, so that $\theta$ is also decomposable $\theta(q_1,q_2)=\theta_1(q_1)+\theta_2(q_2)$, the transition probability of Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]) is separable as $$P_S(dS_1+dS\|dA_1+dA_2)=P_S(dS_1\|dA_1)P_S(dS_2\|dA_2). \label{separability condition}$$ Hence, the transition probability which determines the stochastic behavior of one subsystem is independent from that of the other subsystem as intuitively expected for spacelike separated non-interacting subsystems. Otherwise, the dynamics and statistics of one subsystem is influenced by the other subsystem, which contradicts the principle of Locality. See also Ref. [@AgungSMQ6] for a different approach to single out Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]) by imposing the principle of Locality without directly employing the concept of information or uncertainty. Quantization ============ We have shown in Refs. [@AgungSMQ4; @AgungSMQ6; @AgungSMQ7], that applying the above statistical model to a wide class of classical systems, then the dynamics of the ensemble of trajectories is governed in the lowest order approximation by the Schrödinger equation with Born’s statistical interpretation of wave function reproducing the formal results of canonical quantization, if $\lambda=\pm\hbar$ for all time so that the average deviation from infinitesimal stationary action distributed according to the exponential law of Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]) is given by $\hbar/2$. This is done by identifying the wave function as $$\Psi\doteq \sqrt{\Omega}\exp\Big(i\frac{S}{\|\lambda\|}\Big). \label{general wave function}$$ The statistical model also leads to an objective uncertainty relation which furthermore implies the quantum mechanical canonical uncertainty relation. For a related work, see also Ref. [@AgungSMQ3]. The abstract rules of canonical quantization thus ‘effectively’ arise from a statistical modification of classical mechanics in microscopic regime based on a specific law of change of the uncertainty (information) that the system has a certain configuration of Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) chosen uniquely by imposing the condition of Macroscopic Classicality and the principle of Local-Causality. Unlike the canonical quantization which is formal-mathematical with obscure physical meaning, the statistical model of quantization is thus ‘physical’. Moreover, Planck constant acquires a physical interpretation as the average deviation from classical mechanics in a microscopic time scale. Further, unlike canonical quantization which in general leads to an infinite number of possible quantum Hamiltonians for a single classical Hamiltonian which is due to the replacement of c-numbers (classical numbers) by q-numbers (quantum numbers/Hermitian operators), since the statistical model is based on a manipulation of c-numbers, it always gives a unique quantum Hamiltonian with a specific ordering of operators [@AgungSMQ4; @AgungSMQ6]. Recall that in standard quantum mechanics, the state of the system is assumed to be determined completely by specifying the wave function. The wave function is thus regarded as fundamental. Statements about position and momentum are then relegated [operationally]{} to certain acts of measurement over the state of the system represented by the wave function. The canonical uncertainty relation between the statistical results of position and momentum measurement is usually mentioned to support the argumentation that it is impossible to attribute a pair of definite values of position and momentum to a system, nor is such an attribution useful. By contrast, in the statistical model of quantization developed in the present paper, one assumes the objective ontology of particles with a definite configuration for all the time as in classical mechanics. Hence, configuration of the system is regarded as the “beable” of the theory in Bell’s sense [@Bell; @beable]. The wave function, on the other hand, is argued to be emergent artificial convenient mathematical tool to describe the dynamics and statistics of ensemble of trajectories. The objective ontology of the trajectories guarantees a conceptually smooth classical correspondence. One can also show that the actual trajectory of the particle is in general fluctuating randomly around the so-called Bohmian trajectory in pilot-wave theory [@Bohmian; @trajectory]. Hence, we have a physical picture that the actual trajectory is fluctuating randomly around the Bohmian trajectory while the latter moves [as if]{} it is guided by the wave function evolving deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation. Yet, unlike the pilot-wave theory, the wave function in the statistical model is [not]{} physically real but an artificial mathematical construct, and the Schrödinger equation and the guidance relation are derived from first principle rather than ad-hoc-ly postulated as in pilot-wave theory. Recall that the fundamental assumption in pilot-wave theory that the wave function is a physical field, living in configuration space rather than in ordinary space, is known to lead to a conceptual difficulty, and furthermore implies rigid nonlocality in direct conflict with the special theory of relativity. By contrast, the present statistical model is developed based on the principle of Locality. In this sense, the upper equation in (\[fundamental equation rederived\]) can not be regarded as a causal-dynamical guidance relation as in pilot-wave theory, but a kinematical relation. Moreover, unlike the pilot-wave theory which is deterministic and relegates the microscopic randomness to our ignorance of the initial condition, the statistical model is strictly stochastic. Notice that as argued in the previous section, the unique form of the law of infinitesimal change of the degree of uncertainty that the system has a certain configuration along a short path given by Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) is singled out by imposing the condition of Macroscopic Classicality and the principle of Locality. In particular, the principle of Locality is decisive in selecting the linear form of the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) which describes the production of information or uncertainty due to the fluctuation of infinitesimal stationary action. Since the stochastic processes based on such a change of the information leads to the derivation of the [linear]{} Schrödinger equation, one may thus argue that the principle of Locality expressed in Eq. (\[principle of Local-Causality\]) is a necessary condition for the linearity of the Schrödinger equation [@AgungSMQ6]. To support this argumentation, let us mention that a nonlinear extension of quantum dynamics [@Weinberg; @nonlinearity] may lead to signaling [@Gisin; @superluminal; @signaling; @Polchinski; @superluminal; @signaling] thus violating the principle of Locality. Similarly, as argued in Refs. [@AgungSMQ3; @AgungSMQ6], since the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation can be derived from the upper equation in (\[fundamental equation rederived\]), then the principle of Locality is also necessary for the former. Finally, we have also shown in Ref. [@AgungSMQ6] for a system of spin-less particles that the average of the physically relevant quantities over the distribution of the configuration are equal to the quantum mechanical averages of the corresponding quantum mechanical Hermitian operators over a quantum state. Note however that while the former refers to the average of the actual values of the physical quantities, the latter refers to the statistical average of measurement outcomes in an ensemble of identical experiments. This result applies to any physical quantity of a function of position and momentum with up to second degree of the latter. An application of the statistical model to model quantum mechanical measurement of angular momentum without wave collapse, reproducing the prediction of quantum mechanics is reported in Ref. [@AgungSMQ7]. Conclusion and Remarks ====================== We first developed a stochastic processes for a microscopic stochastic deviation from classical mechanics in which the randomness is modeled by a stochastic fluctuations of the infinitesimal stationary action, thus is physically different from that of the Brownian motion based on random forces. Such a stochastic processes leads to a production of the uncertainty that the system has a certain configuration in a microscopic time scale, which is assumed to be vanishing in the classical limit of macroscopic regime. We then showed that imposing the principle of Locality, which requires the infinitesimal change of the uncertainty that a subsystem has a certain configuration to be independent from the configuration of the other spacelike separated subsystem, will select a unique law of infinitesimal change of uncertainty, up to a free parameter. We further showed that such a law of infinitesimal change of uncertainty determines a stochastic processes with a transition probability between two infinitesimally close spacetime points along a randomly chosen path that is given by an exponential distribution of deviation from infinitesimal stationary action. Given a classical Hamiltonian, we have shown in the previous works [@AgungSMQ4; @AgungSMQ6; @AgungSMQ7] that the statistical model leads to the derivation of Schrödinger equation with Born’s statistical interpretation of wave function. The model also leads to an objective uncertainty relation which implies the standard quantum mechanical uncertainty relation. Unlike the canonical quantization, however, in the statistical model, the system always has a definite configuration all the time as in classical mechanics, fluctuating randomly along a continuous trajectory. We have also shown, for a system of spin-less particles, that the average of the relevant physical quantities over the distribution of the configuration is numerically equal to the quantum mechanical average of the corresponding quantum mechanical Hermitian operators over a quantum state represented by a wave function. Since the principle of Locality is derived from our conception of spacetime structure, then one may conclude that the dynamics and kinematics of quantum mechanics is intimately related to the former. Some problems are left for future study. It is first imperative to ask how such a local-causal statistical model would explain the violation of Bell’s inequalities predicted by the quantum mechanics and verified in numerous experiments which is widely believed to give a strong evidence that Nature is nonlocal? This is a crucial problem needed an explanation within the statistical model. Recall that Bell’s inequalities are derived by assuming 1) the separability of probability of outcomes in a pair of spacelike joint-measurements (Bell’s locality assumption) and 2) the so-called measurement independence or experimental free-will, that the distribution of the hidden variables underlying the measurement outcomes is independent from the setting parameters of the apparatus chosen freely by the observer [@Bell; @free; @will; @Shimony; @free; @will; @Espagnat; @free; @will; @Hall; @free; @will; @relaxation]. It is tempting to guess that the objective locality of the statistical model implies the Bell’s locality assumption so that the model must somehow violate measurement independence. It is therefore instructive to study the above two fundamental hypothesis within the statistical model by first applying the model to develop quantum measurement in realistic physical systems and derive the Born’s rule [@AgungSMQ7]. Next, it is also tempting to ask why canonical quantization corresponds to a specific case when $\|\lambda\|$ in Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]), the free parameter of the statistical model, is given by $\hbar$ so that the average deviation from infinitesimal stationary action distributed according to the exponential law of Eq. (\[exponential distribution of DISA\]) is given by $\hbar/2$. Is the relation $\|\lambda\|=\hbar$ exact? Or whether Nature allows for a small fluctuations of $\|\lambda\|$ around $\hbar$? Recall also that the Schrödinger equation is derived as the zeroth order approximation of the statistical model. It is then imperative to study the higher orders corrections. These last two cases may thus provide precision tests against quantum mechanics. [10]{} J. S. Bell, Physics [1]{}, 195 (1964). J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [23]{}, 880 (1969). J. S. Bell, [Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987). J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. [28]{}, 938 (1972). A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [47]{}, 460 (1981). Z. Y. Ou and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [61]{}, 50 (1988). Y. H. Shih and C. O. Alley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [61]{}, 2921 (1988). J. G. Rarity and P. R. Tapster, Phys. Rev. Lett. [64]{}, 2495 (1990). Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, H. J. Kimble and K. C. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [68]{}, 3663 (1992). J. Brendel, E. Mohler and W. Martienssen, Europhys. Lett. [20]{}, 575 (1992). P. G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, A. V. Sergienko and Y. H. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. [75]{}, 4337 (1995) G. Weihs, M. Reck, H. Weinfurter and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [81]{}, 5039 (1998). W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [81]{}, 3563 (1998). M. A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, C. A. Sackett, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe and D. J. Wineland, Nature [149]{}, 791 (2001). D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, D. L. Moehring, S. Olmschenk and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. [100]{}, 150404 (2008). D. Salart, A. Baas, C. Branciard, N. Gisin and H. Zbinden, Nature [454]{}, 861 (2008). E. Santos, Found. Phys. [34]{}, 1643 (2004). N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, arXiv:1303.2849v1. P. Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento B [46]{}, 392 (1978). G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, T. Weber, Lett. Nuovo Cimento [27]{}, 293 (1980). D. Page, Phys. Rev. A [91]{}, 57 (1982). J. Jarrett, Nous [18]{}, 569 (1984). A. Shimony in J. Ellis and D. Amati (eds.), [Quantum Reflections]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000). A. Shimony in Kamefuchi et al. (eds.), [Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Light of the New Technology]{} (Tokyo, Japan Physical Society, 1983). A. Shimony in R. Penrose and C. Isham (eds.), [Quantum Concepts in Space and Time]{} (Oxford, Claredon Press, 1986). S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Found. Phys. [24]{}, 379 (1994). J. Grunhaus, S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Phys. Rev. A, [53]{}, 3781 (1996). S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, arXiv:quant-ph/9709026v2. J. A. Wheeler in W. H. Zurek (ed.), [Complexity, information content and the physics of information]{} (Westview Press, 1990). C. Rovelli, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [35]{}, 1637 (1996). A. Zeilinger, Found. Phys. [29]{}, 631 (1999). L. Hardy, [Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms]{}, quant-ph/0101012. C. Simon, V. Buzek and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [87]{}, 170405 (2001). R. Clifton, J. Bub and H. Halvorson, Found. Phys. [33]{}, 1561 (2003). W. van Dam, Thesis, Univ. Oxford (1999); quant-ph/0501159. G. Brassard, H. Buhrman, N. Linden, A. A. Méthot, A. Tapp and F. Unger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [96]{}, 250401 (2006). P. Goyal, Phys. Rev. A [78]{}, 052150 (2008). M. Pawlowski, T. Paterek, D. Kaszlikowski, V. Scarani, A. Winter and M. Zukowski, Nature [461]{}, 1101 (2009). J. Oppenheim and S Wehner, Science [330]{}, 1072 (2010). H. Barnum, S. Beigi, S. Boixo, M. B. Elliott and S. Wehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [104]{}, 140401 (2010). M. Navascués and H. Wunderlich, Proc. R. Soc. A [466]{}, 881 (2010). D. Borivoje and C. Brukner in H. Halvorson (ed.), [Deep beauty: understanding the quantum world through mathematical innovation]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011); (arXiv:0911.0695) L. Masanes and M. P. Müller, New J. Phys. [13]{}, 063001 (2011). A. Caticha, J. Phys. A: Math. and Theor. [44]{}, 225303 (2011). G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano and P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. A [84]{}, 012311 (2011). G. de la Torre, L. Masanes, A. J. Short and M. P. Müller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [109]{}, 090403 (2012). D. I. Fivel, Found. Phys. [42]{}, 291 (2012). M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, [Quantum Computation and Quantum Information]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000). I. Fényes, Z. Phys. [132]{}, 81 (1952). W. Weizel, Z. Phys. [134]{}, 264 (1953); [135]{}, 270 (1953); [136]{}, 582 (1954). D. Kershaw, Phys. Rev. [136B]{}, 1850 (1964). E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. [150]{}, 1079 (1966). L. de la Peña-Auerbach, J. Math. Phys. [10]{}, 1620 (1969). M. Davidson, Lett. Math. Phys. [3]{}, 271 (1979). L. de la Peña-Auerbach and A. M. Cetto, Found. Phys. [12]{}, 1017 (1982). Ph. Blanchard, Ph. Combe and W. Zeng, Lecture Notes Physics [281]{}, 1 (1987). F. Guerra and L. M. Morato, Phys. Rev. D [27]{}, 1774 (1983). P. Garbaczewski and J. -P. Vigier, Phys. Rev. A [46]{}, 4634 (1992). L. de la Pe˜ña-Auerbach and A. M. Cetto, [The quantum dice: An introduction to stochastic electrodynamics]{} (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1996). F. Markopoulou and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. D [70]{}, 124029 (2004). E. Santos, Phys. Lett. A [352]{}, 49 (2006). L. de la Peña-Auerbach, A. Valdes-Hernandés, A. M. Cetto, and H. M. Franca, Phys. Lett. A [375]{}, 1720 (2011). D. Giulini, Lect. Notes Phys. [631]{}, 17 (2003); arXiv:quant-ph/0304202v1. Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. [115]{}, 485 (1959). M. Peshkin and A. Tonomura, Lec. Notes. Phys. [340]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1989). H. Rund, [The Hamilton-Jacobi theory in the calculus of variations: its role in mathematics and physics]{} (Van Nostrand, London, 1966). $I$ and its average given by the Gibbs-Shannon entropy also play important roles in optimal coding theory. See for example T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, [Elements of Information Theory]{} (John Wiley $\&$ Sons, New Jersey, 2006). E. T. Jaynes, [Probability theory: the logic of science]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). A. Budiyono, Physica A [392]{}, 307 (2013). A. Budiyono, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory and Experiment [P11007]{}, 1 (2013). A. Budiyono, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [52]{}, 4237 (2013). A. Budiyono, Physica A [392]{}, 43 (2013). J. S. Bell, Epistemological Letter [9]{}, 11 (1976). D. Bohm and B. Hiley, [The undivided universe: an ontological interpretation of quantum theory]{} (Routledge, London, 1993). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [62]{}, 485 (1989). N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A [143]{}, 1 (1990). J. Polchinski, Phys. Ref. Lett. [66]{}, 397 (1991). J. S. Bell, Epistemol. Lett. 9, 11 (1976). A. Shimony, M. A. Horne, J. S. Clauser, Epistemol. Lett. 13, 9 (1976). B. d’ Espagnat, Phys. Rep. 110, 201 (1984). M. J. W. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 250404 (2010).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'To accurately estimate locations and velocities of surrounding targets (cars) is crucial for advanced driver assistance systems based on radar sensors. In this paper we derive methods for fusing data from multiple radar sensors in order to improve the accuracy and robustness of such estimates. First we pose the target estimation problem as a multivariate multidimensional spectral estimation problem. The problem is multivariate since each radar sensor gives rise to a measurement channel. Then we investigate how the use of the cross-spectra affects target estimates. We see that the use of the magnitude of the cross-spectrum significantly improves the accuracy of the target estimates, whereas an attempt to compensate the phase lag of the cross-spectrum only gives marginal improvement. This paper may be viewed as a first step towards applying high-resolution methods that builds on multidimensional multivariate spectral estimation for sensor fusion.' author: - 'Bin Zhu, Augusto Ferrante, Johan Karlsson, and Mattia Zorzi[^1][^2][^3]' bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: \| Fusion of Sensors Data in Automotive Radar Systems:\ A Spectral Estimation Approach --- INTRODUCTION ============ The development of advanced driver assistance systems (ADASs) is one of the key technologies for highly automated automotive systems. Indeed, ADASs can be used in many important tasks such as lane change assistant, forward collision avoidance and adaptive cruise control [@eskandarian2012handbook]. The preferred environmental sensing in ADASs is the radar technology. The latter works reliably also in bad lighting conditions and when visibility is reduced due to presence of rain or fog. Radars provide accurate estimates of the target parameters, e.g., range, relative velocity and angle of multiple targets. State of the art radar systems typically use the chirp sequence modulation principle and a uniform linear array (ULA) of receive antennas. Thus, radar measurements in a coherent processing interval (CPI) is a superposition of $k$ 3-d complex sinusoids where $k$ is the number of targets [@gini2012waveform; @wintermantel2014radar]. Under reasonable assumptions, such radar measurements can be modeled as a stationary stochastic process whose spectrum is multidimensional and univariate. Moreover, the spectrum is characterized by $k$ peaks (target frequencies) corresponding to the aforementioned sinusoids. Accordingly, an important task is to estimate such a spectrum and, in particular, its peaks and the corresponding frequencies [@engels2017advances; @engels2014target]. Then the target parameters can be recovered from these target frequencies. A natural development is towards cars with several automotive radars [@lin2015integration; @murad2012next], and thus an important aspect is the integration of multiple radar modules with the aim to improve the target parameter estimation. In the present paper we consider an integrated system of automotive modules where we have two ULAs of receivers that share one common transmitter. We model the measurements of the two ULAs of receivers as a [vector-valued]{} stochastic process defined in a [multidimensional]{} support. Hence, its spectrum is a [multivariate]{} (i.e., matrix vauled) complex function defined over a [multidimensional]{} frequency domain. We show by simulation evidence that the cross spectrum of the two modules, i.e., the information coming from the dependence between the measurements of the two modules, can be used to improve the estimation of the target frequencies. In doing that, we propose a windowed periodogram to estimate the multidimensional multivariate spectrum from the measurements. This work is a first attempt to employ multivariate and multidimensional spectral analysis for high resolution sensor fusion. Of course a more structured approach in the same vein of [@Georgiou-06 Section II] might be employed to cast sensor fusion into a generalized moment problem with an entropic optimization functional. For this kind of problems a very rich stream of research has been produced both in the multidimensional univariate case [@lang1982multidimensional; @georgiou2005solution; @ringh2016multidimensional; @ringh2018multidimensional] and the unidimensional multivariate case [@P-F-SIAM-REV; @ZORZI201587; @avventi_thesis; @BLN-03; @RFP-09; @RFP-10-well-posedness; @FPR-08; @FMP-12; @Z14; @Z15; @GL-17; @Zhu-Baggio-19; @georgiou2002spectral; @Carli-FPP-11; @zhu2018wellposed; @zhu2018erratum]. The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec:problem\] we formulate the problem. In Section \[sec:periodogram\] we introduce the multidimensional multivariate windowed periodogram. In Section \[sec:sim\] simulation experiments are presented. Finally, in Section \[sec:concl\] we draw the conclusions. PROBLEM STATEMENT {#sec:problem} ================= Consider an automotive radar system that employs coherent linear frequency-modulated (LFM) pulse train signals and uses a ULA of receive antennas for the measurement. Assume, for simplicity, that only one target is present in the field of view. According to [@engels2014target; @engels2017advances], after down-mixing, filtering, and sampling, the (scalar) measurement of a ULA in a CPI is modeled as a $3$-d complex sinusoidal signal $$\label{y_measurement} y({\mathbf t}) = a \, e^{ i \left( {\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\,{{\mathbf t}}\rangle} +\varphi \right)} + w({\mathbf t}).$$ The meaning of each variable will be explained next. The index ${\mathbf t}$ takes values in the set $${\mathbb Z}_{\mathbf N}^3:=\left\{(t_1,t_2,t_3)\in{\mathbb Z}^3 \, :\, 0 \leq t_j \leq N_j-1, j=1,2,3 \right\},$$ where $N_1$ denotes the number of samples per pulse, $N_2$ the number of pulses, $N_3$ the number of (receive) antennas, and ${\mathbf N}:=[N_1,N_2,N_3]$ defines the size of the data array. The scalar $a$ is a real amplitude. The variable $\varphi$ is an initial phase angle which is assumed to be a random variable uniformly distributed in $[-\pi,\pi]$ (cf. [@stoica2005spectral Section 4.1]). The process $w$ is a zero-mean circular complex white noise independent of $\varphi$. The real vector ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}=(\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3)$ contains three unknown normalized angular target frequencies so that ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}\in{\mathbb T}^3:=[-\pi,\pi]^3$ and ${\langle{{\mathbf t}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}\rangle}:=t_1\theta+t_2\theta_2+t_3\theta_3$ is the usual inner product in ${\mathbb R}^3$. Moreover, the components $\theta_j$ $(j=1,2,3)$ are related to the range $r$, the (radial) relative velocity $v$, and the azimuth angle $\alpha$ of the target via $$\label{linthetaeq} \begin{split} \theta_1 & = c_1 r-\pi \\ \theta_2 & = c_2 v \\ \theta_3 & = c_3 \sin \alpha \\ \end{split}$$ where $c_j$ $(j=1,2,3)$ are known positive constants which may be computed explicitly from parameters of the radar system [@engels2014target Section 16.4]. More specifically, these formulas depend on the waveform, the array geometry of the radar and on the sampling rate of the signal processing unit. Notice that we follow the convention in which the azimuth angle $\alpha$ ranges from $-\pi/2$ to $\pi/2$ (see Fig. \[fig:radar\]). It is easy to see that the parameter vector $(r,v,\alpha)$ can be readily recovered from the frequency vector ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$. In addition, the target range and velocity are assumed to belong to given closed intervals, namely $r \in[0,r_{\max}]$, $v \in[-v_{\max},v_{\max}]$ where $r_{\max}=2\pi/c_1$ and $v_{\max}=\pi/c_2$. It is reported in [@rohling2012continuous] that under their radar implementation $r_{\max}=200$ m and $v_{\max}=250$ km/h. We also assume that the velocity is fixed in one CPI (which is at the scale of 20 ms). ![image](fig_car){width="92.00000%"} The target parameter estimation problem consists in estimating the unknown target frequencies ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ from the sinusoid-in-noise measurements generated according to model ; indeed an estimate of $(r,v,\alpha)$ is straightforwardly given through (\[linthetaeq\]). Such a frequency estimation problem has been well studied in the literature (see, e.g., [@stoica2005spectral Chapter 4]). Through elementary calculations, one gets $$\sigma_{{\mathbf k}}:= \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}y({\mathbf t}+{\mathbf k}) y({\mathbf t})^* = a^2 e^{i{\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\,{{\mathbf k}}\rangle}} + \tilde{\sigma}^2 \delta_{{\mathbf k},{\boldsymbol{0}}},$$ where $(\cdot)^$ denotes complex conjugate (transpose), $\tilde{\sigma}^2$ is the noise variance, and $\delta_{{\mathbf k},{\boldsymbol{0}}}$ is the Kronecker delta function. Taking the Fourier transform, the multidimensional-univariate spectrum of the signal is $$\Phi({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) = 2\pi a^2 \delta({\boldsymbol{\omega}}-{\boldsymbol{\theta}}) + \tilde{\sigma}^2,$$ where $\delta(\cdot)$ here is the Dirac delta measure. If an estimate $\hat{\Phi}$ of the spectrum is available, an estimator of ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ is given by [@engels2014target] $$\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}:= \underset{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\in{\mathbb T}^3}{\operatorname{argmax}} \, \hat{\Phi}({\boldsymbol{\omega}}).$$ In what follows, we consider an integrated system of automotive modules where we have two ULAs of receivers that share one common transmitter. The ULAs are placed in the same line at a distance $d$ [(see Fig. \[fig:radar\])]{}, say a few decimeters. Under the far field* assumption which is common in this kind of setup, the target parameters $(r,v,\alpha)$ sensed by the two ULAs essentially differ only in the range dimension by $d \sin\alpha$. Then the measurement equation becomes $$\label{y_j_measurement} \begin{split} y_1({\mathbf t}) & = a \, e^{ i \left( {\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\,{{\mathbf t}}\rangle} +\varphi \right)} + w_1({\mathbf t}) \\ y_2({\mathbf t}) & = a \, e^{ i \left( {\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\,{{\mathbf t}}\rangle} + M\theta_3 +\varphi \right)} + w_2({\mathbf t}) \,. \end{split}$$ Here $M=d/\Delta s$ where $\Delta s$ is the distance between two adjacent antennas in the ULA, and the phase shift $M\theta_3$ represent the phase shift between the measurements of the two ULAs due to the distance $d$. The noises in different channels are assumed to be uncorrelated with the same variance $\tilde{\sigma}^2$. Set ${\mathbf y}({\mathbf t}):=[\,y_1({\mathbf t})\,y_2({\mathbf t})\,]^\top$, then we have $$\Sigma_{{\mathbf k}}:= \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}{\mathbf y}({\mathbf t}+{\mathbf k}) {\mathbf y}({\mathbf t})^* = a^2 e^{i{\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\,{{\mathbf k}}\rangle}} R + \tilde{\sigma}^2 \delta_{{\mathbf k},{\boldsymbol{0}}} I_2,$$ where the matrix $$\label{mat_R} R={\begin{bmatrix}}1&e^{-iM\theta_3}\\ e^{iM\theta_3}&1 {\end{bmatrix}}.$$ The multidimensional-multivariate spectrum of ${\mathbf y}$ is $$\label{Phi_ideal} \Phi({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) = 2\pi a^2 \delta({\boldsymbol{\omega}}-{\boldsymbol{\theta}}) R + \tilde{\sigma}^2 I_2.$$ Let $\hat \Phi$ be an estimate of $\Phi$. We need a post-processing method to integrate the information from the two ULAs in order to obtain an estimator of ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$. The most straightforward way to use the information is to treat the two signals ${\mathbf y}_1$ and ${\mathbf y}_2$ independently. Then we estimate the two multidimensional-univariate spectra $\hat{\Phi}_{11}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})$ of ${\mathbf y}_1$ and $\hat{\Phi}_{22}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})$ of ${\mathbf y}_2$ separately. Finally, we compute the estimate as $$\label{theta_est_m1} \hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}_{\mathrm{I}}:= \underset{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\in{\mathbb T}^3}{\operatorname{argmax}} \, \|\hat{\Phi}_{11}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\|^2 + \|\hat{\Phi}_{22}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\|^2,$$ where the subscript $_{\mathrm{I}}$ of the estimate $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}$ stands for “independent”. This is essentially a univariate philosophy as it merges the estimate of two univariate spectra. We propose to use a genuinely multivariate approach where the cross-spectrum $\hat \Phi_{12}$ is taken into account and plays a crucial role. We will test the performances of our approach against the estimate (\[theta\_est\_m1\]) and show that these performances can be improved by taking $\hat \Phi_{12}$ into account in a wise manner. The first method of this multivariate approach considers the estimate $$\label{theta_est_m3} \hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}_{\mathrm{S}}\!:= \underset{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\in{\mathbb T}^3}{\operatorname{argmax}} \,\|\hat{\Phi}_{11}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\|^2 + 2\left[{\mathrm{Re}}(e^{iM\omega_3} \hat{\Phi}_{12}({\boldsymbol{\omega}}))\right]^2 \!+ \|\hat{\Phi}_{22}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\|^2,$$ where the subscript $_{\mathrm{S}}$ of the estimate $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}$ stands for “shifted”. In fact, the weight $e^{iM\omega_3}$ for the cross spectrum $\hat{\Phi}_{12}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})$ was designed to cancel out the phase shift caused by the third component of the (true) target frequency in ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$, namely the $(1,2)$ element of the matrix $R$ in . This seems to be a very natural method for taking $\hat \Phi_{12}$ into account. Simulation evidence, however, shows that the improvement of performances with respect to (\[theta\_est\_m1\]) is modest (see Section \[sec:sim\]). A better approach appears to be the following: $$\label{theta_est_m2} \hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}_{\mathrm{F}}:= \underset{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\in{\mathbb T}^3}{\operatorname{argmax}} \, \\|\hat{\Phi}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\\|_{{\mathrm{F}}}^2,$$ where the subscript $_{\mathrm{F}}$ of the estimate $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}$ stands for “Frobenius” as $\\|\hat{\Phi}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\\|_{{\mathrm{F}}}^2:=\|\hat{\Phi}_{11}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\|^2+\|\hat{\Phi}_{22}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\|^2+2\,\|\hat{\Phi}_{12}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\|^2$ is the Frobenius norm. The above reasoning can be generalized to the case of $n$ targets in a straightforward manner. The measurement equation in that case becomes $$\label{y_meas_n} \begin{split} y_1({\mathbf t}) & = \sum_{k=1}^{n} a_k e^{ i \left( {\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(k)}},\,{{\mathbf t}}\rangle} +\varphi_k \right)} + w_1({\mathbf t}) \\ y_2({\mathbf t}) & = \sum_{k=1}^{n} a_k e^{ i \left( {\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(k)}},\,{{\mathbf t}}\rangle} + M\theta^{(k)}_3 +\varphi_k \right)} + w_2({\mathbf t}), \end{split}$$ in which the random phases $\{\varphi_k\}$ are assumed to be independent. The spectrum of the signal is a sum of $n$ Dirac deltas with masses concentrated at the target frequencies $\{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(k)}\}$ plus the noise spectrum. Then, the frequency estimates can be obtained as the first $n$ peaks of some suitable objective function (e.g., those reported previously) designed from the estimated spectrum. Another option is to use methods such as orthogonal matching pursuit (see, e.g., [@bruckstein2009sparse]) or RELAX [@li1996efficient] for the post processing step by using the relation . The remaining part of the problem is how to obtain a good estimate of the multidimensional-multivariate spectrum from a finite number of observations. Note that even though the model is derived for two radar sensors it is straightforward to extend the model to an arbitrary number of aligned sensors. THE WINDOWED PERIODOGRAM {#sec:periodogram} ======================== Suppose that we have a finite realization of the random field ${\mathbf y}({\mathbf t})$ given by with ${\mathbf t}\in{\mathbb Z}_{\mathbf N}^3$. Define the finite Fourier transform $$\label{y_sample_FT} \hat{{\mathbf y}}_{{\mathbf N}}({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) := \sum_{{\mathbf t}\in{\mathbb Z}^3_{{\mathbf N}}} {\mathbf y}({\mathbf t}) e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf t}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}}.$$ Then the (unwindowed) periodogram is defined as $$\label{Phi_periodgram} \hat{\Phi}_{{\mathrm{p}}}({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) := \frac{1}{\|{\mathbf N}\|} \hat{{\mathbf y}}_{{\mathbf N}}({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) \hat{{\mathbf y}}_{{\mathbf N}}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})^$$ where $\|{\mathbf N}\|:=N_1 N_2 N_3$ (cf. [@brockwell1991time]). This is a function on ${\mathbb T}^3$ whose values are Hermitian positive semidefinite matrices of rank one. In practice, $\hat{\Phi}_{{\mathrm{p}}}$ is an asymptotically unbiased estimator of $\Phi$ due to the relation $$\label{Phi_def2} \Phi({\boldsymbol{\omega}}):=\sum_{{\mathbf k}\in{\mathbb Z}^3} \Sigma_{{\mathbf k}}e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf k}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}} = \lim_{\min({\mathbf N})\to\infty} \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}\hat{\Phi}_{{\mathrm{p}}}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})$$ which holds under a mild assumption on the decay rate of the covariances. The more precise statement is given in [@ZFKZ2019M2 Section V]. It is well-known in the scalar unidimensional case (i.e., a scalar process with a single “time” index) that the periodogram corresponds to the correlogram using the standard biased covariance estimator* for $\Sigma_{\mathbf k}$ (see e.g., [@stoica2005spectral Chapter 2]). The same holds in our multivariate and multidimensional case. To see this, we need to first introduce the set $$\label{Zd_2K} {\mathbb Z}^3_{2{\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1}} := \{ {\mathbf k}\in{\mathbb Z}^3 \,:\, -N_j+1 \le k_j \le N_j-1,\, j=1,2,3 \}$$ for the covariance lags. Then after a change of the summation index, we have $$\begin{split} \hat{\Phi}_{{\mathrm{p}}}({\boldsymbol{\omega}}) & = \frac{1}{\|{\mathbf N}\|} \sum_{{\mathbf t}\in{\mathbb Z}^3_{{\mathbf N}}} \sum_{{\mathbf s}\in{\mathbb Z}^3_{{\mathbf N}}} {\mathbf y}({\mathbf t}) {\mathbf y}({\mathbf s})^* e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf t}-{\mathbf s}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}} \\ & = \frac{1}{\|{\mathbf N}\|} \sum_{{\mathbf k}\in{\mathbb Z}^3_{2{\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1}}} \sum_{{\mathbf s}\in\Xi_{{\mathbf N},{\mathbf k}}} {\mathbf y}({\mathbf s}+{\mathbf k}) {\mathbf y}({\mathbf s})^* e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf k}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}}, \end{split}$$ where each component of the index ${\mathbf s}$ in the second line must satisfy$$\label{s_j_inequal} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 \le s_j \le N_j-1-k_j & \textrm{if } k_j \ge 0 \\ -k_j \le s_j \le N_j-1 & \textrm{if } k_j<0 \\ \end{array} \right. ,$$ and hence the set $$\Xi_{{\mathbf N},{\mathbf k}}:=\{{\mathbf s}\in{\mathbb Z}^3 \,:\, s_j \textrm{ satisfies \eqref{s_j_inequal} for } j=1,2,3\}.$$ For ${\mathbf k}\in{\mathbb Z}^3_{2{\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1}}$, take the covariance estimate to be $$\label{cov_est} \hat{\Sigma}_{{\mathbf k}}:=\frac{1}{\|{\mathbf N}\|}\sum_{{\mathbf s}\in\Xi_{{\mathbf N},{\mathbf k}}} {\mathbf y}({\mathbf s}+{\mathbf k}) {\mathbf y}({\mathbf s})^*,$$ and we have $$\label{Phi_correlogram} \hat{\Phi}_{{\mathrm{p}}}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})= \sum_{{\mathbf k}\in{\mathbb Z}^3_{2{\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1}}} \hat{\Sigma}_{{\mathbf k}} e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf k}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}}.$$ From the above relation, one immediately sees that the periodogram is not a good estimator of the spectrum because the sample covariances with large lags (which are very noisy) enter $\hat{\Phi}_{\mathrm{p}}$ as if they were as reliable as $\Sigma_{{\boldsymbol{0}}}$. Moreover, by the definition , we know that the periodogram is always singular for any ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}\in{\mathbb T}^3$. As a result, in our $2\times2$ scenario, we have $\|\Phi_{12}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\|^2=\Phi_{11}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})\Phi_{22}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})$, which means that the cross spectrum does not give much extra information since its modulus is completely determined by the diagonal terms. To handle these issues concerning the periodogram, we resort to the windowing technique, also know as the Blackman-Tukey method. More precisely, we first fix a vector of positive integers ${\mathbf n}:=[n_1,n_2,n_3]$ which are small elementwise compared to ${\mathbf N}$. Then we choose the index set $$\Lambda:=\{{\mathbf k}\in{\mathbb Z}^3\,:\,\|k_j\|\leq n_j,\ j=1,2,3\}$$ as the domain of the real-valued window function $w(\cdot)$, and discard those covariance estimates with indices ${\mathbf k}$ outside the set $\Lambda$. The resulting spectrum estimator is $$\label{Phi_corr_windowed} \hat{\Phi}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})= \sum_{{\mathbf k}\in\Lambda} w({\mathbf k}) \hat{\Sigma}_{{\mathbf k}} e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf k}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}}.$$ Some Computational Details -------------------------- In order to obtain the windowed periodogram , we need to compute the covariance estimates , at least for the indices ${\mathbf k}\in\Lambda$. Under our multidimensional-multivariate setup, directly computing those quantities can be messy and asymptotically inefficient. An alternative implied by the relation is to first form the unwindowed periodogram using and , and then obtain $\{\hat{\Sigma}_{\mathbf k}\}$ with the inverse FFT. Notice that we have to respect the signal processing convention of the DFT which is followed by implementations of the FFT routine. More precisely, if we relabel the covariance sequence by letting $\hat{\Sigma}_{\mathbf k}=X_{{\mathbf k}+{\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1}}$, then it is easy to verify that $$\sum_{{\mathbf k}={\boldsymbol{0}}}^{2({\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1})} X_{\mathbf k}e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf k}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}} = e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}} \sum_{{\mathbf k}\in{\mathbb Z}^3_{2{\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1}}} \hat{\Sigma}_{\mathbf k}e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf k}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}}.$$ This means that the steps to get the covariance estimates in given the data array ${\mathbf y}({\mathbf t})$, ${\mathbf t}\in{\mathbb Z}_{\mathbf N}^3$ are the following three: 1. Perform the FFT of size $2{\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1}$ to ${\mathbf y}({\mathbf t})$ with zero padding; 2. Compute the periodogram $\hat{\Phi}_{{\mathrm{p}}}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})$ by ; 3. Perform the inverse FFT of $e^{-i{\langle{{\mathbf N}-{\mathbf 1}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}} \hat{\Phi}_{{\mathrm{p}}}({\boldsymbol{\omega}})$. Similarly, the windowed periodogram is obtained by performing FFT of size ${\mathbf N}$ to the covariance sequence $\{w({\mathbf k})\hat{\Sigma}_{\mathbf k}\}_{{\mathbf k}\in\Lambda}$ and multiplying the result by $e^{i{\langle{{\mathbf n}},\,{{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}\rangle}}$. In the case of $m$ measurement channels, the “independent” processing needs $m$ auto-spectra. In contrast, the other two schemes and require also the cross spectra. Clearly, the time complexity for computing the complete matricial spectrum grows roughly at the scale of $m^2$. Recall at last that after the windowing operation, the spectrum is not necessarily positive definite over the frequency domain. Such positivity is checked on the ${\mathbf N}$-grid of ${\mathbb T}^3$. SIMULATION RESULTS {#sec:sim} ================== ![Frequency estimation error when ${\mathbf N}=[\,40\;40\;7\,]$.[]{data-label="fig:res1"}](ris40407){width="50.00000%"} ![Frequency estimation error when ${\mathbf N}=[\,60\;60\;4\,]$.[]{data-label="fig:res2"}](ris60604){width="50.00000%"} ![Frequency estimation error when ${\mathbf N}=[\,70\;70\;3 \,]$.[]{data-label="fig:res3"}](ris70703){width="50.00000%"} We perform Monte Carlo simulations, each of which contains $1000$ repeated trials. In each trial, every component of the target frequencies vector ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ is drawn from the uniform distribution in $[-\pi,\pi]$. The signal amplitude is fixed as $a=1$. The measurement noises are zero-mean Gaussian with a standard deviation $\tilde{\sigma}=20$ (low-quality sensor). The integer that appears in the second measurement channel for the phase shift is set as $M=20$. After choosing the size ${\mathbf N}$ of the data array, the vector measurements ${\mathbf y}({\mathbf t})$ are generated according to the model . Then the windowed periodogram is computed. More precisely, the following two window functions have been implemented to smooth the periodogram: 1. the rectangular window, that is $w({\mathbf k})=1$ for all ${\mathbf k}\in\Lambda$; 2. the Bartlett window, that is $$w({\mathbf k})=w_1(k_1)w_2(k_2)w_3(k_3)$$ where for $j=1,2,3$, $$w_j(k_j)=\frac{n_j+1-\|k_j\|}{n_j+1},\quad k_j=-n_j,\dots,n_j.$$ The window widths are fixed as ${\mathbf n}=[\,8 \; 8 \; 2\,]$ for the rectangular window and ${\mathbf n}=[\,12\;12\;3\,]$ for the Bartlett window. [These windows have been chosen empirically in such a way that the single channel periodograms exhibit good performances.]{} Then, the target frequencies vector $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}$ is obtained by each of the three post-processing methods described in Section \[sec:problem\]. Next we consider the following estimators for ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$: R-I, R-F, R-S, B-I, B-F and B-S. R and B means that the windowed periodogram has been computed using the rectangular and the Bartlett window, respectively. The letters I, S, and F correspond to the methods for searching the peak in the windowed periodogram using (\[theta\_est\_m1\]), (\[theta\_est\_m3\]) and (\[theta\_est\_m2\]), respectively. The performances of such estimators are measured by the norm of the error, namely $\\|\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}-{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\\|$. These errors in each trial are collected and visualized using the boxplot. According to the Matlab documentation, on each box, the central mark indicates the median, and the bottom and top edges of the box indicate the $25$th and $75$th percentiles, respectively. The whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers, and the outliers are plotted individually using the “$+$” symbol. In the first Monte Carlo experiment we consider ${\mathbf N}=[\, 40\; 40\; 7\,]$. The results are depicted in Fig. \[fig:res1\]. As one can see, the best performance is given by R-F and B-F, i.e., the methods using (\[theta\_est\_m2\]) which exploits the information coming from the dependence between the two measurements channels. The “shift” methods R-S and B-S provide only minor improvements in the performance. The reason can probably be explained as follows. The true phase shift $e^{-iM\theta_3}$ between the two measurement channels is fixed, while the compensation term depends on the variable $\omega_3$. Therefore, the weight is not correct unless $\omega_3=\theta_3$. Since our computations are only carried out for the variable ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ on a discrete grid, an exact phase cancellation almost never happens. In the second Monte Carlo experiment we consider ${\mathbf N}=[\, 60\; 60\; 4\,]$, i.e., the two ULAs receiver modules have the number of antennas which coincides with the series-production automotive radar sensor considered in [@engels2017advances Table 1]. The results are depicted in Fig. \[fig:res2\]: the same observations as before can be drawn. In the third Monte Carlo experiment we consider ${\mathbf N}=[\, 70\; 70\; 3\,]$, i.e., the two ULAs receiver modules have a very small number of antennas. The same observation as before still hold, see Fig. \[fig:res3\]. These experiments show that the information in the cross term of the multidimensional multivariate windowed periodogram (\[Phi\_corr\_windowed\]) provide an estimator of ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$, through (\[theta\_est\_m2\]), which outperforms the one that uses only the auto-spectra. Finally, it is worth noting that in all the Monte Carlo experiments, the number of samples per pulse and the number of pulses are small making the estimation procedure computationally efficient, in particular, when computing the FFT. On average, with the grid sizes corresponding to Figs. \[fig:res1\], \[fig:res2\], and \[fig:res3\], the time needed to run one trial is $0.16$, $0.19$, and $0.22$ s, respectively. The simulation environment is Matlab on a laptop with an Intel Core i5-4200U CPU and 3.6 GB of RAM. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS {#sec:concl} ============================ We have considered an integrated system of automotive modules for the target parameter estimation problem. Simulation results show that the cross term in the multidimensional multivariate windowed periodogram provides a remarkable improvement for estimating the target frequencies. On the other hand, the proposed periodogram gives an estimation error of the target frequencies characterized by some outliers. Possible extensions are to develop high-resolution spectral estimation techniques (cf. [@georgiou2001spectral]) as well as methods applicable for MIMO transmit arrays [@li2007mimo]. Another possible extension is to consider the more general formulation in [@Georgiou-06 Section II], instead of a finite superposition of sinusoids as in . The ULAs’ measurements can be modeled as integrals $$\label{y_j_integral} \begin{split} y_1({\mathbf t}) & = \int_{{\mathbb T}^3} a({\boldsymbol{\theta}}) e^{ i \left( {\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\,{{\mathbf t}}\rangle} +\varphi({\boldsymbol{\theta}}) \right)} {\mathrm{d}}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}+ w_1({\mathbf t}) \\ y_2({\mathbf t}) & = \int_{{\mathbb T}^3} a({\boldsymbol{\theta}}) e^{ i \left( {\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\,{{\mathbf t}}\rangle} + M\theta_3 +\varphi({\boldsymbol{\theta}}) \right)} {\mathrm{d}}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}+ w_2({\mathbf t}), \end{split}$$ where, now the amplitude $a$ and the initial phase $\varphi$ are both functions of the frequency, and ${\mathrm{d}}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}:={\mathrm{d}}\theta_1{\mathrm{d}}\theta_2{\mathrm{d}}\theta_3$. Again we make the assumption that $\varphi({\boldsymbol{\theta}})$ follows a uniform distribution in $[-\pi,\pi]$ for any ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}\in {\mathbb T}^3$, and $\varphi({\boldsymbol{\theta}})$ and $\varphi({\boldsymbol{\theta}}')$ are independent if ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}\neq{\boldsymbol{\theta}}'$.[^4] The covariance lag has the expression $$\label{moment_eqn} \Sigma_{{\mathbf k}} = \int_{{\mathbb T}^3} \|a({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\|^2 R \, e^{ i {\langle{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},\,{{\mathbf k}}\rangle}} {\mathrm{d}}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}+ \tilde{\sigma}^2 \delta_{{\mathbf k},{\boldsymbol{0}}} I_2. $$ Hence the multidimensional multivariate spectral density is $\Phi({\boldsymbol{\theta}})= (2\pi)^3 \|a({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\|^2 R + \tilde{\sigma}^2 I_2$ in which $(2\pi)^3$ is a normalization constant for the Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb T}^3$. Within this framework it would be possible to build a theory for the construction of the spectrum based on the moment equation whose left-hand side is replaced with the standard biased covariance estimates (see Section \[sec:periodogram\]) computed from the radar measurements. It is worth noting that some a priori information on the spectrum to be estimated can be used in the same spirit of the so called THREE-like estimators [@byrnes2000new; @P-F-SIAM-REV; @ZorzSep; @KLapprox; @BEL02]. Once a spectrum is constructed, the frequency estimate can be obtained by . [^1]: This work was supported by the SID project “A Multidimensional and Multivariate Moment Problem Theory for Target Parameter Estimation in Automotive Radars” (ZORZ\_SID19\_01) funded by the Department of Information Engineering of the University of Padova. [^2]: B. Zhu, A. Ferrante, and M. Zorzi are with the Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, Via Gradenigo 6/B, 35131 Padova, Italy [[email protected]]{}, [[email protected]]{}, [[email protected]]{} [^3]: J. Karlsson is with Division of Optimization and Systems Theory, Department of Mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden [[email protected]]{} [^4]: Notice that the assumption of independence may be questionable as one naturally wants to require the function $\varphi({\boldsymbol{\theta}})$ to be continuous in ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ in the mean-square sense. However, since we eventually deal with discrete spectra in the implementation, such an assumption is acceptable.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We demonstrate a reversible conversion of a $^6$Li$_2$ molecular Bose-Einstein condensate to a degenerate Fermi gas of atoms by adiabatically crossing a Feshbach resonance. By optical in situ imaging, we observe a smooth change of the cloud size in the crossover regime. On the Feshbach resonance, the ensemble is strongly interacting and the measured cloud size is $75(7)\%$ of the one of a non-interacting zero-temperature Fermi gas. The high condensate fraction of more than $90\%$ and the adiabatic crossover suggest our Fermi gas to be cold enough to form a superfluid.' address: \| $^{1}$Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Innsbruck, Technikerstra[ß]{}e 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria\ $^{2}$Institut für Quantenoptik und Quanteninformation, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria author: - 'M. Bartenstein,$^{1}$ A. Altmeyer,$^{1}$ S. Riedl,$^{1}$ S. Jochim,$^{1}$ C. Chin,$^{1}$ J. Hecker Denschlag,$^{1}$ R. Grimm$^{1,2}$' title: 'Crossover from a molecular Bose-Einstein condensate to a degenerate Fermi gas' --- Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of molecules formed by fermionic atoms was recently demonstrated [@li2becinn; @k2bec; @li2becmit; @private]. The tunability of interactions in such systems provides a unique possibility to explore the Bose-Einstein condensate to Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BEC-BCS) crossover [@becbcs], an intriguing interplay between the superfluidity of bosons and Cooper pairing of fermions. While the BEC and BCS limits are both well understood, the crossover takes place in a strongly interacting regime, which represents a challenge for many-body theory. Feshbach resonances [@feshbach] play a central role to control two-body interaction and have been used for conversion between fermionic atoms and bosonic molecules [@jin; @hulet; @li2thermal1; @li2thermal2]. They are also the experimental key to investigate phenomena related to the BEC-BCS crossover. For example, it has been predicted in Ref.[@carr] that a pure molecular BEC can be converted into a superfluid Fermi gas by an adiabatic passage over the Feshbach resonance. Moreover, in the crossover regime where the interactions are unitarity limited, a universal behavior is expected [@heiselberg; @ho03]. Ultracold gases in that regime may provide new insights into other strongly-interacting systems such as high-$T_c$ superconductors, $^3$He superfluids, and neutron stars. A spin-mixture of $^6$Li atoms in the lowest two hyperfine sub-levels is an excellent system to investigate the crossover [@thomasmechan; @salomon] based on a broad Feshbach resonance at a magnetic field of $B=850$G [@feshbach8500; @feshbach850; @feshbach850b]. An efficient formation of ultracold molecules has been realized by three-body recombination [@li2thermal2; @Chin2003], or by sweeping the magnetic field across the resonance [@li2thermal1]. The long lifetime of the molecules permits efficient evaporation [@li2thermal1; @li2thermal2; @li2becinn] and facilitates slow, adiabatic changes of the system. In this work, we explore the regime where the BEC-BCS crossover is expected by analyzing the density profiles of the trapped cloud at different magnetic fields. Our experimental setup is described in Ref. [@li2becinn]. We load $2\times 10^6$ precooled $^6$Li atoms into a single focused-beam dipole trap, which is generated by a 10W Yb:YAG laser operating at a wavelength of 1030nm. We evaporatively cool the cloud by exponentially lowering the trap depth with a time constant of $460$ms. The radial and axial trap frequencies are $\omega_r/2\pi=110$Hz$(P/{\rm mW})^{1/2}$ and $\omega_z/2\pi=(600 B/{\rm kG}+0.94 P/{\rm mW})^{1/2}$Hz, respectively, where $P$ is the laser power. The curvature of the magnetic field that we use for Feshbach tuning results in a magnetic contribution to the axial trapping. In the low power range where the molecular BEC is formed ($P < 50$mW), the axial confinement is predominantly magnetic. During the whole evaporation process the magnetic field is kept at $B=764$G. At this field the molecular binding energy is $\sim$$k_B \times 2\mu$K, where $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant. For the scattering length of elastic molecule-molecule collisions we expect $a_{mol} = 2200\,a_0$, based on the predicted relation of $a_{mol} = 0.6a$ [@petrovam] and an atomic scattering length of $a = 3500\,a_0$ [@feshbach850]. Here $a_0$ is Bohr’s radius. Using radio-frequency spectroscopy which allows us to distinguish signals from atoms and molecules [@jin], we observe a complete atom to molecule conversion when the thermal energy of the particles is reduced to values well below the molecular binding energy. ![Axial density profiles of a partially condensed (a) and fully condensed (b) molecular cloud. The profiles are derived from averaging seven in situ images taken at a magnetic field of $B=676$G after evaporation at the production field of 764G. (a) When the evaporation ramp is stopped with $4\times 10^5$ molecules at a final laser power of 28mW, a characteristic bimodal distribution is observed with a condensate fraction of $\sim$20%. The dashed curve shows Gaussian fit to the thermal fraction. (b) At a final laser power of 3.8mW, an essentially pure condensate of $2\times 10^5$ molecules is obtained.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1){width="3in"} For detection we apply in situ absorption imaging to record spatial density profiles of the trapped ensemble. To image at high magnetic fields, we illuminate the cloud for $20\mu$s with a probe beam (intensity $0.5$mW/cm$^2$) tuned to the atomic $\|2S_{1/2}, m_J=-1/2, m_I=0\rangle \rightarrow \|2P_{3/2}, m'_J=-3/2, m'_I=0 \rangle$ transition. The probe beam dissociates the molecules and is used to image the resulting atom cloud [@li2becmit]. Compared to the absorption imaging of unbound atoms, we found that the detection efficiency of the molecules approaches $100\%$ at fields higher than 750G and $\sim 50\%$ at 650G. The difference is due to the Frank-Condon wavefunction overlap, which favors fields closer to the resonance where the interatomic separation in the molecular state is larger. In our cigar-shaped trap, the radial cloud size is on the order of our imaging resolution of $10\mu$m, while the axial cloud size of typically $\sim 100\mu$m can be accurately measured. We therefore obtain axial density distributions from images integrated radially. To measure the condensate fraction, we adiabatically reduce the magnetic field from 764G to 676G in a 200-ms linear ramp after completion of the evaporation ramp. This reduces the scattering length $a_{mol}$ and thus increases the visibility of the characteristic bimodal distribution. Fig. \[fig1\](a) shows a bimodal profile observed in this way with $N_{mol}=N/2=4\times10^5$ molecules remaining at a final evaporation ramp power of 28mW. A Gaussian fit to the thermal wings (dashed line) yields a temperature of T=430nK, which is a factor of 7.5 below the calculated trap depth of 3.2$\mu$K. The observed condensate fraction of $\sim20\%$ is consistent with $1-(T/T_c)^3$, where $T_c=0.8k_B^{-1}\hbar\bar{\omega}(N_{mol}/1.202)^{1/3}=$500nK is the critical temperature, $\bar{\omega}=(\omega_r^2\omega_z)^{1/3}$ is the mean vibration frequency, and the factor of 0.8 takes into account the $\sim$20% down-shift in $T_c$ due to interactions [@giorgini1996a]. We obtain pure molecular condensates when we continue the evaporation process down to final power levels of a few mW. Fig. \[fig1\](b) shows an essentially pure condensate of $N_{mol}=2.0\times10^5$ molecules obtained at a final power of 3.8mW, where the trap depth is $450$nK. The density profile is well fit by a Thomas-Fermi density distribution $\propto (1-z^2/z^2_{\rm TF})^2$ with a radius $z_{\rm TF} = 105\,\mu$m. The corresponding peak molecular density is $1.2\times 10^{13}$cm$^{-3}$. In the image a thermal component is not discernable. A careful analysis of the profile provides us with a lower bound of $90\%$ for the condensate fraction. For the chemical potential of the BEC we obtain $\mu = \frac{1}{2}m_{\rm mol}\omega_z^2 z^2_{\rm TF} = k_{\rm B} \times 130$nK. Here $m_{\rm mol} = 2m$ is the mass of the $^6$Li dimer. Based on the prediction $a_{mol}=0.6a=650a_0$, the calculated chemical potential of $\frac12(15\hbar^2N_{mol}\bar{\omega}^3a_{mol}\sqrt{m_{mol}})^{2/5}=k_B\times 155$nK is consistent with the observed value of $k_B\times 130$nK considering the experimental uncertainty. In particular, the particle number is calibrated to within a factor of $1.5$ through fluorescence imaging [@li2thermal2]. The pure molecular BEC at 764G serves as our starting point for exploring the crossover to the degenerate Fermi gas. Before we change the magnetic field, we first adiabatically increase the trap power from 3.8mW to 35mW in a 200-ms exponential ramp. The higher power provides a trap depth of $\sim$$k_B\times\,2\,\mu$K for the atoms, which is roughly a factor of two above the Fermi energy, and avoids spilling of the Fermi gas produced at magnetic fields above the resonance [@li2becinn]. The compression increases the peak density of the condensate by a factor of $2.5$. All further experiments reported here are performed in the recompressed trap with $\omega_r/2\pi = 640\,$Hz and $\omega_z/2\pi=(600 B/{\rm kG}+ 32)^{1/2}$Hz. We measure the lifetime of the BEC in the compressed trap at 764G to be $40$s. The peak molecular density is estimated to be $n_{mol}=(15/8\pi)(\omega_r/\omega_z)^2N_{mol}/z_{TF}^3=1.0(5) \times 10^{13} {\rm cm}^{-3}$. This provides an upper bound for the binary loss coefficient of $1\times 10^{-14}$cm$^3$/s, and is consistent with previous measurements in thermal molecular gases [@li2thermal1; @li2thermal2] together with the predicted scattering length scaling [@petrovam] and the factor-of-two suppression of binary collision loss in a condensate. For exploring the crossover to a Fermi gas we apply slow magnetic field ramps. To ensure their adiabaticity we performed several test experiments. In one series of measurements we ramped up the field from 764G to 882G and back to 764G with variable ramp speed. This converts the molecular BEC into a strongly interacting Fermi gas and vice versa. Therefore substantial changes are expected in the cloud size. After the up-and-down ramp we observe an axial oscillation of the ensemble at the quadrupolar excitation frequency [@stringari; @li2becinn]. This collective oscillation is the lowest excitation mode of the system and is thus sensitive to non-adiabaticity effects. We observe axial oscillations with relative amplitudes of $>5\%$ for ramp speeds above $1.2$G/ms. For ramp speeds of $0.6$G/ms and lower, the axial oscillation was no longer visible. ![Axial profile of a molecular BEC at 764G ($\bullet$) after its conversion into a Fermi gas at 1176G and subsequent back-conversion. Two 1-s magnetic field ramps are applied in this reversible process. For reference we show the corresponding profile observed without the magnetic field ramp ($\circ$). The density profiles are obtained by averaging over 50 images. The difference shown in the lower graph is consistent with the drifts of a residual interference pattern in the images.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2){width="3in"} We also checked the reversibility of the crossover process by linearly ramping up the magnetic field from 764G to 1176G and down again to 764G within 2s (ramp speed of $\pm$0.41G/ms). In Fig. \[fig2\], we compare the axial profile taken after this ramp ($\bullet$) with the corresponding profile obtained after 2s at fixed magnetic field ($\circ$). The comparison does not show any significant deviation. This highlights that the conversion into a Fermi gas and its back-conversion into a molecular BEC are lossless and proceed without noticeable increase of the entropy. To investigate the spatial profile of the trapped gas in different regimes we start with the molecular BEC at 764G and change the magnetic field in 1-s linear ramps to final values between 740G and 1440G. Images are then taken at the final ramp field. To characterize the size of the trapped gas, we determine the root-mean-squared axial size $z_{\rm rms}$. This rms-size is related to the axial radius $z_{\rm TF}$ by $z_{\rm rms} = z_{\rm TF}/\sqrt{7}$ in the case of a pure BEC in the Thomas-Fermi limit and by $z_{\rm rms} = z_{\rm TF}/\sqrt{8}$ in the cases of zero-temperature non-interacting or strongly interacting Fermi gases [@fit]. ![Axial cloud size measurements across the Feshbach resonance. In (a) the atomic scattering length $a$ is shown according to [@feshbach850]; the resonance at 850G is marked by the vertical dashed line. The data in (b) display the measured rms cloud sizes. In (c), the same data are plotted after normalization to a non-interacting Fermi gas. The solid line shows the expectation from BEC mean-field theory with $a_{mol} = 0.6\,a$. In (b) and (c), the error bars show the statistical error of the size measurements from typically five individual images.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="3in"} Fig. \[fig3\](b) shows how the measured axial size $z_{\rm rms}$ changes with the magnetic field. For comparison, Fig.\[fig3\](a) displays the magnetic-field dependence of the atomic scattering length $a$. Up to 950G an increase in $z_{\rm rms}$ is due to the crossover from the molecular BEC to the degenerate Fermi gas. For higher magnetic fields the axial cloud size of the Fermi gas shrinks with $B$ as the axial magnetic confinement increases ($\omega_z \propto \sqrt{B}$). For the following discussions, we normalize the observed size to the one expected for a non-interacting Fermi gas. In particular, this removes the explicit trap dependence. In Fig. \[fig3\](c) we show the normalized axial size $\zeta=z_{\rm rms}/z_0$, where $z_0=(E_F/4m\omega_z^2)^{1/2}$ is the rms axial size of a non-interacting zero-temperature Fermi gas with $N = 4\times10^5$ atoms. The Fermi energy $E_F = \hbar^2k_F^2/2m=\hbar \bar{\omega}(3N)^{1/3}$ amounts to $k_{\rm B} \times 1.1\,\mu$K at 850G, and the Fermi wave number $k_F$ corresponds to a length scale of $k_F^{-1} = 3600\,a_0$. Below the Feshbach resonance, the observed dependence of the cloud size agrees well with the mean-field behavior of a BEC in the Thomas-Fermi limit. In this regime, the normalized size is given by $\zeta=0.688 (a_{mol}/a)^{1/5} (E_F/E_b)^{1/10}$, where $E_b=\hbar^2/ma^2$ is the molecular binding energy. Fig.\[fig3\](c) shows the corresponding curve (solid line) calculated with $a_{mol}/a=0.6$ [@petrovam]. This BEC limit provides a reasonable approximation up to $\sim$800G; here the molecular gas interaction parameter is $n_{mol}a_{mol}^3 \approx 0.08$. Alternatively, the interaction strength can be expressed as $k_Fa\approx 1.9$. The crossover to the Fermi gas is observed in the vicinity of the Feshbach resonance between 800G and 950G; here $\zeta$ smoothly increases with the magnetic field until it levels off at 950G, where the interaction strength is characterized by $k_Fa \approx -1.9$. Our results suggest that the crossover occurs within the range of $-0.5\lesssim (k_Fa)^{-1}\lesssim0.5$, which corresponds to the strongly-interacting regime. The smoothness of the crossover is further illustrated in Fig. \[fig4\]. Here the spatial profiles near the resonance show the gradually increasing cloud size without any noticeable new features. ![Observed axial density profiles near the Feshbach resonance, averaged over 50 images and symmetrized to reduce imaging imperfections. The rms cloud sizes are 93$\mu$m, 99$\mu$m, and 103$\mu$m at $B= 809$G, 850G, and 882G, respectively. For comparison, the on-resonance data at 850G are shown together with a fit by the expected profile $\propto (1-z^2/z_{\rm TF}^2)^{5/2}$. The small deviation near the top is due to a residual interference pattern in the images.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4){width="3in"} On resonance a universal regime is realized [@heiselberg; @ho03; @thomasmechan], where scattering is fully governed by unitarity and the scattering length drops out of the description. Here the normalized cloud size can be written as $\zeta=(1+\beta)^{1/4}$, where $\beta$ parameterizes the mean-field contribution to the chemical potential in terms of the local Fermi energy [@thomasmechan]. At 850G our measured value of $\zeta=0.75\pm0.07$ provides $\beta=-0.68^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$. Here the total error range includes all statistic and systematic uncertainties with the particle number giving the dominant contribution. Note that the uncertainty in the Feshbach resonance position is not included in the errors [@feshbach850b]. Our experimental results reveal a stronger interaction effect than previous measurements that yielded $\beta=-0.26(7)$ at $T=0.15T_F$ [@thomasmechan] and $\beta\approx -0.3$ at $T=0.6T_F$ [@salomon]. Our value of $\beta$ lies within the range of the theoretical predictions for a zero temperature Fermi gas: $-0.67$ [@betabaker; @heiselberg], $-0.43$ [@betabaker] and, in particular, $-0.56(1)$ from a recent quantum Monte Carlo calculation [@carlson]. Beyond the Feshbach resonance, in the Fermi gas regime above $950$G we observe an essentially constant normalized cloud size of $\zeta=0.83\pm0.07$. In this regime the interaction parameter $k_Fa$ is calculated to vary between $-2$ (at 950G) and $-0.8$ (at 1440G), which allows us to estimate $\zeta$ to vary between 0.90 and 0.95 based on the interaction energy calculations in Ref. [@heiselberg]. Our observed values are somewhat below this expectation, which requires further investigation. In summary, we have demonstrated the smooth crossover from a molecular condensate of $^6$Li dimers to an atomic Fermi gas. Since the conversion is adiabatic and reversible, the temperature of the Fermi gas can be estimated from the conservation of entropy [@carr]. Our high condensate fraction of $> 90\%$ suggests a very small entropy which in the Fermi gas limit corresponds to an extremely low temperature of $k_BT<0.04E_F$. In this scenario, superfluidity can be expected to extend from the molecular BEC regime into the strongly interacting Fermi gas regime above the Feshbach resonance where $k_Fa\lesssim -1$. Our experiment thus opens up intriguing possibilities to study atomic Cooper pairing and superfluidity in resonant quantum gases. We thank G.V. Shlyapnikov, W. Zwerger and S. Stringari and his group for very useful discussions. We acknowledge support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) within SFB 15 (project part 15) and by the European Union in the frame of the Cold Molecules TMR Network under Contract No. HPRN-CT-2002-00290. C.C. is a Lise-Meitner research fellow of the FWF. [10]{} S. Jochim et al., Science [302]{}, 2101 (2003); published online Nov. 13, 2003 (10.1126/science.1093280). M. Greiner, C.A. Regal, and D.S. Jin, Nature [426]{}, 537 (2003). M. Zwierlein et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [91]{}, 250401 (2003). C. Salomon, private communication. A.J. Leggett, in [Modern Trends in the Theory of Condensed Matter]{}, edited by A. Pekalski and R. Przystawa (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980); P. Nozières and S. Schmitt-Rink, J. Low Temp. Phys. [59]{}, 195 (1985); M. Drechsler and W. Zwerger, Ann. Phys. [1]{}, 15 (1992); E. Timmermans, K. Furuya, P.W. Milonni, A.K. Kerman, Phys. Lett. A [285]{}, 228 (2001); M. Holland, S.J.J.M.F. Kokkelmans, M.L. Chiofalo, and R. Walser, Phys. Rev. Lett. [87]{}, 120406 (2001); Y. Ohashi, A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [89]{}, 130402 (2002); R. Combescot, Phys. Rev. Lett. [91]{}, 120401 (2003); A. Perali, P. Pieri, and G.C. Strinati, Phys. Rev. A [68]{}, 031601(R) (2003); J. Stajic et al., cond-mat/0309329. E. Tiesinga, B.J. Verhaar, and H.T.C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A [47]{}, 4114 (1993); S. Inouye et al., Nature [392]{}, 151 (1998). C.A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J.L. Bohn, and D.S. Jin, Nature (London) [424]{}, 47 (2003). J. Cubizolles et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [91]{}, 240401 (2003). K.E. Strecker, G.B. Partridge, R.G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. [91]{}, 080406 (2003). S. Jochim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [91]{}, 240402 (2003). L.D. Carr, G.V. Shlyapnikov, Y. Castin, cond-mat/0308306. H. Heiselberg, Phys. Rev. A [63]{}, 043606 (2001). T.-L. Ho and E.J. Mueller, cond-mat/0306187. K.M. O’Hara et al., Science [298]{}, 2179 (2002); M.E. Gehm et al., Phys. Rev. A [68]{}, 011401 (2003). T. Bourdel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [91]{}, 020402 (2003). M. Houbiers, H.T.C. Stoof, W. McAlexander, and R. Hulet, Phys. Rev. A [57]{}, R1497 (1998). K.M. O’Hara et al., Phys. Rev. A [66]{}, 041401R (2002). The resonance position is uncertain within a few 10G. C. Chin and R. Grimm, cond-mat/0309078. D.S. Petrov, C. Salomon, G.V. Shlyapnikov, cond-mat/0309010. S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A [54]{}, R4633 (1996). S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. [77]{}, 2360 (1996). We fit the density profiles with the function $\rho(z) = \rho_0 (1-z^2/z_{\rm r}^2)^\alpha$, where $\rho_0$, $z_r$, and $2 \le \alpha \le 2.5$ are free parameters. This function interpolates between the density profile of a pure BEC in the Thomas-Fermi limit with $\alpha=2$ and a zero-temperature non-interacting or strongly interacting Fermi gas with $\alpha=2.5$. The rms cloud size $z_{\rm rms}$ is obtained from $z_{\rm r}$ and $\alpha$ by $z_{\rm rms}=z_{\rm r}/\sqrt{3+2\alpha}$. G. A. Baker, Phys. Rev. C. [60]{}, 054311 (1999). J. Carlson, S.-Y. Chang, V.R. Pandharipande, and K.E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [91]{}, 050401 (2003).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The effort devoted to hand-crafting neural network image classifiers has motivated the use of architecture search to discover them automatically. Although evolutionary algorithms have been repeatedly applied to neural network topologies, the image classifiers thus discovered have remained inferior to human-crafted ones. Here, we evolve an image classifier——that surpasses hand-designs for the first time. To do this, we modify the tournament selection evolutionary algorithm by introducing an age property to favor the younger genotypes. Matching size, has comparable accuracy to current state-of-the-art ImageNet models discovered with more complex architecture-search methods. Scaled to larger size, sets a new state-of-the-art 83.9% / 96.6% ImageNet accuracy. In a controlled comparison against a well known reinforcement learning algorithm, we give evidence that evolution can obtain results faster with the same hardware, especially at the earlier stages of the search. This is relevant when fewer compute resources are available. Evolution is, thus, a simple method to effectively discover high-quality architectures.' author: - Esteban Real^^ - Alok Aggarwal^^ - Yanping Huang^^ - \| Quoc V. Le\ Google Brain, Mountain View, California, USA\ ^^Equal contribution. ^^Correspondence: [email protected] bibliography: - 'real2018\_regularized\_evolution.bib' nocite: '[@simmons2011false]' title: Regularized Evolution for Image Classifier Architecture Search --- Introduction ============ Until recently, most state-of-the-art image classifier architectures have been manually designed by human experts [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @szegedy2015going; @he2016deep; @huang2016densely; @hu2017squeeze]. To speed up the process, researchers have looked into automated methods [@baker2016designing; @zoph2016neural; @miikkulainen2017evolving; @real2017large; @xie2017genetic; @suganuma2017genetic; @liu2017progressive; @pham2018faster]. These methods are now collectively known as architecture-search algorithms. A traditional approach is neuro-evolution of topologies [@miller1989designing; @angeline1994evolutionary; @stanley2002evolving]. Improved hardware now allows scaling up evolution to produce high-quality image classifiers [@real2017large; @xie2017genetic; @liu2017hierarchical]. Yet, the architectures produced by evolutionary algorithms / genetic programming have not reached the accuracy of those directly designed by human experts. Here we evolve image classifiers that surpass hand-designs. To do this, we make two additions to the standard evolutionary process. First, we propose a change to the well-established tournament selection evolutionary algorithm [@goldberg1991comparative] that we refer to as aging evolution or regularized evolution. Whereas in tournament selection, the best genotypes (architectures) are kept, we propose to associate each genotype with an age, and bias the tournament selection to choose the younger genotypes. We will show that this change turns out to make a difference. The connection to regularization will be clarified in the Discussion section. Second, we implement the simplest set of mutations that would allow evolving in the NASNet search space [@zoph2017learning]. This search space associates convolutional neural network architectures with small directed graphs in which vertices represent hidden states and labeled edges represent common network operations (such as convolutions or pooling layers). Our mutation rules only alter architectures by randomly reconnecting the origin of edges to different vertices and by randomly relabeling the edges, covering the full search space. Searching in the NASNet space allows a controlled comparison between evolution and the original method for which it was designed, reinforcement learning (RL). Thus, this paper presents the first comparative case study of architecture-search algorithms for the image classification task. Within this case study, we will demonstrate that evolution can attain similar results with a simpler method, as will be shown in the Discussion section. In particular, we will highlight that in all our experiments evolution searched faster than RL and random search, especially at the earlier stages, which is important when experiments cannot be run for long times due to compute resource limitations. Despite its simplicity, our approach works well in our benchmark against RL. It also evolved a high-quality model, which we name . This model is competitive with the best image classifiers obtained by any other algorithm today at similar sizes (82.8% top-1 / 96.1% top-5 ImageNet accuracy). When scaled up, it sets a new state-of-the-art accuracy (83.9% / 96.6% ImageNet accuracy)[^1]. Related Work ============ Review papers provide informative surveys of earlier [@yao1999evolving; @floreano2008neuroevolution] and more recent [@elsken2018neural] literature on image classifier architecture search, including successful RL studies [@zoph2016neural; @baker2016designing; @zoph2017learning; @liu2017progressive; @zhong2017practical; @cai2017reinforcement] and evolutionary studies like those mentioned in the Introduction. Other methods have also been applied: cascade-correlation [@fahlman1990cascade], boosting [@cortes2016adanet], hill-climbing [@elsken2017simple], MCTS [@negrinho2017deeparchitect], SMBO [@mendoza2016towards; @liu2017progressive], and random search [@bergstra2012random], and grid search [@zagoruyko2016wide]. Some methods even forewent the idea of independent architectures [@saxena2016convolutional]. There is much architecture-search work beyond image classification too, but that is outside our scope. Even though some methods stand out due to their efficiency [@suganuma2017genetic; @pham2018faster], many approaches use large amounts of resources. Several recent papers reduced the compute cost through progressive-complexity search stages [@liu2017progressive], hypernets [@brock2017smash], accuracy prediction [@baker2017accelerating; @klein2017learning; @domhan2015speeding], warm-starting and ensembling [@feurer2015efficient], parallelization, reward shaping and early stopping [@zhong2017practical] or Net2Net transformations [@cai2017reinforcement]. Most of these methods could in principle be applied to evolution too, but this is beyond the scope of this paper. A popular approach to evolution has been through generational algorithms, NEAT [@stanley2002evolving]. All models in the population must finish training before the next generation is computed. Generational evolution becomes inefficient in a distributed environment where a different machine is used to train each model: machines that train faster models finish earlier and must wait idle until all machines are ready. Real-time algorithms address this issue, rtNEAT [@stanley2005real] and tournament selection [@goldberg1991comparative]. Unlike the generational algorithms, however, these discard models according to their performance or do not discard them at all, resulting in models that remain alive in the population for a long time—even for the whole experiment. We will present evidence that the finite lifetimes of aging evolution can give better results than direct tournament selection, while retaining its efficiency. An existing paper [@hornby2006alps] uses a concept of age but in a very different way than we do. In that paper, age is assigned to genes to divide a constant-size population into groups called age-layers. Each layer contains individuals with genes of similar ages. Only after the genes have survived a certain age-gap, they can make it to the next layer. The goal is to restrict competition (the newly introduced genes cannot be immediately out-competed by highly-selected older ones). Their algorithm requires the introduction of two additional meta-parameters (size of the age-gap and number of age-layers). In contrast, in our algorithm, an age is assigned to the individuals (not the genes) and is only used to track which is the oldest individual in the population. This permits removing such oldest individual at each cycle (keeping a constant population size). Our approach, therefore, is in line with our goal of keeping the method as simple as possible. In particular, our method remains similar to nature (where the young are less likely to die than the very old) and it requires no additional meta-parameters. Methods ======= This section contains a readable description of the methods. The Methods Details section gives additional information. Search Space ------------ All experiments use the NASNet search space [@zoph2017learning]. This is a space of image classifiers, all of which have the fixed outer structure indicated in Figure \[search\_space\_fig\] (left): a feed-forward stack of Inception-like modules called cells. Each cell receives a direct input from the previous cell (as depicted) and a skip input from the cell before it (Figure \[search\_space\_fig\], middle). The cells in the stack are of two types: the normal cell and the reduction cell. All normal cells are constrained to have the same architecture, as are reduction cells, but the architecture of the normal cells is independent of that of the reduction cells. Other than this, the only difference between them is that every application of the reduction cell is followed by a stride of 2 that reduces the image size, whereas normal cells preserve the image size. As can be seen in the figure, normal cells are arranged in three stacks of N cells. The goal of the architecture-search process is to discover the architectures of the normal and reduction cells. As depicted in Figure \[search\_space\_fig\] (middle and right), each cell has two input activation tensors and one output. The very first cell takes two copies of the input image. After that, the inputs are the outputs of the previous two cells. Both normal and reduction cells must conform to the following construction. The two cell input tensors are considered hidden states “0” and “1”. More hidden states are then constructed through pairwise combinations. A pairwise combination is depicted in Figure \[search\_space\_fig\] (right, inside dashed circle). It consists in applying an operation (or op) to an existing hidden state, applying another op to another existing hidden state, and adding the results to produce a new hidden state. Ops belong to a fixed set of common convnet operations such as convolutions and pooling layers. Repeating hidden states or operations within a combination is permitted. In the cell example of Figure \[search\_space\_fig\] (right), the first pairwise combination applies a 3x3 average pool op to hidden state 0 and a 3x3 max pool op to hidden state 1, in order to produce hidden state 2. The next pairwise combination can now choose from hidden states 0, 1, and 2 to produce hidden state 3 (chose 0 and 1 in Figure \[search\_space\_fig\]), and so on. After exactly five pairwise combinations, any hidden states that remain unused (hidden states 5 and 6 in Figure \[search\_space\_fig\]) are concatenated to form the output of the cell (hidden state 7). A given architecture is fully specified by the five pairwise combinations that make up the normal cell and the five that make up the reduction cell. Once the architecture is specified, the model still has two free parameters that can be used to alter its size (and its accuracy): the number of normal cells per stack (N) and the number of output filters of the convolution ops (F). N and F are determined manually. Evolutionary Algorithm ---------------------- The evolutionary method we used is summarized in Algorithm \[aging\_evol\_alg\]. It keeps a population of P trained models throughout the experiment. The population is initialized with models with random architectures (“[while $\left\vert{population}\right\vert$]{}” in Algorithm \[aging\_evol\_alg\]). All architectures that conform to the search space described are possible and equally likely. $population \gets $ empty queue The population. $history \gets \varnothing$ Will contain all models. Initialize population. $model.arch \gets \Call{RandomArchitecture}{ }$ $model.accuracy \gets \Call{TrainAndEval}{model.arch}$ add $model$ to right of $population$ add $model$ to history Evolve for $C$ cycles. $sample \gets \varnothing$ Parent candidates. $candidate \gets$ random element from $population$ The element stays in the $population$. add $candidate$ to $sample$ $parent \gets$ highest-accuracy model in $sample$ $child.arch \gets \Call{Mutate}{parent.arch}$ $child.accuracy \gets \Call{TrainAndEval}{child.arch}$ add $child$ to right of $population$ add $child$ to $history$ remove $dead$ from left of $population$ Oldest. discard $dead$ highest-accuracy model in $history$ After this, evolution improves the initial population in cycles (“[while $\left\vert{history}\right\vert$]{}” in Algorithm \[aging\_evol\_alg\]). At each cycle, it samples S random models from the population, each drawn uniformly at random with replacement. The model with the highest validation fitness within this sample is selected as the parent. A new architecture, called the child, is constructed from the parent by the application of a transformation called a mutation. A mutation causes a simple and random modification of the architecture and is described in detail below. Once the child architecture is constructed, it is then trained, evaluated, and added to the population. This process is called tournament selection [@goldberg1991comparative]. It is common in tournament selection to keep the population size fixed at the initial value P. This is often accomplished with an additional step within each cycle: discarding (or killing) the worst model in the random S-sample. We will refer to this approach as non-aging evolution. In contrast, in this paper we prefer a novel approach: killing the oldest model in the population—that is, removing from the population the model that was trained the earliest (“[remove dead from left of pop]{}” in Algorithm \[aging\_evol\_alg\]). This favors the newer models in the population. We will refer to this approach as aging evolution. In the context of architecture search, aging evolution allows us to explore the search space more, instead of zooming in on good models too early, as non-aging evolution would (see Discussion section for details). In practice, this algorithm is parallelized by distributing the “[while $\left\vert{history}\right\vert$]{}” loop in Algorithm \[aging\_evol\_alg\] over multiple workers. A full implementation can be found online.[^2] Intuitively, the mutations can be thought of as providing exploration, while the parent selection provides exploitation. The parameter $S$ controls the aggressiveness of the exploitation: $S=1$ reduces to a type of random search and $2 \le S \le P$ leads to evolution of varying greediness. New models are constructed by applying a mutation to existing models, transforming their architectures in random ways. To navigate the NASNet search space described above, we use two main mutations that we call the hidden state mutation and the op mutation. A third mutation, the identity, is also possible. Only one of these mutations is applied in each cycle, choosing between them at random. ![Illustration of the two mutation types.[]{data-label="mutations_fig"}](mutations.pdf){width="0.67\linewidth"} The hidden state mutation consists of first making a random choice of whether to modify the normal cell or the reduction cell. Once a cell is chosen, the mutation picks one of the five pairwise combinations uniformly at random. Once the pairwise combination is picked, one of the two elements of the pair is chosen uniformly at random. The chosen element has one hidden state. This hidden state is now replaced with another hidden state from within the cell, subject to the constraint that no loops are formed (to keep the feed-forward nature of the convnet). Figure \[mutations\_fig\] (top) shows an example. The op mutation behaves like the hidden state mutation as far as choosing one of the two cells, one of the five pairwise combinations, and one of the two elements of the pair. Then it differs in that it modifies the op instead of the hidden state. It does this by replacing the existing op with a random choice from a fixed list of ops (see Methods Details). Figure \[mutations\_fig\] (bottom) shows an example. Baseline Algorithms ------------------- Our main baseline is the application of RL to the same search space. RL was implemented using the algorithm and code in the baseline study [@zoph2017learning]. An LSTM controller outputs the architectures, constructing the pairwise combinations one at a time, and then gets a reward for each architecture by training and evaluating it. More detail can be found in the baseline study. We also compared against random search (RS). In our RS implementation, each model is constructed randomly so that all models in the search space are equally likely, as in the initial population in the evolutionary algorithm. In other words, the models in RS experiments are by mutating existing models, so as to make new models independent from previous ones. Experimental Setup ------------------ We ran controlled comparisons at scale, ensuring identical conditions for evolution, RL and random search (RS). In particular, all methods used the same computer code for network construction, training and evaluation. Experiments always searched on the CIFAR-10 dataset [@krizhevsky2009learning]. As in the baseline study, we first performed architecture search over small models (small N and F) until 20k models were evaluated. After that, we used the model augmentation trick [@zoph2017learning]: we took architectures discovered by the search (the output of an evolutionary experiment) and turn them into a full-size, accurate models. To accomplish this, we enlarged the models by increasing N and F so the resulting model sizes would match the baselines, and we trained the enlarged models for a longer time on the CIFAR-10 or the ImageNet classification datasets [@krizhevsky2009learning; @deng2009imagenet]. For ImageNet, a stem was added at the input of the model to reduce the image size, as shown in Figure \[amoeba\_a\_arch\] (left). This is the same procedure as in the baseline study. To produce the largest model (see last paragraph of Results section; not included in tables), we increased N and F until we ran out of memory. Actual values of N and F for all models are listed in the section. Methods Details =============== This section complements the Methods section with the details necessary to reproduce our experiments. Possible ops: none (identity); 3x3, 5x5 and 7x7 separable (sep.) convolutions (convs.); 3x3 average (avg.) pool; 3x3 max pool; 3x3 dilated (dil.) sep. conv.; 1x7 then 7x1 conv. Evolved with $P$=$100$, $S$=$25$. CIFAR-10 dataset [@krizhevsky2009learning] with 5k withheld examples for validation. Standard ImageNet dataset [@deng2009imagenet], 1.2M 331x331 images and 1k classes; 50k examples withheld for validation; standard validation set used for testing. During the search phase, each model trained for 25 epochs; N=3/F=24, 1 GPU. Each experiment ran on 450 K40 GPUs for 20k models (approx. 7 days). To optimize evolution, we tried 5 configurations with P/S of: 100/2, 100/50, 20/20, 100/25, 64/16, best was 100/25. The probability of the identity mutation was fixed at the small, arbitrary value of 0.05 and was not tuned. Other mutation probabilities were uniform, as described in the Methods. To optimize RL, started with parameters already tuned in the baseline study and further optimized learning rate in 8 configurations: 0.00003, 0.00006, 0.00012, 0.0002, 0.0004, 0.0008, 0.0016, 0.0032; best was 0.0008. To avoid selection bias, plots do not include optimization runs, as was decided a priori. Best few (20) models were selected from each experiment and augmented to N=6/F=32, as in baseline study; batch 128, SGD with momentum rate 0.9, L2 weight decay $5 \times 10^{-4}$, initial lr 0.024 with cosine decay, 600 epochs, ScheduledDropPath to 0.7 prob; auxiliary softmax with half-weight of main softmax. For Table \[evol\_rl\_semi\_tab\], we used N/F of 6/32 and 6/36. For ImageNet table, N/F were 6/190 and 6/448 and standard training methods [@szegedy2017inception]: distributed sync SGD with 100 P100 GPUs; RMSProp optimizer with 0.9 decay and $\epsilon$=0.1, $4 \times 10^{-5}$ weight decay, 0.1 label smoothing, auxiliary softmax weighted by 0.4; dropout probability 0.5; ScheduledDropPath to 0.7 probability (as in baseline—note that this trick only contributes 0.3% top-1 ImageNet acc.); 0.001 initial lr, decaying every 2 epochs by 0.97. Largest model used N=6/F=448. F always refers to the number of filters of convolutions in the first stack; after each reduction cell, this number is doubled. Wherever applicable, we used the same conditions as the baseline study. Results ======= Comparison With RL and RS Baselines ----------------------------------- Currently, reinforcement learning (RL) is the predominant method for architecture search. In fact, today’s state-of-the-art image classifiers have been obtained by architecture search with RL [@zoph2017learning; @liu2017progressive]. Here we seek to compare our evolutionary approach against their RL algorithm. We performed large-scale side-by-side architecture-search experiments on CIFAR-10. We first optimized the hyper-parameters of the two approaches independently (details in Methods Details section). Then we ran 5 repeats of each of the two algorithms—and also of random search (RS). ![Time-course of 5 identical large-scale experiments for each algorithm (evolution, RL, and RS), showing accuracy before augmentation on CIFAR-10. All experiments were stopped when 20k models were evaluated, as done in the baseline study. Note this plot does not show the compute cost of models, which was higher for the RL ones.[]{data-label="evol_rl_rs_progress_fig"}](large_scale_comparison_repeats_mean_testing_accuracy_hours.pdf){width="0.67\linewidth"} Figure \[evol\_rl\_rs\_progress\_fig\] shows the model accuracy as the experiments progress, highlighting that evolution yielded more accurate models at the earlier stages, which could become important in a resource-constrained regime where the experiments may have to be stopped early (for example, when 450 GPUs for 7 days is too much). At the later stages, if we allow to run for the full 20k models (as in the baseline study), evolution produced models with similar accuracy. Both evolution and RL compared favorably against RS. It is important to note that the vertical axis of Figure \[evol\_rl\_rs\_progress\_fig\] does not present the compute cost of the models, only their accuracy. Next, we will consider their compute cost as well. As in the baseline study, the architecture-search experiments above were performed over small models, to be able to train them quicker. We then used the model augmentation trick [@zoph2017learning] by which we take an architecture discovered by the search (the output of an evolutionary experiment) and turn it into a full-size, accurate model, as described in the Methods. ![Final augmented models from 5 identical architecture-search experiments for each algorithm, on CIFAR-10. Each marker corresponds to the top models from one experiment.[]{data-label="evol_rl_rs_aug_fig"}](large_acc_flops_fig.pdf){width="0.67\linewidth"} ![image](nasnet_space_outer_imagenet.pdf){height="0.3\linewidth"} ![image](3b0_normal_with_hidden.pdf){height="0.3\linewidth"} ![image](3b0_reduction_with_hidden.pdf){height="0.3\linewidth"} Figure \[evol\_rl\_rs\_aug\_fig\] compares the augmented top models from the three sets of experiments. It shows test accuracy and model compute cost. The latter is measured in FLOPs, by which we mean the total count of operations in the forward pass, so lower is better. Evolved architectures had higher accuracy (and similar FLOPs) than those obtained with RS, and lower FLOPs (and similar accuracy) than those obtained with RL. Number of parameters showed similar behavior to FLOPs. Therefore, evolution occupied the ideal relative position in this graph within the scope of our case study. So far we have been comparing evolution with our reproduction of the experiments in the baseline study, but it is also informative to compare directly against the results reported by the baseline study. We select our evolved architecture with highest validation accuracy and call it (Figure \[amoeba\_a\_arch\]). Table \[evol\_rl\_semi\_tab\] compares its test accuracy with the top model of the baseline study, NASNet-A. Such a comparison is not entirely controlled, as we have no way of ensuring the network training code was identical and that the same number of experiments were done to obtain the final model. The table summarizes the results of training at sizes comparable to a NASNet-A version, showing that is slightly more accurate (when matching model size) or considerably smaller (when matching accuracy). We did not train our model at larger sizes on CIFAR-10. Instead, we moved to ImageNet to do further comparisons in the next section. Model \# Params Test Error (%) ------------------------- ----------- ----------------- NASNet-A (baseline) 3.3 M $3.41$ AmoebaNet-A (N=6, F=32) 2.6 M $3.40 \pm 0.08$ AmoebaNet-A (N=6, F=36) 3.2 M $3.34 \pm 0.06$ : CIFAR-10 testing set results for , compared to top model reported in the baseline study.[]{data-label="evol_rl_semi_tab"} ImageNet Results ---------------- Following the accepted standard, we compare our top model’s classification accuracy on the popular ImageNet dataset against other top models from the literature. Again, we use , the model with the highest validation accuracy on CIFAR-10 among our evolution experiments. We highlight that the model was evolved on CIFAR-10 and then transferred to ImageNet, so the evolved architecture cannot have overfit the ImageNet dataset. When re-trained on ImageNet, performs comparably to the baseline for the same number of parameters (Table \[results\_imagenet\_tab\], model with F=190). Model \# Parameters \# Multiply-Adds Top-1 / Top-5 Accuracy (%) ----------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------------------- Incep-ResNet V2 [@szegedy2017inception] 55.8M 13.2B 80.4 / 95.3 ResNeXt-101 [@xie2017aggregated] 83.6M 31.5B 80.9 / 95.6 PolyNet [@zhang2017polynet] 92.0M 34.7B 81.3 / 95.8 Dual-Path-Net-131 [@chen2017dual] 79.5M 32.0B 81.5 / 95.8 GeNet-2 [@xie2017genetic]^^ 156M – 72.1 / 90.4 Block-QNN-B [@zhong2017practical]^^ – – 75.7 / 92.6 Hierarchical [@liu2017hierarchical]^^ 64M – 79.7 / 94.8 NASNet-A [@zoph2017learning] 88.9M 23.8B 82.7 / 96.2 PNASNet-5 [@liu2017progressive] 86.1M 25.0B 82.9 / 96.2 AmoebaNet-A (N=6, F=190)^^ 86.7M 23.1B 82.8 / 96.1 AmoebaNet-A (N=6, F=448)^^ 469M 104B 83.9 / 96.6 Finally, we focused on exclusively and enlarged it, setting a new state-of-the-art accuracy on ImageNet of 83.9%/96.6% top-1/5 accuracy with 469M parameters (Table \[results\_imagenet\_tab\], model with F=448). Such high parameter counts may be beneficial in training other models too but we have not managed to do this yet. Discussion ========== This section will suggest directions for future work, which we will motivate by speculating about the evolutionary process and by summarizing additional minor results. The details of these minor results have been relegated to the supplements, as they are not necessary to understand or reproduce our main results above. Scope of results. Some of our findings may be restricted to the search spaces and datasets we used. A natural direction for future work is to extend the controlled comparison to more search spaces, datasets, and tasks, to verify generality, or to more algorithms. Supplement A presents preliminary results, performing evolutionary and RL searches over three search spaces (SP-I: same as in the Results section; SP-II: like SP-I but with more possible ops; SP-III: like SP-II but with more pairwise combinations) and three datasets (gray-scale CIFAR-10, MNIST, and gray-scale ImageNet), at a small-compute scale (on CPU, $F$=$8$, $N$=$1$). Evolution reached equal or better accuracy in all cases (Figure \[evol\_vs\_rl\_small\_fig\], top). ![TOP: Comparison of the final model accuracy in five different contexts, from left to right: G-CIFAR/SP-I, G-CIFAR/SP-II, G-CIFAR/SP-III, MNIST/SP-I and G-ImageNet/SP-I. Each circle marks the top test accuracy at the end of one experiment. BOTTOM: Search progress of the experiments in the case of G-CIFAR/SP-II (LEFT, best for RL) and G-CIFAR/SP-III (RIGHT, best for evolution).[]{data-label="evol_vs_rl_small_fig"}](small_scale_comparison_multiple_at20k_maintext.pdf "fig:"){width="0.98\linewidth"} ![TOP: Comparison of the final model accuracy in five different contexts, from left to right: G-CIFAR/SP-I, G-CIFAR/SP-II, G-CIFAR/SP-III, MNIST/SP-I and G-ImageNet/SP-I. Each circle marks the top test accuracy at the end of one experiment. BOTTOM: Search progress of the experiments in the case of G-CIFAR/SP-II (LEFT, best for RL) and G-CIFAR/SP-III (RIGHT, best for evolution).[]{data-label="evol_vs_rl_small_fig"}](small_scale_comparison_many_maintext.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![TOP: Comparison of the final model accuracy in five different contexts, from left to right: G-CIFAR/SP-I, G-CIFAR/SP-II, G-CIFAR/SP-III, MNIST/SP-I and G-ImageNet/SP-I. Each circle marks the top test accuracy at the end of one experiment. BOTTOM: Search progress of the experiments in the case of G-CIFAR/SP-II (LEFT, best for RL) and G-CIFAR/SP-III (RIGHT, best for evolution).[]{data-label="evol_vs_rl_small_fig"}](small_scale_comparison_big_cell_maintext.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} Algorithm speed. In our comparison study, Figure \[evol\_rl\_rs\_progress\_fig\] suggested that both RL and evolution are approaching a common accuracy asymptote. That raises the question of which algorithm gets there faster. The plots indicate that evolution reaches half-maximum accuracy in roughly half the time. We abstain, nevertheless, from further quantifying this effect since it depends strongly on how speed is measured (the number of models necessary to reach accuracy $a$ depends on $a$; the natural choice of $a=a_{max} / 2$ may be too low to be informative; ). Algorithm speed may be more important when exploring larger spaces, where reaching the optimum can require more compute than is available. We saw an example of this in the SP-III space, where evolution stood out (Figure \[evol\_vs\_rl\_small\_fig\], bottom-right). Therefore, future work could explore evolving on even larger spaces. Model speed. The speed of individual models produced is also relevant. Figure \[evol\_rl\_rs\_aug\_fig\] demonstrated that evolved models are faster (lower FLOPs). We speculate that asynchronous evolution may be reducing the FLOPs because it is indirectly optimizing for speed even when training for a fixed number of epochs: fast models may do well because they “reproduce” quickly even if they initially lack the higher accuracy of their slower peers. Verifying this speculation could be the subject of future work. As mentioned in the Related Work section, in this work we only considered asynchronous algorithms (as opposed to generational evolutionary methods) to ensure high resource utilization. Future work may explore how asynchronous and generational algorithms compare with regard to model accuracy. Benefits of aging evolution. Aging evolution seemed advantageous in additional small-compute-scale experiments, shown in Figure \[aging\_vs\_non\_aging\_fig\] and presented in more detail in Supplement B. These were carried out on CPU instead of GPU, and used a gray-scale version of CIFAR-10, to reduce compute requirements. In the supplement, we also show that these results tend to hold when varying the dataset or the search space. ![Small-compute-scale comparison between our aging tournament selection variant and the non-aging variant, for different population sizes (P) and sample sizes (S), showing that aging tends to be beneficial (most markers are above the $y=x$ line).[]{data-label="aging_vs_non_aging_fig"}](algorithm_improvements_remove_many_conditions.pdf){width="0.67\linewidth"} Understanding aging evolution and regularization. We can speculate that aging may help navigate the training noise in evolutionary experiments, as follows. Noisy training means that models may sometimes reach high accuracy just by luck. In non-aging evolution (NAE, standard tournament selection), such lucky models may remain in the population for a long time—even for the whole experiment. One lucky model, therefore, can produce many children, causing the algorithm to focus on it, reducing exploration. Under aging evolution (AE), on the other hand, all models have a short lifespan, so the population is wholly renewed frequently, leading to more diversity and more exploration. In addition, another effect may be in play, which we describe next. In AE, because models die quickly, the only way an architecture can remain in the population for a long time is by being passed down from parent to child through the generations. Each time an architecture is inherited it must be re-trained. If it produces an inaccurate model when re-trained, that model is not selected by evolution and the architecture disappears from the population. The only way for an architecture to remain in the population for a long time is to re-train well repeatedly. In other words, AE can only improve a population through the inheritance of architectures that re-train well. (In contrast, NAE can improve a population by accumulating architectures/models that were lucky when they trained the first time). That is, AE is forced to pay attention to architectures rather than models. In other words, the addition of aging involves introducing additional information to the evolutionary process: architectures should re-train well. This additional information prevents overfitting to the training noise, which makes it a form of regularization in the broader mathematical sense[^3]. Regardless of the exact mechanism, in Supplement C we perform experiments to verify the plausibility of the conjecture that aging helps navigate noise. There we construct a toy search space where the only difficulty is a noisy evaluation. If our conjecture is true, AE should be better in that toy space too. We found this to be the case. We leave further verification of the conjecture to future work, noting that theoretical results may prove useful here. Simplicity of aging evolution. A desirable feature of evolutionary algorithms is their simplicity. By design, the application of a mutation causes a random change. The process of constructing new architectures, therefore, is entirely random. What makes evolution different from random search is that only the good models are selected to be mutated. This selection tends to improve the population over time. In this sense, evolution is simply “random search plus selection”. In outline, the process can be described briefly: “keep a population of N models and proceed in cycles: at each cycle, copy-mutate the best of S random models and kill the oldest in the population”. Implementation-wise, we believe the methods of this paper are sufficient for a reader to understand evolution. The sophisticated nature of the RL alternative introduces complexity in its implementation: it requires back-propagation and poses challenges to parallelization [@salimans2017evolution]. Even different implementations of the same algorithm have been shown to produce different results [@henderson2017deep]. Finally, evolution is also simple in that it has few meta-parameters, most of which do not need tuning [@real2017large]. In our study, we only adjusted 2 meta-parameters and only through a handful of attempts (see Methods Details section). In contrast, note that the RL baseline requires training an agent/controller which is often itself a neural network with many weights (such as an LSTM), and its optimization has more meta-parameters to adjust: learning rate schedule, greediness, batching, replay buffer, . (These meta-parameters are all in addition to the weights and training parameters of the image classifiers being searched, which are present in both approaches.) It is possible that through careful tuning, RL could be made to produce even better models than evolution, but such tuning would likely involve running many experiments, making it more costly. Evolution did not require much tuning, as described. It is also possible that random search would produce equally good models if run for a very long time, which would be very costly. Interpreting architecture search. Another important direction for future work is that of analyzing architecture-search experiments (regardless of the algorithm used) to try to discover new neural network design patterns. Anecdotally, for example, we found that architectures with high output vertex fan-in (number of edges into the output vertex) tend to be favored in all our experiments. In fact, the models in the final evolved populations have a mean fan-in value that is 3 standard deviations above what would be expected from randomly generated models. We verified this pattern by training various models with different fan-in values and the results confirm that accuracy increases with fan-in, as had been found in ResNeXt [@xie2017aggregated]. Discovering broader patterns may require designing search spaces specifically for this purpose. Additional AmoebaNets. Using variants of the evolutionary process described, we obtained three additional models, which we named , , and . We describe these models and the process that led to them in detail in Supplement D, but we summarize here. was obtained through through platform-aware architecture search over a larger version of the NASNet space. is simply a model that showed promise early on in the above experiments by reaching high accuracy with relatively few parameters; we mention it here for completeness, as it has been referenced in other work[@cubuk2018autoaugment]. was obtained by manually extrapolating the evolutionary process and optimizing the resulting architecture for training speed. It is very efficient: won the Stanford DAWNBench competition for lowest training cost on ImageNet[@coleman2018analysis]. Conclusion ========== This paper used an evolutionary algorithm to discover image classifier architectures. Our contributions are the following: - We proposed aging evolution, a variant of tournament selection by which genotypes die according to their age, favoring the young. This improved upon standard tournament selection while still allowing for efficiency at scale through asynchronous population updating. We open-sourced the code.[^4] We also implemented simple mutations that permit the application of evolution to the popular NASNet search space. - We presented the first controlled comparison of algorithms for image classifier architecture search in a case study of evolution, RL and random search. We showed that evolution had somewhat faster search speed and stood out in the regime of scarcer resources / early stopping. Evolution also matched RL in final model quality, employing a simpler method. - We evolved (Figure \[amoeba\_a\_arch\]), a competitive image classifier. On ImageNet, it is the first evolved model to surpass hand-designs. Matching size, has comparable accuracy to top image-classifiers discovered with other architecture-search methods. At large size, it sets a new state-of-the-art accuracy. We open-sourced code and checkpoint.. Acknowledgments =============== We wish to thank Megan Kacholia, Vincent Vanhoucke, Xiaoqiang Zheng and especially Jeff Dean for their support and valuable input; Chris Ying for his work helping tune AmoebaNet models and for his help with specialized hardware, Barret Zoph and Vijay Vasudevan for help with the code and experiments used in their paper [@zoph2017learning], as well as Jiquan Ngiam, Jacques Pienaar, Arno Eigenwillig, Jianwei Xie, Derek Murray, Gabriel Bender, Golnaz Ghiasi, Saurabh Saxena and Jie Tan for other coding contributions; Jacques Pienaar, Luke Metz, Chris Ying and Andrew Selle for manuscript comments, all the above and Patrick Nguyen, Samy Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Risto Miikkulainen, Jeff Clune, Kenneth Stanley, Yifeng Lu, David Dohan, David So, David Ha, Vishy Tirumalashetty, Yoram Singer, and Ruoming Pang for helpful discussions; and the larger Google Brain team. 0 [0.47]{} 1 [0.47]{} ![image](small_scale_comparison_multiple_at20k.pdf){width="\linewidth"} 2 [0.235]{} ![image](small_scale_comparison_many.pdf){width="\linewidth"} 3 [0.235]{} ![image](small_scale_comparison_big_cell.pdf){width="\linewidth"} 4 [0.47]{} ![image](small_scale_comparison_multiple_at5k.pdf){width="\linewidth"} 5 [0.41]{} ![image](gcifar_model.pdf){width="\linewidth" height="1.4in"} 6 [0 = sep. 3x3\ 1 = sep. 5x5\ 2 = sep. 7X7\ 3 = none\ 4 = avg. 3x3\ 5 = max 3x3\ 6 = dil. 3x3\ 7 = 1x7+7x1\ \ ]{} 7 [0.41]{} ![image](gcifar_big_model.pdf){width="\linewidth" height="1.4in"} --- --- -- -- 2 3 --- --- -- -- --- --- --- 5 6 7 --- --- --- Motivation ========== In this supplement, we will extend the comparison between evolution and reinforcement learning (RL) from the Results Section. Evolutionary algorithms and RL have been applied recently to the field of architecture search. Yet, comparison is difficult because studies tend to use novel search spaces, preventing direct attribution of the results to the algorithm. For example, the search space may be small instead of the algorithm being fast. The picture is blurred further by the use of different training techniques that affect model accuracy [@ciregan2012multi; @wan2013regularization; @srivastava2014dropout], different definitions of FLOPs that affect model compute cost[^5] and different hardware platforms that affect algorithm run-time[^6]. Accounting for all these factors, we will compare the two approaches in a variety of image classification contexts. To achieve statistical confidence, we will present repeated experiments without sampling bias. Setup ===== All evolution and RL experiments used the NASNet search space design [@zoph2017learning]. Within this design, we define three concrete search spaces that differ in the number of pairwise combinations (C) and in the number of ops allowed (see Methods Section). In order of increasing size, we will refer to them as SP-I (Figure \[small\_space\_subfig\]), SP-II, and SP-III (Figure \[small\_bigspace\_subfig\]). SP-I is the exact variant used in the main text and in the study that we use as our baseline [@zoph2017learning]. SP-II increases the allowed ops from 8 to 19 (identity; 1x1 and 3x3 convs.; 3x3, 5x5 and 7x7 sep. convs.; 2x2 and 3x3 avg. pools; 2x2 min pool.; 2x2 and 3x3 max pools; 3x3, 5x5 and 7x7 dil. sep. convs.; 1x3 then 3x1 conv.; 1x7 then 7x1 conv.; 3x3 dil. conv. with rates 2, 4 and 6). SP-III allows for larger tree structures within the cells ($C$=$15$, same 19 ops). The evolutionary algorithm is the same as that in the main text. The RL algorithm is the one used in the baseline study. We chose this baseline because, when we began, it had obtained the most accurate results on CIFAR-10, a popular dataset for image classifier architecture search. We ran evolution and RL experiments for comparison purposes at different compute scales, always ensuring both approaches used identical conditions. In particular, evolution and RL used the same code for network construction, training and evaluation. The experiments in this supplement were performed at a smaller compute scale than in the main text, to reduce resource usage: we used gray-scale versions of popular datasets (“G-Imagenet” instead of ImageNet), we ran on CPU instead of GPU and trained relatively small models (F=8, see Methods Details in main text) for only 4 epochs. Where unstated, the experiments ran on SP-I and G-CIFAR. Findings ======== We first optimized the meta-parameters for evolution and for RL by running experiments with each algorithm, repeatedly, under each condition (Figure \[small\_metaparams\_subfig\]). We then compared the algorithms in 5 different contexts by swapping the dataset or the search space (Figure \[small\_contexts20k\_subfig\]). Evolution was either better than or equal to RL, with statistical significance. The best contexts for evolution and for RL are shown in more detail in Figures \[small\_bigcell\_subfig\] and \[small\_many\_subfig\], respectively. They show the progress of 5 repeats of each algorithm. The initial speed of evolution is noticeable, especially in the largest search space (SP-III). Figures \[small\_space\_subfig\] and \[small\_bigspace\_subfig\] illustrate the top architectures from SP-I and SP-III, respectively. Regardless of context, Figure \[small\_contexts5k\_subfig\] indicates that accuracy under evolution increases significantly faster than RL at the initial stage. This stage was not accelerated by higher RL learning rates. Outcome ======= The main text provides a comparison between algorithms for image classifier architecture search in the context of the SP-I search space on CIFAR-10, at scale. This supplement extends those results, varying the dataset and the search space by running many small experiments, confirming the conclusions of the main text. Motivation ========== In this supplement, we will extend the comparison between aging evolution (AE) and standard tournament selection / non-aging evolution (NAE). As was described in the Methods Section, the evolutionary algorithm used in this paper keeps the population size constant by always removing the oldest model whenever a new one is added; we will refer to this algorithm as AE. A recent paper used a similar method but kept the population size constant by removing the worst model in each tournament [@real2017large]; we will refer to that algorithm as NAE. This supplement will show how these two algorithms compare in a variety of contexts. Setup ===== The search spaces and datasets were the same as in Supplement A. Findings ======== ![ A comparison of NAE and AE under 5 different contexts, spanning different datasets and search spaces: G-CIFAR/SP-I, G-CIFAR/SP-II, G-CIFAR/SP-III, MNIST/SP-I and G-ImageNet/SP-I, shown from left to right. For each context, we show the final MTA of a few NAE and a few AE experiments (circles) in adjacent columns. We superpose $\pm \, 2 \, \textnormal{SEM}$ error bars, where SEM denotes the standard error of the mean. The first context contains many repeats with identical meta-parameters and their MTA values seem normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilks test). Under this normality assumption, the error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. []{data-label="regularizing_contexts_subfig"}](algorithm_improvements_remove_many_contexts.pdf){width="0.97\linewidth"} We performed experiments in 5 different search space–dataset contexts. In each context, we ran several repeats of evolutionary search using NAE and AE (Figure \[regularizing\_contexts\_subfig\]). Under 4 of the 5 contexts, AE resulted in statistically significant higher accuracy at the end of the runs, on average. The exception was the G-ImageNet search space, where the experiments were extremely short due to the compute demands of training on so much data using only CPUs. Interestingly, in the two contexts where the search space was bigger (SP-II and SP-III), all AE runs did better than all NAE runs. Additionally, we performed three experiments comparing AE and NAE at scale, under the same conditions as in the main text. The results, which can be seen in Figure \[regularizing\_large\_fig\], provide some verification that observations from smaller CPU experiments in the previous paragraph generalize to the large-compute regime. ![ A comparison of AE and NAE at scale. These experiments use the same conditions as the main text (including dataset, search space, resources and duration). From top to bottom: an AE experiment with good AE meta-parameters from Supplement A, an analogous NAE experiment, and an NAE experiment with the meta-parameters used in a recent study [@real2017large]. These accuracy values are not meaningful in absolute terms, as the models need to be augmented to reach their maximum accuracy, as described in the Methods Section). []{data-label="regularizing_large_fig"}](large_scale_comparison_tuning_evol_killing_mode.pdf){width="0.70\linewidth"} Outcome ======= The Discussion Section in the main text suggested that AE tends to perform better than NAE across various parameters for one fixed search space–dataset context. Such robustness is desirable for computationally demanding architecture search experiments, where we cannot always afford many runs to optimize the meta-parameters. This supplement extends those results to show that the conclusion holds across various contexts. Motivation ========== As indicated in the Discussion Section, we suspect that aging may help navigate the noisy evaluation in an evolution experiment. We leave verification of this suspicion to future work, but for motivation we provide here a sanity check for it. We construct a toy search space in which the only difficulty is a noisy evaluation. Within this toy search space, we will see that aging evolution outperforms non-aging evolution. Setup ===== The toy search space we use here does not involve any neural networks. The goal is to evolve solutions to a very simple, single-optimum, D-dimensional, noisy optimization problem with a signal-to-noise ratio matching that of our neuro-evolution experiments. The search space used is the set of vertices of a D-dimensional unit cube. A specific vertex is “analogous” to a neural network architecture in a real experiment. A vertex can be represented as a sequence of its coordinates (0s and 1s)—a bit-string. In other words, this bit-string constitutes a simulated architecture. In a real experiment, training and evaluating an architecture yields a noisy accuracy. Likewise, in this toy search space, we assign a noisy simulated accuracy (SA) to each cube vertex. The SA is the fraction of coordinates that are zero, plus a small amount of Gaussian noise ($\mu=0$, $\sigma=0.01$, matching the observed noise for neural networks). Thus, the goal is to get close to the optimum, the origin. The sample complexity used was 10k. This space is helpful because an experiment completes in milliseconds. This optimization problem can be seen as a simplification of the evolutionary search for the minimum of a multi-dimensional integer-valued paraboloid with bounded support, where the mutations treat the values along each coordinate categorically. If we restrict the domain along each direction to the set {0, 1}, we reduce the problem to the unit cube described above. The paraboloid’s value at a cube corner is just the number of coordinates that are not zero. We mention this connection because searching for the minimum of a paraboloid seems like a more natural choice for a trivial problem (“trivial” compared to architecture search). The simpler unit cube version, however, was chosen because it permits faster computation. We stress that these simulations are not intended to truly mimic architecture search experiments over the space of neural networks. We used them only as a testing ground for techniques that evolve solutions in the presence of noisy evaluations. Findings ======== We found that optimized NAE and AE perform similarly in low-dimensional problems, which are easier. As the dimensionality (D) increases, AE becomes relatively better than NAE (Figure \[regularizing\_sim\_subfig\]). ![ Results in the toy search space. The graph summarizes thousands of evolutionary search simulations. The vertical axis measures the simulated accuracy (SA) and the horizontal axis the dimensionality (D) of the problem, a measure of its difficulty. For each D, we optimized the meta-parameters for NAE and AE independently. To do this, we carried out 100 simulations for each meta-parameter combination and averaged the outcomes. We plot here the optima found, together with $\pm \, 2 \, \textnormal{SEM}$ error bars. The graph shows that in this toy search space, AE is never worse and is significantly better for larger D (note the broad range of the vertical axis). []{data-label="regularizing_sim_subfig"}](simulations_killing_mode.pdf){width="0.70\linewidth"} Outcome ======= The findings provide circumstantial evidence in favor of our suspicion that aging may help navigate noise (Discussion Section), suggesting that attempting to verify this with more generality may be an interesting direction for future work. ![image](nasnet_space_outer_imagenet.pdf){height="0.5\linewidth"} ![image](LiM_both_cells.pdf){height="0.5\linewidth"} ![image](fi1_both_cells.pdf){height="0.5\linewidth"} ![image](evol_net_x_both_cells.pdf){height="0.5\linewidth"} Motivation ========== In the Discussion Section, we briefly mentioned three additional models, , , and . While all three used the aging evolution algorithm presented the main text, there were some differences in the experimental setups: was obtained through platform-aware architecture search; was selected with a pareto-optimal criterion; and involved multi-stage search, including manual extrapolation of the evolutionary process. Below we describe each of these models and the methods that produced them. Setup ===== was evolved by running experiments directly on Google TPUv2 hardware, since this was the target platform for its final evaluation. In the main text, the architecture had been discovered on GPU but the largest model was evaluated on TPUs. In contrast, here we perform the full process on TPUs. This architecture-aware approach allows the evolutionary search to optimize even hardware-dependent aspects of the final accuracy, such as optimizations carried out by the compiler. The search setup was as in the main text, except that it used the larger SP-II space of Supplement A and trained larger models (F=32) for longer (50 epochs). The selection of the top model was as follows. We picked from the experiment K=100 models. To do this, we binned the models by their number of parameters to cover the range, using B bins. From each bin, we took the top K/B models by validation accuracy. We then augmented all models to N=6 and F=32 and selected the one with the top validation accuracy. was discovered in the experiments described in the main text (see Methods and sections). Instead of selecting the highest validation accuracy at the end of the experiments (as done in the main text), we picked a promising model while the experiments were still ongoing. This was done entirely for expediency, to be able to study a model while we waited for the search to complete. was promising in that it stood out in a pareto-optimal sense: it was a high-accuracy outlier for its relatively small number of parameters. As opposed to all other architectures, AmoebaNet-C was selected based on CIFAR-10 test accuracy, because it was intended to only be benchmarked on ImageNet. This process was less methodical than the one used in the main text but because the model has been cited in the literature, we include it here for completeness. was obtained by manually modifying by extrapolating evolution. To do this, we studied the progress of an experiment and identified which mutations were still causing improvements in fitness at the later stages of the process. By inspection, we found these mutations to be: replacing a 3x3 separable (sep.) convolution (conv.) with a 1x7 followed by 7x1 conv. in the normal cell, replacing a 5x5 sep. conv. by a 1x7 followed by 7x1 conv. in the reduction cell, and replacing a 3x3 sep. conv. with 3x3 avg. pool in the reduction cell. Additionally, we reduced the numeric precision from 32-bit to 16-bit floats, and set a learning rate schedule of step-wise decay, reducing by a factor of 0.88 every epoch. We trained for 35 epochs in total. To submit to Stanford DAWNBench (see Outcome section), we used N=2 and F=256. Findings ======== Figure \[architectures\_fig\] presents all three model architectures. We refrain from benchmarking these here. Instead, in the Outcome Section below, we will refer the reader to results presented elsewhere. Outcome ======= In this supplement we have described additional evolutionary experiments that led to three new models. Such experiments were intended mainly to search for better models. Due to the resource-intensive nature of these methods, we forewent ablations and baselines in this supplement. For a more empirically rigorous approach, please refer to the process that produced in the main text. had set a new state of the art on CIFAR-10 (2.13% test error) in a previous preprint of this paper[^7] after being trained with cutout, but has since been superseded. had set the previous state-of-the-art top-1 accuracy on ImageNet after being trained with advanced data augmentation techniques in [@cubuk2018autoaugment]. won the Stanford DAWNBench competition for lowest training cost on ImageNet. The goal of this competition category was to minimize the monetary cost of training a model to 93% top-5 accuracy. costs \$49.30 to train. This was 16% better than the second-best model, which was ResNet and which trained on the same hardware. The results were published in [@coleman2018analysis]. [^1]: After our submission, a recent preprint has further scaled up and retrained to reach 84.3% / 97.0% ImageNet accuracy [@huang2018gpipe]. [^2]: <https://colab.research.google.com/github/google-research/google-research/blob/master/evolution/regularized_evolution_algorithm/regularized_evolution.ipynb> [^3]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regularization_(mathematics)> [^4]: <https://colab.research.google.com/github/google-research/google-research/blob/master/evolution/regularized_evolution_algorithm/regularized_evolution.ipynb> [^5]: For example, see [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/329174/ what-is-flop-s-and-is-it-a-good-measure-of-performance](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/329174/ what-is-flop-s-and-is-it-a-good-measure-of-performance). [^6]: A Tesla P100 can be twice as fast as a K40, for example. [^7]: Version 1 with same title on arXiv: <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.01548v1.pdf>	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We consider a novel mechanism to account for the observed distance-redshift relation. This is done by presenting a toy model for the large-scale matter distribution in a static Universe. Our model mainly concerns particles with masses far below those in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The model is founded on three main assumptions: (1) a mass spectrum dN$_{\rm i}$/dm$_{\rm i}$ $=$ $\beta$m$_{\rm i}^{-\alpha}$ (where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are both positive constants) for low-mass particles with m$_{\rm i}$ $\ll$ 10$^{-22}$ eV $\ll$ M$_{\rm P}$, where M$_{\rm P}$ is the Planck mass; (2) a particle mass-wavelength relation of the form $\lambda_{\rm i} =$ $\hbar$/$\delta_{\rm i}$m$_{\rm i}$c, where $\delta_{\rm i} =$ $\eta$m$_{\rm i}^{\gamma}$ and $\eta$ and $\gamma$ are both constants; and (3) For such low-mass particles, locality can only be defined on large spatial scales, comparable to or exceeding the particle wavelengths. We use our model to derive the cosmological redshift characteristic of the Standard Model of Cosmology, which becomes a gravitational redshift in our model. We compare the results of our model to empirical data and show that, in order to reproduce the sub-linear form of the observed distance-redshift relation, our model requires $\alpha$ + $\gamma$ $<$ 0. We further place our toy model in the context of the Friedmann Universe via a superposition of Einstein Universes, each with its own scale factor a$_{\rm i}$. Given the overwhelming evidence supporting an expanding Universe, we then address possible modifications to our base model that would be required to account for the available empirical constraints, including the addition of some initial expansion. Finally, we consider potentially observable distinctions between the cosmological redshift and our proposed mechanism to account for the observed distance-redshift relation. address: - '$^{1}$Department of Astrophysics, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West and 79th Street, New York, NY 10024' - '$^{2}$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138' - '$^{3}$NSF Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow' author: - 'Nathan W. C. Leigh$^{1}$ and Or Graur$^{1,2,3}$' title: 'A novel mechanism for the distance-redshift relation' --- [ [Keywords]{}: gravitation, elementary particles, relativistic processes, cosmology]{} Introduction {#intro} ============ The distance-redshift relation ------------------------------ The observed distance-redshift relation is a cornerstone of the current cosmological paradigm. The matter distribution throughout the Universe is observed to be homogeneous and isotropic on large spatial scales. Theoretically, the mean mass density decreases with increasing proper time due to the presence of the scale factor $a(t)$ in the Robertson-Walker metric. It is the Robertson-Walker scale factor that drives the expansion of the Universe in the Standard Model of Cosmology, called $\Lambda$CDM [@weinberg08]. This is manifested observationally in the form of a cosmological redshift, or Hubble’s Law: distant galaxies at low redshift (z $\ll$ 1) appear to be receding with a recession velocity that is linearly proportional to their distance from us [@hubble29; @riess09]. At large redshifts (z $\gtrsim$ 0.6), the observed distance-redshift relation begins to deviate significantly from linearity and becomes noticeably sub-linear [@amanullah10; @hinshaw13; @ade15].[^1] This observed acceleration in the expansion of the Universe at the present epoch is attributed to a mysterious dark energy, whose nature is unknown (see [@frieman08] for a review). The distance-redshift relation is interpreted as evidence for an expanding Universe. Indeed, a hot and dense early state for the Universe has now been firmly established, and the evidence is extensive. For example, the standard surface brightness tests have been performed [@lubin01], which involves comparing the luminosity distance of a given source with its angular diameter distance. Other evidence comes from observations of the x-ray luminosities of galaxy clusters, intergalactic absorption measurements, galaxy number counts, cosmic abundances, etc. (for more details see Chapter 1 of [@weinberg08] and references therein). Perhaps the most compelling evidence for a hot and dense early Universe comes from the cosmic microwave background, which has spurred a great deal of new cosmological data since its discovery in 1965 [@penzias65]. In this paper, we present a novel mechanism to account for the observed distance-redshift relation. To this end, we introduce a toy model for the large-scale matter distribution in the Universe. Our model considers the possibility that, at very low particle masses (well below any particle masses in the Standard Model of Particle Physics), locality can only be defined on large spatial scales. Extremely light (m $\sim$ 10$^{-22}$ eV) bosons have been proposed as dark matter candidates, with de Broglie wavelengths $\lambda \sim$ 1 kpc (see, for example, [@hui16] and references therein). Often called “fuzzy dark matter”, this alternative to cold dark matter could explain various observational discrepancies with the predictions of $\Lambda$CDM, such as the existence of globular clusters (GCs) in the Fornax dwarf galaxy. These GCs should have spiraled in to the nucleus long ago due to dynamical friction in a cold dark matter (CDM) halo. An intriguing extension of this idea could, for instance, be applied to an even lighter particle having similar effects in galaxy clusters and/or groups. Importantly, the existence of such ultralight particles would have been largely over-looked as astrophysically significant, since any inter-particle interactions would occur at very low energies well outside the range of detectability. As we will explain, our proposed mechanism for the observed distance-redshift relation operates without altering many of the successes of the current Standard Model for Cosmology in accounting for the available observational constraints, while also avoiding some of its theoretical uncertainties (e.g., the singularity at t $=$ 0). Mass density ------------ The concept of mass density permeates a number of physical fields, and is at the forefront of some of the most challenging puzzles of modern astrophysics. On large spatial scales, the issue of mass density is related to several cosmological paradigms, including both dark matter and dark energy. On very small scales, mass density is a theme central to the development of the unification of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR), called quantum gravity [@burgess04; @donoghue94]. A sticking point with quantum gravity theories is how to model the interaction between matter and space-time at spatial scales smaller than the Planck length. Thus, advancing our understanding of mass density could be crucial to future progress in several sub-disciplines within both physics and astronomy. Below the Planck scale, the uncertainty principle becomes important, and all known physical theories break down. The classical example of this is shown in Figure \[fig:fig1\], in which we adopt, for illustrative purposes, the Compton wavelength and the Schwarzschild radius as lower and upper limits, respectively, for the characteristic “particle” wavelength or radius $\lambda$ below and above the Planck limit, respectively. That is:[^2] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:psize2} \lambda &=& \frac{\hbar}{mc}, m \ge M_{\rm P}/\sqrt{2} \\ &=& \frac{2Gm}{c^2}, m \le M_{\rm P}/\sqrt{2}\end{aligned}$$ Equation \[eqn:psize2\] marks the intersection between quantum mechanics and general relativity, and the point at which these two physical theories break down. In making Figure \[fig:fig1\], we have assumed that Planck mass black holes (BHs) are stable, and have thus ignored the emission of Hawking radiation [@hawking74]. This choice for $\lambda$ is motivated by the fact that the notions of elementary particle and BH are thought to merge below the Planck scale [@thooft85]. This is supported by the fact that the Compton wavelength $\lambda_{\rm c} = \hbar$/mc becomes on the order of the Schwarzschild radius R$_{\rm S} =$ 2Gm/c$^2$ at these small scales, and quantum fluctuations in the position of the black hole affect the very definition of the horizon [@coleman92]. The key point to take away from Equation \[eqn:psize2\] is that, below the Planck scale, the particle wavelength is inversely proportional to its mass. Gravitational collapse and singularity formation ------------------------------------------------ An arguably critical example of the limitations imposed by the concept of mass density is the formation of singularities, or objects of infinite mass density. The nature of singularities, which represent a limiting density at which the metric tensor in the Einstein Field equations is undefined [@landau75], is unknown. That is, continuous differentiable manifolds predict infinite curvature at singular points, indicating the breakdown of GR at very small spatial scales. And yet, many authors have argued that true physical singularities do exist in nature. For instance, it was first argued by [@oppenheimer39] that, for a pressure-free spherical distribution of matter, the final fate of gravitational collapse is a true physical singularity that cannot be removed by any coordinate transformation. This result was generalized by [@penrose65], who argued that the assumption of spherical symmetry is not needed to ensure that matter collapses to a singularity. [@hawking76], among others, later argued that the breakdown of the classical concepts of space and time associated with the formation of singularities represents a fundamental limitation in our ability to predict the future, in analogy with (but additional to) the limitations imposed by the uncertainty principle in QM. However, causality need not break down if an event horizon prevents singularities from ever being observed by the external Universe. Indeed, this seems to suggest that, with the exception of the Big Bang singularity in cosmology, no naked singularities should exist in nature [@penrose69]. The physical significance of the breakdown of GR at the Planck scale is not yet understood. For example, in the case of the Robertson-Walker metric, there exist different sets of coordinates describing the manifold at the t$=0$ singularity. Depending on the choice of coordinates, the singularity can be modeled either as a three-surface or a singular point [@weinberg08]. More generally, different manifold structures can be adopted to model singularities that often agree for non-singular regions but disagree at the singular points. The observer in cosmological models: consistency over many orders of magnitude ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any successful model for the large-scale structure of the Universe must be founded on assumptions that remain valid over many orders of magnitude in space and time. In cosmology, at early times, the assumptions underlying GR and the application of Einstein’s equations must remain valid in the domain where quantum mechanical effects become non-negligible. These effects are generally thought to only be important on very small spatial scales [@donoghue94b], corresponding to large matter densities. Given enough mass, these small-scale quantum mechanical effects, acting like a repulsive force during gravitational collapse, can be overcome (e.g., a super-Chandrasekhar mass white dwarf and the inverse beta decay events that must occur to facilitate collapse to a neutron star). More generally, at microscopic distance scales, quantum mechanics can lead to a modification of the gravitational potential. But it is not always clear how to treat the quantum state of the matter sourcing the energy-momentum tensor T$_{\rm \mu\nu}$ in the Einstein equations. Importantly, the time-reversal of these transitions are neglected as directly affecting the observer in cosmological models. That is, the (mean) mass density of the Universe exceeds the particle mass density at very early times. If this ever truly occurs in nature, from Figure \[fig:fig1\], it must be inside an event horizon. Hence, empirically, this does not occur in the visible Universe. Said another way, Big Bang cosmology, and the existence of singularities in general, implies that at some point in the distant past the space-time containing any observer must have been part of the very system the observer is measuring. It follows that a fully consistent quantum mechanical description of the very early Universe, and the role of the observer, should be applied. It is not completely clear how to properly accommodate these issues within the framework of cosmological models. The key point is that models should not be extended past the domain of their validity. Beyond these critical points, crucial assumptions break down. In cosmology, it is (arguably) the nature of the observer that must be able to properly accommodate the transitional points in space and time described above. This should perhaps come as no surprise, given the many orders of magnitude in scale that must be crossed. Our motivation for re-examining in this paper the redshift-distance relation and the large-scale distribution of mass in the Universe originates from these issues with the current Standard Cosmological Model. In this paper, we consider a novel mechanism to account for the observed distance-redshift relation. This is described by presenting a toy model for the large-scale matter distribution in a static (i.e., non-expanding) Universe. Our model mainly concerns very low-mass particles with masses far below those of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (m $\le$ 10$^{-22}$ eV $\ll$ M$_{\rm P}$), since here the characteristic particle wavelengths could be comparable to the immense spatial scales of interest. Hence, our model is effectively motivated by an extrapolation of known physical concepts to astrophysical scales. By necessity, we make a number of assumptions in deriving our model, and address any speculative aspects of these assumptions via a discussion of their validity and implications for large-scale astrophysics. Given these critical assumptions, we show in Section \[model\] that the cosmological redshift characteristic of the Standard Model of Cosmology becomes a gravitational redshift in our toy model. We then use our model to derive Hubble’s Law and highlight a few potentially observable distinctions between our model and the predictions of $\Lambda$CDM. We further incorporate our toy model into the Friedmann Universe, in order to better understand the characteristic behavior expected for a more dynamic version of our model, as well as possible modifications to our base model needed to reproduce the available empirical constraints. In Section \[discussion\], we discuss the possible significance of our results for the observed distance-redshift relation and, more generally, cosmological models. Our key conclusions are summarized in Section \[summary\]. Model ===== In this section, we present a new mechanism to account for the observed distance-redshift relation, via a toy model for the large-scale matter distribution in a static (i.e., non-expanding) Universe. Using our model, we calculate the redshift of a photon emitted by a distant source and derive the predicted distance-redshift relation. We begin with the assumption of a linear distance-redshift relation, in order to first reproduce Hubble’s Law, but later we relax the assumption of linearity. We go on to compare the predictions of our model to the observed distance-redshift relation, which we show constrains the distribution of particle masses in our model (i.e., the low-mass particle mass function). For simplicity, throughout this section, we discuss our model mainly in the context of Euclidean space, and defer a discussion of relativistic effects to Section \[friedmann\] and Section \[discussion\]. Redshift -------- Consider an observer who wishes to measure the mass distribution of the Universe on large spatial scales. We adopt a static (i.e., non-expanding) toy model for the Universe, taken in the frame of reference of a particular particle (or wave packet) for simplicity. Our particle has mass m$_{\rm 1} \le$ 10$^{-22}$ eV $\ll$ M$_{\rm P}$ and characteristic wavelength $\lambda_{\rm 1} \gtrsim$ 1 kpc $\gg$ l$_{\rm P}$ [@hui16] given by: $$\label{eqn:psize1} \lambda_{\rm 1} = \frac{\hbar}{\delta_{\rm 1}m_{\rm 1}c},$$ where $\delta_{\rm 1} = \delta_{\rm 1}$(m$_{\rm 1}$) is a function of the particle mass satisfying 0 $\le$ $\delta_{\rm 1}$ $\le$ 1. We adopt a continuous mass spectrum of particle masses m$_{\rm i}$, with m$_{\rm i+1}$ $<$ m$_{\rm i}$ and $\lambda_{\rm i+1} > \lambda_{\rm i}$ for all i. That is: $$\label{eqn:mf} \frac{dN_{\rm i}}{dm_{\rm i}} = {\beta}m_{\rm i}^{-\alpha},$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are both positive constants. We also adopt the following functional form for the particle mass-wavelength relation:[^3] $$\label{eqn:psize} \lambda_{\rm i} = \frac{\hbar}{\delta_{\rm i}m_{\rm i}c} > \lambda_{\rm c}$$ Here, $\delta_{\rm i} = \delta_{\rm i}$(m$_{\rm i}$) is a function of the particle mass satisfying 0 $\le$ $\delta_{\rm i}$ $\le$ 1, with $\delta_{\rm i} =$ 1 corresponding to the Compton wavelength $\lambda_{\rm c}$, which is in some cases a reasonable lower limit for the particle radius (see Section \[intro\]). Note that $\delta_{\rm i} <$ 1 is certainly possible, for example this is the case for the semi-classical limit for the electron radius at the electroweak scale. Note that the particle mass function in Equation \[eqn:mf\] mainly concerns very low-mass particles, with masses far below those covered by the Standard Model of Physics. Here, the characteristic particle wavelengths could be comparable to the immense spatial scales of interest. For each particle mass (i.e., for every value of i), we assume a constant value for the corresponding mean mass density $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ in the Universe, and require that $\epsilon_{\rm i+1} > \epsilon_{\rm i}$. We make one more key assumption in our model. This is a stipulation on Gauss’ Law, which is used to calculate the gravitational field corresponding to a particular matter distribution. Only particles both (1) with the maximum of their wave function located within the boundary and (2) a characteristic wavelength $\lambda_{\rm i}$ smaller than the size of the bounded region are included as contributing to the matter distribution. Otherwise, the particles do not have a measurable gravitational effect (within the bounded region). Specifically, the mass enclosed within a volume of radius r can be written: $$\label{eqn:gauss} M(r) = 4{\pi}\int_0^r \epsilon_{\rm i}(r')r'^2 dr' \sim \frac{4{\pi}}{3}\epsilon_{\rm i}r^3, \lambda_{\rm i} < r < \lambda_{\rm i+1}$$ where the approximation follows from the assumption that $\epsilon_{\rm i} \gg \epsilon_{\rm 1}$ (i.e., $\epsilon_{\rm i}$(r’$=$r) $\gg$ $\epsilon_{\rm 1}$(r’$=$0)). For example, consider a typical Milky Way globular cluster (GC). Observationally, these objects do not contain significant amounts of dark matter. Within the context of our model, this is the case provided $\lambda_{\rm 1}$ $\ll$ r$_{\rm GC}$ $\ll$ $\lambda_{\rm 2}$, where r$_{\rm GC}$ is the typical size of a GC. Particles of mass m$_{\rm 1}$ act as gravitating objects within such clusters and contribute to the total gravitational potential, but particles of mass m$_{\rm 2}$ do not. Given the above assumptions, we now consider an event in which our particle receives a photon emitted from a source located at a distance r from our particle, with $\lambda_{\rm i+1} >$ r $> \lambda_{\rm i} \gg \lambda_{\rm 1}$. Given our assumption regarding Gauss’ Law, the photon is effectively emitted from a region of constant mass density $\epsilon_{\rm i}$, but is received by an observer (i.e., our particle) who perceives a Universe with a mean mass density $\epsilon_{\rm 1}$, and $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ $\gg$ $\epsilon_{\rm 1}$. Hence, the photon is subject to a gravitational redshift: $$\label{eqn:redshift} z = \frac{\lambda_{\rm 1,i} - \lambda_{\rm 1,1}}{\lambda_{\rm 1,1}},$$ where $\lambda_{\rm 1,1}$ is the wavelength of the photon as measured locally by an observer or particle of mass m$_{\rm 1}$, and $\lambda_{\rm 1,i}$ is the wavelength of the photon as measured by the receiving particle. The ratio $\lambda_{\rm 1,i}/\lambda_{\rm 1,1}$ can be derived as follows. First, we assume that every mass species self-virializes within a Hubble time. Hence, at the present epoch, we have for the total (mechanical) energy in particles of mass m$_{\rm i}$ (within a specified volume): $$\label{eqn:energy} E_{\rm i} = -T_{\rm i} = \frac{1}{2}V_{\rm i} %-\frac{1}{2}N_{\rm i}m_{\rm i}\sigma_{\rm i}^2, %\frac{F_{\rm p,i+3}}{F_{\rm p,i}}\lambda_{\rm, 0,i+3},$$ where T$_{\rm i}$ and V$_{\rm i}$ are the kinetic and potential energy, respectively, of particles with mass m$_{\rm i}$. Taking V$_{\rm i}$ $\sim$ GM$_{\rm i}$/$\lambda_{\rm i}$ $\sim$ G$\epsilon_{\rm i}\lambda_{\rm i}^2$, we have: $$\label{eqn:energy4} \frac{\lambda_{\rm 1,i}}{\lambda_{\rm 1,1}} = \frac{E_{\rm i}}{E_{\rm 1}} \sim \frac{\epsilon_{\rm i}\lambda_{\rm i}^2}{\epsilon_{\rm 1}\lambda_{\rm 1}^2} \sim \frac{m_{\rm i}^{1-\alpha}\lambda_{\rm, i}^2}{m_{\rm 1}^{1-\alpha}\lambda_{\rm 1}},$$ where the last equality holds since we are considering a specified volume. Thus, in our model, Equations \[eqn:redshift\] and \[eqn:energy4\] replace the cosmological redshift in $\Lambda$CDM, which is generated indirectly via the Robertson-Walker scale factor. Hubble’s Law {#hubble} ------------ Next, we derive Hubble’s Law within the context of our simple model. First, from Section \[redshift\], we have: $$\label{eqn:redshift2} z \sim \frac{m_{\rm i}^{1-\alpha}\lambda_{\rm i}^2}{m_{\rm 1}^{1-\alpha}\lambda_{\rm 1}} - 1 \sim \Big( \frac{\lambda_{\rm i}}{\lambda_{\rm 1}} \Big)^{(\alpha+2\gamma+1)/(\gamma+1)} - 1 %\frac{\epsilon_{\rm i}m_{\rm 1}}{\epsilon_{\rm 1}m_{\rm i}} - 1 = \frac{m_{\rm 1}^{\alpha}}{m_{\rm i}^{\alpha}} - 1$$ Now, a photon is emitted from a source located at a distance r from our observer or particle (located at r $=$ 0), and $\lambda_{\rm i+1} >$ r $> \lambda_{\rm i}$. Hence, plugging Equation \[eqn:psize\] into Equation \[eqn:redshift2\] and assuming: $$\label{eqn:delta} \delta_{\rm i} = {\eta}m_{\rm i}^{\gamma},$$ where $\gamma$ and $\eta$ are both constants, we have: $$\label{eqn:redshift3} z \sim \Big( \frac{{\eta}m_{\rm 1}^{\gamma+1}c}{\hbar} \Big)^{(\alpha+2\gamma+1)/(\gamma+1)}r^{(\alpha+2\gamma+1)/(\gamma+1)} %z \sim \Big( \frac{m_{\rm 1}^{(1+\gamma)}{\eta}c}{\hbar} \Big)^{\alpha/(1+\gamma)}r^{\alpha/(1+\gamma)} - 1$$ where the substitution r $\sim$ $\lambda_{\rm i}$ was made in the last equality. Hubble’s Law gives: $$\label{eqn:hubble2} cz = H_{\rm 0}r,$$ where c is the speed of light and H$_{\rm 0}$ is Hubble’s constant. We emphasize that, in our model, H$_{\rm 0}$ is merely a dummy variable or constant, and H$_{\rm 0} \ne \dot{a}$/a since we are considering a static model for the purposes of deriving the distance-redshift relation. In order to reproduce Equation \[eqn:hubble2\] in our model, we require that ($\alpha$+2$\gamma$+1)/($\gamma$ + 1) $=$ 1 or: $$\label{eqn:hubble3} \alpha + \gamma = 0$$ and $$\label{eqn:H0} H_{\rm 0} = \frac{{\eta}m_{\rm 1}^{1-\alpha}c^2}{\hbar} %\frac{m_{\rm 1}^{\alpha}{\eta}c^2}{\hbar} %\frac{4{\pi}\epsilon_{\rm 1}c^2\delta_{\rm i}^2}{3{\beta}\hbar^2}$$ For illustrative purposes, we use our model to construct the distance-redshift relation shown in Figure \[fig:fig2\], for different assumptions regarding the choice of bin size in the particle mass function dN$_{\rm i}$/dm$_{\rm i}$. That is, we take $\alpha =$ 1/2 and $\gamma =$ -1/2, and we now assume a discrete mass function with constant spacing between successive particle masses, or bin sizes, but vary the size of the bins. Importantly, there is no known reason that the discretization of the particle mass function should assume a constant grid-spacing. We make this assumption here for simplicity, but return to this important issue in Section \[discussion\]. In making Figure \[fig:fig2\], we adopt H$_{\rm 0}$ $=$ 67.8 $\pm$ 0.9 km/s/Mpc in Equation \[eqn:redshift2\] [@ade15]. A few interesting features in Figure \[fig:fig2\] are worth noting. First, our toy model predicts that only specific discrete redshifts should be observable in the distance-redshift relation, with the exact values depending on the details of the discretization of the particle mass function. That is, for a given bin size or grid spacing, the colored horizontal lines in Figure \[fig:fig2\] mark where the observed data points should fall. In the limit that the particle mass function is continuous, this discretization disappears and all redshifts are potentially observable. Second, our toy model predicts intrinsic dispersion in the observed distance-redshift relation, as shown by the horizontal lines in Figure \[fig:fig2\]. At a given redshift, the magnitude of the dispersion should be proportional to the grid spacing in the particle mass function (i.e., the ratio m$_{\rm i}$/m$_{\rm i+1}$). We emphasize that neither of these observed features in the distance-redshift relation are consistent with the predictions of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. The observed distance-redshift relation {#observed} --------------------------------------- In this section, we compare the predictions of our model to the observed distance-redshift relation. We assume Euclidean space for all our distance calculations. The discretization of the particle mass function is critical to predicting the observed appearance of the distance-redshift relation using our model. This can be quantified empirically by looking for gaps in the measured values of redshift, along with intrinsic dispersion at a given redshift. For example, in Figure \[fig:fig3\] we re-plot the distance-redshift relation obtained in our model and shown in Figure \[fig:fig2\], but over a smaller range in redshift. For comparison, we also plot observed data taken from the Union2 SN Ia compilation [@amanullah10], which is compiled from 17 different datasets. All SNe were fit using the same light curve fitter and analyzed uniformly. A few things are apparent from a quick glance at Figure \[fig:fig3\]. First, the observed distance-redshift relation is not linear; it appears to be slightly sub-linear. Within the context of our model, this suggests that the quantity $(\alpha$ + 2$\gamma$ +1)/(1+ $\gamma$) should be slightly less than unity, or $\alpha$ + $\gamma$ $<$ 0. As illustrated in Figure \[fig:fig4\], relaxing the assumption of a linear distance-redshift relation does indeed improve the agreement between our model and the observed data. Figure \[fig:fig4\] shows that the data can be reasonably well matched by our model assuming $\alpha =$ 0.39 and $\gamma =$ -0.5. Second, there does indeed appear to be intrinsic dispersion in the observed distance-redshift relation, but it is not clear whether or not this is due to observational uncertainties (not provided for all data points shown in Figure \[fig:fig3\]) or local gravitational effects. Third, if taken at face value, these data suggest that there are no large gaps in the particle mass function and, very roughly, m$_{\rm i+1}$/m$_{\rm i}$ $<$ 10$^2$ for all i. We caution that our toy model could be too simple in its present form for direct comparisons to empirical data. For instance, there is no reason to expect a constant binning in the particle mass function. We re-iterate here that the particle mass function is completely unconstrained, and other functional forms might also reproduce the observed distance-redshift relation in our model (such as, for example, a two- or three-part power-law). What’s more, we assume $\delta_{\rm i} =$ $\eta$m$_{\rm i}^{\gamma}$ for all i in Equation \[eqn:psize\] throughout this paper for simplicity, but remind the reader that this assumption is somewhat arbitrary. Other assumptions for the value of $\delta_{\rm i}$ should directly affect the appearance of the distance-redshift relation predicted by our model. Constructing a dynamic model {#dynamic} ============================ In this section, we consider a more dynamic version of our simple toy model. This will ultimately help us to assess modifications to our base model, which corresponds to a static Universe, needed to account for the overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of a hot and dense early state that quickly expanded, cooled and began re-condensing to form the observed large-scale structure of the present-day Universe. The Friedmann Universe {#friedmann} ---------------------- In this section, we place our toy model in the general framework of the Friedmann Universe. This serves to further constrain the free parameters in our model, while also exploring the global implications of our model for the evolution of the underlying metric. The Cosmological Principle states that the metric for the Universe must take the general form: $$\label{eqn:RWmetric} ds^2 = a(ct)^2dl^2 - c^2dt^2,$$ where dl$^2$ is a three-dimensional metric with constant curvature and a(ct) is the scale factor. Equation \[eqn:RWmetric\], called the Robertson-Walker metric, can be plugged into Einstein’s field equations, or: $$\label{eqn:field} R_{\rm \mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}Rg_{\rm \mu\nu} = \frac{8{\pi}G}{c^4}T_{\rm \mu\nu},$$ where T$_{\rm \mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the matter in the Universe, and must take the form of a perfect fluid in Robertson-Walker metrics. This gives the Friedmann equations: $$\begin{gathered} \label{eqn:friedmann2} \frac{2\ddot{a}}{a} + \frac{\dot{a}^2 + K}{a^2} = -\frac{8{\pi}G}{c^4}p \\ \frac{3(\dot{a}^2 + K)}{a^2} = \frac{8{\pi}G}{c^2}\bar{\epsilon}, \end{gathered}$$ where p and $\bar{\epsilon}$ are the matter pressure and density, respectively, and K $=$ +1, -1, or 0 corresponds to the sign of the curvature. For a static cosmology, all time derivates in Equation \[eqn:friedmann2\] are zero. This is the case in a (static) Einstein Universe. In order to reproduce the observational constraint imposed by the data available to him at the time, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ into his model. Here, in addition to the contribution from the gravitating matter (i.e., dust), the energy-momentum tensor contains a contribution proportional to the metric tensor: $$\label{eqn:tensor} \frac{8{\pi}G}{c^4}T_{\rm \mu\nu} = -{\Lambda}g_{\rm \mu\nu} + {\epsilon}u_{\rm \mu}u_{\rm \nu},$$ where $\epsilon > 0$ and $\Lambda$ is a constant. Using the relations: $$\begin{gathered} \label{eqn:friedmann3} \frac{8{\pi}G}{c^4}p = -\Lambda \\ \frac{8{\pi}G}{c^2}\bar{\epsilon} = \frac{8{\pi}G}{c^2}{\epsilon} + \Lambda, \end{gathered}$$ we obtain: $$\begin{gathered} \label{eqn:friedmann4} K = +1 \\ \Lambda = \frac{1}{a^2} \\ \frac{4{\pi}G}{c^2}\epsilon = \frac{1}{a^2}, \end{gathered}$$ for an Einstein Universe. Thus, the Einstein Universe is closed with constant curvature. Now, in order to place the above in the context of our static toy model, consider the following. First, we re-write Equation \[eqn:RWmetric\] in the form: $$\label{eqn:RWmetric2} ds^2 = (a_{\rm 0} - a_{\rm i})^2dl^2 - c^2dt^2,$$ where a$_{\rm i}$ is the (constant) scale factor for particles of mass m$_{\rm i}$ and wavelength $\lambda_{\rm i}$, as given by Equation \[eqn:psize\], and a$_{\rm 0}$ is a constant satisfying a$_{\rm 0} \ge$ a$_{\rm i}$ for all i. Note that $\lambda_{\rm i} \le$ (a$_{\rm 0}$ - a$_{\rm i}$) for all i, with $\lambda_{\rm 1} \ll$ (a$_{\rm 0}$ - a$_{\rm 1}$) and $\lambda_{\rm i} \rightarrow$ (a$_{\rm 0}$ - a$_{\rm i}$) in the limit of very large i. As we will show below, this parameterization is needed to ensure that the parameter $\alpha$ is positive. Recall that, in our toy model, these particles observe a mean mass density $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ for the Universe, and a$_{\rm i+1} >$ a$_{\rm i}$ for all $i$. For a pressureless dust (for example), the corresponding solutions to the Friedmann equations are then: $$\begin{gathered} \label{eqn:friedmann4} \Lambda_{\rm i} = \frac{1}{(a_{\rm 0} - a_{\rm i})^2} \\ \frac{4{\pi}G}{c^2}\epsilon_{\rm i} = \frac{1}{(a_{\rm 0} - a_{\rm i})^2}, \end{gathered}$$ and we assume a curvature of K $=$ +1 for every particle type i. In a Friedmann Universe, the cosmological redshift is given by: $$\label{eqn:redshift3} z = \frac{\lambda_{\rm 2} - \lambda_{\rm 1}}{\lambda_{\rm 1}} = \frac{a(ct_{\rm 2})}{a(ct_{\rm 1})} - 1,$$ for some times t$_{\rm 2} >$ t$_{\rm 1}$. Hence, for our toy model, Equation \[eqn:redshift3\] becomes: $$\label{eqn:redshift4} z = \frac{a_{\rm 0} - a_{\rm 1}}{a_{\rm 0} - a_{\rm i}} - 1.$$ Plugging Equation \[eqn:friedmann4\] into Equation \[eqn:redshift4\], we obtain: $$\label{eqn:redshift5} z = \Big( \frac{\epsilon_{\rm i}}{\epsilon_{\rm 1}} \Big)^{1/2} - 1.$$ A simple comparison with Equation \[eqn:energy4\] yields the constraint $\alpha =$ 1/2. It follows from this simple exercise that our toy model can be placed within the context of Friedmann’s Universe via a superposition of Einstein space-times, each with its own scale factor a$_{\rm i+1} >$ a$_{\rm i}$. As we will explain further below, using a quantity we call the particle packing fraction $F_{\rm p}$, a change in scale factor here can be interpreted as an increase in the ability of an observer (undergoing gravitational collapse) to resolve the spatial component of the line element. From Equation \[eqn:RWmetric2\], the unit of time in our chosen frame of reference is then determined by the wavelength crossing time, or the time taken by light to traverse one particle wavelength. It is intriguing to consider whether or not our model might be able to use this “inverted” frame of reference, which corresponds to a particle (or collection of particles) belonging to a matter distribution crossing the high-energy barrier during gravitational collapse, to construct a cosmological model capable of (at least qualitatively) reproducing the relevant observations on large spatial scales. Cosmological perturbation theory can in principle be used to help justify our choice for the functional form of $\delta_{\rm i}$, as given by Equation \[eqn:delta\]. For this, the perturbed geometry is often described in the general form: $$\label{eqn:perturbed} g_{\rm \mu\nu} = \bar{g}_{\rm \mu\nu} + {\delta}g_{\rm \mu\nu},$$ where $\bar{g}_{\rm \mu\nu}$ is the unperturbed Friedmann metric and ${\delta}$g$_{\rm \mu\nu}$ corresponds to a small perturbation. Through the Einstein equations, the metric perturbations should be coupled to perturbations in the matter distribution. Einstein’s Universe is unstable to perturbations. Within the context of our model, however, any expansion will bring the particle wavelength $\lambda_{\rm i}$ into the space-time corresponding to the adjacent scale factor a$_{\rm i+1}$. Here, the matter density $\epsilon_{\rm i+1} > \epsilon_{\rm i}$. We speculate that this change in the balance between pressure and gravity should cause the expansion to reverse direction, and the perturbation should subsequently contract back into the space-time corresponding to its original scale factor a$_{\rm i}$. Perturbative contraction, on the other hand, is free to proceed unimpeded. This instability should ultimately allow for a cascading collapse scenario, where the matter distribution in the space-time corresponding to a given scale factor a$_{\rm i}$ collapses into the next a$_{\rm i+1}$, which collapses in to the next, and so on. The above very simple and qualitative picture is illustrated schematically in Figure \[fig:fig5\], which shows the potential energies of our super-imposed Einstein Universes as a function of their respective scale factors a$_{\rm i}$. By equating the potentials of adjacent scale factors at their points of intersection, or V(a$_{\rm i}$+${\delta}$a$_{\rm i}$) $=$ V(a$_{\rm i+1}$-${\delta}$a$_{\rm i+1}$), we obtain the trivial constraint: $$\label{eqn:constraint1} \epsilon_{\rm i} - {\delta}\epsilon_{\rm i} = \epsilon_{\rm i+1} + {\delta}\epsilon_{\rm i+1},$$ provided a$_{\rm i}$+${\delta}$a$_{\rm i}$ $=$ a$_{\rm i+1}$-${\delta}$a$_{\rm i+1}$. Although speculative, this dynamic version of our toy model shares a number of striking similarities to the observed large-scale structure of the Universe. And yet, despite these successes, it seems likely that some further modifications of our base model will be needed to properly reproduce all available empirical constraints (e.g., baryon acoustic oscillations, the CMB, cosmic abundances, etc.). For example, we would expect the collapse to occur where the particle wavelengths overlap in space and time. This could ultimately give rise to a fractal structure resembling the large-scale cosmic web, but with a fractal dimension that is set by the ratio $\lambda_{\rm i}$/$\lambda_{\rm i+1}$, which is in turn set by the bin size between adjacent particle masses in the particle mass function. Naively, the matter must be hot and dense when it condenses into the filaments in order to be able to reproduce, for example, the available constraints from cosmic abundance measurements. Whether or not this simple picture could reproduce the observed CMB power spectrum and the effects of baryon acoustic oscillations as well is uncertain, and at least some initial expansion is likely needed in order to do so. This expansion would occur each time matter condenses out of the space-time corresponding to a given scale factor a$_{\rm i}$ by collapsing gravitationally into the next a$_{\rm i+1}$; i.e., the matter from one scale factor a$_{\rm i}$ condenses out hot and dense before expanding into the space-time corresponding to the adjacent scale factor a$_{\rm i+1}$, cooling in the process before beginning to re-collapse gravitationally, and the process repeats. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:fig5\]. We emphasize that more work needs to be done to better understand the implications of cosmological perturbation theory for our model. In particular, the metric given in Equation \[eqn:RWmetric2\] was chosen since it has the appropriate characteristic behavior to describe our model while also satisfying the Cosmological Principle. Apart from this, the choice of metric is arbitrary and other metrics could also be considered. We intend to explore these issues in future work, in an effort to better quantify further modifications to our base model that would be needed to properly reproduce the primary empirical constraints. Re-interpreting the scale factor {#scale factor} -------------------------------- In the Standard Model of Cosmology, the Robertson-Walker scale factor a(t) acts to decrease the mean mass density in the Universe with increasing proper time. In our model, the Universe is static, and no expansion is needed at the present epoch to reproduce the observed distance-redshift relation. Hence, the volume of the observable Universe at t $=$ 0 is the same as at the present epoch (as observed by a particle of constant rest-mass), and an alternative mechanism is needed to decrease the mean mass density in the Universe with increasing proper time. One way to do this is to adopt an appropriate frame of reference, specifically the frame of reference of a particular particle during gravitational collapse. Here, changes in the Robertson-Walker scale factor are interpreted as an increase in the observer’s ability to resolve the spatial component of the line element characteristic of the underlying space-time. Consider an initial state for the Universe at t $=$ 0 in which all particles have extremely low-masses, populating only the bottom-end of the particle mass function in Equation \[eqn:mf\]. Gravity proceeds to dictate the time evolution of the Universe, causing particles to rapidly coalesce, merge and become more massive. This process continues unimpeded, quickly populating the full spectrum of particle masses in Equation \[eqn:mf\]. Thus, our observing particle begins at t $=$ 0 with mass m$_{\rm i}$ and wavelength $\lambda_{\rm i}$, observing an initially dense Universe. The particle eventually ends with mass m$_{\rm 1} \gg$ m$_{\rm i}$ and wavelength $\lambda_{\rm 1} \ll$ $\lambda_{\rm i}$, observing a much lower mean mass density in the Universe. This occurs long before the present epoch, such that the seeds of structure formation are in place in the very early Universe. In this scenario, illustrated schematically in Figure \[fig:fig6\], there are two contributing factors to the perception of an expanding space-time or, equivalently, the perception of a mean mass density that decreases with increasing proper time. First, by construction, particles can only exchange photons with other particles of the same mass, and $\epsilon_{\rm i+1} > \epsilon_{\rm i}$ for all i. Hence, each time the particle rest-mass increases due to coalescence with other particles, the observing particle perceives a new particle distribution with a lower mean mass density. Second, the perception of an expanding space-time could come from increasing the particle mass density directly in its own frame of reference (via direct particle-particle interactions), while holding the mean mass density of the Universe constant. If the particle is unable to detect any change in its own mass density, then the result of this transformation in the particle reference frame is the perception of a decrease in the overall mean mass density of the Universe. To help illustrate this important point, consider the following parameter, which we call the particle packing fraction:[^4] $$\label{eqn:pack} F_{\rm p,i} = \frac{\epsilon_{\rm i}}{\epsilon_{\rm p,i}},$$ where $\epsilon_{\rm p,i}$ is the mean particle mass density (in the observing particle’s own frame of reference) and $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ is the mean mass density of the Universe, as observed by particles with mass m$_{\rm i}$. Importantly, the mean mass density $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ can only be indirectly observed, by directly measuring the quantity F$_{\rm p,i}$.[^5] In a Friedmann Universe, it is the Robertson-Walker scale factor a(t) that drives a decrease in $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ with increasing proper time, while the particle’s own mass density $\epsilon_{\rm p,i}$ remains constant (see the top illustration in Figure \[fig:fig6\]). However, in the particle frame of reference, a decrease in F$_{\rm p,i}$ due to a decrease in $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ at constant $\epsilon_{\rm p,i}$ is equivalent to a decrease in F$_{\rm p,i}$ due to an increase in $\epsilon_{\rm p,i}$ at constant $\epsilon_{\rm i}$. If the latter assumption is made, the time evolution of F$_{\rm p,i}$ must be driven by local changes in the particle mass density directly which must in turn be mediated by gravity. Thus, in effect, the “global expansion” of space-time characteristic of the Standard Model of Cosmology is here replaced by a “local contraction.” That is, the quantity F$_{\rm p,i}$ decreases as the particle rest mass m$_{\rm i}$ increases, or as the observing particle “slides down” the particle mass function dN$_{\rm i}$/dm$_{\rm i}$. Each time the particle’s rest-mass increases via direct particle-particle interactions, it observes a new smaller mean mass density for the Universe $\epsilon_{\rm i}$. We emphasize that this is analogous to the effect of increasing the Robertson-Walker scale factor with increasing proper time in $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. Thus, as shown in Section \[friedmann\], in our toy model, increasing the Robertson-Walker scale factor can be interpreted as increasing the ability of the observer to resolve the spatial component of the line element of the underlying space-time. We emphasize that the above schematic or qualitative picture is far from a complete dynamic model, and relies on a number of idealized simplifying assumptions. Nevertheless, this choice of reference frame is needed in our model to self-consistently bridge the orders upon orders of magnitude in space and time characteristic of the observable Universe. Discussion ========== In this section, we discuss the implications of our model for cosmology. After briefly addressing some of the possible caveats and the expected impact of including additional relativistic effects in our model, we discuss potentially observable distinctions between the cosmological redshift and our proposed mechanism to account for the observed distance-redshift relation. Relativistic effects {#relativistic} -------------------- First, we comment on the possible implications of including special relativistic corrections in our model, but emphasize that the magnitude of this effect is uncertain since the distributions of particle velocities are unknown. If all particle species are assumed to be in energy equipartition in our model then, for extreme particle mass ratios, from this assumption it follows that the root-mean-square velocities of some very low-mass particles could become relativistic. This is important since, in a model that includes relativistic effects, an additional Lorentz factor $\gamma_{\rm i}$ (where $\gamma_{\rm i} =$ 1/$\sqrt{1-\sigma_{\rm i}^2/c^2}$) must be included in the denominator of Equation \[eqn:psize\]. Thus, large Lorentz factors contribute to a significant reduction in the particle wavelength, such that some fine-tuning would likely be required via the parameter $\delta_{\rm i}$, which is a free parameter that can be arbitrarily small in our model, in order to reproduce the observed data. Importantly, however, if the assumption of energy equipartition is relaxed, then the root-mean-square particle velocities need not be relativistic. The overall qualitative results of our model are also independent of this assumption, which serves only to decrease the power-law index $\alpha$ in Equation \[eqn:mf\] by unity. More importantly, there is no known reason to expect energy equipartition in our model. For example, an initial phase of gravitational collapse in the early Universe could be accompanied by violent relaxation, leaving the system out of thermal equilibrium. Whether or not the matter distribution in our model would have sufficient time to re-achieve energy equipartition is not clear. Moreover, only the baryonic matter must ultimately pass through a hot and dense state in order to achieve consistency with the available primordial abundance constraints [@weinberg08]. Any very low-mass particles contributing to large-scale gravitational potentials at the present-day (in our model) could not have passed through such a hot and dense state without relativistic effects having drastically reduced their characteristic wavelengths. Nevertheless, the issue of the particle velocities (and hence wavelengths) is central to our toy model, which requires long wavelengths at very low particle masses in order to reproduce the available observational data. This is an active area of research (see, for example, [@marsh15] and [@hui16]). As for further adapting our model to include general relativistic effects, it is (in general) unclear how to source the energy-momentum tensor in the Einstein equations, since (among other things) the quantum state of the matter is unknown. Finally, as already discussed, the discrete nature of our model could be difficult, if not impossible, to completely accommodate via Einstein’s equations, since they are formulated from continuous and differentiable functions. Empirical constraints {#empirical} --------------------- As explained in the preceding sections, our toy model bears many interesting similarities to an “inverted” $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. But, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:fig2\], several possible differences are also apparent. In this section, we discuss potentially observable features of our model, and how they relate to both the available empirical data and theoretical models. ### Distance-redshift relation and Dark Energy {#dr} $\Lambda$CDM predicts that (ignoring data uncertainties and local gravitational effects) all the data should fall precisely on the observed distance-redshift relation, with zero dispersion. Conversely, in our toy model, we expect some intrinsic dispersion in the observed distance-redshift relation, with the magnitude of the dispersion being proportional to the grid spacing in the particle mass function (i.e., the ratio m$_{\rm i}$/m$_{\rm i+1}$; see Figure \[fig:fig2\]). Next, our toy model predicts that only specific discrete values of the redshift should be observed in the distance-redshift relation, with the exact values depending on the details of the discretization of the particle mass function. In the limit that the particle mass function is continuous, however, this potentially observable consequence of our model vanishes. Importantly, the first observable feature (i.e. dispersion) is likely to offer a more practical constraint on our model. This is because it would be difficult to establish that any gap detected in the distance-redshift relation is anything more than an observational bias, or selection effect. Intrinsic dispersion, on the other hand, could be looked for by first finding a best-fit model for the data, adding (in quadrature) an intrinsic dispersion term $\sigma_{\rm int}$ to the uncertainties and calculating a reduced $\chi^2$ value. If the reduced $\chi^2$ is less than or equal to the number of degrees of freedom in the model assuming $\sigma_{\rm int} =$ 0, then the data are consistent with having zero intrinsic dispersion. If, on the other hand, we require $\sigma_{\rm int} >$ 0 for an acceptable reduced $\chi^2$, then this could be used to constrain the degree of intrinsic dispersion in the data and, consequently, the bin size (i.e., the ratio of successive particle masses in the particle mass function) for the particle mass function. We have attempted this simple test and find that, over the entire observed range of redshifts, the data are consistent with zero intrinsic dispersion. However, this is not particularly telling, since we might only expect intrinsic dispersion to appear over a very narrow range of redshifts. We conclude that a more sophisticated statistical treatment based around this method but confined to narrow ranges in redshift will be required to properly address this issue. We have shown that the simple toy model presented here can potentially reproduce the observed shape of the distance-redshift relation at z $>$ 0.6 [@riess04], presently attributed to dark energy in the Standard Model of Cosmology. However, our results suggest that significant fine-tuning is likely required via the parameter $\delta_{\rm i}$ in Equation \[eqn:psize\] in order to avoid apparent discontinuities in redshift not readily seen in the observed data. While beyond the scope of this paper, a complete dynamic model might be needed before more meaningful comparisons can be made. We intend to address this issue in a forthcoming paper, including a more rigorous statistical comparison between the predictions of our model and the available empirical data, without making any a priori assumptions regarding the particle mass function. Finally, our proposed mechanism for the observed distance-redshift relation also naturally reproduces other observations on large-scales. For example, at least qualitatively, this mechanism should also produce gravitational lensing, and could be empirically-tested via gravitational lensing experiments. Naively, gaps in the particle mass function could translate into discontinuities or sharp truncations in the observed enclosed mass as a function of distance from the centre of mass of the lensing mass distribution. The Cosmic Microwave Background can also be qualitatively explained within the context of our model. CMB photons have been traveling at the speed of light since the very early Universe (in $\Lambda$CDM). Hence, those CMB photons detected at Earth originated from the greatest possible distances, and hence the deepest possible potentials (in our model). Consequently, they should be the most redshifted photons in the Universe. In other words, within the context of our model, CMB photons probe the very bottom end of, or minimum particle mass in, the particle mass function. Hypothetically, the observed fluctuations in the energies of CMB photons could constrain the initial spatial distribution of the lowest mass particles in the particle mass function. ### Galactic rotation curves and dark matter {#DM} Interestingly, a potential connection can also be made to dark matter particles via our model. This could be the case if the wavelengths of any particles in our toy model are comparable to or smaller than typical galactic scales. For instance, consider observed extragalactic rotation curves at large galactocentric radii, which tend to be flat as a function of galactocentric distance r, attributed to the presence of unseen dark matter particles. That is, to first order: $$\label{eqn:vc} v_{\rm c}^2 = \frac{M(r)}{r} = constant,$$ where v$_{\rm c}$ is the circular velocity and M(r) is the enclosed mass at galactocentric radius r. Equation \[eqn:vc\] constrains the functional form of the particle mass function at large galactocentric radii,[^6] similar to the observed distance-redshift relation in Section \[observed\]. To see this, we calculate the total mass enclosed within a radius r: $$\label{eqn:mass2} \frac{M(r)}{r} \sim \epsilon_{\rm i}\lambda_{\rm i}^2 \sim m_{\rm i}^{1-\alpha}\lambda_{\rm, i}^2 \sim \lambda_{\rm i}^{(\alpha+2\gamma+1)/(\gamma+1)} \sim r^{(\alpha+2\gamma+1)/(\gamma+1)}$$ where the second equality holds since we are considering a specified volume. In order to reproduce Equation \[eqn:vc\], we thus require ($\alpha$+2$\gamma$+1) $=$ 0 in Equation \[eqn:mass2\], or: $$\label{eqn:const1} \alpha + 2\gamma = -1$$ The above example illustrates that extragalactic rotation curves could offer an additional pathway toward constraining the precise functional form of the particle mass function in our model, provided some particles have wavelengths smaller than typical galactic scales. For example, if a large discontinuity or gap in the mass function is present, this could manifest itself observationally if the circular velocity begins to (temporarily) drop off with galactocentric distance as 1/r (not including the baryonic mass), instead of v$_{\rm c} =$ constant. This is because, over some small range in r $\sim$ $\lambda_{\rm i}$, (and $\lambda_{\rm i} \ll \lambda_{\rm i+1}$), the mass interior to r is constant with increasing r. This 1/r decrease should continue until r $\ge \lambda_{\rm i+1}$, at which point a sharp increase in v$_{\rm c}$ could be observed (ignoring the aforementioned oscillating perturbations in Section \[friedmann\]). We emphasize that this proposed observational effect is an artifact of our simple model, and should be confirmed in future studies using more sophisticated dynamical modeling. We intend to explore in more detail a possible connection between the matter distribution presented in this paper and dark matter particles in a future paper. ### Wide binary stars in the Galactic field {#wide_binaries} Another possible test for the extension of our model into the regime of galactic potentials can perhaps be constructed from observational monitoring of wide binary stars in the Galactic field. The test works as follows. If dark matter consists of very long-wavelength ($\lambda \gtrsim$ 1 pc) particles then, within the context of our simple model, no dark matter should contribute to the gravitational potential within the binary’s orbit. If, on the other hand, dark matter consists of particles with small wavelengths, then dark matter could exist within the orbits of very wide binaries. If the mass in dark matter is significant, the binary orbit will not be closed and should exhibit deviations from Kepler’s Law. Assuming a continuous density of DM particles distributed throughout the Galaxy according to a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile, the total mass of dark matter particles within the orbits of wide low-mass binaries can become comparable to or even exceed the total binary mass at certain Galactocentric radii. This effect could therefore be significant at these locations within the Galactic potential. Additionally, the presence of DM within the binary orbit changes the zero-point of the binary orbital energy, such that binaries with separations larger than some critical semi-major axis should be disrupted. In our simple model, however, this is only the case provided $\lambda <$ a, where a is the orbital separation of the binary. We quantify this effect in Figure \[fig:fig7\], which shows the maximum binary orbital separation possible for different total binary masses, as a function of Galactocentric radius. We assume a uniform DM density for this calculation. Specifically, we adopt an NFW profile for the DM component of the Galaxy, using the fit parameters in Table 1 of [@nesti13]. As is clear, only in the outer reaches of the Galactic halo, where the stellar density is much lower than the local DM density, could this effect become significant. A more viable test might therefore be galaxy pairs in the outer reaches of galaxy clusters. We intend to explore this idea further in future work. Caveats and Future Work {#future} ----------------------- As already discussed, we intend to explore in more detail in a future paper the empirical constraints discussed in the preceding sections, which are relevant to large-scale astrophysical observations. We emphasize that any potentially viable model to describe the large-scale structure of the Universe along with its time evolution must satisfy the available wealth of empirical constraints already in hand, while ideally also making predictions for future data. In this regard, we have only scratched the surface in this paper. However, our model also draws attention to a number of interesting issues that could bear important insight for models of quantum gravity. For example, our assumption regarding the nature of Gauss’ Law is critical to our model, and could potentially be tested in the laboratory. The assumption that gravity can mediate the overlap of wave packets in space and time during gravitational collapse is also central to our toy model, but remains a subject of active research [@das15]. More generally, it is unclear how such long-wavelength particles should interact at all, either gravitationally or otherwise. One of our goals with the toy model presented in this paper is to help guide future studies toward key topics that, once better understood, could have important implications for future astrophysical observations on large spatial scales. Depending on the validity of our assumptions, the model presented in this paper could serve in future studies as a benchmark for extending the Standard Model of Particle Physics to very low energy scales. Summary ======= In this paper, we present a novel mechanism to account for the observed distance-redshift relation. This is done by presenting a toy model for the large-scale matter distribution in a static Universe. Our model relies on a few key assumptions, including a mass spectrum dN$_{\rm i}$/dm$_{\rm i}$ $=$ $\beta$m$^{-\alpha}$ (where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are both positive constants) for low-mass particles with m$_{\rm i}$ $\ll$ M$_{\rm P}$, where M$_{\rm P}$ is the Planck mass, and a particle mass-wavelength relation of the form $\lambda_{\rm i} =$ $\hbar$/$\delta_{\rm i}$m$_{\rm i}$c, where $\delta_{\rm i} =$ $\eta$m$_{\rm i}^{\gamma}$ and $\eta$ and $\gamma$ are both constants. Our model mainly concerns particles with masses far below those in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. For such low-mass particles, we assume that locality can only be defined on very large spatial scales, comparable to or exceeding the particle wavelengths. We use our model to derive the cosmological redshift characteristic of the Standard Model of Cosmology (i.e., $\Lambda$CDM), which becomes a gravitational redshift in our toy model. We then go on to derive Hubble’s Law, and show that, within the context of our model assumptions, this constrains the particle mass spectrum such that $\alpha$ + $\gamma$ $=$ 0 for a linear distance-redshift relation. We further compare the results of our model to empirical data and show that, in order to reproduce the observed sub-linear form of the distance-redshift relation, our model requires $\alpha$ + $\gamma$ $<$ 0. Taken at face value, the observed data also suggest that the particle mass function is relatively continuous, with the maximum gap or bin size satisfying m$_{\rm i+1}$/m$_{\rm i}$ $<$ 10$^2$ for successive particle masses, for all i (and assuming $\gamma =$ -0.5). We further place our toy model in the context of the Friedmann Universe, in order to better understand the expected characteristic behaviour of a more dynamic version of our model. Given the overwhelming evidence supporting an expanding Universe, we then address possible modifications to our base (static) model that would be required to account for the available empirical constraints, including the addition of some initial expansion. Finally, we consider potentially observable distinctions between the cosmological redshift and our proposed mechanism to account for the observed distance-redshift relation. In conclusion, the mechanism presented here for the observed distance-redshift relation has the potential to unify into a single mechanism the source of the observable properties of the Universe on large spatial scales, presently attributed to a combination of dark matter and dark energy, while also potentially offering several unique observational signatures relative to the current Standard Model of Cosmology. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== NL would like to thank Solomon Endlich, Achim Kempf, Cliff Burgess, Nick Stone, Leo van Nierop, Lauranne Fauvet, Alison Sills, Torsten Böker, Dennis Duffin, Jeremiah Ostriker, Mordecai-Mark Mac Low, Taeho Ryu and Rosalba Perna for useful discussions and feedback. O.G. is supported by an NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Fellowship under award AST-1602595. References {#refs .unnumbered} ========== [99]{} Ade P. A. R., Aghanim M., Arnaud M., Ashdown J., Aumont C., Baccigalupi A. J., Banday R. B., Barreiro J. G., et al. arxiv.org/abs/1502.01589 (2015) Amanullah R., Lidman C., Rubin D., Aldering G., Astier P., Barbary K., Burns M. S., Conley A., et al., ApJ [716]{}, 712 (2010) Burgess C. P. Living Reviews in Relativity [7]{}, 5 (2004) Coleman S., Preskill J., Wilczek F. Nuclear Physics B [378]{}, 175 (1992) Das S. Physical Review D [89]{}, 8 (2015) Donoghue J. F. Physical Review D [50]{}, 3874 (1994) Donoghue J. F. Physical Review Letters [72]{}, 2996 (1994) Frieman J. A., Turner M. S., Huterer D. ARA&A, [46]{}, 385 (2008) Hawking S. W. Nature [248]{}, 30 (1974) Hawking S. W. Physical Review D [14]{}, 2460 (1976) Hinshaw G., Larson D., Komatsu E., Spergel D. N., Bennett C. L., Dunkley J., Nolta M. R., Halpern M., et al. ApJS [208]{}, 19 (2013) t’Hooft G. Nuclear Physics B [256]{}, 727 (1985) Hubble E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [15]{}, 168 (1929) Hui L., Ostriker J. P., Tremaine S., Witten E. 2016, Physical Review D, submitted (2016; arxiv.org/abs/1610.08297) Landau L. D., Lifshitz E. M. 1975, The Classical Theory of Fields (Oxford: Pergamon Press) Lubin L. M., Sandage A. AJ [122]{}, 1084 (2001) Marsh D. J. E. arXiv:1510.07633 (2015) Nesti F., Salucci P. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics [07]{}, 016 (2013) Oppenheimer J. R., Snyder H. Physical Review [56]{}, 455 (1939) Penrose R. Physical Review Letters [14]{}, 57 (1965) Penrose R. Rivista del Nuovo Cimento [1]{}, 252 (1969) Penzias A. A., Wilson R. W. ApJ [142]{}, 419 (1965) Riess A. G., Strolger L.-G., Tonry J., Casertano S., Ferguson H. C., Mobasher B., Challis P., Filippenko A. V., et al. ApJ [607]{}, 665 (2004) Riess A. G., Macri L., Li W., Lampeitl H., Casertano S., Ferguson H. C., Filippenko A. V., Jha S. W. ApJS [183]{}, 109 (2009) Weinberg S. 2008, Cosmology (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [^1]: We define this limit as follows. We fit a straight line to the data (in linear-linear, instead of linear-log, space), and calculate the corresponding reduced chi-squared. We then begin to restrict the range of redshifts (by excluding data points with redshifts greater than a given upper limit) until the reduced chi-squared drops below unity. The upper limit for the redshift corresponding to a reduced chi-squared of unity defines the point at which the distance-redshift relation starts to deviate from linearity. [^2]: The transition mass m $=$ M$_{\rm P}$/$\sqrt{2}$ is found by setting R$_{\rm S} = \lambda_{\rm c}$, and solving for m. [^3]: Note that, if the particles are relativistic, the Lorentz factor $\gamma_{\rm i}$ should be included in the denominator of Equation \[eqn:psize\]. However, for the time being, this can effectively be absorbed into $\delta_{\rm i}$, which is a free parameter in our model. We will return to the implications of including relativistic effects in our model in Section \[discussion\]. [^4]: Classically, the packing fraction can be written F$_{\rm p}$ $=$ N$\Gamma_{\rm p}$/$\Gamma_{\rm 0}$ $=$ (Nm/$\Gamma_{\rm 0}$)$\Gamma_{\rm p}$/m $=$ $\epsilon_{\rm 0}$/$\epsilon_{\rm p}$, where N is the number of particles, m is the particle mass, $\Gamma_{\rm p}$ is the particle volume and $\Gamma_{\rm 0}$ is the volume of the container containing all N particles. [^5]: In effect, in order for a measurement of a given quantity to hold any real meaning, a scale must first be defined by assigning units to the quantity or parameter in question. Hence, in Equation \[eqn:pack\], we are effectively measuring the mean mass density of the Universe $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ in units of the mean particle mass density $\epsilon_{\rm p,i}$. [^6]: Note that this distance scale should apply to the heaviest particles in, or the “top” end of, our assumed particle mass function.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We showcase a family of common failures of state-of-the art object detectors. These are obtained by replacing image sub-regions by another sub-image that contains a trained object. We call this “object transplanting”. Modifying an image in this manner is shown to have a non-local impact on object detection. Slight changes in object position can affect its identity according to an object detector as well as that of other objects in the image. We provide some analysis and suggest possible reasons for the reported phenomena.' author: - Amir Rosenfeld - Richard Zemel - 'John K. Tsotsos' bibliography: - 'elephant.bib' title: The Elephant in the Room --- Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Reliable systems for image understanding are crucial for applications such as autonomous driving, medical imaging, etc. Adversarial examples [@szegedy2013intriguing] have been suggested as small targeted perturbations. We show another kind of perturbation. As opposed to adversarial examples, these are not nor m-bounded. They involve putting (“transplanting”) an object from one image in a new location of another image. This is shown to have multiple effects on the object detector. We demonstrate this phenomena through a series of experiments, suggesting some possible explanations. Experiments {#experiments .unnumbered} =========== We begin with some qualitative results. Figure \[fig:Detecting-an-elephant\] (a) shows the results of a state-of-the-art object detection method (Faster-RCNN [@ren2015faster] with a NASNet backbone [@zoph2017learning]) when applied to an image of a living-room from the Microsoft COCO object detection benchmark [@lin2014microsoft] on which the detector was trained. Using the ground-truth we extract an object (elephant) along with its mask from another image and “transplant” it into this image of a living-room at various locations. We refer to the transplanted object as $T$. The results can be seen in sub-figures \[fig:Detecting-an-elephant\] b-l. We note several interesting phenomena as the object $T$ translates along the image: 1. Detection is not stable: the object may occasionaly become undetected or be detected with sharp changes in confidence 2. The reported identity of the object $T$ is not consistent (chair in \[fig:Detecting-an-elephant\],f): the object may be detected as a variety of different classes depending on location 3. The object causes non-local effects: objects non-overlapping with $T$ can switch identity, bounding-box, or disappear altogether. Detailed Analysis {#detailed-analysis .unnumbered} ----------------- We now present detailed experiments to further demonstrate each of these phenomena. All of our experiments use images taken from the validation set of the 2017 version of the MS-COCO dataset. Unless otherwise specified, we use models from the Tensorflow Object Detection API [@huang2017speed]. This enables easy reproducibility of our experiments and access to a diverse set of contemporary state-of-the-art object detection architectures. Unless specified otherwise, we only use models that were trained on MS-COCO. The models are downloaded from the corresponding API’s webpage[^1] and applied to images using the officially provided code. Table \[tab:Models-used-in\] specifies the models we used. #### Test Image Generation As the example in Fig. \[fig:Detecting-an-elephant\] may seem a bit contrived, we provide further examples which are generated randomly. In short, each example is created by picking a random pair of images $I,J$ and transplanting a random object from the image $J$ into image $I,$then testing the effect on object detection. This is done as described below. A test image $I_{t}^{x,y}$ is generated as follows: we pick an image $J\neq I.$ Using the ground-truth, we randomly select one of the object instances $Obj_{i}$ along with its provided segmentation mask $M_{i}$. We “transplant” $Obj_{i}$ to a location whose origin is $t_{x},t_{y}$ in image $I$. Denote by $T_{x,y}$ the translated object (abbreviated as $T$ where specifying $x,y$ is unnecessary). We copy each foreground pixel using the segmentation masks $M_{i}$. All other pixels are unmodified. The $t_{x},t_{y}$ translations are varied so that $t_{x}\in[0,k,k+1...,w_{0}]$ and $t_{y}\in[0,k,k+1...,h_{0}]$, where $k$ is a step-size in pixels ($k=10$) and $w_{o},h_{0}$ are such that the transplanted object is always fully inside the test image $I_{t}^{x,y}$. For typical images, whose side is hundreds of pixels, this creates about a thousand different test images. The image pairs $I,J$ are all picked randomly from the validation set. We discard pairs for which the transplanted object is too large (allowing a degenerate amount of translations) or too small, without any distinguishing visual features except its context. The detector’s output is a set of detections $\mathcal{D}_{x,y}$=$\{d_{m}\},m\in1\dots M$ for each test image $I_{t}^{x,y}$. Each detection $d_{m}=<b,s,c>_{m}$ is a made of bounding box coordinates $b$, detection score $s$ and object category $c$. $M$ is the number of detections for the image. We denote by $\mathcal{D_{\emptyset}}$ the detections on the original image, where no object was transplanted. #### Matching Detections {#matching-detections .unnumbered} We analyze the effect of the transplanted object on $I$ by comparing $\mathcal{D}_{x,y}$ to $\mathcal{D_{\emptyset}}$. One simple method of doing so is to compare the set of confidently detected object classes. Let $C_{x,y}$ and $C_{\ensuremath{\emptyset}}$ be the corresponding sets of detected object categories. The cardinality of the difference $\left\|C_{x,y}\backslash C_{\ensuremath{\emptyset}}\right\|$ is used to sort the detection results. We call this the “Class-Matching” criteria. Figures \[2\],\[3\],\[4\],\[5\],\[6\] show detailed results of ranking a handful of the selected images according to the “Class-Matching” Criteria. We recommend viewing these figures online with zooming, as they contain many notable details. The first row of each of the figures shows the result on an unmodified image by the detectors. For each column, each successive row shows a modified image with a transplanted object, along with detection of objects whose class did not appear among the detected classes in the previous images. The order of the detectors, from left to right, is specified in the figure caption and follows that of Table \[tab:Models-used-in\]. Let us examine Figure \[3\] as an interesting case. We pick to address the effects in the strongest detector, faster\_rcnn\_nas\_coco, whose mAP is reported as 43% on the MS-COCO dataset. This is a relatively “heavy” detector, requiring 1.83s on a Titan-X GPU. For comparison, the second-best model, faster\_rcnn\_inception\_resnet\_v2\_atrous\_coco requires 600ms per image, roughly a third of the time, with an AP of 37%. The results of faster\_rcnn\_nas\_coco are shown in the second column. We only show detection results with a confidence value that exceeds 0.5. The original detection (top row, second column) shows a couple of detected hot-dogs, with the table detected as well. The second row shows the result of adding a keyboard at a certain location. The keyboard is detected with high confidence, though now one of the hot-dogs, partially occluded, is detected as a sandwich and a doughnut. What remains visible of the small sign is now detected as a book. The third row shows that the region below the table is now interpreted as a couch and the partially-occluded sign-holder is detected as a chair. In the last row the left hot-dog is interpreted as a teddy-bear. We can see similar trends for the same detector in other images: in Figure \[2\], the bear changes the interpretation of the image so that a new kite (2nd row), knife (3rd row), cellphone (4th row) are detected for different configurations. This also happens with detectors of lower average performance. We deliberately chose to exemplify this for what is likely one of the strongest detectors currently available, showing results on additional ones for reference. Co-occurring Objects {#co-occurring-objects .unnumbered} -------------------- So far, we have shown results where the pair of images and object to be transplanted are selected randomly. Arguably, it is too much to expect a network which has never seen a certain combination of two categories within the same image to be able to successfully cope with such an image at test time. We do not believe that requiring each pair of object categories to co-occur in the training set is a reasonable one, both practically and theoretically. Certainly, it is not too much for a human. Out of context, humans are able to recognize objects, though it requires more time [@biederman1972perceiving]. Nevertheless, we now turn to generating images of another extreme: we duplicate an object from within an image and copy it to another location in the same image. Figure \[fig:duplicate\] shows some results of detection for generated images for 4 randomly picked images. We see that the effect also happens for such images. Partial occlusions and context seem to play a role here. For example, in column (b), bottom row, the foot of the cow becomes a “remote” when near a TV. The bottom if the plant (column d, last rows 2-3) are interpreted as either a hand-bag or a cup, when part of the plant is occluded, but a person’s hand is nearby. The results in Figure \[fig:duplicate\] were all generated using the faster\_rcnn\_nas\_coco model. Feature Interference {#feature-interference .unnumbered} -------------------- We now show how feature interference could be harmful to the detection process, as a plausible explanation to the observed detection error. As an example, consider the detection result in Figure \[fig:entanglement\] (a). A partially visible cat is detected and classified as a zebra. We demonstrate that features attained from pixels that do not belong to the actual object (cat) have an effect on the assigned class. This is true both for pixels inside the ROI (region-of-interest) of the object and for those outside of it: in Figure \[fig:entanglement\] (b) we set to zero all of the pixels outside of the bounding box. The detection result is not changed. When we also zero out the pixels inside the bounding box, leave those that belong to the cat, the resulting label becomes “cat”. This shows the effect of the pixels inside the ROI. However, when we randomize the background intensity outside the ROI, the label becomes “dog”. This shows that features from outside the ROI affect the final result of the detection. This experiment was performed with a PyTorch port of the method of Yolov3 [@redmon2018yolov3], which is very fast and yields results which are on par with state-of-the-art in object detection. The final classification in this case relies on features from a single grid-cell of a convolutional layer. Further Statistics {#further-statistics .unnumbered} ------------------ To gain some more insight about the spread of the reported phenomena, we take a few images and calculate statistics to summarize what happens as the transplanted object is translated over a dense set of locations, with a 5 pixels stride for each. We do this for 29 different images. First, we count how many times the interpretation of the scene has changed from what is expected. This is done by matching the set of bounding boxes produced by the detector in the original and modified images. Recall that the set of detections of a modified image $I_{t}^{x,y}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{D}_{x,y}$ and those of the original image $I$ by $\mathcal{D_{\emptyset}}$. We seek a maximal match between the bounding boxes of $\mathcal{D}_{x,y}$ and those of $\mathcal{D_{\emptyset}}$. A bipartite graph $\mathcal{G}$ is defined over the bounding boxes of both detection sets as the nodes. Each node corresponding to a box from $\mathcal{D}_{x,y}$ has an edge to a node from $\mathcal{D_{\emptyset}}$ only if their classes are identical. The weight $w$ is the overlap score of the corresponding boxes. A maximally weighted match $M_{x,y}$ is found. The score of the match is calculated by $$S(M_{x,y})=\frac{\sum_{w\in M_{x,y}}w}{max(\left\|\mathcal{D}_{x,y}\right\|-1,\left\|D_{\emptyset}\right\|)}$$ Where $\left\|\cdot\right\|$ is the cardinality of a set. This enforces good matches both in set size and location of bounding boxes. The highest attainable score is one. The score $S$ gives us the average overlap score between each box and its matched one if there is a perfect pairing between boxes and a lower score if some boxes are missing in either set. This allows us to count the number of objects whose detection was not affected by the transplanted object $T$. When counting $\left\|\mathcal{D}_{x,y}\right\|$ we in fact reduce 1 so the score will not be reduced by the detection of $T.$ For each image with a translation $I_{t}^{x,y}$, we count the image as “affected” if the $T$ at the corresponding translation gave rise to a match score below a certain threshold $\tau$. The average number of affected translations is reported in Table \[tab:Average-effect-of\] for varying values of the threshold $\tau$. A higher value of $\tau$ is a more strict matching criteria. In this context, an threshold of 0.5 is quite a loose one, as we are trying to match two detections of the exact same object in the original and modified image. For very strict thresholds, i.e, $\tau=0.99$ we see that there is a very low number of bounding boxes matched the original ones exactly (less than 25%). The second row of Table \[tab:Average-effect-of\] (Affected-class-Agnostic) also shows the number of affected locations if we allow two bounding boxes to match even if their classes do not. By construction this creates fewer mismatches, however not by a large margin. ### Occlusions {#occlusions .unnumbered} The previous analysis did not consider that the object $T$ may occlude partially or fully, many of the objects in the image. Therefore, we calculate again the matching between the sets of bounding boxes while recording to which extent each of the original objects was covered by $T$. For each original bounding box $b\in D_{\emptyset}$, we calculate the coverage of $b$ by $T$ as $$C_{b,T}=\frac{\|b\cap T\|}{\|b\|}$$ Where $\|\cdot$ corresponds to the area of the bounding box (in this context $T$ is interpreted as $T$’s bounding box). We calculate the maximal coverage $$C_{T}=\max_{b\in D_{\emptyset}}C_{b,T}$$ We calculate again the number of affected objects, this time discarding each image for which the maximal coverage $C_{T}$ exceeds 0.2. In other words, we discard all images where the object $T$ covered any object’s area by more than 20%. The results are displayed in the third row of Table \[tab:Average-effect-of\] (Affected-Occ-20). The last row (Affected-No-Occ) shows the results of discarding all of the images where $T$ did not cover any of the original detections. Even in these two cases, where the objects are hardly touched by $T$ - or not at all - the object transplant still has a non-negligible effects. Global Effects Beyond Detection {#global-effects-beyond-detection .unnumbered} ------------------------------- In a preliminary experiment, we uploaded a couple of the images where no object was detected at all to Google’s Vision API website[^2]. These image were picked arbitrarily. We report the result here as we find it noteworthy for further exploration. It seems that the OCR portion of their method also exhibits a surprising amount of non-local sensitivity to transplanted objects. Figure \[fig:ocr\] shows this: the keyboard is placed in two different locations in the image. Though each of the locations is such that the keyboard is far from the sign, the interpretation of the sign is different in each case. Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered} ========== We now raise several possible reasons for the observed behaviour of current object-detectors. Though there are several reported phenomenon here, we believe that there they are not independent and that some (but not all) share common underlying reasons. ### Partial Occlusions {#partial-occlusions .unnumbered} It is quite widely accepted that partial occlusions were and still are a challenge to object detectors. A good sign of generalization is being able to cope with partial occlusions. Indeed, in many of the examples that we tested, the modern object detectors were quite robust to such occlusions. In [@wang2017fast], this is acknowledged and a data-driven solution is proposed, implemented via an adversarial network to generate examples including occlusions and deformations. Recently, Zhang et al. [@zhang2018deepvoting] proposed a method to vote using local evidence in order to localize semantic parts even in heavily occluded images. ### Out of Distribution Examples {#out-of-distribution-examples .unnumbered} It is possible that the modifies images have very low likelihood to occur under the distribution of images under the training set. Since we “paste” objects using their foreground mask onto the target image, abrupt edges are created at the patches of the object’s border. These edges may be out-of-distribution when considering the local appearance of naturally occurring edges. The images generated here could be viewed as a variant of adversarial examples [@szegedy2013intriguing], in which small image perturbations (imperceptible to humans) cause a large shift in the network’s output. The images we generate are of a somewhat opposite flavor: while we do not limit the magnitude of the difference between the original and modified image, the detectors are sometimes “blind” to the inserted object, as demonstrated in Figure \[fig:Detecting-an-elephant\] (b,d,e,g,i). In addition, our examples are not “targeted” in the sense that no optimization process is required to generate them; they seem prevalent enough so that a simple scan of transplanting translated versions of one object in the other can give rise to multiple wrong interpretations. ### (Lack of) Signal Preservation {#lack-of-signal-preservation .unnumbered} Spatial pooling, prevalent in deep neural networks, is useful for reasons of efficiency and invariance to certain spatial deformations. However, as recently observed by Azulay and Weiss [@azulay2018deep], these pooling layers actually prevent the network from being truly shift-invariant. Such behaviour is in fact anticipated by simple signal-processing considerations and has in fact been discussed much earlier [@simoncelli1992shiftable]. The authors of [@azulay2018deep] also observe that small image shifts, as well as other geometric transforms as scaling, can cause the network’s output to change dramatically. ### Contextual Reasoning {#contextual-reasoning .unnumbered} It is not common for current object detectors to explicitly take into account context on a semantic level, meaning that interplay between object categories and their relative spatial layout (or possibly additional) relations) are encoded in the reasoning process of the network. Though many methods claim to incorporate contextual reasoning, this is done more in a feature-wise level, meaning that global image information is encoded somehow in each decision. This is in contrast to older works, in which explicit contextual reasoning was quite popular (see [@choi2012context] for mention of many such works). Still, it is apparent that some implicit form of contextual reasoning does seem to take place. One such example is a person detected near the keyboard (Figure \[3\], last column, last row). Some of the created images contain pairs of objects that may never appear together in the same image in the training set, or otherwise give rise to scenes with unlikely configurations. For example, non co-occurring categories, such as elephants and books, or unlikely spatial / functional relations such as a large person (in terms of image area) above a small bus. Such scenes could cause misinterpretation due to contextual reasoning, whether it is learned explicitly or not. ### Non-Maximal Suppression {#non-maximal-suppression .unnumbered} Many changes to the detection results seem to be non-local. Whereas partial occlusions can be regarded as local effects of the transplanted object that directly change the object’s appearance, we also see sometimes changes in detection of objects that are far away from the transplanted object. We suggest that this may be partially due to the process of non-maxima suppression (NMS) common in object detectors: assume that a previously detected object $A$ is no longer detected due to a partial occlusion by the transplanted object $T$. An object $B$, which overlaps with $A$ and was previously suppressed during the NMS, would possibly not be suppressed now. Similar chain-reactions could cause the NMS process to eventually affect a far away object that is not adjacent to $T$. ### Feature Interference {#feature-interference-1 .unnumbered} Modern object detectors use features obtained from a convolutional layer in order to generate the final object class and bounding box prediction. These regions are either fixed in size [@liu2016ssd; @redmon2018yolov3] or rectangular. The ROI-Pooling operation [@girshick2015fast] performs max-pooling features from sub-windows of a convolutional feature map over a region of interest (ROI). This operation is affected by the following facts: 1. The region of interest is a rectangular one. This means that sections of the region that do not belong to the object are also pooled, including background appearance as well as appearance of the object. 2. Each part of the feature map can have a large effective receptive field. In practice, this means that features are pooled from outside the bounding box of the detected object. On one hand, including features from an object’s surroundings could provide useful contextual cues to improve object detection, especially for objects that do not provide enough evidence due to size, partial occlusion, etc. On the other hand, invariably mixing additional features into the final classification score could hinder the result. We believe that feature interference, demonstrated in Figure \[fig:entanglement\], is perhaps the root cause for most of the observed phenomena, and that effects that seem due to partial occlusion or contextual reasoning are specific cases of this problem. Experiments discussing this difficulty have been introduced in Rosenblatt [@rosenblatt1961principles]. The associated problem in biological vision has later been coined the “binding problem” [@von1999and] and noted in cognitive studies in humans [@treisman1982illusory] as well. The works of Tsotsos et al. refer to this issue as cross-talk [@tsotsos1995modeling; @tsotsos2017complexity] and predicts neural mechanisms that are in place to overcome this issue, in the form of the Selective Tuning framework. In brief, the idea is that once a first pass is finished through the visual hierarchy, the dominant signal propagates downwards through the hierarchy, performing spatial and feature attenuation so that the next pass of the signal will contain information on the object of interest that is less entangled with surrounding features. The model is discussed in more extensive details in [@tsotsos2008different] , describing the different stages of information flow through the visual hierarchy. We suggest that such mechanisms are expected to alleviate many of the observed phenomena, and leave this for future development. #### Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} This material is based upon work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number FA9550-18-1-0054, and by the Canada Research Chairs program through grants to JKT for which the authors are grateful. ![image](figures/elephant_1/45_202_bear_chair_summary){width="100.00000%"} ![image](figures/elephant_1/45_202_keyboard_hot-dog_summary){width="100.00000%"} Model Name COCO mAP --------------------------------------------------- ---------- faster\_rcnn\_inception\_resnet\_v2\_atrous\_coco 37 faster\_rcnn\_nas\_coco 43 ssd\_mobilenet\_v1\_coco 21 mask\_rcnn\_inception\_resnet\_v2\_atrous\_coco 36 mask\_rcnn\_resnet101\_atrous\_coco 33 : \[tab:Models-used-in\]Models used in the reported experiments, along with their mean average precision. ![image](figures/elephant_1/45_202_person_summary){width="100.00000%"} ![image](figures/elephant_1/56_160_horse_keyboard_summary){width="100.00000%"} ![image](figures/elephant_1/59_187_boat_summary){width="100.00000%"} [^1]: <https://github.com/tensorflow/models/blob/master/research/object_detection/g3doc/detection_model_zoo.md> [^2]: <https://cloud.google.com/vision/>	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'An autonomous holonomic dynamical system is described by a system of second order differential equations whose solution gives the trajectories of the system. The solution is facilitated by the use of first integrals which are used to reduce the order of the system of differential equations and, if there are enough of them, to determine the solution. Therefore in the study of dynamical systems it is important that there exists a systematic method to determine first integrals of second order differential equations. On the other hand a system of second order differential equations defines (as a rule) a kinetic energy (or Lagrangian) which provides a symmetric second order tensor which we call the kinetic metric. This metric via its symmetries (or collineations) brings into the scene the Differential Geometry which provides numerous results and methods concerning the determination of these symmetries. It is apparent that if one manages to provide a systematic way which will relate the determination of the first integrals of a given dynamical system with the symmetries of the kinetic metric defined by this very system, then one will have at his/her disposal the powerful methods of Differential Geometry in the determination of the first integrals and consequently the solution of the dynamical equations. This was also a partial aspect of Lie’s work on the symmetries of differential equations. The subject of the present work is to provide a theorem which realizes this scenario. The method we follow has been considered previously in the literature and consists of the following steps. Consider the generic quadratic first integral of the form $I=K_{ab}(t,q^{c})\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+K_{a}(t,q^{c})\dot{q}^{a} +K(t,q^{c})$ where $K_{ab}(t,q^{c}), K_{a}(t,q^{c}), K(t,q^{c})$ are unknown tensor quantities and require $dI/dt=0.$ This condition leads to a system of differential equations involving the coefficients $K_{ab}(t,q^{c}),K_{a}(t,q^{c}),K(t,q^{c})$ whose solution provides all possible quadratic first integrals of this form. We demonstrate the application of the theorem in the classical cases of the geodesic equations and the generalized Kepler potential in which we obtain all the known results in a systematic way. We also obtain and discuss the time dependent FIs which are as important as the autonomous FIs determined by other methods.' author: - \| Michael Tsamparlis$^{1,a)}$ and Antonios Mitsopoulos$^{1,b)}$\ [ ]{}\ $^{1}$[Faculty of Physics, Department of Astronomy-Astrophysics-Mechanics,]{}\ [ University of Athens, Panepistemiopolis, Athens 157 83, Greece]{}\ $^{a)}$Email: [email protected]\ $^{b)}$Email: [email protected] title: Quadratic first integrals of autonomous conservative dynamical systems --- Introduction ============ The dynamical equations of a general holonomic dynamical system have the functional form $$\ddot{q}^{a} = \omega^{a}(t,q,\dot{q}) \label{FL.0}$$where $\omega^{a}= Q^{a}\left( t,q,\dot{q}\right) - \Gamma^{a}_{bc} \dot{q}^{b} \dot{q}^{c} - V^{,a}$, $Q^{a}$ are the generalized (non-conservative) forces, $\Gamma_{bc}^{a}$ are the Riemannian connection coefficients determined from the kinetic metric $\gamma_{ab}$ (kinetic energy), $-V^{,a}$ are the conservative forces and Einstein summation convention is used. Equation (\[FL.0\]) defines in the jet space $J^{1}\left\{ t,q^{a},\dot{q}^{a}\right\} $ the Hamiltonian vector field $$\mathbf{\Gamma} =\frac{d}{dt}=\frac{\partial }{\partial t}+\dot{q}^{a}\frac{\partial }{\partial q^{a}}+\omega ^{a}\frac{\partial }{\partial \dot{q}^{a}}. \label{FI.3}$$A Lie symmetry with generator $\mathbf{X} =\xi(t,q,\dot{q}) \partial_{t} +\eta^{a}(t,q,\dot{q})\partial_{q^{a}}$ is a point transformation in the jet space $J^{1}\{t,q^{a},\dot{q}^{a}\}$ which preserves the set of solutions of (\[FL.0\]). The mathematical condition for $\mathbf{X}$ to be a Lie symmetry of (\[FL.0\]) is that there exists a function $\lambda \left( t,q,\dot{q}\right) $ such that $$\left[ \mathbf{X}^{\left[ 1\right] },\mathbf{\Gamma} \right] =\lambda (t,q,\dot{q}) \mathbf{\Gamma} \label{FL.0.1}$$where $\mathbf{X}^{[1]}=\xi (t,q,\dot{q})\partial _{t}+\eta ^{a}(t,q,\dot{q})\partial _{q^{a}}+\left( \dot{\eta}^{a}-\dot{q}^{a}\dot{\xi}\right) \partial _{\dot{q}^{a}}$ is the first prolongation[^1] of $\mathbf{X}$ in $J^{1}\left\{ t,q^{a},\dot{q}^{a}\right\}$. Equivalently we have $$\mathbf{X}^{[2]}H^{a}=0\implies \mathbf{X}^{[1]}H^{a}+ \eta^{a[2]}=0 \label{FL.0.2}$$where $H^{a}\equiv \ddot{q}^{a}-\omega ^{a}$, $\eta ^{a[2]}=\ddot{\eta}^{a}-2\ddot{q}^{i}\dot{\xi}-\dot{q}^{i}\ddot{\xi}$ and $\mathbf{X}^{[2]}= \mathbf{X}^{[1]}+\eta ^{a[2]}\partial _{\ddot{q}^{a}}$ is the second prolongation of $\mathbf{X}$ in $J^{2}\left\{ t,q^{a},\dot{q}^{a},\ddot{q}^{a}\right\} .$ The standard method to determine the first integrals (FIs) of a Lagrangian dynamical system is to use special Lie symmetries, the Noether symmetries. A Noether symmetry is a Lie symmetry which in addition satisfies the Noether condition[^2]$^{,}$[^3]$^{,}$[^4]$^{,}$[^5] $$\mathbf{X}^{[1]}L+\frac{d\xi }{dt}L=\frac{df}{dt} \label{FI.1}$$where $f(t,q,\dot{q})$ is the gauge or the Noether function. According to Noether’s theorem[^6]$^{,}$[^7] to every Noether symmetry there corresponds the FI $$I=\xi \left( \dot{q}^{a}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^{a}}-L\right) -\eta ^{a}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^{a}}+f \label{FI.4}$$which can easily be determined if one knows the generator $\mathbf{X}$ of the Lie symmetry. The FIs are used to reduce the order of the dynamical equations. It has been shown in Ref. \[Sarlet Cantrijn 81\] that the FIs of Noether symmetries of holonomic autonomous Lagrangian systems are invariants of the prolonged vector field $\mathbf{X}^{[1]},$ therefore they satisfy the two conditions $\frac{dI}{dt}= \mathbf{X}^{[1]}(I)=0$, which provide the reduction of the dynamical equations by two. Noether symmetries being special Lie symmetries may be considered in two classes: a\. Noether point symmetries resulting from Lie point symmetries of the form $\xi (t,q)$, $\eta ^{a}(t,q)$ and b\. Dynamical Noether symmetries resulting from dynamical Lie symmetries for which $\xi (t,q,\dot{q},\ddot{q},...)$, $\eta ^{a}(t,q,\dot{q},\ddot{q},...). $ In the following we restrict our discussion to dynamical Noether symmetries in $J^{1}\{t,q^{a},\dot{q}^{a}\}$ therefore $\xi (t,q,\dot{q})$, $\eta^{a}(t,q,\dot{q})$. Noether point symmetries form a finite dimensional Lie algebra and dynamic Noether symmetries an infinite dimensional Lie algebra. In dynamical Lie symmetries one has an extra degree of freedom which is removed if one demands an extra condition in which case one works with the so-called gauged dynamical Lie symmetries. In this respect one usually requires the gauge condition $\xi =0$ so that the generator is simplified to $\mathbf{X}=\eta ^{a}(t,q,\dot{q})\partial _{q^{a}}.$ This gauge condition will be tacitly assumed in the following. Concerning the geometric nature of Noether symmetries it has been shown[^8]$^{,}$[^9] that the generators of Noether point symmetries of autonomous holonomic dynamical systems with a regular Lagrangian (i.e. $\det\frac{\partial ^{2}L}{\partial \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}}\neq 0$) of the form $L=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}-V(q)$, where $\gamma _{ab}=\frac{\partial ^{2}L}{\partial \dot{q}^{a} \partial\dot{q}^{b}}$ is the kinetic metric defined by the Lagrangian, are elements of the homothetic algebra of $\gamma _{ab}.$ A similar firm result does not exist for dynamical Noether symmetries beyond the fact that their generators form an infinite dimensional Lie algebra. In this paper we consider the questions: To what extent the first integrals of (\[FL.0\]) are covered by Noether symmetries, that is, are there non-Noetherian first integrals? Furthermore, how and to what extent one can ‘geometrize’ the dynamical Noether symmetries? This question is not new. It was raised for the first time by Darboux[^10] and Whittaker[^11] who considered the Newtonian autonomous holonomic systems with two degrees of freedom and determined most potentials $V(q)$ for which the system has a quadratic first integral other than the Hamiltonian (energy). The complete answer to this problem was given much later by G. Thompson[^12]$^{,}$[^13]. The same problem for the general autonomous dynamical system in a Riemannian space has also been considered more recently$^{\ref{kalotas}}$$^{,}$[^14]. In this latter approach one assumes the generic quadratic first integral (QFI) to be of the form$$I=K_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+K_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+K \label{FL.5}$$where the coefficients $K_{ab},K_{a},K$ are tensors depending on the coordinates $t, q^{a}$ and imposes the condition $\frac{dI}{dt}=0.$ This condition leads to a system of differential equations involving the unknown quantities $K_{ab},K_{a},K$ whose solution provides the QFIs (\[FL.5\]). In all occasions considered so far the system of these conditions has been solved for specific cases only. The aim of the present work[^15] is the following: a\. To give in the case of autonomous conservative equations the general solution of the system resulting from the condition $\frac{dI}{dt}=0$. b\. To geometrize the answer to the maximum possible degree. c\. To determine the generalized/point Noether symmetries which admit the resulting first integrals as Noether integrals. In order to do that we work in a similar way with the previous authors. That is we consider a not (necessarily Lagrangian) dynamical system and determine the system of equations involving the unknown quantities $K_{ab},K_{a},K.$ We solve this system and determine the quadratic first integrals of the form (\[FL.5\]). Nowhere we use the concept of symmetry. Subsequently for each first integral we compute the generator of the transformation (not necessarily a Noether transformation) in the jet bundle $J^{1}\{t,q^{a},\dot{q}^{a}\}$ which generates this integral. In the case the dynamical system is Lagrangian - which is almost always the case because we can always take the Lagrangian to be the Kinetic energy - we can associate a gauged generalized Noether symmetry whose Noether integral is the considered first integral. It will be shown in section [sec.generators]{} that the generators of these Noether symmetries are read directly from the expression of the FI with no further calculations. It follows that all quadratic first integrals of the form (\[FL.5\]) are Noetherian, provided the Lagrangian is regular. The conditions for a quadratic first integral ============================================= The case of a general dynamical system -------------------------------------- In this section we consider a dynamical system defined by the equations of motion $$\ddot{q}^{a}=Q^{a}\left( t,q,\dot{q}\right) - \Gamma^{a}_{bc} \dot{q}^{b}\dot{q}^{c}-V^{,a} \label{FL.0.3}$$where $Q^{a}$ are the non-conservative forces, $\Gamma^{a}_{bc}$ are the Riemannian connection coefficients determined form the kinetic metric $\gamma_{ab}$ defined by the kinetic energy and $-V^{,a}$ are the conservative forces. We consider next a function $I(t,q^{a},\dot{q}^{a})$ which is linear and quadratic in the velocities with coefficients which depend only on the coordinates $t,q^{a}$ ,that is, $I$ it is of the form $$I=K_{ab}(t,q)\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+K_{a}(t,q)\dot{q}^{a}+K(t,q) \label{FI.5}$$where $K_{ab}$ is a symmetric tensor, $K_{a}$ is a vector and $K$ is an invariant. We demand that $I$ is a FI of (\[FL.0.3\]). This requirement leads to the condition $$\frac{dI}{dt}=0 \label{DS1.10a}$$which gives a system of equations for the coefficients $K_{ab},$ $K_{a}$ and $K$. Using the dynamical equations (\[FL.0.3\]) to replace $\ddot{q}^{a}$ whenever it appears we find[^16] $$\begin{aligned} \frac{dI}{dt}& =K_{(ab;c)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}\dot{q}^{c}+\left( K_{ab,t}+K_{a;b}\right) \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+2K_{ab}\dot{q}^{(b}(Q^{a)}-V^{,a)})+\left( K_{a,t}+K_{,a}\right) \dot{q}^{a}+ \notag \\ & \quad +K_{a}(Q^{a}-V^{,a})+K_{,t}. \label{eq.veldep3}\end{aligned}$$In order to get a working environment we restrict our considerations to linear generalized forces, that is we consider the case $Q^{a}=A_{b}^{a}(q)\dot{q}^{b}$. Then the general result (\[eq.veldep3\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} 0& =K_{(ab;c)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}\dot{q}^{c}+\left( K_{ab,t}+K_{a;b}+2K_{c(b}A_{a)}^{c}\right) \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+\left( K_{a,t}+K_{,a}-2K_{ab}V^{,b}+\right. \\ & \quad \left. +K_{b}A_{a}^{b}\right) \dot{q}^{a}+K_{,t}-K_{a}V^{,a}\end{aligned}$$from which follows the system of equations $$\begin{aligned} K_{(ab;c)} &=&0 \label{eq.veldep4.1} \\ K_{ab,t}+K_{(a;b)}+2K_{c(b}A_{a)}^{c} &=&0 \label{eq.veldep4.2} \\ -2K_{ab}V^{,b}+K_{a,t}+K_{,a}+K_{b}A_{a}^{b} &=&0 \label{eq.veldep4.3} \\ K_{,t}-K_{a}V^{,a} &=&0. \label{eq.veldep4.4}\end{aligned}$$Condition $K_{(ab;c)}=0$ implies that $K_{ab}$ is a Killing tensor (KT) of order 2 (possibly zero) of the kinetic metric $\gamma _{ab}$. Because $\gamma_{ab} $ is autonomous the condition $K_{(ab;c)}=0$ is satisfied if $K_{ab}$ is of the form $$K_{ab}(t,q)=g(t)C_{ab}(q)$$where $g(t)$ is an arbitrary analytic function and $C_{ab}(q)$ ($C_{ab}=C_{ba}$) is a Killing tensor of order 2 of the metric $\gamma _{ab}.$ This choice of $K_{ab}$ and equation (\[eq.veldep4.2\]) indicate that we set $$K_{a}(t,q)=f(t)L_{a}(q)+B_{a}(q)$$where $f(t)$ is an arbitrary analytic function and $L_{a}(q),B_{a}(q)$ are arbitrary vectors. With these choices the system of equations ([eq.veldep4.1]{}) -(\[eq.veldep4.4\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} g(t)C_{(ab;c)} &=&0 \label{eq.veldep5} \\ g_{,t}C_{ab}+f(t)L_{(a;b)}+B_{(a;b)}+2g(t)C_{c(b}A_{a)}^{c} &=&0 \label{eq.veldep6} \\ -2g(t)C_{ab}V^{,b}+f_{,t}L_{a}+K_{,a}+(fL_{b}+B_{b})A_{a}^{b} &=&0 \label{eq.veldep7} \\ K_{,t}-(fL_{a}+B_{a})V^{,a} &=&0. \label{eq.veldep8}\end{aligned}$$ Conditions (\[eq.veldep5\]) - (\[eq.veldep8\]) must be supplemented with the integrability conditions $K_{,at}=K_{,ta}$ and $K_{,[ab]}=0$ for the scalar function $K$. The integrability condition $K_{,at}=K_{,ta}$ gives - if we make use of (\[eq.veldep7\]) and (\[eq.veldep8\]) - the equation $$f_{,tt}L_{a}+f_{,t}L_{b}A_{a}^{b}+f\left( L_{b}V^{;b}\right) _{;a}+\left( B_{b}V^{;b}\right) _{;a}-2g_{,t}C_{ab}V^{,b}=0. \label{eq.veldep9}$$ Condition $K_{,[ab]}=0$ gives the equation $$2g\left( C_{[a\left\vert c\right\vert }V^{,c}\right) _{;b]}-f_{,t}L_{\left[ a;b\right] }-(fL_{c;[b}+B_{c;[b})A_{a]}^{c}-(fL_{c}+B_{c})A_{[a;b]}^{c}=0 \label{eq.veldep10}$$ which is known as the second order Bertrand-Darboux equation. Finally the system of equations which we have to solve consists of equations (\[eq.veldep5\]) - (\[eq.veldep10\]). The case of autonomous conservative dynamical systems {#sec.tables.theorem} ----------------------------------------------------- We restrict further our considerations to the case of autonomous conservative dynamical systems so that $V=V(q)$ and $Q^{a}=0$. In this case the system of equations (\[eq.veldep5\]) - (\[eq.veldep10\]) reduces as follows $$\begin{aligned} gC_{(ab;c)} &=&0 \label{FL.1.a1} \\ g_{,t}C_{ab}+fL_{(a;b)}+B_{(a;b)} &=&0 \label{FL.1.a} \\ -2gC_{ab}V^{,b}+f_{,t}L_{a}+K_{,a} &=&0 \label{FL.1.b} \\ K_{,t}-fL_{a}V^{,a}-B_{a}V^{,a} &=&0 \label{FL.1.c} \\ f_{,tt}L_{a}+f(L_{b}V^{,b})_{;a}+(B_{b}V^{,b})_{;a}-2g_{,t}C_{ab} V^{,b} &=&0 \label{FL.1.d} \\ 2g\left( C_{[a\left\vert c\right\vert }V^{,c}\right) _{;b]}-f_{,t}L_{[a;b]} &=&0. \label{FL.1.e}\end{aligned}$$ These equations have been found before by e.g. Kalotas (see in Ref. \[kalotas\] equations (12a) - (12d) ) who considered their solution in certain special cases. Obviously the solution of this system of equations is quite involved and requires the consideration of many cases and subcases. The general solution of the system is stated in the following Theorem (the proof is given in Appendix A). \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] We assume that the functions $g(t),f(t)$ are analytic so that they may be represented by polynomial functions as follows $$\label{eq.thm1} g(t) = \sum^n_{k=0} c_k t^k = c_0 + c_1 t + ... + c_n t^n$$ $$\label{eq.thm2} f(t) = \sum^m_{k=0} d_k t^k = d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m$$ where $n, m \in \mathbb{N}$, or may be infinite, and $c_k, d_k \in \mathbb{R} $. Then the independent QFIs of an autonomous conservative dynamical system are the following: Integral 1. $$I_{1} = -\frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + t L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + \frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{a}V^{,a} + G(q)$$ where $C_{ab}$, $L_{(a;b)}$ are KTs, $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$ and $G_{,a}= 2C_{ab}V^{,b} - L_{a}$. Integral 2. $$I_{2} = -\frac{t^{3}}{3} L_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + t^{2} L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + \frac{t^{3}}{3} L_{a}V^{,a} - t B_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + tB_{a}V^{,a}$$ where $L_{a}$, $B_{a}$ are such that $L_{(a;b)}$, $B_{(a;b)}$ are KTs, $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$ and $\left(B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2B_{(a;b)} V^{,b} - 2L_{a}$. Integral 3. $$I_{3} = -e^{\lambda t} L_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + \lambda e^{\lambda t} L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + e^{\lambda t} L_{a} V^{,a}$$ where $\lambda \neq 0$, $L_{a}$ is such that $L_{(a;b)}$ is a KT and $\left(L_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b} - \lambda^{2} L_{a}$. For easier reference in the following Tables we collect the LFIs (Linear First Integrals) and the QFIs of Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] where KV stands for Killing vector. [\|l\|l\|]{}\ QFI & Conditions\ &\ &\ $I_{3} = e^{\lambda t} \left( -L_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + \lambda L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + L_{a}V^{,a} \right)$ & $L_{(a;b)} = KT$, $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b} - \lambda^{2} L_{a}$\ [\|l\|l\|]{}\ LFI & Conditions\ $I_{1}=-tG_{,a}\dot{q}^{a}-\frac{s}{2}t^{2}+G(q)$ & $G_{,a}=KV$, $G_{,a}V^{,a}=s$\ $I_{2}=(t^{2}L_{a}+B_{a})\dot{q}^{a}+\frac{s}{3}t^{3}+tB_{a}V^{,a}$ & $L_{a},B_{a}$ are KVs, $L_{a}V^{,a}=s$, $\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}=-2L_{a}$\ $I_{3}=e^{\lambda t}\left( \lambda L_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+L_{a}V^{,a}\right) $ & $L_{a}=KV$, $\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}=-\lambda ^{2}L_{a}$\ We note that all the QFIs reduce to LFIs when the Killing tensor $K_{ab}$ vanishes. It can be checked that the LFIs of the second Table produce all the potentials[^17] which admit a LFI given in Ref. \[TsaPal1\] which are due to Noether point symmetries. The gauged generalized Noether symmetry associated with an independent QFI {#sec.generators} ========================================================================== We compute the generators of the gauged (i.e. $\xi =0$) Noether symmetries which admit the first integrals of Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] listed in the first Table of section \[sec.tables.theorem\] as Noether integrals. The Noether integral (\[FI.4\]) for a gauged Noether symmetry (in the gauge $\xi =0!)$ becomes$$I=f-\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^{a}}\eta ^{a}. \label{eq.Noe2}$$Replacing $L=T-V(q)$ we find$$I=f-\eta ^{a}\gamma _{ab}\dot{q}^{b}=f-\eta _{a}\dot{q}^{a} \label{eq.Noe3}$$and using (\[FI.5\]) it follows$$\eta _{a}=-K_{ab}\dot{q}^{b}-K_{a},\enskip f=K \label{eq.Noe4}$$that is we obtain directly the Noether generator and the Noether function from the FI $I$* by reading the coefficients* $K_{ab}(t,q)$, $K_{a}(t,q)$* and* $K(t,q)$* respectively[^18]. Therefore the (gauged generalized) Noether symmetry associated with a given QFI $I$ follows trivially from the FI $I.$ Equivalently, all QFIs are (gauged generalized) Noether integrals. A detour on Killing tensors =========================== The first coefficient of the quadratic first integral is $K_{ab}=g(t)C_{ab}(q)$ where $C_{ab}(q)$ is a second order KT. Therefore it will be useful to recall briefly some results on the second order KTs and their relation to symmetries which are necessary for the application of the Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] in practical examples. Projective collineations and their reductions --------------------------------------------- A projective collineation (PC) is a point transformation generated by a vector field $\eta^{a}$ satisfying the condition $L_{\eta} \Gamma_{bc}^{a}=2\delta _{(b}^{a}\phi ,_{c)}$ where $\phi $ is the projection function of $\eta^{a}$. The PC is called special iff $\phi _{(;ab)}=0$ that is $\phi _{,a}$ is a gradient KV. Using the identity $$L_{\eta }\Gamma^{a}_{bc} = \eta^{a}{}_{;bc} - R^{a}{}_{bcd} \eta^{d} \label{FL9.a.1}$$we have that the condition for a PC is $$\eta^{a}{}_{;bc} - 2\delta _{(b}^{a}\phi ,_{c)} = R^{a}{}_{bcd} \eta^{d}. \label{FL9.a.2}$$When $\phi =0$ the PC is called an Affine Collineation (AC). The condition which defines an AC is$$\eta^{a}{}_{;bc} - R^{a}{}_{bcd} \eta^{d} = 0. \label{FL9.a.3}$$ Gradient KVs and the homothetic vector (HV) are obviously ACs. An AC which is not generated from neither KVs nor the HV is called a proper AC. PCs can be defined by the gradient KVs and the HV. We have the result: If in a space there exist* $m$* gradient KVs* $S_{I,a}$* $I=1,2,...,m$ and the gradient HV* $H^{,a}$* with homothetic factor* $\psi $, * then the vectors* $S_{I}H^{,a}$* are non-gradient special PCs with projection function* $\psi S_I$. ACs can be defined by the KVs. We have the following easily established result: If a space admits $m$* gradient KVs* $S_{I,a}$* $I=1,2,...,m$ one defines* $m^{2}$* non-gradient ACs by the formula* $S_{I}S_{J,a}$. Killing tensors --------------- A KT of order $m$ is a totally symmetric tensor of type $(0,m)$ defined by the requirement $$C_{(a_{1}a_{2}...a_{m};k)}=0.$$ A Killing tensor $C_{ab}$ of order 2 is defined by the condition $C_{(ab;c)}=0$. We have the following result:$^{\ref{Thompson 1984}}$$^{,}$[^19]$^{,}$[^20] \[pro.KT\] On a general (pseudo-Riemannian) manifold of dimension $n$, the (vector) space of Killing tensors of order $m$ has dimension less than or equal to$$\frac{(n+m-1)!(n+m)!}{(n-1)!n!m!(m+1)!}$$and the equality is attained if and only if M is of constant curvature. If the latter space is flat then since on flat spaces there are not proper ACs, PCs the Killing tensors are generated by just the Killing vectors. We deduce that in a space of dimension $n$ the number of KTs of order 2 are less or equal to $$\frac{(n+1)!(n+2)!}{12(n-1)!n!}=\frac{n(n+1)^{2}(n+2)}{12}.$$ From the AC condition (\[FL9.a.3\]) and the property $R_{abcd}=-R_{bacd}$ it follows that $$\eta _{(a;bc)}=0\implies \eta _{((a;b);c)}=0.$$Therefore an AC $\eta _{a}$ defines a Killing tensor of order 2 of the form $\eta _{(a;b)}$ which implies that in a space which admits $m$ gradient KVs $S_{I,a}$ and a HV one can define $m^{2}+1$ KTs of order 2. The $m^{2}$ KTs $S_{I,(a}S_{\|J\|,b)}$ are defined by the $m^{2}$ proper ACs resulting from the $m$ gradient KVs and the remaining KT (which is the metric $g_{ab}$) is defined by the HV. Besides these KTs, it is possible to define new KTs of order 2 by the following recipe: Consider $m$ gradient KVs $S_{I,a}$ where $I=1,...,m$ and $r$ non-gradient KVs $M_{Aa}$ where $A=1,...,r$. Then i) the vectors $\xi_{IAa} = S_{I}M_{Aa}$ define the $mr$ KTs $\xi_{IA(a;b)} = S_{I,(a} M_{\|A\|b)}$; and ii) the $r^{2}$ quantities $M_{A(a} M_{\|B\|b)}$ are KTs. From the above results we infer the following: If a space admits $m$ gradient KVs $S_{J,a}$ and $r$ non-gradient KVs $M_{Aa} $, then we can construct the following $m(m+r) +r^{2}$ KTs of order 2 $$C_{ab} = \alpha^{IJ} S_{I,(a} S_{\|J\|,b)} + \beta^{IA} S_{I,(a} M_{\|A\|b)} + \gamma^{AB} M_{A(a} M_{\|B\|b)}. \label{FL.9a.2}$$ By introducing the vector[^21] $$L_{a}= \alpha^{IJ} S_I S_{J,a} + \beta^{IA} S_I M_{Aa} \label{FL.9a}$$ the KTs (\[FL.9a.2\]) are written $$C_{ab} = L_{(a;b)} + \gamma^{AB} M_{A(a} M_{\|B\|b)}. \label{FL.9a.2c}$$ Hence the constraint $C_{ab}=L_{(a;b)}$ which appears in Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] implies that $\gamma^{AB}=0$ and the KTs (\[FL.9a.2\]) reduce to $$C_{ab} = \alpha^{IJ} S_{I,(a} S_{\|J\|,b)} + \beta^{IA} S_{I,(a} M_{\|A\|b)}. \label{FL.9a.1}$$ For recent works[^22]$^{,}$[^23] on KTs see Refs. \[Class KTs\], \[Barnes 2003\] and references cited therein. Projective Collineations and KTs of order 2 in maximally symmetric spaces ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The special projective Lie algebra of a maximally symmetric space consists of the vector fields of Table 3 $(I,J=1,2,...,n)$. [\|l\|l\|l\|]{}\ & Gradient & Non-gradient\ & $\mathbf{K}_{I}= \delta_{I}^{i} \partial_{i}$ & $\mathbf{X}_{IJ}=\delta _{\lbrack I}^{j}\delta _{j]}^{i}x_{j}\partial _{i}$\ & $\mathbf{H}=x^{i}\partial _{i}$ &\ & $\mathbf{A}_{II}=x_{I}\delta _{I}^{i}\partial _{i}$ & $\mathbf{A}_{IJ}=x_{J}\delta _{I}^{i}\partial _{i}$, $I\neq J$\ & & $\mathbf{P}_{I}=x_{I}\mathbf{H}$\ That is a maximally symmetric space, or space of constant curvature, of dimension $n$ admits - $n$ gradient KVs and $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ non-gradient KVs - 1 gradient HV - $n^{2}$ non-proper ACs - $n$ PCs which are special (that is the partial derivative of the projective function is a gradient KV). It is well-known (see Ref. \[Thompson 1986\]) that in manifolds of constant curvature all KTs of order $2$ are the ones of the form (\[FL.9a.2\]); and KTs of the form $L_{(a;b)}$ are given by (\[FL.9a.1\]) where the vectors $L_{a}$ are of the form (\[FL.9a\]). These results are summarized in the following proposition. \[prop1\] In a space $V^{n}$ the vector fields of the form $$L_{a}=c_{1I}S_{I,a}+c_{2A}M_{Aa}+c_{3}HV_{a}+ c_{4}AC_{a}+c_{5IJ}S_{I}S_{J,a}+2c_{6IA}S_{I}M_{Aa}+ c_{7K}(PC_{Ka} + CKV_{Ka}) \label{FL.20}$$where $S_{I,a}$ are the gradient KVs, $M_{Aa}$ are the non-gradient KVs, $HV_{a}$ is the homothetic vector, $AC_{a}$ are the proper ACs, $S_{I}S_{J,a}$ are non-proper ACs, $PC_{Ka}$ are proper PCs with a projective factor $\phi_{K}$ and $CKV_{Ka}$ are conformal KVs with conformal factor $-2\phi_{K}$, produce the KTs of order 2 of the form $C_{ab}=L_{(a;b)}$. In the case of maximally symmetric spaces there do not exist proper PCs and proper ACs therefore only the vectors generated by the KVs are necessary. In this case (\[FL.20\]) takes the form $$L_{a}=c_{1I}S_{I,a}+c_{2K}M_{Ka}+c_{3}HV_{a}+c_{5IJ}S_{I}S_{J,a}+ 2c_{6IK}S_{I}M_{Ka}. \label{FL.21}$$The general KT of order 2 is given by the formula (\[FL.9a.2\]) and the KTs of the form $C_{ab}=L_{(a;b)}$ are given by the formula (\[FL.9a.1\]) where the vector $L_{a}$ is given by (\[FL.9a\]).[^24] The constraint $C_{ab}=L_{(a;b)}$ in the important cases of $E^{2}$ and $E^{3}$ which concern Newtonian systems has the following quantities. The case of $E^{2}$ {#sec.KTE2} ------------------- The general KT of order 2 is $$C_{ab}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \gamma y^{2}+2ay+A & -\gamma xy-ax-\beta y+C \\ -\gamma xy-ax-\beta y+C & \gamma x^{2}+2\beta x+B\end{array}\right). \label{FL.14b}$$The vector $L^{a}$ generating the KT $C_{ab}=L_{(a;b)}$ is $$L^{a}=\left( \begin{array}{c} -2\beta y^{2}+2axy+Ax+a_{8}y+a_{11} \\ -2ax^{2}+2\beta xy+a_{10}x+By+a_{9}\end{array}\right) \label{FL.14}$$and the generated KT is $$C_{ab}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 2ay+A & -ax-\beta y+C \\ -ax-\beta y+C & 2\beta x+B\end{array}\right) \label{FL.14.1}$$where $2C=a_{8}+a_{10}$. This is a subcase of (\[FL.14b\]) for $\gamma =0.$ The case of $E^{3}$ {#sec.KTE3} ------------------- In $E^{3}$ the general KT of order 2 has independent components$$\begin{aligned} C_{11} &=&\frac{a_{6}}{2}y^{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}z^{2}+a_{4}yz+a_{5}y+a_{2}z+a_{3} \notag \\ C_{12} &=&\frac{a_{10}}{2}z^{2}-\frac{a_{6}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{14}}{2}yz-\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z+a_{17} \notag \\ C_{13} &=&\frac{a_{14}}{2}y^{2}-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{1}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{10}}{2}yz-\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z+a_{19} \label{FL.E3} \\ C_{22} &=&\frac{a_{6}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}z^{2}+a_{14}xz+a_{15}x+a_{12}z+a_{13} \notag \\ C_{23} &=&\frac{a_{4}}{2}x^{2}-\frac{a_{14}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{10}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{7}}{2}yz-(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y-\frac{a_{8}}{2}z+a_{20} \notag \\ C_{33} &=&\frac{a_{1}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}y^{2}+a_{10}xy+a_{11}x+a_{8}y+a_{9} \notag\end{aligned}$$where $a_{I}$ with $I=1,2,...,20$ are arbitrary real constants. The vector $L^{a}$ generating the KT $C_{ab}=L_{(a;b)}$ is $$L_{a}=\left( \begin{array}{c} -a_{15}y^{2}-a_{11}z^{2}+a_{5}xy+a_{2}xz+2(a_{16}+a_{18})yz+a_{3}x +2a_{4}y+2a_{1}z+a_{6} \\ -a_{5}x^{2}-a_{8}z^{2}+a_{15}xy-2a_{18}xz+a_{12}yz+ 2(a_{17}-a_{4})x+a_{13}y+2a_{7}z+a_{14} \\ -a_{2}x^{2}-a_{12}y^{2}-2a_{16}xy+a_{11}xz+a_{8}yz+2(a_{19}- a_{1})x+2(a_{20}-a_{7})y+a_{9}z+a_{10}\end{array}\right) \label{eq.Kep.5}$$ and the generated KT is $$C_{ab}=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} a_{5}y+a_{2}z+a_{3} & -\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z+a_{17} & -\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z+a_{19} \\ -\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z+a_{17} & a_{15}x+a_{12}z+a_{13} & -(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y-\frac{a_{8}}{2}z+a_{20} \\ -\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z+a_{19} & -(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y-\frac{a_{8}}{2}z+a_{20} & a_{11}x+a_{8}y+a_{9}\end{array}\right) \label{eq.Kep.8}$$which is a subcase of the general KT (\[FL.E3\]) for $a_{1}=a_{4}=a_{6}=a_{7}=a_{10}=a_{14}=0$. Working in the same way we may compute the KTs in a space of constant curvature of a larger dimension. We note that the covariant expression of the most general KT $\Lambda _{ij}$ of order 2 of $E^{3}$ is[^25]$^{,}$[^26] $$\Lambda _{ij}=(\varepsilon _{ikm}\varepsilon _{jln}+\varepsilon _{jkm}\varepsilon _{iln})A^{mn}q^{k}q^{l}+(B_{(i}^{l}\varepsilon _{j)kl}+\lambda _{(i}\delta _{j)k}-\delta _{ij}\lambda _{k})q^{k}+D_{ij} \label{CRA.46}$$where $A^{mn},B_{i}^{l},D_{ij}$ are constant tensors all being symmetric and $B_{i}^{l}$ also being traceless; $\lambda ^{k}$ is a constant vector. This result is obtained from the solution of the Killing tensor equation in Euclidean space. Observe that $A^{mn}$, $D_{ij}$ have each 6 independent components; $B_{i}^{l}$ has 5 independent components; and $\lambda ^{k}$ has 3 independent components. Therefore $\Lambda _{ij}$ depends on $6+6+5+3=20$ arbitrary real constants, a result which is in accordance with the one found earlier in the case of $E^{3}$. Having given the above general results on KTs of order 2 in flat spaces $E^{2},E^{3}$ we continue with applications of Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\]. The quadratic first integrals of geodesic equations of an $n$ dimensional Riemannian space ========================================================================================== Concerning the first integrals of geodesic equations we have the following well-known result[^27]. \[prop.Eisen\] The geodesic equations admit $m$th order first integrals of the form $$A_{r_{1}...r_{m}}\lambda ^{r_{1}}...\lambda ^{r_{m}}=const \label{FOIG.1}$$where $\lambda ^{a}\equiv \dot{q}^{a}$ and $A_{r_{1}...r_{m}}$ is a KT, that is $$A_{(r_{1}...r_{m};k)}=0. \label{FOIG.2a}$$ In order to determine the quadratic first integrals of the geodesic equations in an $n$-dimensional Riemannian space with metric $\gamma_{ab}$ we apply Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] with $V=0.$ For each case of Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] we have: Integral 1. In that case $L_{a}=-G_{,a}$ and the FI is written $$I_{1} = \frac{t^{2}}{2} G_{;ab} \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} - t G_{,a} \dot{q}^{a}+ G(q)$$ where $C_{ab}$, $G_{;ab}$ are KTs. The FI $I_{1}$ consists of the two independent FIs $$I_{1a} = C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b}, \enskip I_{1b} = \frac{t^{2}}{2} G_{;ab} \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} - t G_{,a} \dot{q}^{a}+ G(q).$$ Integral 2. Since $V=0$ the condition $\left(B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2B_{(a;b)} V^{,b} - 2L_{a}$ implies $L_{a}=0$. Therefore the FI is written $$I_{2} = - t B_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}$$ where $B_{a}$ is such that $B_{(a;b)}$ is a KT. Integral 3. Since $V=0$ and $\lambda\neq0$ the condition $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b} - \lambda^{2} L_{a}$ implies $L_{a}=0$. Therefore the FI $I_{3}=0$. We collect the above results in the following Table. [\|l\|l\|]{}\ QFI & Condition\ $I_{1a} = C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}$ & $C_{ab}=$ KT\ $I_{1b} = \frac{t^{2}}{2} G_{;ab} \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} - tG_{,a} \dot{q}^{a} + G(q)$ & $G_{;ab}=$ KT\ $I_{2} = -tB_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}$ & $B_{(a;b)}= $ KT\ The general Kepler problem $V=-\frac{k}{r^{\ell}}$ {#sec.GKepler} ================================================== This is a three dimensional Euclidean dynamical system with kinetic metric $\delta _{ij}=diag(1,1,1)$ and potential $V=-\frac{k}{r^{\ell }}$ where $k,\ell$ are non-zero real constants and $r=(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}$. This dynamical system reduces to the 3d harmonic oscillator for $k<0$, $\ell =-2$ (which is the probe dynamical system for checking the validity of arguments and calculations) and to the classical Kepler problem considered earlier by Kalotas (see Ref. \[kalotas\]) for $\ell =1$. The Lagrangian of the system is $$L=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2})+\frac{k }{r^{\ell }} \label{eq.GKep.1}$$with equations of motion $$\ddot{x}=-\frac{\ell k}{r^{\ell +2}}x,\enskip\ddot{y}=-\frac{\ell k }{r^{\ell +2}}y,\enskip\ddot{z}=-\frac{\ell k}{r^{\ell +2}}z. \label{eq.GKep.1a}$$ To determine the QFIs of the above dynamical system we apply Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\].\ Integral 1. $$I_{1} = -\frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + t L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + \frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{a}V^{,a} + G(q)$$ where $C_{ab}$, $L_{(a;b)}$ are KTs, $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$ and $G_{,a}= 2C_{ab}V^{,b} - L_{a}$. Since $C_{ab}$, $L_{(a;b)}$ are KTs the results of the section \[sec.KTE3\] imply $$\begin{aligned} C_{11} &=&\frac{a_{6}}{2}y^{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}z^{2}+a_{4}yz+a_{5}y+a_{2}z+a_{3} \\ C_{12} &=&\frac{a_{10}}{2}z^{2}-\frac{a_{6}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{14}}{2}yz-\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z+a_{17} \\ C_{13} &=&\frac{a_{14}}{2}y^{2}-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{1}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{10}}{2}yz-\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z+a_{19} \\ C_{22} &=&\frac{a_{6}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}z^{2}+a_{14}xz+a_{15}x+a_{12}z+a_{13} \\ C_{23} &=&\frac{a_{4}}{2}x^{2}-\frac{a_{14}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{10}}{2}xz -\frac{a_{7}}{2}yz-(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y -\frac{a_{8}}{2}z +a_{20} \\ C_{33} &=&\frac{a_{1}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}y^{2}+a_{10}xy+a_{11}x+a_{8}y+a_{9}\end{aligned}$$ $$L_{a}=\left( \begin{array}{c} -b_{15}y^{2}-b_{11}z^{2}+b_{5}xy+b_{2}xz +2(b_{16}+b_{18})yz+b_{3}x+2b_{4}y+2b_{1}z+b_{6} \\ -b_{5}x^{2}-b_{8}z^{2}+b_{15}xy-2b_{18}xz+b_{12}yz+ 2(b_{17}-b_{4})x+b_{13}y+2b_{7}z+b_{14} \\ -b_{2}x^{2}-b_{12}y^{2}-2b_{16}xy+b_{11}xz+b_{8}yz+2(b_{19}- b_{1})x+2(b_{20}-b_{7})y+b_{9}z+b_{10}\end{array}\right)$$ and $$L_{(a;b)}=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} b_{5}y+b_{2}z+b_{3} & -\frac{b_{5}}{2}x-\frac{b_{15}}{2}y+b_{16}z+b_{17} & -\frac{b_{2}}{2}x+b_{18}y-\frac{b_{11}}{2}z+b_{19} \\ -\frac{b_{5}}{2}x-\frac{b_{15}}{2}y+b_{16}z+b_{17} & b_{15}x+b_{12}z+b_{13} & -(b_{16}+b_{18})x-\frac{b_{12}}{2}y-\frac{b_{8}}{2}z+b_{20} \\ -\frac{b_{2}}{2}x+b_{18}y-\frac{b_{11}}{2}z+b_{19} & -(b_{16}+b_{18})x-\frac{b_{12}}{2}y-\frac{b_{8}}{2}z+b_{20} & b_{11}x+b_{8}y+b_{9}\end{array}\right).$$ Substituting in the condition $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$ and taking the integrability conditions $G_{,[ab]}=0$ of the constraint $G_{,a}= 2C_{ab}V^{,b} - L_{a}$ we find the following conditions: $$a_{16}=a_{18}=0,\enskip(\ell+2)a_{17}=0, \enskip(\ell+2)a_{19}=0,\enskip (\ell+2)a_{20}=0,\enskip(\ell-1)a_{2}=0,\enskip(\ell-1)a_{5}=0, \enskip (\ell-1)a_{11}=0,$$$$a_{2}=a_{12},\enskip a_{5}=a_{8},\enskip a_{11}=a_{15},\enskip(\ell+2)(a_{3}-a_{13})=0,\enskip(\ell+2)(a_{3}-a_{9})=0, \enskip b_{3}=b_{9}=b_{13}, \enskip (\ell-2)b_{3}=0$$ and $b_{1}=b_{2}=b_{4}=b_{5}=b_{6}=b_{7}=b_{8}=b_{10}= b_{11}=b_{12}=b_{14}=b_{15}=b_{16}=b_{17}=b_{18}=b_{19}=b_{20} =0$. The above conditions lead to the following four cases: a) $\ell=-2$ (3d harmonic oscillator); b) $\ell=1$ (the Kepler problem); c) $\ell=2$; and d) $\ell \neq -2,1,2$. a\) Case $\ell=-2$. We have $L_{a}=0$ and $$a_{2}=a_{5}=a_{8}=a_{11}=a_{12}=a_{15}=a_{16}=a_{18}=0.$$ Then the independent components of the KT $C_{ab}$ are $$\begin{aligned} C_{11} &=&\frac{a_{6}}{2}y^{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}z^{2}+a_{4}yz+a_{3} \\ C_{12} &=&\frac{a_{10}}{2}z^{2}-\frac{a_{6}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{14}}{2}yz+a_{17} \\ C_{13}&=&\frac{a_{14}}{2}y^{2}-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xy -\frac{a_{1}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{10}}{2}yz+a_{19} \\ C_{22} &=&\frac{a_{6}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}z^{2}+a_{14}xz+a_{13} \\ C_{23} &=&\frac{a_{4}}{2}x^{2}-\frac{a_{14}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{10}}{2}xz -\frac{a_{7}}{2}yz+a_{20} \\ C_{33} &=& \frac{a_{1}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}y^{2}+a_{10}xy+a_{9}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting in $G_{,a}=2C_{ab}V^{,b}$ and integrating with respect to each coordinate we find $$G(x,y,z)=-2k(a_{3}x^{2}+a_{13}y^{2}+a_{9}z^{2}+2a_{17}xy+ 2a_{19}xz+2a_{20}yz).$$ The first integral is $$\begin{aligned} I_{1} &=& C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + G(x,y,z) \\ &=&\frac{a_{1}}{2}(z\dot{x}-x\dot{z})^{2}+\frac{a_{6}}{2} (y\dot{x}-x\dot{y})^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}(z\dot{y}-y\dot{z})^{2} +a_{3}\left( \dot{x}^{2}-2kx^{2}\right) +a_{9}(\dot{z}^{2}-2kz^{2}) + \\ &&+a_{13}(\dot{y}^{2}- 2ky^{2}) + a_{4}(y\dot{x} - x\dot{y}) (z\dot{x} - x\dot{z}) + a_{10}(z\dot{x} - x\dot{z}) (z\dot{y} - y\dot{z}) - a_{14} (z\dot{y} - y\dot{z}) (y\dot{x} - x\dot{y}) + \\ &&+2a_{17}(\dot{x}\dot{y}-2kxy)+ 2a_{19}(\dot{x}\dot{z}-2kxz) +2a_{20}(\dot{y}\dot{z}-2kyz).\end{aligned}$$ The FI $I_{1}$ consists of the FIs $$L_{1} = y\dot{z} - z\dot{y}, \enskip L_{2}= z\dot{x} - x\dot{z}, \enskip L_{3}= x\dot{y} - y\dot{x}, \enskip B_{ij} = \dot{q}_{i} \dot{q}_{j} - 2k q_{i}q_{j}$$ where $q_{i}=(x,y,z)$, $L_{i}$ are the components of the angular momentum and $B_{ij}=B_{ji}$ are the components of a symmetric tensor. From these nine FIs the maximal number of functional independent FIs is $2n-1=5$ where $n=3$ is the dimension of the system. The total energy of the system is written $$H \equiv E = \frac{1}{2} (B_{11} + B_{22} + B_{33}) = \frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{y}^{2} +\dot{z}^{2}) -kr^{2}.$$ For $k=-\frac{1}{2}$ the tensor $B_{ij}= \dot{q}_{i}\dot{q}_{j}+q_{i}q_{j}$ is the Jauch-Hill-Fradkin tensor[^28]. The Poisson brackets for the components of the angular momentum give the well-known relation $$\label{eq.angm.1} \{L_{a},L_{b}\}= \varepsilon_{abc} L^{c}$$ where $\varepsilon_{abc}$ is the totally-antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol. This means that $L_{1},L_{2},L_{3}$ are not in involution and hence cannot be used to show Liouville integrability. The system is integrable because the triplet $H,L_{a},B_{aa}$ is functionally independent (i.e. linearly independent gradients over the phase space) and in involution, i.e. $\{H,B_{aa}\}=$ $\{H,L_{a}\}=$ $\{B_{aa}, L_{a}\}=0$. The set $\{B_{11},B_{22},B_{33}\}$ is functionally independent and in involution as well. We compute $$\{L_{1},B_{22}\}=\{B_{33},L_{1}\}=2B_{23}, \enskip \{L_{2},B_{33}\}=\{B_{11},L_{3}\}=2B_{13}, \enskip \{L_{3},B_{11}\}=\{B_{22},L_{3}\}=2B_{12}.$$ We infer that the system of the 3d harmonic oscillator is also superintegrable, because it is integrable and the set $H,L_{1},L_{2},L_{3},B_{aa}$ is functionally independent. b\) Case $\ell=1$. We have $L_{a}=0$ and $$a_{16}=a_{17}=a_{18}=a_{19}=a_{20}=0,\enskip a_{2}=a_{12},\enskip a_{3}=a_{9}=a_{13},\enskip a_{5}=a_{8},\enskip a_{11}=a_{15}.$$ Then the independent components of the KT $C_{ab}$ are $$\begin{aligned} C_{11} &=& \frac{a_{6}}{2}y^{2}+ \frac{a_{1}}{2}z^{2}+a_{4}yz+a_{5}y+a_{2}z+a_{3} \\ C_{12} &=&\frac{a_{10}}{2}z^{2}-\frac{a_{6}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{14}}{2}yz-\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{11}}{2}y \\ C_{13} &=&\frac{a_{14}}{2}y^{2}-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{1}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{10}}{2}yz-\frac{a_{2}}{2}x-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z \\ C_{22} &=&\frac{a_{6}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}z^{2}+a_{14}xz+a_{11}x+a_{2}z+a_{3} \\ C_{23} &=&\frac{a_{4}}{2}x^{2}-\frac{a_{14}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{10}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{7}}{2}yz-\frac{a_{2}}{2}y-\frac{a_{5}}{2}z \\ C_{33} &=&\frac{a_{1}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}y^{2}+a_{10}xy+a_{11}x+a_{5}y+a_{3}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting in $G_{,a}=2c_{0}C_{ab}V^{,b}$ and integrating with respect to each coordinate we find $$G(x,y,z)=-\frac{k}{r}(a_{11}x+a_{5}y+a_{2}z+2a_{3}).$$ The first integral is $$\begin{aligned} I_{1} &=& C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + G(q) \\ &=&\frac{a_{1}}{2}(z\dot{x}-x\dot{z})^{2} +\frac{a_{6}}{2} (y\dot{x}-x\dot{y})^{2} + \frac{a_{7}}{2} (z\dot{y}-y\dot{z})^{2} + a_{4} (y\dot{x}-x\dot{y}) (z\dot{x}-x\dot{z}) +a_{10} (z\dot{x}-x\dot{z}) (z\dot{y}-y\dot{z}) - \\ && - a_{14} (z\dot{y}-y\dot{z}) (y\dot{x}-x\dot{y}) +2a_{3}\left[ \frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2}) -\frac{k}{r}\right] + a_{2}\left[ z(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{y}^{2})-\dot{z}(x\dot{x}+y\dot{y}) -\frac{k}{r}z\right] + \\ &&+a_{5}\left[ y(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2})-\dot{y}(x\dot{x}+z\dot{z})-\frac{k}{r}y\right]+ a_{11}\left[ x(\dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2})-\dot{x}(y\dot{y}+z\dot{z})-\frac{k}{r}x\right].\end{aligned}$$ The FI $I_{1}$ contains the following FIs: i\. The three components of the angular momentum $L_{1}=y\dot{z}-z\dot{y}$, $L_{2}=z\dot{x}-x\dot{z}$ and $L_{3}= x\dot{y}-y\dot{x}$. ii\. The total energy (Hamiltonian) of the system $E \equiv \frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2}) -\frac{k}{r}$. iii\. The three components of the Runge-Lenz vector $$R_{1} = x(\dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2})-\dot{x}(y\dot{y}+z\dot{z})- \frac{k}{r}x, \enskip R_{2} =y(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2})- \dot{y}(x\dot{x}+z\dot{z})-\frac{k}{r}y, \enskip R_{3} = z(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{y}^{2})-\dot{z}(x\dot{x}+y\dot{y}) -\frac{k}{r}z$$ which can be written in the compact form $$R_{i}=(v^{j}v_{j})x_{i}-(x^{j}v_{j})v_{i}-\frac{k}{r}x_{i}. \label{eq.Kep.6}$$ where $x_{i}=(x,y,z)$ and $v_{i}=\dot{x}_{i}= (\dot{x},\dot{y},\dot{z})$. The linear combination $\mu^{i}R_{i}$, where $\mu^{i}$ are arbitrary constants, is the Noether invariant found in Kalotas (see Ref. \[kalotas\]). Using the vector identity $$\mathbf{A}\times \left( \mathbf{B}\times \mathbf{C}\right) =\left( \mathbf{A}\cdot \mathbf{C}\right) \mathbf{B}-\left( \mathbf{A}\cdot \mathbf{B}\right) \mathbf{C}$$equation (\[eq.Kep.6\]) is written in the well-known vector form $$\mathbf{R}=\mathbf{v}\times (\mathbf{x}\times \mathbf{v})-\frac{k}{r}\mathbf{x}. \label{eq.Kep.7}$$ We should point out that the above seven FIs are not all independent because they are related by $$\label{eq.RL0} \mathbf{R} \cdot \mathbf{L} =0 \enskip \text{and} \enskip \mathbf{R}^{2} = k^{2} + 2E\mathbf{L}^{2}.$$ From these relations we deduce that there exist only five independent FIs: the total energy $E$, the angular momentum $\mathbf{L}$ and the direction of the Runge-Lenz vector $\mathbf{R}$. The Kepler problem is a Liouville integrable system because the FIs $E,L_{a},R_{a}$ are functional independent and in involution, i.e. $\{L_{a},E\}=0$, $\{R_{a},E\}=0$ and $\{L_{a},R_{a}\}=0$. It is also superintegrable, because it has dimension $n=3$ and admits $2n-1=5$ independent FIs. For the components of the Runge-Lenz vector we find that $\{R_{a}, L_{b}\} = \varepsilon_{abc} R^{c}$ and $\{R_{a},R_{b}\} = -2\varepsilon_{abc}L^{c}E$. c\) Case $\ell=2$. In that case we have $$\begin{aligned} C_{11} &=&\frac{a_{6}}{2}y^{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}z^{2}+a_{4}yz+a_{3} \\ C_{12} &=&\frac{a_{10}}{2}z^{2}-\frac{a_{6}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{14}}{2}yz \\ C_{13} &=&\frac{a_{14}}{2}y^{2}-\frac{a_{4}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{1}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{10}}{2}yz \\ C_{22} &=&\frac{a_{6}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}z^{2}+a_{14}xz+a_{3} \\ C_{23} &=&\frac{a_{4}}{2}x^{2}-\frac{a_{14}}{2}xy-\frac{a_{10}}{2}xz-\frac{a_{7}}{2}yz \\ C_{33} &=&\frac{a_{1}}{2}x^{2}+\frac{a_{7}}{2}y^{2}+a_{10}xy+a_{3}\end{aligned}$$ $$L_{a}= b_{3} \left( \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \\ z \\ \end{array} \right), \enskip L_{(a;b)}= b_{3}\delta_{ab}.$$ Substituting in $G_{,a}=2c_{0}C_{ab}V^{,b}$ and integrating with respect to each coordinate we find $$G(x,y,z)=-\frac{2ka_{3}}{r^2} - \frac{b_{3}}{2}r^{2}.$$ The first integral is $$\begin{aligned} I_{1} &=& - b_{3} t^{2} \left[ \frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2} + \dot{y}^{2} + \dot{z}^{2}) - \frac{k}{r^{2}} \right] + \frac{a_{1}}{2}(z\dot{x}-x\dot{z})^{2}+ \frac{a_{6}}{2}(y\dot{x}-x\dot{y})^{2} +\frac{a_{7}}{2}(z\dot{y} -y\dot{z})^{2} + \\ && + 2a_{3}\left[ \frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2}+ \dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2})- \frac{k}{r^{2}}\right] + a_{4} (y\dot{x}-x\dot{y}) (z\dot{x}-x\dot{z}) + a_{10} (z\dot{x}-x\dot{z}) (z\dot{y}-y\dot{z}) - \\ && - a_{14} (z\dot{y}-y\dot{z}) (y\dot{x}-x\dot{y}) + b_{3} t (x\dot{x} + y\dot{y} + z\dot{z}) - \frac{b_{3}}{2} r^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The above FI contains the three components of the angular momentum, the energy $E =\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2} + \dot{y}^{2} + \dot{z}^{2}) - \frac{k}{r^{2}}$ of the system and in addition the time-dependent FI $$I_{1a}(\ell=2)= - E t^{2} + t(x\dot{x} + y\dot{y} + z\dot{z}) - \frac{r^{2}}{2}.$$ d\) Case $\ell \neq -2,1,2$. In these cases the KT $C_{ab}$ is that of the case $\ell=2$, the vector $L_{a}=0$ and $G(x,y,z)=-\frac{2ka_{3}}{r^{\ell}}$. The FI is $$\begin{aligned} I_{1} &=& \frac{a_{1}}{2}(z\dot{x}-x\dot{z})^{2}+ \frac{a_{6}}{2}(y\dot{x}-x\dot{y})^{2} +\frac{a_{7}}{2}(z\dot{y} -y\dot{z})^{2} + 2a_{3}\left[ \frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2}+ \dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2})- \frac{k}{r^{\ell}}\right]+ \\ && + a_{4} (y\dot{x}-x\dot{y}) (z\dot{x}-x\dot{z}) + a_{10} (z\dot{x}-x\dot{z}) (z\dot{y}-y\dot{z}) - a_{14} (z\dot{y}-y\dot{z}) (y\dot{x}-x\dot{y})\end{aligned}$$ which consists of the FIs generated by the three components of the angular momentum and the total energy $E = \frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2}+ \dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2})- \frac{k}{r^{\ell}}$ of the system. Integral 2. $$I_{2} = -\frac{t^{3}}{3} L_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + t^{2} L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + \frac{t^{3}}{3} L_{a}V^{,a} - t B_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + tB_{a}V^{,a}$$ where $L_{a}$, $B_{a}$ are such that $L_{(a;b)}$, $B_{(a;b)}$ are KTs, $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$ and $\left(B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2B_{(a;b)} V^{,b} - 2L_{a}$. Since $L_{(a;b)}$, $B_{(a;b)}$ are KTs we have $$L_{a}=\left( \begin{array}{c} -a_{15}y^{2}-a_{11}z^{2}+a_{5}xy+a_{2}xz+2(a_{16}+a_{18})yz +a_{3}x +2a_{4}y+2a_{1}z+a_{6} \\ -a_{5}x^{2}-a_{8}z^{2}+a_{15}xy-2a_{18}xz+a_{12}yz+ 2(a_{17}-a_{4})x+a_{13}y+2a_{7}z+a_{14} \\ -a_{2}x^{2}-a_{12}y^{2}-2a_{16}xy+a_{11}xz+a_{8}yz+2(a_{19}- a_{1})x+2(a_{20}-a_{7})y+a_{9}z+a_{10}\end{array}\right)$$ $$B_{a}=\left( \begin{array}{c} -b_{15}y^{2}-b_{11}z^{2}+b_{5}xy+b_{2}xz +2(b_{16}+b_{18})yz+b_{3}x+2b_{4}y+2b_{1}z+b_{6} \\ -b_{5}x^{2}-b_{8}z^{2}+b_{15}xy-2b_{18}xz+b_{12}yz+ 2(b_{17}-b_{4})x+b_{13}y+2b_{7}z+b_{14} \\ -b_{2}x^{2}-b_{12}y^{2}-2b_{16}xy+b_{11}xz+b_{8}yz+2(b_{19}- b_{1})x+2(b_{20}-b_{7})y+b_{9}z+b_{10}\end{array}\right)$$ $$L_{(a;b)}=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} a_{5}y+a_{2}z+a_{3} & -\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z+a_{17} & -\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z+a_{19} \\ -\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z+a_{17} & a_{15}x+a_{12}z+a_{13} & -(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y-\frac{a_{8}}{2}z+a_{20} \\ -\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z+a_{19} & -(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y-\frac{a_{8}}{2}z+a_{20} & a_{11}x+a_{8}y+a_{9}\end{array}\right)$$and $$B_{(a;b)}=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} b_{5}y+b_{2}z+b_{3} & -\frac{b_{5}}{2}x-\frac{b_{15}}{2}y+b_{16}z+b_{17} & -\frac{b_{2}}{2}x+b_{18}y-\frac{b_{11}}{2}z+b_{19} \\ -\frac{b_{5}}{2}x-\frac{b_{15}}{2}y+b_{16}z+b_{17} & b_{15}x+b_{12}z+b_{13} & -(b_{16}+b_{18})x-\frac{b_{12}}{2}y-\frac{b_{8}}{2}z+b_{20} \\ -\frac{b_{2}}{2}x+b_{18}y-\frac{b_{11}}{2}z+b_{19} & -(b_{16}+b_{18})x-\frac{b_{12}}{2}y-\frac{b_{8}}{2}z+b_{20} & b_{11}x+b_{8}y+b_{9}\end{array} \right).$$ From the constraint $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$ we find that $(\ell-2)a_{3}=0$, $L_{a}= a_{3} \left( \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \\ z \\ \end{array} \right)$ and $L_{(a;b)}= a_{3}\delta_{ab}$. Substituting in the remaining constraint $\left(B_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a} = -2B_{(a;b)} V^{,b} - 2L_{a}$ we obtain $a_{3}=0 \implies$ $L_{a}=0$, $(\ell-2)b_{3}=0$, $B_{a}= b_{3} \left( \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \\ z \\ \end{array} \right)$ and $B_{(a;b)}= b_{3}\delta_{ab}$. For $\ell\neq 2$ we have $B_{a}=0$ and the FI $I_{2}=0$. On the other hand, for $\ell=2$ we get the non-trivial time-dependent FI $$I_{2}(\ell=2) = -Et + \frac{1}{2} (x\dot{x} + y\dot{y} + z\dot{z}).$$ Integral 3. $$I_{3} = -e^{\lambda t} L_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + \lambda e^{\lambda t} L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + e^{\lambda t} L_{a} V^{,a}$$ where $\lambda \neq 0$, $L_{a}$ is such that $L_{(a;b)}$ is a KT and $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b} - \lambda^{2} L_{a}$. Since $L_{(a;b)}$ is a KT we have $$L_{a}=\left( \begin{array}{c} -a_{15}y^{2}-a_{11}z^{2}+a_{5}xy+a_{2}xz+2(a_{16}+a_{18})yz +a_{3}x +2a_{4}y+2a_{1}z+a_{6} \\ -a_{5}x^{2}-a_{8}z^{2}+a_{15}xy-2a_{18}xz+a_{12}yz+ 2(a_{17}-a_{4})x+a_{13}y+2a_{7}z+a_{14} \\ -a_{2}x^{2}-a_{12}y^{2}-2a_{16}xy+a_{11}xz+a_{8}yz+2(a_{19}- a_{1})x+2(a_{20}-a_{7})y+a_{9}z+a_{10}\end{array}\right)$$ and $$L_{(a;b)}=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} a_{5}y+a_{2}z+a_{3} & -\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z+a_{17} & -\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z+a_{19} \\ -\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z+a_{17} & a_{15}x+a_{12}z+a_{13} & -(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y-\frac{a_{8}}{2}z+a_{20} \\ -\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z+a_{19} & -(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y-\frac{a_{8}}{2}z+a_{20} & a_{11}x+a_{8}y+a_{9}\end{array}\right).$$ Substituting in the constraint $\left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2L_{(a;b)} V^{,b} - \lambda^{2} L_{a}$ we find that the vector $L_{a}$ does not vanish only for $\ell=-2$. Therefore in what it follows we consider only that case. We compute $$\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}=-2k\left( \begin{array}{c} 2a_{3}x+2a_{17}y+2a_{19}z+a_{6} \\ 2a_{13}y+2a_{17}x+2a_{20}z+a_{14} \\ 2a_{9}z+2a_{19}x+2a_{20}y+a_{10}\end{array}\right)$$ $$2L_{(a;b)}V^{,b}=-2k\left( \begin{array}{c} -a_{15}y^{2}-a_{11}z^{2}+a_{5}xy+a_{2}xz+2(a_{16}+a_{18})yz+2a_{3}x+2a_{17}y+2a_{19}z \\ -a_{5}x^{2}-a_{8}z^{2}+a_{15}xy-2a_{18}xz+a_{12}yz+2a_{17}x+2a_{13}y+2a_{20}z \\ -a_{2}x^{2}-a_{12}y^{2}-2a_{16}xy+a_{11}xz+a_{8}yz+2a_{19}x+2a_{20}y+2a_{9}z\end{array}\right)$$ and $$\lambda ^{2}L_{a}=\lambda ^{2}\left( \begin{array}{c} -a_{15}y^{2}-a_{11}z^{2}+a_{5}xy+a_{2}xz+2(a_{16}+a_{18})yz+a_{3}x+2a_{4}y+2a_{1}z+a_{6} \\ -a_{5}x^{2}-a_{8}z^{2}+a_{15}xy-2a_{18}xz+a_{12}yz+2(a_{17}-a_{4})x+a_{13}y+2a_{7}z+a_{14} \\ -a_{2}x^{2}-a_{12}y^{2}-2a_{16}xy+a_{11}xz+a_{8}yz+2(a_{19}-a_{1})x+2(a_{20}-a_{7})y+a_{9}z+a_{10}\end{array}\right).$$ Then the condition $\lambda ^{2}L_{a}+\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}+2L_{(a;b)}V^{,b}=0$ gives the following set of equations $$\begin{aligned} 0 &=&-a_{15}(\lambda ^{2}-2k)y^{2}-a_{11}(\lambda ^{2}-2k)z^{2}+a_{5}(\lambda ^{2}-2k)xy+a_{2}(\lambda ^{2}-2k)xz+2(a_{16}+a_{18})(\lambda ^{2}-2k)yz+ \\ &&+a_{3}(\lambda ^{2}-8k)x+2(\lambda ^{2}a_{4}-4ka_{17})y+2(\lambda ^{2}a_{1}-4ka_{19})z+(\lambda ^{2}-2k)a_{6}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} 0 &=& - a_5 (\lambda^2 - 2k)x^2 - a_8 (\lambda^2 - 2k)z^2 + a_{15} (\lambda^2 - 2k) xy - 2a_{18} (\lambda^2 - 2k) xz + 2a_{12} (\lambda^2 - 2k) yz + \\ && + 2 \left[ a_{17} (\lambda^2 -4k) - \lambda^2a_4\right] x + a_{13}(\lambda^2 - 8k)y + 2(\lambda^2 a_7 - 4ka_{20}) z + (\lambda^2-2k)a_{14}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} 0 &=& - a_2 (\lambda^2 - 2k)x^2 - a_{12} (\lambda^2 - 2k)y^2 - 2a_{16} (\lambda^2 - 2k) xy + a_{11} (\lambda^2 - 2k) xz + a_8 (\lambda^2 - 2k) yz + \\ && + 2 \left[ a_{19} (\lambda^2 -4k) - \lambda^2a_1\right] x + 2 \left[ a_{20} (\lambda^2 -4k) - \lambda^2a_7\right] y + a_9(\lambda^2 - 8k)z + (\lambda^2-2k)a_{10}.\end{aligned}$$ We consider the cases: a\) For $\lambda ^{2}=2k$ we have $$a_{1}=a_{3}=a_{4}=a_{7}=a_{9}=a_{13}=a_{17}=a_{19}=a_{20}=0.$$Then $$L_{a}=\left( \begin{array}{c} -a_{15}y^{2}-a_{11}z^{2}+a_{5}xy+a_{2}xz+2(a_{16}+a_{18})yz+a_{6} \\ -a_{5}x^{2}-a_{8}z^{2}+a_{15}xy-2a_{18}xz+a_{12}yz+a_{14} \\ -a_{2}x^{2}-a_{12}y^{2}-2a_{16}xy+a_{11}xz+a_{8}yz+a_{10}\end{array}\right)$$and $$L_{(a;b)}=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} a_{5}y+a_{2}z & -\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z & -\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z \\ -\frac{a_{5}}{2}x-\frac{a_{15}}{2}y+a_{16}z & a_{15}x+a_{12}z & -(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y-\frac{a_{8}}{2}z \\ -\frac{a_{2}}{2}x+a_{18}y-\frac{a_{11}}{2}z & -(a_{16}+a_{18})x-\frac{a_{12}}{2}y-\frac{a_{8}}{2}z & a_{11}x+a_{8}y\end{array}\right) .$$ The first integral is $$\begin{aligned} I_{3a}(\ell=-2) &=&-\frac{a_{2}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}(z\dot{x}-x\dot{z})(\dot{x}-\lambda x)-\frac{a_{5}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}(y\dot{x}-x\dot{y})(\dot{x}-\lambda x)-\frac{a_{8}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}(y\dot{z}-z\dot{y})(\dot{z}-\lambda z)- \\ &&-\frac{a_{11}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}(x\dot{z}-z\dot{x})(\dot{z}-\lambda z)-\frac{a_{12}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}(z\dot{y}-y\dot{z})(\dot{y}-\lambda y)-\frac{a_{15}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}(x\dot{y}-y\dot{x})(\dot{y}-\lambda y)- \\ &&-\frac{2a_{16}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}(z\dot{x}-x\dot{z})(\dot{y}-\lambda y)-\frac{2a_{18}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}(y\dot{x}-x\dot{y})(\dot{z}-\lambda z)+a_{6}e^{\lambda t}(\dot{x}-\lambda x)+a_{10}e^{\lambda t}(\dot{z}-\lambda z)+ \\ && +a_{14}e^{\lambda t}(\dot{y}-\lambda y).\end{aligned}$$ From this expression we have the following irreducible time-dependent FIs $$I_{3a1}= e^{\lambda t}(\dot{x}-\lambda x), \enskip I_{3a2}=e^{\lambda t}(\dot{y}-\lambda y), \enskip I_{3a3}= e^{\lambda t}(\dot{z}-\lambda z).$$ If $k>0$, then $\lambda= \pm \sqrt{2k}$; and if $k<0$, then $\lambda= \pm i \sqrt{-2k}$. Therefore for all values of the non-zero parameter $k$ of the system there exist two constants $\lambda_{\pm}$ each generating three independent FIs of the system. We have[^29] $$I_{3a1\pm}= e^{\pm i \sqrt{-2k} t}(\dot{x} \mp i \sqrt{-2k} x), \enskip I_{3a2\pm}=e^{\pm i \sqrt{-2k} t}(\dot{y} \mp i \sqrt{-2k} y), \enskip I_{3a3\pm}= e^{\pm i \sqrt{-2k} t}(\dot{z} \mp i \sqrt{-2k} z).$$ Using the above six FIs we can derive all the FIs found in the case Integral 1 for $\ell=-2$. We compute $$I_{3a1+}I_{3a1-}=B_{11}, \enskip I_{3a2+}I_{3a2-}=B_{22}, \enskip I_{3a3+}I_{3a3-}=B_{33},$$ $$I_{3a1\pm}I_{3a2\mp}=B_{12} \mp i\sqrt{-2k}L_{3}, \enskip I_{3a1\pm}I_{3a3\mp}=B_{13} \pm i\sqrt{-2k}L_{2}, \enskip I_{3a2\pm}I_{3a3\mp}=B_{23} \mp i\sqrt{-2k}L_{1}.$$ Therefore, all the components of the Jauch-Hill-Fradkin tensor $B_{ij}$ can be constructed by the three components of the angular momentum and the six time-dependent FIs $I_{3a1\pm}$, $I_{3a2\pm}$, $I_{3a3\pm}$. b\) For $\lambda^2=4k$ we get $L_a=0$ and hence the FI vanishes. c\) Finally, for $\lambda^2 = 8k$ we have $$a_2=a_5=a_6=a_8=a_{10}=a_{11}=a_{12}=a_{14}=a_{15}=a_{16}= a_{18} = 0, \enskip a_{17}=2a_4, \enskip a_{19}=2a_1, \enskip a_{20}= 2a_7.$$ Then $$L_a = \left( \begin{array}{c} a_3x + a_{17}y + a_{19}z \\ a_{17}x + a_{13}y + a_{20}z \\ a_{19}x + a_{20}y + a_9z\end{array} \right), \enskip L_{(a;b)} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} a_3 & a_{17} & a_{19} \\ a_{17} & a_{13} & a_{20} \\ a_{19} & a_{20} & a_9\end{array} \right).$$ The first integral is $$\begin{aligned} I_{3c}(\ell=-2) &=&-\frac{a_{3}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}\left( \dot{x}-\frac{\lambda }{2}x\right)^{2}-\frac{a_{9}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}\left( \dot{z}-\frac{\lambda }{2}z\right) ^{2}-\frac{a_{13}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}\left( \dot{y}-\frac{\lambda }{2}y\right) ^{2}- \\ &&-\frac{a_{17}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}\left[ 2\dot{x}\dot{y}+\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}xy-\lambda (y\dot{x}+x\dot{y})\right] -\frac{a_{19}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}\left[ 2\dot{x}\dot{z}+\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}xz-\lambda (z\dot{x}+x\dot{z})\right] - \\ &&-\frac{a_{20}}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}\left[ 2\dot{y}\dot{z}+\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2}yz-\lambda (y\dot{z}+z\dot{y})\right].\end{aligned}$$ This expression consists of the time-dependent FIs $$I_{3b1}= e^{\lambda t}\left( \dot{x}-\frac{\lambda }{2}x\right)^{2}, \enskip I_{3b2}= e^{\lambda t}\left( \dot{y}-\frac{\lambda }{2}y\right)^{2}, \enskip I_{3b3}= e^{\lambda t}\left( \dot{z}-\frac{\lambda }{2}z\right)^{2}, \enskip I_{3b4}= e^{\lambda t}\left[ \dot{x}\dot{y}+ \frac{\lambda^{2}}{4} xy- \frac{\lambda}{2} (y\dot{x}+x\dot{y})\right],$$ $$I_{3b5} = e^{\lambda t}\left[ \dot{x}\dot{z}+ \frac{\lambda^{2}}{4} xz - \frac{\lambda}{2} (z\dot{x}+x\dot{z})\right], \enskip I_{3b6}= e^{\lambda t}\left[ \dot{y}\dot{z}+ \frac{\lambda^{2}}{4} yz - \frac{\lambda}{2} (y\dot{z}+z\dot{y})\right].$$ If $k>0$, $\lambda= \pm 2\sqrt{2k}$; and if $k<0$, $\lambda =\pm 2i\sqrt{-2k}$. Similarly with the calculations of the case a) we find that (we continue for $k<0$ and adopt the notation of the case a) for the FIs) $$I_{3b1\pm}=(I_{3a1\pm})^{2}, \enskip I_{3b2\pm}=(I_{3a2\pm})^{2}, \enskip I_{3b3\pm}=(I_{3a3\pm})^{2}, \enskip I_{3b4\pm}= I_{3a1\pm} I_{3a2\pm},$$ $$I_{3b5\pm} = I_{3a1\pm} I_{3a3\pm}, \enskip I_{3b6\pm}= I_{3a2\pm}I_{3a3\pm}.$$ Therefore this case gives again the six time dependent FIs $I_{3a1\pm}$, $I_{3a2\pm}$, $I_{3a3\pm}$ of the case a). We collect the results of this section in the following Table (we write $q^{i}=(x,y,z)$ ). [\|l\|l\|]{}\ $V=-\frac{k}{r^{\ell}}$ & LFIs and QFIs\ $\forall$ $\ell$ & $L_{1} = y\dot{z} - z\dot{y}$, $L_{2}= z\dot{x} - x\dot{z}$, $L_{3}= x\dot{y} - y\dot{x}$, $H= \frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^{2} + \dot{y}^{2} + \dot{z}^{2}) - \frac{k}{r^{\ell}}$\ $\ell=-2$ & $B_{ij} = \dot{q}_{i} \dot{q}_{j} - 2k q_{i}q_{j}$\ $\ell=-2$, $k>0$ & $I_{3a\pm}= e^{\pm \sqrt{2k} t}(\dot{q}_{a} \mp \sqrt{2k} q_{a})$\ $\ell=-2$, $k<0$ & $I_{3a\pm}= e^{\pm i \sqrt{-2k} t}(\dot{q}_{a} \mp i \sqrt{-2k} q_{a})$\ $\ell=1$ & $R_{i}= (\dot{q}^{j} \dot{q}_{j}) q_{i} - (\dot{q}^{j}q_{j})\dot{q}_{i}- \frac{k}{r}q_{i}$\ $\ell=2$ & $I_{1}= - Ht^{2} + t(\dot{q}^{i}q_{i}) - \frac{r^{2}}{2}$, $I_{2}= - Ht + \frac{1}{2} (\dot{q}^{i}q_{i})$\ The time dependent FIs {#subsec.Kep.3} ====================== As it has been shown Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] produces all FIs of the autonomous conservative dynamical equations i.e. the autonomous and the time dependent FIs, the latter being equally important as the former. Furthermore this is achieved in a way which is independent of the dimension, the signature and the curvature of the kinetic metric, defined by the kinetic energy/Lagrangian of the specific dynamical system. On the contrary the standard methods determine mainly the autonomous FIs, usually for low degrees of freedom and consider principally the ‘usual’ dynamical systems. The time-dependent FIs can be used to test the integrability of a dynamical system and of course they can be used to obtain the solution of the dynamical equations in terms of quadratures. The Liouville integrability theorem[^30] requires $n$ functionally independent FIs in involution of the form $I(q,p)$. However it has been pointed out that we can also use time-dependent FIs of the form[^31]$^{,}$[^32] $I(q,p,t)$ for the same purpose. It is to be noticed that both Theorems in Refs. \[Kozlov 1983\], \[Vozmishcheva 2005\] refer to non-autonomous Hamiltonians $H(q,p,t)$. Moreover, the usefulness of the time-dependent[^33] FIs can be seen from the examples I, II of section VII in Ref. \[KatzinLev1985\]. In order to show the use of the time dependent FIs in the solution of the dynamical equations we consider two cases of the general Kepler equations (\[eq.GKep.1a\]) considered in the section \[sec.GKepler\].\ \ Example 1. In the case of potential $V=-kr^{2}$ ($\ell=-2$, $k>0$) we found the six time-dependent FIs $I_{3a\pm}= e^{\pm \sqrt{2k} t}(\dot{q}_{a} \mp \sqrt{2k} q_{a})$. We use these FIs to obtain the solution of the corresponding equations. We have $$\begin{cases} e^{\sqrt{2k} t}(\dot{x} - \sqrt{2k}x) = A_{+} \\ e^{-\sqrt{2k} t}(\dot{x} + \sqrt{2k}x) = A_{-} \end{cases} \implies \begin{cases} \dot{x} - \sqrt{2k}x = A_{+}e^{-\sqrt{2k} t} \\ \dot{x} + \sqrt{2k}x = A_{-}e^{\sqrt{2k} t} \end{cases} \implies$$ $$\dot{x} = \frac{1}{2} \left( A_{+}e^{-\sqrt{2k} t} + A_{-} e^{\sqrt{2k} t}\right) \implies x(t)= \frac{1}{2} \left( -\frac{A_{+}}{\sqrt{2k}} e^{-\sqrt{2k} t} + \frac{A_{-}}{\sqrt{2k}} e^{\sqrt{2k} t}\right)$$ where $A_{\pm}$ are arbitrary constants. Similarly from the other FIs we find $$y(t)= \frac{1}{2} \left( -\frac{B_{+}}{\sqrt{2k}} e^{-\sqrt{2k} t} + \frac{B_{-}}{\sqrt{2k}} e^{\sqrt{2k} t}\right), \enskip z(t)= \frac{1}{2} \left( -\frac{C_{+}}{\sqrt{2k}} e^{-\sqrt{2k} t} + \frac{C_{-}}{\sqrt{2k}} e^{\sqrt{2k} t}\right)$$ where $B_{\pm}$, $C_{\pm}$ are arbitrary constants.\ Example 2. For the case of the 3d harmonic oscillator (i.e. $\ell=-2$, $k<0$) using the time-dependent FIs $I_{3a\pm}= e^{\pm i \sqrt{-2k} t}(\dot{q}_{a} \mp i \sqrt{-2k} q_{a})$ we find working in the same way $$x(t)= \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{iD_{+}}{\sqrt{-2k}} e^{-i \sqrt{-2k}t} - \frac{iD_{-}}{\sqrt{-2k}} e^{i \sqrt{-2k}t} \right), \enskip y(t)= \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{iE_{+}}{\sqrt{-2k}} e^{-i \sqrt{-2k}t} - \frac{iE_{-}}{\sqrt{-2k}} e^{i \sqrt{-2k}t} \right),$$ $$z(t)= \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{iF_{+}}{\sqrt{-2k}} e^{-i \sqrt{-2k}t} - \frac{iF_{-}}{\sqrt{-2k}} e^{i \sqrt{-2k}t} \right)$$ where $D_{\pm}$, $E_{\pm}$, $F_{\pm}$ are arbitrary constants. Conclusions {#Conclusions} =========== The usefulness of FIs in the solution of the dynamical equations is well-known. Therefore it is important that one has a systematic method to compute them for a given dynamical system. In Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] we have developed such a method for the case of autonomous conservative dynamical systems. It has been shown that these integrals are closely related to the KTs and the symmetries of the kinetic metric, which is defined by the kinetic energy or the Lagrangian for the particular dynamical system. From Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] follows that the determination of a QFI/LFI of an autonomous conservative dynamical system consists of two parts. One part which is entirely characteristic of the kinetic metric and it is common to all dynamical systems which share this metric; and a second part which consists of constraints which involve in addition the potential which defines the specific dynamical system. The constraints of the first part concern the determination of the first integrals in terms of the symmetries of the kinetic metric. For example we have ‘solved’ the constraints of first part for the cases of $E^{2}$ and $E^{3}$ which concern the majority of the Newtonian dynamical systems as a whole. With each FI we have associated in a natural manner a gauged Noether symmetry whose Noether integral is this particular first integral. This implies that all the quadratic first integrals of a conservative autonomous dynamical system are Noetherian. This result agrees with the conclusion of the Ref. \[kalotas\] concerning the Runge-Lenz vector of the Kepler potential. In this sense we have managed to geometrize the generalized Noether symmetries which was the secondary purpose to the present work. We have applied the Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] in two well-known cases; the case of the geodesics and the case of the generalized Kepler potential. The latter is the reference example because it contains the harmonic oscillator as well as the Kepler potential both being studied in detail in the past. As it was expected we recovered all existing previous results plus the fact that we obtained all possible time dependent QFIs. Finally we have discussed briefly the importance of the time dependent FIs and we have demonstrated their use in the integration of of the dynamical equations for two special cases of the general Kepler potential. Proof of the theorem ==================== We look for solutions in which $g(t),f(t)$ are analytic functions so that they can be represented by polynomial functions of $t$: $$g(t)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{k}t^{k}=c_{0}+c_{1}t+...+c_{n}t^{n}$$ $$f(t)=\sum_{k=0}^{m}d_{k}t^{k}=d_{0}+d_{1}t+...+d_{m}t^{m}$$ where $n,m\in \mathbb{N}$ (or infinite) and $c_{k},d_{k}\in \mathbb{R}$. We consider various cases[^34]. I. For both $\mathbf{m, n}$ finite. $g=c_{0}$, $f=d_{0}$. $$\begin{cases} (\ref{FL.1.a1}) \implies c_0 C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ (\ref{FL.1.a}) \implies d_0 L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ (\ref{FL.1.b}) \implies - 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} + K_{,a} = 0 \\ (\ref{FL.1.c}) \implies K_{,t} - d_0 L_b V^{,b} - B_b V^{,b} = 0 \\ (\ref{FL.1.d}) \implies d_0 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 0\end{cases}$$ We define the vector field $\tilde{L}_a \equiv d_0 L_a + B_a$. From we find that $\tilde{L}_{(a;b)} = 0$ which means that $\tilde{L}_a$ is a KV. From we have that $\tilde{L}_a V^{,a} = s_0 = const$. Solving equation we get $K = s_0 t + G(q)$ which into gives $G_{,a} = 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b}$. The first integral is $$I_{00} = c_{0}C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + \tilde{L}_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + s_{0}t+G(q)$$where $c_0C_{ab}$ is a KT, $\tilde{L}_{a}$ is a KV such that $\tilde{L}_a V^{,a} = s_0$ and $G(q)=2c_{0} \int C_{ab} V^{,b} dq^{a}$. Therefore the FI $I_{00}$ consists of the independent FIs $$Q_{1} = C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + G(q), \qquad Q_{2} = L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + s_{1}t$$ where $C_{ab}$ is a KT, $L_{a}$ is a KV such that $L_{a}V^{,a} =s_{1}$ and $G_{,a}=2C_{ab}V^{,b}$. $g = c_0 + c_1 t$, $f = d_0 + d_1 t$ with $c_1 \neq 0$ and $d_1 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies c_1 C_{ab} + (d_0 + d_1t) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} t - 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} + d_1 L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ The first equation implies that $C_{ab}$ is a KT. From $L_a$ is a KV and $c_1 C_{ab} + B_{(a;b)} = 0$. From we find that $L_aV^{,a}=s_{1}$ and $\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}=2c_{1}C_{ab}V^{,b}$. Then gives $$K=s_{1}\left( d_{0}t+\frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2}\right) +B_{a}V^{,a}t+G(q)$$which into yields $G_{,a}=2c_{0}C_{ab}V^{,b}-d_{1}L_{a}$. Using the relation $\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{;a}=2c_{1}C_{ab}V^{,b}$ we find that $$G_{,a}=\frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}}\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}-d_{1}L_{a} \implies L_{a} = \frac{c_0}{c_1d_1} \left(B_b V^{,b}\right)_{,a} - \frac{1}{d_1} G_{,a}.$$ The first integral is $$I_{11}= - \frac{1}{c_{1}} \left( c_{0}+c_{1}t\right) B_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+\left( d_{0}+d_{1}t\right) L_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+s_{1}\left( d_{0}t+\frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2}\right) +B_{a}V^{,a}t+G(q)$$where $B_{(a;b)}$ is a KT, $L_{a}=\frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}d_{1}}\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}-\frac{1}{d_{1}}G_{,a} \equiv \Phi_{,a}$ is a gradient KV such that[^35] $L_{a}V^{,a}=s_{1}$ and the vector $B_{a}$ is such that $\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}=-2B_{(a;b)}V^{,b}$. First of all $$L_{a} = \Phi_{,a} = \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}d_{1}} \left(B_{b} V^{,b}\right)_{,a} - \frac{1}{d_{1}} G_{,a} \implies G(q) = \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}} B_{a}V^{,a} - d_{1}\Phi(q).$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned} I_{11} &=& \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}} Q_{3} + Q_{4} + d_{0}Q_{2} + d_{1} Q_{5}\end{aligned}$$ where $$Q_{3} = - B_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + B_{a}V^{,a}, \enskip Q_{4} = - t B_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + t B_{a}V^{,a}, \enskip Q_{5} = tL_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + \frac{s_{1}}{2}t^{2} - \Phi(q)$$ are independent FIs. $g = c_0 + c_1 t + c_2 t^2$, $f = d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2$ with $c_2 \neq 0$ and $d_2 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies (c_1 + 2c_2 t) C_{ab} + (d_0 + d_1t + d_2 t^2) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 (c_0 + c_1 t + c_2 t^2) C_{ab} V^{,b} + (d_1 + 2d_2 t) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies 2d_2 L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 (c_1 + 2 c_2 t) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we find that $L_aV^{,a}=s_{1}$ and $L_a = - \frac{1}{2d_2} \left(B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{;a}$, that is $L_a$ is a gradient KV. The solution of is $$K = s_{1} \left( d_{0}t + \frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2} + \frac{d_2}{3} t^3 \right) + B_{a}V^{,a}t + G(q)$$ which into gives $$G_{,a} + d_1 L_a \underbrace{+ 2d_2 L_a t + \left( B_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a} t}_{=0} = 0 \implies G_{,a} = -d_1 L_a = \frac{d_1}{2d_2} \left(B_b V^{,b}\right)_{,a} \implies G(q) = \frac{d_1}{2d_2} B_a V^{,a}.$$ The first integral is $$I_{22} = \left(d_{0}+d_{1}t+d_2t^2\right) L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + s_{1} \left( d_{0}t + \frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2} + \frac{d_2}{3} t^3 \right) + B_{a}V^{,a}t + \frac{d_1}{2d_2} B_a V^{,a}$$ where $L_{a} = - \frac{1}{2d_2} \left(B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{;a}$ is a gradient KV such that $L_{a}V^{,a}=s_{1}$ and $B_a$ is a KV. The FI $I_{22}= d_{0}Q_{2} + d_{1}Q_{5} + F_{1}$ where $$F_{1} = t^{2} X_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + \frac{s}{3} t^{3} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + B_{a}V^{,a}t, \quad X_{a}\equiv d_{2}L_{a}, \enskip s\equiv d_{2}s_{1}$$ is a new independent FI. $c_n \neq 0$ and $d_n \neq 0 $. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies (c_1 + 2c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1}) C_{ab} + (d_0 + d_1t + .. + d_n t^n) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 (c_0 + c_1 t + ... + c_n t^n) C_{ab} V^{,b} + (d_1 + 2d_2 t + ... + n d_n t^{n-1}) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_n t^n \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left[2d_2 + 3 \cdot 2 d_3 t + ... + n (n-1) d_n t^{n-2}\right] L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_n t^n \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - \\ \qquad \qquad - 2 (c_1 + 2c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1}) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we find that $L_a = 0$ and $B_a V^{,a} = s_2$. The solution of is $K = s_2 t + G(q)$ which into gives $G = const$. Such a constant is ignored because any constant can be added to $I$ without changing the condition $\frac{dI}{dt}=0$. The first integral is (of the form $Q_{2}$) $$I_{nn}(n>2)=B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+s_{2}t$$where $B_{a}$ is a KV such that $B_{a}V^{,a}=s_{2}$. We continue with the case $n>m$. This case is broken down equivalently into the cases $n=m+1$ and $n>m+1$. Both cases are analyzed below[^36]. $g = c_0 + c_1 t$, $f = d_0$ with $c_1 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies c_1 C_{ab} + \tilde{L}_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} t - 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} - \tilde{L}_a V^{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left( \tilde{L}_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From since $c_{1}\neq 0$ follows that $C_{ab}$ is a KT. Solving we get $K = \bar{L}_a V^{,a} t + G(q)$ which into gives $G_{,a} = 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b}$. But $$2 C_{ab} V^{,b} = \frac{1}{c_1} \left( \tilde{L}_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}.$$ Therefore $$G_{,a} = \frac{c_0}{c_1} \left( \tilde{L}_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} \implies G(q)= \frac{c_0}{c_1} \tilde{L}_a V^{,a}.$$ The first integral is $$I_{10} = - \frac{1}{c_1}\left( c_{0} + c_{1}t \right) \tilde{L}_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + \tilde{L}_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+\left( t + \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}}\right) \tilde{L}_{a}V^{,a}$$where $\tilde{L}_{a}$ is a vector such that $\tilde{L}_{(a;b)}$ is a KT and $\left( \tilde{L}_b V^{,b}\right)_{;a} = - 2 \tilde{L}_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$. We note that $I_{10} = \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}} Q_{3}(\tilde{L}_{a}) + Q_{4}(\tilde{L}_{a})$. $g = c_0 + c_1 t + c_2 t^2$, $f = d_0 + d_1 t$ with $c_2 \neq 0$ and $d_1 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t \right) C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t + c_2 t^2 \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + d_1 L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From the first equation $C_{ab}$ is a KT. Equation gives $2c_2 C_{ab} + d_1 L_{(a;b)} = 0$ and $c_1 C_{ab} + d_0 L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0$. From we have that $d_0 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0$ and $d_1 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 4 c_2 C_{ab} V^{,b}$. Solving we find that $$K=\left( d_{0}t+\frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2}\right) L_{a}V^{,a}+B_{a}V^{,a}t+G(q)$$which into and using the last relations gives $$G_{,a}=2c_{0}C_{ab}V^{,b}-d_{1}L_{a} \implies G_{,a}= \frac{c_0 d_1}{2c_2} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} - d_1 L_a \implies G(q) = \frac{c_0 d_1}{2c_2} L_a V^{,a} - d_1 \int L_a dq^a.$$ Note also that $$\begin{cases} 2c_2 C_{ab} + d_1 L_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ c_1 C_{ab} + d_0 L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0\end{cases} \implies B_{(a;b)} = \left( \frac{2 c_2 d_0}{d_1} - c_1 \right) C_{ab}$$ $$\begin{cases} d_0 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0 \\ d_1 \left(L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 4 c_2 C_{ab} V^{,b}\end{cases} \implies \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} - \frac{4c_2d_0}{d_1} C_{ab} V^{,b}$$ and $\frac{c_1 d_1}{2c_2} \left(L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = d_0 \left(L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left(B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}$. Therefore $$\begin{cases} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = - 2 \left( \frac{2c_2d_0}{d_1} - c_1 \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} \\ B_{(a;b)} = \left( \frac{2 c_2 d_0}{d_1} - c_1 \right) C_{ab}\end{cases} \implies \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = - 2 B_{(a;b)} V^{,b} \implies [ B^a, V^{,a} ] \equiv [ \mathbf{B}, \mathbf{\nabla}V ]^a \neq 0.$$ The first integral is $$\begin{aligned} I_{21} &=&-\frac{d_{1}}{2c_{2}} \left( c_{0}+c_{1}t+c_{2}t^{2}\right) L_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+\left( d_{0}+d_{1}t\right) L_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+\left( d_{0}t+\frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2}\right) L_{a}V^{,a}+B_{a}V^{,a}t+G(q)\end{aligned}$$ where $L_a$ is a vector such that $L_{(a;b)}$ is a KT and $\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{;a} = - 2 L_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$; $B_a$ is a vector satisfying the relations $\left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = - 2 B_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$ and $B_{(a;b)}= \frac{2c_2d_{0} - c_{1}d_{1}}{d_{1}} C_{ab} $; and $G(q)= \frac{c_{0}d_{1}}{2c_{2}}L_{a} V^{,a} - d_{1} \int L_{a}dq^{a}$. First of all $$G_{,a} = \frac{c_{0}d_{1}}{2c_{2}} \left(L_{b} V^{,b}\right)_{,a} - d_{1} L_{a}.$$ From this $L_{a}=\Phi_{,a}$, i.e. $L_{a}$ is a gradient and hence $$G(q)= \frac{c_{0}d_{1}}{2c_{2}}L_{a} V^{,a} - d_{1}\Phi(q).$$ Moreover $B_{(a;b)}= \left(\frac{ c_{1}d_{1}}{2c_{2}}- d_{0}\right) L_{(a;b)} $ implies $$- \frac{ c_{1}d_{1}}{2c_{2}} L_{(a;b)} = - B_{(a;b)} - d_{0}L_{(a;b)}$$ and $B_{(a;b)}$ is a KT. Substituting the above results into $I_{21}$ we find $$I_{21} = \frac{c_{0}d_{1}}{2c_{2}} Q_{3}(L_{a}) + Q_{4} + d_{0}Q_{4}(L_{a}) + d_{1}Q_{6}$$ where $$Q_{6} = - \frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + t L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + \frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{a}V^{,a} - \Phi(q)$$ is a new independent FI. We note that the expression $$Q_{1} + Q_{6} = - \frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + C_{ab} \dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + t L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + \frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{a}V^{,a} - \Phi(q) + G(q)$$ where $\Phi_{,a}=L_{a}$ and $G_{,a}=2C_{ab}V^{,b}$ leads to the new independent FI $$Q_{16} = - \frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + C_{ab} \dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + t L_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + \frac{t^{2}}{2} L_{a}V^{,a} + H(q)$$ where now $H_{,a} = 2C_{ab}V^{,b} - L_{a}$. From $Q_{16}$ the FIs $Q_{1}$, $Q_{6}$ are derived as subcases, that is, $Q_{16}(C_{ab}=0)=Q_{6}$ and $Q_{16}(L_{a}=0)=Q_{1}$. $g = c_0 + c_1 t + c_2 t^2 + c_3 t^3$, $f = d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2$ with $c_3 \neq 0$ and $d_2 \neq 0 $. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + 3c_3t^2 \right) C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2\right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t + c_2 t^2 + c_3 t^3 \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + (d_1 + 2d_2 t) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies 2d_2 L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + 3 c_3 t^2 \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From the first equation $C_{ab}$ is a KT. From we have that $3c_3 C_{ab} + d_2 L_{(a;b)} = 0$, $2c_2 C_{ab} + d_1 L_{(a;b)} = 0$ and $c_1 C_{ab} + d_0 L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0$. From we find that $d_2 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 6 c_3 C_{ab} V^{,b}$, $d_1 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 4 c_2 C_{ab} V^{,b}$ and $2d_2 L_a + d_0 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0$. The solution of is $$K = \left( d_{0}t + \frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2} + \frac{d_2}{3}t^3 \right) L_{a}V^{,a} + B_{a}V^{,a}t + G(q)$$ which into and using the above derived conditions gives $$G_{,a}= 2c_{0}C_{ab}V^{,b}-d_{1}L_{a} \implies G_{,a}= \frac{c_0 d_2}{3c_3} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} - d_1 L_a \implies G(q) = \frac{c_0 d_2}{3c_3} L_a V^{,a} - d_1 \int L_a dq^a.$$ From the first set of conditions we get $$\begin{cases} 3c_3 C_{ab} + d_2 L_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ 2c_2 C_{ab} + d_1 L_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ c_1 C_{ab} + d_0 L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0\end{cases} \implies \begin{cases} C_{ab} = - \frac{d_2}{3c_3} L_{(a;b)} \\ \left( d_1 - \frac{2c_2 d_2}{3c_3} \right) L_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ B_{(a;b)} = \left( \frac{3 c_3 d_0}{d_2} - c_1 \right) C_{ab}\end{cases}$$ and from the second $$\begin{cases} d_2 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 6 c_3 C_{ab} V^{,b} \\ d_1 \left(L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 4 c_2 C_{ab} V^{,b} \\ 2d_2 L_a + d_0 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0\end{cases} \implies \begin{cases} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = \frac{6 c_3}{d_2} C_{ab} V^{,b} \\ \left( \frac{6 c_3 d_1}{d_2} - 4c_2 \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0 \\ L_a = \left( \frac{c_1}{6c_3} - \frac{d_0}{2d_2} \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - \frac{1}{2d_2} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}.\end{cases}$$ Therefore $L_a$ is a gradient vector and the function $G(q)$ becomes $$G(q) = \left(\frac{c_0 d_2}{3c_3} - \frac{c_1 d_1}{6c_3} + \frac{d_0d_1}{2d_2} \right) L_a V^{,a} + \frac{d_1}{2d_2} B_a V^{,a}.$$ Finally, the first integral is $$\begin{aligned} I_{32} &=& - \frac{d_2}{3c_3} \left( c_{0}+c_{1}t+c_{2}t^{2} + c_3t^3 \right) L_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+ \left( d_{0}+d_{1}t + d_2t^2\right) L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + \\ && + \left( d_{0}t + \frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2} + \frac{d_2}{3}t^3 \right) L_{a}V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a}t + \left(\frac{2c_0 d_2 - c_1 d_1}{6c_3} + \frac{d_0d_1}{2d_2} \right) L_a V^{,a} + \frac{d_1}{2d_2} B_a V^{,a}.\end{aligned}$$ where the vector $L_{a}=\left( \frac{c_{1}}{6c_{3}}-\frac{d_{0}}{2d_{2}}\right) \left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}-\frac{1}{2d_{2}}\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{;a}$ is a gradient such that $L_{(a;b)}$ is a KT, $\left( \frac{2c_{2}d_{2}}{3c_{3}}- d_{1}\right) L_{(a;b)} =0$ and $\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}=-2L_{(a;b)}V^{,b}$; and $B_{a}$ is a vector satisfying the relation $B_{(a;b)}=\left( \frac{c_{1}d_{2}}{3c_{3}}-d_{0}\right) L_{(a;b)}$. The vector $L_{a}=\Psi_{,a}$ where $$\Psi(q) = \left( \frac{c_{1}}{6c_{3}}-\frac{d_{0}}{2d_{2}}\right) L_{a}V^{,a} - \frac{1}{2d_{2}} B_{a}V^{,a}.$$ Observe also that $$- \frac{c_{2}d_{2}}{3c_{3}} L_{(a;b)} = - \frac{d_{1}}{2} L_{(a;b)}, \enskip - \frac{c_{1}d_{2}}{3c_{3}} L_{(a;b)} = - B_{(a;b)} - d_{0} L_{(a;b)}.$$ From the last $B_{(a;b)}$ is a KT. Another useful relation is the following (condition for $Q_{7}$ being a FI) $$L_{a} = \Psi_{,a} \implies 2d_{2}L_{a} = \left( \frac{c_{1}d_{2}}{3c_{3}}-d_{0}\right) \left(L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}-\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} \implies$$ $$\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2B_{(a;b)}V^{,b} -2d_{2}L_{a}.$$ Substituting the above relations in the FI $I_{32}$ we find $$I_{32} = \frac{d_{2}c_{0}}{3c_{3}}Q_{3}(L_{a}) + Q_{7} + d_{0}Q_{4}(L_{a}) + d_{1}Q_{6}(\Psi)$$ where $$Q_{7} = - \frac{t^{3}}{3} d_{2}L_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + t^{2} d_{2}L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + \frac{t^{3}}{3} d_{2}L_{a}V^{,a} - t B_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + t B_{a}V^{,a}$$ is a new independent FI. $c_{n}\neq 0$ and $d_{m}\neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \left[ c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + (m+1) c_n t^{m} \right] C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t + ... + c_n t^{m+1} \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + (d_1 + 2d_2 t + ... + m d_m t^{m-1}) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left[ 2d_2 + 3 \cdot 2 d_3 t + ... + m (m-1) d_m t^{m-2} \right] L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - \\ \qquad \qquad - 2 \left[ c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + (m+1) c_n t^{m} \right] C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From the first equation $C_{ab}$ is a KT. From we find the conditions $(k+1) c_{k+1} C_{ab} + d_k L_{(a;b)} = 0$ where $k = 1,2,...,m$ and $c_1 C_{ab} + d_0 L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0$. For $k=m$ we get $$C_{ab} = - \frac{d_m}{(m+1)c_{m+1}} L_{(a;b)}$$ and the remaining equations become $$\left[ d_k - \frac{(k+1)c_{k+1}d_m}{(m+1)c_{m+1}} \right] L_{(a;b)} = 0, \enskip k=1,2,...,m-1$$ and $$B_{(a;b)} = \left[ \frac{c_1d_m}{(m+1)c_{m+1}} - d_0 \right] L_{(a;b)}.$$ From we find that $2(k+1)c_{k+1} C_{ab} V^{,b} = d_k \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}$ where $k=m-1,m$, $(k+2)(k+1)d_{k+2} L_a + d_k \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 (k+1) c_{k+1} C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0$ where $k=1,...,m-2$ and $2d_2 L_a + d_0 \left(L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0$, i.e. $L_a$ is a gradient vector. The first set of equations gives for $k=m$ $$\left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} = \frac{2(m+1)c_{m+1}}{d_m} C_{ab} V^{,b} \implies \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} = - 2 L_{(a;b)} V^{,b}$$ and for $k=m-1$ $$\left[ d_{m-1} - \frac{m c_m d_m}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}\right] \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} = 0.$$ The second set of equations for $k=m-2$ gives $$L_a = \left[ \frac{c_{m-1}}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}} - \frac{d_{m-2}}{m (m-1) d_m} \right] \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a}$$ and the remaining equations (exist only for $m>3$) are $$\left\{ d_k + (k+2)(k+1)d_{k+2} \left[ \frac{c_{m-1}}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}} - \frac{d_{m-2}}{m (m-1) d_m} \right] - \frac{(k+1) c_{k+1} d_m}{(m+1)c_{m+1}} \right\} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} = 0, \enskip k=1,2,...,m-3.$$ From the last condition we get $$\left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} = \left[ \frac{c_1 d_m}{(m+1) c_{m+1}} - \frac{2 d_2 c_{m-1}}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}} + \frac{2d_2 d_{m-2}}{m (m-1) d_m} - d_0 \right] \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a}.$$ The solution of is $$K = \left( d_{0}t + \frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2} + ... + \frac{d_m}{m+1}t^{m+1} \right) L_{a}V^{,a} + B_{a}V^{,a}t + G(q)$$ which into and using the conditions $2d_2 L_a + d_0 \left(L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0$, $2(k+1)c_{k+1} C_{ab} V^{,b} = d_k \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}$ where $k=m-1,m$ and $(k+2)(k+1)d_{k+2} L_a + d_k \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 (k+1) c_{k+1} C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0$ where $k=1,...,m-2$ gives $$\begin{aligned} G_{,a} &=& - \left( d_{0}t + \frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2}+ ... + \frac{d_{m-1}}{m}t^{m} + \frac{d_m}{m+1}t^{m+1} \right) \left( L_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a} + 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t + ...+ c_m t^m + c_{m+1} t^{m+1} \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} - \\ && - \left( B_{b} V^{,b} \right)_{,a} t - (d_1 + 2d_2 t + ... + m d_m t^{m-1}) L_a \\ &=& 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} - d_1 L_a \\ &=& \left[ \frac{c_0d_m}{(m+1)c_{m+1}} - \frac{c_{m-1} d_1}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}} + \frac{d_1 d_{m-2}}{m (m-1) d_m} \right] \left( L_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a} \implies\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} G(q) &=& \left[ \frac{c_0d_m}{(m+1)c_{m+1}} - \frac{c_{m-1} d_1}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}} + \frac{d_1 d_{m-2}}{m (m-1) d_m} \right] L_a V^{,a}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$K = \left( d_{0}t + \frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2} + ... + \frac{d_m}{m+1}t^{m+1} \right) L_{a}V^{,a} + B_{a}V^{,a}t + \left[ \frac{c_0d_m}{(m+1)c_{m+1}} - \frac{c_{m-1} d_1}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}} + \frac{d_1 d_{m-2}}{m (m-1) d_m} \right] L_a V^{,a}.$$ The first integral is $$\begin{aligned} I_{(m+1)m}(m>2) &=&-\frac{d_{m}}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}\left( c_{0}+c_{1}t+...+c_{m+1}t^{m+1}\right)L_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} +\left( d_{0}+d_{1}t+...+d_{m}t^{m}\right) L_{a} \dot{q}^{a}+ \\ &&+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} +\left( d_{0}t+\frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2}+...+\frac{d_{m}}{m+1}t^{m+1}\right) L_{a}V^{,a}+B_{a}V^{,a}t+G(q).\end{aligned}$$where $c_{m+1}d_{m}\neq 0$ for a finite $m>2$; the vector $$L_{a}=\left[ \frac{c_{m-1}}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}}-\frac{d_{m-2}}{m(m-1)d_{m}}\right] \left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}$$ is a gradient such that $L_{(a;b)}$ is a KT, $\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}=-2L_{(a;b)}V^{,b}$, $\left[ d_{k}-\frac{(k+1)c_{k+1}d_{m}}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}\right] L_{(a;b)}$ $=0$, where $k=1,2,...,m-1$, $\left[ d_{m-1}-\frac{mc_{m}d_{m}}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}\right] \left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}$ $=0$ and $$\left\{ d_{k}+(k+2)(k+1)d_{k+2}\left[ \frac{c_{m-1}}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}}-\frac{d_{m-2}}{m(m-1)d_{m}}\right] -\frac{(k+1)c_{k+1}d_{m}}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}\right\} \left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}=0,$$where $k=1,2,...,m-3$; $B_{a}$ is a vector which must satisfy the conditions $B_{(a;b)}=\left[ \frac{c_{1}d_{m}}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}-d_{0}\right] L_{(a;b)}$ and $$\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a}=\left[ \frac{c_{1}d_{m}}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}-\right. \left. \frac{2d_{2}c_{m-1}}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}}+\frac{2d_{2}d_{m-2}}{m(m-1)d_{m}}-d_{0}\right] \left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a};$$and the function $$G(q)=\left[ \frac{c_{0}d_{m}}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}-\frac{c_{m-1}d_{1}}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}}+\frac{d_{1}d_{m-2}}{m(m-1)d_{m}}\right] L_{a}V^{,a}.$$ In that case $m>2$ which implies that $m-1>1$ and $m-2>0$. Therefore, there always exist $k$-values for $m-1$, $m-2$. For $k=m-2$ the condition $\left[ d_{k}-\frac{(k+1) c_{k+1}d_{m}}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}\right] L_{(a;b)}=0$ gives $$\left[ d_{m-2}-\frac{(m-1) c_{m-1}d_{m}}{(m+1)c_{m+1}}\right] L_{(a;b)}=0 \implies \left[ \frac{c_{m-1}}{m(m+1)c_{m+1}}-\frac{d_{m-2}}{m(m-1)d_{m}}\right] \left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{,a} = 0 \implies L_{a}=0$$ because $\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a}=-2L_{(a;b)}V^{,b}$. Since $L_{a}=0$ we have $G=0$, $B_{(a;b)}=0$, i.e. $B_{a}$ is a KV, and $B_{a}V^{,a}=s_{1}=const$. Therefore $$I_{(m+1)m}(m>2) = B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + st = Q_{2}(B_{a}).$$ $c_n \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies (c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1}) C_{ab} + \tilde{L}_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies -2 (c_0 + c_1 t + ... + c_n t^n) C_{ab} V^{,b} + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \tilde{L}_b V^{,b} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left( \tilde{L}_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 (c_1 + 2c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1}) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0. \end{cases}$$ From we find that $C_{ab} = 0$; and $\tilde{L}_{(a;b)} = 0$ that is $\tilde{L}_a$ is a KV. Then equation gives $\tilde{L}_aV^{,a} = s_0$ and yields $K = s_0 t + G(q)$. The last result into gives $G_{,a} = 0$, i.e. $G$ is a constant which is ignored because any arbitrary constant can be added to a first integral $I$ without changing the condition $\frac{dI}{dt} = 0$. The first integral is (of the form $Q_{2}$) $$I_{n0}(n>1)=\tilde{L}_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+s_{0}t.$$ where $\tilde{L}_{a}\equiv d_{0}L_{a}+B_{a}$ is a KV such that $\tilde{L}_aV^{,a} = s_0$. $c_n \neq 0$ and $d_1 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1} \right) C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} =0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t + ... + c_n t^n \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + d_1 L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1} \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From we find that $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we have that $L_a V^{,a} = s_1$ and $B_a V^{,a} = s_2$. Then equation gives $$K = s_1 \left( d_0t + \frac{d_1}{2} t^2 \right) + s_2 t + G(q)$$ which into yields $G_{,a} = - d_1 L_a$ that is $L_a$ is a gradient KV. The first integral is (consists of FIs of the form $Q_{2}$, $Q_{5}$) $$I_{n1}(n>2)=(d_{0}+d_{1}t)L_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+ \frac{s_{1}d_{1}}{2}t^{2}+(s_{1}d_{0}+s_{2})t+G(q)$$where $L_{a}$, $B_{a}$ are KVs such that $L_{a}V^{,a}=s_{1}$ and $B_{a}V^{,a}=s_{2}$; and $G(q)=-d_{1}\int L_{a}dq^{a}$. $c_n \neq 0$ and $d_2 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1} \right) C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} =0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t + ... + c_n t^n \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + (d_1 + 2d_2t) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies 2d_2 L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2t^2 \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - \\ \qquad \qquad - 2 \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1} \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From we find that $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we have that $L_a V^{,a} = s_1$ and $L_a = - \frac{1}{2d_2} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}$, that is $L_a$ is a gradient KV. Then equation gives $$K = s_1 \left( d_0t + \frac{d_1}{2} t^2 + \frac{d_2}{3} t^3 \right) + B_a V^{,a} t + G(q)$$ which into yields $$G_{,a} = - d_1 L_a = \frac{d_1}{2d_2} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} \implies G(q) = \frac{d_1}{2d_2} B_a V^{,a}.$$ The first integral is (consists of FIs of the form $Q_{2}$, $Q_{5}$, $Q_{7}$) $$I_{n2}(n>3)=(d_{0}+d_{1}t+d_2t^2) L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + B_{a} \dot{q}^{a} + s_1 \left( d_0t + \frac{d_1}{2} t^2 + \frac{d_2}{3} t^3 \right) + B_a V^{,a} t + \frac{d_1}{2d_2} B_a V^{,a}$$ where $L_a = - \frac{1}{2d_2} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}$ is a gradient KV such that $L_a V^{,a} = s_1$ and $B_{a}$ is a KV. $c_n \neq 0$ and $d_m \neq 0$. Note that $n > n-1 > m > 2$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1} \right) C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t + ... + c_n t^{n} \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + (d_1 + 2d_2 t + ... + m d_m t^{m-1}) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left[ 2d_2 + 3 \cdot 2 d_3 t + ... + m (m-1) d_m t^{m-2} \right] L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - \\ \qquad \qquad - 2 \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1} \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From we find that $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we have that $L_a = 0$ and $B_a V^{,a} = s_2$. Then the solution of is $K = s_2 t + G(q)$ which into gives $G=const$. The first integral is (again of the form $Q_{2}$) $$I_{nm}(n>m+1, m>2)= B_a \dot{q}^a + s_2 t$$ where $B_{a}$ is a KV such that $B_a V^{,a} = s_2$. $g = c_0$, $f = d_0 + d_1 t$ with $d_1 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies c_0 C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies (d_0 + d_1 t) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies -2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} + d_1 L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = (d_0 + d_1t) L_b V^{,b} + B_b V^{,b} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies (d_0 + d_1t) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{;b} \right)_{;a} = 0.\end{cases}$$ Equation implies that $L_{(a;b)} = 0$ and $B_{(a;b)} = 0$, that is $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. Similarly, equation gives that $L_b V^{,b} = s_1 = const$ and $B_b V^{,b} = s_2 =const$. Then gives $$K = s_1 \left(d_0 t + \frac{d_1}{2}t^2\right) + s_2 t + G(q)$$ which into yields $G_{,a} = 2c_0C_{ab}V^{,b} - d_1 L_a$. The first integral is ($c_{0}$ is absorbed by $C_{ab}$) $$I_{01} = C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+ \left( d_{0}+d_{1}t\right) L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + s_{1}\left( d_{0}t + \frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2} \right)+ s_{2}t + G\left( q\right)$$ where $d_1 \neq 0$, $L_{a},B_{a}$ are KVs such that $L_{a}V^{,a}=s_{1}$, $B_{a}V^{,a}=s_{2} $; and $C_{ab}$ is a KT such that $G_{,a}-2 C_{ab} V^{,b}+ d_1L_{a} =0$. We have $$I_{01} = Q_{2}(B_{a}) + d_{0}Q_{2} + Q_{8}$$ where $$Q_{8} = C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + d_{1}tL_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + d_{1} \frac{s_{1}}{2} t^{2} + G(q)$$ is just a subcase of $Q_{16}$ since $d_{1}L_{a}$ is a KV. $g = c_0$, $f = d_0 +d_1 t + d_2 t^2 $ with $d_2 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies c_0 C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies -2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} + \left( d_1 + 2d_2 t \right) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1t + d_2 t^2 \right) L_b V^{,b} + B_b V^{,b} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies 2d_2 L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1t + d_2 t^2 \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}= 0.\end{cases}$$ From we have that $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we get $L_{b}V^{,b}=s_{1}$; and $L_{a}= -\frac{1}{2d_{2}} \left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a}$, that is $L_{a}$ is a gradient KV. Equation yields $$K = s_1 \left( d_0t + \frac{d_1}{2}t^2 + \frac{d_2}{3} t^3 \right) + B_b V^{,b}t + G(q)$$ and gives $G_{,a} = 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} - d_1L_a$. Using the relation $L_{a}= -\frac{1}{2d_{2}} \left( B_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a}$ we find that $$G(q) = \frac{d_1}{2d_{2}} B_{a} V^{,a} + 2 c_0 \int C_{ab} V^{,b} dq^a.$$ The first integral is ($c_{0}$ is absorbed by $C_{ab}$) $$I_{02} = C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + \left( d_{0} + d_{1}t+d_{2}t^{2} \right) L_a \dot{q}^{a} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + s_{1} \left( d_0t + \frac{d_1}{2}t^{2} + \frac{d_2}{3} t^3 \right) + B_{a}V^{,a}t + G\left( q\right)$$ where $d_{2}\neq 0$, $B_{a}$ is a KV, $L_{a} = - \frac{1}{2d_{2}} \left( B_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a}$ is a gradient KV such that $L_{a}V^{,a} = s_{1}$; and the $C_{ab}$ is a KT satisfying the relation $G_{,a} - 2C_{ab}V^{,b} + d_{1}L_{a} = 0$. We find that $I_{02} = Q_{8} + d_{0}Q_{2} + Q_{7}(L_{a}=KV,B_{a}=KV)$. $d_m \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies c_0 C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies -2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} + \left( d_1 + 2d_2 t + ... + m d_m t^{m-1} \right) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_b V^{;b} + B_b V^{;b} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left[ 2d_2 + 3 \cdot 2 d_3 t + ... + m (m-1) d_m t^{m-2} \right] L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1t + ... + d_m t^m \right) \left( L_b V^{;b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{;b} \right)_{;a}= 0.\end{cases}$$ From $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From $L_a = 0$ and $B_a V^{,b} = s_2$. Solving we find $K = s_2t + G(q)$ which into gives $G_{,a} = 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b}$. The first integral is (of the form $Q_{8}$) $$I_{0m}(m>2)=c_{0}C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+ s_{2}t+G(q)$$where if $c_{0}\neq 0$ the $C_{ab}$ is a KT, $B_{a}$ is a KV such that $B_{a}V^{,a}=s_{2}$ and $G(q)=2c_{0}\int C_{ab}V^{,b}dq^{a}$. $g = c_0 + c_1 t$, $f =d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2$ with $c_1 \neq 0$ and $d_2 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies c_1 C_{ab} + (d_0 + d_1t + d_2t^2) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + \left( d_1 + 2 d_2 t \right) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies 2 d_2 L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From the first equation $C_{ab}$ is a KT. Equation implies that $L_a$ is a KV and $c_1 C_{ab} = - B_{(a;b)}$. From we have $L_a V^{,a} = s_1$ and $2 d_2 L_a + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0$. The solution of is written $$K = s_1 \left( d_0t + \frac{d_1}{2} t^2 + \frac{d_2}{3} t^3 \right) + B_a V^{,a} t + G(q)$$ where from we find $$- 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + \left( d_1 + 2 d_2 t \right) L_a + G_{,a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} t = 0 \implies$$ $$G_{,a} - 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} + d_1 L_a + \underbrace{\left[ -2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} + 2d_2 L_a + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} \right]}_{=0} t = 0 \implies$$ $$G_{,a} = \underbrace{2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b}} - d_1 L_a = c_0 \underbrace{\frac{2d_2c_0}{c_1}L_a + \frac{c_0}{c_1} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}} - d_1 L_a .$$ The first integral is $$\begin{aligned} I_{12} &=& -\frac{1}{c_{1}} \left( c_{0}+c_{1}t \right) B_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + \left( d_{0}+d_{1}t+d_{2}t^{2} \right) L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + s_1 \left( d_{0}t + \frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2} + \frac{d_{2}}{3}t^{3} \right) + \\ && + B_{a} V^{,a}t + G\left(q\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{1}d_{2}\neq 0$, $B_{a}$ is the vector (\[FL.20\]), $L_{a} = -\frac{1}{2d_{2}} \left[ \left( B_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a} + 2B_{(a;b)} V^{,b} \right]$ is a KV such that $L_{a}V^{,a}=s_{1}$ and $G\left(q\right)$ is defined by the condition $G_{,a} - \frac{c_0}{c_1} \left( B_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a} + \left( d_{1} - \frac{2d_{2}c_{0}}{c_{1}} \right) L_{a}$ $=0$. The condition $G_{,a} - \frac{c_0}{c_1} \left( B_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a} + \left( d_{1} - \frac{2d_{2}c_{0}}{c_{1}} \right) L_{a}$ $=0$ generates the following two cases: 1\) For $d_{1} \neq \frac{2d_{2}c_{0}}{c_{1}}$. Then $L_{a}$ is a gradient KV, that is $$L_{a} = \Phi_{,a} \implies G(q) = \frac{c_0}{c_1} B_{a}V^{,a} - d_{1} \Phi(q) + \frac{2d_{2}c_{0}}{c_{1}} \Phi(q).$$ Then $$I_{12(1)} = \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}} Q_{9} + d_{0}Q_{2} + d_{1} Q_{6}(L_{a}=KV) + Q_{7}(L_{a}=KV)$$ where $$Q_{9} = -B_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + B_{a}V^{,a} + 2d_{2} \Phi(q).$$ Observe that $Q_{3}=Q_{9}(\Phi=0)$ and $\left( B_{b}V^{,b} \right)_{,a} = - 2B_{(a;b)} V^{,b} -2d_{2}\Phi_{,a}$. 2\) For $d_{1} = \frac{2d_{2}c_{0}}{c_{1}}$ we have $$G(q) = \frac{c_0}{c_1} B_{a}V^{,a}.$$ Then $$I_{12(2)} = \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}} Q_{3} + d_{0}Q_{2} + Q_{8}(C_{ab}= - B_{(a;b)}) + Q_{7}(L_{a}=KV).$$ $g=c_{0}+c_{1}t$, $c_{1}\neq 0$ and $d_{m}\neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies c_1 C_{ab} + (d_0 + d_1t + ... + d_mt^m) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + \left( d_1 + 2 d_2 t + ... + m d_m t^{m-1} \right) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left[ 2d_2 + 2 \cdot 3 d_3 t + ... + (m-1) m d_m t^{m-2} \right] L_a + \\ \qquad \qquad + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From the first equation $C_{ab}$ is a KT. Equation implies that $L_a$ is a KV and $c_1 C_{ab} = -B_{(a;b)}$. From we have $L_a = 0$ and $\left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} =2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b}$. The solution of is $K = B_a V^{,a} t + G(q)$ which into gives $$- 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} \underbrace{- 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} t + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} t}_{=0} + G_{,a} = 0 \implies G_{,a} = 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} .$$ But $\left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b}$. Therefore $$G_{,a} = \frac{c_0}{c_1} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} \implies G(q) =\frac{c_0}{c_1} B_a V^{,a}.$$ The first integral is (consists of FIs of the form $Q_{1}$, $Q_{4}$) $$I_{1m}(m>2)=\left( c_{0}+c_{1}t\right) C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b}+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+B_{a}V^{,a}t+\frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}}B_{a}V^{,a}$$where $C_{ab}=-\frac{1}{c_{1}}B_{(a;b)}$ is a KT and $B_{a}$ is a vector such that $\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}+2B_{(a;b)}V^{,b}=0$. $c_n \neq 0$ and $d_m \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1} \right) C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t + ... + c_n t^{n} \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + (d_1 + 2d_2 t + ... + m d_m t^{m-1}) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left[ 2d_2 + 3 \cdot 2 d_3 t + ... + m (m-1) d_m t^{m-2} \right] L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - \\ \qquad \qquad - 2 \left( c_1 + 2 c_2 t + ... + n c_n t^{n-1} \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From we find that $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we have that $L_a = 0$ and $B_a V^{,a} = s_2$. Then the solution of is $K = s_2 t + G(q)$ which into gives $G=const$. The first integral is (of the form $Q_{2}$) $$I_{nm}(n>1,m>n)= B_a \dot{q}^a + s_2 t$$ where $B_{a}$ is a KV such that $B_a V^{,a} = s_2$. II. For $\mathbf{n=\infty}$ and $\mathbf{m}$ finite. We find the equivalences $$(n=\infty, m=0) \equiv (n>1, m=0) \equiv (g=e^{\lambda t}, m=0), \enskip (n=\infty, m=1) \equiv (n>2, m=1) \equiv (g=e^{\lambda t}, m=1),$$ $$\enskip (n=\infty, m=2) \equiv (n>3, m=2) \equiv (g=e^{\lambda t}, m=2), \enskip (n=\infty, m>2) \equiv (n>m+1, m>2) \equiv (g=e^{\lambda t}, m>2).$$ Then for each case we have. $\lambda \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} + d_0 L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = d_0 L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies d_0 \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From we get $C_{ab}=0$ and $\tilde{L}_{a}\equiv d_{0}L_{a}+B_{a} $ is a KV. From we have that $\tilde{L}_a V^{,a} = s_0$. Equation gives $K = s_0t + G(q)$ which into yields $G = const$. The first integral is (of the form $Q_{2}$) $$I_{e0}=\tilde{L}_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+s_{0}t$$ where $\tilde{L}_{a}$ is a KV such that $\tilde{L}_{a}V^{,a}=s_{0}$. $\lambda \neq 0$ and $d_{1}\neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} + d_1 L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left( d_0 + d_1 t \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From we have that $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we get that $L_a V^{,a} = s_1$ and $B_a V^{,a} = s_2$. Then equation gives $$K = s_1 \left( d_0t + \frac{d_1}{2} t^2 \right) + s_2 t + G(q)$$ which into gives $G_{,a} = - d_1 L_a$. The first integral is (consists of $Q_{2}$, $Q_{5}$) $$I_{e1}=\left( d_{0}+d_{1}t\right) L_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+(s_{1}d_{0}+s_{2})t+\frac{s_{1}d_{1}}{2}t^{2}+G(q)$$where $L_{a}=-\frac{1}{d_{1}}G_{,a}$ is a gradient KV such that $L_{a}V^{,a}=s_{1}$, $B_{a}$ is a KV such that $B_{a}V^{,a}=s_{2}$ and $G(q)=-d_{1}\int L_{a}dq^{a}$. $\lambda \neq 0$ and $d_2 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2t^2 \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} + (d_1 + 2d_2t) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2t^2 \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies 2d_2 L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + d_2 t^2 \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From we have that $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we get that $L_a V^{,a} = s_1$ and $\left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = -2d_2 L_a$, that is $L_a$ is a gradient KV. Then equation gives $$K = s_1 \left( d_0t + \frac{d_1}{2} t^2 + \frac{d_2}{3} t^3 \right) + B_a V^{,a} t + G(q)$$ which into gives $G_{,a} = - d_1 L_a$. Observe that $$\begin{cases} G_{,a} = - d_1 L_a \\ L_a = - \frac{1}{2 d_2} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}\end{cases} \implies G_{,a} = \frac{d_1}{2 d_2} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a} \implies G = \frac{d_1}{2 d_2} B_b V^{,b} + const.$$ The first integral is (consists of $Q_{2}$, $Q_{5}$, $Q_{7}$) $$I_{e2}=\left( d_{0}+d_{1}t+d_{2}t^{2}\right) L_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+s_{1}\left( d_{0}t+\frac{d_{1}}{2}t^{2}+\frac{d_{2}}{3}t^{3}\right) +B_{a}V^{,a}t+\frac{d_{1}}{2d_{2}}B_{b}V^{,b}$$where $L_{a}=-\frac{1}{2d_{2}}\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}$ is a gradient KV such that $L_{a}V^{,a}=s_{1}$ and $B_{a}$ is a KV. $\lambda \neq 0$ and $d_m \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} + \left( d_1 + 2 d_2 t + ... + m d_m t^{m-1} \right) L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \left[ 2 d_2 + 3 \cdot 2 t + ... + m (m-1) d_m t^{m-2} \right] L_a + \left( d_0 + d_1 t + ... + d_m t^m \right) \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \\ \qquad \qquad + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From we have that $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we get that $L_a = 0$ and $B_a V^{,a} = s_2$. Then equation gives $K = s_2 t + G(q)$ which into gives $G = const$. Therefore the first integral is (of the form $Q_{2}$) $$I_{em}(m>2)=B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+s_{2}t$$where $B_{a}$ is a KV such that $B_{a}V^{,a}=s_{2}$. This is not a quadratic integral. III. For $\mathbf{n}$ finite and $\mathbf{m=\infty}$. We distinguish between two cases because in the condition we have to compare polynomial coefficients of the infinite sums $f_{,tt}$ and $f $. III.1. Case with $\mathbf{f_{,tt} \neq \lambda^2 f}$. $$(n=0, m=\infty) \equiv (n=0, m>2), \enskip (n=1, m=\infty) \equiv (n=1, m>2), \enskip (n>1, m=\infty) \equiv (n>1, m>n).$$ III.2. Case with $\mathbf{f_{,tt} = \lambda^2 f}$. $$(n=0, m=\infty) \equiv (n=0, f=e^{\lambda t}), \enskip (n=1, m=\infty) \equiv (n=1, f=e^{\lambda t}), \enskip (n>1, m=\infty) \equiv (n>1, f=e^{\lambda t}).$$ For each subcase we have. $\lambda \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies c_0 C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies e^{\lambda t} L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies -2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b} + \lambda e^{\lambda t} L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = e^{\lambda t} L_b V^{,b} + B_b V^{,b} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \lambda^2 e^{\lambda t} L_a + e^{\lambda t} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 0.\end{cases}$$ Equation implies that $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we find that $B_a V^{,b} = s_2$; and $L_a = - \frac{1}{\lambda^2} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a}$ that is $L_a$ is a gradient KV. From we get that $$K = \frac{1}{\lambda} e^{\lambda t} L_b V^{,b} + s_2 t + G(q)$$ which into gives $G_{,a} = 2 c_0 C_{ab} V^{,b}$. The first integral is ($c_{0}$ is absorbed by $C_{ab}$) $$I_{0e} = C_{ab}\dot{q}^{a}\dot{q}^{b} + e^{\lambda t} L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} +B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + \frac{1}{\lambda } e^{\lambda t} L_{a}V^{,a} + s_{2}t +G\left(q\right)$$where $\lambda \neq 0$, $L_{a} = - \frac{1}{\lambda^2} \left( L_bV^{,b} \right)_{,a}$ is a gradient KV, $B_{a}$ is a KV such that $B_{a}V^{;a}=s_{2}$; and $C_{ab}$ is a KT such that $G_{,a}-2C_{ab}V^{,b}=0$. The above FI is written $$I_{0e} = Q_{1} + Q_{2}(B_{a}) + Q_{10}$$ where $$Q_{10} = e^{\lambda t} \left( L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + \frac{1}{\lambda} L_{a}V^{,a} \right)$$ is a new independent FI. $\lambda \neq 0$ and $c_1 \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies c_1 C_{ab} + e^{\lambda t} L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + \lambda e^{\lambda t} L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = e^{\lambda t} L_b V^{,b} + B_b V^{,b} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \lambda^2 e^{\lambda t} L_a + e^{\lambda t} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 c_1 C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ The first equation implies that $C_{ab}$ is a KT. From we find that $L_a$ is a KV and $c_1 C_{ab} = - B_{(a;b)}$. From we get the conditions $L_{a}=-\frac{1}{\lambda ^{2}}\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}$ and $\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}=2c_{1}C_{ab}V^{,b}$. Equation gives $$K=\frac{1}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}L_{b}V^{,b}+B_{b}V^{,b}t+G(q)$$and by substituting into we end up with the relation (use above conditions) $$G_{,a} = 2c_0C_{ab}V^{,b} = \frac{c_0}{c_1} \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} \implies G(q) = \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}} B_{b} V^{,b}.$$ The first integral is $$I_{1e} = -\frac{1}{c_{1}}\left( c_{0}+c_{1}t \right) B_{(a;b)}\dot{q}^{a} \dot{q}^{b} + e^{\lambda t} L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + B_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + \frac{1}{\lambda} e^{\lambda t} L_{a}V^{,a} + B_{a}V^{,a} t + \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}} B_{a}V^{,a}$$ where $\lambda c_{1} \neq 0$, $L_{a}=-\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}} \left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a}$ is a gradient KV and $B_a$ is such that $B_{(a;b)}$ is a KT and $\left(B_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} = -2B_{(a;b)}V^{,b}$. We compute $I_{1e} = \frac{c_{0}}{c_{1}}Q_{3} + Q_{4} + Q_{10}$. $\lambda \neq 0$ and $c_n\neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies (c_1 + 2c_2t + ... + nc_n t^{n-1}) C_{ab} + e^{\lambda t} L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 \left( c_0 + c_1 t + ... + c_n t^n \right) C_{ab} V^{,b} + \lambda e^{\lambda t} L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = e^{\lambda t} L_b V^{,b} + B_b V^{,b} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \lambda^2 e^{\lambda t} L_a + e^{\lambda t} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 (c_1 + 2c_2t + ... + nc_n t^{n-1}) C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ From we find that $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. Then equation implies that $B_a V^{,a} = s_2$ and $L_a = - \frac{1}{\lambda^2} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a}$, i.e. $L_a$ is a gradient KV. The solution of gives $$K = \frac{1}{\lambda} e^{\lambda t} L_b V^{,b} + s_2t + G(q)$$ which into gives $$\underbrace{\lambda e^{\lambda t} L_a + \frac{1}{\lambda} e^{\lambda t} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{,a}}_{=0} + G_{,a} = 0 \implies G = const.$$ The first integral is (consists of $Q_{2}$, $Q_{10}$) $$I_{ne}(n>1)=e^{\lambda t}L_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+\frac{1}{\lambda }e^{\lambda t}L_{a}V^{,a}+s_{2}t$$where $L_{a}=-\frac{1}{\lambda ^{2}}\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}$ is a gradient KV and $B_{a}$ is a KV such that $B_{a}V^{,a}=s_{2}$. IV. Both $\mathbf{m}$, $\mathbf{n}$ are infinite. We consider three cases. IV.1. Case where $\mathbf{f_{,tt} = \lambda^2 f}$ and $\mathbf{g_{,t} \neq \lambda f}$. $$(n=\infty, m=\infty) \equiv (g=e^{\mu t}, f=e^{\lambda t}, \lambda \neq \mu) \equiv (n>1, f=e^{\lambda t}).$$ We consider the general subcase. $\lambda \neq 0$ and $\mu \neq 0$. $$\begin{cases} \eqref{FL.1.a1} \implies C_{(ab;c)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.a} \implies \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} + e^{\mu t} L_{(a;b)} + B_{(a;b)} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.b} \implies - 2 e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} + \mu e^{\mu t} L_a + K_{,a} = 0 \\ \eqref{FL.1.c} \implies K_{,t} = e^{\mu t} L_a V^{,a} + B_a V^{,a} \\ \eqref{FL.1.d} \implies \mu^2 e^{\mu t} L_a + e^{\mu t} \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} + \left( B_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \lambda e^{\lambda t} C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0.\end{cases}$$ a) From we have that $C_{ab} = 0$ and $L_a$, $B_a$ are KVs. From we find that $\mu^2 L_a + \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 0$ and $B_b V^{,b} = s_2$. The solution of is $$K = \frac{1}{\mu} e^{\mu t} L_a V^{,a} + s_2 t + G(q)$$ which into using the relation $\mu^2 L_a + \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} = 0$ gives $G = const$. The first integral is (consists of $Q_{2}$, $Q_{10}$) $$I_{ee}(\lambda \neq \mu )=e^{\mu t}L_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+B_{a}\dot{q}^{a}+\frac{1}{\mu }e^{\mu t}L_{a}V^{a,}+s_{2}t$$where $L_{a}=-\frac{1}{\mu ^{2}}\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}$ is a gradient KV and $B_{a}$ is a KV such that $B_{b}V^{,b}=s_{2}$. This is not a quadratic integral. b) From we have that $\lambda C_{ab} + L_{(a;b)} = 0$ and $B_a$ is a KV. From we find that $\lambda^2 L_a + \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \lambda C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0$ and $B_b V^{,b} = s_2$. The solution of is $$K = \frac{1}{\lambda} e^{\lambda t} L_a V^{,a} + s_2 t + G(q)$$ which into using the relation $\lambda^2 L_a + \left( L_b V^{,b} \right)_{;a} - 2 \lambda C_{ab} V^{,b} = 0$ gives $G = const$. The first integral is $$I_{ee}(\lambda = \mu) = -\frac{1}{\lambda } e^{\lambda t} L_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^a \dot{q}^b + e^{\lambda t} L_a \dot{q}^a + B_a \dot{q}^a + \frac{1}{\lambda} e^{\lambda t} L_a V^{,a} + s_2 t$$ where $\lambda \neq 0$, $L_a$ is such that $L_{(a;b)}$ is a KT, $\lambda^{2}L_{a}+\left( L_{b}V^{,b}\right)_{,a} + 2L_{(a;b)}V^{,b}=0$ and $B_{a}$ is a KV with $B_{a}V^{,a}=s_{2}$. We compute $I_{ee}(\lambda=\mu) = Q_{2}(B_{a}) + Q_{11}$ where $$Q_{11} = e^{\lambda t} \left( -\frac{1}{\lambda} L_{(a;b)} \dot{q}^a \dot{q}^b + L_{a}\dot{q}^{a} + \frac{1}{\lambda} L_{a}V^{,a} \right)$$ is a new independent FI. Observe that $Q_{10}=Q_{11}(L_{a}=KV)$. IV.2. Case where $\mathbf{f_{,tt} = \lambda^2 f}$ and $\mathbf{g_{,t} = \lambda f}$. $$(n=\infty, m=\infty) \equiv (g=e^{\lambda t}, f=e^{\lambda t}).$$ IV.3. Case where $\mathbf{f_{,tt} \neq \lambda^2 f}$ and $\mathbf{g_{,t} \neq \lambda f}$ or $\mathbf{g_{,t} = \lambda f}$. $$(n=\infty, m=\infty) \equiv (n>1, m>n) \equiv (n>m+1, m>2) \equiv (g= e^{\lambda t}, m>2) \equiv (n=m, m>2).$$ By collecting all the above FIs $Q_{A}$ the derivation of the Theorem [The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system]{} is straightforward. Specifically, we cover all the FIs mentioned in the Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] as follows: $$I_{1}=Q_{16}, \enskip I_{2}=Q_{7}, \enskip I_{3}= Q_{11}.$$ The FIs $Q_{1}$, $Q_{3}$, $Q_{5}$, $Q_{6}$, $Q_{8}$, $Q_{9}$ are subcases of $I_{1}$; the $Q_{2}$, $Q_{4}$ are subcases of $I_{2}$; and finally $Q_{10}$ is a subcase of $I_{3}$. Not all the above FIs are independent. After a careful and exhausted study we have shown that all these FIs can be produced by the three parameterized FIs listed in Theorem \[The first integrals of an autonomous holonomic dynamical system\] section \[sec.tables.theorem\]. [^1]: This is the complete lift of $X$ in $TM$. [^2]: M. Lutzky, J. Phys. A 11, 249 (1978).\[Lutzky\] [^3]: W. Sarlet and F. Cantrijin, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 14, 479 (1981).\[Sarlet\] [^4]: W. Sarlet and F. Cantrijin, SIAM Review 23, 467 (1981).\[Sarlet Cantrijn 81\] [^5]: T.M. Kalotas and B.G. Wybourne, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 15, 2077 (1982).\[kalotas\] [^6]: E. Noether, Nachr. d. König. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, Math-phys. Klasse, 235 (1918) (translated in English by M.A. Tavel \[physics/0503066\]). \[noe1\] [^7]: G.P. Flessas, P.G.L. Leach and S. Cotsakis, Can. J. Phys. 73, 543 (1995).\[leachnoe1\] [^8]: M. Tsamparlis and A. Paliathanasis, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 275202 (2012).\[lew2\] [^9]: A. Paliathanasis and M. Tsamparlis, J. Geom. Phys. 62, 2443 (2012).\[p3\] [^10]: G. Darboux, Archives Neerlandaises (ii) 6, 371 (1901).\[Darboux\] [^11]: E.T. Whittaker, “A Treatise on the Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies”, Cambridge University Press, Ch. 12, (1937).\[Whittaker\] [^12]: G. Thompson, J. Math. Phys. 25, 3474 (1984). \[Thompson 1984 II\] [^13]: G. Thompson, J. Phys. A: Math Gen 17, 985 (1984). \[Thompson 1984\] [^14]: H. Stephani, “Differential Equations: Their Solutions using Symmetry”, Cambridge University Press, New York, (1989).\[StephaniB\] [^15]: A recent preliminary work along this line is the following: L. Karpathopoulos, M. Tsamparlis and A. Paliathanasis, J. Geom. Phys. 133, 279 (2018). \[Karp\] [^16]: Round brackets indicate symmetrization of the enclosed indices. A comma indicates partial derivative and a semicolon Riemannian covariant derivative. [^17]: M. Tsamparlis and A. Paliathanasis, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44(17), 175 (2011). \[TsaPal1\] [^18]: It is easy to show that the set $\{-K_{ab}\dot{q}^{b}-K_{a};K\}$ for a general QFI $I$ given by (\[FI.5\]) does satisfy the gauged Noether condition $\mathbf{X}^{[1]}L=\frac{df}{dt}$. [^19]: G. Thompson, J. Math. Phys. 27, 2693 (1986). \[Thompson 1986\] [^20]: E.G. Kalnins and W.M. Miller, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 11, 1001 (1980).\[KIalinis 1980\] [^21]: In the vector $L_{a}$ given by (\[FL.9a\]) AC is only the first part $S_{I}S_{J,a}$ whereas the second part $S_{I}M_{Aa}$ is not an AC because it does not satisfy the AC condition (\[FL9.a.3\]). The proof is as follows. $$(SM_{a})_{;bc}=-2S_{,(b}M_{c);a}+SM_{a;b;c} \label{N.1}$$where we have used that $M_{a}$ is a non-gradient KV that is $M_{a;b}=M_{[a;b]}.$ It is easy to show the identity $M_{(a;bc)}=0$. This is written$$M_{a;bc}+M_{a;cb}+\left( M_{b;ac}-M_{b;ca}\right) +\left( M_{c;ab}-M_{c;ba}\right) =0.$$Using Ricci identity $$M_{a;bc}-M_{a;cb}=R_{dabc}M^{d}=-R_{bcad}M^{d}$$and replacing in $(SM_{a})_{;bc}=-2S_{,(b}M_{c);a}+SM_{a;b;c}$ we find $$(SM^{a})_{;bc}-R^{a}{}_{bcd}(SM^{d})=2M_{;(b}^{a}S_{,c)} \label{n1}$$ which shows that the vector $S_{I}M_{Ja}$ does not satisfy the AC condition (\[FL9.a.3\]). [^22]: D. Garfinkle and E.N. Glass, Class. Quantum Grav. 27, 095004 (2010).\[Class KTs\] [^23]: R. Rani, S. Brian Edgar and A. Barnes, Class. Quantum Grav 20, 301 (2003).\[Barnes 2003\] [^24]: The vectors $L_a$ of the form (\[FL.9a\]) can be called master symmetries. They can be defined covariantly via the Schouten bracket as $[g,[g,L]]$. [^25]: M. Crampin, Rep. Math. Phys. 20, 31 (1984). \[Crampin\] [^26]: C. Chanu, L. Degiovanni and R.G. McLenaghan, J. Math Phys 47, 073506 (2006). \[Chanu\] [^27]: L. P. Eisenhart, “Riemannian Geometry”, Princeton University Press, (1949). \[Eisenhart\] [^28]: P.G.L. Leach and V.M. Gorringe, Phys. Lett. A 133, 289 (1988). \[Leach 1988\] [^29]: The calculations are the same for either $k>0$ or $k<0$. We continue for $k<0$ which is the case of the 3d harmonic oscillator. [^30]: See p. 271, section 49 in V.I. Arnold, ‘Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics’, Springer, (1989), proof in pp. 272-284. \[Arnold 1989\] [^31]: See Theorem 1, p.17, chapter II, paragraph 2 in V.V. Kozlov, Russ. Math. Surv., Turpion, 38(1), pp. 1-76 (1983). \[Kozlov 1983\] [^32]: See Theorem 3.4 in T.G. Vozmishcheva, J. Math. Sc. 125(4), 419 (2005). \[Vozmishcheva 2005\] [^33]: G.H. Katzin and J. Levine, J. Math. Phys. 26(12), 3080 (1985). \[KatzinLev1985\] [^34]: Equation (\[FL.1.e\]) is not necessary, because the integrability condition $K_{,[ab]}=0$ does not intervene in the calculations. [^35]: A brief comment on the commutation (Lie bracket) between a vector field $B^{a}$ and a gradient vector $V^{,a}$. $$\lbrack \mathbf{B},\mathbf{\nabla }V]^{a}=B^{b}V^{,a}{}_{,b}-V^{,b}B^{a}{}_{,b}= B^{b}V^{,a}{}_{;b}-V^{,b}B^{a}{}_{;b}\implies$$$$\lbrack \mathbf{B},\mathbf{\nabla }V]_{a}=B^{b}V_{;ab}-V^{,b}B_{a;b}=B^{b}V_{;ba}-B_{a;b}V^{,b}=\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}-B_{b;a}V^{,b}-B_{a;b}V^{,b}=\left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}-2B_{(a;b)}V^{,b}.$$ Therefore $$\lbrack \mathbf{B},\mathbf{\nabla }V]_{a}=0\iff \left( B_{b}V^{,b}\right) _{;a}=2B_{(a;b)}V^{,b}.$$ If $B^{a}$ is a KV such that $B_{a}V^{,a}=const$, then $B^{a}$ and $V^{,a}$ commute, i.e. $[\mathbf{B},\mathbf{\nabla }V]^{a}=0$. [^36]: It is much more convenient to follow this line of analysis because for $n > m+1$ equation implies directly that $C_{ab} = 0$ and the derived first integrals are non-quadratic. To be more specific these are the only non-quadratic first integrals for the case $n > m$, as for $n=m+1$ all the derived integrals are quadratic.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'There is a degeneracy in the radial velocity exoplanet signal between a single planet on an eccentric orbit and a two-planet system with a period ratio of 2:1. This degeneracy could lead to misunderstandings of the dynamical histories of planetary systems as well as measurements of planetary abundances if the correct architecture is not established. We constrain the rate of mischaracterization by analyzing a sample of [60]{} non-transiting, radial velocity systems orbiting main sequence stars from the NASA Exoplanet Archive (NASA Archive) using a new Bayesian model comparison pipeline. We find that [15]{} systems ( of our sample) show compelling evidence for the two-planet case with a confidence level of 95%.' author: - \| John H. Boisvert,$^{1}$ Benjamin E. Nelson,$^{2}$ and Jason H. Steffen$^{1}$[^1]\ $^{1}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,4505 S Maryland Parkway, Box 454002, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4002, USA\ $^{2}$CIERA – Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-3112, USA\ bibliography: - 'mnrasbib.bib' date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ' title: 'Systematic mischaracterization of exoplanetary system dynamical histories from a model degeneracy near mean-motion resonance' --- \[firstpage\] methods: data analysis – planetary systems – techniques: radial velocities Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ The architectures of planetary systems give insight into their formation and dynamical histories. For example, interactions with the protoplanetary disk tend to drive adjacent planets into first-order, mean-motion resonances (MMRs, such as the 2:1), while simultaneously damping their eccentricities to values that are difficult to measure [@LeePeale02; @Tinney06]. On the other hand, planet-planet scattering [@Chatterjee08; @FordRasio08] or Kozai-Lidov oscillations [@Kozai62; @Lidov62; @Fabrycky07] can produce single planets with eccentric orbits. While not all planetary systems must pass through these phases of disk migration or eccentricity growth, the system architectures that they produce rarely occur from in-situ formation. Thus, reliable estimates of their frequencies will reveal the relative importance of these processes in planet formation and evolution in general. For radial velocity (RV) observations in particular, the challenge in identifying the true system architecture is a degeneracy between two models—one with a single planet with eccentric orbits (single eccentrics) and one with two planets with circular orbits at the 2:1 (circular doubles) [@Angelada10; @Wittenmyer13]. Historically, the single-planet model has been favored on the grounds of Occam’s razor [@Kurster15], since a system with a single planet is simpler than a system with two. However, the circular double model has the same number of model parameters as single eccentrics (it is just as simple) and it is a consequence of dynamical processes known to occur. These facts motivate careful scrutiny of existing discoveries in order to properly characterize the systems. If circular doubles are more common than currently suggested, then disk-migration may be more important than previously thought [@Tinney06]. The source of the degeneracy between these models is in a first-order expansion of the RV signal of a single eccentric planet $$RV_{\mathrm{single}} \approx K \cos (M + \omega) + K e \cos (2M + \omega) + \mathcal{O}(e^2), \label{eq:SingleKeplerian}$$ where $RV_{\mathrm{single}}$ is the observed radial velocity, $K$ is the velocity semi-amplitude, $e$ is the eccentricity, $\omega$ is the longitude of periastron, and $M$ is the mean anomaly[, which is a function of time]{}. By comparison, the signal of a circular double is $$RV_{\mathrm{double}} = K_{\mathrm{out}} \cos (M_{\mathrm{out}}) + K_{\mathrm{in}} \cos(M_{\mathrm{in}}), \label{eq:CircularDouble}$$ where $RV_{\mathrm{double}}$ is the observed radial velocity, $K_{\mathrm{out}}$ and $K_{\mathrm{in}}$ are the velocity semi-amplitudes, and $M_{\mathrm{out}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{in}}$ are the mean anomalies. At the 2:1 MMR, $M_{\mathrm{in}}=2 M_{\mathrm{out}}$ and the inner planet signal ($K_{\mathrm{in}}$) masquerades as the eccentricity signal ($K e$) of the single planet. This degeneracy is widely known though rarely addressed. Nevertheless, there is precedent for reconsidering certain systems. For example, @Kurster15 reanalyzed RV data for HD 27894 and found that a circular double model was a better fit than the reported single eccentric model. Also, @Angelada10 [@Wittenmyer13], found similar results for several RV systems. At the same time, new measurements from the [Kepler]{} mission show that planet pairs near 2:1 are quite common. For example, using the method of @Steffen15 on the Kepler DR25 catalog [@Thompson17], we estimate that 20$\%$ of Kepler’s transiting adjacent planet pairs with period ratios between 1 and 6 are within ten percent of 2—including the most prominent peak of the period ratio distribution at 2.17 [@Steffen15]. Motivated by these new facts and the results of previous studies, we reanalyze a sample of [60]{} single eccentric planetary systems using a new Bayesian analysis pipeline in an effort to discover their true architectures. [Methods]{} {#sec:setup} =========== Our sample contains [60]{} systems and comprises every non-transiting RV system from the NASA Exoplanet Archive (NASA Archive), as of November 2016 [@Akeson13], that is listed as having only a single planet, orbiting a main sequence star, and whose system properties were derived from a single data set. [Our pipeline did not have the capability to analyze multiple datasets when the analysis began. We did not limit our sample by eccentricity.]{} Our main results will focus on the main sequence stars, but we will also report on an extended sample which ignores stellar type. The extended sample contains [95]{} systems, which is nearly a quarter of all RV-discovered single-planet systems. Figure \[fig:astellarcomparison-entire\] shows how we determine stellar types based on their reported surface gravity and how we select the main sequence sample. [The Pipeline]{} {#sec:pipeline} ---------------- Our pipeline estimates the Bayes factor—the ratio of the probabilities of the RV data given the circular double model and the single eccentric model—to quantitatively compare the two models. For each system we test four planetary system models: a single eccentric; two circular doubles (one with a period ratio fixed at 2 and the other fixed at 2.17—where there are two large peaks in the period ratio distribution from [Kepler]{} [@Steffen15]); and a “floating” circular double with no period ratio constraint. This last model has an additional model parameter, but the Bayes factor calculation can account for different numbers of model parameters. Our primary results work with the two fixed models given the compelling theoretical and observational reasons to consider them, the fact that the number of model parameters are identical (and thus more directly comparable), and because a narrow-band signal at a fixed period ratio is less susceptible to a false positive detection from stellar RV jitter or statistical noise. ![Stellar effective temperature vs.$\,\,$stellar surface gravity for the RV multi-planet systems from the NASA Archive as grey crosses and the [Kepler]{} multi-planet systems as blue circles. Our sample of 95 stars, ignoring stellar type, are orange diamonds. For our sample of main sequence stars we selecte those with $\mathrm{log}\,g\geq3.825$, there are 60 main sequence stars in the main sample and 95 stars in the entire sample.[]{data-label="fig:astellarcomparison-entire"}](Figure1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} The parameters for the single eccentric model are: period ($P$), velocity semi-amplitude ($K$), eccentricity ($e$), longitude of periastron ($\omega$), and mean anomaly at the time of the earliest RV measurement ($M_\mathrm{o}\equiv M(t_\mathrm{o})$). The parameters for the circular double models are: outer planet period ($P_{\mathrm{out}}$), the velocity semi-amplitude for the outer/inner planets ($K_{\mathrm{out}}$/$K_{\mathrm{in}}$), and mean anomaly at the time of the earliest RV measurement for the outer/inner planets ($M_{\mathrm{o,out}}$/$M_{\mathrm{o,in}}$). The floating circular double model includes the inner planet orbital period ($P_{\mathrm{in}}$). Each model also has a linear trend ($A$) and a velocity offset ($C$). Our model fitting is a three step process. First, we determine the starting values for our Markov Chain-Monte Carlo (MCMC) by maximizing the likelihood function: $$\mathrm{ln} \; P(t,RV,\sigma_{RV}\|\theta) = -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{n} \left [ \frac{(RV_n - \mathcal{M}(\theta,t_n))^2}{\sigma_{RV,n}^2} + \mathrm{ln} \; 2\pi\, \sigma_{RV,n}^2 \right ] \label{eq:likelihood}$$ where $t$, $RV$, and $\sigma_{RV}$ are the observed times, RV measurements, and RV errors. $\mathcal{M}$ is the RV model and $\theta$ are its associated parameters. We draw our set of initial conditions for the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) from the NASA Archive. [The time of periastron passage is used to determine the initial $M_{\mathrm{o}}$.]{} We first fit for $C$, fixing the other parameters at their nominal values and setting $A=0$. We next fit for $A$ and $C$ simultaneously. Some systems did not have $K$, $\omega$, and/or [the time of periastron passage]{} reported on the NASA Archive. In those cases, an MLE was done with the missing quantities as the only free parameters. We initialized the fixed circular double models to their first-order, single eccentric equivalent values using equations (\[eq:SingleKeplerian\]) and (\[eq:CircularDouble\]). For the floating circular double, the inner planet orbital period is initialized to either the 2:1 or the 2.17:1, depending on which fixed model produced a larger Bayes factor. The second step in our pipeline estimates the posterior distributions of the model parameters using an ensemble sampler MCMC [@DFM13]. Each run has thirty Markov chains, thins the chains every hundred steps, and ignores the first 20% of the chain as burn-in. We allow the chains to evolve until they yield a set of at least ten thousand independent samples per model per RV dataset. [We measure the autocorrelation length after each run to determine the number of independent samples. If the number of independent samples falls short of ten thousand, then the autocorrelation length is used to determine how many additional steps are needed to yield ten thousand independent samples and the [MCMC]{} is rerun with the new number of steps.]{} The different chains were initialized using the parameter values from the MLE, with each parameter scattered by a sufficiently small amount to allow the ensemble sampler to fill the posterior mode. We impose a modified Jeffery’s prior for the orbital period and velocity semi-amplitude: $p(X)=[(1+X)\times\mathrm{ln}(1+X_{\mathrm{max}}/X_0)]^{-1}$ with bounds between 0–10,000 days and 0–2,000 m s$^{-1}$ respectively and $X_0$ equal to 1 day and 1 m s$^{-1}$ respectively. We use this prior because it is normalizable, objective, and intended for scalable parameters that could have zero as a value. We use uniform priors for the remaining parameters, ($e$, $\omega$, $M_0$), because they are also normalizable and objective. We sample the parameters for the single eccentric model in {$P$, $K$, $\sqrt{e} \sin (\omega)$, $\sqrt{e} \cos (\omega)$, $\omega+M_0$}-space in order to maintain uniform priors [@DFMBen]. The prior bounds for $K$, $K_{\mathrm{out}}$, and $K_{\mathrm{in}}$ are between 0 and 2,000 m s$^{-1}$. The prior bounds for $P$, $P_{\mathrm{out}}$, and $P_{\mathrm{in}}$ are between 0 and 10,000 days. The prior bounds for $\sqrt{e} \, \sin (\omega)$ and $\sqrt{e} \cos (\omega)$ are such that $0 < (\sqrt{e} \sin (\omega))^2 + (\sqrt{e} \cos (\omega))^2<1$, i.e. $0<e<1$. The prior bounds for $(M_0+\omega)$, $M_{\mathrm{0,out}}$, and $M_{\mathrm{0,in}}$ are between -2$\pi$ and 4$\pi$. These limits allow the Markov chains to cross the 0 and 2$\pi$ coordinate singularities while remaining well-behaved. Furthermore, these values are modded by 2$\pi$ before doing any calculations. The prior bounds for $C$ are between -100,000 m s$^{-1}$ and 100,000 m s$^{-1}$ to accommodate the wide range in offset values in the real sample. Finally, we estimate the Bayes factors between the single eccentric model and the circular double models by taking the ratio of the fully marginalized likelihoods (FML, i.e. Bayesian evidence) for the two models. We approximate the FML using an importance sampling algorithm where the sampling distribution is informed by a set of posterior samples taken from the aforementioned MCMC [@Nelson16]. For each system we take the larger of the Bayes factor for the two fixed circular double models. In this context, importance sampling is essentially a general form of Monte Carlo integration to estimate the fully marginalized likelihood, $\mathcal{Z}$. The value of $\mathcal{Z}$ is the integral over the prior probability distribution $p(\theta)$ times the likelihood function $\mathcal{L}(\theta) \equiv p(t, RV, \sigma_{RV}\|\theta)$, i.e., $$\mathcal{Z} = \int p(\theta)\mathcal{L}(\theta)d\theta$$ We multiply the numerator and denominator of the integrand by $g(\theta)$, a distribution over the model parameters with a known normalization. $$\mathcal{Z}=\int \frac{\mathcal{L}(\theta)p(\theta)}{g(\theta)} g(\theta) d\theta. \label{eq-mcmcis-1}$$ Equation \[eq-mcmcis-1\] is in a form such that $\mathcal{Z}$ can be estimated numerically by drawing $N$ samples from $g(\vec{\theta})$, $$\widehat{\mathcal{Z}} \approx \frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{\theta_i \sim g(\theta)}\frac{\mathcal{L}(\theta_i)p(\theta_i)}{g(\theta_i)}. \label{eq-mcmcis-2}$$ The key to an accurate and efficient estimate of $\widehat{\mathcal{Z}}$ lies in choosing an appropriate $g(\theta)$. Assuming our parameter space contains one dominant posterior mode, we choose a multivariate normal $\mathcal{N}(\vec{\mu}_g, \vec{\Sigma}_g)$, where $\vec{\mu}_g$ and $\vec{\Sigma}_g$ describe the mean vector and covariance matrix of the model parameters respectively. After we perform an MCMC on a particular model/dataset, we can estimate $\vec{\mu}_g$ and $\vec{\Sigma}_g$ using a set of posterior samples. That information is fed into our importance sampling algorithm to estimate $\widehat{\mathcal{Z}}$ for that model. @Nelson16, @Guo12, and @Weinberg13 provide more detailed prescriptions and investigations of this method. [Pipeline Characterization]{} {#sec:pipelinecharacter} ----------------------------- We characterized the pipeline efficiency with an ensemble of 1,000 synthetic RV time series whose system and data properties match the real systems. We use the Bayes factors of these synthetic systems to characterize our model comparison pipeline. This Monte Carlo simulation was initialized as follows. The start time ($t_0$) is [a uniform]{} random [draw]{} between 1 and 1,000 days. The number of observations are drawn from the real systems with a normally-distributed adjustment with a standard deviation 10observation time series is produced by selecting a set of observation differences ($t_{i}-t_{i-1})$ from the real distribution of observation differences with a similar, normally-distributed 10We determine the orbital period ($P$) using the selected number of orbits and the observation time series. The velocity semi-amplitude ($K$) and the eccentricity ($e$) are separate random draws from the real systems. The mean anomaly of the start time ($M_0$) and argument of periastron ($\omega$) are randomly drawn between 0 and $2\pi$. The linear trend ($A$) is a 10We assume that the RV errors are normally distributed with a standard deviation that is the quadrature sum of stellar jitter and instrumental and photon noise. The instrumental and photon noise ($\sigma_{\text{RV}}$) are drawn randomly from the RV errors of the real systems and our error bars are assigned to this value. Steller jitter is selected from a log uniform distribution between 0.5 and 5 m s$^{-1}$. The observation errors are added to the synthetic RV measurement—not to the error in the RV measurement. Figure \[fig:parametercomparison\] shows the parameter distributions for the 1,000 synthetic time series and the real systems as reported in the NASA Archive. ![Property distributions for our sample of 95 real systems from the NASA Exoplanet Archive in orange and the 1,000 synthetic time series in blue.[]{data-label="fig:parametercomparison"}](Figure2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} The resulting Bayes factors from this characterization are shown as the blue distribution in Figure \[fig:bayesrealvssynthMS\]. The vertical lines denote the 95th and 90th percentiles of the distribution. The shape of the distribution is not symmetric, and the vast majority of our synthetic datasets favor the single-planet case—as expected since the synthetic systems were constructed to be single eccentrics. Real systems with Bayes factors larger than those thresholds may be circular double systems mischaracterized as single eccentrics. The approach outlined above is different from earlier studies. For example, @Wittenmyer13 used the reduced $\chi^2$ to determine the preferred model and refined their results with stability tests using the N-body integrator Mercury [@Chambers97]. @Angelada10 randomized individual sets of data to calculate the false positive rate per system. Their model selection was also based on the reduced $\chi^2$ of least-squares fitting. In this work, we use a fully marginalized likelihood to calculate the Bayes factor for the model comparison and we estimate our false positive rate by analyzing a large simulated dataset with our pipeline. ![The log Bayes factor distribution for the 1,000 synthetic single eccentric time series in blue and 60 real systems hosted by main sequence stars in orange. Here, we compare only the single eccentric model to the fixed, circular double model with the largest Bayes factor. The 95th and 90th percentiles are indicated with the dotted lines near a Bayes factor of 24 and 8, respectively. []{data-label="fig:bayesrealvssynthMS"}](Figure3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Results {#sec:results} ======= After analyzing our synthetic systems, we ran our sample of [60]{} real systems ([95]{} systems for the extended sample) through the same pipeline. Figure \[fig:bayesrealvssynthMS\] shows that the Bayes factor distributions for the synthetic and real systems (in orange) are not similar. We find that [15]{} () of the systems have Bayes factors larger than the 95th percentile of the synthetic systems. (For the extended sample of [95]{} systems the numbers are [30]{} and of the entire sample respectively.) [9]{} of these systems prefer the 2.17:1 model ([22]{} of the extended sample) while the remaining [6]{} ([8]{} from the extended sample) prefer the 2:1 model. Assuming a false positive rate of 5% from our 95% confidence level, our estimate of the number of false positives is 0.75 $\pm$ 0.87 (1.5 $\pm$ 1.2 for the extended sample). [The systems from the extended sample that prefer the fixed circular double model, the model parameters, and Bayes factors are shown in Table \[tab:Results\].]{} A CSV file containing the model parameters with errors for all four models, Bayes factors between the circular double models and the single eccentric model, and percentile of the best fixed model for each system in the extended sample are available online as [Table 2]{}. We examine the consequences of these potential discoveries on several distributions of planet properties. Figure \[fig:massvsperiodMS\] shows the planet mass vs.$\,\,$orbital period for known RV planets along with the new planets favored by our analysis orbiting main sequence stars. These potential new systems lie well within the range of values measured in known systems. We point out, however, that some systems may yet be false positives. For instance, there are a few [candidate circular double]{} systems that [would be]{} hot Jupiters (planet with $P \lesssim 10$ days) with interior companions. Presently, there is only a single known system (WASP-47 [@Becker15]) where a hot Jupiter has a known interior companion. And the period ratio in this case is over 5:1—far from the degeneracy we consider here. However, [the hot Jupiter has an]{} outer companion [with]{} a period ratio near 2.17. Figure \[fig:PRHistogramPlusMS\] shows how the predicted mass ratios for the main sequence systems that favor the two-planet model compare with the mass ratios for RV systems on the NASA Archive. ![Orbital period vs.$\,\,$planetary mass for all RV planets. Systems from the NASA Exoplanet Archive are in teal, with multi- and single-planet systems as open circles and crosses, respectively. Each system orbiting a main sequence star with a measured Bayes factor larger than 95th percentile of the synthetic systems are plotted in orange. Each putative system is represented by a line on the plot, with the diamonds as the inner planet and the circles are the outer companion. Systems that remain in the 95th percentile after including a white noise stellar jitter term are in black. We note that these results lie well within normal parameter values of known systems.[]{data-label="fig:massvsperiodMS"}](Figure4.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} ![Mass ratio distribution for all RV adjacent planet pairs in grey. The stacked, orange distribution are our systems with Bayes factors larger than 24 (95th percentile) around main sequence stars. The nature of the signal favors more massive outer planets. The black outline shows the systems that have stellar jitter included and still had Bayes factors larger than the 95th percentile.[]{data-label="fig:PRHistogramPlusMS"}](Figure5.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Our primary analysis does not include stellar jitter (even though our synthetic data has jitter added to the simulated data). We made this choice for a number of reasons. One is that since we are considering a fixed period ratio, only noise that occurs at that specific frequency could produce a spurious signal. Most sources of stellar noise occur on much different time-scales. The stellar rotation periods (typically ranging from 4–40 days, [@McQuillan14]) are shorter than the inner planet periods for most of these systems. Stellar p-mode oscillations have typical time-scales of 5-15 minutes [@Haywood15]. And, surface granulation variations last minutes to hours, with the largest granules remaining on the surface of stars for about a day [@DelMoro04; @Haywood15]. The time-scales of long term stellar activity arising from the cyclical appearance of starspots are on the order of years to decades [@Strassmeier09]. These facts support the interpretation that stellar noise is not the cause of the inner companion signal for the majority of our systems. Nevertheless, we did a separate analysis that included a white noise jitter term to all models and found that [5]{} of the [15]{} systems still remain in the 95th percentile of likely two-planet systems, [4]{} of which prefer the 2.17:1 architecture. Thus, even if we adopt the much more conservative approach—which assumes stellar jitter does indeed affect our data at precisely the relevant time scales—we still see a number of systems that favor the two-planet models. While our results are primarily from the fixed circular double models, we examined the results of a floating circular double model in order to estimate the likely distribution of orbital periods for the inner companion. We analyzed the real and synthetic systems with the floating circular double model and find an even larger portion of the systems that have Bayes factors above the 95th percentile—[19]{} systems, of the main sequence sample, ([41]{} systems, , of the extended sample) with an estimated false positive rate of 0.95 $\pm$ 0.97 (2.1 $\pm$ 1.4 for the extended sample). Of these [19]{} systems, [9]{} prefer the floating circular double model, [6]{} prefer the fixed 2.17:1 model, and the remaining [4]{} prefer the 2:1 double circular model. [4]{} systems remain in the 95th percentile when including stellar jitter in the model as a white noise term. We show the period ratio posteriors that result from this analysis for these [19]{} systems and the synthetic systems in Figure \[fig:PRHistogramMS\]. These histograms show the combined, period ratio posterior distribution from fitting the circular double model without a constraint on orbital periods to the [19]{} systems and to the synthetic systems. The distribution for the synthetic systems clearly shows the degeneracy at the location of the 2:1 MMR. If the real systems (in orange) were single-planet systems, then the expected distribution should be the same as for the synthetics. However, the two distributions differ significantly. In fact, the distribution for the real systems mirrors the period ratio distribution from the [Kepler]{} data [@Steffen15]. Most of the combined posteriors favor period ratios just wide of the 2:1 or between 2.15 and 2.2. Only a few systems preferred the circular double model near the 2:1 because the degeneracy is located at the 2:1 and the power to distinguish between the models diminishes. Thus, in that regime, more data with appropriate phase-sampling is essential to distinguish between the models. ![The posterior distributions for the period ratio when considering the inner planet period as a free parameter. The blue distribution is the 1,000 synthetic single eccentric systems. This distribution peaks at 2:1—the location of the degeneracy. The orange distribution is the 19 systems with Bayes factors larger than the 95th percentile thresholds that are hosted by main sequence stars.[]{data-label="fig:PRHistogramMS"}](Figure6.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Discussion & Conclusions {#sec:d&c} ======================== There are currently 395 confirmed [solitary]{} RV planets[,]{} and we reanalyzed about fifteen percent of them. Our extended sample contains nearly a quarter of the confirmed RV planets. [The distribution of eccentricities, periods, velocity semi-amplitudes, etc. of our extended sample is shown in Figure \[fig:parametercomparison\].]{} If the [15]{} systems in the main sequence sample ([30]{} systems in the extended sample) that we identify are indeed circular doubles, then they would increase the number of RV multi-planet systems by $\sim$12.5% ($\sim$25%) since there are 120 confirmed systems reported with at least [two planets]{} discovered by RV. They would also significantly alter the estimated mixture of these two architectures—shifting the relative importance of their implied dynamical histories. [If the fraction of misidentified single eccentrics in the entire NASA Archive is similar to the misidentification fraction seen in our sample]{}, then there could be as many as $\sim$100 planets missing, or $\sim$15% of the overall confirmed RV planets ($\sim$120 in the extended sample, or $\sim$18% of the overall confirmed RV planets). Moreover, the apparent propensity for some systems to cluster around period ratios near 2.17 is a further indication that there is something fundamental, but still unknown, that attracts planet pairs into this period ratio. We encourage observers to consider planning follow-up observations of these systems and make additional measurements at phases where the degeneracy is at its weakest. New observations near these phases could confirm or refute the existence of these putative interior companions. The success of such a campaign opens the door to identifying the architectures of the systems where the preferred model is still ambiguous. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ This research has made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program. http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu. The authors declare no competing interests. John H. Boisvert wrote the model fitting software, did the analysis, and wrote the paper. Jason H. Steffen assisted with doing the analysis and editing the paper. Benjamin E. Nelson wrote the analysis software. We would like to thank Dan Foreman-Mackey for valuable conversations. John H. Boisvert and Jason H. Steffen acknowledge support from NASA under grant NNH13ZDA001N-OSS issued through the Origins of Solar Systems program. Benjamin E. Nelson acknowledges support from the Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration and Research in Astrophysics (CIERA) and the Data Science Initiative at Northwestern University. \[lastpage\] [^1]: E-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We describe the preliminary design of a magnetograph and visible-light imager instrument to study the solar dynamo processes through observations of the solar surface magnetic field distribution. The instrument will provide measurements of the vector magnetic field and of the line-of-sight velocity in the solar photosphere. As the magnetic field anchored at the solar surface produces most of the structures and energetic events in the upper solar atmosphere and significantly influences the heliosphere, the development of this instrument plays an important role in reaching the scientific goals of The Atmospheric and Space Science Coordination (CEA) at the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE). In particular, the CEA’s space weather program will benefit most from the development of this technology. We expect that this project will be the starting point to establish a strong research program on Solar Physics in Brazil. Our main aim is acquiring progressively the know-how to build state-of-art solar vector magnetograph and visible-light imagers for space-based platforms to contribute to the efforts of the solar-terrestrial physics community to address the main unanswered questions on how our nearby Star works.' --- Introduction {#intro} ============ Living in the surroundings of the atmosphere of a highly variable star allows us to observe in high spatial and temporal resolution the universal processes that occur in its outer layers. This is our main motivation to propose the development of instruments and models to study the evolution of the magnetic structure of the Sun on timescales that range from seconds to millenia. The solar electromagnetic and corpuscular emissions are strongly modulated by the evolution of the solar magnetic field. Systematic observations of sunspots, since the invention of the telescope, are the main indicator that the solar activity changes on timescales from days to millennia. These changes drive long-term evolution of the heliosphere (space climate) as well as violent events (space weather). In particular, the near-Earth region is strongly affected by the evolution of the solar magnetic structure. Early observations of the sunspots clearly indicated that their presence on the solar surface varies cyclically with a period of approximately 11 years, the so-called solar activity cycle. Subsequently, it was observed that the latitudinal distribution of sunspots varies throughout the cycle and follows a pattern that begins at middle latitudes ($\pm 35^\circ$), reaches a maximum, and decays near the equator ($\pm 5^\circ$). Following a minimum of activity, the pattern repeats itself. Magnetic field is found at different spatial scales all over the solar surface. Most part of the magnetic flux is filamented into a range of flux tubes with field strength of 100mT while the largest photospheric magnetic flux tubes are sunspots with diameters between a few Mm and 50Mm, which represent the biggest accumulations of magnetic flux in the photosphere. Additionally, observations indicate that sunspots in the same hemisphere but belonging to distinct cycles have opposite polarities. Consequently, the predominant magnetic field signal in each hemisphere varies with a period of approximately 22 years. Dark features appearing on the solar surface (i.e. sunspots and pores) cause a detectable depletion in the flux density. This depletion occurs because intense magnetic fields within sunspots block the convection and decreases the transport of thermal energy from the base of the convection zone to the photosphere. The reduction of the temperature within the sunspots causes a reduction of the surface opacity. Note that the depletion depends on the relative position of the sunspot on the solar surface and the observer. The maximum depletion occurs when the sunspots are near the disk center and can be as large as $\sim$ 0.3%. On the other hand, small flux tubes (e.g., faculae) appear brighter than the surrounding average solar surface because their partially evacuated interior is efficiently heated by radiation from their surroundings in the deeper layers and, presumably, also by dissipation of mechanical energy in their higher atmospheric layers. Averaged over the whole Sun, the enhanced brightness of the magnetic elements dominates over the reduced energy flux in the sunspots, so that the total radiation output increases with growing magnetic flux in the photosphere. As a consequence, the brightness of the Sun increases by about 0.1% from minimum to maximum during the solar activity cycle (see e.g. [@Domingo2009-vie Domingo et al. 2009], [@froehlich2013-vie [Fr[ö]{}hlich]{} 2013]). Long-term changes of the solar activity are observed directly from, among other indices, the sunspot records and indirectly in natural archives such as cosmogenic isotopes. These proxies indicate periods of high (grand maxima) and low (grand minima) solar activity. These changes in the solar energy output clearly impact the Earth’s climate, although the relative role of the several drivers (solar, volcanic, anthropogenic, etc) are still under debate. We emphasize that these long-term changes impact not just the troposphere-land-ocean system, but also the neutral and ionized components of the middle and upper atmosphere ([@solanki2013-vie Solanki et al. 2013]). In spite of the increasing interest of the solar physics community to unveil the mechanisms responsible for such variations, still there is no complete physical explanation for the origin of the observed solar activity. So far the preferred paradigm used to explain the production and periodic occurrence of sunspots is the action of the magnetohydrodynamic dynamo driven by the differential rotation of the star and the convection of the magnetic field to the surface. At the moment, dynamo models can reproduce cyclic modulation of the Sun’s activity, and even some features of the 11-year sunspot cycle, but cannot explain the varying amplitudes of the maxima or long-term changes in the Sun’s magnetic activity. The magnetic field has also an important role as the driver and energy source for highly dynamical and energetic events such as flares and coronal mass ejections that take place in the outer layers of the solar atmosphere. Measurements of the full vector magnetic field result indispensable in order to answer the main open questions on the origin and evolution of such phenomena. In this context, we have proposed to develop a magnetograph and visible-light imager instrument in order to study the solar dynamo processes that give rise to the rich variety of phenomena observed at different layers of the solar atmosphere through observations of the surface magnetic field distribution. Instrument design ================= Figure \[optical\_design\] shows a schematic layout of the optical system of the Solar telescope. The instrument will observe the full solar disk in the Fe <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption lines at 525 nm or 630.2/630.1 nm, as already done by Hinode-SOT/SP ([@suematsu2008-vie Suematsu et al. 2008]). It consists of a German-equatorial Ritchey-Chrétien Telescope of 500 mm aperture and the focal length of 4000 mm (which makes an f/8 beam), a polarization selector, an image stabilization system, a narrowband tunable filter and two sCMOS cameras for orthogonal polarimetry. The specifications of the Ritchey-Chrétien telescope are presented in Table \[vieira-tab1\]. That configuration may reach a maximum resolution (diffraction limited) of approximately 2arcsec, that means without considering the contribution on smearing and blurring of the atmosphere. The field of view (FOV) of the instrument before the polarization module is about 69arcmin. ![Optical design employing a photorefractive crystal with a narrow-band holographic filter. Based on [@Keller1996-vie Keller & Harvey (1996)]. []{data-label="optical_design"}](tel01.eps) The light passing through the aperture is analyzed for polarization using a module that consists of two quarter-wave plates mounted on a high resolution rotary stage. These wave-plates, which are compound zero-order quartz wave-plates, are used to modulate the polarized light signals. The orientation of the wave-plates will be adjusted through a computer control to filter out desired Stokes parameters. A total of four measurement positions are required to measure the complete Stokes vector. We also need a polarization calibration unit consisting of a linear polarizer and a quarter wave plate (and perhaps an additional heat load rejection filter in front) that can be placed in front of the polarization modulator. These elements need to be rotated to various angles either manually or with a motorized mounting. The collimated beam will passes through a volume holographic grating (VHG) that will allow us to sample simultaneously up to 10 lines. The original concept was proposed by Christoph Keller and Jack Harvey ([@Keller1996-vie Keller & Harvey 1996]) in a prospective study for the NASA Solar Probe Mission. We point out that although VHGs were previously employed as a narrow-band filters for solar observations, magnetographs based on this concept were not yet implemented. Alternatively, the collimated beam will passes through a Lithium Niobate Fabry-Pérot Etalon. The filter package will be maintained in a temperature controlled box. The detector is a crucial item. With ground-based seeing, we need to simultaneously obtain both states of polarization emerging from the modulator and it is highly desirable to run the modulation as fast as possible to reduce seeing noise. In this way, we will employ a new so-called Scientific Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor (sCMOS) cameras. The cameras have been recently acquired through an international competition. The features and specifications required for the two sCMOS cameras were determined in order to satisfy the specification for the instrument. Specifically, the features required are determined by the spatial resolution, dynamic range, precision photometry and reading noise. In an initial phase, we propose to house the entire system on the roof-top of the CEA-II building at INPE’s Campus in São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil. The entire rail is proposed to be mounted in a German Equatorial mount. The individual modules will be fixed on movable plates, which will be then fixed on the optical rail at the desired locations. We are discussing the possibility to install in a second phase the telescope at the Observatório do Pico dos Dias, 1864 m height. The control software for the instrument will be developed in house using c and c++ languages. The images from the camera will be saved in FITS (Flexible Image Transport System) format as three-dimensional data cubes and visualized/processed using the MATLAB platform. [Model]{} [Ritchey-Chrétien]{} ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Aperture 500 mm Focal Length 4000 mm Focal Ratio f/8 Back Focus 365 mm Field of View 69 arc minutes Coating Coating with 96% Reflection Surface quality Wavefront higher than 95 strehl [Material for the primary and secondary mirrors]{} A lithium aluminosilicate glassceramic material with thermal expansion coefficient lower than 0.05x10-6 /K between 20C and 300C Main mirror optical diameter 500 mm Main mirror diameter 510 mm Main mirror thickness 60 mm Secondary mirror optical diameter 181 mm Secondary mirror diameter 186 mm Secondary mirror thickness 35 mm Mechanical structure material Aluminium and carbon fiber : Preliminary specifications for the Ritchey-Chrétien telescope.[]{data-label="vieira-tab1"} We are very grateful to Jack Harvey, Alexei A. Pevtsov, Valentin M. Pillet, Sanjay Gosain, Frank Hill, and Luca Bertello for the discussions/suggestions on the design of the proposed instrument. This work is partially supported by the National Institute for Space Research (INPE/Brazil). J. P. acknowledges funding from IAU to attend IAUS305 and UAH-travel grants. She also acknowledges projects AYA2013-47735-P and the JPI mobility grants program of Banco Santander. L. B. acknowledges FAPESP 2013/03085-7. L.E.A.V acknowledges funding from INPE’s Institutional Program (Projeto Institucional PCI-INPE) under the grant agreement no. 170115/2014-3 and 170177/2014-9. L.A.S also acknowledges the funding from the PCI-INPE (grant no. 313698/2014-7). A. D. L. acknowledges project CNPq 305351/2011-7. 2003, Introduction to Spectropolarimetry, Cambridge University Press. 2009, Space Sci. Revs 145, 337. 2013, Space Sci. Revs 176, 237. 2008, Solar Phys. 249, 233. 1996, Proc. SPIE, 2804, p. 14. 2013, ARa&A 51, 311. 2008, Solar Phys. 249, 197.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Gene expression dynamics satisfying given input-output relationships were investigated by evolving the networks for an optimal response. We found three types of networks and corresponding dynamics, depending on the sensitivity of gene expression dynamics: direct response with straight paths, amplified response by a feed-forward network, and cooperative response with a complex network. When the sensitivity of each gene’s response is low and expression dynamics is sloppy, the last type is selected, in which many genes respond collectively to inputs, with local-excitation and global-inhibition structures. The result provides an insight into how a reliable response is achieved with unreliable units, and on why complex networks with many genes are adopted in cells.' author: - Masayo Inoue$^1$ and Kunihiko Kaneko$^2$ title: 'Cooperative reliable response from sloppy gene-expression dynamics' --- Information processing based on the on$/$off behaviors of units is ubiquitous and essential in biological systems, such as in neural and gene regulatory systems. The response of each unit is not as reliable as digital units in computers and often shows a sloppy response. Then, the question arises as to how reliable information processing can be achieved with such sloppy units. Indeed, in his pioneering publication, von Neumann addressed such a question, with reliable computation from unreliable units, and proposed the majority rule by averaging the outputs of multiple unreliable units [@Neumann:1956aa]. This question is not restricted to computation by unreliable electronic elements or neurons. On$/$off behaviors are also common in gene expressions, from which cellular outputs depending upon inputs are generated. These expression dynamics are also not digital. The sensitivity of each expression is gentle compared to the step function. Indeed, the Hill coefficient $n$ representing this sensitivity is typically $2 \sim 4$ [@Becskei:2005aa; @Rosenfeld:2005aa; @Dekel:2005aa; @Kim:2008aa] (the step function is realized for $n \rightarrow \infty$). Then, how reliable output is generated from such sloppy gene expressions has to be explored. To explore the cellular input-output (I/O) behavior of gene expression patterns or other biochemical reactions, network analysis is often adopted. In particular, the roles of simple network motifs with a few nodes are widely identified. Considering simple on$/$off units and network motifs with a few nodes, appropriate I/O behaviors can be designed as in logical circuits. Indeed, such architecture is sometimes observed in biological networks [@Alon:2006aa; @Ma:2009aa]. If the units are digital, the desired output can be designed by simply combining the motifs. However, the question remains how reliable I/O behaviors are generated when sloppy units are adopted. Note that, in most real biological systems, the network structure is not as simple as expected from a series of network motifs. Paths in the gene regulatory network (GRN) are intermingled, and independent motifs are difficult to extract. For example, studies using DNA microarrays of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have shown that more than half of the genes in GRN respond to every environmental changes [@Gasch:2000aa; @Causton:2001aa; @Gasch:2002aa]. Moreover, their responses are often continuous, not digital, between on$/$off states. Several studies have shown that many genes (i.e., 50%–70%) exhibit adaptive responses (i.e. up-down or down-up transient response) with respect to the inputs [@Deutscher:2006aa; @Stern:2007aa; @Furusawa:2012aa]. These observations cannot be explained with a combination of motifs constituting logic circuits. Here we explore how expression dynamics by a regulatory network of multiple genes shape appropriate I/O relationships. By using a genetic algorithm for network selection, we uncover three distinct types of dynamics to achieve a proper I/O relationship: direct, feed-forward, and cooperative networks. In the cooperative type, a reliable I/O relationship is generated from units with low Hill coefficients, and local excitation and global inhibition (LEGI) are revealed as its characteristic behavior. ![(left) Schematic view of the GRN model. Each circle represents a gene with expression level $x_i$ and arrows with solid red lines (broken blue lines) show excitatory (inhibitory) interactions. The target gene ($k'=N-N_T+k$) should respond upon the external input on the input gene $k$ specifically. (right) Definition of our evaluation function. The input ($I_k$) is shown by the broken line, and the response of the corresponding target gene is shown by the solid line. $\overline{x_i^{ini}}$ and $\overline{x_i^{fin}}$ are defined as the average values over some time span. \[fig\_model\_network\]](fig_model_network.eps){width="85mm"} We adopt a simplified GRN model [@GLASS:1973aa; @MJOLSNESS:1991aa; @Salazar-Ciudad:2001aa; @Kaneko:2007aa; @Furusawa:2008aa; @Inoue:2013aa]. It is composed of $N$ genes as nodes in the network, which are divided into three types: $N_{I}$ input genes receiving external inputs, $N_{T}$ target genes providing the output and determining the fitness of the cell, and $N_{M}$ middle-layer genes (ML-genes) that transmit the input to the target ($N_{I} + N_{T} + N_{M} = N$). We consider one-to-one correspondences between an input and a target gene, so that we set $N_{I} = N_{T}$ by assigning the nodes $1, \dots, N_I$ as the input genes, $N-N_I+1, \dots, N$ as the target genes, while leaving others as ML-genes (Fig.\[fig\_model\_network\]). Below, we first present the result for $N=100$, $N_{I} = 5$ and $N_{M}=90$, and show the generality of the result later. Through suitable normalization, the expression level of a gene is represented by a variable $x_i =[0,1] (i=1, \dots, N)$, with the maximal expression level scaled to unity. The time evolution of the expression is given as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{dx_i}{dt} &=& \frac{1}{1+\exp \left[-\beta (y_i - y_T)\right]} - \gamma x_i, \label{eq_dynamics} \\ \gamma &=& 1+\frac{1}{N_{T}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_T} x_{N-N_T+j}. \label{eq_gamma}\end{aligned}$$ The first term in Eq.(\[eq\_dynamics\]) represents interactions with other genes, where $y_i = I_k \delta_{ik} + \sum_{j=1}^{N} C_{ij} x_j$ is the total signal that the $i_{th}$ gene receives with $\delta_{ik}$ as the Kronecker delta for $k=1, \dots, N_I$. $I_k$ shows the external input on the $k_{th}$ input gene. $C_{ij}$ represents the regulation from gene $j$ to $i$, with $1$ (excitatory), $-1$ (inhibitory), and $0$ (non-existent). Here the input genes do not receive regulation from others ($C_{ij}=0$ for $i=1, \dots, N_I$) and the target genes do not regulate others ($C_{ji}=0$ for $i=N-N_T+1, \dots, N$). $y_T$ denotes a constant threshold and $\beta$ determines response sensitivity corresponding to the Hill coefficient. For simplicity, we assume that all genes in a network have the same $y_T$ and $\beta$ values. As $\beta$ becomes larger, the first term approaches a step function with a threshold $y_T$. The second term represents degradation and we assume that the degradation depends on the total expression levels of the target genes (Eq.(\[eq\_gamma\])) (see below). Initially, the expression level of each gene is set to a randomly chosen level between $0$ and $1$, and evolves according to Eq.(\[eq\_dynamics\]) with $I_k=0 (k=1, \dots, N_I)$, until $x_i$ reaches a steady state. Then, the external input on a single input gene is applied at $t=0$, by switching to $I_{l}=I^{\ast}, I_j =0 (j\neq l)$. $I^{\ast}$ is set to $5$, whereas the results below are not affected as long as $I^{\ast} \gg y_T$. For evolution, the paths in the regulation matrix $C_{ij}$ are mutated and such a $C_{ij}$ is selected according to the following fitness condition: We assume that the target gene $N-N_T+k$ should respond following the application of $I_k$ ($k=1, \dots, N_I$), and the fitness is defined as the average of responses against each $I_k$. It is given as the difference between the final and initial expression levels of the corresponding target as $$\begin{aligned} fitness = \frac{1}{N_I} \sum_{k=1}^{N_I} (\overline{x_{N-N_T+k}^{fin}}- \overline{x_{N-N_T+k}^{ini}}). \label{eq_fitness}\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{x_j^{fin}}$ is the temporal average of $x_j$ between $T_1 < t < T_2$ for sufficiently large $T_1$ and $T_2$ and $\overline{x_j^{ini}}$ is the average between $-T_0 < t <0$. Note that Eq.(\[eq\_fitness\]) might allow for the trivial solution in which all target genes respond to any input, rather than a one-to-one response. To eliminate such a possibility, and also to take into account the cost of the expression, a punishment term is included in the definition of $\gamma$ in Eq.(\[eq\_gamma\]), so that the expression of target genes will give the dilution of each expression $x_i$ (one could also interpret that the cell volume increases in proportion to the expression of proteins). Hence, expressing all target genes will result in a decrease in the fitness. For the next generation, the network structure, i.e. the regulation matrix $C_{ij}$, is slightly modified by “mutation”, whereas the parameters are kept unchanged. In the mutation process, we fix the number of paths and swap the connection with a small mutation rate ($1$ or $3$ paths are mutated on average for every process). For each generation, $100$ networks are prepared and $25$ networks with the highest fitness (Eq.(\[eq\_fitness\])) are selected. From these, $100/25 = 4$ mutant networks are generated and the selection process is repeated with the $100$ newly generated networks as a simple genetic algorithm. After the evolution, the highest fitness with one-to-one correspondence between input-target pairs is achieved, regardless of $\beta$ and $y_T$ values. In an ideal situation, only the corresponding target gene responds by changing from $\overline{x_i^{ini}} =0$ to $\overline{x_i^{fin}} =x^{\ast}$. Then, the steady-state solution in Eq.(\[eq\_dynamics\]) with $\gamma = 1 + x^{\ast} / N_{I}$ leads to $x^{\ast} = (-N_{I} + \sqrt{N_{I} (N_{I} + 4)}) /2$ which is $\approx 0.85$ in the case of $N_{I} = 5$. The maximal fitness value of Eq.(\[eq\_fitness\]) is also given by $x^{\ast}$. ![Three types of behaviors of the ML-genes. The fittest networks with (a) $\beta = 100, y_T = 0.5$, (b) $\beta = 10^{1.5}, y_T = 0.875$, (c) $\beta = \sqrt{10}, y_T = 0.25$. (upper) $x_j (t) - \overline{x_j^{ini}}$ at $t=0, 1, \dots, 20$ as the abscissa is plotted by using the color map, with $j$ as the vertical axis, for the application of each $I_k$ ($k=1, \dots, 5$). (lower) Temporal changes in the expression levels of all $90$ ML-genes are overlaid when $I_1$ is applied. \[fig\_3dynamics\]](fig_3dynamics_map.eps){width="85mm"} The responses of the ML-genes do not affect the fitness function in Eq.(\[eq\_fitness\]) at all. However, according to their behaviors, three distinct types of the evolved dynamics are uncovered, depending on $\beta$ and $y_T$ values. In the first type that appears for a large $\beta$ and intermediate $y_T$, only a small number of ML-genes show monotonic increase. Each ML-gene responds to specific, usually only one, external inputs and remains unchanged for other inputs (Fig.\[fig\_3dynamics\] (a)). In the second type for large $\beta$ and large $y_T$, the number of responding ML-genes increases, but they still respond only to each specific input (Fig.\[fig\_3dynamics\] (b)). Some show monotonic increase or decrease, and few others show non-monotonic, adaptive responses between on- ($x_i \sim 1$) and off- ($x_i \sim 0$) states. Many (more than half) ML-genes do not respond to any inputs, even if they are connected to responding ML-genes, due to inhibitory regulations from others. In the third type, unlike the previous two types, almost all ML-genes respond whenever any external inputs occur. This type appears for small $\beta$ or small $y_T$ values. Each of the ML-genes shows different responses to different inputs. Not only monotonic but also adaptive responses are observed in both increasing and decreasing directions (Fig.\[fig\_3dynamics\] (c)). These three types show different characteristics in the network structure. Results from network motif analysis are shown in Supplemental Material $1$. However, the differences in the network structure are clearer when compared with a core structure; the core structure is obtained by removing a path randomly, one-by-one, as long as the corresponding target gene response to each input is preserved, even if it may be a bit lower (this condition is given by keeping $fitness > 0.7$) (Fig.\[fig\_3typenetwork\]). ![Typical example of each type of core structure. See text for the definition of a core structure. Gray and black circles show input and output genes, respectively, and the numbers indicate their correspondences. Red bold arrows represent excitatory regulations and blue dotted arrows denote inhibitory regulations. The same networks with Fig.\[fig\_3dynamics\] are used. \[fig\_3typenetwork\]](fig_network.eps){width="85mm"} The core structure of the first type simply connects an input gene and the corresponding target gene independently with a straight excitatory interaction (Direct type; Fig.\[fig\_3typenetwork\] (a)). Each input-target pair is connected via one or a few ML-genes. This is the type we can easily design as the fittest network with the current fitness condition, for digital units with large $\beta$. In the second type, a feed-forward (FF) network structure that independently connects each input gene to the corresponding target pair is formed. The external input is amplified with this FF structure, which is relevant to a unit with larger $y_T$ (FF-network type; Fig.\[fig\_3typenetwork\] (b)). The third type is not as simple as the previous two types and contains many ML-genes connected to each other, both with excitatory and inhibitory interactions (Cooperative type; Fig.\[fig\_3typenetwork\] (c)). No input-target pair is independent and most ML-genes are shared by several pairs. ![(left) The correspondence relation between input and target genes in the cooperative type. The $y_i$ values of target genes (ordinate) when each $I_k$ ($k=1, \dots, 5$) is applied (abscissa) are shown. Each target gene receives an excitatory regulation in the case of the corresponding $I_k$ and an inhibitory regulation on other occasions. (right) Simple network examples with the LEGI structure. The fitness values are $0.372$ (top) and $0.506$ (bottom) with $\beta = \sqrt{10}$ and $y_T = 0.25$. \[fig\_localactivation\]](fig_legi.eps){width="85mm"} In Fig.\[fig\_3typenetwork\] (c), all input genes are indirectly connected to all target genes and each input gene gives excitatory regulations ($y_i>y_T$) to the single corresponding target gene and inhibitory regulations ($y_i<y_T$) to other targets (LEGI; Fig.\[fig\_localactivation\]). In contrast, the core structures of the Direct and the FF-network types are composed only of the local-excitation, without global inhibition. However, simple networks artificially designed by local-excitation and homogeneous or random global-inhibitory regulations result in much lower fitness, $\sim 0.5$ at most (Fig.\[fig\_localactivation\]). Some delicately balanced inhibitory regulations in the evolved networks are essential for high fitness. The phase diagrams of the three types in terms of $\beta$ and $y_T$ are given in Fig.\[fig\_sozu\]. The phase boundaries are estimated as follows: Let $J(y)=1/(1+exp[-\beta(y-y_T)])$ from Eq.(\[eq\_dynamics\]). First, if the slope of $J(y)$ at $y=y_T$ that determines the on$/$off sensitivity of each gene is less than unity, a cooperative effect from multiple genes is needed to create an on$/$off response. Hence, the non-cooperative types exist for $\frac{dJ}{dy_i} (y_T) > 1$, i.e. for $\beta >4$. Second, to achieve a high fitness value, $\overline{x_{N-N_T+k}^{ini}} \sim 0$ is needed. For a steady-state expression level without an interaction term, this postulates $J(0) \sim 0$ (i.e., for non-cooperative types), whereas inhibitory regulations from ML-genes are necessary if $J(0)\gg 0$ (the Cooperative type). Third, $J(x^{\ast}) / \gamma$ gives an expression level of a gene that receives an excitatory regulation from a single highly expressed gene, where $x^{\ast}$ is the maximal steady-state expression level as already defined. For the Direct type, high expression just by a single regulation is needed, i.e., $J(x^{\ast}) \sim1$ (or $\gg y_T$), otherwise signal amplifications are necessary ($J(x^{\ast}) \ll 1$; the FF-network type). The latter two conditions are estimated by approximating $J(y)$ by $\tilde{J}(y)=0 (y \leqslant y_T - \frac{2}{\beta}), \ \frac{\beta}{4} (y - y_T) +\frac{1}{2} (y_T - \frac{2}{\beta} \leqslant y \leqslant y_T + \frac{2}{\beta}), \ 1 (y_T + \frac{2}{\beta} \leqslant y) $. Accordingly, the boundaries are estimated as follows: $\tilde{J}(0) \sim 0$ leads to $y_T = \frac{2}{\beta}$, and $\tilde{J}(x^{\ast})\sim1$ leads to $y_T = x^{\ast} - \frac{2}{\beta}$. Hence, besides the line $\beta = 4$, the curve $y_T = \frac{2}{\beta}$ gives a boundary between the Cooperative and other two types, and the curve $y_T = x^{\ast} - \frac{2}{\beta}$ gives that between the Direct and the FF-network types. These simple estimations of the phase boundaries, as depicted in Fig.\[fig\_sozu\], roughly agree with the numerical result. Finally, it is interesting to note that around the boundary of the FF-network and the Cooperative types, a mixed network evolves with a core structure combining $5$ feed-forward subnetworks to one (Supplemental Material 2). ![Phase diagrams with regard to $\beta$ (abscissa) and $y_T$ (ordinate). Phase diagram based on the core structures (top left); Direct type (purple $+$), FF-network type (green $\times$), and Cooperative type (blue $\ast$). The number ratio of responding ML-genes (top right), fitness value of core structures (bottom left), and total number of genes for constructing core structures (bottom right) are shown by using three fittest networks independently evolved with each $\beta$ and $y_T$ value. \[fig\_sozu\]](fig_sozu.eps){width="85mm"} In this letter, we show that the optimal network structure for information processing differs depending on its units’ reliability defined by the response sensitivity $\beta$ corresponding to the Hill coefficient and the threshold $y_T$. Direct paths connecting an input and a target gene straightforwardly in a line are sufficient when units are reliable (large $\beta$ and intermediate $y_T$; Direct type) whereas FF-network for signal amplification evolve when $y_T$ is larger (FF-network type). In these two types, each I/O relationship is achieved independently. On another front, networks that achieve the I/O relationships collectively are selected for units with smaller $\beta$ (Cooperative type). All target genes are connected to all input genes exhibiting LEGI. We have also confined the generality of the three phases we found here, in particular, the Cooperative type for small $\beta$ (Supplemental Material 3). First, the three phases exist regardless of $N_I$ and $N_M$, although there exists a lower bound for $N_M$ to achieve the Cooperative type. Furthermore, the dependence of the boundary between the Direct and the FF-network types upon $N_I$ is in agreement with the estimate based on $x^{\ast}$. Second, even if a constant $\gamma$ is adopted instead of Eq.(\[eq\_gamma\]), the three phases are obtained by revising the fitness so that the single corresponding target gene is expressed. It is interesting to note that the Cooperative type shows characteristic features common with those observed in biological systems. First, a many-to-many correspondence between external inputs and ML-genes; almost all the ML-genes respond to a variety of different inputs. Such a relationship has been reported in the expression patterns of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Diverse responses far beyond the Direct or FF-network types have been observed [@Gasch:2000aa; @Causton:2001aa]. Moreover, many gene expressions are known to exhibit adaptive, non-monotonic transient responses as a result of complex regulations, as found in our study. Previously, cooperative adaptive responses in complex GRNs with many genes were revealed to achieve adaptive behavior as outputs [@Inoue:2013aa]. Here, we found that cooperative responses were relevant, just to create simple I/O relationships with sloppy units. The response sensitivity of each unit in our model and in the Hill equation can be related as $n \sim \beta y_T$ [@hill]. Note that in the gene expression in a cell, the Hill coefficient is typically $2 \sim 4$ [@Becskei:2005aa; @Rosenfeld:2005aa; @Dekel:2005aa; @Kim:2008aa], which corresponds to near the boundary of the cooperative phase in Fig.\[fig\_sozu\]. Cooperative response by an intermingled network of many elements will be a general strategy in cellular systems. The collective and reliable computation with unreliable units was pioneered by von Neumann, where error correction by the simple averaging of such units was adopted [@Neumann:1956aa]. In contrast, the cooperative response we uncovered here adopts the LEGI network, where the balance between local excitation and global inhibition is a key feature. Indeed, such a global inhibition in space was often adopted in biological systems as the global diffusion of inhibitors [@Levchenko:2002aa; @Takeda:2012aa; @Wang:2012aa; @Nakajima:2014aa], whereas the global inhibition in our study is shaped in the network space. Detection of the LEGI structure by the global analysis of gene expression patterns and cellular pathways will be important in the future. Many networks in biological systems are huge and complex, and look redundant for the demanded function. It is often pointed out that such redundant networks are relevant in terms of robustness to mutations or noise [@Kaneko:2007aa; @Wagner:2000aa; @Wagner:2007]. Our result provides another perspective: achievement of appropriate I/O relationships from unreliable, sloppy units. MI was supported by Shiseido Female Researcher Science Grant. This research was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S) (15H05746) and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas (17H06386) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan. [50]{} J. von Neumann, Automata Studies (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1956), pp. 43-98. A. Becskei, B. B. Kaufmann, and A. van Oudenaarden, Nat. Genet. 37, 937 (2005). N. Rosenfeld, J. W. Young, U. Alon, P. S. Swain, and M. B. Elowitz, Science 307, 1962 (2005). E. Dekel and U. Alon, Nature 436, 588 (2005). H. D., Kim and E. K. O’Shea, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15, 1192 (2008) U. Alon, An introduction to systems biology: Design principles of biological circuits. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006). W. Ma, A. Trusina, H. El-Samad, W. A. Lim, and C. Tang, Cell 138, 760 (2009). A. P. Gasch, P. T. Spellman, C. M. Kao, O. Carmel-Harel, M. B. Eisen, G. Storz, D. Botstein, and P. O. Brown, Mol. Biol. Cell 11, 4241 (2000). H. C. Causton, B. Ren, S. S. Koh, C. T. Harbison, E. Kanin, E. G. Jennings, T. I. Lee, H. L. True, E. S. Lander, and R. A. Young, Mol. Biol. Cell 12, 323 (2001). A. P. Gasch and M. Werner-Washburne, Funct. Integr. Genomics 2, 181 (2002). J. Deutscher, C. Francke, and P. W. Postma, Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 70, 939 (2006). S. Stern, T. Dror, E. Stolovicki, N. Brenner, and E. Braun, Mol. Syst. Biol. 3, 106 (2007). C. Furusawa and K. Kaneko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 208103 (2012). L. Glass and S. A. Kauffman, J. theor. Biol. 39, 103 (1973). E. Mjolsness, D. H. Sharp, and J. Reisnitz, J. theor. Biol. 152, 429 (1991). I. Salazar-Ciudad, S. A. Newman, and R. V. Sole, Evol. Dev. 3, 84 (2001). K. Kaneko, PLoS ONE 2, e434 (2007). C. Furusawa and K. Kaneko, PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e3 (2008). M. Inoue and K. Kaneko, PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003001 (2013). The sensitivity in input-output relation for $y=f(x)$ can be estimated by $d (logy) / d (logx) = (x/y) (dy/dx)$. The sensitivity at the half-maximal point (i.e., $f(x) =0.5$ for the function $0 \le f(x) \le 1$) is given by $\beta y_T$ for our model $f(x) = 1/(1+\exp \left[-\beta (x - y_T)\right]) $ and $n$ for the Hill equation $f(x) = \theta x^n/(K^n + x^n)$. A. Levchenko and P.A. Iglesias, Biophysical Journal 82, 50 (2002) K. Takeda, D. Shao, M. Adler, P. G. Charest, W. F. Loomis, H. Levine, A. Groisman, W.-J. Rappel, and R. A. Firtel, Sci Signal. 5(205), ra2 (2012) C. J. Wang, A. Bergmann, B. Lin, K. Kim, and A. Levchenko, Sci Signal. 5(213), ra17 (2012) A. Nakajima, S. Ishihara, D. Imoto, and S. Sawai, Nat Commun. 5, 5367 (2014). A. Wagner, Nat. Genet. 24, 355 (2000). A. Wagner, Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems. (Princeton University Press, 2007).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
A LAGRANGIAN FOR DSR PARTICLE AND THE ROLE OF NONCOMMUTATIVITY Subir Ghosh\ Physics and Applied Mathematics Unit,\ Indian Statistical Institute,\ 203 B. T. Road, Calcutta 700108, India. \ In this paper we have constructed a coordinate space (or geometric) Lagrangian for a point particle that satisfies the exact Doubly Special Relativity (DSR) dispersion relation in the Magueijo-Smolin framework. Next we demonstrate how a Non-Commutative phase space is needed to maintain Lorentz invariance for the DSR dispersion relation. Lastly we address the very important issue of velocity of this DSR particle. Exploiting the above Non-commutative phase space algebra in a Hamiltonian framework, we show that the speed of massless particles is $c$ and for massive particles the speed saturates at $c$ when the particle energy reaches the maximum value $\kappa $, the Planck mass. Motivated by ideas from quantum gravity [@planck] an extension of Special Theory of Relativity, known as Doubly (or Deformed) Special Relativity (DSR) [@am], has been proposed. Indeed, it should be emphasized that, (as in Special Theory of Relativity), DSR is also based on the sacred (Einsteinian) relativity principle of inertial observers, that automatically removes the idea of a preferred reference frame (see for example [@gr]). However, unlike Special Theory of Relativity, that has a single observer-independent scale - the velocity of light $c$ - in DSR there are [[two]{}]{} observer-independent scales: a length scale, ($\sim$ Planck length?) and the velocity of light $c$. This construction generalizes the conventional energy-momentum dispersion relation to $p^2=m^2 +F(\kappa , ..)$ where $m$ is the rest mass and the extension function $F$ depends on a new parameter $\kappa $ (besides the existing variables and parameter). $\kappa $ is related (may be) to the Planck mass. However, in the limit $\kappa \rightarrow \infty$ one recovers the relation $p^2=m^2$. This additional mass scale $\kappa $ plays crucial roles in two very different contexts: The new dispersion relation is useful in explaining observations of ultra-high energy cosmic ray particles and photons, that violate the GZK bound [@am1]. Note that one can “solve” these Threshold Anomaly problems by introducing explicitly Lorentz symmetry violating schemes but this is possible only at the cost abundoning the Relativity Principle. At the same time, existence of a length scale is directly linked to the breakdown of spacetime continuum and the emergence of a Non-Commutative (NC) spacetime (below [[e.g.]{}]{} Planck length) [@dfr; @sn; @rev]. Once again, this is in accord with the Relativity Principle since all inertial observers should agree to the (energy) scale that signals the advent of new physics, (maybe) in the form of an underlying NC spacetime structure and its related consequences. In this paper we will focus on the second aspect, after constructing a dynamical model for a DSR particle. The theoretical development in this area so far has been mainly kinematical in the sense that various forms of the generalized dispersion relation ([[i.e.]{}]{} forms of $F$) have been suggested that are consistent with $\kappa $-dependent extentions of Poincare algebras [@dsr2; @mag; @kow]. However, a satisfactory geometrical picture of the model, in terms of a [[coordinate space Lagrangian]{}]{}, so far has not appeared. In the present work we have provided such a Lagrangian that can describe a particular form of DSR dispersion relation, known as the Magueijo-Smolin (MS) relation [@mag], $$p^2=m^2[1-\frac{(\eta ^\mu p_{\mu})}{\kappa} ]^2, \label{m}$$ where $\eta^0=1,\vec \eta =0$. In (\[m\]), $p_0=\kappa $ provides the particle energy upper bound, which can be identified with the Planck mass. A first step in model building was taken in [@sg] where the system described the MS particle only for $m=\kappa $. The model presented here is valid for the exact MS relation (\[m\]). The other important issue is the connection between this particle model with a Non-Commutative (NC) spacetime (or more generally phase space) [@rev; @dsr2; @mag; @kow]. Exploiting the notion of duality in the context of Quantum Group ideas, it has been demonstrated [@dsr2; @mag; @kow] that each DSR relation is [[uniquely]{}]{} associated with a particular form of NC phase space. More precisely, a DSR relation is Casimir of a particular $\kappa $-deformed Poincare algebra and the latter is connected to an NC phase space in a unique way. In particular, the MS relation is related to a specific representation of $\kappa $-Minkowski NC phase space [@dsr2; @mag; @kow]. From a different perspective, one can directly obtain the phase space algebra of a point particle model simply by studying its symplectic structure (in a first order phase space Lagrangian formulation [@fj]) or by performing a constraint analysis in a Hamiltonian framework [@dirac]. The most popular example in this connection is the canonical NC Moyal plane that one gets in studying the planar motion of a charge in a large perpendicular magnetic field [@rev]. Generation of NC phase space with Lie algebraic forms of noncommutativity have appeared in [@g]. The motivation of our work is also to see in an explicit way how the connection between a DSR relation and a specific NC phase space is uniquely established, in a dynamical framework, as an alternative to the Quantum Group duality approach [@dsr2; @mag; @kow]. The conclusion drawn from our present analysis of an explicit model is quite interesting. We find that, for a modified dispersion relation (such as DSR mass-energy law) appearance of a modified phase space algebra (or an NC phase space) is [[necessary]{}]{} but the association between a DSR relation and an NC phase space is [[not]{}]{} unique. The first assertion is originated from a subtle interplay between Lorentz invariance and the DSR dispersion relation in question. The non-uniqueness in the choice of NC phase space is due to the gauge choice and relative strengths of the parameters. In the present work we demonstrate that the MS law is consistent with an NC phase space algebra that is more general than the $\kappa $-Minkowski. This is a new and mixed form of NC phase space algebra that interpolates between [[two]{}]{} Lie algebraic structures: Snyder [@sn] and $\kappa $-Minkowski (in MS base) [@dsr2; @kow]. The important question of three velocity of the particle appears is answered very clearly in our dynamical framework. Our results show that the massless particles move with $c$ and the maximum speed of massive particles is also $c$, when their energy reaches the upper bound $\kappa $ and there are subtle $\kappa$-efects for the general case. These conclusions agree with [@das]. Let us start with the Lagrangian of our proposed model of an MS particle, $$L=\frac{m\kappa}{\sqrt{\kappa^{2}-m^{2}}}[g_{\mu\nu}\dot x^{\mu}\dot x^{\nu}+\frac{m^2}{\kappa^{2}-m^{2}}(g_{\mu\nu}\dot x^{\mu}\eta^{\nu})^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{m^2\kappa}{\kappa^{2}-m^{2}}g_{\mu\nu}\dot x^{\mu}\eta^{\nu}$$ $$\equiv \frac{m\kappa}{\sqrt{\kappa^{2}-m^{2}}}\Lambda - \frac{m^2\kappa}{\kappa^{2}-m^{2}}(\dot x\eta ). \label{01}$$ Here $g_{\mu\nu}$ represents the flat Minkowski metric $g_{00}=-g_{ii}=1$. We have adopted the shorthand notation $(AB)=g_{\mu\nu}A^{\mu}B^{\nu}$ and $c=1$.. First we derive the DSR dispersion relation. The conjugate momentum is $$p_{\mu}\equiv \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x^\mu}=\frac{m\kappa}{\sqrt{\kappa^{2}-m^{2}}}\frac{(\dot x_\mu +\frac{m^2}{\kappa ^2-m^2}(\dot x\eta)\eta_{\mu})}{\Lambda}-\frac{m^2\kappa}{\kappa^{2}-m^{2}}\eta^{\nu}. \label{m4}$$ It is straightforward to check that (\[m4\]) satisfies the MS dispersion law (\[m\]). The structure of a point particle model of the kind (\[01\]) is new and is one of our main results. We note that the last term (although being a total derivative) and the specific overall scale factor in (\[01\]) is required to yield the MS relation (\[m\]). Let us now discuss why the NC phase space is necessary. To begin with, one can construct the above Lagrangian from the first order form, $$L=(\dot x p)-\frac{\lambda}{2}[p^2-m^2(1-\frac{(\eta p)}{\kappa} )^2], \label{02}$$ by eliminating $\lambda $ and $p_\mu $. In (\[02\]) $\lambda $ plays the role of a multiplier that enforces the MS mass-shell condition. The symplectic structure in (\[02\]) clearly suggests a canonical phase space with the only non-trivial Poisson bracket $\{x_{\mu},p_{\nu}\}=-g_{\mu\nu}$. But notice that the MS law is [[not]{}]{} compatible with Lorentz invariance if one employs a canonical phase space. Quite obviously the Lorentz generator $J_{\mu\nu}=x_\mu p_\nu - x_\nu p_\mu $ transforms $x_\sigma $ and $p_\sigma $ properly, $$\{J_{\mu\nu},x_\sigma \}=g_{\nu \sigma }x_\mu -g_{\mu \sigma }x_\nu ;~~\{J_{\mu\nu},p_\sigma \}=g_{\nu \sigma }p_\mu -g_{\mu \sigma }p_\nu , \label{lor}$$ but it fails to keep the MS dispersion law invariant, $$\{J_{\mu\nu}, (p^2-m^2(1-\frac{(\eta p)}{\kappa})^2) \}=-\frac{2}{\kappa }(1-\frac{(\eta p)}{\kappa})(\eta _\mu p_\nu -\eta _\nu p_\mu ). \label{lor1}$$ The remedy is to introduce a modified or NC phase space algebra that is consistent with the present Lagrangian structure (\[01\]) and keeps the MS relation invariant. This is possible thanks to the $\tau$-reparameterization invariance of the Lagrangian (\[01\]), which is evident from the vanishing Hamiltonian, $$H=(p\dot x)-L=0. \label{hh}$$ This local gauge invariance allows us to choose appropriate gauge fixing conditions such that specific forms of NC phase space structures are induced via Dirac Brackets [@dirac]. In the terminology of Dirac, the non-commuting constraints are termed as Second Class Constraints (SCC) and the commuting constraints, that induce local gauge invariance, are First Class (FCC). In the presence of SCCs $(\psi_{1},\psi_{2})$ that do not commute, $\{\psi_1 ,\psi _2 \}\ne 0$, the Dirac Brackets are defined in the following way, $$\{A,B\}^=\{A,B\}-\{A,\psi _i\}\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}^{-1}\{\psi _j,B\}, \label{n4}$$ where $\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}$ refers to the constraint matrix. From now on we will always use Dirac brackets and refer them simply as $\{A,B\}$. In the present instance, the MS mass-shell condition (\[m\]) is the only FCC present and there are no SCC. We choose the gauge, $$\psi _1 \equiv (xp)=0, \label{di}$$ that has been considered before [@g; @gauge] in similar circumstances. Together with the mass-shell condition (\[m\]), $\psi _2 \equiv p^2-m^2(1-(\eta p)/\kappa)^2= 0$ they constitute an SCC [@dirac] pair with the only non-vanishing constraint matrix element $\{\psi_1 ,\psi _2 \}=-m^2(1-(\eta p)/\kappa )$. Hence the Dirac brackets follow: $$\{x_\mu ,x_\nu \}=\frac{1}{\kappa}(x_\mu \eta_{\nu}-x_\nu \eta_{\mu })+\frac{1}{m^2(1-(\eta p)/\kappa)}(x_\mu p_{\nu}-x_\nu p_{\mu }),$$ $$\{x_{\mu},p_{\nu}\}=-g_{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{\kappa}\eta_{\mu}p_{\nu}+\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{m^2(1-(\eta p)/\kappa)},~~\{p_{\mu},p_{\nu}\}=0. \label{03}$$ Performing an (invertible) transformation on the variables, $$\tilde x_\mu =x_\mu -\frac{1}{\kappa }(x\eta )p_\mu , \label{04}$$ we find an interesting form of algebra that interpolates between Snyder [@sn] and $\kappa $-Minkowski [@am; @dsr2; @kow]: $$\{\tilde x_\mu , \tilde x_\nu \}=\frac{1}{\kappa }(\tilde x_\mu \eta _\nu -\tilde x_\nu \eta _\mu )+\frac{\kappa ^2 -m^2}{\kappa ^2 m^2}(\tilde x_\mu p_\nu -\tilde x_\nu p _\mu ),$$ $$\{\tilde x_\mu , p_\nu \}= -g_{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{\kappa }(p_\mu \eta _\nu +p_\nu \eta _\mu )+\frac{\kappa ^2 -m^2}{\kappa ^2 m^2}p _\mu p_\nu ~,~\{p_\mu , p_\nu \}=0. \label{05}$$ In absence of the $1/\kappa $-term or the $(\kappa ^2 -m^2)/(\kappa ^2 m^2)$-term, one obtains the Snyder [@sn] or the $\kappa $-Minkowski algebra [@dsr2; @kow], respectively. We now show that the novel phase space algebra (\[05\]) is indeed consistent with Lorentz invariance. With $J_{\mu\nu}=\tilde x_\mu p_\nu - \tilde x_\nu p_\mu $ and using (\[05\]), one can easily compute, $$\{J_{\mu\nu},(p^2-m^2(1-\frac{(\eta p)}{\kappa })^2)\}=2 (p^2-m^2(1-\frac{(\eta p)}{\kappa })^2) \approx \psi _2(\eta _\mu p_\nu -\eta _\nu p_\mu ), \label{50}$$ so that the MS relation is Lorentz invariant on-shell. Next, using (\[05\]), we check that the Lorentz algebra is intact, $$\{J^{\mu\nu },J^{\alpha\beta }\}=g^{\mu\beta }J^{\nu\alpha }+g^{\mu\alpha }J^{\beta \nu}+g^{\nu\beta }J^{\alpha\mu }+g^{\nu\alpha }J^{\mu\beta }. \label{51}$$ This, in itself, is expected since individually both Snyder [@sn] and $\kappa $-Minkowski [@dsr2] algebras does not modify the Lorentz sector, but all the same it is reassuring to note that the mixed form (\[05\]) also has this property. However, Lorentz transformations of $x_\mu$ and $p_\mu $ are indeed affected, $$\{J^{\mu\nu},\tilde x^\rho \}=g^{\nu\rho}\tilde x^\mu-g^{\mu\rho}\tilde x^\nu -\frac{1}{\kappa } (\eta^\mu J^{\rho\nu}-\eta^\nu J^{\rho\mu })~;~ \{J^{\mu\nu},p^\rho \}=g^{\nu\rho}p^\mu -g^{\mu\rho}p^\nu -\frac{1}{\kappa }(\eta^\nu p^\mu-\eta^\mu p^\nu)p^\rho . \label{52}$$ Notice that only the $\kappa $-Minkowski part of the algebra (\[05\]) is responsible for the above modified forms and also that the extra terms appear only for $J^{0i}$ and not for $J^{ij}$ so that only boost transformations are changed. This concludes our discussion on the construction of MS particle Lagrangian and its associated NC phase space. We now address the very important issue of speed of the $\kappa $-particle [@das]. We stress that, since we have an explicit Lagrangian construction, the definition of velocity is very natural and unambiguous in this scheme. We extract the Hamiltonian $ p_0$ from the MS mass shell condition (\[m\]), $$p_0=\frac{\kappa}{(\kappa ^2-m^2)}(-m^2+(\kappa ^2m^2+(\kappa ^2-m^2)\vec p^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}) \label{h}$$ with $p_0\sim \sqrt{m^2+\vec p^2}$ as $\kappa \rightarrow \infty $. Next, exploiting the NC algebra (\[05\]), we derive the particle dynamics: $$\dot {\tilde x_0}\equiv \{\tilde x_0,p_0\}=\frac{\vec p^2}{m^2}~;~~\dot {\tilde x_i}\equiv \{\tilde x_i,p_0\}=\sqrt{(1+\frac{(\kappa^2-m^2)}{\kappa ^2m^2}\vec p^2)}\frac{p_i}{m}. \label{h1}$$ As a consistency check, note that (\[h1\]) can be directly read off from the $\{\tilde x_\mu,p_\nu \}$ bracket given in (\[05\]). The natural definition for three velocity [@das], $v_i\equiv \dot {\tilde x_i}/\dot {\tilde x_0}$, is not naively applicable in the present case as it does not lead to normal particle velocity in the $\kappa \rightarrow \infty $ limit. However, this is not surprising since we have used a non-standard gauge choice (\[di\]) and further redefinitions (\[04\]). Let us insist that all the physical quantities in the limit $\kappa ,\kappa m \rightarrow \infty $ should reduce to normal particle properties since then the algebra (\[05\]) becomes completely canonical. Keeping this in mind, we define a new variable, $$X\equiv (\frac{(\kappa^2-m^2)}{\kappa ^2}+\frac{m^2}{\vec p^2})\tilde x_0, \label{h2}$$ and hence obtain, $$v_i\equiv \dot {\tilde x_i}/\dot X=p_i/\sqrt{(m^2+\frac{(\kappa^2-m^2)}{\kappa ^2}\vec p^2}~,~~ \vec v^2=\vec p^2/(m^2+\frac{(\kappa ^2-m^2)}{\kappa ^2}\vec p^2 ). \label{h3}$$ First of all, we justify our choice of $X$ by noting that $$\{X,p_0\}=1+\frac{(\kappa ^2-m^2)}{\kappa ^2m^2}\vec p^2\approx 1+O(\frac{1}{\kappa ^2m^2}), \label{t}$$ so that in the canonical limit $X$ behaves as a conjugate variable to $p_0$, the Hamiltonian, as it aught to. The velocity in (\[h3\]) has the correct $\kappa \rightarrow \infty $ canonical limit. Moreover $m^2=0\Rightarrow \vec v^2=1$ showing that massless DSR particles move with $c$ irrespective of their energy. On the other hand, for massive particles, the MS relation (\[m\]) saturates at $p_0=\kappa $ for which $\vec p^2=\kappa ^2 $. Putting this back in (\[h3\]) we find once again $\mid v\mid =1$. Lastly, $m=\kappa \Rightarrow \mid v\mid =\mid p\mid /m $ so that Planck mass particles appear to be non-relativistic, which agrees with their dispersion relation (\[m\]). All these conclusions are in accord with [@das]. In the two figures (i) and (ii) for $m=1,\kappa =1.5$ and $m=1,\kappa =3$ respectively, we plot $\vec p^2 \equiv A(x),~\vec v^2 \equiv C(x)$ against energy $p_0\equiv x$ for the MS particle and compare them with the normal particle $\vec p^2\equiv B(x),~ \vec v^2 \equiv D(x)$. The MS energy upper bound $p_0\equiv x=\kappa $ is used in the graphs. They indicate that MS particles can survive for smaller energy than normal particle (for the same mass) and is always faster than normal particle of same energy. However, the velocity of massive MS particle is also bounded by $c$ that occures at $p_0=\kappa $. Figure (ii) shows that, for larger $\kappa$, the MS particle tends towards its normal cousin very quickly. We emphasize that although we have worked in a particular gauge, the above limiting results are general since they involve only $\kappa $-relativistic invariants. It is interesting to consider generalization of the invariant “length” $l^2$ in our geometry, $$\{J^{\mu\nu},l^2\}= \{J^{\mu\nu},(\tilde x^2(1-\frac{(\eta p)}{\kappa })^2)-\frac{(\tilde xp)^2}{m^2} )\}= \frac{2(\tilde xp)}{m^2\kappa }(p^2-m^2(1-\frac{(\eta p)}{\kappa })^2)(\tilde x_\mu \eta _\nu -\tilde x_\nu \eta _\mu ). \label{53}$$ We find that in this type of phase space geometry the notion of an absolute coordinate space length is replaced by a combination of both $\tilde x_\mu $ and $p_\mu$ that is invariant only on-shell (for MS law) and for $\kappa \rightarrow \infty $ one recovers the “length” for Snyder geometry. For Snyder algebra, this is also consistent with the interpretation, $$\{ x^S_\mu , p_\nu \}= -g_{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{ m^2}p _\mu p_\nu \equiv -G^S_{\mu\nu }~,~~ (l^2)^s=G^S_{\mu\nu }(x^S)^\mu (x^S)^\nu , \label{54}$$ where, as noted before, the Snyder algebra (and metric) is obtained from (\[05\]) in the limit $\kappa \rightarrow \infty $. However this interpretation does not work if one includes the $\kappa $-Minkowski component of the algebra. We conclude by noting that more dramatic changes in our perception are awaiting us, as and when we are able to construct a Quantum Field Theory with the underlying $\kappa $-Minkowski Non-Commutative spacetime structure and with fundamental excitations obeying DSR kinematics. To that end, it is essential that one has a clear understanding of the physics involved in the classical and quantum mechanical scenario. We hope that the present work is a first step in this direction. .2cm [[Acknowledgement]{}]{}: It is a pleasure to thank Debajyoti Choudhury for discussions and Theory Group, I.C.T.P., where the present idea took shape during our visit. Also I thank Etera Livine for comments. .5cm [99]{} C.Rovelli and L.Smolin, Nucl.Phys. B442 (1995)593; Erratum: [[ibid]{}]{} 456 (1995)734; For a recent review on quantum gravity phenomenology, see G.Amelino-Camelia, Mod.Phys.Lett. A17 (2002) 899 (gr-qc/0204051). G.Amelino-Camelia, Nature 418 34(2002); Phys.Lett.B 510 (2001)255; Int.J.Mod.Phys. A11 (2002)35; For a review on DSR, see J.Kowalski-Glikman, [[Introduction to Doubly Special Relativity]{}]{}, hep-th/0405273. J.Kowalski-Glikman, [[Doubly Special Relativity: Facts and Prospects]{}]{}, gr-qc/0603022. G.Amelino-Camelia and T.Piran, Phys.Rev. D64 (2001)036005 (astro-ph/0008107). S.Doplicher, K.Fredenhagen and J.E.Roberts, Phys.Lett. B331 39(1994). The earliest model for NC spacetime and physics in it is by H.S.Snyder, Phys.Rev. 71 (1947)68. Recently NC spacetime physics has become popular after its connection to low energy String physics was discovered by N.Seiberg and E.Witten, JHEP 9909(1999)032. For reviews see for example M.R.Douglas and N.A.Nekrasov, Rev.Mod.Phys. 73(2001)977; R.J.Szabo, Phys.Rept. hep-th/0109162. J.Lukierski, A.Nowicki, H.Ruegg and V.N.Tolstoy, Phys.Lett. B264 (1991)331, S.Majid and H.Ruegg, Phys.Lett. B334 (1994)348; J.Lukierski, H.Ruegg, W.J.Zakrzewski, Annals Phys. 243 (1995)90. J.Magueijo and L.Smolin, Phys.Rev.Lett. 88 (2002)190403; Phys.Rev. D67 (2003)044017. J.Kowalski-Glikman and S.Nowak, Phys.Lett.B 539 (2002)126 (hep-th/0203040); Class.Quant.Grav. 20 (2003)4799 (hep-th/0304101). S.Ghosh, [[ Doubly Special Relativity and $\kappa $-Minkowski Non-Commutative Spacetime: Towards a Dynamical Connection]{}]{}, hep-th/0602009. L.Faddeev and R.Jackiw, Phys.Rev.Lett. 60 1692(1988). P.A.M.Dirac, [[Lectures on Quantum Mechanics]{}*]{}, Yeshiva University Press, New York, 1964. S.Ghosh, Phys.Lett.B 623 (2005)251; S.Ghosh and P.Pal, Phys.Lett.B 618 (2005)243. M.Daszkiewicz, K.Imilkowska and J.Kowalski-Glikman, Phys.Lett. A323 (2004) 345 (hep-th/0304027). F.Girelli, T.Konopka, J.Kowalski-Glikman and E.R.Livine, Phys.Rev. D73 (2006)045008, (hep-th/0512107); The gauge condition appears to be inbuilt in the paper by R.Banerjee, S.Kulkarni and S.Samanta, JHEP 0605 (2006) 077 (hep-th/0602151).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Deep Convolution Neural Networks (CNNs) have shown impressive performance in various vision tasks such as image classification, object detection and semantic segmentation. For object detection, particularly in still images, the performance has been significantly increased last year thanks to powerful deep networks (GoogleNet) and detection frameworks (Regions with CNN features (R-CNN)). The lately introduced ImageNet [@deng2009imagenet] task on object detection from video (VID) brings the object detection task into the video domain, in which objects’ locations at each frame are required to be annotated with bounding boxes. In this work, we introduce a complete framework for the VID task based on still-image object detection and general object tracking. Their relations and contributions in the VID task are thoroughly studied and evaluated. In addition, a temporal convolution network is proposed to incorporate temporal information to regularize the detection results and shows its effectiveness for the task. Code is available at <https://github.com/myfavouritekk/vdetlib>.' author: - \| Kai Kang Wanli Ouyang Hongsheng Li Xiaogang Wang\ Department of Electronic Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong\ [{kkang,wlouyang,hsli,xgwang}@ee.cuhk.edu.hk]{} bibliography: - 'egbib.bib' title: Object Detection from Video Tubelets with Convolutional Neural Networks --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Deep learning has been widely applied to various computer vision tasks such as image classification [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @vgg; @googlenet], object detection [@girshick2014rich; @girshick2015fast; @girshick2015faster; @googlenet; @ouyang2015deepid; @ouyang2016factors], semantic segmentation [@long2015fully; @kang2014fully], human pose estimation [@toshev2014deeppose; @tompson2015efficient; @yang2016end; @chu2016structure], . Over the past few years, the performance of object detection in ImageNet and PASCAL VOC has been increased by a significant margin with the success of deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). State-of-the-art methods for object detection train CNNs to classify region proposals into background or one of the object classes. However, these methods focus on detecting objects in still images. The lately introduced ImageNet challenge on object detection from video brings up a new question on how to solve the object detection problem for videos effectively and robustly. At each frame of a video, the algorithm is required to annotate bounding boxes and confidence scores on objects of each class. Although there have been methods on detecting objects in videos, they mainly focus on detecting one specific class of objects, such as pedestrians [@tian2014pedestrian], cars [@li2014integrating], or humans with actions [@jain2014action; @gkioxari2014finding]. The ImageNet challenge defines a new problem on detecting general objects in videos, which is worth studying. Similar to object detection in still images being able to assist tasks including image classification [@vgg], object segmentation [@dai2015boxsup], and image captioning [@fang2014captions], accurately detecting objects in videos could possibly boost the performance of video classification, video captioning and related surveillance applications. By locating objects in the videos, the semantic meaning of a video could also be described more clearly, which results in more robust performance for video-based tasks. ![Challenges in object detection from video. Red boxes are ground truth annotations. (a) Still-image object detection methods have large temporal fluctuations across frames even on ground truth bounding boxes. The fluctuations may result from motion blur, video defocus, part occlusion and bad pose. Information of boxes of the same object on adjacent frames need to be utilized for object detection in video. (b) Tracking is able to relate boxes of the same object. However, due to occlusions, appearance changes and pose variations, the tracked boxes may drift to non-target objects. Object detectors should be incorporated into tracking algorithm to constantly start new tracks when drifting occurs.[]{data-label="fig:challenges"}](challenges){width="0.9\linewidth"} Existing methods for general object detection cannot be applied to solve this problem effectively. Their performance may suffer from large appearance changes of objects in videos. For instance in Figure \[fig:challenges\] (a), if a cat faces the camera at first and then turns back. Its back image cannot be effectively recognized as a cat because it contains little texture information and is not likely to be included in training samples. The correct recognition result needs to be inferred from information in previous and future frames, because the appearance of an object in video is highly correlated. Since an object’s location might change in the video, the location correspondences across the video should be recovered such that the correlated image patches could be well aligned into trajectories for extracting the temporal information. Besides, temporal consistency of recognition results should be regularized (Figure \[fig:challenges\] (a)). The detection scores of a bounding-box tubelet representing an object should not change dramatically across the video. Such requirements motivate us to incorporate object tracking into our detection framework. Deep CNNs have shown impressive performance on object tracking [@wang2015visual; @nam2015learning], which outperform previous methods by a large margin. The large number of tracking-by-detection methods [@andriluka2008people; @andriyenko2012discrete; @bae2014robust; @possegger2014occlusion] for multi-pedestrian tracking have shown that temporal information could be utilized to regularize the detection results. However, directly utilizing object tracking cannot effectively solve the VID problem either (Figure \[fig:challenges\] (b)). In our experiments, we have noticed that directly using still-image object detectors on object tracking results has only $37.4\%$ mean average precision (mean AP) compared to $45.3\%$ on object proposals. The performance difference results from detectors’ sensitivity to location changes and the box mismatch between tracks and object proposals. To solve this problem, we proposed a tubelet box perturbation and max-pooling process to increase the performance from $37.4\%$ to $45.2\%$, which is comparable to the performance of image object proposal with only $1/38$ the number of boxes. In this work, we propose a multi-stage framework based on deep CNN detection and tracking for object detection in videos. The framework consists of two main modules: 1) a tubelet proposal module that combines object detection and object tracking for tubelet object proposal; 2) a tubelet classification and re-scoring module that performs spatial max-pooling for robust box scoring and temporal convolution for incorporating temporal consistency. Object detection and tracking work closely in our framework. On one hand, object detection produces high-confidence anchors to initiate tracking and reduces tracking failure by spatial max-pooling. On the other hand, tracking also generates new proposals for object detection and the tracked boxes act as anchors to aggregate existing detections. The contribution of this paper is three-fold. 1) A complete multi-stage framework is proposed for object detection in videos. 2) The relation between still-image object detection and object tracking, and their influences on object detection from video are studied in details. 3) A special temporal convolutional neural network is proposed to incorporate temporal information into object detection from video. Related Works {#sec:related_works} ============= State-of-the-art methods for detecting objects of general classes are mainly based on deep CNNs. Girshick [@girshick2014rich] proposed a multi-stage pipeline called Regions with Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN) for training deep CNN to classify region proposals for object detection. It decomposes the detection problem into several stages including bounding-box proposal, CNN pre-training, CNN fine-tuning, SVM training, and bounding box regression. Such framework has shown good performance and was adopted by other methods. Szegedy [@googlenet] proposed the GoogLeNet with a 22-layer structure and “inception” modules to replace the CNN in the R-CNN, which won the ILSVRC 2014 object detection task. Ouyang [@ouyang2015deepid] proposed a deformation constrained pooling layer and a box pre-training strategy, which achieves an accuracy of $50.3\%$ on the ILSVRC 2014 test set. To accelerate the training of the R-CNN pipeline, Fast R-CNN [@girshick2015fast] is proposed, where each image patch is no longer wrapped to a fixed size before being fed into the CNN. Instead, the corresponding features are cropped from the output feature map of the last convolutional layer. In the Faster R-CNN pipeline [@girshick2015faster], the bounding box proposals were generated by a Region Proposal Network (RPN), and the overall framework can thus be trained in an end-to-end manner. However, these pipelines are for object detection in still images. When these methods are applied to videos, they might miss some positive samples because the objects might not be of their best poses in each frame of the videos. Object localization and co-localization [@Prest:2012learning; @Papazoglou:2013fast; @Joulin:2014efficient; @Kwak:2015unsupervised], which have mainly focused on the YouTube Object Dataset (YTO) [@Prest:2012learning], seems to be a similar topic to the VID task. However, there are crucial differences between the two problems. 1) Goal: The (co)locolization problem assumes that each video contains only one known (weakly supervised setting) or unknown (unsupervised setting) class and only requires localizing one of the objects in each test frame. In VID, however, each video frame contains unknown numbers of objects instances and classes. The VID task is closer to real-world applications. 2) Metrics: Localization metric (CorLoc [@Deselaers:2010localizing]) is usually used for evaluation in (co)locolization, while mean average precision (mean AP) is used for evaluation on the VID task. The mean AP is more challenging to evaluate overall performances on different classes and thresholds. With these differences, the VID task is more difficult and closer to real-world scenarios. The previous works on object (co)localization in videos cannot be directly applied to VID. There have also been methods on action localization. At each frame of human action video, the system is required to annotate a bounding box for the human action of interest. The methods that are based on action proposals are related to our work. Yu and Yuang [@yu2015fast] proposed to generate action proposals by calculating actionness scores and solving a maximum set coverage problem. Jain [@jain2014action] adopted the Selective Search strategy on super-voxels to generate tubulet proposals and proposed new features to differentiate human actions from background movements. In [@gkioxari2014finding], candidate regions are fed into two CNNs to learn feature representations, which is followed by a SVM to make prediction on actions using appearance and motion cues. The regions are then linked across frames based on the action predictions and their spatial overlap. Object tracking has been studied for decades [@possegger2014occlusion; @li2015reliable; @hong2015multi]. Recently, deep CNNs have been used for object tracking and achieved impressive tracking accuracy [@wang2015visual; @nam2015learning; @wang2016stct]. Wang [@wang2015visual] proposed to create an object-specific tracker by online selecting the most influential features from an ImageNet pre-trained CNN, which outperforms state-of-the-art trackers by a large margin. Nam [@nam2015learning] trained a multi-domain CNN for learning generic representations for tracking objects. When tracking a new target, a new network is created by combining the shared layers in the pre-trained CNN with a new binary classification layer, which is online updated. However, even for the CNN-based trackers, they might still drift in long-term tracking because they mostly utilize the object appearance information within the video without semantic understanding on its class. Method {#sec:method} ====== In this section, we will introduce the task setting for object detection from video and give a detailed description of our framework design. The general framework of video object detection system is shown in Figure \[fig:framework\]. The framework has two main modules: 1) a spatio-temporal tubelet proposal module and 2) a tubelet classification and re-scoring module. The two major components will be elaborated in Section \[sub:tubelet\_proposal\] and Section \[sub:tubelet\_classification\_and\_rescoring\]. Task setting {#sub:test_setting} ------------ The ImageNet object detection from video (VID) task is similar to image object detection task (DET) in still images. There are $30$ classes, which is a subset of $200$ classes of the DET task. All classes are fully labeled for each video clip. For each video clip, algorithms need to produce a set of annotations $(f_i, c_i, s_i, b_i)$ of frame number $f_i$, class label $c_i$, confidence scores $s_i$ and bounding boxes $b_i$. The evaluation protocol for the VID task is the same as DET task. Therefore, we use the conventional mean average precision (mean AP) on all classes as the evaluation metric. ![image](framework){width="0.85\linewidth"} Spatio-temporal tubelet proposal {#sub:tubelet_proposal} -------------------------------- Objects in videos show temporal and spatial consistency. The same object in adjacent frames has similar appearances and locations. Using either existing object detection methods or object tracking methods alone cannot effectively solve the VID problem. On one hand, a straightforward application of image object detectors is to treat videos as a collection of images and detect objects on each image individually. This strategy focuses only on appearance similarities and ignores the temporal consistency. Thus the detection scores on consecutive frames usually have large fluctuations (Figure \[fig:challenges\] (a)). On the other hand, generic object tracking methods track objects from a starting frame and usually on-line update detectors using samples from currently tracked bounding boxes. The detectors in tracking methods mainly focus on samples within the video and usually tends to drift due to large object appearance changes (Figure \[fig:challenges\] (b)). The spatio-temporal tubelet proposal module in our framework combines the still-image object detection and generic object tracking together. It has the discriminative ability from object detectors and the temporal consistency from object trackers. The tubelet proposal module has $3$ major steps: 1) image object proposal, 2) object proposal scoring and 3) high-confidence object tracking. Step 1. Image object proposal. The general object proposals are generated by the Selective Search (SS) algorithm[@uijlings2013selective]. The SS method outputs around $2,000$ object proposals on each video frame. The majority object proposals are negative samples and may not contain objects. We use the ImageNet pre-trained AlexNet [@krizhevsky2012imagenet] model provided by R-CNN to remove easy negative object proposals where all detection scores of ImageNet detection $200$ classes are below a certain threshold. In our experiments, we use $-1.1$ as threshold and around $6.1\%$ of the region proposals are kept, while the recall at this threshold is $80.49\%$. The image object proposal process is illustrated in Figure \[fig:framework\] (a). Step 2. Object proposal scoring. Since the VID $30$ classes are a subset of DET $200$ classes, the detection models trained for the DET task can be used directly for VID classes. Our detector is a GoogLeNet [@googlenet] pre-trained on ImageNet image classification data, and fine-tuned for the DET task. Similar to the R-CNN, for each DET class, an SVM is trained with hard negative mining using the “pool5” features extracted from the model. The $30$ SVM models corresponding to VID classes are used here to classify object proposals into background or one of the object classes. The higher the SVM score, the higher the confidence that the box contains an object of that class (Figure \[fig:framework\] (b)). Step 3. High-confidence proposal tracking. For each object class, we track high-confidence detection proposals bidirectionally in the video clip. The tracker we choose for this task is from [@wang2015visual], which in our experiments shows more robust performance to object pose and scale changes. The starting detections of tracking are called “anchors”, which are chosen from the most confident box proposals from Step 2. Starting from an anchor, we track backward to the first frame, and track forward to the last frame. Two tracklets are then concatenated to produce a complete track. As the tracking moves away from the anchors, the tracker may drift to background and other objects, or may not keep up with the scale and pose changes of the target object. Therefore, we early stop the tracking when the tracking confidence is below a threshold (probability of $0.1$ in our experiments) to reduce false positive tracklets. After getting a track, a new anchor is selected from the rest detections. Usually, high-confidence detections tend to cluster both spatially and temporally, therefore directly tracking the next most confident detection tends to result in tracklets with large mutual overlaps on the same object. To reduce the redundancy and cover as many objects as possible, we perform a suppression process similar to NMS. Detections from Step 2 that have overlaps with the existing tracks beyond a certain threshold (IOU $0.3$ in our experiment) will not be chosen as new anchors. The tracking-suppression process performs iteratively until confidence values of all remaining detections are lower than a threshold (SVM score below $0$ in our setting). For each video clip, such tracking process is performed for each of the $30$ VID classes. With the above three major steps, we can obtain tracks starting from high-confidence anchors for each classes. The produced tracks are tubelet proposals for tubelet classification of later part of our framework. Tubelet classification and rescoring {#sub:tubelet_classification_and_rescoring} ------------------------------------ After the tubelet proposal module, for each class, we have tubelets with high-confidence anchor detections. A naive approach is to classify each bounding box on the tubelets using the same method as Step 2 before. In our experiment, this baseline approach has only modest performance compared to direct still-image object detection R-CNN. The reason for that is $4$-fold. 1\) The overall number of bounding box proposals from tubelets is significantly smaller than those from Selective Search, which might miss some objects and result in lower recall on the test set. 2\) The detector trained for object detection in still images is usually sensitive to small location changes (Figure \[fig:framework\] (d)) and a tracked boxes may not have a reasonable detection score even if it has large overlap with the object. 3) In the tracking process, we performed proposal suppression to reduce redundant tubelets. The tubelets are therefore more sparse compared than image proposals. This suppression may be conflict with conventional NMS. Because in conventional NMS, even a positive box has very low confidences, as long as other boxes with large mutual overlaps have higher confidence, it will be suppressed during NMS and will not affect the overall average precision. The consequence of early suppression is that some low-confidence positive boxes do not have overlaps with high confidence detections, thus are not suppressed and become false negatives. 4\) The detection score along the tubelet has large variations even on ground truth tubelets (Figure \[fig:challenges\] (a)). The temporal information should be incorporated to obtain consistent detection scores. To handle these problems in tubelet classification, we designed the following steps to augment proposals, increase spatial detection robustness and incorporate temporal consistency into the detection scores. Step 4. Tubelet box perturbation and max-pooling. The tubelet box perturbation and max-pooling process is to replace tubelet boxs with boxes of higher confidence. There are two kinds of perturbations in our framework. The first method is to generate new boxes around each tubelet box on each frame by randomly perturbing the boundaries of the tubelet box. That is, we randomly sample coordinates for upper-left and bottom-right corners of a tubelet box. The random offsets for the corners are generated from two uniform distributions: $$\begin{aligned} \Delta x &\sim U(-r\cdot w, r\cdot w),\\ \Delta y &\sim U(-r\cdot h, r\cdot h),\end{aligned}$$ where $U$ is uniform distribution, $w$ and $h$ are width and height of the tubelet box, and $r$ is the sampling ratio hyperparameter. Higher sampling ratio means less confidence on the original box, while lower sampling ratio means more confidence on the tubelet box. We evaluated performances of different sampling configurations (Section \[sec:experiments\]). The second perturbation method is to replace each tubelet box with original object detections that have overlaps with the tubelet box beyond a threshold. This process is to simulate the conventional NMS process. If the tubelet box is positive box with a low detection score, this process can help bring back some positive boxes to suppress this box. The higher the overlap threshold, the more confidence on the tubelet box. We find this method really effective and different overlap threshold are evaluated in Section \[sec:experiments\]. After the box perturbation step, all augmented boxes and the original tubelet boxes are scored using the same detector in Step 2. For each tubelet box, only the augmented box with the maximum detection score is kept and used to replace the original tubelet box. The max-pooling process is to increase the spatial robustness of detector and utlize the original object detections around the tubelets. ![Temporal convolutional network (TCN). The TCN is a $1$-D convolutional network that operates on tubelet proposals. The inputs are time series including detection scores, tracking scores and anchor offsets. The output values are probablities that whether each tubelet box has overlap with ground truth above $0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:tcn"}](tcn_illustration){width="0.8\linewidth"} Step 5. Temporal convolution and re-scoring. Even with the spatial max-pooling process, the detection scores along the same track might still have large variations. This naturally results in performance loss. For example, if tubelet boxes on ajacent frames all have high detection scores, it is very likely that the tublet box on this frame also has high confidence on the same object. The still-image object detection framework does not take temporal consistency into consideration. In our framework, we propose a Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) that uses $1$-D serial features including detection scores, tracking scores, anchor offsets and generates temporally dense prediction on every tubelet box. The structure of the proposed TCN is shown in Figure \[fig:tcn\]. It is a $4$-layer $1$-D fully convolution network that outputs temporally dense prediction scores on every tubelet box. For each class, we train a class-specific TCN using the tubelet features as input. The inputs are time series including detection scores, tracking scores and anchor offsets. The output values are probablities whether each tubelet box contains objects of the class. The supervision labels are $1$ if the overlap with ground truth is above $0.5$, and $0$ otherwise. The temporal convolution learns to generate classification prediction based on the temporal features within the receptive field. The dense $1$-D labels provide richer supervision than single tubelet-level labels. During testing, the continuous classification score instead of the binary decision values. We found that this re-scoring process has consistent improvement on tubelet detection results. Experiments {#sec:experiments} =========== Dataset {#sub:dataset} ------- ImageNet VID. We utilize the ImageNet object detection from video (VID) task dataset to evaluate the overall pipeline and individual component of the proposed framework. The framework is evaluated on the initial release of VID dataset, which consists of three distinct splits. 1) The training set contains $1952$ fully-labeled video snippets ranging from $6$ frames to $5213$ frames per snippet. 2) The validation set contains $281$ fully-labeled video snippets ranging from $11$ frames to $2898$ frame per snippet. 3) The test set contains $458$ snippets and the ground truth annotation are not publicly available yet. We report all results on the validation set as a common convention for object detection task. YTO dataset. In addition to the ImageNet VID dataset, we also evaluate our proposed framework on the YTO dataset for the object localization task. The YTO dataset contains $10$ object classes, which are a subset of the ImageNet VID dataset. Different from the VID dataset which contains full annotations on all video frames, the YTO dataset is weakly annotated, each video is only ensured to contain one object of the corresponding class, and only very few frames are annotated for each video. The weak annotation makes it infeasible to train the our models on the YTO dataset. However, since the YTO classes are a subset of the VID dataset classes, we can directly apply the trained models on the YTO dataset for evaluation. Parameter settings {#sub:parameter_settings} ------------------ Image object proposal. For image object proposal, we used the “fast” mode in Selective Search [@uijlings2013selective], and resized all input images to width of $500$ pixels and mapped the generated box proposals back to original image coordinates. The R-CNN provided AlexNet model is used to remove easy negative box proposals. We used threshold of $-1.1$ and remove boxes whose detections scores of all DET $200$ are below the threshold. This process kept $6.1\%$ of all the proposals (about $96$ boxes per image). Tracking. The early stopping tracking confidence is set to probability $0.1$. Therefore, if the tracking confidence is below $0.1$, the tracklet is terminated. The minimum detection score for a new tracking anchor is $0$. If no more detection beyond this threshold, the whole tracking process ends for this class. The track-detection suppression overlap is set to $0.3$. For each video snippet, we chose at most $20$ anchors for tracking for each class. ![Performances of different max-pooling schemes. The blue and yellow lines are random sampling $10$ and $20$ samples per box with different perturbation ratios (bottom). The green line shows the performances of different overlap thresholds (top) for adding orginal proposals. Best viewed in color.[]{data-label="fig:max-pooling_performance"}](spatial_max_pooling_performance){width="0.9\linewidth"} Tubelet perturbation. For tubelet box perturbation, we denote $R(n,r)$ for random perturbation with perturbation ratio $r$ and $n$ samples per tubelet box, and $O(t)$ for adding original proposals whose overlaps with the tubelet boxes beyond threshold $t$. Different combinations of perturbation ratios and sampling numbers are evaluated as shown in Table \[tab:box\_sampling\] and Figure \[fig:max-pooling\_performance\]. $R(20,0.1)$ and $R(20,0.2)$ are chosen for later components. For $O(t)$ schemes, $O(0.1)$ to $O(0.9)$ are evaluated (Figure \[fig:max-pooling\_performance\] and Table \[tab:iou\_thres\]). $O(0.5)$ is chosen for the framework. Temporal convolutional network The TCN in our experiments has $4$ convolutional layers, the network structure is shown in Table \[tab:tcn\_param\]. The network initialization parameter and optimization parameter such as learning rate are manually adjusted on one class and remained unchanged for all $30$ classes. The network raw detection score, tracking score and absolute anchor offsets (which is normalized by length of the track) are used as input feature for the TCN, without other preprocessing steps. Results {#sec:results} ======= Quantitative Results on VID {#sub:quantitative_results} --------------------------- Tubelet proposal and baseline performance. After obtaining the tubelet proposals, a straight-forward baseline approach for tubelet scoring is to directly evaluate tubelet boxes with the object detector for still images. The performance of this approach is $37.4\%$ in mean AP. In comparison, the still-image object detection result is $45.3\%$ in mean AP. Tubelet perturbation and spatial max-pooling. The performances of different tubelect box perturbation and max-pooling schemes are shown in Table \[tab:box\_sampling\] and Table \[tab:iou\_thres\]. From the tables, we can see that in most settings, both the random sampling and adding original proposals improves over the baseline approach. Also, if the perturbation is too large or too small, the performance gain is small. The reasons are: 1) large perturbation may result in replacing the tubelet box with a box too far away from it, and on the other hand, 2) small perturbation may obtain redundant boxes that reduce the effect of spatial max-pooling. The best performance of random sampling scheme is $41.7\%$ of $R(20,0.2)$. For replacing with original proposals, the best result is $44.5\%$ of $O(0.5)$. It is worth noticing that the tubelet perturbation and max-pooling scheme does not increase the overall boxes of tubelet proposals but replaces original tubelet boxes with nearby ones with the highest confidences. We also investigated the complementary properties of the two perturbation schemes. The perturbed tubelets from the best settings of the both schemes ($41.7\%$ model from $R(20,0.2)$ and $44.5\%$ model from $O(0.5)$) are combined for evaluation. The direct combination doubles the number of tubelets, and the performance increases from $41.7\%$ and $44.5\%$ to $45.2\%$, which is comparable to still-image object detection result with much fewer proposals on each image (around $1:38$). Temporal convolution. Using the tubelets proposals, we trained a TCN for each of the $30$ classes for re-scoring. We use the continuous values of Sigmoid foreground scores as the confidence values for the tubelet boxes in evaluation. For the baseline $37.4\%$ model, the performance increases to $39.4\%$ by $2\%$. On the best single perturbation scheme proposal ($O(0.5)$), the performance increases from $44.5\%$ to $46.4\%$. For combined tubelet proposals from two perturbation schemes, a $45.2\%$ model with $R(20,0.2)$ and $O(0.5)$ increases the performance to $47.4$, while a $45.1$ model with $R(20,0.1)$ and $O(0.5)$ increases to $47.5\%$. From the results we can see that our temporal convolution network using detection scores, tracking scores and anchor offsets provides consistent performance improvement (around $2$ percents in mean AP) on the tubelet proposals. Overall, the best performance on tubelet proposals by our proposed method is $47.5\%$, $2.2$ percents increase from still-image object detection framework with only $1/38$ the number of boxes for evaluation. ![image](tubelet_qualitative_results){width="0.9\linewidth"} Qualitative Results on VID {#sub:qualitative_results} -------------------------- Tubelet proposal. The tubelet proposal results are shown in Figure \[fig:tubelet\_proposal\]. Figure \[fig:tubelet\_proposal\] (a) shows the positive tubelets obtained from tubelet proposal module, and Figure \[fig:tubelet\_proposal\] (b) shows the negative samples. From the figure we can see, positive samples usually aggregate around objects while still appear sparse compared to dense proposals from Selective Search. The sparsity comes from the track-proposal suppression process performed in tracking to ensure the tubelet covers as many objects as possible. With the frame index increases, some tracks will disappear while others may be added, which results from the early stopping for low tracking confidence and new anchor selections. As for the negative samples, the tubelet are much fewer (in fact, some videos do not have tubelet proposals for some classes) and isolated. This is because we only start tracking on high-confident anchors. This largely reduces the number of false positives and significantly save inference time in later steps in the framework. Temporal convolution. In Figure \[fig:temp\_conv\], we show some examples of results of temporal convolution. Each plot shows the tubelet scores (detection score, tracking score and anchor offsets) and the output probability scores of the TCN network. ![Qualitative results of temporal convolution. The time series of detection scores, tracking scores and absolute values of anchor offsets are the inputs for TCN. The blue line are overlaps with ground truth annotations and purple lines are the output of TCN. The detection scores have large temporal variations while the TCN output has temporal consistency and comply better to ground truth overlaps.[]{data-label="fig:temp_conv"}](tcn_qualitative_results){width="\linewidth"} The detection score shows significant variations across frames. A tubelet box may have significantly low detection score even if adjacent frames have high detection values. However, after temporal convolution, the output probability curve are much more temporally consistent. Compare to detection scores, the probability output of our network conforms better with the ground truth overlaps, which shows the effectiveness of our re-scoring module. Evaluation on YouTube-Objects (YTO) dataset {#sub:eval_yto} ------------------------------------------- In order to show the effectiveness of our proposed framework, we applied the models trained on the VID task directly on the YTO dataset and compared with the state-of-the-art works in Table \[tab:yto\_scores\]. The localization metric CorLoc [@Deselaers:2010localizing] is used for evaluation as a convention on YTO. Method aero bird boat car cat cow dog horse mbike train Avg. -------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Prest [@Prest:2012learning] 51.7 17.5 34.4 34.7 22.3 17.9 13.5 26.7 41.2 25.0 28.5 Joulin [@Joulin:2014efficient] 25.1 31.2 27.8 38.5 41.2 28.4 33.9 35.6 23.1 25.0 31.0 Kwak [@Kwak:2015unsupervised] 56.5 66.4 58.0 76.8 39.9 69.3 50.4 56.3 53.0 31.0 55.7 Baseline 92.4 68.4 85.4 75.8 77.3 18.6 87.2 87.3 84.2 72.8 74.9 Ours (TCN:s3) 94.1 69.7 88.2 79.3 76.6 18.6 89.6 89.0 87.3 75.3 76.8 : Localization performances on the YTO dataset[]{data-label="tab:yto_scores"} From the table, we can see that our proposed framework outperforms by a large margin. This is because the ImageNet datasets (CLS, DET and VID) provide rich supervision for feature learning, and the trained networks have good generalization capability on other datasets. The full framework has around $2\%$ improvement over the baseline approach on the YTO dataset, which is consistent with the results on VID. Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== In this work, we propose a complete multi-stage pipeline for object detection in videos. The framework efficiently combines still-image object detection with generic object tracking for tubelet proposal. Their relationship and contributions are extensively investigated and evaluated. Based on tubelet proposals, different perturbation and scoring schemes are evaluated and analyzed. A novel temporal convolutional network is proposed to incorporate temporal consistency and shows consistent performance improvement over still-image detections. Based on this work, a more advanced tubelet-based framework is further developed which won the ILSVRC2015 ImageNet VID challenge with provided data [@kang2016tcnn]. Acknowledgement {#sec:acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== This work is partially supported by SenseTime Group Limited, and the General Research Fund sponsored by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (Project Nos. CUHK14206114, CUHK14205615, CUHK14203015, CUHK14207814).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Electromigration-induced step bunching in the presence of sublimation or deposition is studied theoretically in the attachment-limited regime. We predict a phase transition as a function of the relative strength of kinetic asymmetry and step drift. For weak asymmetry the number of steps between bunches grows logarithmically with bunch size, whereas for strong asymmetry at most a single step crosses between two bunches. In the latter phase the emission and absorption of steps is a collective process which sets in only above a critical bunch size and/or step interaction strength.' author: - Vladislav Popkov - Joachim Krug title: 'Dynamic phase transitions in electromigration-induced step bunching' --- [^1] [^2] Much of the morphological structure and dynamics of crystal surfaces can be understood in terms of the behavior of steps that separate different exposed atomic layers [@Jeong99; @Krug05a]. Since they entail a finite free energy cost per unit length, steps are long-lived structural defects which nevertheless, due to their one-dimensional nature, are highly sensitive to thermal fluctuations. These fluctuations induce long-ranged steric interactions between steps, which complement similar interactions mediated by bulk elasticity. When such a system of interacting steps is driven out of equilibrium by external forces, e.g. during growth or sublimation of the crystal surface, a rich variety of morphological patterns and dynamic phenomena emerge. As was first shown by Latyshev and coworkers [@Latyshev89], step patterns on Si(111) surfaces can be efficiently manipulated by a direct heating current, which induces mass transport along the surface through the electromigration of adatoms. Subsequently a multitude of electromigration-generated step patterns have been found and studied experimentally [@Yagi01; @Minoda03], including step bunches [@Latyshev89; @Yang96; @Metois99; @Fujita99], step antibands [@Thurmer99], in-phase wandering steps [@Degawa99] and step pairs [@Pierre-Louis04], many of which still defy a comprehensive theoretical description. In this Letter we report on the surprising discovery of a novel type of phase transition in the most basic model of electromigration-induced step bunching originally introduced by Stoyanov [@Stoyanov91; @Liu98; @Stoyanov98; @Sato99]. In this model the steps are assumed to be straight, and the uniform step train is destabilized by an electromigration force in the downhill direction. The phase transition occurs as a function of a dimensionless parameter $b$, defined in (\[b\_asymmetry\]) below, which gauges the relative importance of electromigration-induced kinetic asymmetry and step drift due to sublimation or growth. This parameter can be tuned experimentally, e.g., by changing the electromigration force through the DC component of the heating current, or the sublimation rate through a change in temperature. \[ptb\] [popkov1.eps]{} Step drift leads to the exchange of steps between bunches, which plays an important role in the evolution and coarsening of the bunch pattern [@Stoyanov98; @Sato99]. The most striking visual signature of the phase transition is a qualitative change in the number of such free steps, and in the mechanism by which they are exchanged (Fig. \[Fig\_multiplot\_impulses\]). For $b < 1$ (strong drift/ weak asymmetry) the step density decreases smoothly in the outflow region of a bunch, and the number of steps between bunches grows logarithmically with the bunch distance. In contrast, for $b > 1$ (weak drift/strong asymmetry) there is at most a single free step between any two bunches, irrespective of their size. This feature should make the two regimes clearly distinguishable in experiments using reflection electron microscopy [@Latyshev89; @Metois99] or scanning tunneling microscopy [@Yang96; @Fujita99]. The dynamics in the regime $b>1$ is remarkably complex. The exchange of a step is a collective process involving both the expelling and the receiving bunch, which sets in only beyond a critical bunch size, and which is accompanied by breathing oscillations of the entire bunch. As a consequence, a stationary bunch shape amenable to a continuum description [@Pimpinelli02] of the type developed previously for $b<1$ [@Krug05b; @Popkov05] does not appear to exist. Model. We consider a system of straight, non-transparent steps subject to electromigration and sublimation (including also a growth flux is straightforward). We work in the attachment-detachment limited regime, where the kinetic length $d=D/k$, the ratio of surface diffusion coefficient $D$ and attachment rate $k$, is large compared to the step spacing [@Krug05a]. The equations of motion for the step positions $x_{i}(t)$ then take the form [@Liu98] $$\frac{dx_{i}}{dt}=\frac{1-b}{2}\left( x_{i+1}-x_{i}\right) +\frac{1+b}% {2}\left( x_{i}-x_{i-1}\right)$$$$+U\left( 2f_{i}-f_{i-1}-f_{i+1}\right) \label{discrete_time_evolution}%$$ where the time scale has been normalized to the sublimation flux. Summing over $i$ we see that the average step velocity $v$ is equal to the mean terrace width $l$. In numerical solutions of (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) lengths are measured in units of $l$, i.e. we set $l=1$. The last term on the right hand side represents stabilizing step-step interactions of strength $U$, where, for combined entropic or dipolar elastic repulsion, $$f_{i}=\left( \frac{l}{x_{i}-x_{i-1}}\right) ^{\nu+1}-\left( \frac {l}{x_{i+1}-x_{i}}\right) ^{\nu+1}, \label{step-step interaction}%$$ with $\nu=2$ [@Jeong99]. The parameter $b$ governs the asymmetry between ascending and descending steps, relative to the mean step velocity, which induces step bunching when $b>0$. Linear stability analysis of (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) shows that the instability sets in at wavelengths corresponding to bunches containing more than $M^{\ast}$ steps, with$$M^{\ast}=2\pi [\arccos( 1- bl/12 U)] ^{-1}. \label{linear_stability_analysis}%$$ In previous work more complicated variants of the step equations (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) have been studied numerically, and some of the features analyzed in this paper have been described on a qualitative level [@Stoyanov98; @Sato99]. The advantage of using the attachment/detachment limited dynamics (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) lies in the linearity of the destabilizing terms, which allows to clearly expose the key role of the parameter $b$ and the existence of a sharp phase transition. In terms of physical quantities, the parameters $b$ and $U$ are given by [@Liu98]$$b=\frac{\Gamma F\tau_{e}}{2k_{B}Ta^{2}},\;\;\;\;\;U=\frac{\Gamma\tau_{e}% g}{2k_{B}T}\tan^{3}\alpha\label{b_asymmetry}%$$ where $\Gamma$ is the step mobility for the Brownian motion of an isolated step [@Jeong99], $a^{2}$ is the atomic area, $F$ is the electromigration force acting on an adatom, $\tau_{e}$ is the inverse desorption rate, $\alpha=a/l$ is the miscut angle, and $g$ is the step interaction parameter. The model (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) is expected to apply in two of the four temperature regimes [@Yagi01] in which step bunching is observed on Si(111), around 900$^{\text{o}}$ C and around 1250$^{\text{o}}$ C [@Metois99; @Fujita99]. The parameters given in [@Yang96; @Liu98] lead to the estimates $b\approx14$ in the low temperature regime and $b\approx0.3$ in the high temperature regime, which shows that both cases $b < 1$ and $b > 1$ are experimentally realizable. Step equations of the form (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) can also be derived for step bunching induced by Ehrlich-Schwoebel (ES) barriers during sublimation [@Krug05b] or by inverse ES barriers during growth [@Krug05b; @Slanina05]. In this sense (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) constitutes a rather generic model of step bunching kinetics. However, in step bunching induced by ES barriers the parameter $b$ is restricted to the interval $0 < b < 1$, and hence the phenomena described in this paper do not occur. Structure of the outflow region. In the presence of step drift, coarsening of step bunches is a very dynamic process during which steps continuously leave (flow out of) one bunch and join (flow into) its neighbour [@Stoyanov98; @Sato99]. In [@Popkov05; @Slanina05] it was shown that the analysis of the outflow region provides key insights into the shape and dynamics of bunches for $b<1$. We shall see now that there are drastic differences between the outflow regions for the cases $b<1$ and $b>1$. We consider a bunch containing a large number $M\gg1$ of steps, so that its shape can be considered quasi-stationary. We impose periodic boundary conditions $\Delta_{i}(t)=$ $\Delta_{i+M}(t)$ for the terrace sizes $\Delta_{i}=x_{i+1}-x_{i}$. Stationarity implies then periodicity of each step trajectory (up to an overall shift with velocity $v=l$), with some period $\tau(b,U,M)$, during which each step $i$ will once cross the plateau between two consecutive bunches. After time $\tau/M$, each step $i$ will substitute the position of step $i+1$ (up to a constant shift independent of $i$), so that$$\Delta_{i\pm1}(t)=\Delta_{i}(t\pm\frac{\tau}{M}). \label{delta(t+tau/M)}%$$ Deriving an equation for $\Delta_{i}(t)$ from (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) and substituting (\[delta(t+tau/M)\]), we get a differential-difference equation for a single, $\tau$-periodic function $\Delta(t)=\Delta_{i}(t)$ [@Popkov05] $$\frac{d\Delta(t)}{dt}=\frac{1-b}{2}\Delta(t+\frac{\tau}{M})+b\Delta (t)-\frac{1+b}{2}\Delta(t-\frac{\tau}{M})+U(...),\label{continuous_for_delta}%$$ where for brevity the $U$-containing terms are only sketched. The (unknown) period $\tau$ determines the velocity of a bunch: after time $\tau$ the bunch shifts by ($-Ml$) in a frame co-moving with velocity $v$; in the laboratory frame its lateral velocity is then [@Popkov05] $$\label{V} V=l(1-M/\tau).$$ Big bunches are separated by wide plateaux, and for the steps crossing a plateau (in case there are many) the $U$-term in (\[continuous\_for\_delta\]) should become negligible. In this outflow region one can solve the remaining linear part by the ansatz $\Delta(t)\sim\exp(qMt/\tau)$ obtaining the transcendental equation $b\left( \cosh\left( q\right) -1\right) =\sinh\left( q\right) -qM/\tau$. To fix the unknown parameter $\tau$, we recall the Fourier analysis of (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) in [@Popkov05], which shows, irrespective of the value of $b$, that for large $M$ generically $\tau(M)\approx M+O(1)$. Thus $$b\left(\cosh q - 1 \right) = \sinh q - q \label{b(q)}%$$ which has a real positive solution for each $b<1$ but no solutions for $b>1$. In the following we explore the consequences of this fact. Number of steps between bunches. For $b<1$, the existence of a solution $q$ of (\[b(q)\]) implies a smooth decrease of the step density in the outflow region, with the terrace widths increasing exponentially, as $\Delta_{k}/\Delta_{k-1}\approx\exp\left( q\right) $. To estimate the number $N_{f}$ of free steps between two bunches of size $M$, we equate the total length $\sim l\exp[qN_{f}]$ occupied by $N_{f}$ terraces to the typical distance $Ml$ between the bunches, and obtain $ N_{f}\approx q^{-1}\ln M. $ For small $b$, the solution of (\[b(q)\]) can be approximated by $q\approx3b$. For $b\rightarrow1$, $q$ diverges and $N_{f}$ vanishes. The absence of solutions of (\[b(q)\]) means that the $U$-term in (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) can never be neglected and that correspondingly there can be at most one step crossing the plateau between two bunches, at any stage of evolution. One can check, using (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) and (\[step-step interaction\]), that any configuration with more than one step between two bunches is unstable for $b>1$, so that all steps except at most one will be pushed back to the bunch they originated from. In Fig. \[Fig\_multiplot\_impulses\] we show numerically generated bunch configurations in the course of coarsening for $b<1$ and $b>1$, which confirm this conclusion. \[ptb\] [popkov2.eps]{} Dynamics of emission and absorption of steps. We now examine in more detail how steps are emitted from a bunch. It is seen directly from (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) that the last step (with label $i$, say) of the bunch at position $x_{i}$, which is trailing a wide terrace of width $\Delta_{i}=x_{i+1}-x_{i}\gg l$, will be driven to escape from the bunch by the linear term $(1-b)\Delta_{i}/2$ , provided $b<1$. This term indeed gives the main contribution to the dynamics of the last step of the bunch, as we see from numerical analysis. The emitted step does not perturb the remaining steps; the $(i-1)$-th step which has become the last, is free to escape once the $i$-th step has travelled sufficiently far. Bunches emit steps continuously, creating an outflow region governed entirely by the linear part of (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) [@Popkov05; @Slanina05]. In contrast, for $b>1$, the linear term $(1-b)\Delta_{i}/2$ in (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\]) gives a negative contribution to the step velocity, and the only way to move the last step $i$ away from the bunch is by step-step interactions \[the $U$-term in (\[discrete\_time\_evolution\])\]. Since the next step $i-1$ cannot be emitted before step $i$ has landed at the next bunch, the configuration of steps at the end of the bunch has to be changed by the emission process – if it were unchanged, the next step $i-1$ would be emitted immediately after the $i$-th. This gives rise to oscillations of the bunch profile at the end, which spread to the whole bunch, and whose amplitude grows with increasing $b$. Such oscillations at the outflow end of the bunch are completely absent in the $b<1$ phase (Fig. \[Fig\_Delta\_inset\]). \[ptb\] [popkov3.eps]{} When the emitted step finally collides with the receiving bunch it provokes perturbations in the inflow region of the bunch, which are visible both for $b<1$ and $b>1$. In the case $b<1$, however, the oscillations in the inflow region are damped and disappear towards the interior of the bunch. On the contrary, in the $b>1$ phase the oscillations penetrate through the bunch, regain their large amplitude towards the bunch tail, and culminate in the emission of the last step of the bunch, provided that the initial impact was sufficiently strong (Fig. \[Fig\_Delta\_inset\]). The persistence of oscillations through the bunch interior implies correlations between the emission and absorption of steps, which should have important consequences for the coarsening dynamics; this question will be addressed elsewhere. \[ptb\] [popkov4.eps]{} Onset of step emission. We have seen above that the emisssion of steps in the $b>1$ regime is a nontrivial dynamical phenomenon facilitated by a large step-step repulsion $U$, and suppressed by the kinetic asymmetry $b$. For small $U$ (or large $b$) the oscillatory breathing of the bunch may not be able to trigger the emission of steps when bunches are small. The typical behavior of bunches as a function of size $M$ and step interaction $U$ at a fixed value of $b>1$ is summarized in the phase diagram in Fig. \[Fig\_phaseb10\]. For any given $b>1$, there exists a critical value $U_{c}(b)$ such that for $U<U_{c}$ bunches emit steps only for sizes $M^\ast < M < M_{c1}$ and $M > M_{c2}$, whereas for $U>U_{c}$ stable bunches always emit steps. Inside the dead zone $M_{c1} < M < M_{c2}$ the time interval $\tau/M$ between emission of steps is infinite, and correspondingly bunches move with the mean step speed, $V = v$ \[see (\[V\])\]. The ratio $\tau/M$ decays monotonically to $1$ with distance from the dead zone, reflecting the fact that $\lim_{M \to \infty} \tau/M = 1$ for any fixed $b$ [@Popkov05]. Diagrams for different $b$ can be superimposed after rescaling $U_{c}$ and $M_{c} \equiv M_{c1,2}(U_c)$ according to the relations $ U_{c}\approx0.0105 \cdot b^{\alpha} $ and $ M_{c}\approx 2.112 \cdot b^{\gamma}$ with $\alpha\approx2.87$, $\gamma\approx0.935$ for all parameters investigated ($3<b\leq25$, $10^{-2}\leq U\leq120$), with a relative error not exceeding $5\%$. Note that the relation $\gamma=(\alpha-1)/2$ implies invariance of the linear instability curve (\[linear\_stability\_analysis\]) at large $U$ under rescaling. Different step kinetics for bunches of different sizes implies a change in coarsening dynamics, highlighted in Fig. \[Fig\_coarsening\_b20\]. For $b\gg1$, depending on the value of $U$ different coarsening scenarios are possible. For $U>U_{c}$ steps are exchanged throughout the coarsening process, while for $U\lesssim U_{c}/2$ late stage coarsening proceeds in two stages: without step exchange (for bunches sizes smaller than $M_{c2}$) and with step emission once the typical bunch size exceeds $M_{c2}$. Coarsening with or without step exchange has previously been associated with nonconserved ($b$ finite) and conserved ($b = \infty$, no sublimation) dynamics, respectively [@Sato99]; here we see that both types of behavior may coexist when $b > 1$. Conclusions. We predict a new type of phase transition in electromigration-induced step bunching within the regime of nontransparent steps and attachment-detachment limited kinetics. The transition is characterized by a dramatic change in the number and behavior of the free steps that are exchanged between bunches, which should be clearly visible in experiments on surfaces vicinal to Si(111). Theoretical challenges for the future include the development of a continuum description for $b > 1$, and the investigation of the correlated coarsening dynamics in this regime. This work has been supported by DFG within project KR 1123/1-2. [19]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , **, (). , , (). , , , , , (). , , , , (). , , (). , , , , (). , , (). , , , , (). , , , , , (). , , , , , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , (). , , , , , (). , , , , , (). , , (). , , , **, (). [^1]: E-mail: [email protected] [^2]: E-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We report the discovery of a strong magnetic field in the unique pulsating carbon-atmosphere white dwarf SDSS J142625.71+575218.3. From spectra gathered at the MMT and Keck telescopes, we infer a surface field of $B_s$ $\simeq$ 1.2 MG, based on obvious Zeeman components seen in several carbon lines. We also detect the presence of a Zeeman-splitted He I 4471 line, which is an indicator of the presence of a non-negligible amount of helium in the atmosphere of this Hot DQ star. This is important for understanding its pulsations, as nonadabatic theory reveals that some helium must be present in the envelope mixture for pulsation modes to be excited in the range of effective temperature where the target star is found. Out of nearly 200 pulsating white dwarfs known today, this is the first example of a star with a large detectable magnetic field. We suggest that SDSS J142625.71+575218.3 is the white dwarf equivalent of a roAp star.' author: - 'P. Dufour, G. Fontaine, James Liebert, Kurtis Williams, David K. Lai,' title: 'SDSS J142625.71+575218.3: The First Pulsating White Dwarf with a Large Detectable Magnetic Field' --- INTRODUCTION ============ Recently, @dufournat reported the discovery of a new type of white dwarf stars with an atmosphere composed primarily of carbon with little or no traces of hydrogen or helium (the ”Hot DQ” spectral type). Prior to that discovery, white dwarfs cooler than $\sim $ 80,000 K were known to come in essentially two flavors: those with an almost pure hydrogen surface composition (forming the DA spectral type), and those with a helium-dominated surface composition (the non-DA stars, which comprise the DO, DB, DC, DZ, and DQ spectral types). Pulsationally unstable stars are found among these two broad families of white dwarfs, in each case occupying a narrow range of effective temperature. Variable white dwarfs situated in these instability strips are, respectively, classified ZZ Ceti stars (hydrogen atmospheres, ${T_{\rm eff}}\sim$ 12,000 K) and V777 Her stars (helium atmospheres, ${T_{\rm eff}}\sim$ 25,000 K). Since each of these instability regions is associated with the presence of a partial ionization zone of the primary atmospheric constituent (H or He), it was naturally expected that some carbon-atmosphere white dwarfs could be unstable as well in a certain regime of effective temperature corresponding to partial ionization of carbon. And indeed, @fontaine76 found long ago strong similarities between the partial ionization regions and associated superficial convection zones of white dwarf models with H-, He-, and C-dominated atmospheres/envelopes. Theoretical considerations thus suggested that some of the Hot DQ white dwarfs, because they are located in a narrow range of effective temperature around 20,000 K [@dufournat; @dufour08], could possibly pulsate. Following this, a systematic search for pulsations in carbon-atmosphere white dwarfs carried out by @montgomery08 successfully discovered the first pulsating carbon-dominated atmosphere white dwarf: SDSS J142625.71+575218.3 (hereafter SDSS J1426+5752). They uncovered a single pulsation (and its first harmonic) with a period of 417 s in that star. In parallel with this observational effort, @fontaine08 carried out the first detailed stability study, based on the full nonadiabatic approach, to investigate the asteroseismological potential of carbon-atmosphere white dwarfs. They showed that pulsational instabilities in the range of effective temperature where the Hot DQs are found are indeed possible, but only if a fair amount of helium is present in the atmosphere/envelope compositional mixture. White dwarf models with pure carbon envelopes are found to pulsate, but only at much higher temperatures than those characterizing Hot DQ’s discovered up to now. However, the SDSS spectra analyzed in @dufour08, even though quite noisy, rule out large amounts of helium (from the absence of the He <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> $\lambda$4471 line) for all objects except SDSS J1426+5752 which, because of its higher surface gravity and lower effective temperature, could perhaps have an He/C abundance ratio as high as 0.5. So, according to the full nonadiabatic models, SDSS J1426+5752 should be the only object pulsating, as observed, provided helium is present in a relatively large amount at the surface. However, even with such an abundance (He/C = 0.5), only a tiny depression at the He <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> $\lambda$4471 line is predicted by synthetic models. Given the noisy SDSS spectrum for this object, no firm conclusion could be reached concerning the presence of helium, although the above mentioned abundance looked quite compatible with the spectroscopic observation (see the SDSS spectrum and fits in Figure 1). All this motivated us to obtain higher sensitivity observations for this special object in order (1) to confirm, as may be the case, the presence of a relatively large amount of helium (thus increasing our confidence in the nonadiabatic approach), and (2) to be able to eventually carry out a full asteroseismological analysis using better constraints/determinations of the atmospheric parameters (${T_{\rm eff}}$, ${\log g}$ and He/C) from spectroscopy. In this Letter, we thus report new high signal-to-noise ratio spectroscopic observations (MMT and Keck) that revealed, to our great surprise, that SDSS J1426+5752 is the first pulsating white dwarf showing clear evidence for the presence of a strong magnetic field. This is certainly an unexpected result, given that strong magnetism in white dwarfs is generally thought to extinguish, or at least greatly diminish, pulsational activity. We discuss below the implications of this discovery. OBSERVATIONS {#observation} ============ Since the signal-to-noise ratio for the SDSS spectra of the faint known carbon-atmosphere white dwarfs is not sufficient for a precise determination of the atmospheric parameters, a program to reobserve all the Hot DQ stars with the MMT 6.5 m telescope was recently undertaken. The complete analysis of these new Hot DQ spectra will be presented in due time, once the program is completed. As a part of the program, SDSS J1426+5752 was observed for a total of 180 minutes with the Blue Channel spectrograph on the night of 2008 May 5. We used the 500 line mm$^{-1}$ grating with a 1” slit, resulting in a $\sim$ 3.6 Å FWHM spectral resolution over a wavelength range of 3400-6300 Å. The spectra were reduced with standard IRAF packages. The final combined spectrum, shown in Figure 1, has a signal-to-noise ratio of $\sim$75 at 4500 Å. A lower signal-to-noise observation was obtained at the Keck Observatory on the night of UT 2008 May 4 with the blue channel of LRIS. The 400 groove mm$^{-1}$, 3400Å grism was used with the D560 dichoric and the atmospheric dispersion corrector was active. Two exposures with a total exposure time of 1260 seconds were taken with a 07 slit in 09 seeing at an airmass of 2.3. The spectra were reduced and extracted using standard IRAF packages. The spectra were corrected for atmospheric extinction using the IRAF KPNO extinction curve; the measured signal-to-noise is $\approx 54$ per 5Å resolution element at 4500Å. In Figure 1, we present our new high signal-to-noise ratio MMT spectrum, the Keck observation, as well as the SDSS data that were used for the @dufour08 analysis. The most striking revelation brought by these new observations is that many of the carbon features are clearly well separated into three Zeeman components (see bottom panels in Figure 1). The separation between the components of the C <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> features corresponds to a surface field $B_s \approx$ 1.2 MG. Note that with the poor signal-to-noise ratio of the SDSS observation, @dufour08 could not resolve the Zeeman structure and, as a result, their spectroscopic solution (see Fig. 1) can now only be considered as an approximation of the true atmospheric parameters. Our new observations also reveal a small but quite significant depression near the 4471 He <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> line, indicating that helium is indeed present in relatively large abundance in this object. However, since our atmosphere models do not include a magnetic field yet, no exact abundance can be derived at this point, although it is probably not too far from the 0.5 value mentioned above. DISCUSSION {#results} ========== Origin of the Magnetic Field ---------------------------- It is generally believed that many magnetic white dwarfs are the likely descendants of magnetic main sequence stars (the Ap and Bp stars), and that the high fields observed in some white dwarfs are the result of (partial) magnetic flux conservation of a fossil field as the star shrinks in radius by a factor of $\sim$ 100 as it becomes a white dwarf. Since, however, about ten per cent of isolated white dwarfs are high field magnetic white dwarfs [recognizable from Zeeman split spectral lines, @liebert03; @kawka07], another origin may also be necessary, possibly as proposed by @tout08. Dynamo-type mechanisms have also been proposed to explain the putative weak magnetic field in the pulsating DB white dwarf GD 358 [@markiel94; @thomas95]. However, it is quite unlikely that such mechanisms could account for a field as high as 1.2 MG in the carbon-rich atmosphere of SDSS J1426+5752, or in a white dwarf in general. Indeed, to produce a dynamo-type magnetic field, convective motions must be strong enough to twist and move seed magnetic lines. As the field grows, due to dynamo amplification, convection is having a harder time to move the field lines. Thus, the final large-scale field can never reach an amplitude comparable to the so-called equipartition field strength given by the condition $B_{eq}^2/8\pi = 1/2 ~ <\rho ~ v_{conv}^2>$, where the last term corresponds to a suitable average over the convection zone of the convective energy density. Typical values of $B_{eq}$, calculated for H-, He- and even C-atmosphere white dwarfs by @fontaine73 are $\sim$ 10-100 kG. While these results need to be revisited, in particular using a state-of-the art model for SDSS J1426+5752, it would be extremely surprising to find that the order of magnitude estimates of @fontaine73 could change significantly. We thus believe that the 1.2 MG magnetic field found in SDSS J1426+5752 is a fossil field, probably originating from an Ap star. Magnetism and Pulsations in White Dwarf Stars --------------------------------------------- To date, there is no clear evidence for the presence of an observable magnetic field in any of the known pulsating white dwarfs. None of the 51 bright ZZ Ceti stars from the Bergeron sample show any sign of Zeeman splitting in the optical spectra, which translates, given the typical S/N ratio and resolution of the observations, to limits on the magnetic field strength of about 500 kG (P. Bergeron, private communication). Also, none of the known pulsating DB white dwarfs have a magnetic field strong enough to be detected from Zeeman splitting. This is also the case for the 18 known pulsating white dwarfs of the GW Vir type. In order to detect weaker magnetic fields down to a few kG, spectropolarimetric measurements are needed. Unfortunately, only a small number of pulsating white dwarfs have been investigated with this more precise method. Nevertheless, no significant magnetic field has ever been found in any of the few pulsating white dwarfs for which spectropolarimetric measurements are available [@schmidt97; @valyavin06], and very small upper limits of a few kG are obtained in all cases (with perhaps an uncertain marginal detection in one case). The fact that the samples of magnetic and pulsating white dwarfs do not intersect may not be very surprising from a theoretical point of view. Indeed, pulsating white dwarfs of both the V777 Her and ZZ Ceti types are found in a regime of effective temperature where an important superficial convection zone is present. The latter is due to the partial ionization of either He or H, and contributes significantly to the excitation of pulsation modes. For a large scale magnetic field of magnitude much stronger than the equipartition field strength, it is likely that the convective motions are largely quenched, which perhaps extinguishes completely pulsational driving. One example of a white dwarf where a magnetic field [$B_e = -1000 \pm 500$ kG, @putney97] might have ”killed” the pulsations is the constant DB star LB 8827 [PG 0853+164, @wesemael01]. Unfortunately, the effective temperature of this object is uncertain, and it is not known with certainty whether it is inside the DB instability strip or not. The only case where the detection of a magnetic field has been claimed in a pulsating white dwarf is that of GD 358. In that case, the magnetic field has been indirectly inferred from asteroseismological analysis [@winget94]. It should be noted that this interpretation of the asteroseismological data in terms of a magnetic field is far from being accepted by all (see, e.g., Fontaine & Brassard 2008, in preparation). In any case, follow-up circular polarization measurements of GD 358 by @schmidt97 have not succeeded in detecting the presence of a weak field, but their detection threshold was significantly above the value of 1300 $\pm$ 300 gauss suggested by @winget94. Such a small field is certainly not strong enough to affect the convection zone significantly, and is apparently unable to stop the pulsations in this variable white dwarf. Rotation or Pulsations? ----------------------- In this section, we briefly discuss the possibility that rotation might be a significant ingredient in this puzzle. Indeed, rapid rotation is known to be important in at least two variable magnetic white dwarf systems where the variability is explained by changes with rotational phase instead of pulsational instabilities. The first of these cases, RE J0317-853 [@barstow95; @burleigh99], is a highly magnetic, rotating white dwarf with a period of 725 s that is most probably the result of a double degenerate merger. The second case, Feige 7 [@liebert77], is also a rotating magnetic white dwarf but, this time, with a period of 2.2 hours. Its spectrum shows Zeeman splitting for both hydrogen and helium that appears to vary with rotational phase [@achilleos92]. Could it be that SDSS J1426+5752 is a rare magnetic white dwarf spinning very fast (which would make it, with a period of 417 s, the fastest white dwarf amongst isolated white dwarfs)? Several factors lead us to believe that, on the contrary, this star is most likely a pulsator and not a rotator. The exposure time for each of our integrations at the MMT (600 s) is well above the period of 417 s found by @montgomery08, meaning that our spectra are averaged over a variability cycle. If the luminosity variations are due to fast rotation of the star, it is quite probable that the average magnetic field along our line of sight, depending on the geometry and the alignment of the field with respect to the rotation axis or the presence of magnetic spots, would vary over one cycle. The resulting Zeeman splitting of atomic line should thus vary in magnitude as the field strength changes, leading to very broad or blended lines in our average spectra, not three well separated and sharp components as observed (see bottom panels in Figure 1). Of course, one could imagine a situation where a dipole field is well aligned with the rotation axis, or a more complex field geometry that is such that the field remains almost constant over the rotation period although our knowledge of other magnetic white dwarfs suggests that this is quite rare and unlikely [@wickramasinghe02]. This, alone, is not an argument strong enough to discard completely this possibility of fast rotation. However, our own rapid photometry campaign at the 61” telescope at Mount Bigelow with the Mont4K CCD imager brings an important new piece to this puzzle (Fontaine et al. 2008, in preparation). Indeed, based on a total of 107 hours of observations spread over one month (half in early April and half in early May 2008), the presence of a low-amplitude second mode with a period of 319 s (a 4.9 sigma result) has now been revealed. That SDSS J1426+5752 is therefore very likely a multiperiodic pulsator is certainly a strong argument against the fast rotator hypothesis. A more standard pulsation mechanism, although involving a strong magnetic field, is thus probably at work here (see below). Finally, if we look individually at each combination of two consecutive 600 s MMT exposures (a single exposure is too noisy to reveal the splitting in the lines), we do not find any evidence for a change in the separation of the Zeeman components over a three hour period, indicating that the magnetic field strength remains constant over that timescale. Using the Keck data from the previous night, we find that, within the limits of the noise, the spectrum looks unchanged on a $\sim$20 h period as well. Unless we are dealing with a complicated magnetic field geometry or that a dipole field is perfectly aligned with the rotation axis, this probably indicates that this star is rotating very slowly, which is more in line with our understanding that magnetic white dwarfs are generally slow rotators [@wickramasinghe02]. A roAp Star Analog? ------------------- As discussed above, the magnetic field in SDSS J1426+5752 is certainly much stronger than $B_{eq}$, which immediately suggests that the convective motions are smothered by the field and perhaps even that there is no convection at all. At the very least, because ionized matter cannot freely cross field lines, one would expect the suppression of convective motions in the magnetic equatorial regions while some “channeled” motions could resist near the magnetic poles. Since convection plays a role in the driving of pulsation modes in nonmagnetic models of SDSS J1426+5752, how is it possible then that a white dwarf with such a high magnetic field, and perhaps no significant convection zone, pulsates? If we take a look across the wide field of stellar oscillations, we find that there is a perfect example of a class of objects where pulsations and magnetism are found to coexist: the rapidly oscillating Ap (roAp) stars [@kurtz2006]. These stars have a strong (by main sequence standards) magnetic field (1000-10,000 G), no convection, and pulsation modes are excited through a kappa-type mechanism. It could thus be that SDSS J1426+5752 is a white dwarf analog of the roAp stars. Amusingly, it is also not impossible that it might have pulsated as a roAp itself in a distant past! The full nonadiabatic calculations presented in @dufour08 rely on equilibrium models that all have convection zones, and are thus likely inappropriate for the case of SDSS J1426+5752. One interesting avenue we intend to explore is to construct models in which we would prevent artificially convection in order to mimic the effects of the magnetic field. Would artificially radiative models pulsate? We do not know yet, but it would not be surprising that they could via the usual kappa-mechanism since there would still be, convection or not, a huge opacity peak in the envelope of such models. While the magnetic field is probably sufficiently strong to inhibit convective motions, it is not strong enough to stop the pulsations themselves, very obviously because we detect oscillation modes. The effect of the strong field on the pulsations is probably indirect in that it changes the conditions for driving, but much more work is required before we understand exactly how this occurs. The presence of the field may also force the pulsations to align themselves on the magnetic axis as in roAp stars. The body of knowledge gathered so far on these stars should be extremely useful as a guide for future investigations of the pulsation properties of SDSS J1426+5752. CONCLUSION ========== We presented evidence that SDSS J1426+5752 is the first pulsating white dwarf with the clear presence of a strong (i.e., strong enough for Zeeman splitting to be observed) magnetic field ($\approx$ 1.2 MG). Such a strong magnetic field probably inhibits the convective motions in this object, but it is unclear yet how the pulsations are affected. We proposed that this strange object could be a white dwarf analog of the rapidly oscillating Ap stars and that a usual kappa-mechanism, even in the absence of convection, might still explain the pulsational instabilities. The confirmed presence of helium in the envelope/atmosphere of SDSS J1426+5752 is likely to play a key role in this process. Future work testing this hypothesis is underway. The authors would like to thank Constance Rockosi for her assistance in obtaining the Keck Observations and Michael Bolte for facilitating these observations. P.D. acknowledges the financial support of NSERC. This work was also supported by the NSF through grant AST 03-07321 and AST-0602288. Support from the Reardon Foundation is also gratefully acknowledged. G.F. acknowledges the contribution of the NSERC and the Canada Research Chair Program. Achilleos, N., Wickramasinghe, D. T., Liebert, J., Saffer, R. A., & Grauer, A. D.1992, , 396, 273 Barstow, M. A., Jordan, S., O’Donoghue, D., Burleigh, M. R., Napiwotzki, R., & Harrop-Allin, M. K. 1995, , 277, 971 Burleigh, M. R., Jordan, S., & Schweizer, W. 1999, , 510, L37 Dufour, P., Liebert, J., Fontaine, G., & Behara, N. 2007, , 450, 522 Dufour, P., Fontaine, G., Liebert, J., Schmidt, G. D., & Behara, N. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.0331 Fontaine, G., Thomas, J. H., & van Horn, H. M. 1973, , 184, 911 Fontaine, G., Brassard, P., & Dufour, P. 2008, , 483, L1 Fontaine, G., & Van Horn, H.M. 1976, , 31, 467 Kawka, A., Vennes, S., Schmidt, G. D., Wickramasinghe, D. T., & Koch, R. 2007, , 654, 499 Kurtz, D.W. 2006, CoAst., 147, 6 Liebert, J., Angel, J. R. P., Stockman, H. S., Spinrad, H., & Beaver, E. A. 1977, , 214, 457 Liebert, J., Bergeron, P., & Holberg, J. B. 2003, , 125, 348 Markiel, J. A., Thomas, J. H., & van Horn, H. M. 1994, , 430, 834 Montgomery, M. H., Williams, K. A., Winget, D. E., Dufour, P., DeGennaro, S., & Liebert, J. 2008, , 678, L51 Putney, A. 1997, , 112, 527 Schmidt, G. D., & Grauer, A. D. 1997, , 488, 827 Thomas, J. H., Markiel, J. A., & van Horn, H. M. 1995, , 453, 403 Tout, C. A., Wickramasinghe, D. T., Liebert, J., Ferrario, L., & Pringle, J. E. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.0115 Valyavin, G., Bagnulo, S., Fabrika, S., Inwoo Han, D., Monin, D., Reisenegger, A., & Wade, G. A. 2006, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 358, 413 Wesemael, F., Liebert, J., Schmidt, G. D., Beauchamp, A., Bergeron, P., & Fontaine, G. 2001, , 554, 1118 Wickramasinghe, D. T., & Ferrario, L. 2000, , 112, 873 Winget, D. E., et al. 1994, , 430, 839	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Localization is a critical capability for robots, drones and autonomous vehicles operating in a wide range of environments. One of the critical considerations for designing, training or calibrating visual localization systems is the coverage of the visual sensors equipped on the platforms. In an aerial context for example, the altitude of the platform and camera field of view plays a critical role in how much of the environment a downward facing camera can perceive at any one time. Furthermore, in other applications, such as on roads or in indoor environments, additional factors such as camera resolution and sensor placement altitude can also affect this coverage. The sensor coverage and the subsequent processing of its data also has significant computational implications. In this paper we present for the first time a set of methods for automatically determining the trade-off between coverage and visual localization performance, enabling the identification of the minimum visual sensor coverage required to obtain optimal localization performance with minimal compute. We develop a localization performance indicator based on the overlapping coefficient, and demonstrate its predictive power for localization performance with a certain sensor coverage. We evaluate our method on several challenging real-world datasets from aerial and ground-based domains, and demonstrate that our method is able to automatically optimize for coverage using a small amount of calibration data. We hope these results will assist in the design of localization systems for future autonomous robot, vehicle and flying systems.' author: - 'James Mount$^{1}$, Les Dawes$^{1}$ and Michael Milford$^{1}$[^1]' bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: 'Automatic Coverage Selection for Surface-Based Visual Localization ' --- =1 at (current page.south) ; INTRODUCTION ============ Over the past two decades, robotics and autonomous vehicle systems have vision sensors, using them to provide critical capabilities including localization. This usage is due in part to the rapid increase in both . Cameras have benefits over other sensors such as radar, providing far more information about the environment including texture and colour. Furthermore, cameras have other advantages including being passive sensing modalities, to be relatively inexpensive, have small form factors and relatively low power consumption [@milford2014condition]. One of the critical system design considerations for camera-equipped autonomous platforms is the coverage of the cameras, which is affected by a range of factors including the altitude of the platform (for aerial contexts), mounting point (for ground-based vehicles), the camera field of view and the sensor resolution. The choices made with regards to these system properties can also affect other critical system considerations like compute – if a subset of the entire field of view of a camera can be used for effective localization, significant reductions in compute can be achieved. We addresses this challenge by presenting a novel technique that automatically identifies the trade-off between visual sensor coverage and the performance of a visual localization algorithm. The technique enables automatic selection of the minimum visual sensor coverage required to obtain optimal performance – specifically, optimal localization recall without expending unnecessary compute on processing a larger sensor coverage field than required. We focus our research within the area of vision based surface localization, such as that demonstrated by Kelly et al [@Kelly:2000; @Kelly:2007] for warehouse localization, Conte and Doherty [@conte2009vision] in aerial environments and Hover et al [@Hover:2012] in ship hull inspection. We evaluate the proposed method , on several challenging real-world aerial and ground-based surface datasets, showing that the technique can automatically select the optimal coverage by using calibration data from environments analogous to the deployment environment. The paper proceeds as follows. Section \[section:RelatedWork\] summarizes related works, such as surface-based visual localization and procedures for parameter tuning. Sections \[section:Approach\] and \[section:ExperimentalSetup\] provide an overview of the calibration procedure and the experimental setup respectively. The performance of our algorithm and a discussion is presented in Sections \[section:Results\] and \[section:Discussion\] respectively. ![Given a reference map and a number of query samples, our overlap coefficient-based calibration process automatically determines the optimal sensor coverage for maximizing localization performance while minimizing computational overhead. The blue and red lines in the plots are the overlapping coefficient for various patch radii for the two datasets shown and the overlapping coefficient threshold respectively.[]{data-label="figure:OverviewFig"}](OverviewFig.png) RELATED WORK {#section:RelatedWork} ============ In this section we present research related to surface-based visual localization and calibration procedures for parameter tuning. Surface-Based Visual Localization --------------------------------- In several mobile robotics applications the system moves relative to a surface, such as a drone across the ground, an autonomous vehicle over the road or a submarine relative to a ship’s hull. As a result, several approaches have proposed using the surface that the robot moves relative to as a visual reference map for localization. For example, Kelly et al. thoroughly demonstrated that surface-based visual localization using pixel-based techniques for mobile ground platforms is feasible within warehouse environments with controlled lighting using a monocular camera [@Kelly:2000; @Kelly:2007]. Mount et al. also demonstrated this technique can be applied to autonomous vehicles and a road surface, even with day to night image data [@mount2017image]. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) regularly use geo-referenced aerial imagery to help alleviate errors caused by GPS outages [@conte2009vision; @Sim2002IntegratedPE; @caballero2009vision; @madison2007vision]. For example, Conte et al. demonstrated that they could incorporate feature-based image registration to develop a drift-free state estimation technique for UAVs [@conte2009vision]. The research presented on underwater visual ship hull inspection and navigation further demonstrates that vision based surface localization is feasible even in challenging conditions [@Hover:2012; @Kim:2013; @Ozog:2014]. There has also been a variety of research into utilizing the surface as the input image stream for visual odometry [@Dille:2010; @Nourani:2011; @aqel2016adaptive]. Calibration Procedures for Visual Localization ---------------------------------------------- The altering of configuration parameters in both deep learning and traditional computer vision algorithms can have a drastic effect on performance [@bergstra2011algorithms], such as the the size of images used within appearance-based techniques [@milford2012seqslam]. This can cause difficulties in successfully making the transition between research and application, as well as between domains [@jacobson2018semi; @zeng2018i2; @zeng2017enhancing]. Due to these difficulties, there have been several research areas investigating the development of automatic calibration routines to improve the performance of visual localization alogrithms. Lowry et al. demonstrated online training-free procedures that could determine the probabilistic model for evaluating whether a query image came from the same location as a reference image, even under significant appearance variation [@lowry2014towards; @lowry2015building]. In [@jacobson2015online; @jacobson2015autonomous] and [@jacobson2013autonomous] Jacobson et al. explored novel calibration methods to automatically optimize sensor threshold parameters for place recognition. Several bodies of work have also used the system’s state estimate to reduce the search space in subsequent iterations, such as that in [@aqel2016adaptive; @Nourani:2011]. In all bodies of work the authors demonstrated that parameter calibration outperformed their state-of-the-art counterparts. . There has been considerable research into calibration routines to identify spatial and temporal transforms between pre-determined sensor configurations [@maddern2012lost; @furgale2013unified; @kelly2011visual; @scaramuzza2007extrinsic; @pandey2015automatic; @weiss2012real]. Significant investigations into using visual sensors to overcome kinematic and control model errors used in robotics platforms has also been an area of key research [@meng2007autonomous; @vsvaco2014calibration; @du2013online]. These approaches in general have addressed a different set of challenges to those addressed here, instead focusing on the relationship between sensors and robotic platforms or between sensors and other non-localization-based competencies. The automatic selection of hyper-parameters is also related, especially in the deep learning field [@bergstra2011algorithms; @bergstra2012random; @thornton2013auto; @bardenet2013collaborative; @gold2005bayesian]. Approach {#section:Approach} ======== This section provides an overview of the approach for automatic selection of the sensor coverage required for an optimal combination of visual surface based localization performance and computational requirements. The primary aim and scope of the techniques presented here is to identify the amount of coverage with respect to the sensor field of view and the altitude of a downward-facing camera above the ground plane. The technique requires a small number of aligned training image pairs from an environment analogous to the deployment environment; although we do not attack that particular problem here, there are a multitude of techniques that could potentially be used to bootstrap this data online such as SeqSLAM [@milford2012seqslam]. We outline the complete calibration procedure in Algorithm \[algo:CalibrationProcedure\]. Optimal Coverage Calibration Procedure -------------------------------------- The calibration procedure works under the assumption that the similarity of the normal distributions between the ground truth only scores and all scores diverges as sensor coverage, resolution and placement changes. This divergence in distribution similarity is indicative of better single frame matching performance (see Figure \[figure:OVLMetricExample\] for an example). In this paper we use the Overlapping Coefficient (OVL), which is an appropriate measure of distribution similarity [@inman1989overlapping; @reiser1999confidence]. There are various measures for OVL, including Morisita’s [@morisita1959measuring], Matusita’s [@matusita1955decision] and Weitzman’s [@weitzman1970measures]. We use Weitzman’s measure which is given by, $$O = \int_{k_0}^{k_1} min(p(x), q(x)) dx$$ where $p(x)$ and $q(x)$ are two normal distributions and $O$ is the resulting OVL value. Once the OVL value goes below a given threshold there is limited to no performance gains in localization performance. It is at this point we consider the visual sensor coverage to be optimal. As the OVL threshold is most likely between two of the tested calibration OVL values, as in Figure \[figure:OVLMetricExample\], we use linear interpolation to select the point of intersection. If no tested calibration points achieve less than the required OVL we simply take the largest coverage tested. The selection of the optimal operating value $P_O$ hence is given by the following, $$\color{red} P_O = \begin{cases} P_a+(P_b-P_a)\frac{O_r-O_a}{O_b-O_a} & \text{any}(P_N \leq O_r) \\ {{arg\, max}_N}{(P_N)} & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$ where $P_O$, $P_a$ and $P_b$ are the optimal operating value, and the value above and below the required OVL threshold, $O_r$, respectively. $O_a$ and $O_b$ are the corresponding OVL values for the tested calibration values $P_a$ and $P_b$. $P_N$ are all the values tested during calibration. ![The effect of patch radius on the overlapping coefficient (OVL) between the normal distributions of all the correlation scores (solid red line) and the ground truth only scores (dashed green line). The red dotted line and solid black circle in the bottom plot represents the required OVL value $O_r$ and the selected interpolated patch radius respectively. This examples used NCC as the underlying localization technique.[]{data-label="figure:OVLMetricExample"}](OVLMetricExample.jpg) ![An example of the local feature with sub-patch comparison. This technique compares a patch (entire red rectangle) by comparing the corresponding smaller sub-patches. The final metric for a large patch-to-patch comparison is the average percentage of key point inliers across sub-patches. In this work the sub-patch diameter is set to 40 pixels, and we move the patch in increments of 20 pixels. We have used BRISK key points with SURF descriptors, and we only test patch sizes that are integer multiples of the sub-patch size.[]{data-label="figure:LocalFeatureTechnique"}](LocalFeatureTechnique.png) Experimental Setup {#section:ExperimentalSetup} ================== This section describes the experimental setup, including the dataset acquisition and key parameter values. All experiments were performed either on a standard desktop running 64-bit Ubuntu 16.04 and MATLAB-2018b or on Queensland’s University of Technology’s High Performance Cluster running MATLAB-2018b. Image Datasets -------------- Datasets were either acquired from aerial photography provided by Nearmap, or from road surface imagery collected using a full-frame Sony A7s DSLR. The datasets are summarised in Table \[table:Datasets\]. ### Aerial Datasets The aerial datasets were acquired by downloading high-resolution aerial photography provided by Nearmap [@nearmap]. To ensure suitable dataset variation for validation of our algorithm, the authors collected imagery from forest, field, rural and suburban areas at various altitudes as well as at different qualitative levels of appearance variation. Each Nearmap dataset consists of two pixel aligned images, a reference and a query map. Patches from the query map are compared to the reference map. Figure \[figure:NearmapDatasetExamples\] shows the reference and query maps for each Nearmap dataset. The Nearmap Datasets 7a to 7c are from the same location with differing altitudes. . Each Nearmap image was down-sampled to a fixed width while maintaining its aspect ratio. This down-sampling was to increase ease of comparison between different datasets. ![image](NearmapDatasets_Small.jpg) ### Road Surface Datasets The road surface imagery datasets were acquired using a consumer grade Sony A7s, with a standard lens, capturing video while mounted to the bonnet of a Hyundai iLoad van. Three traversals of the same stretch of road were made, two during the day and one at night. Corresponding day-day (Road Surface 1) and day-night (Road Surface 2) frames with significant overlap were then selected, and the corresponding frames manually pixel aligned. This resulted in two datasets, Road Surface 1 and 2. Both datasets have four pixel aligned images, with day-day and day-night images in datasets 1 and 2 respectively. Similarly to the Nearmap datasets, the first image in each image pair is used as the reference map, while the second is used to generate query patches. Figure \[figure:NearmapDatasetExamples\] shows the four reference and query maps for each Road Surface dataset. The road surface images were pre-processed, including down-sampling and local patch normalization, to remove the effects of lighting variation and motion blur. This has been shown to improve visual localization performance [@milford2012seqslam]. Dataset Name Dataset Name Dataset Name ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ Nearmap 1 Nearmap 2 Nearmap 3 Nearmap 4 Nearmap 5 Nearmap 6 Nearmap 7a Nearmap 7b Nearmap 7c Nearmap 8a Nearmap 8b Nearmap 8c Road Surface 1a Road Surface 1b Road Surface 1c Road Surface 2a Road Surface 2b Road Surface 2c : Datasets[]{data-label="table:Datasets"} Parameter Values ---------------- The key parameter values are given in Table \[table:KeyParameters\]. Parameter Road Surface Description --------------- ------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- NCC LFT NCC $I_{X}$ 200 400 100 Image Width $N_{X}$ 2 Patch Normalization Radius $O_{r}$ 0.005 0.0225 0.005 Required OVL Threshold $t_{M}$ 5 True Match Distance Threshold $N$ 200 100 200 Number of Calibration Samples $M$ 1000 100 1000 Number of Validation Samples : Key Parameter List for Nearmap and Road Surface Datasets[]{data-label="table:KeyParameters"} Experiments and Results {#section:Results} ======================= This section presents the results from the various experiments we conducted. To evaluate performance we calculate the recall, as well as a new performance metric which takes into account both recall and computational efficiency. We defined recall as the number of true single frame matches divided by the total number of samples. The second new performance metric is used to test that the calibration procedure does choose the optimal operating point. Optimal performance is defined as maximizing recall with as little computational overhead necessary. This new metric, which we call the max recall to computation efficiency, is given by $$\color{red} M_{i} = 1 - \frac{\sqrt{(P_i - P_{g})^2}}{{arg\, max}_N{(\sqrt{(P_N - P_{g}})^2)}}$$ where $M_{i}$ is the max recall to computation efficiency at patch radius $P_i$. $P_g$ and $P_N$ are optimal ground truth patch radius for the dataset and all patch radii used during validation. The ${arg\, max}_N (\sqrt{(P_N - P_{g}})^2$ is used to normalize the distances to be in the range from 0 to 1, while the $1-$ is used to invert the normalized distances so that a higher value means a higher recall to computation efficiency. The optimal ground truth patch radius, $P_g$, is defined as the patch radius which achieves 95% of the maximum recall for that dataset. This distance metric naturally encodes the recall and computational efficiency into a single value, and it will punish either unnecessary computational overhead or points that achieve poor relative recall. Patch radius is indicative of computational load, as demonstrated in Figure \[figure:AveCompTimeAndPatchOverlay\]a, which shows that computation time is proportional to patch radius. Automatic Coverage Selection Evaluation --------------------------------------- The first experiment was to investigate the performance of the calibration procedure and test whether it indeed selects the optimal coverage required to maximize localization performance. To evaluate this we ran the calibration routine on a single calibration image that was the same size as and representative of, each Nearmap reference map. We then verified the calibration procedure by testing several patch radii, including the selected patch radius from the calibration routine, on each Nearmap dataset. . To validate the calibration procedure we compute the percentage recall and performance metric for several patch radii on the validation image pairs. The results are shown in Figure \[figure:ValidationOfCalibrationProcedure\] and \[figure:AltitudeAndApearanceVariation\]. Figure \[figure:ValidationOfCalibrationProcedure\] shows the results for Nearmap datasets 1-6. Figure \[figure:AltitudeAndApearanceVariation\] shows the results for 7a-c and 8a-c which represent various altitudes and appearance variation. Figure \[figure:AveCompTimeAndPatchOverlay\]a shows the average computation time is proportional to the patch radius. Additionally, it should be noted that the optimal coverage varies between datasets, as shown in Figure \[figure:AveCompTimeAndPatchOverlay\]b. In Figure \[figure:Nearmap7Traversal\] we provide a visual example of a traversal through the Nearmap 8b dataset using the optimal patch radius of 30 pixels, as well as a patch radius above and below. As can be seen, the optimal patch radius results in near perfect recall with minimal computational overhead. ![Results of the calibration procedure on several Nearmap datasets, optimizing for NCC patch radius. The top plot shows the OVL using Weitzman’s measure for the calibration patch radii tested, which is performed on a calibration image. The second and third plot show the percentage recall and max recall to computational efficiency curves for several patch radius, including the selected patch radius, $P_O$, indicated by a black circle, which is performed on the Nearmap dataset images. As can be seen, the calibration procedure consistently selects the patch radius near the top of the max recall to computational efficiency curves, demonstrating its success.[]{data-label="figure:ValidationOfCalibrationProcedure"}](ValidationCalibrationProcedure.jpg) ![Results of the calibration procedure on Nearmap datasets with altitude and appearance variations, datasets 7a-c and 8a-c respectively. As can be seen in the third plot, the calibration consistently picks the near optimal patch size, as indicated by the black circles.[]{data-label="figure:AltitudeAndApearanceVariation"}](VaryingAltitudeAndAppearance.jpg) ![(a) Computational profile: the average computation, and hence computational load, is proportional to the patch radius. (b) The optimal visual coverage required is dependent on the data. The rectangles show the optimal patch radius. The optimal patch radius are 4, 30, 7 and 15 pixels for the Nearmap 7a, Nearmap 8b, Road Surface 1 and Road Surface 2 datasets respectively (note that the Nearmap 8b patch radius looks smaller than the Road Surface patch radii because the Nearmap 8b image is 4x larger).[]{data-label="figure:AveCompTimeAndPatchOverlay"}](CompTimeAndOverlay.png) ![A visual indication of the performance of the calibration procedure on a traversal across the Nearmap 8b dataset. As can be seen the optimal patch radius selected by the calibration procedure, 30 pixels, results in almost perfect recall with a much lower computation time per iteration compared to that of the traverse using a 60px patch radius. Each green and red dot indicates the center of successful or unsuccessful localization of a query patch throughout the traverse respectively[]{data-label="figure:Nearmap7Traversal"}](Nearmap_8b_Traversal.jpg) Automatic Coverage Selection on a Different Domain -------------------------------------------------- The second experiment investigated how well the automatic selection of the optimal visual coverage worked on a different data domain. As can be seen, the calibration procedure successfully selects the near optimal patch radius in both Road Surface datasets. However, these results still show that the calibration procedure can select an optimal coverage that generalizes to other data (assuming the calibration data is representative of the rest of the dataset). ![The results of the calibration procedure on the Road Surface 1 dataset (day-day images), which demonstrates that the calibration procedure consistently selects the optimal patch radius within a different data domain.[]{data-label="figure:RoadSurfacePlots_DayDay_Single"}](RoadSurfacePlots_DayDay_Single.jpg) ![The results of the calibration procedure on the Road Surface 2 dataset (day-night images). The selected patch radius from calibration procedure, which was determined using the first image pair, results in the near optimal performance on the three remaining image pairs within the dataset.[]{data-label="figure:RoadSurfacePlots_DayNight_Single"}](RoadSurfacePlots_DayNight_Single) ![The results of the multiple training image experiment performed on Road Surface dataset 2. When comparing to the results from the previous experiment we can see the use of multiple training images improves the overall performance in regards to the max recall to efficiency metric.[]{data-label="figure:RoadSurfacePlots_DayNight_Multi"}](RoadSurfacePlots_DayNight_Multi) ![The results of using the calibration system with the local feature-based technique. As can be seen the optimal patch radius is correctly selected, showing the proposed system generalizes to other localization front-ends.[]{data-label="figure:LocalFeatureTechnique_Results"}](ValidationCalibrationProcedure_LFT) Discussion and Future Work {#section:Discussion} ========================== The presented automatic calibration procedure takes a set of aligned imagery from an environment analogous to the deployment domain, and selects the minimum sensor coverage required to achieve optimal localization performance with minimal compute requirements. Experiments run across both aerial and ground-based surface imagery demonstrated that the approach is able to consistently find this optimal coverage amount, even when it varies hugely across application domains and environments. There are a range of enhancements and extensions that can be pursued in future work. The first is to investigate the potential use of appearance-invariant visual localization algorithms to generate the aligned training data “on the fly” at deployment time, removing the need to have training data beforehand . The second is to investigate other criteria for finding the optimal operating point beyond the implementation used in this research – such as defining a “plateau” threshold in the overlap coefficient curve at which point performance gains diminish with increased sensor coverage. Thirdly, we have investigated sensor coverage of the environment here but not other properties like sensor resolution. Such properties could likely be optimized through a similar process to the one used here for coverage. Additionally, there may be absolute criteria that can be used to determine the optimal coverage for a given environment, again removing the requirement to have training data with aligned imagery. Choosing the right camera configuration with respect to mounting and field of view, as well as the operating altitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, is a critical process both during system design and during deployment operations. We hope that the research presented here will provide an additional tool with which to address these challenges. ACKNOWLEDGMENT {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== James Mount and Michael Milford are with the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision at the Queensland University of Technology. This work was supported by an ARC Centre of Excellence for Robotic Vision Grant CE140100016, an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT140101229 to Michael Milford and an Australia Postgraduate Award and a QUT Excellence Scholarship to James Mount. The authors also appreciate the support and computing resources provided by QUT’s High Performance Centre (HPC). [^1]: $^{1}$J. Mount, L. Dawes and M. Milford are with Faculty of Science and Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia [[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]]{}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - Chengcheng Ling - Michael Röckner - 'Xiangchan Zhu[^1]' title: ' [SDEs with singular drifts and multiplicative noise on general space-time domains]{}' --- Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered} ======== In this paper, we prove the existence and uniqueness of maximally defined strong solutions to SDEs driven by multiplicative noise on general space-time domains $Q\subset\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^d$, which have continuous paths on the one-point compactification $Q\cup\partial$ of $Q$ where $\partial \notin Q$ and $Q\cup\partial$ is equipped with the Alexandrov topology. If the SDE is of gradient type (see below) we prove that under suitable Lyapunov type conditions the life time of the solution is infinite and its distribution has sub-Gaussian tails. This generalizes earlier work [@KR] by Krylov and one of the authors to the case where the noise is multiplicative. Key words {#key-words .unnumbered} ========= Krylov’s estimate, stochastic differential equation, well-posedness, non-explosion of the solution, maximally defined local solution to SDE, singular drift, multiplicative noise Introduction ============ Consider the following stochastic differential equation (abbreviated as SDE): $$\label{eq1} X_t=x+\int_0^tb(s+r,X_r)dr+\int_0^t\sigma(s+r,X_r)dW_r, \quad t\geq 0,$$ in an open set $Q\subset[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with measurable coefficients $b=(b_i)_{1\leq i\leq d}: Q\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ and $\sigma=(\sigma_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq d}: Q\rightarrow L(\mathbb{R}^d)$ $(:=d\times d$ real valued matrices$)$. Here $(s,x)\in Q$ is the initial point, and $(W_t)_{t\geq0}$ is a $d-$dimensional $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-Wiener process defined on a complete filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq0},P)$. Define $$\xi := \inf\left\{t\geq 0: (t+s,X_t)\notin Q\right\}.$$ $\xi$ is called the explosion time (or life time) of the process $(t+s,X_t)_{t\geq 0}$ in the domain $Q$. There are many known results on studying existence and uniqueness of strong solutions to the SDE $\eqref{eq1}$. In the seminal paper [@A.; @J.], Veretennikov proved that for $Q=\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^d$, if the coefficient $\sigma$ is Lipschitz continuous in the space variable $x$ uniformly with respect to the time variable $t$, $\sigma\sigma^$ is uniformly elliptic, and $b$ is bounded and measurable, then the SDE $\eqref{eq1}$ admits a unique global strong solution (i.e. $\xi=\infty$ $a.s.$ where $\xi$ is defined as above). In [@KR] under the assumptions that $\sigma=\mathbb{I}_{d\times d}$ (i.e. additive noise, $\mathbb{I}_{d\times d}$ denotes the unit matrix) and $\|bI_{Q^n}\|\in L^{q(n)}(\mathbb{R};L^{p(n)}(\mathbb{R}^d))$ for $p(n),q(n)\in(2,\infty)$ and $d/p(n)+2/q(n)<1$, where $Q^n$ are open bounded subsets of $Q$ with $\overline{Q^n}\subset Q^{n+1}$ and $Q=\cup_{n}Q^n$, Krylov and Röckner proved the existence of a unique maximal local strong solution to $\eqref{eq1}$ when $Q$ is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, in the sense that there exists a unique strong solution $(s+t,X_t)_{t\geq0}$ solving on $[0,\xi)$ such that $[0,\infty)\ni t\rightarrow (s+t,X_t)\in Q' :=Q\cup \partial$ (=Alexandrov compactification of $Q$) is continuous and this process is defined to be in $\partial $ if $t\geq \xi$. To this end they applied the Girsanov transformation to get existence of a weak solution firstly and then proved pathwise uniqueness of by Zvonkin’s transformation invented in [@Zvonkin]. Then, the well-known Yamada-Watanabe theorem [@YW] yields existence and uniqueness of a maximal local strong solution. Fedrizzi and Flandoli [@FF] introduced a new method to prove existence and uniqueness of a global strong solution to the SDE by using regularizing properties of solutions to the Kolmogrov equation corresponding to , assuming that $\sigma=\mathbb{I}_{d\times d}$, $\|b\|\in L_{loc}^q(\mathbb{R}_+,L^p(\mathbb{R}^d))$ with $p,q\in(2,\infty)$ and $d/p+2/q<1$. This method was extended by Von der Lühe to the multiplicative noise case in her work [@K]. Zhang in [@Zhang2011] proved existence and uniqueness of a strong solution to the SDE on $Q=\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^d$ for $t<\tau$ $a.s.$, where $\tau$ is some stopping time, under the assumptions that $\sigma$ is bounded and uniformly continuous in $x$ locally uniformly with respect to $t$, $\sigma\sigma^$ is uniformly elliptic, and $\|b\|,\|\nabla\sigma\|\in L_{loc}^{q(n)}(\mathbb{R}_+;L^{p(n)}(B_n))$ (where $\nabla \sigma$ denotes the weak gradient of $\sigma$ with respect to $x$) with $p(n),q(n)$ satisfying $p(n),q(n)\in(2,\infty)$ and $d/p(n)+2/q(n)<1$, where $B_n$ is the ball in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with radius $n\in\mathbb{N}$ centered at zero. Zvonkin’s transformation plays a crucial role in Zhang’s proof (see also [@A.; @Yu], [@Zhang; @2005], [@Zhang; @Xie] for further interesting results on this topic, which however do not cover our results in this paper). The above results include the case where the coefficients of the SDE are time dependent. For the time independent case, Wang [@Wang] and Trutnau [@Trutnau] used generalized Dirichlet forms to get existence and uniqueness and also non-explosion results for the SDE on $Q=\mathbb{R}^d$.\ As mentioned in [@KR], there are several interesting situations arising from applications, say diffusions in random media and particle systems, where the domain $Q$ of is not the full space $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^d$ but a subdomain (e.g. $ Q=\mathbb{R}\times(\mathbb{R}^{d}\backslash\gamma^\rho)$, where $\gamma^\rho=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d\|dist(x,\gamma)\leq \rho\}$, $\rho>0$, and $\gamma$ is a locally finite subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$), where none of the above results mentioned can be applied to get global solutions, except for the one in [@KR]. Moreover, Krylov and Röckner in [@KR] not only proved the existence and uniqueness of a maximal local strong solution of the equation on $Q$, but also they obtained that if $b=-\nabla\phi$, i.e., $b$ is minus the gradient in space of a nonnegative function $\phi$ and if there exist a constant $K\in[0,\infty)$ and an integrable function $h$ on $Q$ defined as above such that the following Lyapunov conditions hold in the distributional sense $$\label{eq2} 2D_t\phi\leq K\phi,\quad 2D_t\phi +\Delta \phi\leq he^{\epsilon \phi}, \quad \epsilon\in [0,2),$$ the strong solution does not blow up, which means $\xi=\infty$ $a.s.$. Here $D_t\phi$ denotes the derivative of $\phi$ with respect to $t$. This result can be applied to diffusions in random environment and also finite interacting particle systems to show that if the above Lyapunov conditions hold, the process does not exit from $Q$ or go to infinity in finite time. However, [@KR] is restricted to the case where the equation is driven by additive noise, that is, the diffusion term is a Brownian motion.\ Our aim in this paper is to extend these results on existence and uniqueness of maximally defined local solutions and also the non-explosion results in [@KR] to the multiplicative noise case on general space-time domains $Q$. In order to prove the maximal local well-posedness result, we use a localization technique and the well-posedeness result in [@Zhang2011]. We want to point out that as Krylov and Röckner did in [@KR], we also prove the continuity of the paths of the solution not only in the domain $Q$ but also on $Q'=Q\cup\partial$, which essentially follows from Lemmas \[ossilaton1\] and \[ossilation2\] below. As far as the non-explosion result is concerned, we have to take into account that having non-constant $\sigma$ instead of $\mathbb{I}_{d\times d}$ in front of the Brownian motion in means that we have to consider a different geometry on $\mathbb{R}^d$, and that this effects the Lyapunov function type conditions which are to replace and also the form of the equation. In Remark \[gk\] by comparing the underlying Kolmogrov operators, we explain why the SDE should be considered and why states the right Lyapunov type conditions which are analog to the ones in . This leads to some substantial changes in the proof of our non-explosion result in comparison with the one in [@KR]. In addition, we give some examples to show our well-posedness and non-explosion results in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. We also give two applications to diffusions in random media and particle systems. Both are generalizations of the examples in [@KR Section 9] to the case of multiplicative noise. The organization of this paper is as follows: We state our notions and main results in Section 2 . In Section 3 we prove that there exists a pathwise unique maximal strong solution $(s+t,X_t)_{t\geq0}$ solving the SDE on $[0,\xi)$, and that the paths of $(s+t,X_t)_{t\geq0}$ are continuous in $Q'=Q\cup\partial$. Section 4 is devoted to the preparation of the proof of our non-explosion result, which is subsequently proved in Section 5. We discuss examples and applications of our results in Section 6 . The Appendix contains technical lemmas used in the proofs of our main results. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} --------------- The authors are grateful to Prof. Fengyu Wang and Dr. Guohuan Zhao for helpful discussions. Main results ============ Let $Q$ be an open subset of $\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $Q^n$, $n\geq1$, be bounded open subsets of $Q$ such that $\overline{Q^n}\subset Q^{n+1}$ and $\cup_{n}Q^n=Q$. We add an object $\partial\notin Q$ to $Q$ and define the neighborhoods of $\partial$ as the complements in $Q$ of closed bounded subsets. Then $Q'=Q\cup\partial$ becomes a compact topological space, which is just the Alexandrov compactification of $Q$. For $p$, $q\in[1,\infty)$ and $0\leq S<T<\infty$, let $\mathbb{L}_p^q(S,T)$ denote the space of all real Borel measurable functions on $[S,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d$ with the norm $$\Vert f\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q(S,T)}:=\bigg(\int_S^T\big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\|f(t,x)\|^pdx\big)^{q/p}dt\bigg)^{1/q}<+\infty.$$ For simplicity, we write $$\mathbb{L}_p^q=\mathbb{L}_p^q(0,\infty),\quad\mathbb{L}_p^q(T)=\mathbb{L}_p^q(0,T),\quad\mathbb{L}_p^{q,loc}=L_q^{loc}(\mathbb{R}_+,L_p(\mathbb{R}^d)).$$ Let $\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^d)$ denote the space of all continuous $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued functions defined on $[0,\infty)$, by $\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),Q')$ we denote all continuous $Q'-$valued paths, $\mathcal{C}_b^n(\mathbb{R}^d)$ denotes the set of all bounded $n$ times continuously differentiable functions on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with bounded derivatives of all orders. Set $(a_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq d}:=\sigma\sigma^$, where $\sigma^$ denotes the transpose of $\sigma$. For $f\in L_{loc}^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ we define $\partial_jf(x):=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j}(x)$ and $\nabla f:=(\partial_i f)_{1\leq i\leq d}$ denotes the gradient of $f$. Here the derivatives are meant in the sense of distributions. For a real valued function $g\in\mathcal{C}^1([0,\infty))$, $D_tg$ denotes the derivative of $g$ with respect to $t$. $L(\mathbb{R}^d)$ denotes all $d\times d$ real valued matrices.\ We first state the result about maximally local well posedness of the SDE on a domain $Q\subset\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$. \[mainadd1\] Let $(W_t)_{t\geq0}$ be an $d-$dimensional Wiener process defined on a complete probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F}, P)$, let $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq0}=(\mathcal{F}_t^W)_{t\geq0}$ be the normal filtration generated by $(W_t)_{t\geq0}$. Assume that for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and some $p_n,$ $q_n\in(2,\infty)$, satisfying $d/p_n+2/q_n<1,$\ (i) $\|bI_{Q^n}\|$, $\|I_{Q^n}\nabla\sigma \|\in \mathbb{L}_{p_n}^{q_n}$,\ (ii) For all $1\leq i,j\leq d$, $Q\ni(t,x)\rightarrow \sigma_{ij}(t,x)\in\mathbb{R}$ is continuous in $x$ uniformly with respect to $t$ on $Q^n$, and there exists a positive constant $\delta_n$ such that for all $(t,x)\in Q^n$, $$\|\sigma^(t,x)\lambda\|^2\geq \delta_n\|\lambda\|^2, \quad \forall \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^d.$$ Then for any $(s,x)\in Q$, there exists an $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-stopping time $\xi:=\inf\left\{t\geq0:z_t\notin Q\right\}$ and an $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted, pathwise unique and $Q'$-valued process $(z_t)_{t\geq0}:=(s+t,X_t)_{t\geq0}$ which is continuous in $Q'$ such that $$\label{eq1add} {X_t=x+\int_0^tb(s+r,X_r)dr+\int_0^t\sigma(s+r,X_r)dW_r, \quad \forall t\in [0,\xi), a.s. }$$ and for any $t\geq0$, $z_t=\partial $ on the set $\left\{\omega:t\geq\xi(\omega)\right\}(a.s.)$. In above theorem the condition $p,q\in(2,\infty)$ is automatically fulfilled when $d\geq 2$ since we also assume $d/p+2/q<1$. When $d=1$, we can refer to the result from Engelbert and Schmidt [@ES] to obtain the existence and uniqueness of a strong solution to homogeneous SDE on $\mathbb{R}^d$. They proved that if $\sigma(x)\neq0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $b/\sigma^2\in L_{loc}^1(\mathbb{R})$, and there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\|\sigma(x)-\sigma(y)\|\leq C\sqrt{\|x-y\|},\quad x,y\in\mathbb{R},$$ $$\|b(x)\|+\|\sigma(x)\|\leq C(1+\|x\|),$$ then there exists a pathwise unique and $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted process $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ such that the SDE $X_t=x+\int_0^tb(X_t)dt+\int_0^t\sigma(X_t)dW_t$ holds $a.s..$ Below we will give the non-explosion result for the solution to an SDE which is in a special form of on a domain $Q\subset\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ under the following assumptions. \[ass2.1\] (i)* $\phi$ is a nonnegative continuous function defined on $Q$.\ (ii) For each $n$ there exist $p=p(n)$, $q=q(n)$ satisfying $$\label{eq3} p,q\in(2,\infty),\quad \frac{d}{p}+\frac{2}{q}<1,$$ such that $\|I_{Q^n}\nabla\phi \|$, $\|I_{Q^n}\nabla\sigma \|\in \mathbb{L}_{p}^{q}$.\ (iii) For each $1\leq i,j\leq d$, $Q\ni(t,x)\rightarrow \sigma_{ij}(t,x)\in\mathbb{R}$ is uniformly continuous in $x$ locally uniformly with respect to $t$, and there exists a positive constant $K$ such that for all $(t,x)\in Q$, $$\frac{1}{K}\|\lambda\|^2\leq\|\sigma^(t,x)\lambda\|^2\leq K\|\lambda\|^2,\quad \forall \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^d.$$ (iv)* For some constants $K_1\in[0,\infty)$ and $\epsilon\in [0,2)$, in the sense of distributions on $Q$ we have $$\label{eq5} 2D_t\phi\leq K_1\phi,\quad 2D_t\phi+\sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_{i}\phi)\leq he^{\epsilon\phi}.$$ where $h$ is a continuous nonnegative function defined on $Q$ satisfying the following condition:\ (H)\[assH\] For any $a>0$ and $T\in (0,\infty)$ there is an $r=r(T,a)\in(1,\infty)$ such that $$H(T,a,r):=H_Q(T,a,r):=\int_ Qh^r(t,x)I_{(0,T)}(t)e^{-a\|x\|^2}dtdx<\infty.$$ (v) For all $1\leq i,j\leq d$, for all $(t,x)$, $(s,y)\in Q$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqK-lip} \|a_{ij}(t,x)-a_{ij}(s,y)\|&\leq K(\|x-y\|\vee\|t-s\|^{1/2}),\end{aligned}$$ and for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, and $(t,x)$, $(s,y)\in Q^n$, there exists $C_n\in[0,\infty)$ such that $$\|\partial_ja_{ij}(t,x)-\partial_ja_{ij}(s,y)\|\leq C_n(\|x-y\|\vee\|t-s\|^{1/2}).$$ (vi)\[addvi\] The function $\phi$ blows up near the parabolic boundary of $Q$, that is for any $(s,x)\in Q$, $\tau\in(0,\infty)$, and any continuous bounded $\mathbb{R}^d-$valued function $x_t$ defined on $[0,\tau)$ and such that $(s+t,x_t)\in Q$ for all $t\in[0,\tau)$ and $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{t\uparrow\tau}dist((s+t,x_t),\partial Q)=0,\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \limsup_{t\uparrow \tau}\phi(s+t,x_t)=\infty.\end{aligned}$$ \[rem2.2\] Observe that $H(T,a,r)<\infty$ if $h$ is just a constant. Furthermore, Assumption \[ass2.1\] (iii) shows that $\sigma$ is bounded on $Q$, invertible for every $(t,x)\in Q$, and the inverse $\sigma^{-1}$ is also bounded on $ Q$. \[th2.3\] Let Assumption \[ass2.1\] be satisfied. Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq0},P)$ and $(W_t)_{t\geq0}$ be as in Theorem \[mainadd1\]. Then for any $(s,x)\in Q$ there exists a continuous $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued and $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted random process $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ such that almost surely for all $t\geq0$, $(s+t,X_t)\in Q, \quad $ $$\label{eq2.4} X_t=x+\int_0^t(-\sigma\sigma^\nabla\phi)(s+r,X_r)dr+\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{j=1}^d\int_0^t\partial_ja_{ij}(s+r,X_r)dr)_{1\leq i\leq d}+\int_0^t\sigma(s+r,X_r)dW_r.$$ Furthermore, for each $T\in(0,\infty)$ and $m\geq 1$ there exists a constant $N$, depending only on $K$, $K_1$, $d$, $p(m+1)$, $q(m+1)$, $\epsilon$, $T$, $\Vert I_{Q^{m+1}}\nabla\phi \Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p(m+1)}^{q(m+1)}}$, $dist(\partial Q^m,\partial Q^{m+1})$, $\sup_{Q^{m+1}}\left\{\phi+h \right\}$, and the function $H$, such that for $(s,x)\in Q^m$, $t\leq T$, we have $$E\sup_{t\leq T}\exp(\mu\phi(s+t,X_t)+\mu\nu\|X_t\|^2)\leq N,$$ where $$\label{eq2.5}\mu=(\delta/2)e^{-TK_1/(2\delta)},\quad \delta=1/2-\epsilon/4,\quad \nu=\mu/(12KT).$$ \[gk\] Obviously, the Kolmogrov operator $\mathcal{L}$ corresponding to is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{K} \mathcal{L}=div(\sigma\sigma^\nabla)+\langle\sigma^\nabla,\sigma^\nabla\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the inner product in $\mathbb{R}^d$. Recalling that $div{\small\circ}\sigma$ is the adjoint of the ’geometric’ gradient $\sigma^\nabla$ (i.e. taking into account the geometry given to $\mathbb{R}^d$ through $\sigma$), we see that is the geometrically correct analogue of the SDE $$dX_t=-\nabla \phi(X_t)dt+dW_t,\quad t\geq0$$ studied in [@KR]. So, the Laplacian $\Delta$ in [@KR] is replaced by the Laplace-Beltrami operator $div(\sigma\sigma^\nabla)(=\sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i))$ and the Euclidean gradient $\nabla$ in [@KR] is replaced by the ’geometric’ gradient $\sigma^\nabla$. Also condition is then the exact analogue of condition above, which was assumed in [@KR]. Existence and uniqueness of a maximal local strong solution to the SDE on an arbitrary domain in $\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ ==================================================================================================================================== Theorem \[mainadd1\] says that there exists a unique maximally local strong solution to the SDE . Before going to its proof we give some results as preparation. Preparation ----------- Consider the SDE in $[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d.$ First we recall two results from [@Zhang2011].\ \[lemm3.1\] ([@Zhang2011 Theorem 1.1]) Assume that $p$, $q\in(2,\infty)$ satisfying $d/p+2/q<1$ and the following conditions hold.\ (i) $\|b\|$, $\|\nabla\sigma\|\in\mathbb{L}_p^{q,loc} $.\ (ii) For all $1\leq i,j\leq d$, $[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d\ni(t,x)\rightarrow \sigma_{ij}(t,x)\in\mathbb{R}$ is uniformly continuous in $x$ locally uniformly with respect to $t\in[0,\infty)$, and there exist positive constants $K$ and $\delta$ such that for all $(t,x)\in [0,\infty)\times{\mathbb{R}^d}$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{uniell} \delta\|\lambda\|^2\leq\|\sigma^(t,x)\lambda\|^2\leq K\|\lambda\|^2,\quad \forall \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^d.\end{aligned}$$ Then for any $(\mathcal{F}_t)-$stopping time $\tau$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, there exists a unique $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted continuous $\mathbb{R}^d$-velued process $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{solutioninte} P\left\{\omega:\int_0^T\|b(r,X_r(\omega))\|dr+\int_0^T\|\sigma(r,X_r(\omega))\|^2dr<\infty,\forall T\in[0,\tau(\omega))\right\}=1,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqadd3} X_t=x+\int_0^tb(r,X_r)dr+\int_0^t\sigma(r,X_r)dW_r, \quad \forall t\in [0,\tau) \quad a.s,\end{aligned}$$ which means that if there is another $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted continuous stochastic process $(Y_t)_{t\geq0}$ also satisfying and , then $$\begin{aligned} P\left\{\omega:X_t(\omega)=Y_t(\omega),\forall t\in[0,\tau(\omega))\right\}=1.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for almost all $\omega$ and all $t\geq0$, $ x\rightarrow X_t(\omega,x)$ is a homeomorphism on $\mathbb{R}^d$ and there exists a function $t\rightarrow C_t\in(0,\infty)$ such that $C_t\rightarrow \infty$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$ and for all $t>0$ and all bounded measurable function $\psi$, for $x$, $y\in\mathbb{R}^d$, $$\begin{aligned} \|E\psi(X_t(x))-E\psi(X_t(y))\|\leq C_t\Vert\psi\Vert_{\infty}\|x-y\|.\end{aligned}$$ Below we shall make essential use of Krylov’s estimate. Therefore, we recall them here for reader’s convenience. \[lemm3.2\] ([@Zhang2011 Theorem 2.1, Theorem 2.2]) Suppose $\sigma$ satisfies the conditions in Lemma \[lemm3.1\] and let $(X_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be continuous and $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued process satisfying and . Fix an $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-stopping time $\tau$ and let $T_0>0$.\ (1) If $b$ is Borel measurable and bounded, then for $p,$ $q\in (1,\infty)$ with $$\frac{d}{p}+\frac{2}{q}<2,$$ then there exists a positive constant $N=N(K,d,p,q,T_0,\Vert b\Vert_{\infty})$ such that for all $f\in \mathbb{L}_p^q(T_0)$ and $0\leq S<T\leq T_0$, $$\label{eq3.2} E\left(\int_{S\wedge\tau}^{T\wedge\tau}\|f(s,X_s)\|ds\bigg\|{\mathcal{F}_S}\right)\leq N\Vert f\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q(S,T)}.$$ (2) If $b\in \mathbb{L}_p^q$ provided with $$\begin{aligned} \label{b} \frac{d}{p}+\frac{2}{q}<1,\quad p,q\in(1,\infty),\end{aligned}$$ then there exists a positive constant $N=N(K,d,p,q,T_0,\Vert b\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q(T_0)})$ such that for all $f\in \mathbb{L}_p^q(T_0)$ and $0\leq S<T\leq T_0$, $$E\left(\int_{S\wedge\tau}^{T\wedge\tau}\|f(s,X_s)\|ds\bigg\|{\mathcal{F}_S}\right)\leq N\Vert f\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q(S,T)}.$$ We note that actually condition $f\in\mathbb{L}_{p}^q(T_0)$ with $p,q\in(1,\infty)$ and $\frac{d}{p}+\frac{2}{q}<1$ in the above Lemma \[lemm3.2\] can be improved to $f\in\mathbb{L}_{p'}^{q'}(T_0)$ with $p',q'\in(1,\infty)$ and $\frac{d}{p'}+\frac{2}{q'}<2$ without assuming that $b$ is bounded, which we shall prove in the following lemma. Let $K_0$ and $T_0$ be some positive constants and we give the following assumption.\ \[ass3.2\](i) For all $1\leq i,j\leq d$, $[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d\ni(t,x)\rightarrow \sigma_{ij}(t,x)\in\mathbb{R}$ is uniformly continuous in $x$ locally uniformly with respect to $t\in[0,\infty)$, and there exist positive constants $K$ and $\delta$ such that for all $(t,x)\in [0,\infty)\times{\mathbb{R}^d}$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{uniell1} \delta\|\lambda\|^2\leq\|\sigma^(t,x)\lambda\|^2\leq K\|\lambda\|^2,\quad \forall \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^d.\end{aligned}$$ And $\|\nabla\sigma\|\in\mathbb{L}_p^{q,loc} $ with $p$, $q\in(2,\infty)$ satisfying $d/p+2/q<1$.\ (ii) $b(t,x)$ is Borel measurable with $\Vert b\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q}\leq K_0$ and $b(t,x)=0$ for $t>T_0$. \[lemm3.4\] Let Assumption \[ass3.2\] hold. Let $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ be a continuous $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted process such that and are satisfied. Then for any Borel function $f\in{\mathbb{L}_{p'}^{q'}(S,T)}$ with $p',q'\in(1,\infty)$ and $d/p'+2/q'<2$, and for $0\leq S<T\leq T_0$, we have $$\label{eq3.42} E\int_{S}^{T} \|f(t,X_t)\|dt\leq N(d,p',q',K,\Vert b\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q(T_0)})\Vert f\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p'}^{q'}(S,T)}.$$ Furthermore, for any constant $\kappa\geq 0$ and $g\in \mathbb{L}_{p}^{q}(T_0),$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{expx} E\exp(\kappa\int_0^{T_0}\|g(t,X_t)\|^2dt)<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lemm3.1\] we obtain that there exists a unique $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued process $(M_t)_{t\geq0}$ such that $M_t=x+\int_0^t\sigma(s,M_s)dW_s$, $t\geq0$. For any $p_1$, $q_1\in(1,\infty)$ satisfying $$\frac{d}{p_1}+\frac{2}{q_1}<2,$$ Lemma \[lemm3.2\] implies that for $0<S<T\leq T_0$, and $f\in \mathbb{L}_{p_1}^{q_1}(S,T)$ $$\label{eq3.3} E\left(\int_{S}^{T}\|f(t,M_t)\|dt\bigg\|{\mathcal{F}_S}\right)\leq N\Vert f\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p_1}^{q_1}(S,T)},$$ where $N$ depends only on $d$, $K$, $p_1$, $q_1$, $T_0$. Applying to $f=\|g\|^2$ we get $$E\left(\int_S^T\|g(t,M_t)\|^2dt\bigg\|{\mathcal{F}_S}\right)\leq N\Vert g^2\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p/2}^{q/2}(S,T)}= N \Vert g\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q(S,T)}^2.$$ By Lemma \[lemm6.1\], for any $\kappa\in[0,\infty)$ we have $$E\exp(\kappa\int_0^{T_0}\|g(t, M_t)\|^2dt)\leq N(\kappa, K, d, p, q,T_0, \Vert g\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q(T_0)}),$$ then $$\begin{aligned} \label{exf} E\exp(\kappa\int_0^{T_0}\|g(t, M_t)\|^2dt)\leq N(\kappa, K, d, p, q,T_0, \Vert g\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q(T_0)}).\end{aligned}$$ And also $$\begin{aligned} \label{exb} E\exp(\kappa\int_0^{T_0}\|b(t, M_t)\|^2dt)\leq N(\kappa, K, K_0, d, p, q, T_0).\end{aligned}$$ The integral over $(0,T_0)$ in can be replaced with the one over $(0,\infty)$ since $b(t,x)=0$ for $t>T_0$. Thus for any $\kappa\in[0,\infty)$ $$\label{eq3.4} E\exp(\kappa\int_0^\infty\|b(t, M_t)\|^2dt)<\infty,$$ which and implies that for any $c\in[0,\infty)$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{star} E\exp(c\int_0^\infty (b^(\sigma\sigma^)^{-1}b)(t,M_t)dt)\leq E\exp(\frac{c}{\delta}\int_0^\infty\|b(t, M_t)\|^2dt)<\infty. \end{aligned}$$ For $f\in\mathbb{L}_{p'}^{q'}(S,T)$ with $p'$, $q'\in(1,\infty)$, we can choose $\beta>1$ sufficiently close to $1$ such that $$\frac{d}{p'}+\frac{2}{q'}<\frac{2}{\beta}.$$ By Lemma \[lemm3.1\] we obtain the existence and uniqueness of $(\mathcal{F}_t)-$adapted process $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ which satisfies and . By Lemma \[Girsanov\], we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{ef} E\int_{S}^{T}\|f(t,X_t)\|dt=E\int_{S}^{T}\rho \|f(t,M_t)\|dt&\leq (E\int_{S}^{T}\rho^\alpha dt)^{1/\alpha}(E\int_{S}^{T} \|f(t,M_t)\|^\beta dt)^{1/\beta}\nonumber\\& \leq (E\int_{0}^{T_0}\rho^\alpha dt)^{1/\alpha}(E\int_{S}^{T} \|f(t,M_t)\|^\beta dt)^{1/\beta},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$, $\beta>1$ satisfying $1/\alpha+1/\beta=1,$ and $$\begin{aligned} \rho:=\exp(-\int_0^\infty b^(\sigma^)^{-1}(s,M_s)dW_s-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty(b^(\sigma\sigma^)^{-1}b)(s,M_s)ds). \end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned} \label{exponential} E\rho^\alpha=E\Big[&\Big(\exp(-2\alpha\int_0^\infty b^(\sigma^)^{-1}(s,M_s)dW_s-2\alpha^2\int_0^\infty(b^(\sigma\sigma^)^{-1}b)(s,M_s)ds)\Big)^{1/2}\nonumber\\ &\Big(\exp((2\alpha^2-\alpha)\int_0^\infty(b^(\sigma\sigma^)^{-1}b)(s,M_s)ds)\Big)^{1/2}\Big], \end{aligned}$$ by Hölder’s inequality and the fact that exponential martingale is a supermartingale and , we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{en} E\rho^\alpha \leq N. \end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} E\int_{S}^{T}\|f(t,X_t)\|dt&\leq N(T_0)(E\int_{S}^{T} \|f(t,M_t)\|^\beta dt)^{1/\beta}\\&\leq N(d,p_1,q_1,K,\Vert b\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p}^{q}(T_0)})\Vert f^\beta\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p_1}^{q_1}(S,T)}^{1/\beta}\\&=N(d,p_1,q_1,K,\Vert b\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p}^{q}(T_0)})\Vert f\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{\beta p_1}^{\beta q_1}(S,T)} \end{aligned}$$ for $d/{p_1}+2/{q_1}<2,$ where $p_1=p'/\beta$, $q_1=q'/\beta$. Thus the above estimate implies . Furthermore, according to Lemma \[Girsanov\] and , $$\begin{aligned} E\exp(\kappa\int_0^{T_0}\|g(t,X_t)\|^2dt)=&E(\rho \exp(\kappa\int_0^{T_0}\|g(t,M_t)\|^2dt))\nonumber\\\leq & (E\rho^2)^{1/2}(E\exp(2\kappa\int_0^{T_0}\|g(t,M_t)\|^2dt))^{1/2}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ \[rem3.5\] In the later use of , we replace $\tau$ by taking bounded $(F_t)-$stopping times $\xi^n:=\inf\left\{t>0:(t,X_t)\notin Q^n\right\}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Precisely, if $\|bI_{Q^n}\|$, $\|gI_{Q^n}\|\in \mathbb{L}_p^q$ with $p,q\in(2,\infty)$ and $d/p+2/q<1$, for $t\in[0,\xi^n)$, the process $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ satisfies the equation $$X_t=x+\int_0^tbI_{Q^n}(s,X_s)ds+\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s)dW_s,$$ in which case the requirements in Assumption \[ass3.2\] are satisfied. Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{stopnvkv} E\exp(\kappa\int_0^{T\wedge\xi^n}\|g(t,X_t)\|^2dt)=E\exp(\kappa\int_0^\infty\|g(t,X_t)I_{t<\xi^n}\|^2dt)<\infty. \end{aligned}$$ \[lemm3.6\] Let $b^{(i)}(t,x)$, $i=1,2$ satisfy Assumption \[ass3.2\] and let $\|b^{(1)}(t,x)-b^{(2)}(t,x)\|\leq \overline{b}(t,x)$, where $\overline{b}$ also satisfies Assumption \[ass3.2\]. Let $(X_t^{(i)}, W_t^{(i)})_{t\geq 0}$ satisfy $$X_t^{(i)}=x+\int_0^tb^{(i)}(s,X_s^{(i)})ds+\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s^{(i)})dW_s^{(i)},\quad t\geq 0.$$ Then for any bounded Borel functions $f^{(i)}$, $i=1,2$ given on $\mathcal{C}:=\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^d)$ we have $$\label{eq3.5}\|Ef^{(1)}(X_\cdot^{(1)})-Ef^{(2)}(X_\cdot^{(2)})\|\leq N(E\|f^{(1)}(M_\cdot)-f^{(2)}(M_\cdot)\|^2)^{1/2}+N\sup_{\mathcal{C}}\|f^{(1)}\|\Vert \overline{b}\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q}$$ where $M_t=\int_0^t\sigma(s,M_s)dW_s$, $t\geq 0$, and $N$ is a constant independent of $f$. According to Lemma \[Girsanov\], we know that $$Ef^{(2)}(X_\cdot^{(2)})=Ef^{(2)}(X_\cdot^{(1)})\overline{\rho}_\infty,$$ where for $t\geq 0$, $\Delta b(t,X_t^{(1)}):=b^{(2)}(t,X_t^{(1)})-b^{(1)}(t,X_t^{(1)})$ and $$\overline{\rho}_\infty:=\exp(\int_0^\infty\Delta b^(\sigma^)^{-1}(s,X_s^{(1)})dW_s^{(1)}-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty(\Delta b^(\sigma\sigma^)^{-1}\Delta b)(s,X_s^{(1)})ds),$$ also $E\overline{\rho}_\infty=1 $ by applying and the fact that $\Delta b(t,x)=0$ for $t>T_0$ and . Hence the left-hand side of is less than $$E\|f^{(1)}-f^{(2)}\|(X_\cdot^{(1)})\overline{\rho}_\infty+\sup_\mathcal{C}\|f^{(1)}\| E\|\overline{\rho}_\infty-1\|=:I_1+I_2\sup_\mathcal{C}\|f^{(1)}\|.$$ Also we have that all moments of the exponential martingale $$\overline{\rho}_t=\exp(\int_0^t\Delta b^(\sigma^)^{-1}(s,X_s^{(1)})dW_s^{(1)}-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t(\Delta b^(\sigma\sigma^)^{-1}\Delta b)(s,X_s^{(1)})ds)$$ are finite by the same argument as getting in Lemma \[lemm3.4\]. Hence we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{I1r} I_1^{3/2}\leq NE\|f^{(1)}-f^{(2)}\|^{3/2}(X_\cdot^{(1)})\end{aligned}$$ and right hand side of is controled by the first term on the right hand side of by a similar argument as dealing with in Lemma \[lemm3.4\]. To estimate $I_2$, we use Itô’s formula to get for any $T\in[0,\infty)$, $$\overline{\rho}_T=1+\int_0^T(\Delta b^(\sigma^)^{-1})(s,X_s^{(1)})\overline{\rho}_sdW_s^{(1)}.$$ It follows that for any $\beta>1$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{ad} I_2^2\leq & E\|\overline{\rho}_{T_0}-1\|^2\leq E\int_0^{T_0}(\Delta b^(\sigma\sigma^)^{-1}\Delta b)(s,X_s^{(1)})\overline{\rho}_s^2ds\nonumber\\ \leq &N(\int_0^{T_0}E\overline{\rho}_s^{2\beta/(\beta-1)}ds)^{1-1/\beta}(E\int_0^{T_0}\|\Delta{b}(s,X_s^{(1)})\|^{2\beta}ds)^{1/\beta} \nonumber\\ \leq &N(\int_0^{T_0}E\overline{\rho}_s^{2\beta/(\beta-1)}ds)^{1-1/\beta}(E\int_0^{T_0}\|\overline{b}(s,X_s^{(1)})\|^{2\beta}ds)^{1/\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the second factor of the the right hand of we use Lemma \[lemm3.4\] with $\beta>1$ close to 1 such that $2/q+d/p<1/\beta$. The first factor of the the right hand of is controlled by means of $ E \overline{\rho}_{T_0}^{2\beta/(\beta-1)}$. Thus the result follows. Proof of Theorem \[mainadd1\] ----------------------------- Now we are going to prove the maximal local well-posedness result on an arbitrary domain $Q\subset \mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ by applying the localization technique, which is a modification of the proof of Theorem 1.3 in [@Zhang2011]. Furthermore we will prove the continuity of the solution on the domain $Q'=Q\cup \partial$, especially around the boundary $\partial Q'$. By Lemma \[Urysohn\], for each $n\in \mathbb{N}$, we can find a nonnegative smooth function $\chi_n(t,x)\in[0,1]$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ such that $\chi_n(t,x)=1$ for all $(t,x)\in Q^n$ and $\chi_n(t,x)=0$ for all $(t,x)\notin Q^{n+1}$. For any $s,x\in Q$, let $$b_s^n(t,x):=\chi_n(t+s,x)b(t+s,x)$$ and $$\sigma_s^n(t,x):=\chi_{n+1}(t+s,x)\sigma(t+s,x)+(1-\chi_n(t+s,x))(1+\sup_{(t+s,x)\in Q^{n+2}}\|\sigma(t+s,x)\|)\mathbb{I}_{d\times d}.$$ By Lemma \[lemm3.1\] there exists a unique $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted continuous solution $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} \label{xn} X_t^n=x+\int_0^tb_s^n(r,X_r^n)dr+\int_0^t\sigma_s^n(r,X_r^n)dW_r, \quad \forall t\in [0,\infty), a.s.\end{aligned}$$ More precisely, for condition (i) in Lemma \[lemm3.1\], for any $(t,x)\in[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d$, $$\|b_s^n(t,x)\|\leq\|(bI_{Q^{n+2}})(s+t,x)\|,$$ $$\begin{aligned} \|\nabla\sigma_s^n(t,x)\|&\leq\|(\nabla\chi_{n+1}\sigma)(t+s,x)\|+\|(\chi_{n+1}\nabla\sigma)(t+s,x)\|+c\|\nabla\chi_{n}(t+s,x)\|\\&\leq \|(\nabla\chi_{n+1}\sigma I_{Q^{n+2}})(t+s,x)\|+\|(\nabla\sigma I_{Q^{n+2}})(t+s,x)\|+c\|\nabla\chi_{n}(t+s,x)\|,\end{aligned}$$ which means that we can take $p:=p_{n+2}$, $q:=q_{n+2}$. The continuity condition in Lemma \[lemm3.1\] (ii) obviously holds. Further there exist constants $K(n)$ and $\delta_{n+1}$ such that for all $(t,x)\in \mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^d,$ $$\|(\sigma_s^n)^(t,x)\lambda\|^2\leq\|(\sigma^* I_{Q^{n+2}}+(1+\sup_{(s+t,x)\in Q^{n+2}}\|\sigma^(s+t,x)\|)\mathbb{I}_{d\times d})(s+t,x)\lambda\|^2\leq K(n)\|\lambda\|^2,$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \|(\sigma_s^n)^(t,x)\lambda\|^2&\geq\|(\sigma^* I_{Q^{n+1}}+I_{(Q^{n+1})^\mathsf{c}\cap Q^{n+2}}\\&\quad\quad\quad+I_{(Q^{n+2})^\mathsf{c}}(1+\sup_{(s+t,x)\in Q^{n+2}}\|\sigma^(s+t,x)\|)I_{d\times d})(s+t,x)\lambda\|^2\\ &\geq(\delta_{n+1}\wedge 1)\|\lambda\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Thus equation satisfies conditions (i) and (ii) in Lemma \[lemm3.1\]. For $n\geq k$, define $$\tau_{n,k}:=\inf\left\{t\geq0: z_t^n:=(s+t,X_t^n)\notin Q^k\right\},$$ then it is easy to see that $X_t^n$, $X_t^k$, $t\geq0$, satisfy $$\begin{aligned} X_{t\wedge\tau_{n,k}}=&x+\int_0^{t\wedge\tau_{n,k}}b_s^k(r,X_r)dr+\int_0^{t\wedge\tau_{n,k}}\sigma_s^k(r,X_r)dW_r,\quad a.s.\end{aligned}$$ By the local uniqueness of the solution in Lemma \[lemm3.1\], we have $$\begin{aligned} P\left\{\omega:X_{t}^n(\omega)=X_{t}^k(\omega),\forall t\in[0,\tau_{n,k}(\omega))\right\}=1,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $\tau_{k,k}\leq\tau_{n,k}\leq\tau_{n,n}$ $a.s.$. Thus if we take $\xi_{k}:=\tau_{k,k}$, then $\xi_k$ is an increasing sequence of stopping times, and $$\begin{aligned} P\left\{\omega:X_{t}^n(\omega)=X_{t}^k(\omega),\forall t\in[0,\xi_k(\omega))\right\}=1. \end{aligned}$$ Now for each $k\in\mathbb{N}$, the definitions $$\begin{aligned} X_t(\omega):=X_t^k(\omega) \text{ for } t<\xi_k,\quad \xi:=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\xi_k, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{cz} z_t=(s+t,X_t),\quad t<\xi,\quad z_t=\partial,\quad \xi\leq t<\infty, \end{aligned}$$ make sense almost surely. We may throw the set of $\omega$ where the above definitions do not make sense and work only on the remaining part of $\Omega$. Then $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ satisfies the SDE and $\xi$ is the related explosion time.\ The last thing is to prove that $(z_t)_{t\geq0}$ from is continuous on $Q'$. Since $z_t$ coincides with $(t,X_t^n)$ before $\xi_n$, the continuity of $z_t$ before $\xi_n$ follows from the continuity of $(t,X_t^n)$, which can be obtained by Lemma \[lemm3.1\]. So we only need to show that $z_t$ is left continuous at $\xi$ $a.s.$. The argument essentially follows from [@KR]. We first show that $(z_t)_{t\geq0}$ has strong Markov property. We use $P_{s,x}^n$ to denote the distribution of process $(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}=(z_t^n(s,x))_{t\geq0}:=(s+t,X_t^n(0,x))_{t\geq0}$ on $\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$, where $(X_t^n(s,(0,x)))_{t\geq0}$ means the solution $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ defined above with initial point $(0,x)\in \mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. $E_{s,x}^n$ denotes the expectation corresponding to $P_{s,x}^n$. The following argument is based on Proposition 4.3.3 of [@LWMR].\ Define the space $\mathbb{W}_0:=\left\{w\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\|w(0)=0\right\}$ equipped with the supremum norm and Borel $\sigma-$algebra $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0)$, the class $\mathcal{E}$ collects all the maps $F:\mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{W}_0\rightarrow\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that for every probability measure $\mu$ on $(\mathbb{R}^d,\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d))$ there exists a $\overline{\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)\times\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0)}^{\mu\times P^{W}}$ $/\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ measurable map $F_\mu:\mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{W}_0\rightarrow\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that for $\mu-a.e. x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ we have $F(x,w)=F_{\mu}(x,w)$ for $P^W-a.e.$ $w\in\mathbb{W}_0$. Here $\overline{\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)\times\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0)}^{\mu\times P^{W}}$ means the completion of $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)\times\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0)$ with respect to $\mu\times P^W$, and $P^W$ denotes the distribution of the standard $d$-dimensional Wiener process $(W_t)_{t\geq0}$ on $(\mathbb{W}_0,\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0))$. For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, since we already have the pathwise uniqueness and existence of strong solution $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ to , by applying Theorem E.8 in [@LWMR], we obtain that there exists a map $F\in\mathcal{E}$ such that for $u\leq t$ we have $X_t^n(s,(0,x))(\omega)=F_{P\circ({X_u^n(s,(0,x))})^{-1}}({X_u^n(s,(0,x))}(\omega),(W_\cdot-W_u)(\omega))(t)$ for $P-a.e.$ $\omega\in\Omega$. Then for every bounded measurable function $f$ and all $u,t\in[0,\infty)$ with $u\leq t$ we have for $P-a.e.$ $\omega\in\Omega$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{xnmarkov} E[f(X_t^n(s,(0,x)))\|\mathcal{F}_u](\omega)&= E[f(F_{P\circ({X_u^n(s,(0,x))})^{-1}}({X_u^n(s,(0,x))}(\omega),W_\cdot-W_u)(t))]\nonumber\\&= E[f(F_{\delta_{X_u^n(s,(0,x))(\omega)}}({X_u^n(s,(0,x))(\omega)},W_\cdot-W_u)(t))]\nonumber\\&=E[f(X_t^n(s,(u,X_u^n(s,(0,x))))(\omega))], \end{aligned}$$ which shows the Markov property of the process $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$. Here $X_t^n(s,(u,X_u^n(s,(0,x))))$ means the solution $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ to with starting point $(u,X_u^n(s,(0,x)))\in\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. Combining with the Feller property of $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ yielding from the second statement of Lemma \[lemm3.1\] and well known results about Markov processes (see e.g. [@LB Theorem 16.21]), we get that $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ is a strong Markov process. For the process $(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}$, for every bounded Borel measurable function $G$ defined on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, we have Since the process $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ is continuous, for any $f\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$ and $(u,x),(s,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, $$\begin{aligned} \|E_{u,x}^nf(z_t^n)-E_{s,y}^nf(z_t^n)\|\leq& \|E_{u,x}^nf(z_t^n)-E_{u,y}^nf(z_t^n)\|+\|E_{u,y}^nf(z_t^n)-E_{s,y}^nf(z_t^n)\|\\ =&\|Ef(u+t,X_t^n(0,x))-Ef(u+t,X_t^n(0,y))\|\\&+\|Ef(u+t,X_t^n(0,y))-Ef(s+t,X_t^n(0,y))\|, \end{aligned}$$ by the continuity of $f$ with respect to time and space variable and the strong Feller property of $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ getting from the second statement of Lemma \[lemm3.1\], we obtain that $E_{u,x}^nf(z_t^n)$ is continuous with respect to $(u,x)$, which implies that $(t,X_t^n)_{t\geq0}=(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ is a Feller process. By well known results about Markov processes (see e.g. [@LB Theorem 16.21]), we get that $(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ is a strong Markov process. Now we are going to prove that $(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ is a strong Markov process. Observing that for $u\geq0$, $(\hat W_t)_{t\geq0}:=(W_{t+u}-W_u)_{t\geq0}$ is still a Brownian motion. For any $(s,x)\in Q$, and for any Borel bounded function $f$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, by , we have for any $u, t\geq 0$, $P-a.e.$ $$\begin{aligned} X_{t+u}^n&(s,(u,X_u^n(s,(0,x))))\\&=X_u^n(s,(0,x))+\int_{u}^{u+t}\sigma_s^n(r,X_r^n(s,(0,x)))d(W_r-W_u) \\&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\int_{u}^{u+t}b_s^n(r,X_r^n(s,(0,x)))dr \\&=X_u^n(s,(0,x))+\int_0^t\sigma_{s}^n(r+u,X_{u+r}^n(s,(0,x)))d\hat W_{r} \\&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\int_{0}^{t}b_{s}^n(r+u,X_{r+u}^n(s,(0,x)))dr, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} X_t^n&(s+u,(0,X_u^n(s,(0,x))))\\&=X_u^n(s,(0,x))+\int_0^t\sigma_s^n(u+r,X_{r}^n(u+s,(0,X_u^n(s,(0,x)))))d\hat W_{r} \\&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\int_{0}^{t}b_s^n(u+r,X_{r}^n(u+s,(0,X_u^n(s,(0,x)))))dr \\&=X_u^n(s,(0,x))+\int_0^t\sigma_{s+u}^n(r,X_{r}^n(u+s,(0,X_u^n(s,(0,x)))))d\hat W_{r} \\&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\int_{0}^{t}b_{s+u}^n(r,X_{r}^n(u+s,(0,X_u^n(s,(0,x)))))dr. \end{aligned}$$ Since $\sigma_s^n(u+r,\cdot)=\sigma_{s+u}^n(r,\cdot)$, and $b^n_s(u+r,\cdot)=b^n_{s+u}(r,\cdot)$, by the pathwise uniqueness of the the following equation $$dX_t=\sigma_{s+u}^n(t,X_t)d\hat W_t+b_{s+u}^n(t,X_t)dt,\quad X_0=X_u^n(s,(0,x)),$$ we have for arbitrary Borel bounded function $h$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$, $Eh( X_{t+u}^n(s,(u,X_u^n(s,(0,x)))))=Eh(X_t^n(s+u,(0,X_u^n(s,(0,x)))))$. Hence for $P-a.e.$ $\omega\in\Omega$, $$\begin{aligned} E[f(z_{t+u}^n(s,x))\|\mathcal{F}_u](\omega)&= E[f(s+t+u,X_{t+u}^{n}(s,(0,x)))\|\mathcal{F}_u](\omega)\\&=E[f(s+t+u,X_{t+u}^n(s,(u,X_u^n(s,(0,x))))(\omega))] \\&=E[f(s+t+u,X_t^n(s+u,(0,X_u^n(s,(0,x)))))(\omega))] \\&=E_{z_u^n(s,x)(\omega)}^nf(z_{t}^n). \end{aligned}$$ So $(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ is a Markov process. Furthermore, for any $(s,x)\in Q$, by applying Ito’s formula to process $X_r^n(s,(0,x))$, we get that $u_s^n(t,x)=Ef(X_t^n(s,(0,x)))$ is the solution to the following equation $$\label{sn} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &D_ru_s^n(r,x)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^da_{s,ij}^n(r,x)\partial_{i}\partial_ju_s^n(r,x)+b_s^n(r,x)\cdot\nabla u_s^n(r,x)\text{ on } (0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d, \\ & u_s^n(0,x) = f(x), \\ \end{aligned} \right.$$ with $(a_{s,ij}^n)_{1\leq i,j\leq d}=\sigma_s^n\cdot(\sigma_s^n)^$, and Borel bounded continuous function $f$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Let $u^n(t,x)$ be the solution to the following equation $$\label{-s} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &D_ru^n(r,x)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^da_{ij}^n(r,x)\partial_{i}\partial_ju^n(r,x)+b^n(r,x)\cdot\nabla u^n(r,x)\text{ on } (s,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d, \\ & u^n(s,x) = f(x), \\ \end{aligned} \right.$$ with $(a_{ij}^n)_{1\leq i,j\leq d}=\sigma^n\cdot(\sigma^n)^$, and $\sigma^n$ and $b^n$ are defined as following $$b^n(r,x):=b_0^n(r,x),\quad \sigma^n(r,x):=\sigma_0^n(r,x).$$ Then it is easy to see that $u^n(s+t,x)$ also satisfies , which by using uniqueness of solution to implies $u_s^n(t,x)=u^n(s+t,x)=Ef(X_t^n(s,(0,x)))$. By Remark 10.4 [@KR] (or see Theorem 3.1 [@XXZZ]), we know that the unique solution $u^n(t,x)$ to the above equation is continuous on $(t,x)\in[s,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$, which yields the continuity of $Ef(X_t^n(s,(0,x)))$ with respect to $(s,x)\in[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ for any $t\in[0,\infty)$. Then the second statement of Lemma \[lemm3.1\] and dominated convergence theorem imply that for any Borel bounded continuous function $g$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, and for any $(s,x)\in[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d$ $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{(u,y)\rightarrow(s,x)}E_{u,y}^ng(z_t^n)&= \lim_{(u,y)\rightarrow(s,x)}Eg(u+t,X^n_t(u,(0,y)))\\&= \lim_{(u,y)\rightarrow(s,x)}\Big(Eg(u+t,X^n_t(u,(0,y)))-Eg(u+t,X^n_t(u,(0,x)))\Big) \\&\quad\quad+\lim_{(u,y)\rightarrow(s,x)}\Big(Eg(u+t,X^n_t(u,(0,x)))-Eg(s+t,X^n_t(u,(0,x)))\Big) \\&\quad\quad+\lim_{(u,y)\rightarrow(s,x)}Eg(s+t,X^n_t(u,(0,x))) \\&\leq \lim_{(u,y)\rightarrow(s,x)}C_t\Vert g(u+t,\cdot)\Vert_\infty\|x-y\|+ Eg(s+t,X^n_t(s,(0,x))) \\&= Eg(t+s,X^n_t(s,(0,x)))=E_{s,x}^ng(z_t^n). \end{aligned}$$ It shows that $(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ also has Feller property, hence $(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ is a strong Markov process. Then for any $(s,x)\in Q$, for any $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted stopping time $\eta$ and for any Borel bounded function $f$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{mr} E_{s,x}f(z_{\eta+t})=f(\partial)+E_{s,x}(f(z_{\eta+t})-f(\partial))I_{\xi>\eta+t}. \end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned} E_{s,x}f(z_{\eta+t})I_{\xi>\eta+t}&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_{s,x}f(z_{\eta+t})I_{\xi_n\geq\eta+t}\\ &=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_{s,x}^nf(z_{\eta+t}^n)I_{\xi_n\geq\eta+t}I_{\xi_n\geq\eta} \\&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_{s,x}^nf(\eta+t,X_{\eta+t}^n)I_{\xi_n\geq\eta+t}I_{\xi_n\geq\eta}, \end{aligned}$$ and $\{\xi_n\geq\eta\}\subset\mathcal{F}_\eta$, by the strong Markov property of $(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}$, we get $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_{s,x}^nI_{\xi_n\geq\eta}E_{(\eta,X_\eta^n)}^nf(t,X_{t}^n)I_{\xi_n\geq\eta}= &\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_{s,x}^nI_{\xi_n\geq\eta}E_{z_\eta^n}^nf(z_{t}^n)I_{\xi_n\geq\eta} \\=&E_{s,x}I_{\xi>\eta}E_{(\eta,X_\eta)}f(t,X_t)I_{\xi>\eta}. \\=&E_{s,x}I_{\xi>\eta}E_{z_\eta}f(z_t)I_{\xi>\eta}\end{aligned}$$ Then yields $$\begin{aligned} \label{me}E_{s,x}f(z_{\eta+t})=E_{s,x}E_{z_\eta}f(z_t).\end{aligned}$$ We can find that also holds if we replace $(s,x)$ with $\partial$. Hence we get the strong Markov property of the process $(z_t)_{t\geq0}$.\ The argument of the proof is based on Proposition 4.3.3 of [@LWMR].\ Define the space $\mathbb{W}_0:=\left\{w\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\|w(0)=0\right\}$ equipped with the supremum norm and Borel $\sigma-$algebra $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0)$, the class $\mathcal{E}$ collects all the maps $F:\mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{W}_0\rightarrow\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that for every probability measure $\mu$ on $(\mathbb{R}^d,\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d))$ there exists a $\overline{\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)\times\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0)}^{\mu\times P^{W}}$ $/\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ measurable map $F_\mu:\mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{W}_0\rightarrow\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that for $\mu-a.e. x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ we have $F(x,w)=F_{\mu}(x,w)$ for $P^W-a.e.$ $w\in\mathbb{W}_0$. Here $\overline{\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)\times\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0)}^{\mu\times P^{W}}$ means the completion of $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)\times\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0)$ with respect to $\mu\times P^W$, and $P^W$ denotes the distribution of the standard $d$-dimensional Wiener process $(W_t)_{t\geq0}$ on $(\mathbb{W}_0,\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{W}_0))$. For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, since we already have the pathwise uniqueness and existence of strong solution $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ to , by applying Theorem E.8 in [@LWMR], we obtain that there exists a map $F\in\mathcal{E}$ such that for $s\leq t$ we have $X_t^n(0,x)(\omega)=F_{P\circ({X_s^n(0,x)})^{-1}}({X_s^n(0,x)}(\omega),(W_\cdot-W_s)(\omega))(t)$ for $P-a.e.$ $\omega\in\Omega$, where $X_t^n(0,x)$ means the solution $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ to with initial point $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ at time $0$. Then for every bounded measurable function $f$ and all $s,t\in[0,\infty)$ with $s\leq t$ we have for $P-a.e.$ $\omega\in\Omega$ $$\begin{aligned} E[f(X_t^n(0,x))\|\mathcal{F}_s](\omega)&= E[f(F_{P\circ({X_s^n(0,x)})^{-1}}({X_s^n(0,x)}(\omega),W_\cdot-W_s)(t))]\\&= E[f(F_{\delta_{X_s^n(0,x)(\omega)}}({X_s^n(0,x)(\omega)},W_\cdot-W_s)(t))]\\&=E[f(X_t^n(s,X_s^n(0,x))(\omega))], \end{aligned}$$ which shows the Markov property of the process $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$. Furthermore, by well known results about Markov processes (see e.g. [@LB Theorem 16.21]) we get the strong Markov property of $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$, which implies that $(z_t^n)_{t\geq0}=$ has strong Markov property on $Q^n$. \[markov\] (i) For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, the function $h^n(s,x):=E_{(s,x)}^ng(z_{\xi_n}^n)$ is a continuous function in $Q^n$, where $g$ is a bounded Borel function on $\partial Q^n$.\ (ii) For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, the term $(\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^{d+1}),\mathcal{G}_t(\mathbb{R}^{d+1}),z_t^n, P_{s,x}^n)$ is a strong Markov process. The $\sigma$-fields $\mathcal{G}_t(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$ is generated by the Borel subsets of $\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$. In particular, if $\gamma$ is an $\mathcal{G}_t(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$-stopping time such that $\gamma\leq \xi_n$ and $f$ is a bounded $\mathcal{G}_\gamma(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$-measurable function on $\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$, we have $E_{s,x}^{n}fg(z_{\xi_n}^n)=E_{s,x}^{n}fh^n(z_\gamma^n)$. We first prove (ii). According to Lemma \[lemm3.1\], we have that for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, similar to the definition in Lemma \[lemm3.4\], $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted process $M_t^n=\int_0^t\sigma^n(u,M_u^n)dW_u$ has Feller property. Then for any $f\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$ and $(u,x)$, $(s,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, by the continuity of $f$ with respect to time variable and Feller property of $(X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \|E_{u,x}f(t,M_t^n)-E_{s,y}f(t,M_t^n)\|\leq& \|E_{u,x}f(t,M_t^n)-E_{u,y}f(t,M_t^n)\|+\|E_{u,y}f(t,M_t^n)-E_{s,y}f(t,M_t^n)\|\\ =&\|Ef(u+t,x+M_t^n)-Ef(u+t,y+M_t^n)\|\\&+\|Ef(u+t,y+M_t^n)-Ef(s+t,y+M_t^n)\| \\\leq & C\|x-y\|+C\|u-s\|, \end{aligned}$$ which implies that $(t,X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ is a Feller process. By well known results about Markov processes (see e.g. [@LB Theorem 16.21]), we get that $(t,M_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ is a strong Markov process. Then the assertions (ii) follows from the fact that the change of measure preserves the strong Markov property.\ For (i), without losing generality we assume $0\in Q$ and it is sufficient to prove the continuity of $h^n$ at $0$. We define $Q^{t,r}:=[0,t)\times B_r:=[0,t)\times\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\|x\|<r\}$, $$\xi_{r,n}:=\inf\{t\geq0:z_t^n\notin Q^{r^2,r}\},$$ $$\eta_{r(s,x)}^n:=\inf\{t\geq0: (s+t,M_t^n)\notin Q^{r^2,r}\},$$ and $$\rho_t^n=\exp(\int_0^t(b^n)^((\sigma^n)^))^{-1}(s,M_s^n)dW_s-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t((b^n)^(\sigma^n(\sigma^n)^)^{-1}b^n)(s,M_s^n)ds).$$ By (ii) and Girsanov theorem, for small enough $r>0$ such that $Q^{r^2,r}\subset Q^n$ and $\xi_{r,n}\leq \xi_n$, we get $$\begin{aligned} h^n(s,x)=&E_{s,x}^nh^n(z^n_{\xi_{r,n}})\\=&E\rho_{\eta_{r(s,x)}^n}^nh^n(s+\eta_{r(s,x)}^n,M_{\eta_{r(s,x)}^n}^n) \\=&E[(\rho_{\eta_{r(s,x)}^n}^n-1)h^n(s+\eta_{r(s,x)}^n,M_{\eta_{r(s,x)}^n}^n)]+Eh^n(s+\eta_{r(s,x)}^n,M_{\eta_{r(s,x)}^n}^n)\\ =&I_1^n(s,x)+I_2^n(s,x). \end{aligned}$$ For $I_2^n(s,x)$, by applying Itô’s formula to $(t,M_t^n)$, we get that $I_2^n(s,x)$ is the probabilistic representation of the solution to the following equation $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}u^n(t,x) &=D_tu^n(t,x)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^da_{ij}^n(t,x)\partial_{i}\partial_ju^n(t,x)=0 \quad\quad on \quad Q^{r^2,r}, \\ u^n(t,x) &= g(t,x) \quad\quad on \quad\partial Q^{r^2,r}, \\ \end{aligned} \right.$$ with $(a_{ij}^n)_{1\leq i,j\leq d}=\sigma^n\cdot(\sigma^n)^$, which implies the continuity of $u^n(s,x)$ with respect to $(s,x)\in Q^{r^2,r}$ and also for $I_2^n(s,x)$. More precisely, let $(\psi_m)_{m\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of smooth mollifiers on $\partial Q^{r^2,r}$, define $g_m=\psi_m\ast g$, then for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists a Hölder continuous solution $u^n_m$ (corresponding to $I_{2,m}^n$ )to the above equation with the replacement of $g$ by $g_m$. Since for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $I_2^n(s,x)=\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}I_{2,m}^n(s,x)$ by dominated convergence theorem, then we get the continuity of $I_2^n(s,x)$. By using the fact that $h^n$ is bounded and $\eta_{r(s,x)}^n\leq 2r$ for small $r$ and the similar argument about , we get $$\|I_1(s,x)^n\|^2\leq N(E\int_0^{2r}\|I_{Q^{r^2,r}}b^n(t,M_t^n)\|^{2\beta}dt)^{1/\beta}\leq N\Vert I_{Q^{r^2,r}}b^n\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q}.$$ Therefore $$\overline\lim_{(s,x)\rightarrow0}\|h^n(s,x)-h^n(0)\|\leq N\Vert I_{Q^{r^2,r}}b^n\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q},$$ for any $r>0$, where $N$ is independent of $r$. Let $r\downarrow0$ then get the continuity of $h^n(s,x)$ at $0$.\ Now we are going to prove that $(z_t)_{t\geq0}$ is a strong Markov process. For any $(s,x)\in Q$, for any $\mathcal{G}_t(Q')$-adapted stopping time $\eta$ and for any Borel bounded function $f$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{mr} E_{s,x}f(z_{\eta+t})=f(\partial)+E_{s,x}(f(z_{\eta+t})-f(\partial))I_{\xi>\eta+t}. \end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned} E_{s,x}f(z_{\eta+t})I_{\xi>\eta+t}&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_{s,x}f(z_{\eta+t})I_{\xi_n\geq\eta+t}\\ &=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_{s,x}^nf(z_{\eta+t}^n)I_{\xi_n\geq\eta+t}I_{\xi_n\geq\eta}, \end{aligned}$$ and $\{\xi_n\geq\eta\}\subset\mathcal{G}_\eta$, by Lemma \[markov\], we get $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_{s,x}^nI_{\xi_n\geq\eta}E_{z_\eta^n}^nf(z_{t}^n)I_{\xi_n\geq\eta}=& \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_{s,x}I_{\xi_n\geq\eta}E_{z_\eta}f(z_{t})I_{\xi_n\geq\eta}\\=&E_{s,x}I_{\xi>\eta}E_{z_\eta}f(z_t)I_{\xi>\eta}. \end{aligned}$$ Then yields $$\begin{aligned} \label{me}E_{s,x}f(z_{\eta+t})=E_{s,x}E_{z_\eta}f(z_t).\end{aligned}$$ We can find that also holds if we replace $(s,x)$ with $\partial$. Hence we get the strong Markov property of the process $(z_t)_{t\geq0}$.\ In the following we will prove another two auxiliary lemmas in order to show that our solution does not bounce back deep into the interior of $Q$ from near $\partial Q$ too often on any finite interval of time, which is crucial for us to prove the desired continuity. By shifting the origin in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, without losing generality, we assume $(s,x)=(0,0)$. \[ossilaton1\] For arbitrary $n\geq0$, define $\nu_0=0$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{bounce} \mu_k=\inf\left\{t\geq\nu_k:(t,X_t)\notin Q^{n+1}\right\},\quad \nu_{k+1}=\inf\left\{t\geq\mu_k:(t,X_t)\in {\overline{ Q^n}}\right\}. \end{aligned}$$ Then for any $S\in(0,\infty)$ there exists a constant $N$, depending only on $d$, $p$, $q$, $S$, $\Vert bI_{Q^{n+1}}\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q}$, $\sup_{(t,x)\in Q^{n+1}}\|\sigma(t,x)\|$, and the diameter of $Q^{n+1}$, such that $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{k=0}^\infty(E\|X_{S\wedge\mu_k}-X_{S\wedge\nu_k}\|^2)^2\leq N,\quad \sum_{k=0}^\infty(E\|S\wedge\mu_k-S\wedge\nu_k\|^2)^2\leq S^4. \end{aligned}$$ We have $E\|X_{S\wedge\mu_k}-X_{S\wedge\nu_k}\|^2\leq 2I_k+2J_k$, where $$\begin{aligned} I_k:=E\|\int_{S\wedge\nu_k}^{S\wedge \mu_k}\sigma(s,X_s)dW_s\|^2,\quad J_k:=E\|\int_{S\wedge\nu_k}^{S\wedge \mu_k}b(s,X_s)ds\|^2. \end{aligned}$$ Observe that on the set $\left\{S\wedge\nu_k<S\wedge\mu_k\right\}$ we have $S\wedge\nu_k=\nu_k$ and $(\nu_k,X_{\nu_k})\in\overline{ Q^n}\subset Q^{n+1}$. Furthermore, $(t,X_t)\in Q^{n+1}$ for $S\wedge\nu_k<t<S\wedge\mu_k,$ and we have $$\begin{aligned} E\|\int_{S\wedge\nu_k}^{S\wedge \mu_k}\sigma(s,X_s)dW_s\|^2\leq\sum_{i,j=1}^dE\|\int_{S\wedge\nu_k}^{S\wedge \mu_k}\sigma_{ij}^2(s,X_s)ds\|\leq Cd^2E\|S\wedge \mu_k-S\wedge\nu_k\|,\\ I_k^2\leq Cd^4E\|S\wedge \mu_k-S\wedge\nu_k\|^2=:Cd^4\bar I_k\leq Cd^4SE\|S\wedge \mu_k-S\wedge\nu_k\|, \quad\\ \sum_{k=0}^\infty (E\|\int_{S\wedge\nu_k}^{S\wedge \mu_k}\sigma(s,X_s)dW_s\|^2)^2\leq Cd^4S^2,\quad\sum_{k=0}^\infty (\bar I_k)^2\leq (\sum_{k=0}^\infty\bar I_k)^2\leq S^4. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by Hölder’s inequality we have $$\begin{aligned} J_k\leq E\|S\wedge\mu_k-S\wedge\nu_k\|\int_{S\wedge\nu_k}^{S\wedge\mu_k}\|b(s,X_s)\|^2ds, \quad J_k^2\leq \bar I_k\bar J_k, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \bar J_k:=E(\int_{S\wedge\nu_k}^{S\wedge\mu_k}\|b(s,X_s)\|^2ds)^2. \end{aligned}$$ Let $\tau_n:=\inf\left\{t\geq0:z_t\notin Q^{n}\right\}$. [By the strong Markov property of $(z_t)_{t\geq0}$]{}, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \label{J} \bar J_k\leq \sup_{(s,x)\in Q^{n+1}}E_{s,x}(\int_0^{S\wedge\tau_{n+1}}\|b(s+t,X_t)\|^2dt)^2=\sup_{(s,x)\in Q^{n+1}}E_{s,x}(\int_0^{S}\|bI_{Q^{n+1}}(s+t,X_t)\|^2dt)^2, \end{aligned}$$ Since for $t\leq\tau_{n+1}$, $X_t=X_t^{n+1}$, we see that the second right part of will not change if we change arbitrarily $b$ outside of $Q^{n+1}$ only preserving the property that new $b$ belongs to $\mathbb{L}_p^q$. We choose to let $b$ be zero outside of $Q^{n+1}$ and then get the desired estimate from . The lemma is proved.\ Following the same argument in [@KR Corollary 4.3] and use Lemma \[ossilaton1\] we get the following result. In order to reduce duplicate, the proof is omitted. \[ossilation2\] We say that on the time interval $[\nu_k,\mu_k]$ the trajectory $(t,X_t)_{t\geq0}$ makes a run from $\overline{ Q^n}$ to $({Q^{n+1}})^\mathsf{c}$ provided that $\mu_k<\infty$. Denote by $\nu(S)$ the number of runs which $(t,X_t)_{t\geq0}$ makes from $\overline{ Q^n}$ to $Q^{n+1}$ before time $S$. Then for any $\alpha\in[0,1/2)$, $E\nu^\alpha(S)$ is dominated by a constant $N$, which depends only on $\alpha$, $d$, $p$, $q$, $S$, $\Vert bI_{Q^{n+1}}\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q}$, $\sup_{(t,x)\in Q^{n+1}}\|\sigma(t,x)\|$, the diameter of $Q^{n+1}$, and the distance between the boundaries of $Q^n$ and $Q^{n+1}$. Now we go back to prove that $z_t$ is left continuous at $\xi$ $a.s.$. We denote $\nu_k(S)$ the number of runs of $z_t$ from $\overline{Q^k}$ to $({Q^{k+1}})^\mathsf{c}$ before $S\wedge\xi$. For $n>k+1$ obviously, $\nu_k(S\wedge\xi_n)$ is also the number of runs that $(t,X_t^n)_{t\geq0}$ makes from $\overline{ Q^k}$ to $({Q^{k+1}})^\mathsf{c}$ before $S\wedge\xi_n$, since $(t,X_t)$ coincides with $(t,X_t^n)$ before $\xi_n$. $\nu_k(S\wedge\xi_n)$ increase if we increase the time interval to $S$. By Lemma \[ossilation2\] $E\nu_k^{1/4}(S\wedge\xi_n)$ is bounded by a constant independent of $n$. By Fatou’s Lemma $E\nu_k^{1/4}(S\wedge\xi)$ is finite. In particular, on the set $\left\{\omega:\xi(\omega)<\infty\right\}$ $ a.s.$ we have $\nu_k(\xi)<\infty$. The latter also holds on the set $\left\{\omega:\xi(\omega)=\infty\right\}$ because $z_t$ is continuous on $[0,\xi)$ and $Q^k$ is bounded. Thus $\nu_k(\xi)<\infty$ $a.s.$ for any $k$. Since $(\xi^n, X_{\xi^n}^n)\in\partial Q^n$ we conclude that $a.s$. there can exist only finitely many $n$ such that $z_t$ visits $\overline{ Q^k}$ after exiting from $Q^n$. This is the same as to say that $z_t\rightarrow \partial$ as $t\uparrow\xi$ $a.s.$.\ About the uniqueness, if there is another continuous $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted $Q'-$valued solution $(z_t')_{t\geq0}=(s+t,X_t')_{t\geq0}$ to the SDE with explosion time $\xi'$, and for $t<\xi'$ it is $Q-$valued. Then for any $n\geq 1$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{taun} \tau^n(X_\cdot'):=\inf\left\{t\geq 0:(s+t,X_t')\notin Q^n\right\}<\xi' \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{barxi} \bar \xi:=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\tau^n(X_\cdot')=\xi'\quad a.s.. \end{aligned}$$ Precisely $\bar\xi\leq \xi'$ by . On the other hand, on the set where $\bar \xi<\xi'$, we have $z'_{\bar\xi}\in Q$ since $\bar\xi<\xi'$, we also have $z'_{\bar\xi}=\partial$ since $z'_{\bar\xi}$ is the limit of points getting outside of any $Q^n$. Observe that before $\tau^n(X_\cdot')$, $X_t'$ also satisfies the SDE , by the local strong uniqueness of equation proved by Lemma \[lemm3.1\], we get $X_t^n=X_t'$ for $t\leq \tau^n(X_\cdot')$, so $\tau^n(X_\cdot')=\tau_{n,n}$. And by we see that $$\xi'=\bar\xi=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\tau^n(X_\cdot')=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\tau_{n,n}=\xi\quad a.s.,$$ which implies that for $t\leq \xi=\xi'$, and $z_t'$ coincides with $z_t$ from our above construction . Preparations of the proof of Theorem \[th2.3\] ============================================== Probabilistic representation of solutions to parabolic partial differential equations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this subsection, we give a probabilistic representation of the solution to the following backward parabolic partial differential equation with a potential term $V(t,x):[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, $$\label{kpde} \left\{ \begin{aligned} D_tu(t,x)+\mathcal{L}u(t,x)+V(t,x)u(t,x)&=0,\quad 0\leq t\leq T, \\ u(T,x)&=f(x). \\ \end{aligned} \right.$$ Here $T\in(0,\infty)$ and $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}u(t,x):=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^da_{ij}(t,x)\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}(t,x)+b(t,x)\cdot \nabla u(t,x),\quad u\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^{d+1}),\end{aligned}$$ where $(a_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq d}=\sigma\sigma^$. We first give the assumptions which make the representation formula hold. \[assfey\] (i) For all $1\leq i,j\leq d$, $\sigma_{ij}\in \mathcal{C}([0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d)$,\ (ii) There exist positive constants $K$ and $\delta$ such that for all $(t,x)\in [0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}^d}$, $$\delta\|\lambda\|^2\leq\|\sigma^(t,x)\lambda\|^2\leq K\|\lambda\|^2,\quad \forall \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^d,$$ (iii) $b$, $V\in\mathcal{C}_b([0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d)$,\ (iv) For all $(t,x)$, $(s,y)\in [0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d$, there exists constants $C_1$, $C_2$ and $C_3$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \|a_{ij}(t,x)-a_{ij}(s,y)\|&\leq C_1(\|x-y\|\vee\|t-s\|^{1/2}),\\ \|b(t,x)-b(s,y)\|&\leq C_2(\|x-y\|\vee\|t-s\|^{1/2}),\\ \|V(t,x)-V(s,y)\|&\leq C_3(\|x-y\|\vee\|t-s\|^{1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ (v) $f\in\mathcal{C}_c^2({\mathbb{R}^d})$. \[Feymann\] If Assumption \[assfey\] holds, then there exists a unique solution $u(t,x)$ to the equation and it can be represented by the following formula $$\begin{aligned} \label{fkf} u(t,x)=E\Big[f(X(T,t,x))e^{\int_t^TV(u,X(u,t,x))du}\Big],\quad (t,x)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d,\end{aligned}$$ where $X(T,t,x)$ is the solution to the SDE with initial point $(t,x)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d$. Furthermore, for $t\in[0,T)$ we have $$\begin{aligned} {\label{L1}} u(t,\cdot),\quad D_tu(t,\cdot),\quad \nabla u(t,\cdot),\quad \nabla^2u(t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^d).\end{aligned}$$ On one hand by classical results of partial differential equation (see [@pdeb Theorem 5.1]), we know that under our assumption there exists a unique solution $u(t,x)\in \mathcal{C}^{1,2}([0,T],\mathbb{R}^d)$ to the equation , which can be written in the form of a potential with kernel $k$ (see [@pdeb (14.2)]): $$\begin{aligned} u(t,x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}k(T,y;t,x)f(y)dy,\quad (t,x)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d\end{aligned}$$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{t\rightarrow T}u(t,x)=\lim_{t\rightarrow T}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}k(T,y;t,x)f(y)dy=f(x),\end{aligned}$$ and for $s=0,1,2$ there exists a constant $C$ such that for $0\leq t<T$ (see [@pdeb (13.1)]) $$\begin{aligned} \partial_x^sk(T,y;t,x)\leq C(T-t)^{-\frac{d+s}{2}}\exp\Big(-C\frac{\|y-x\|^2}{T-t}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Then for $s=0,1,2$, for $t\in[0,T)$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\|\partial_x^su(t,x)\|dx\leq&\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\|f(y)\partial_x^sk(T,y;t,x)\|dydx \\ \overset{Fubini}=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\|f(y)\|\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\|\partial_x^sk(T,y;t,x)\|dxdy \\ \leq &C(T-t)^{-\frac{s}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\|f(y)\|dy<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that for $t\in[0,T),$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{leftpart} u(t,\cdot),\quad \nabla u(t,\cdot),\quad \nabla^2u(t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^d).\end{aligned}$$ Since $b$ is bounded, we get $D_tu(t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ following from the equation and . On another hand, from our assumption we know that $\sigma\sigma^$ is uniformly elliptic, $b(t,x)$ and $\sigma_{ij}(t,x)$, $1\leq i,j\leq d$ are bounded for $(t,x)\in [0,T)\times\mathbb{R}^d$ and continuous in $t$ and Lipschitz continuous in $x$, by a known result (eg. see [@Ikeda IV Theorem 2.2]) we get the existence and uniqueness of the global solution $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ to the SDE . Then by [@BO Theorem 8.2.1] we get that solves the equation . Hence combining these two sides we get the desired result and also holds. Some auxiliary proofs --------------------- In order to show that under certain conditions our solutions will not blow up, we need some auxiliary proofs which we collect in this subsection. We fix an $T\in (0,\infty)$, for $t\in[0,T]$ define $$\begin{aligned} Q_{ T}:=(0,T)\times \mathbb{R}^d, \quad B_r:=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\|x\|< r\},\quad Q^{t,r}:=[0,t)\times B_r. \end{aligned}$$ \[ass3\] (i) $\psi$ is a nonnegative function defined on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ and $\psi\in\mathcal{C}_b^\infty(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$,\ (ii) $\|\nabla\psi\|\in\mathbb{L}_{p}^{q,loc}$ with $p,q\in(2,\infty)$ and $d/p+2/q<1$,\ (iii) $\sigma$ satisfies the conditions in Assumption \[ass3.2\] (i),\ (iv) For all $(t,x)$, $(s,y)\in [0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d$, there exist constants $K_0$, $K\in[0,\infty)$ such that for all $1\leq i,j\leq d$, $$\begin{aligned} \|a_{ij}(t,x)-a_{ij}(s,y)\|&\leq K(\|x-y\|\vee\|t-s\|^{1/2}),\\ \|\partial_ja_{ij}(t,x)-\partial_ja_{ij}(s,y)\|&\leq K_0(\|x-y\|\vee\|t-s\|^{1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $(W_t)_{ t\geq0}$ be a $d-$dimensional Wiener process on a given complete probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},$ $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq0},P)$, denote $(a_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq d}=\sigma\sigma^$. Let $(s,x)\in[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d$, we introduce the process $(Y(t,s,x))_{t\geq s}$, satisfying $$\begin{aligned} \label{Y} Y(t,s,x)=x+\int_s^t\sigma(r,Y(r,s,x))dW_r+(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_s^t\partial_ja_{ij}(r,Y(r,s,x))dr)_{1\leq i\leq d}, \end{aligned}$$ and process $(X(t,s,x))_{t\geq s}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} \label{X} X(t,s,x)=x+\int_s^t\sigma(r,X(r,s,x))dW_r+&(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_s^t\partial_ja_{ij}(r,X(r,s,x))dr)_{1\leq i\leq d} \nonumber\\-&\int_s^t(\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi)(r,X(r,s,x))dr. \end{aligned}$$ Since for $1\leq i,j\leq d$, $\partial_ja_{ij}=\sum_{k=1}^d\sigma_{ik}(\partial_j\sigma_{jk})+\sum_{k=1}^d(\partial_j\sigma_{ik})\sigma_{jk}$, and $\|\nabla\sigma\|\in\mathbb{L}_p^{q,loc}$, from Assumption \[ass3\] (iii), we get $\sum_{j=1}^d\|\partial_ja_{ij}\|\in\mathbb{L}_p^{q,loc}$. Then Lemma \[lemm3.1\] can be applied here to guarantee the existence and uniqueness of global $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted solutions $(Y(t,s,x))_{t\geq s}$ and $(X(t,s,x))_{t\geq s}$ corresponding to SDEs and if Assumption \[ass3\] holds.\ \[cor3.8\] Let Assumption \[ass3\] be satisfied. Take a nonnegative Borel function $f$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. For $t\in[0,T]$ introduce $$\begin{aligned} \beta_T(t,x)=\exp(&-\int_t^{T}\nabla\psi^\sigma(s,Y(s,t,x))dW_s -\frac{1}{2}\int_t^{T}\|\nabla\psi^\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi\|(s,Y(s,t,x))ds \\&-2\int_t^{T}D_t\psi(s,Y(s,t,x)ds), $$ $$\begin{aligned} v_T(t,x)=E\beta_T(t,x)f(T,Y(T,t,x)),\quad c(t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}e^{-2\psi(t,x)}v_T(t,x)dx.\end{aligned}$$ Then $c(t)$ is a constant for $t\in[0,T]$. Using a standard approximation argument it suffices to prove the result for $f\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$. First by Assumption \[ass3\] (i) and (iii), we have $$\begin{aligned} E\exp(\frac{1}{2}\int_t^{T}\|\nabla\psi^\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi\|(s,Y(s,t,x))ds)<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Girsanov transformation yields $$v_T(t,x)=E\exp(-\int_t^T2D_t\psi(s,X(s,t,x))ds)f(T,X(T,t,x)).$$ By Assumption \[ass3\] (i), (iii) and (iv), we get that $(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\partial_ja_{ij})_{1\leq i\leq d}$ and $-\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi$ are bounded and also satisfy Assumption \[assfey\] (iv). By Theorem \[Feymann\], $v_T(t,x)$ is the solution to the following Kolmogrov equation with a potential term $-2D_t\psi$: $$\label{kolmogrov} \left\{ \begin{aligned} D_tv_T(t,x)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_iv_T(t,x))&-((\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi)^\nabla v_T)(t,x)\\&-v_T(t,x)2D_t\psi(t,x)=0,\quad (t,x)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d, \\ v_T(T,x) &= f(T,x). \\ \end{aligned} \right.$$ And Theorem \[Feymann\] shows that for $t\in[0,T)$, $v_T(t,\cdot)$, $D_tv_T(t,\cdot)$, $\nabla v_T(t,\cdot)$, $\nabla^2v_T(t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$, also there exists a kernel $k(T,y;t,x)$ such that $$v_T(t,x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}k(T,y;t,x)f(T,y)dy$$ and there exists a constant $C$ such that ([@pdeb (13.1)]) $$\begin{aligned} D_tk(T,y;t,x)\leq C(T-t)^{-\frac{d+2}{2}}\exp\Big(-C\frac{\|y-x\|^2}{T-t}\Big).\end{aligned}$$Furthermore, from Assumption \[ass3\] we know that all the of coefficients of equation have at least $1-$ order Hölder continuity in $x$ and $\frac{1}{2}-$order Hölder continuity in $t$, then by [@pdeb (13.3)] Then by mean value theorem for $h\in\mathbb{R}$ with $t+h\in(0,T)$ there exists an $\theta\in(0,1)$ such that $$\frac{\|k(T,y;t+h,x)-k(T,y;t,x)\|}{h}= D_tk(T,y;t+\theta h,x)\leq C(T-t-\theta h)^{-\frac{d+2}{2}}\exp\Big(-C\frac{\|y-x\|^2}{T-t-\theta h}\Big),$$ then $$\begin{aligned} \label{v} \Big\|\frac{v_T(t+h,x)-v_T(t,x)}{h}\Big\|&\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\Big\|\frac{k(T,y;t+h,x)-k(T,y;t,x)}{h}\Big\|f(T,y)dy \nonumber\\&\leq C(T-t-\theta h)^{-\frac{d+2}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\exp\Big(-C\frac{\|y-x\|^2}{T-t-\theta h}\Big)f(T,y)dy \nonumber\\&\leq C'(T-t)^{-\frac{d+2}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\exp\Big(-C\frac{\|y-x\|^2}{T-t}\Big)f(T,y)dy\end{aligned}$$ for $\|h\|\ll1$. Denote $g(t,x)=e^{-2\psi(t,x)}v_T(t,x)$, we have for $t\in[0,T)$, $t+h\in(0,T)$, $$\begin{aligned} \Big\|\frac{g(t+h,x)-g(t,x)}{h}\Big\|&= \Big\|\frac{e^{-\psi(t+h,x)}(v_T(t+h,x)-v_T(t,x))}{h}+\frac{v_T(t,x)(e^{-\psi(t+h,x)}-e^{-\psi(t,x)})}{h}\Big\|\\ &\leq \Big\|\frac{v_T(t+h,x)-v_T(t,x)}{h}\Big\|+\Big\|\frac{v_T(t,x)(e^{-\psi(t+h,x)}-e^{-\psi(t,x)})}{h}\Big\| \\&\leq C'(T-t)^{-\frac{d+2}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\exp\Big(-C\frac{\|y-x\|^2}{T-t}\Big)f(T,y)dy+C''v_T(t,x) \\&=:G_T(t,x),\end{aligned}$$ the last inequality holds because of and mean value theorem. Since for for $t\in[0,T)$, $v_T(t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(T-t)^{-\frac{d+2}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\exp\Big(-C\frac{\|y-x\|^2}{T-t}\Big)f(T,y)dydx\leq C(T-t)^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}f(T,y)dy<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ it yields that $G_T(t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Then by dominated convergence theorem, we have $$\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}g(t+h,x)-g(t,x)dx}{h}=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\frac{g(t+h,x)-g(t,x)}{h}dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}D_tg(t,x)dx.$$ That is to say $$\begin{aligned} \label{exchanget} D_t\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}e^{-2\psi(t,x)}v_T(t,x)dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}D_t(e^{-2\psi}v_T)(t,x)dx.\end{aligned}$$ Besides, we can write the first equation in in an equivalent form as $$\begin{aligned} \label{re} D_t(e^{-2\psi}v_T)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_i(e^{-2\psi}a_{ij}\partial_jv_T)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Now we are going to prove $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} div(F)(t,x)dx:=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_i(e^{-2\psi}a_{ij}\partial_jv_T)(t,x)dx=0, \quad t\in[0,T).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\psi$ is nonnegative, $\partial_i \psi$ and $a_{ij}$ are bounded on $[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d$ for $1\leq i,j\leq d$, then there exist constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that $$\begin{aligned} F_i=\sum_{j=1}^de^{-2\psi}a_{ij}\partial_jv_T\leq C_1\sum_{j=1}^d\|\partial_jv_T\|, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} div (F)&=\sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_i(e^{-2\psi}a_{ij}\partial_jv_T)\\ &=\sum_{i,j=1}^d(-2\partial_i\psi e^{-2\psi}a_{ij}\partial_jv_T +\partial_i a_{ij}e^{-2\psi}\partial_jv_T +e^{-2\psi}a_{ij}\partial_i\partial_jv_T) \\ &\leq C_2 \sum_{i,j=1}^d(\|\partial_j v_T\|+\|\partial_{i}\partial_{j}v_T\|).\end{aligned}$$ According to we know that $F(t,\cdot),div F(t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)$ for any $t\in[0,T)$. For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, take smooth function $\chi_n$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $\chi_n(x)=1$ when $\|x\|\leq n$ and $\chi_n(x)=0$ when $\|x\|>n+2$. Then by dominated convergence theorem and integration by parts formula for $t\in[0,T)$, $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} div(F)(t,x)dx=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \chi_n(x)div(F)(t,x)dx=-\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\nabla \chi_n(x)\cdot F(t,x)dx=0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence from and we get $$\begin{aligned} D_t\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}e^{-2\psi(t,x)}v_T(t,x)dx=0.\end{aligned}$$ This yields that $c(t)$ is a constant for $t\in[0,T)$. Since $c(t)$ is continuous for $t\in[0,T]$, it shows that $c(t)$ is a constant for $t\in[0,T]$. Theorem \[Feymann\] talks about Cauchy problem with terminal data for the equation in the domain $[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}^d$. In the cylindrical domain $Q^{r^2,r}$ with surface $\partial Q^{r^2,r}:=((0,r^2)\times \partial B_r)\cup(\left\{r^2\right\}\times B_r)$ for $r\in(0,1]$, we consider the first boundary problem to the following parabolic equation on $ \overline {Q^{r^2,r}}$ with assuming that $f$ is a continuous function on $\partial Q^{r^2,r}$: $$\label{QP} \left\{ \begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}u(t,x) &=D_tu(t,x)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_i(a_{ij}(t,x)\partial_ju(t,x))=0 \quad\quad on \quad Q^{r^2,r}, \\ u(t,x) &= f(t,x) \quad\quad on \quad\partial Q^{r^2,r}, \\ \end{aligned} \right.$$ where $(a_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq d}=\sigma\sigma^$. If Assumption \[ass3\] (iii) and (iv) hold, from [@LOTFI; @RIAHI Theorem 3.1] and [@LOTFI; @RIAHI Corollary 3.2] the solution $u(t,x)$ to has a representation as following: $$u(t,x)=\int_{\partial Q^{r^2,r}} f(s,y)p(s,y;t,x)dS(s,y),$$ where $dS$ denotes the surface measure on $\partial Q^{r^2,r}$, and $p(s,y;t,x)$ is the Poisson kernel on $Q^{r^2,r}$ corresponding to , which has the following upper bound estimate on $Q^{r^2,r}$ ([@LOTFI; @RIAHI]) with a constant $c$ independent of $f$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{addlemm3.8} p(s,y;t,x)\leq c(s-t)^{-\frac{(d+1)}{2}}\exp(-c\frac{\|y-x\|^2}{s-t})\end{aligned}$$ for all $(t,x)\in Q^{r^2,r}$, $(s,y)\in \partial Q^{r^2,r}$, $0\leq t<s$.\ Besides, we also can represent the solution to the above equation in a probabilistic way. For $(t,x)\in Q^{r^2,r}$, let $$\tau_r:=\inf\left\{s\geq0:(s,Y(s,t,x))\notin Q^{r^2,r}\right\},$$ by applying Itô’s formula to $u(s,Y(s,t,x))$ and taking expectation, we have for $(t,x)\in Q^{r^2,r}$, $$u(t,x)=E^{(t,x)}[u(\tau_r,Y({\tau_r},t,x))]-E^{(t,x)}[\int_t^{\tau_r}\mathcal{L}u(s,Y(s,t,x))ds]=E^{(t,x)}[f(\tau_r,Y({\tau_r},t,x))].$$ Hence $$E^{(t,x)}[f(\tau_r,Y({\tau_r},t,x))]=\int_{\partial Q^{r^2,r}} f(s,y)p(s,y;t,x)dS(s,y).$$ We take $(0,0)$ as the start point of the process $(s,Y(s,t,x))$, then denote $Y_s:=Y(s,0,0)$ and $E[f(\tau_r,Y_{\tau_r})]=\int_{\partial Q^{r^2,r}} f(s,y)p(s,y;0,0)dS(s,y).$ \[lemm3.9\] If Assumption \[ass3\] (iii) and (iv) hold, then on an extension of the probability space there is a stopping time $\gamma$ such that the distribution of $(\gamma,Y_\gamma)$ has a bounded density concentrated on $Q^{1,1}$. Let $n=d+3$. On an extension of our probability space there exists a random variable $\rho$ with values in $[0,1]$ and density function $h(r)=nr^{n-1}$ such that $\rho$ is independent of all $({\mathcal{F}}_t)_{t\geq0}$. Then $\rho$ is also independent to $(t,Y_t)_{t\geq0}$, since $(Y_t)_{t\geq0}$ is adapted to $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq0}$. Let $\hat{\mathcal{F}}_t=\mathcal{F}_t\vee\sigma(\rho),t\geq0$, and define $\gamma$ as the first exit time of $(t,Y_t)_{t\geq0}$ from $Q^{\rho^2,\rho}$. Then $\gamma$ is a bounded $(\hat{\mathcal{F}}_t)_{t\geq0}$ stopping time. We claim that $\gamma$ is a random variable of the type that we are looking for.\ Actually, according to independence and the above potential knowledge, for a nonnegative continuous function $f(t,x)$ on $[0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}^d$ we have $$\begin{aligned} Ef(\gamma, Y_\gamma)=&E[Ef(\tau_r,Y_{\tau_r})\bigg\|_{\rho=r}]=E[\int_{\partial Q^{r^2,r}}f(s,y)p(s,y;0,0)dS(s,y)\bigg\|_{\rho=r}]\\=&\int_0^1h(r)dr\int_{\partial Q^{r^2,r}}f(s,y)p(s,y;0,0)dS(s,y)\\=& \int_0^1 h(r)dr\int_{(0,r^2)\times \partial B_r}f(s,y)p(s,y;0,0)dS(s,y)\\&+\int_0^1h(r)dr\int_{B_r}f(r^2,y)p(r^2,y;0,0)dy=:I_1+I_2.\end{aligned}$$ Then and the fact that $\exp(-c\frac{\|y\|^2}{s})s^{-(d+1)/2}$ is bounded by $Nr^{-d-1}$ on $(0,r^2)\times\partial B_r$ yield $$\begin{aligned} I_1&\leq k\int_0^1h(r)dr\int_0^{r^2}\int_{\partial B_r}f(s,y)\frac{\exp(-c\frac{\|y\|^2}{s})}{s^{(d+1)/2}}dS(s,y) \\&\leq N\int_0^1h(r)r^{-d-1}dr\int_0^{r^2}\int_{\partial B_r}f(s,y)dS(s,y) \\& \leq N\int_0^1\int_0^{r^2}\int_{\partial B_1}r^{-d-1}f(s,ry)h(r)r^{d-1}d(\partial B_1)dsdr\\& \leq N\int_0^1\int_0^1\int_{\partial B_1}f(s,ry)r^{d}d(\partial B_1)dsdr\leq N\int_{Q^{1,1}}f(s,y)dsdy,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} I_2&\leq k\int_0^1\int_{B_r}f(r^2,y)h(r)\frac{\exp(-c\frac{\|y\|^2}{r})}{r^{d+1}}dydr\\&\leq N\int_0^1\int_{B_r}f(r^2,y)h(r)r^{-d-1}dydr\\& =N\int_0^1\int_{B_r}f(r^2,y)r^{n-2-d}dydr\leq N\int_{Q^{1,1}}f(s,y)dsdy.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$Ef(\gamma,Y_\gamma)\leq N\int_{Q^{1,1}}f(t,x)dxdt$$ and N is independent of $f$.\ For arbitrary nonnegative function $\|fI_{Q^{1,1}}\|\in \mathbb{L}_1^1$, we can use a standard method to approximate $f$ via continuous functions. The conclusion is proved. \[lemm3.10\] Let Assumption \[ass3\] hold. Let $K_2\in[0,\infty)$ be a constant. Assume that for some $p$, $q$ satisfying $p,q\in(2,\infty)$ and $ \frac{d}{p}+\frac{2}{q}<1,$ we have $$\quad\psi I_{Q^{1,1}}\leq K_2, \quad \Vert\nabla\psi I_{Q^{1,1}}\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q}\leq K_2.\quad$$ Take an $r\in(1,\infty)$ and a nonnegative Borel function $f=f(t,x)$ on $(0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $f(t,x)=0$ for $t>T$. For $0\leq s\leq t\leq T$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ introduce $$\begin{aligned} \rho_t(s,x)&=\exp(-\int_s^{t}\nabla\psi^\sigma(u,Y(u,s,x))dW_s-\frac{1}{2}\int_s^{t}\|\nabla\psi^\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi\|(u,Y(u,s,x))du),\\ \alpha_t(s,x)&=\exp(-2\int_s^{t}(D_t\psi)_+(u,Y(u,s,x))du),\\ u_t(s,x)&=E\rho_t(s,x)\alpha_t(s,x)f(t,Y(t,s,x)).\end{aligned}$$ Then there is a constant $N$, depending only on $K$, $r$, $p$, $q$, $K_2$ and $T$, such that $$\label{eq3.8} \int_0^Tu_t(0,0)dt\leq N(\int_{(0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^d}f^re^{-2\psi}dtdx)^{1/r}+N(\int_{Q^{1,1}}f^{d+3}dtdx)^{1/(d+3)}.$$ By the strong Markov property of $(Y_t)_{t\geq0}$, [ which can be obtained from the similar argument as in the proof of Theorem \[mainadd1\]]{}, for any stopping time $\tau$ we have $$EI_{\tau\leq t}\rho_t(0,0)\alpha_t(0,0)f(t,Y_t)=EI_{\tau\leq t}\rho_\tau(0,0)\alpha_\tau(0,0)u_t(\tau,Y_\tau).$$ Therefore, upon assuming without losing generality that $T\geq1$, for $\gamma$ from Lemma \[lemm3.9\], $$\int_0^Tu_t(0,0)dt=E\int_0^\gamma\rho_t(0,0)\alpha_t(0,0)f(t,Y_t)dt+E\rho_\gamma(0,0)\alpha_\gamma(0,0)\int_\gamma^Tu_t(\gamma,Y_\gamma)dt=:I_1+I_2.$$ Observe that $\alpha_t\leq1$ and for $t\leq\gamma$ we have $(t,Y_t)\in Q^{1,1}$ so that, in particular, in the formula defining $\rho_t(0,0)$ we can replace $\nabla\psi$ with $\nabla\psi I_{Q^{1,1}}$ and hence all moments of $\rho_t(0,0)I_{t\leq\gamma}$ and $\rho_\gamma(0,0)$ are finite and uniformly bounded in $t$. Since by we have $$E[\exp(\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\|\nabla\psi^\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi\|I_{Q^{1,1}}(u,Y(u,s,x))du)]<\infty$$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. For the moments of $\rho_t(0,0)I_{t\leq\gamma}$ and $\rho_\gamma(0,0)$, by using the same way of getting and we get the desired results. We also can replace $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_s^{t}\partial_ja_{ij}(r,Y(r,s,x))dr$ by $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_s^{t}I_{Q^{1,1}}\partial_ja_{ij}(r,Y(r,s,x))dr)$ in the SDE for all $1\leq i,j\leq d$, it follows by Hölder’s inequality and that for any $v\in(1,\infty)$ $$I_1\leq N(E\int_0^T\|f^vI_{Q^{1,1}}\|(t,Y_t)dt)^{1/v}\leq N\Vert f^vI_{Q^{1,1}}\Vert_{\mathbb{L}^{d+5/2}}^{1/v}.$$ We can choose $v$ so that $v(d+5/2)=d+3$, and get that $I_1$ is less than the second term on the right in .\ In what concerns $I_2$ we again use $\alpha_\gamma(0,0)\leq1$ and the finiteness of all moments of $\rho_\gamma(0,0)$. Then we find $$\label{newlem3.10} I_2\leq N(\int_0^1\int_s^T(\int_{B_1}u_t^r(s,x)dx)dtds)^{1/r}.$$ To estimate the interior integral with respect to $x$ we insert there $\exp(-2\psi(s,x))$ and again use Hölder’s inequality and the fact that $E\rho_t(s,x)\leq1$. This yields $$I_2(s,t):=\int_{B_1}u_t^r(s,x)dx\leq e^{2K_2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}e^{-2\psi(s,x)}\hat{v}_t(s,x)dx$$ where $$\hat{v}_t(s,x)=E\rho_t(s,x)\alpha_t(s,x)f^r(t,Y({t},s,x))\leq E\beta_t(s,x)f^r(t,Y({t},s,x)).$$ Hence by Lemma \[cor3.8\], $$I_2(s,t)\leq e^{2K_2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}e^{-2\psi(t,x)}f^r(t,x)dx,$$ which shows that $I_2$ is less than the first term on the right in . The Lemma is proved. \[lemm3.11\] Let the assumptions of Lemma \[lemm3.10\] be satisfied and let $\epsilon\in[0,2)$ be a constant and $h$ a nonnegative Borel function on bounded domain $Q\subset[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ such that on $Q$, $$\label{eq3.9} 2D_t\psi+\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\psi)\leq he^{\epsilon\psi}.$$ Then for any $\delta\in[0,2-\epsilon)$, $r\in(1,2/(\delta+\epsilon)]$, there exists a constant $N$, depending only on $K$, $T$, $p$, $q$, $K_2$, $\epsilon$, $\delta$ and r (but not $Q$) such that for any stopping time $\tau\leq\tau_Q(Y_\cdot)$ we have $$\label{eq3.10} E\Phi_\tau\leq N +N(\int_Qh^re^{-(2-r\eta)\psi}dtdx)^{1/r}+N\sup_{Q^{1,1}}h,$$ where $\eta=\delta+\epsilon$ so that $r\eta\leq 2$ and $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_t:=\exp(&-\int_0^t(\nabla\psi^\sigma)(s,Y_s)dW_s-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\|\nabla\psi^\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi\|(s,Y_s)ds \\&-2\int_0^t(D_t\psi)_+(s,Y_s)ds+\delta\psi(t,Y_t)).\end{aligned}$$ By Itô’s formula, $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_\tau=&\Phi_0+m_\tau+\int_0^\tau\Phi_t[\delta D_t\psi+\frac{\delta}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\psi)-2(D_t\psi)_+ \\&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\frac{1}{2}(\|\delta-1\|^2-1)\|\nabla\psi^\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi\|](t,Y_t)dt\\ $$ where $m_t$ is a local martingale starting at zero. By using , and the inequality $\|\delta-1\|\leq1$ we obtain $$\label{eq3.11}\Phi_\tau\leq \Phi_0+\delta\int_0^\tau\Phi_th(t,Y_t)\exp(\epsilon\psi(t,Y_t))dt+m_\tau.$$ Since $\Phi_t\geq0$ we take the expectations of both sides and drop $Em_\tau$. More precisely, we introduce $\tau_n:=\inf\left\{t\geq0:\|m_t\|\geq n\right\}$ and substitute $\tau\wedge\tau_n$ in place of $\tau$ in . After that we take expectations, use the fact that $Em_{\tau\wedge\tau_{n}}=0$, let $n\rightarrow\infty,$ and finally use Fatou’s Lemma with monotone convergence theorem. Furthermore, we denote $f=I_Qh\exp(\eta\psi)$ and notice that $\tau\leq T$. Then in the notation of Lemma \[lemm3.10\], we find that $$\begin{aligned} E\Phi_\tau&\leq N+NE\int_0^\tau\rho_t(0,0)\alpha_t(0,0)f(t,Y_t)dt\\&\leq N+N\int_0^TE\rho_t(0,0)\alpha_t(0,0)f(t,Y_t)dt=N+N\int_0^Tu_t(0,0)dt.\end{aligned}$$ It only remains to note that the first term in the right-hand side of is just the second one on the right in and the second integral on the right in is less than $volQ^{1,1}\sup_{Q^{1,1}}h^{d+3}\exp[\eta K_2(d+3)].$ The Lemma is proved. \[th3.12\] Let Assumption \[ass3\] hold. Let $K_1$, $K_2\in[0,\infty)$ and $\epsilon\in[0,2)$ be some constants and let $Q$ be a bounded subdomain of $Q_{T}$ and $h$ be a nonnegative Borel function on $Q$. Assume that for some $p$, $q$ satisfying $p,q\in(2,\infty)$ and $\frac{d}{p}+\frac{2}{q}<1,$ we have $$hI_{Q^{1,1}}\leq K_2,\quad \psi I_{Q^{1,1}}\leq K_2,\quad \Vert I_{Q^{1,1}\nabla\psi }\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_p^q}\leq K_2.$$ Also assume that on $Q$ $$\begin{aligned} \psi\geq0,\quad 2D_t\psi\leq K_1\psi,\quad \\ 2D_t\psi+\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\psi)\leq he^{\epsilon\psi}.\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $X_t$, $t\in[0,T]$, the solution of $$X_t=\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s)dW_s+\int_0^t(-\sigma\sigma^\nabla\psi)(s,X_s)ds+(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_0^t\partial_ja_{ij}(s,X_s)ds)_{1\leq i\leq d}.$$ Then for any $r\in(1,4/(2+\epsilon)]$ there exists a constants $N$, depending only on $K$, $K_1$, $K_2$, $r$, $d$, $T$, $p$, $q$, and $\epsilon$, such that $$\label{eq3.12} E\sup_{t\leq\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}\exp[\mu(\psi(t,X_t)+\nu\|X_t\|^2)]\leq N+NH_Q(T,a,r)$$ where $H_Q$ is introduced in Assumption \[ass2.1\], $a=(2-r\eta)\nu$, $\eta=2\delta+\epsilon$, $\mu$, $\nu$ and $\delta$ are taken from . Here $\tau_Q(X_{\cdot}):=\inf\left\{t\geq 0:(t,X_t)\notin Q\right\}$. Define $\hat\psi=\psi+\nu\|x\|^2$, $$M_t=\exp(\delta\hat\psi(t,X_t)-\frac{K_1}{2}\int_0^t\hat\psi(s,X_s)ds),\quad M_=\sup_{t\leq\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}M_t.$$ Then for $t\leq\tau_Q(X_\cdot)$, $$\hat\psi(t,X_t)\leq \ln M_^{1/\delta}+\frac{K_1}{2\delta}\int_0^t\hat\psi(s,X_s)ds$$ and hence by Gronwall’s inequality $$\hat\psi(t,X_t)\leq e^{tK_1/(2\delta)}\ln M_^{1/\delta}\leq e^{TK_1/(2\delta)}\ln M_^{1/\delta}.$$ Take $\mu=\frac{\delta}{2}e^{-TK_1/(2\delta)}$, then $$\label{eqn3.12} \exp(\mu\hat\psi(t,X_t))\leq \sqrt{M_}.$$ Therefore, to prove , it suffices to prove that $E\sqrt{M_}\leq N$. It turns by a well known result on transformations of stochastic inequalities (see Lemma 3.2 in [@I.N.]), if $EM_\tau\leq N_1$ for all stopping times $\tau\leq\tau_Q(X_\cdot)$. Then $E\sqrt{M_}\leq 3N_1$. Thus, it suffices to estimate $EM_\tau$.\ On a probability space carrying a $d-$dimensional Wiener process $(\hat {W}_t)_{t\geq0}$ introduce $(\hat {X}_t)_{t\geq0}$ as the solution of the equation $$\label{eq3.13} \hat{X}_t=\int_0^t\sigma(s,\hat{X}_s)d\hat{W}_s-\int_0^{t\wedge \tau_Q(\hat{X_\cdot})}\sigma\sigma^\nabla\hat\psi(s,\hat X_s)ds+(\int_0^{t\wedge \tau_Q(\hat{X_\cdot})}\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\partial_j a_{ij})(s,\hat X_s)ds)_{1\leq i\leq d}.$$ Also set $$\hat {M}_t=\exp(2\delta\hat\psi(t,\hat{X}_t)-2\int_0^t(D_t\hat\psi)_+(s,\hat{X}_s)ds),\quad t\geq0.$$ Write $\hat E$ for the expectation sign on the new probability space and observe that on $Q$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{conass} 2D_t\hat\psi+\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\hat\psi)&=2D_t\psi+\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\psi)+2\nu\sum_{i,j=1}^dx_i\partial_j a_{ij}+2\nu\sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_ja_{ij}\nonumber\\&\leq (h+C)e^{\epsilon\hat\psi}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $2\nu\sum_{i,j=1}^dx_i\partial_j a_{ij}+2\nu\sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_ja_{ij}\leq (h+C)e^{\epsilon\hat\psi}$ holds because of Assumption \[ass3\], which means $\|\partial_ja_{ij}\|$ is bounded. Then after an obvious change of measure (cf. Lemma \[Girsanov\] ) inequality with $2\delta$, $\hat E$, $\hat\psi$, and $\hat{W}_t$ in place of $\delta$, $E$, $\psi$, and $W_t$, respectively, $\eta=2\delta+\epsilon$, and $r\in(1,4/(2+\epsilon)]\subset(1,2/(2\delta+\epsilon)] $ is written as $$\hat E\hat{M}_\tau\leq N+N(\int_Qh^rI_{(0,T)}e^{-(2-r\eta)\hat\psi}dtdx)^{1/r}$$ and since $\hat\psi\geq \nu\|x\|^2$ on $Q$, we obtain $$\hat E\hat {M}_\tau\leq N+N(\int_Qh^rI_{(0,T)}e^{-(2-r\eta)\nu\|x\|^2}dtdx)^{1/r}= N+N H_Q^{1/r}(T,(2-r\eta)\nu,r)=:N_0$$ for all stopping times $\tau\leq\tau_Q(\hat{X}_\cdot)$, which yields $$\hat E\sqrt{\hat M_}\leq 3N_0.$$ Combining this with the inequality $$\exp(2\delta\hat\psi(t,\hat{X}_t)-{K_1}\int_0^t\hat\psi(x,\hat{X}_s)ds)\leq {\hat{M}_t},\quad\quad t\leq\tau_{Q}(\hat{X}_\cdot),$$ the left-hand side of which is quite similar to $M_t$ but with $2\hat\psi$ in place of $\hat\psi$, the above argument deduce $$\label{eq3.14} \hat E\sup_{t\leq\tau_Q(\hat{X}_\cdot)}\exp(2\mu \nu\|\hat{X}_t\|^2)\leq \hat E\sup_{t\leq\tau_Q(\hat{X}_\cdot)}\exp(2\mu\hat\psi(t,\hat{X}_t))\leq NN_0.$$ We now estimate $EM_\tau$ through $\hat E\hat {M}_\tau$ by using Girsanov’s theorem and Hölder’s inequality. We use a certain freedom in choosing $\hat{X}_t$ and $\hat{W}_t$ and on the probability space where $W_t$ and $X_t$ are given we introduce a new measure by the formula: $$\hat P(d\omega)=\exp(-2\nu\int_0^\infty X_t^* \sigma(t,X_t)I_{t<\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}dW_t-2\nu^2\int_0^\infty X _t^(\sigma\sigma^{})(t,X_t)X_tI_{t<\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}dt)P(d\omega).$$ Since $Q$ is a bounded domain, then we have $$E\exp\Big(2\nu^2\int_0^\infty X _t^(\sigma\sigma^{})(t,X_t)X_tI_{t<\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}dt\Big)\leq E\exp\Big(2\nu^2K\int_0^T X _t^X_tI_{t<\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}dt\Big)<\infty,$$ which implies that $\hat P$ is a probability measure. Furthermore, as is easy to see, for $t\leq\tau_Q(X_\cdot)$ $$\hat{X}_t:=X_tI_{t<\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}+(\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s)dW_s-\int_0^{\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}\sigma(s,X_s)dW_s+X_{\tau_Q(X_\cdot)})I_{t\geq\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}$$ coincides with $X_t$ and satisfies for $t\leq\tau_Q(X_\cdot)$ with $$\hat{W}_t=W_t+2\nu\int_0^{t\wedge\tau_Q(X_\cdot)}\sigma^(s,X_s)X_sds$$ which is a Wiener process with respect to $\hat P$. In this situation for $\tau\leq\tau_Q(X_\cdot)=\tau_Q(\hat{X}_\cdot)$ $$\begin{aligned} EM_\tau&\leq\hat E\hat{M}_\tau^{1/2}\exp(2\nu\int_0^\infty \hat X_t^\sigma(t,\hat X_t)I_{t<\tau_Q(\hat X_\cdot)}d\hat W_t-2\nu^2\int_0^\infty \hat X_t^(\sigma\sigma^)(t,\hat X_t)\hat X_tI_{t<\tau_Q(\hat X_\cdot)}dt)\\& \leq(\hat E\hat {M}_\tau)^{1/2}(\hat E\rho^{1/2}\exp(12v^2\int_0^\infty \hat X_t^(\sigma\sigma^)(t,\hat X_t)\hat X_tI_{t<\tau_Q(\hat X_\cdot)}dt))^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\rho=\exp(8\nu\int_0^\infty \hat X_t^\sigma(t,\hat X_t)I_{t<\tau_Q(\hat X_\cdot)}d\hat W_t-32\nu^2\int_0^\infty \hat X_t^(\sigma\sigma^)(t,\hat X_t)\hat X_tI_{t<\tau_Q(\hat X_\cdot)}dt).$$ Observe that $\hat E\rho=1$ and $\hat E\hat {M}_\tau\leq N_0$. Therefore, $$EM_\tau\leq N_0^{1/2}(\hat E\exp(24\nu^2\int_0^{\tau_Q({X}_\cdot)}(\hat X_t^(\sigma\sigma^)(t,\hat X_t)\hat X_t)dt))^{1/4}.$$ It only remains to refer to after noticing that $$24\nu^2\int_0^{\tau_Q({X}_\cdot)}(\hat X_t^(\sigma\sigma^)(t,\hat X_t)\hat X_t)dt\leq 24\nu^2KT\sup_{t\leq\tau_Q({X}_\cdot)}\|{X}_t\|^2=2\mu \nu \sup_{t\leq\tau_Q({X}_\cdot)}\|{X}_t\|^2$$ and use the inequality $\iota^\alpha\leq 1+\iota$ if $\iota\geq 0$, $0\leq \alpha\leq 1$, where $\nu=\mu/(12KT)$. The theorem is proved. Proof of Theorem \[th2.3\] {#sec4} ========================== By Theorem \[mainadd1\] the strong solution $(t,X_t)_{t\geq0}$ to is defined at least until the time $\xi$ when $(s+t,X_t)_{t\geq0}$ exits from all $Q^n$. We claim that in order to prove $\xi=\infty $ $a.s.$ and also to prove the second assertions of the theorem, it suffices to prove that for each $T\in(0,\infty)$ and $m\geq 1$ there exists a constant $N$, depending only on $K$, $K_1$, $d$, $p(m+1)$, $q(m+1)$, $\epsilon$, $T$, $\Vert I_{Q^{m+1}}\nabla\phi \Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p(m+1)}^{q(m+1)}}$, $dist(\partial Q^m,\partial Q^{m+1})$, $\sup_{Q^{m+1}}\left\{\phi+h\right\}$, and the function $H$, such that for $(s,x)\in Q^m$ we have $$\label{eq4.1} E\sup_{t<\xi\wedge T}\exp(\mu\phi(s+t,X_t)+\mu \nu\|X_t\|^2)\leq N.$$ To prove the claim notice that implies $$\label{eq4.2} \sup_{t<\xi\wedge T}(\phi(s+t,X_t)+\|X_t\|^2)<\infty\quad a.s..$$ It follows that $a.s.$ there exists an $n\geq1$ such that up to time $\xi\wedge T$ the trajectory $(Z_t)_{t\geq0}=(s+t, X_t)_{t\geq0}$ lies in $Q^n$. Indeed, on the set of all $\omega$ where this is wrong, for the exit time $\xi^n$ of $Z_t$ from $Q^n$ we have $\xi^n<T$ for all $n$. However owing to , the sequence $X_{\xi^n}$ should be bounded, then the sequence $Z_{\xi^n}$ has limit points on the boundary $\partial Q$. According to the Assumption \[addvi\] (vi), it only happens with probability zero. Hence, $a.s.$ there is $n\geq 1$ such that $T\leq\xi^n$. Since this happens for any $T$ and $\xi^n<\xi$ we conclude that $\xi=\infty$ $a.s.$, which proves our intermediate claim.\ Since $dist(\partial Q^m,\partial Q^{m+1})>0$ we can find $\kappa\in(0,1]$ sufficiently small so that $(s,x)+Q^{\kappa^2,\kappa}\subset Q^{m+1}$ for all $(s,x)\in Q^m$. Therefore, by translation and dilation, without losing generality, we may assume that $s=0$, $x=0$ and $Q^{1,1}\subset Q^m$.\ Next we notice that obviously, to prove it suffices to prove that with $N$ of the same kind as in for any $n\geq m+2$, $$\label{eq4.3} E\sup_{t<\xi^n\wedge T}\exp(\mu \phi(t,X_t)+\mu \nu\|X_t\|^2)\leq N.$$ Fix an $n\geq m+2$. By virtue of Theorem \[mainadd1\], notice that the left-hand side of will not change if we change $-\sigma\sigma^\nabla\phi+(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\partial_j a_{ij})_{1\leq i\leq d}$ outside of $Q^n$. Therefore we may replace $\phi$ with $\phi\eta$ and replace $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\partial_j a_{ij}$ with $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\partial_j a_{ij}\eta$ for each $1\leq i\leq d$, where $\eta$ is an infinitely differentiable function equal $1$ on a neighborhood of ${Q}^n$ and equals $0$ outside of $Q^{n+1}$. To simplify the notation we just assume that $\phi$ and $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\partial_j a_{ij}$ vanishes outside of $Q^{n+1}$ and holds in a neighborhood of $\overline{Q^n}$. This is harmless as long as we prove that $N$ depends appropriately on the data.\ Now we mollify $\phi$ by convolving it with a $\delta-$like nonnegative smooth function $\zeta^\gamma(t,x)=\gamma^{-d-1}\zeta(t/\gamma,x/\gamma)$, $\zeta$ has compact support in $Q^{1}$. Denote by $\phi^{(\gamma)}$ the result of the convolution and use an analogous notation for the convolution of $\zeta^\gamma(t,x)$ with other functions. Also denote by $(X_t^\gamma)_{t\geq0}$ the solution of the following SDE $$X_t^{\gamma}=\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s^{\gamma})dW_s+\int_0^t(-\sigma\sigma^\nabla\phi^{(\gamma)})(s,X_s^{\gamma})ds+ (\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_0^{t}\partial_ja_{ij}(s,X_s^\gamma)ds)_{1\leq i\leq d}.$$ For $x_{\cdot}\in \mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^{d})$ we define $\xi_n(x_\cdot):=\inf\left\{t\geq0:(t,x_t)\not\in Q^n\right\}$. Consider the bounded function $f$ on $\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^{d})$ given by the formula $$f(x_\cdot)=\sup_{t\leq\xi^n(x_\cdot)\wedge T}\exp(\mu\phi(t,x_t)+\mu \nu\|x_t\|^2),$$ and let $f^\gamma$ be defined by the same formula with $\phi^{(\gamma)}$ in place of $\phi$. Since $\sigma\sigma^$ is bounded, by using Lemma \[lemm3.6\] we conclude that the left-hand side of is equal to the limit as $\gamma\downarrow 0$ of $$\begin{aligned} \label{approximation} Ef^\gamma(X_\cdot^{\gamma})=E\sup_{t<\xi^n(X_\cdot^{\gamma})\wedge T}\exp(\mu\phi^{(\gamma)}(t,X_t^\gamma)+\mu \nu\|X_t^\gamma\|^2).\end{aligned}$$ In fact, if we denote $M_t=\int_0^t\sigma(s,M_s)dW_s$, $t\geq0$, according to Lemma \[lemm3.6\] $$\begin{aligned} \|Ef(X_\cdot)-Ef^\gamma(X_\cdot^{\gamma})\| &\leq N'(E\|f(M_\cdot)-f^\gamma(M_\cdot)\|^2)^{1/2}+N'\Vert f\Vert_{\infty}\Vert \sigma\sigma^(\nabla\phi-\nabla\phi^{(\gamma)})I_{Q^n}\Vert_{L_p^q}\\ & \leq N'(E\|f(M_\cdot)-f^\gamma(M_\cdot)\|^2)^{1/2}+ KN'\Vert (\nabla\phi-\nabla\phi^{(\gamma)})I_{Q^n}\Vert_{L_p^q}, \end{aligned}$$ which of course tends to $0$ when $\gamma\rightarrow 0$, since $\phi$ is continuous and bounded on $Q^n$, $\|I_{Q^n}\nabla\phi\|\in \mathbb{L}_p^q$, then $f^\gamma\rightarrow f$ and $I_{Q^n}\nabla\phi^{(\gamma)}\rightarrow I_{Q^n}\nabla\phi $ in $\mathbb{L}_p^q$ as $\gamma\rightarrow 0.$\ In the light of the fact that holds in a neighborhood of ${Q}^n$ we have that on $Q^n$ for sufficiently small $\gamma$ $$\begin{aligned} 2D_t\phi^{(\gamma)}+\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\phi^{(\gamma)})&\leq ((he^{\epsilon\phi})^{(\gamma)}e^{-\epsilon\phi^{(\gamma)}}+\sum_{i,j=1}^d\|\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\phi^{(\gamma)})-(\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\phi))^{(\gamma)}\|) e^{\epsilon\phi^{(\gamma)}} \nonumber \\&=:h^{\gamma}e^{\epsilon\phi^{(\gamma)}}.\label{eq4.4}\end{aligned}$$ Since $h$ is continuous, then $(he^{\epsilon\phi})^{(\gamma)}e^{-\epsilon\phi^{(\gamma)}}\rightarrow h$ uniformly on $Q^n$. Besides $\sum_{i,j=1}^d\|\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\phi^{(\gamma)})-(\partial_j(a_{ij}\partial_i\phi))^{(\gamma)}\|)\rightarrow 0$ pointwise. Hence if we denote $$H_{Q^n}^{\gamma}(T,(2-r\eta)\nu,r):=\int_{Q^n}(h^{\gamma})^r(t,x)I_{(0,T)}(t)e^{-(2-r\eta)\nu\|x\|^2}dtdx,$$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\gamma\rightarrow 0}H_{Q^n}^{\gamma}(T,(2-r\eta)\nu,r)\leq H_{Q^n}(T,(2-r\eta)\nu,r). \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the conditions $2D_t\phi^{(\gamma)}\leq K_1\phi^{(\gamma)}$ also hold in a neighborhood of ${Q}^n$ for sufficiently small $\gamma$.\ We now apply Theorem \[th3.12\] for $Q^{n}\cap Q_{ T}$ in place of $Q$ to conclude that $$\begin{aligned} E\sup_{t<\xi^n\wedge T} \exp(\mu\phi(t,X_t)+\mu\nu\|X_t\|^2)&=\lim_{\gamma\downarrow0}E\sup_{t<\xi^n(X_\cdot^{\gamma})\wedge T}\exp(\mu\phi^{(\gamma)}+\mu \nu\|X_t^{\gamma}\|^2)\\&\leq \lim_{\gamma\downarrow0}(N+NH_{Q^n}^\gamma(T,(2-r\eta)\nu,r))\\&\leq N+NH_{Q^n}(T,(2-r\eta)\nu,r)\\&\leq N+NH_Q(T,(2-r\eta)\nu,r),\end{aligned}$$ where the values of all the parameters are specified in \[th3.12\] and the constants $N$ depend only on $r$, $d$, $p(m+1)$, $q(m+1)$, $\epsilon$, $T$, $K$, $K_1$, $\Vert I_{Q^{m+1}}\nabla\phi \Vert_{L_{p(m+1)}^{q(m+1)}}$, and $\sup_{Q^{m+1}}\left\{\phi+h\right\}.$\ We finally use condition $(H)$ from Assumption \[ass2.1\] . Fix any $r_0\in(1,2/(2\delta+\epsilon))$, set $a=(2-r_0\eta)\nu$ $(>0)$ and take $r=r(T,a)$ from condition $(H)$. Hölder’s inequality shows that if condition $(H)$ is satisfied with $r=r'$ where $r'>1$, then it is also satisfied with any $r\in(1,r']$. Hence without losing generality we may assume that $r=r(T,a)\in(1,r_0]$. Then $(2-r\eta)\nu\geq a$ and $H_Q(T,(2-r\eta)\nu,r)\leq H_Q(T,a,r(T,a))<\infty.$ Thus, Theorem \[th3.12\] yields . The theorem is proved.\ $\hfill{} \Box$\ \[remm4.1\] We can add another drift term to , it does not have to be the gradient of a function. Under Assumption \[ass2.1\] take a Borel measurable locally bounded $\mathbb{R}^d$ valued function $b(t,x)$ defined on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ satisfying the condition $\|b(t,x)\|\leq c(1+\|x\|)$, where $c$ is a finite positive constant, then it turns out that the first assertion of Theorem \[th2.3\] still holds with the equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{addsde} X_t=x+\int_0^t\sigma(s+r,X_r)dW_r&+\int_0^t(-\sigma\sigma^\nabla\phi)(s+r,X_r)dr+\int_0^tb(s+r,X_r)dr\nonumber\\&+(\int_0^t\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\partial_ja_{ij}(s+r,X_r)dr)_{1\leq i\leq d},\quad t\geq0\quad\end{aligned}$$ in place of . To prove this we follow the proof in [@KR] Remark 8.2. The only needed material is the Markov property of solution to equation , [which we already get from the proof of Theorem \[mainadd1\].]{} By applying Girsanov theorem we get the non-explosion result for the equation .\ Further we can carry our results in Theorem \[th2.3\] to the cases in which $\phi$ is not necessarily nonnegative but $\phi\geq -C(1+\|x\|^2)$, $C>0.$ Since the equation is equivalent to the following $$\begin{aligned} X_t=x&+\int_0^t\sigma(s+r,X_r)dW_r+(\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\sum_{j=1}^d\partial_ja_{ij}(s+r,X_r)dr)_{1\leq i\leq d}\\&+\int_0^t2C\sigma\sigma^(s+r,X_r)X_rdr -\int_0^t\sigma\sigma^\nabla[C(1+\|x\|^2)+\phi](s+r,X_r)dr,\quad t\geq0, \end{aligned}$$ obviously $\|\sigma\sigma^(t,x)x\|\leq K(1+\|x\|)$. We conclude that the SDE has a unique solution defined for all times if $(s,x)\in Q$ provided that $\phi+C(1+\|x\|^2)$ rather than $\phi$ satisfies Assumption \[ass2.1\]. Examples and applications ========================= In this section, we will give several examples to show the local well-posedness and non-explosion of solution to the SDE that our results can be applied.\ Examples-Maximal local well-posedness ------------------------------------- Consider the equation when $d=1$, $Q=\mathbb{R}_{+}\times(0,\infty)$, $Q^n=(0,n)\times\left\{x:1/n<x<n\right\}$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $b(t,x)=-x^{-1}$, $\sigma(t,x)=(1+x^2)^{-1}$.\ For any $(s,x)\in Q$, for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, if we take $q(n)=\infty$ and $p(n)\in(2,\infty)$, then $1/p(n)+2/q(n)<1$. We can also easily check that $\Vert bI_{Q^n}\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p(n)}^\infty}<\infty$, and $\Vert I_{Q^n}\nabla \sigma \Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p(n)}^\infty}<\infty$. Furthermore, $\sigma(t,x)$ is uniformly continuous in $x$ uniformly with respect to $t$ for $(t,x)\in Q^n$, and there exist positive constants $\delta_n(=(1+n^2)^{-2})$ such that for all $(t,x)\in Q^n$, $$\|\sigma^(t,x)\lambda\|^2\geq \delta_n\|\lambda\|^2, \quad \forall \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^d.$$ Hence by Theorem \[mainadd1\] there exists an $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-stopping time $\xi$ and a unique $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted solution to the following equation $$\begin{aligned} X_t=x-\int_0^t\frac{1}{X_r}dr+\int_0^t(1+X_r^2)^{-1}dW_r,\quad t\in[0,\xi).\end{aligned}$$ If $d=2$ with $b(t,x)=x\ln\|x^{(1)}\|=(x^{(1)}\ln\|x^{(1)}\|,x^{(2)}\ln\|x^{(1)}\|)$, $\sigma(t,x)=I_{2}\cdot\ln (2+\|x\|^2)$ on $Q=\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}^2\backslash\left\{x^{(1)}=0\right\}$ and $Q_n=(0,n)\times\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}^2:1/n<\|x^{(1)}\|< n, \|x^{(2)}\|<n\right\}$, where $x^{(i)}$ denotes the $i-$th exponent of the vector $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and $I_{2}$ is the identity matrix in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. Then by Theorem \[mainadd1\] for any $(s,x)\in Q$, there exist an $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-stopping time $\xi$ and a unique $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted solution to the following SDE $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} X_t^{(1)}=x^{(1)}+\int_0^t X_r^{(1)}\ln \|X_r^{(1)}\|dr+\int_0^t\ln (2+\|X_r\|^2)dW_r^{(1)},\\ X_t^{(2)}=x^{(2)}+\int_0^t X_r^{(2)}\ln \|X_r^{(1)}\|dr+\int_0^t\ln (2+\|X_r\|^2)dW_r^{(2)}, \end{aligned} \right.$$ which can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} X_t=x+\int_0^t X_r\ln \|X_r^{(1)}\|dr+\int_0^tI_2\ln (2+X_r^2)dW_r, \quad t\in[0,\xi).\end{aligned}$$ More precisely, for $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we can take $p(n)\in(2,\infty)$ and $q(n)=\infty$, then $\Vert bI_{Q^n}\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p(n)}^\infty}<\infty$, and $\Vert \partial \sigma I_{Q^n}\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p(n)}^\infty}<\infty$. Put $0<\delta_n<\ln^22$, then condition (ii) in Theorem \[mainadd1\] also is fulfilled. Example-Non-explosion --------------------- Consider $d=1$, $Q=\mathbb{R}_{+}\times(0,\infty)$, and $Q^n=(0,n)\times\left\{x:1/n<x<n\right\}$, for $\delta>0$, let $\phi(t,x)=\|x\|^{-\delta}+\|x\|$, $\sigma(t,x)=2+\sin x$.\ We can find that $\phi$ is a nonnegative continuous function on $Q$ and blows up near the parabolic boundary of $Q$. For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, take $q(n)=\infty$, $p(n)\in(2,\infty)$, then $1/p(n)+2/q(n)<1$ and $\Vert (-\sigma^2\nabla\phi+\sigma\nabla\sigma)I_{Q^n}\Vert_{\mathbb{L}_{p(n)}^\infty}<\infty$. Besides, $$\nabla(\sigma^2\nabla \phi)(t,x)\leq C e^{3/2\phi(t,x)}$$ with constant $C\in(0,\infty)$. For $\sigma$, it can be easily checked that conditions in Assumption \[ass2.1\] are satisfied. Then by Theorem \[th2.3\] the following SDE has a unique $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted solution on $Q$: $$\begin{aligned} X_t=x+\int_0^t(2+\sin X_s)dW_s+\int_0^t (\delta X_s\|X_s\|^{-\delta-2}&-\frac{X_s}{\|X_s\|})(2+\sin X_s)^2ds\\&+\int_0^t(2+\sin X_s)\cos X_sds,\quad t\geq0. \end{aligned}$$ Diffusions in random media -------------------------- We apply our results to a particle which performs a random motion in $\mathbb{R}^d$, $d\geq2$, interacting with impurities which are randomly distributed according to a Gibbs measure of Ruelle type. So, the impurities form a locally finite subset $\gamma=\left\{x_k\|k\in\mathbb{N}\right\}\subset\mathbb{R}^d$. The interaction is given by a pair potential $V$ and diffusion coefficient $\sigma$ to be specified below defined on $\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\|x\|>\rho\right\}$, where $\rho\geq0$ is a given constant. The stochastic dynamics of the particle is then determined by a stochastic equation type as in Theorem \[th2.3\] above with $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq5.21} Q:=\mathbb{R}_+\times(\mathbb{R}^d\backslash\gamma^\rho), \quad \phi(t,x):=\sum_{y\in\gamma}V(x-y),\quad (t,x)\in Q,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma^\rho$ is the closed $\rho-$neighborhood of the set $\gamma$, i.e., the random path $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ of the particle should be the strong solution of $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq5.22} X_t=x&+\int_0^t\sigma(X_s)dW_s +(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_0^t\partial_ja_{ij}(X_s)ds)_{1\leq i\leq d} -\sum_{w\in\gamma}\int_0^t(\sigma\sigma^)(X_s)\nabla V(X_s-w)ds.\end{aligned}$$ Below we shall give conditions on the pair potential $V$ and diffusion coefficient $\sigma$ which imply that this is indeed the case, i.e. that Theorem \[th2.3\] above applies, for all $\gamma$ outside a set of measure zero for the Gibbs measure. Here the original case is from [@KR] section 9.1, we generalize it to the multiplicative noise case. Similarly the set of admissible impurities $\gamma$ we can treat is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq5.23} \Gamma_{ad}:=\left\{\gamma\subset\mathbb{R}^d\|\forall r>0 \exists c(\gamma,r)>0:\|\gamma\cap B_r(x)\|\leq c(\gamma,r)\log(1+\|x\|), \forall x\in\mathbb{R}^d\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $B_r(x)$ denotes the open ball with center $x$ and radius $r$, $\|A\|$ denotes the cardinality of a set $A$. From [@KR] we know that for essentially all classes of Gibbs measure in equilibrium statistical mechanics of interacting infinite particle systems in $\mathbb{R}^d$ the set $\Gamma_{ad}$ has measure one, this is also true for Ruelle measures.\ We fix a $\gamma\in\Gamma_{ad}$. The necessary conditions on the pair potential $V$ and diffusion coefficient $\sigma$ go as follows (the typical case when $\rho=0$ is also included):\ (V1) The function $V$ is positive and once continuously differentiable in $\mathbb{R}^d\cap\left\{\|x\|>\rho\right\}$, $\lim_{\|x\|\downarrow \rho}V(x)=\infty$.\ (V2) There exist finite constants $\alpha>d/2$, $C\geq0$, $\epsilon\in[1,2)$ such that with $U(x)=:C(1+\|x\|^2)^{-\alpha}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq5.24} \|V(x)\|+\|\nabla V(x)\|\leq U(x) \quad \text{for} \quad \|x\|> \rho,\end{aligned}$$ and for any $\|y\|>\rho$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq5.25} \sum_{i,j=1}^d(\partial_ja_{ij}(x)\partial_iV(y)+a_{ij}(x)\partial_{i}\partial_jV(y))\leq C(e^{\epsilon(V+U)(y)}-1)\end{aligned}$$ in the sense of distributions on $\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}^d:\|x\|>\rho\right\}$ where $\sigma(x)=(\sigma_{ij}(x))_{1\leq i,j\leq d}:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{R}^d$ satisfies the following conditions:\ ($\sigma$1) There exists a positive constant $K$ such that for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq5.25} \frac{1}{K}\|\lambda\|^2\leq\langle(\sigma\sigma^)(x)\lambda,\lambda\rangle\leq K\|\lambda\|^2,\quad \forall \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^d. \end{aligned}$$ ($\sigma$2) For $1\leq i$, $j\leq d$, $\sigma_{ij}\in\mathcal{C}_b^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$.\ We emphasize that above conditions are fulfilled for essentially all potentials of interests in statistical physics.\ Introduce $\bar V(x)=V(x)+2U(x)$, $\|x\|>\rho$, and for $(t,x)\in Q$ let $$\begin{aligned} \bar \phi(t,x):=\sum_{y\in\gamma}\bar V(x-y),\quad ( a_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq d}:=\sigma\sigma^, \\b(t,x):=2\sum_{w\in\gamma}(\sigma\sigma^)(x)\nabla U(x-w).\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ Owing to , and the fact that $\gamma\in\Gamma_{ad}$, the function $\phi$ is continuously differentiable in $Q$ and $\|b(t,x)\|\leq NK\log(2+\|x\|)$, where $N$ is independent of $(t,x)$ (See [@KR] Section 9.1). Meanwhile for appropriate constants $N$ on $Q$ we have for $\|y\|>\rho$ $$2\sum_{i,j=1}^d(\partial_ja_{ij}(x)\partial_iU(y)+a_{ij}(x)\partial_j\partial_iU(y))\leq N(e^{\epsilon U(y)}-1)$$ because of conditions $(\sigma1)$ and $(\sigma2)$. Combing this with the fact that $V+U$ is positive and $\sum(e^{a_k}-1)\leq e^{\sum a_k}-1$, $a_k\geq 0$, we find that there exists a constant $N'>0$ independent of $(t,x)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{i,j=1}^d\partial_j( a_{ij}\partial_i \bar \phi)(x)&=\sum_{i,j=1}^d\sum_{w\in\gamma}\partial_j(a_{ij}(x)\partial_i (V(x-w)+2U(x-w))) \\&\leq N\sum_{w\in\gamma}\Big((e^{\epsilon(V(x-w)+2U(x-w))}-1)+(e^{\epsilon U(x-w)}-1)\Big)\leq N'(e^{\epsilon \bar \phi(x)}-1).\end{aligned}$$ It shows that all conditions on $\bar\phi$ and $\sigma$ in Theorem \[th2.3\] are fulfilled and therefore by Remark \[remm4.1\] the equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{bar} X_t=x+\int_0^t\sigma(X_s)dW_s-\int_0^t(\sigma\sigma^\nabla\bar \phi)(X_s)ds+(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_0^t\partial_j a_{ij}(X_s)ds)_{1\leq i\leq d}+\int_0^tb(X_s)ds\end{aligned}$$ has a unique strong solution defined for all times if $x\in\mathbb{R}^d\backslash\gamma^\rho$. Since equation coincides with SDE , we get the desired conclusion. M-particle systems with gradient dynamics ----------------------------------------- In this subsection we consider a model of $M$ particles in $\mathbb{R}^d$ interacting via a pair potential $V$ and diffusion coefficient $\sigma$ satisfying the following conditions:\ (V1) The function $V$ is once continuously differentiable in $\mathbb{R}^d\backslash\left\{0\right\}$, $\lim_{\|x\|\rightarrow0}V(x)=\infty$, and on $\mathbb{R}^d\backslash\left\{0\right\}$ we assume that $V\geq -U$, where $U(x):=C(1+\|x\|^2)$, $C$ is a constant.\ (V2) There exists a constant $\epsilon\in[1,2)$ such that for arbitrary $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^d\backslash\left\{0\right\}$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq5.1} \sum_{i,j=1}^d(\partial_ja_{i,j}(x)\partial_iV(y)+a_{i,j}(x)\partial_i\partial_jV(y)) \leq Ce^{\epsilon(V+U)(y)} \end{aligned}$$ in the sense of distributions.\ Here $(a_{i,j})_{1\leq i,j\leq d}:=\sigma\sigma^$ and $\sigma(x)=(\sigma_{i,j}(x))_{1\leq i,j\leq d}:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{R}^d$ is the diffusion coefficient satisfying:\ ($\sigma$1) There exists a positive constant $K$ such that for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{K}\|\lambda\|^2\leq\langle(\sigma\sigma^)(x)\lambda,\lambda\rangle\leq K\|\lambda\|^2,\quad \forall \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^d, \end{aligned}$$ ($\sigma$2) For $1\leq i$, $j\leq d$, $\sigma_{i,j}\in\mathcal{C}_b^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$.\ Introduce $\bar V:=V+2U$, $$Q:=\mathbb{R}_+\times\left(\mathbb{R}^{Md}\backslash \cup_{1\leq k<j\leq M}\left\{x=(x^{(1)},...,x^{(M)})\in\mathbb{R}^{Md}:x^{(k)}=x^{(j)}\right\}\right),$$ $$Q^n:=(0,n)\times \left\{x=(x^{(1)},...,x^{(M)})\in\mathbb{R}^{Md}:\|x\|<n,x^{(k)}\neq x^{(j)}\text{ for }1\leq k<j\leq M\right\},$$ and let the function $\phi$, $\bar\phi$, $\bar \sigma$, $\bar a$ and $b$ be defined on $Q$ by $$\phi(t,x):=\sum_{1\leq k<j\leq M}V(x^{(k)}-x^{(j)}),\quad \bar\phi(t,x):=\sum_{1\leq k<j\leq M}\bar V(x^{(k)}-x^{(j)}),$$ $$\begin{aligned} \bar\sigma(t,x):= \left[\begin{matrix} \sigma(x^{(1)})&0&0\\ 0&\sigma(x^{(2)})&0\\ \cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\ 0&0&\sigma(x^{(M)}) \end{matrix}\right],\quad \bar a(t,x):=\left[\begin{matrix} (\sigma\sigma^)(x^{(1)})&0&0\\ 0&(\sigma\sigma^)(x^{(2)})&0\\ \cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\ 0&0&(\sigma\sigma^)(x^{(M)}) \end{matrix}\right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\quad b:=(b^{(1)},...,b^{(M)}),\quad b^{(k)}(t,x):=4C(\sigma\sigma^)(x^{(k)})\sum_{1\leq j\neq k\leq M}(x^{(k)}-x^{(j)}),\quad k=1,\cdots,M.$$ Observe that for arbitrary $y$, $x\in\mathbb{R}^d\backslash\left\{0\right\}$, $$2\sum_{i,j=1}^d(\partial_ja_{i,j}(x)\partial_iU(y)+a_{i,j}(x)\partial_j\partial_iU(y))\leq Ne^{\epsilon U(y)}$$ for an appropriate constant $N$ which is independent of $y$, $x$. Besides $\phi$ and $\bar\phi$ are continuously differentiable on $Q$. If we use the notation $\partial_{r}^kf(x):=\partial_{r}^kf((x^{(1)},\cdots,x^{(M)})):=\frac{\partial f((x^{(1)},\cdots,x^{(M)})) }{\partial x_r^{(k)}}$ for $k=1,\cdots, M$ and $r=1,\cdots,d$, then for $x\in\mathbb{R}^{Md}$, $$\begin{aligned} \bar a_{i,j}(t,x)&=\sum_{k=1}^Ma_{i-(k-1)d,j-(k-1)d}(x^{(k)})I_{(k-1)d< i,j\leq kd},\label{a}\\ \partial_{r}^k\bar a_{i,j}(t,x)&=\partial_{r}^ka_{i-(k-1)d,j-(k-1)d}(x^{(k)})I_{(k-1)d< i,j\leq kd}=\partial_{r}a_{i-(k-1)d,j-(k-1)d}(x^{(k)})I_{(k-1)d< i,j\leq kd},\label{partiala} \end{aligned}$$ where $1\leq i,j\leq Md$, and $$\begin{aligned} \partial_{r}^k\bar\phi(t,x)=\sum_{1\leq q \neq k\leq M}\partial_rV((x^{(k)}-x^{(q)})sign(q-k))sign(q-k)+4C\sum_{1\leq q\neq k\leq M}(x_r^{(k)}-x_r^{(q)}), \end{aligned}$$ furthermore, $$\begin{aligned} \partial_{n}^m\partial_{r}^k\bar\phi(t,x)=\sum_{1\leq q\neq k \leq M}\Big(&I_{m=k}\partial_n\partial_rV((x^{(k)}-x^{(q)})sign(q-k))\\&-I_{m=q}\partial_n\partial_rV((x^{(k)}-x^{(q)})sign(q-k))\Big)+4C(I_{m=k,n=r}-I_{m\neq k,n=r}). \end{aligned}$$ Combining the above equalities with our assumptions of $V$ and $\sigma$, by algebraic calculation we get that on $Q$ there exists a large number $C_{M,d}$ depending on $Md$ and a constant $C'\in(0,\infty)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} 2D_t&\bar\phi(t,x)+\sum_{i,j=1}^{Md}\partial_{j}(\bar a_{i,j}\partial_{i}\bar\phi)(t,x) \\=&\sum_{i,j=1}^d\sum_{k=1}^M\Big(\partial_j^ka_{i,j}(x^{(k)})\partial_{i}^{k}\bar\phi(t,x)+a_{i,j}(x^{(k)})\partial_j^k\partial_{i}^{k}\bar\phi(t,x)\Big) \\=&\sum_{i,j=1}^d\sum_{k=1}^M\sum_{1\leq q\neq k\leq M}\Big(\partial_ja_{i,j}(x^{(k)})[\partial_iV((x^{(k)}-x^{(q)})sign(q-k))sign(q-k)+4C(x_i^{(k)}-x_i^{(q)})]\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+a_{i,j}(x^{(k)})[\partial_j\partial_iV((x^{(k)}-x^{(q)})sign(q-k))]\Big)+\sum_{i,j=1}^d\sum_{k=1}^Ma_{i,j}(x^{(k)})4CI_{i=j} \\ \leq &C_{M,d}\sum_{1\leq q<g\leq M}(Ce^{\epsilon(V(x^{(q)}-x^{(g)})+U(x^{(q)}-x^{(g)}))}+Ne^{\epsilon(U(x^{(q)}-x^{(g)}))}) \leq C'e^{\epsilon\bar \phi(t,x)}. \end{aligned}$$ The continuity of $\bar a_{i,j}(t,x)$ on $Q$ and $\partial_{j}^k\bar a_{i,j}(t,x)$ on $Q^n$ can be easily checked from and and conditions about $\sigma$. In order to reduce the lengthy algebraic computation, we only show the part for $\bar a_{i,j}(t,x)$, similarly we can get the desired continuity for $\partial_{j}^k\bar a_{i,j}(t,x)$ on $Q^n$. For any $(t,x)$ and $(s,y)\in Q$, by we have for $1\leq i,j\leq Md,$ $$\begin{aligned} \|\bar a_{i,j}(t,x)-\bar a_{i,j}(s,y)\|&\leq C_{Md}\sum_{k=1}^M\|a_{i-(k-1)d,j-(k-1)d}(x^{(k)})-a_{i-(k-1)d,j-(k-1)d}(y^{(k)})\|I_{(k-1)d< i,j\leq kd} \\&\leq C_{Md}\sum_{k=1}^M\|x^{(k)}-y^{(k)}\|\leq C'' \|x-y\|. \end{aligned}$$ We can adjust constants $C''$ and $K$ such that there is still a positive constant such condition $(\sigma1)$ satisfied.\ It follows that all conditions on $\bar\phi$ and $\bar\sigma$ in Theorem \[th2.3\] are fulfilled and therefore by Remark \[remm4.1\] the corresponding stochastic equation for a process $(X_t)_{t\geq0}=(X_t^{(1)},...,X_t^{(M)})_{t\geq0}$ has a unique strong solution defined for all times whenever for the initial condition $x$ we have $(0,x)\in Q$. The corresponding equation is the following system $$\begin{aligned} X_t^{(k)}=x^{(k)}+\int_0^t\sigma(X_s^{(k)}) dW_s^{(k)}-&\int_0^t(\sigma\sigma^)(X_s^{(k)})\partial_k\bar\phi(s,X_s)ds\\ &+(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_0^t\partial_{j} a_{i,j}(X_s^{(k)})ds)_{1\leq i\leq d}+\int_0^tb^{(k)}(s,X_s)ds. \end{aligned}$$ We rewrite it as following with $k=1,...,M$ $$\begin{aligned} X_t^{(k)}=x^{(k)}+&\int_0^t\sigma(X_s^{(k)})dW_s^{(k)}\\-&\int_0^t(\sigma\sigma^)(X_s^{(k)})\sum_{j=1,j\neq k}^M \nabla V((X_s^{(k)}-X_s^{(j)})sign(j-k))sign(j-k)ds \\+&(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\int_0^t\partial_{j} a_{i,j}(X_s^{(k)})ds)_{1\leq j\leq d}, \end{aligned}$$ which has a unique strong solution defined for all times whenever $(0,(x^{(1)},...,x^{(M)}))\in Q$. If $V$ and $\sigma$ is symmetric: $V(x)=V(-x)$, the above equation becomes $$\begin{aligned} X_t^{(k)}=x^{(k)}+&\int_0^t\sum_{1\leq m<n\leq M}\sigma(X_s^{(m)}-X_s^{(n)}) dW_s^{(k)}\\-&\int_0^t(\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq M}\sigma(X_s^{(i)}-X_s^{(j)}))^2\sum_{j=1,j\neq k}^M\partial V(X_s^{(k)}-X_s^{(j)})ds \\+&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d\sum_{l=1}^d\Big[(\sum_{1\leq m\neq n\leq M}\partial_j\sigma_{il}\Big(X_s^{(m)}-X_s^{(n)}sign(m-n)\Big)sign(m-n))\\&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad(\sum_{1\leq m<n\leq M}\sigma_{jl}(X_s^{(m)}-X_s^{(n)}))\\&\quad\quad\quad+(\sum_{1\leq m\neq n\leq M}\partial_j\sigma_{jl}\Big(X_s^{(m)}-X_s^{(n)})sign(m-n)\Big)sign(m-n)) \\&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad(\sum_{1\leq m<n\leq M}\sigma_{il}(X_s^{(m)}-X_s^{(n)}))\Big]. \end{aligned}$$ Appendix ======== \[non-ex\] $X_t$ is a processes in $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq0},P)$, $\tau$ $=:\inf\left\{t\geq0:\|X_t\|=\infty\right\}$. Process $X_t$ is non-explosive $(i.e. $ $\tau=\infty$ $ a.s.)$ if for any $t>0$ one of the following conditions holds:\ (i) $E\|X_{t\wedge\tau}\|\leq C(t)$.\ (ii) $E\|X_{t}\|\leq C(t).$\ $\Omega=:\left\{\omega:\tau(\omega)=\infty\right\}$, $\Omega_n=:\left\{\omega:\tau(\omega)>n\right\}$. Then $\Omega=\cap_{n=1}^\infty\Omega_n$, and $\Omega_n=\left\{\omega:\|X_{n\wedge\tau(\omega)}(\omega)\|<\infty\right\}=\left\{\omega:\|X_{n}(\omega)\|<\infty\right\}$. Since $T$ is arbitrary in $(0,\infty)$, for any $N\in \mathbb{N}$, $n\in [0,N]$, from condition (i) we get $E\|X_{n\wedge\tau}\|\leq C(N)$, it implies $\|X_{n\wedge \tau}\|<\infty$ $a.s.$, i.e. $P(\Omega_n)=1$. Hence $P(\Omega)=1$, which implies $\tau=\infty$ $a.s.$. (i) is proved.\ For the second one, from condition (ii) we get $E\|X_{n}\|\leq C(N)$, so $\|X_{n}\|<\infty$ $a.s.$, then $P(\Omega_n)=1$, $P(\Omega)=1$, $\tau=\infty$ $a.s.$.\ \ $\hfill{} \Box$\ \[lemm6.1\]([@NI P. 1 Lemma 1.1.]) Let $\left\{\beta(t)\right\}_{t\in[0,T]}$ be a nonnegative measurable $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq0}-$adapted process. Assume that for all $0\leq s\leq t\leq T$, $$E\bigg(\int_s^t\beta(r)dr\bigg\|{\mathcal{F}_s}\bigg)\leq\Gamma(s,t),$$ where $\Gamma(s,t)$ is a nonrandom interval function satisfying the following conditions:\ (i) $\Gamma(t_1,t_2)\leq\Gamma(t_3,t_4)$ if $(t_1,t_2)\subset(t_3,t_4);$\ (ii) $\lim_{h\downarrow 0}\sup_{0\leq s<t\leq T,\|t-s\|\leq h} \Gamma(s,t)=\lambda$, $\lambda\geq0$. Then for any real $\kappa<\lambda^{-1}$ $($ if $\lambda=0$, then $\lambda^{-1}=\infty)$, $$Eexp\left\{\kappa\int_0^T\beta(r)dr\right\}\leq C=C(\kappa, \Gamma, T)<\infty.$$\ For the convenience of the reader, we include the $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-Urysohn Lemma here. \[Urysohn\] ([@Folland 8.18] ) If $K\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is compact and $U$ is an open set containing $K$, there exists smooth function $f$ such that $0\leq f\leq 1$, $f=1$ on $K$, and $supp(f)\subset U$. The following lemma is based on a consequence of 7.6.4 in [@Robert]. We use this result a couple of times and hence for the sake of completeness we state it here precisely. \[Girsanov\] Let $\sigma$ and $b^{(i)}$, $i=1,2$ satisfy the conditions in Lemma \[lemm3.1\]. Let $(X_t^{(i)}, W_t^{(i)})_{t\geq 0}$ satisfy: $$X_t^{(i)}=x+\int_0^tb^{(i)}(s,X_s^{(i)})ds+\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s^{(i)})dW_s^{(i)}.$$ Then for any bounded Borel functions $f$ given on $\mathcal{C}=:\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^d)$ we have $$Ef(X_\cdot^{(2)})=Ef(X_\cdot^{(1)})\overline{\rho}_\infty$$ if $$\begin{aligned} \label{Novikov} E\exp\Big(\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty(\Delta b^(s,X_s^{(1)})(\sigma\sigma^)^{-1}(s,X_s^{(1)})\Delta b(s,Xs^{(1)}))ds\Big)<\infty, \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta b(t,X_t^{(1)}):=b^{(2)}(t,X_t^{(1)})-b^{(1)}(t,X_t^{(1)})$ and $$\begin{aligned} \overline{\rho}_t:=\exp(&\int_0^t\Delta b^(s,X_s^{(1)})(\sigma^)^{-1}(s,X_s^{(1)})dW_s^{(1)}\\&-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t(\Delta b^(s,X_s^{(1)})(\sigma\sigma^)^{-1}(s,X_s^{(1)})\Delta b)(s,X_s^{(1)})ds),\quad t\geq 0. \end{aligned}$$ Theorem 6.1 in [@Robert] says if (Novikov condition) holds, then $(\overline{\rho}_t)_{t\geq0}$ is an $(\mathcal{F}_t)-$ martingale. Let $\hat P=\overline{\rho}_\infty P$, then $\hat P$ is also a probability on $(\Omega,\mathcal{F})$. By Theorem 4.1 in [@Ikeda], $$\begin{aligned} \hat W_t=W^{(1)}_t-\int_0^t\sigma^{-1}(s,X_s^{(1)})\Delta b(s,X_s^{(1)})ds,\quad t\geq0 \end{aligned}$$ is a $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-Brownian motion on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\hat P)$. So we can wirte $$\begin{aligned} X_t^{(1)}&=x+\int_0^tb^{(1)}(s,X_s^{(1)})ds+\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s^{(1)})d\hat W_s+\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s^{(1)})\sigma^{-1}(s,X_s^{(1)})\Delta b(s,X_s^{(1)})ds \\&=x+\int_0^tb^{(1)}(s,X_s^{(1)})ds+\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s^{(1)})d\hat W_s+\int_0^t\Delta b(s,X_s^{(1)})ds \\&=x+\int_0^tb^{(2)}(s,X_s^{(1)})ds+\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s^{(1)})d\hat W_s,\quad t\geq 0. \end{aligned}$$ This implies that $(X^{(1)}_t,\hat W_t)_{t\geq0}$ is a solution to the SDE $$\begin{aligned} \label{sde2} X_t^{(2)}=x+\int_0^tb^{(2)}(s,X_s^{(2)})ds+\int_0^t\sigma(s,X_s^{(2)})dW_s^{(2)},\quad t\geq 0, \end{aligned}$$ on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F}, (\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq 0}, \hat P)$. From Lemma \[lemm3.1\] we know that the solution to SDE is unique, hence for any bounded Borel functions $f(x)$, given on $\mathcal{C}=:\mathcal{C}([0,\infty),\mathbb{R}^d)$ we have $$\begin{aligned} Ef(X^{(2)}_\cdot)=\hat Ef(X^{(1)}_\cdot)=E\overline{\rho}_\infty f(X^{(1)}_\cdot). \end{aligned}$$ [1000]{} L. Breiman: Probability. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Classics in Applied Mathematics (1992) H. Engelbert and W. Schmidt: Strong Markov continuous local martingales and solutions of one-dimensional stochastic differential equations, I, II, III. Math. Nachr., 143 (1989, 1991), 167-184; 144, 241-281; 151, 149-197. G. B. Folland: Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications. A Wiley-Interscience Publication JOHN WILEY and SONS, INC. 1999 E. Fedrizzi and F. Flandoli : Pathwise uniqueness and continuous dependence of SDEs with non-regular drift. Stochastics, [83]{}(3) (2011), 241-257. I. Gyongy and N.V. Krylov: On the rate of convergence of splitting-up approximations for SPDEs. Progress in Probability. 56(2003), 301–321. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel N. Ikeda and S. Watanabe: Stochastic Differential Equations and Diffusion Processes. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam Oxford New York (1981) N.V. Krylov and M. Röckner: Strong solutions of stochastic equations with singular time dependent drift. Probab. Theory Related Fields 131 (2005), no.2, 154-196. MR O.A. Lady$\breve{z}$enskaja, V.A. Solonnikov and N.N. Uralćeva: Linear and Quasi-linear Equations of Parabolic Type. American Mathematical Society. 1968 H. Lee and G. Trutnau: Existence and uniquness results for Itô’s-SDEs with locally integrable drifts and Sobolev diffusion coefficients. https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01152 W. Liu and M. Röckner: Stochastic Partial Differential Equations: An Introduction. Springer. Universitext. R.S. Liptser and A.N. Shiryaev: Statistics of Random Processes. “Nauka”, Moscow, 1974 in Russian, English translation: Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1977 B. $\varnothing$ksendal. Stochastic Differential Equations. An Introduction with Applications. Springer-Verlag Heidelberg New York (2000). N.I. Portenko: Generalized diffusion processes. “Nauka”, Moscow, 1982 in Russian, English translation: Amer. Math. Soc. Provdence, Rhode Island, 1990 L. Riahi: Comparison of Green functions and harmonic measures for parabolic operators. Potential Anal. 23 (2005), no. 4, 381–402. MR A.J. Veretennikov: On the strong solutions of stochastic differential equations. Theory Probab. Appl. 24 (1979), 354-366 A.Yu. Veretennikov: On strong solution and explicit formulas for solutions of stochastic integral equations. Math. Ussr Sb. 39 (1981), 387-403 K. Von der Lühe: Pathwise uniqueness for stochastic differential equations with singular drift and nonconstant diffusion. Phd thesis. Bielefeld University. 2018. F. Wang: Integrability conditions for SDEs and semi-linear SPDEs. Ann. Probab. 45 (2017), no.5, 3223-3265. MR. P. Xia, L. Xie, X. Zhang and G. Zhao: $L^q(L^p)$-theory of stochastic differential equations. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.01255.pdf L. Xie and X. Zhang: Ergodicity of stochastic differential equations with jumps and singular coefficients. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.07402.pdf. T. Yamada and S. Watanabe: On the uniqueness of solutions of stochastic differential equations. I, II. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 11 (1971), 155-167, 553-563 X. Zhang: Strong solutions of SDEs with singular drift and Sobolev diffusion coefficients. Stochastic Process. Appl. 115 (2005), no. 11, 1805-1818. MR X. Zhang: Stochastic homeomorphism flows of SDE with singular drifts and Sobolev diffusion coefficients. Electron. J. Probab. 16 (2011), no.38, 1096-1116. MR A.K. Zvonkin: A transformation of the phase space of a diffusion process that removes the drift. Mat. Sbornik, 93 (135) (1974), 129-149. [^1]: Research of C. Ling and M. Röckner is supported by the DFG through the IRTG 2235 Bielefeld-Seoul “Searching for the regular in the irregular: Analysis of singular and random systems.”\ Research of X. Zhu is supported by NSFC (11771037).\ Email: [email protected] (C. Ling), [email protected] (M. Röckner), [email protected] (X. Zhu)	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We investigate the fracture of Li-ion battery cathodic particles using a thermodynamically consistent phase-field approach that can describe arbitrarily complex crack paths and captures the full coupling between Li-ion diffusion, stress, and fracture. Building on earlier studies that introduced the concept of electrochemical shock, we use this approach to quantify the relationships between stable or unstable crack propagation, flaw size, and C-rate for 2D disks and 3D spherical particles. We find that over an intermediate range of flaw sizes, the critical flaw size for the onset of crack propagation depends on charging rate as an approximate power-law that we derive analytically. This scaling law is quantified in 2D by exhaustive simulations and is also supported by 3D simulations. In addition, our results reveal a significant difference between 2D and 3D geometries. In 2D, cracks propagate deep inside the particle in a rectilinear manner while in 3D they propagate peripherally on the surface and bifurcate into daughter cracks, thereby limiting inward penetration and giving rise to complex crack geometries.' address: '$^1$ Center for Inter-disciplinary Research on Complex Systems, Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, U.S.A.' author: - 'A. Mesgarnejad' - 'A. Karma' bibliography: - 'Mesgarnejad-Karma-Li-ion1.bib' title: \| Phase Field Modeling of Chemomechanical Fracture of Intercalation Electrodes:\ Role of Charging Rate and Dimensionality --- Phase-field modeling ,brittle fracture ,Lithium-ion batteries ,Flaw tolerance Introduction {#sec:introduction} ============ With the demand for electric vehicles and hand-held electronics on the rise, research on rechargeable batteries and, specifically lithium-ion batteries, becomes increasingly important. The need to understand the failure mechanism of these batteries is essential for increasing their life span. Chemo-mechanical failure is one of the primary modes of degradation. The fracture of cathodic and anodic particles due to intercalation-induced stresses has been extensively studied experimentally [@Gabrisch:2008a; @Wang:2012a; @Wang:2013]. The creation of new fracture surfaces impairs the performance of the batteries due to the loss of electrical contact [@Chakraborty:2013; @Zavalis:2013] and the creation of solid electrolyte interfaces (SEI) that promotes the irreversible loss of lithium (Li) ions [@Peled:1979; @Deshpande:2012]. On the theoretical side, problems arising from the interplay of diffusion and mechanics have been long considered in the literature. Prussin [@Prussin:1961] and Lawrence [@Lawrence:1966] were among the first to study the creation and motion of dislocations due to diffusion induced misfit strains. Subsequently, Liu [et al.]{} [@Liu:1970] studied the attraction of corrosive solutes to the crack tip. In the context of chemo-mechanical fracture, Huggins and Nix [@Huggins:2000] studied the initiation of fracture due to the intercalation-driven misfit stresses using a simple 1D model of a thin film bilayer. In this bilayer geometry with a rigid substrate, a constant misfit strain caused by Li intercalation in the thin film is sufficient to create cracks by a mechanism similar to thermal expansion [@Leon-Baldelli:2014]. Therefore, using a classical Griffith criterion [@Lawn:1993], Huggins and Nix were able to derive a critical film thickness for fracture. The extension to free-standing particles was subsequently considered in several studies [@Christensen:2006; @Christensen:2010; @Bhandakkar:2010; @Woodford:2010]. Unlike in a thin film constrained on a substrate, a uniform concentration does not create stresses in a free-standing particle. However, due to the finite time to diffusively homogenize the Li concentration inside a particle, a concentration gradient that produces stresses can nonetheless be created when the Li ion flux through the particle boundary, [i.e., ]{}the charging rate (C-rate), is sufficiently large. By analogy with thermal shock, Woodford et al. [@Woodford:2010; @Woodford:2012; @Woodford:2013] coined the term “electrochemical shock” to describe this mode of C-rate dependent fracture [@Bourdin:2014a]. A consistent model that considered the effect of intercalation induced stresses on diffusion was used by Christensen [et al.]{} [@Christensen:2006; @Christensen:2010] to obtain a failure criterion solely based on the magnitude of the resulting stresses. Bhandakkar and Gao [@Bhandakkar:2010] investigated the initiation of a periodic array of equidistant cracks in a thin strip under an imposed constant galvanostatic flux. Using a cohesive zone model and neglecting the effect of fracture on the concentration field, they derived a scaling law relating the largest “safe” strip thickness, below which cracks do not initiate, and C-rate. Woodford [et al.]{} [@Woodford:2010] investigated the propagation of fracture from an initial radial penny-shaped flaw on a spherical particle. Their calculation of the stress intensity factors at the crack tip was carried out in a simplified geometry, also neglecting the effect of fracture on the concentration field. Their results show that, at a given C-rate, both continuous and abrupt propagation modes are possible for different initial flaw sizes. They further show that for a given flux, there exists a largest safe particle size that does not fracture for any flaw size. Their numerical results indicate that this critical particle size scales as a power-law of charging rate (C-rate). Even though those studies have yielded quantitative predictions of the dependence of safe particle size on C-rate [@Bhandakkar:2010; @Woodford:2010], they do not consider the full coupling between elasticity, fracture, and diffusion. In addition, penny-shaped cracks are assumed to remain coplanar as they penetrate a 3D spherical particle [@Woodford:2010]. In practice, more complex non-coplanar crack patterns may develop that depend on C-rate. The goal of this article is to investigate the fracture of Li-ion battery cathodic particles using a thermodynamically consistent phase-field approach that captures the full coupling between elasticity, fracture, and diffusion, and that can describe arbitrarily complex crack paths. We exploit those advantages to quantify the relationship between crack propagation, flaw size, and C-rate, and to describe for the first time complex 3D crack patterns. Due to their variational formulation, phase-field models of fracture [@Francfort:1998; @Karma:2001a; @Bourdin:2008a], offer a unique methodology to tackle the simulation of chemo-mechanical crack growth. These models have been validated by theoretical analyses [@Hakim:2009] and comparisons of predicted and observed crack paths in non-trivial geometries [@Mesgarnejad:2015]. They have been used to reproduce complex experimental observations in brittle fracture including thin-film fracture [@Mesgarnejad:2013], thermal fracture [@Bourdin:2014a], mixed mode fracture [@Chen:2015b], dynamic fracture [@Chen:2015b; @Chen:2017a; @Lubomirsky:2018], fracture in colloidal systems [@Peco:2019], ductile fracture [@Mozaffari:2015; @Ambati:2015; @Borden:2016; @Alessi:2017], and fatigue fracture [@Alessi:2018a; @Carrara:2018; @Mesgarnejad:2018]. Given their potential over the past few years, researchers have extended the use of these models to chemo-mechanical fracture in battery particles [@Miehe:2015; @Zuo:2015; @Klinsmann:2016; @Klinsmann:2016a]. This approach has already been used [@Klinsmann:2016; @Klinsmann:2016a] to corroborate findings of Woodford [et al.]{} [@Woodford:2010] such as the existence of unstable and stable crack propagation as a function of initial flaw size and to describe simple 3D crack patterns. In this article, we extend and generalize the results of previous studies [@Bhandakkar:2010; @Woodford:2010; @Klinsmann:2016] to account for the effect of the crack length on the failure of 2D circular disks and 3D spherical particles. By performing an exhaustive series of 2D simulations for different flaw sizes and C-rates for a fixed particle radius, we identify three regimes of fracture propagation where (I) large flaws comparable to the particle size do not propagate due to insufficient driving stresses, (II) for intermediate flaw sizes, the critical flaw size scales as an approximate power-law function of C-rate with an exponent that we derive analytically, (III) for very small flaw sizes the C-rate required for propagation diverges resulting in a flux-independent minimum flaw size. Next, we obtain a scaling law relating the safe particle size, computed with a fixed flaw size to particle radius ratio, to the C-rate. Furthermore, we show that the topology of fracture changes profoundly in 3D compared to 2D. We find that, unlike in our 2D studies and previous 3D studies [@Woodford:2010; @Klinsmann:2016], where coplanar cracks penetrate radially towards the center of the particle, 3D cracks remain mostly superficial and branch to tile complex crack patterns on the particle surface. Our results indicate that, despite this difference, the dependence of critical flaw size on C-rate follows a similar power-law scaling as in 2D. This article is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:formulation\], we outline a thermodynamically consistent formulation of chemo-mechanical concentration and stress evolution and fracture. In Section \[sec:numerical-implementation\], we carry out a scaling analysis of the governing equations and define a subset of key dimensionless parameters. In Section \[sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-flux\], for a generic set of material parameters for , we present the results of an extensive set of numerical simulations in 2D circular disks and examine the propagation of radial flaws of different sizes. We investigate the influence of C-rate and initial flaw size on crack stability, generalizing the findings of [@Woodford:2010; @Klinsmann:2016]. We extend our analysis to maximal C-rates in \[sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-dirichlet\] and show that there exists a safe particle size regardless of the initial flaw size that can be predicted based on material properties including fracture energy, elastic modulus, and magnitude of misfit strain. We finally extend our analysis to 3D spherical particles with a single radial penny-shaped surface flaw in Section \[sub:3D-Calculations\]. Lastly, in Section \[sec:conclusion\], we summarize our main findings and point out possible future extensions. Formulation {#sec:formulation} =========== We define the total free energy ${\mathscr{F}}(u,c,\Gamma)$ for a domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$, containing the crack set $\Gamma\subset\Omega$, for displacement $u$ and concentration $c$ $$\label{eq:total-energy} {\mathscr{F}}(u,c,\Gamma)= {\mathscr{F}}_{el}(u,c,\Gamma)+{\mathscr{F}}_{c}(c)+{\mathscr{F}}_{\Gamma}(\Gamma)$$ where ${\mathscr{F}}_{el}$ is the elastic energy, ${\mathscr{F}}_{\Gamma}(\Gamma)$ is the energetic cost of fracture and ${\mathscr{F}}_{c}$ is the free energy due to the intercalation of Li ions. We can write the elastic energy as $$\label{eq:elastic-energy1} {\mathscr{F}}_{el}(u,c,\Gamma)= \int_{\Omega\setminus\Gamma} \mathcal{W}(u,c)\,dx$$ where we define the elastic strain energy as $\mathcal{W}(u,c)=\sigma_{ij}\varepsilon_{ij}/2$ in which, the elastic strain is defined as $\varepsilon_{ij}(u,c)=e_{ij}(u)-\epsilon_{0}(c-c_0)\delta_{ij}$ where $\epsilon_{0}$ is the volume expansion coefficient. Furthermore, we define the linear strain $e_{ij}(u)=(u_{i,j}+u_{j,i})/2$, and the Cauchy stress tensor $\sigma_{ij}(u,c)={\mathcal{C}}_{ijkl}\varepsilon_{kl}$. Moreover, for Lame’s constants $\lambda,\mu$ the isotropic elasticity tensor is written as ${\mathcal{C}}_{ijkl}=\lambda\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}+\mu(\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}+\delta_{il}\delta_{jk})$. We write the free energy of the Li ions intercalating in the host lattice as [@McKinnon:1983] $$\label{eq:diffusion-energy} {\mathscr{F}}_{c}(c)= \int_{\Omega} f_{c}(c)\,dx$$ where $$\label{eq:solute-energy} f_{c}={c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T\left[\frac{c}{{c_{\max}}}\ln\left(\frac{c}{{c_{\max}}}\right)+\left(1-\frac{c}{{c_{\max}}}\right)\ln\left(1-\frac{c}{{c_{\max}}}\right)\right]$$ is the entropy of mixing for an ideal binary solution, ${c_{\max}}$ is the maximum concentration achievable when all accommodating sites are filled, ${\mathcal{R}}$ is the gas constant, and $T$ is the absolute temperature. In the spirit of brittle fracture, we write the energetic cost of creating fracture surfaces as $$\label{eq:surface-sharp} {\mathscr{F}}_{\Gamma}(\Gamma)= G_c\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\Gamma)$$ where $G_{c}$ is the energy required to create a unit area (unit length in 2D) of new cracks, $\mathcal{H}^{m}$ is the $m$–dimensional Hausdorff measure ([i.e., ]{}$\mathcal{H}^{2}(\Gamma)$ is the aggregate area and $\mathcal{H}^{1}(\Gamma)$ is the aggregate length of cracks $\Gamma$ in three and two dimensions, respectively). Phase-field model {#sub:phase-field-model} ----------------- We use the phase-field model to approximate the sharp interface free energy by introducing a fracture phase field $\phi$ and an associated length-scale $\xi$. Roughly speaking, as $\xi\to0$, the displacement field minimizing converges to that of minimizing , the field $\phi$ converges to 1 almost everywhere and goes to zero near the cracks. In this article, we treat the length-scale $\xi$ as a regularization parameter to study the sharp-interface limit of the phase-field model that reduces to classical linear elastic fracture mechanics [@Hakim:2009]. We write the approximate free energy replacing ${\mathscr{F}}_{el}(u,c,\Gamma)$ by ${\mathscr{F}}_{el}(u,c,\phi)$ and ${\mathscr{F}}_{\Gamma}(\Gamma)$ by ${\mathscr{F}}_{\phi}(\phi)$ as $$\label{eq:ATE} {\mathscr{F}}(u,c,\phi)= {\mathscr{F}}_{el}(u,c,\phi)+{\mathscr{F}}_{c}(c)+{\mathscr{F}}_{\phi}(\phi)$$ with the elastic energy $$\label{eq:elastic-energy} {\mathscr{F}}_{el}(u,c,\phi)= \int_{\Omega} g(\phi)\mathcal{W}(u,c)\,dx$$ and the energetic cost of fracture $$\label{eq:surface-pf} {\mathscr{F}}_{\phi}(\phi)= \frac{G_c}{4C_{\phi}}\int_{\Omega}\left(\frac{w(\phi)}{\xi}+\xi \left\|\nabla \phi \right\|^2\right)\,dx$$ where $C_{\phi}=\int_{0}^{1}\sqrt{w(\phi)}\,d\phi$ is a scaling constant. In the past decade, there has been a growing trend in studying a broad class of rate independent gradient damage models in the form of [@Pham:2012; @Pham:2013]. In this article, we use the Karma-Kessler-Levine model (KKL) [@Karma:2001a; @Hakim:2009] defined using $g(\phi)=4\phi^3-3\phi^4$, $w(\phi)=1-g(\phi)$. This model allows us to follow the propagation of a fracture from a single flaw by prohibiting the initiation of new cracks in undamaged material ([i.e., ]{}$\phi=1$). Diffusion equation {#sub:diffusion} ------------------ Following the classical argument of continuity (mass conservation), we write the diffusion equation for concentration as [@McKinnon:1983] $$\label{eq:mass-conservation} \frac{\partial c}{\partial t} = -\nabla\cdot J$$ where $J$ is the flux of Li ions. We define the flux as the product of the mobility and the gradient of chemical potential $$\label{eq:flux} J=-a(\phi)M(c) \nabla\mu$$ where the mobility of Li ions in the host lattice $M(c)=m_0\,(c/{c_{\max}})(1-c/{c_{\max}})$ first increases and then decreases as a function of relative concentration $c/{c_{\max}}$. We define the chemical potential as $$\mu=\frac{\delta {\mathscr{F}}}{\delta c}$$ in which $\dfrac{\delta {\mathscr{F}}}{\delta c}$ is the Fréchet derivative of free energy $F$ with respect to the concentration $c$ and can be written as $$\label{eq:dFdc} \frac{\delta {\mathscr{F}}}{\delta c}= \frac{df_c}{dc}(c) -\epsilon_{0}g(\phi)\sigma_{kk}$$ replacing from above in we finally get: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial c}{\partial t}&=\nabla\cdot \left[m_0 a(\phi)\left[{\mathcal{R}}T\nabla c + \left(\frac{c}{{c_{\max}}}\right)\left(1-\frac{c}{{c_{\max}}}\right)\nabla \psi\right]\right]\label{eq:diffusion}\\ \psi&=-\epsilon_{0}{c_{\max}}\,g(\phi)\sigma_{kk} \label{eq:axuilliary-diffusion}\end{aligned}$$ We note that represents a Fickian diffusion with the second term coupling to the mechanical hydrostatic stresses. As a first estimate, we make the crack surface completely permeable to Li ion diffusion similar to [@Klinsmann:2016] by introducing $a(\phi)=1$. We motivate this choice by noticing that the electrolyte will leak inside the newly created fracture surfaces thus making them permeable to ion transfer. The precise choice of $a(\phi)$ should be determined by further study of specific material and the interaction of the electrolyte and fracture surfaces and is out of the scope of this article. Furthermore, to model galvanostatic charging, we write the flow of Lithium ions from the boundary as a given imposed flux ${\hat{J}}$: $$\left.J\right\|_{\partial_f\Omega}=\frac{i}{{\mathcal{F}}}\equiv{\hat{J}}\label{eq:flux-BC}$$ where $i$ is the surface current density and ${\mathcal{F}}$ is Faraday’s constant. The galvanostatic boundary condition of form is a first order approximation of ion transfer on the particle boundary and. A more general study can be done by prescribing the value of the flux on the surface at a given voltage as using the Butler-Volmer equation to model reaction kinetics on the cathodic surface of the particle [@Doyle:1993]. We should note that, as for any diffusion process of a bounded field (here $0\leq c\leq {c_{\max}}$) with a flux boundary, this boundary condition cannot be maintained for any arbitrary value of ${\hat{J}}$ for an infinite time. In particular, ${\hat{J}}\gg1$ at $t\ll R^2/m_0{\mathcal{R}}T$ a depleted boundary layer is created where the concentration at the boundary reaches zero and the flux cannot be maintained any longer. Numerical implementation {#sec:numerical-implementation} ======================== Dimensional analysis {#sub:nD} -------------------- For the flux boundary condition , it is pertinent to introduce the nominal charging time as the time required to fill the volume of the particle $V$ with a surface flux ${\hat{J}}$ acting on surface area $A$ [i.e., ]{}$$\label{eq:t_C} t_C=\frac{{c_{\max}}V}{{\hat{J}}A}$$ It is also customary in Li-ion literature to introduce the so-called charging rate $C_r=1/t_C$, which is usually measured in $\mathrm{hr}^{-1}$ units. To perform the numerical simulations, we adimensionalize the spatial dimensions by the particle radius $R$, the concentration by ${c_{\max}}$, the time by the diffusion time $t_D=R^2/D_0$ where $D_0=m_0{\mathcal{R}}T$ is the diffusion constant, and the stresses by energy per unit volume ${c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T$. We write dimensionless charging rate ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ as $$\label{eq:Cr} {\mathcal{C}_r}=t_D C_r=\frac{t_D}{t_C}$$ and the dimensionless flux as $$\label{eq:BC-flux-ND} {\mathcal{J}}={\mathcal{C}_r}\frac{\bar{V}}{\bar{A}}=\frac{t_D}{t_C}\frac{\bar{V}}{\bar{A}}=\frac{{\hat{J}}R}{{c_{\max}}D_0}$$ where $\bar{V}=V/R^n$ is the dimensionless volume of the particle, and $\bar{A}=A/R^{n-1}$ is the dimensionless surface area of the flux boundary. The the dimensionless charging rate ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ can also be understood intuitively as a mechanical loading parameter noticing that the driving force for crack propagation is the gradient of the concentration field in that is controlled by the flux ${\hat{J}}$. As a result, for low dimensionless charging rates ${\mathcal{C}_r}<1$ (where the nominal charging time is long compared to the diffusion time $t_C\gg t_D$) the concentration will homogenize and thus creates no misfit stresses. We should also highlight the important dimensionless numbers that uniquely define the simulations performed, namely the relative strength of the elastic energy compared to the chemical energy ${\mathrm{E}}/{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T$, Poisson’s ratio $\nu$, maximum misfit strain $\beta={c_{\max}}\epsilon_{0}$, and the relative domain geometry [i.e., ]{}radius and initial flaw size, compared to the Griffith length scale $R/(G_c/{\mathrm{E}})=R/l_G$ and $a_0/l_G$. Governing equations {#sub:governing-eq} ------------------- To implement our numerical simulations using the Galerkin finite element method we introduce the weak forms of the governing equations. The governing equations for the concentration diffusion is derived from its flow rule - by multiplying both sides with test functions and integrating by parts. We also incorporate an implicit time integration scheme to ensure the accuracy and stability of the integration. $$\begin{aligned} &\int_{\Omega}\left(\frac{c_{t}-c_{t-1}}{\delta t}\right)\,\tilde{c}\,dx+\int_{\Omega}a(\phi_{t-1}) \nabla_{\Theta} c\cdot \nabla\tilde{c}\,dx\nonumber\\ &\quad\quad\quad+\int_{\Omega}a(\phi_{t-1})\,M(c_{t})\nabla_{\Theta}\psi\cdot \nabla\tilde{c}\,dx+\int_{\partial_{f}\Omega} {\mathcal{J}}\tilde{c}\,ds=0~&\forall\tilde{c}\in H^1(\Omega)\label{eq:gov-c}\\ &\int_{\Omega} \left[\psi_{t}+\beta g(\phi_{t-1})\sigma_{kk}(u_{t-1},c_{t})\right]\tilde{\psi}\,dx=0~&\forall\tilde{\psi}\in H^1(\Omega)\label{eq:gov-axuilliary-c}\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is the surface normal to $\partial_f\Omega$, subscripts denote time steps with $\delta t$ as the time step size, and we define $\nabla_{\Theta}\{\circ\}=(1-\Theta)\nabla\,\{\circ\}_t+\Theta\nabla\,\{\circ\}_{t-1}$ as the implicit gradient operator associated with time-fraction $\Theta$. In all calculations in this paper we used $\Theta=0.5$ which corresponds to the midpoint method and results in a second order accurate and unconditionally stable time integration for concentration field $c$. Moreover, since in practical systems the time-scale of elasticity and fracture propagation are orders of magnitude smaller than that of diffusion, we assume that they are instantaneous. In this setting, we seek the minimizers for the displacement field $u$ and the fracture phase-field $\phi$ for each time step $t_i$. Hence, the governing equations for displacement ([i.e., ]{}elasticity) and fracture phase-field, are written as Euler-Lagrange equations of the total energy for displacement field $u$ and phase field $\phi$ $$\begin{aligned} &\int_{\Omega} g(\phi_t)\,\sigma_{ij}(u,c) e_{ij}(\tilde{u})\,dx=0~&\forall \tilde{u}\in H^1(\Omega)\label{eq:gov-elasticity}\\ &\int_{\Omega} \left[\frac{dg}{d\phi}(\phi_t)\,\mathcal{W}(u,c)\right]\,\tilde{\phi}\,dx\nonumber\\&+\frac{G_c}{4C_{\phi}}\int_{\Omega}\left[\frac{1}{\xi}\left(\frac{dw}{d\phi}(\phi_t)\right)\tilde{\phi}+2\xi\nabla\phi\cdot\nabla\tilde{\phi}\right]\,dx=0~&\forall\tilde{\phi}\in H^1(\Omega)\label{eq:gov-phi}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_t$ is the concentration given by the solution of -. The solution algorithm {#sub:solution-algorithm} ---------------------- The phase-field fracture method requires that the spatial resolution of discretization to resolve the characteristic approximation length $\xi$. The resulting problems are often very large and necessitate the use of a parallel programming paradigm and the complex numerical tools therein. Our implementation relies on the distributed data structures provided by `libMesh` [@libmesh] and for linear algebra on `PETSc` [@petsc-efficient; @petsc-user-ref]. On the other hand, we assume that elasticity and fracture are instantaneous and write their governing equations as the weak forms of Euler-Lagrange equation for minimizers of with respect to displacement field $u$ and phase field $\phi$ respectively (see \[sub:governing-eq\] for details). This is roughly equivalent to the limit of vanishing relaxation time $\tau_{\phi}\rightarrow0$ assuming that the phase field $\phi$ follows Ginsburg-Landau gradient dynamics: $$\tau_{\phi}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T}\frac{\delta {{\mathscr{F}}}}{\delta \phi}$$ We use a classical alternate minimization algorithm \[algo:alt-min\] [@Bourdin:2008a] since the governing equations for elasticity and phase-field are only convex in either $u$ or $\phi$ when the other is kept constant [@Bourdin:2008a]. It is also worth mentioning that to enforce irreversibility of fracture and ensure boundedness of phase field $0\leq\phi\leq1$ and the relative concentration $0\leq c\leq 1$, we use a bounded reduced space Newton minimization scheme for the discrete energy provided in `PETSc` [@petsc-efficient; @petsc-user-ref]. . . . . . Numerical results {#sec:numerical-results} ================= In the following section, we focus on the numerical simulation of a cathodic particle at the time of charging. We first present our two-dimensional results for circular particles with a preexisting radial flaw on its surface under galvanostatic and potentiostatic boundary conditions. Subsequently, we analyze the fracture of spherical particles with penny-shaped cracks in three dimensions. Chemo-mechanical fracture of circular particles: (I) galvanostatic (flux) boundary condition {#sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-flux} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The misfit strains generated during charging and discharging processes can lead to the creation and propagation of cracks in Li-ion battery particles. For a preexisting flaw on the surface of a cathodic particle, the removal of Li-ions during the charging process causes the outer layer of the particle to contract faster than its inner core. Therefore, for fast enough charging rates, the region of tensile stresses created in the outer periphery can activate surface defects creating cracks that will then propagate through the particle. In this section, we present the results of numerical simulation for the fracture of circular particles induced by the removal of Lithium ions during charging. Our goal is two fold: (i) to understand the activation and propagation of a preexisting flaw in a circular cathodic particle, (ii) 2D simulations also enable us to combine the results of many such simulations to give insight into critical parameters for the design of these particles. Fig. \[fig:schematics\] shows a schematics for this problem. We assume a preexisting radial crack $\Gamma_0$ of length $a_0$ and impose a dimensionless galvanostatic flux ${\mathcal{J}}$ (corresponding to the dimensionless charge-rate ${\mathcal{C}_r}=t_D/t_C$ according to ). As stated before, we treat phase-field length scale $\xi$ as a regularization of Griffith brittle fracture. Therefore for the Griffith length scale defined as $$\label{eq:Griffith-length} l_G=\frac{G_c}{{\mathrm{E}}}$$ we use $\xi>l_G$. For these numerical simulations we use a constant relative process zone size $\xi/R=1.25\times10^{-2}$ for relative flaw size $a_0/R>0.1$ and use $\xi/a_0=5$ for $a_0/R<0.1$ for optimal use of computational resources. Table \[tab:matprop-chemo-mechanical-fracture\] summarizes the material properties corresponding to used in our simulations. ![The schematics of 2D chemo-mechanical fracture of circular particles numerical simulations.[]{data-label="fig:schematics"}](schematics.pdf){width=".4\columnwidth"} Property Symbol Units Value ------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------------------------- --------------------- Elastic Modulus ${\mathrm{E}}$ $\mathrm{N}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$ $2\times10^{11}$ Poisson Ratio $\nu$ - $0.3$ Fracture Toughness $G_c$ $\mathrm{N}\,\mathrm{m}^{-1}$ $100$ Diffusivity $D_0$ $\mathrm{m}^{2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ $2.2\times10^{-13}$ Maximum Concentration ${c_{\max}}$ $\mathrm{mol}\,\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ $2.37\times10^{4}$ Misfit Strain Constant $\epsilon_{0}$ $\mathrm{m}^{3}\,\mathrm{mol}^{-1}$ $1.09\times10^{-6}$ Density $\rho$ $\mathrm{kg}\,\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ $4.28\times10^{3}$ Temperature $T$ $\mathrm{K}$ $3\times10^{2}$ Dimensionless Expansion Coefficient $\beta$ $\mathrm{m/m}$ $0.025$ Griffith Length Scale $l_G$ ${\mu\mathrm{m}}$ $5\times10^{-4}$ : Material properties of for numerical simulation of chemo-mechanical fracture [@Woodford:2010]. \[tab:matprop-chemo-mechanical-fracture\] To highlight the mechanism and modes of radial crack penetration in these particles, we first study three sample cases in Figs. \[fig:R21-a5-crack-propagation\]–\[fig:R21-a1-Cr8-crack-propagation\]. These sample results correspond to fracture of a $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ and $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3,10^4$ initial radial flaws (corresponding to a $R=21\,{\mu\mathrm{m}}$ particle with $a_0=1,5\,{\mu\mathrm{m}}$ for material properties in Table \[tab:matprop-chemo-mechanical-fracture\]) and using ${\mathcal{C}_r}=5.57,8.35$ dimensionless charging rates (circled gray in Fig. \[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L21\]). In these simulations, we first compare two cases with different initial flaw lengths at the same dimensionless charging rate ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ and then study two cases where we keep $a_0$ constant and change the ${\mathcal{C}_r}$. As we stated before, our simulation results show that tensile hoop stresses are created on the periphery of these particles that can then drive the surface flaws to penetrate radially inside the particle (top row in Figs. \[fig:R21-a5-crack-propagation\]–\[fig:R21-a1-Cr8-crack-propagation\]). Figs. \[fig:R21-a5-crack-propagation\] shows that the crack propagation for the larger initial flaw $a_0/l_G=10^4$ under lower dimensionless charging rate ${\mathcal{C}_r}=5.57$ is continuous. However, the smaller initial flaw under the same charging rate ${\mathcal{C}_r}=5.57$ propagates abruptly jumping many process zone sizes (see third columns in Fig. \[fig:R21-a1-Cr5-crack-propagation\]). The abrupt propagation occurs in the context of Griffith fracture where the crack releases more energy as it propagates ([i.e., ]{}for the energy release rate defined as $G=-\partial {\mathscr{F}}_{el}/\partial a$ at a frozen concentration (constant load), the crack is unstable if ${dG}/{da}>0$). Analogous results on abrupt propagation due to misfit strains are also reported in the context of thermally driven cracks. For example, Bahr [et al.]{} [@Bahr:1987] explicitly calculate the energy release rate as a function of crack length for thermal-quenching-induced cracks. A similar contrast between continuous and abrupt propagation is also predicted by Woodford [et al.]{} [@Woodford:2010] where they explicitly calculate the mode-I stress intensity factor $K_I$ (and, by symmetry since $K_{II}\equiv0$, the energy release rate $G$) for a radial penny-shaped crack in a spherical particle. Their calculations show that for some choices of particle size and initial flaw size ${dG}/{da}>0$; therefore, for such flaw sizes, propagation is unstable and abrupt. Concurring with our simulations, their calculations (figure 5. in [@Woodford:2010] where their results correspond directly to Figs. \[fig:R21-a5-crack-propagation\]–\[fig:R21-a1-Cr5-crack-propagation\]) show that the flaws smaller than $a_0/l_G<4\times 10^3$ will propagate abruptly given our choice of parameters and vice versa. The transition from abrupt to continuous propagation can also be understood in analogy with mechanical loading in standard fracture mechanics configurations. At lower charging rates where the concentration field has to penetrate on the scale of the particle size before the energy release rate reaches the fracture energy, the activation of the initial notch is analogous to a crack in half plane under constant far field opening stress that results in an unstable propagation. On the other hand, at high charging rates where the concentration field penetrated on the scale of the initial notch only, the problem resembles a compact specimen with the crack opening from the back that results in stable propagation. Our hypothesis is further verified, comparing Fig. \[fig:R21-a1-Cr5-crack-propagation\] to Fig. \[fig:R21-a1-Cr8-crack-propagation\]. We can see that at the higher ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ (higher flux), the initial abrupt crack propagation is shorter. While surprising at first glance, we can explain the longer abrupt fracture propagation at lower ${\mathcal{C}_r}$, noticing that the flaw is activated earlier for the higher ${\mathcal{C}_r}$. Thus, at the time of the initial jump, the hoop stresses penetrate farther inside the particle for the lower flux providing more elastic energy to be converted to new fracture surfaces. Different modes of fracture propagation are further demonstrated and quantified in Figs. \[fig:dlc5\]–\[fig:dlc1\] where we show the evolution of relative crack lengths $a/R$ and the dimensionless hoop stress in front of the crack at $r=R$ versus the charging time fraction ${t}/{t_C}$ for the simulations of a $R/l_G=4.2\times10^4$ particle with $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3,~10^4$ preexisting radial flaws respectively and for different dimensionless charging rates ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ (including cases highlighted in Figs. \[fig:R21-a1-Cr5-crack-propagation\]–\[fig:R21-a1-Cr8-crack-propagation\]). Similar to Fig. \[fig:R21-a5-crack-propagation\], the simulations for the larger $a_0/l_G=10^4$, depicted in Fig. \[fig:dlc5\], show a clear trend whereby the crack is activated $t/t_C\simeq0.2$ and propagates smoothly. Unlike results presented in Figs. \[fig:dlc5\], the initial crack propagation in Fig. \[fig:dlc1\] is abrupt and decreases with higher ${\mathcal{C}_r}$. We should also note, in Figs. \[fig:dlc5\]–\[fig:dlc1\], that while the abrupt initial propagation is bigger for the smaller flux, the cracks extend farther into the particle for higher fluxes in line with our intuitive understanding that higher fluxes provide more energy. Similar observations were also made in [@Klinsmann:2016] (see figure 15 in the reference) where for a $R/l_G=4.65\times10^{10}$ particle containing $a_0/l_G=9.3\times10^8$ initial crack they observed a larger initial abrupt propagation for lower fluxes and vice versa. Our self-consistent simulations also allow us to observe the interaction of the stresses with the concentration field. We note that the tensile crack-tip stresses attract ions from its vicinity and results in crack tip enrichment. Many semi-analytic simulations, currently available in the literature, are based on the radial approximation of the concentration field [@Bhandakkar:2010; @Woodford:2010] ([i.e., ]{}$c=c(r)$) which is calculated for an un-cracked particle. We study the crack-tip enrichment further in the \[app:crack-tip-enrichment\] where in a simple setting we identify an enrichment length scale where its ratio to Griffith length scale, scales as the ratio of maximum misfit stresses to the chemical energy squared (see ). ![Time snapshots of crack propagation in chemo-mechanical fracture of a $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ 2D circular particle with a preexisting $a_0/l_G=10^4$ radial crack driven by ${\mathcal{C}_r}=5.57$ charging rate showing continuous propagation (see also Fig. \[fig:dlc5\]). Color codes depict the dimensionless hoop stress $\sigma_{\theta\theta}/{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T$ distribution (top), and the dimensionless concentration distribution $c/{c_{\max}}$ perturbed as the result of the crack-tip stress field (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:R21-a5-crack-propagation"}](R21-lc5micron-Cr557e-2.png){width="\columnwidth"} ![Time snapshots of crack propagation in chemo-mechanical fracture of a $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ 2D circular particle with a preexisting $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ radial crack driven by ${\mathcal{C}_r}=5.57$ charging rate showing initial $(a-a_0)/R\simeq 0.7$ abrupt propagation for $t/t_C\simeq0.27$ followed by continuous propagation (see also Fig. \[fig:dlc1\]). Color codes depict the dimensionless hoop stress $\sigma_{\theta\theta}/{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T$ distribution (top), and the dimensionless concentration distribution $c/{c_{\max}}$ perturbed as the result of the crack-tip stress field (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:R21-a1-Cr5-crack-propagation"}](R21-lc1micron-Cr557e-2.png){width="\columnwidth"} ![Time snapshots of crack propagation in chemo-mechanical fracture of a $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ 2D circular particle with a preexisting $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ radial crack driven by ${\mathcal{C}_r}=8.35$ charging rate showing $(a-a_0)/R\simeq 0.3$ abrupt propagation at $t/t_C\simeq 0.13$ followed by continuous propagation (see also Fig. \[fig:dlc1\]). Color codes depict the dimensionless hoop stress $\sigma_{\theta\theta}/{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T$ distribution (top), and the dimensionless concentration distribution $c/{c_{\max}}$ perturbed as the result of the crack-tip stress field (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:R21-a1-Cr8-crack-propagation"}](R21-lc5micron-Cr887e-2.png){width="\columnwidth"} ![Numerical results of a $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ particle with an initial $a_0/l_G=10^4$ flaw vs charging time fraction ${t}/{t_C}$ for different dimensionless charging rates ${\mathcal{C}_r}$: showing relative crack length increase $a/R$ (dashed lines, right vertical axis) and maximum surface hoop stress far from the crack-tip $\sigma_{\theta\theta}(r=R)$ (solid lines, left vertical axis). Time snapshots for evolution of ${\mathcal{C}_r}=5.57$ was previously shown in Fig. . []{data-label="fig:dlc5"}](lcrack5-L21.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} ![Numerical results of a $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ particle with an initial $a_0/l_G=2\times 10^{3}$ flaw vs charging time fraction ${t}/{t_C}$ for different dimensionless charging rates ${\mathcal{C}_r}$: showing relative crack length increase $a/R$ (dashed lines, right vertical axis) and maximum surface hoop stress far from the crack-tip $\sigma_{\theta\theta}(r=R)$ (solid lines, left vertical axis). Time snapshots for evolution of ${\mathcal{C}_r}=5.57$ and ${\mathcal{C}_r}=8.35$ were previously shown in Fig. and Fig. respectively. []{data-label="fig:dlc1"}](lcrack1-L21.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} With the propagation mechanism elucidated, we now turn our attention to obtaining design parameters for these particles. Fig. \[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L21\] shows a combined diagram for results of our simulations for $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ particles containing initial flaws of different sizes. In this phase diagram, the circles mark activated cracks and cross marks depict those not activated at a given charging rate ${\mathcal{C}_r}$. As expected, longer radial cracks need lower charging rate to activate, but very long initial flaws do not propagate since the hoop stresses around the crack tip never grow large enough. We duplicated the simulations for a larger $R/l_G=2\times 10^5$ particle in Fig. \[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L100\]. ![Numerical simulation results for a $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ particle with $a_0/l_G=200\textup{--}10^4$ initial flaws: flaw activation diagram for the dimensionless charge rate ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ vs initial flaw size $a_0/l_G$. Circles show the activated vs. crosses show the unactivated cracks. The gray dashed line shows the power-law $a_0/l_G=e^{10.9}\,{\mathcal{C}_r}^{-2}$ ($a_0\beta^2/l_G=35.93\,{\mathcal{C}_r}^{-2}$). Computations corresponding to Figs. \[fig:R21-a5-crack-propagation\]–\[fig:R21-a1-Cr8-crack-propagation\] are circled in gray.[]{data-label="fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L21"}](min_Cr_L21_fcracklength.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} ![Numerical simulation results for a $R/l_G=2\times 10^5$ particle with $a_0/l_G=10^3\textup{--}4\times10^4$ initial flaws: flaw activation diagram for the dimensionless charge rate ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ vs initial flaw size $a_0/l_G$. Circles show the activated vs. crosses show the unactivated cracks. The gray dashed line shows the power-law $a_0/l_G=e^{10.6}\,{\mathcal{C}_r}^{-2}$ ($a_0\beta^2/l_G=26.62\,{\mathcal{C}_r}^{-2}$).[]{data-label="fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L100"}](min_Cr_L1e2_fcracklength.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} We can make three important observations from Figs. \[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L21\]–\[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L100\]; First the simulations show that there exists a safe charging rate $\mathcal{C}_{r,\min}\simeq2,1$ for $r/l_G=4.2\times10^4,2\times10^5$ particles respectively where flaws regardless of their size do not propagate. Secondly, for moderate dimensionless charging rates ${\mathcal{C}_r}=O(1)$ ($t_D\sim t_C$), the minimum flaw size activated $a_{0,\min}$ decreases as the inverse of the dimensionless charging rate squared [i.e., ]{}$a_{0,\min} \sim {\mathcal{C}_r}^{-2}$. Thirdly, in Figs. \[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L21\]–\[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L100\], there exists a minimum flaw size $a_{0,\min}^{\infty}$ that flaws smaller, regardless of the dimensionless charging rate do not propagate. The inverse square law can be understood by noting that the at moderate fluxes the concentration needs to penetrate at the particle length scale before there is enough energy for the flaw to activate (see Figs. \[fig:R21-a5-crack-propagation\]–\[fig:R21-a1-Cr8-crack-propagation\]). It is worth noting that the propagation at these critical fluxes is always abrupt only for smaller initial notches as detailed previously in this section (see Fig. \[fig:dlc1\]). Therefore the time to activate an initial flaw is similar to the diffusion time of ions in particle size $t_0\sim t_D=R^2/D$. Using the mass conservation, we can write that the mass accumulated in the particle is equal to the mass of the ions inserted through its surface [i.e., ]{}$ R^2\Delta c\sim R\hat{J}\,t_0 \sim R^3\hat{J} /D$. Rearranging the terms, we find the characteristic variation of Li ion’s concentration across the particle scales as $\Delta c\sim \hat{J}R/D$. This variation generates maximum hoop stress $\sigma_{\theta\theta}\sim {\mathrm{E}}\beta \Delta c/{c_{\max}}$ at the particle surface. According to the standard Griffith criterion, this stress can activate a flaw of size $a_{0,\min}\sim G_c{\mathrm{E}}/\sigma_{\theta\theta}^2$. Combing the above expressions for $\sigma_{\theta\theta}$, $\Delta c$, $t_D$, $t_C$, and using we obtain the prediction $$a_{0,\min}\sim{l_G}(\beta{\mathcal{C}_r})^{-2}. \label{eq:inverse-sq-law}$$ In other words, the ratio of flaw size to the Griffith length-scale $a_{0,\min}/l_G$, scales as the inverse square of dimensionless charging rate times the maximum misfit strain [i.e., ]{}$a_{0,\min}/l_G=A(\beta{\mathcal{C}_r})^{-2}$ where $A$ is a scaling constant. We can now identify the “misfit length scale” $$\label{eq:lc} l_c=\frac{l_G}{\beta^2}$$ which takes into account that the magnitude of maximum misfit stresses generated ${\mathrm{E}}\beta$ is the appropriate measure of stresses in diffusion driven fracture. We should highlight that similar length scale was also used in [@Bourdin:2014a] for the study of thermally driven cracks. Using our phase-field simulations presented in Figs. \[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L21\]–\[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L100\] we can identify the scaling constants for the two particle sizes as $A=35.93, 26.62$ for $R/l_G=4.2\times10^4,2\times10^5$ particles respectively. Perhaps not surprisingly, since equation has many simplifications and does not encode all particle size dependencies. Most notably it ignores the effect of the relative initial flaw size compared to the particle radius $a_0/R$, where changing the relative size of the initial flaw will change the evolution of the concentration field for the moderate charging rates considered. Furthermore, also ignores the effects of the crack tip enrichment. As alluded to before, tensile stresses at the tip attract concentration, this introduces another length scale (see ) into the system that, in principle, can introduce dependency on the particle radius. Therefore, the scaling constant in the case of two different particle sizes are different. With the scaling constants extracted from the phase-field simulations we can carry the analysis further and obtain the maximum safe charging rate for a given particle size. For these practical charging rates, we can rewrite the maximum safe $C_{r,\max}$ below in which no flaws can be activated in a particle of radius $R$ as $$C_{r,\max} = \frac{1}{t_{c,\min}}=\frac{D_0}{R^2}\left(\frac{Al_c}{a_{0,\min}}\right)^{1/2}$$ This scaling law predicts the most conservative charging rate (minimum charging time $t_C$) in terms of basic material properties. Furthermore, to demonstrate the particle size dependency, it is easy to rearrange the power-law in equation for a given dimensionless flaw size $\bar{a}_0=a_0/R$ as $R\sim{\hat{J}}^{-2/3}$. Fig. \[fig:R-J\] depicts such a power-law emerging from the combined results of a series of simulations for particles of different size with a $a_0/R=0.1$ initial radial flaw on their surface. A similar power-law was independently derived by Bhandakkar and Gao [@Bhandakkar:2010] for initiation of a periodic array of cracks in a thin film using a cohesive zone model. There, authors study the initiation of an array of equidistant cracks such that the maximum stress in the system is equal to the cohesive strength of the material under study. They then, given the fracture energy of the material, investigate whether the displacement opening for the potentially initiated cracks will exceed the critical displacement required to maintain them. They find that regardless of the cohesive strength of the material, there exists a critical film thickness $H_c\sim {\hat{J}}^{-2/3}$ below which no fracture is initiated in the thin film. ![Flaw activation diagram for circular particles with $a_0/R=0.1$ initial flaw. Circles show the activated vs. crosses show the unactivated cracks. The gray dashed line shows the scaling law $R=0.1\,{\hat{J}}^{-2/3}$.[]{data-label="fig:R-J"}](varying_flux_lcrack1e-1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Following our third observation, we see that the minimum flaw size activated $a_{0,\min}$ for small initial flaws deviates from the scaling law and approaches a constant value $a_{0,\min}^{\infty}\simeq10^3\,l_G$ for both particle sizes. At very large ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ required to activate these minimal flaws, the concentration reaches its minimum physically allowed value $c=0$ at the particle surface in a time $t_0\ll t_D$. In the next Section \[sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-dirichlet\], we study the limit ${\mathcal{C}_r}\rightarrow \infty$ where $t_0/t_D\rightarrow 0$ by imposing the potentiostatic (Dirichlet) boundary condition $c=0$ at the particle surface. Chemo-mechanical fracture of circular particles: (II) potentiostatic (Dirichlet) boundary condition {#sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-dirichlet} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As discussed before for large fluxes ${\mathcal{C}_r}\rightarrow\infty$, the concentration field reaches its minimum $c=0$ at time $t_0\ll t_C$ as a result of which a depleted boundary layer is created on the surface of the particle. Therefore, it is more convenient to study this limit using Dirichlet boundary conditions. In this section, we present the results of numerical simulation for fracture of circular particles using $c(R)=0,~t\in[0,t_{\max}]$ Dirichlet boundary condition that is analogous to the maximum flux attainable for this system. Using this boundary condition, we can find the minimum flaw size activated for different particle radii. Similar to the previous section, we chose phase field length scale $\xi$ such that the initial flaw is well resolved ([i.e., ]{}$a_0/\xi\geq4$). Fig. \[fig:dirichlet-activation\] shows the activation of a $a_0/l_G=400$ radial flaw in a $R/l_G=10^5$ particle under Dirichlet boundary conditions. Unlike the simulations analyzed in the previous section, the initial flaw is activated at $t_a\ll t_D$ in these simulations. We observe that the fracture propagation stems from the creation of an ion-depleted boundary layer of thickness $h\sim \sqrt{D_0 t_a}$ with a size comparable to the minimum flaw size $a_0$ but much smaller than the particle radius [i.e., ]{}$h\ll R$. ![Numerical simulation results for a $R/l_G=10^5$ particle with $a_0/l_G=400$ initial flaw at first time step after its activation $t/t_D=0.011$ showing the concentration field penetrating at the scale of the initial flaw. Color codes depict the dimensionless hoop stress $\sigma_{\theta\theta}/{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T$ distribution (left), and the dimensionless concentration distribution $c/{c_{\max}}$ perturbed as the result of the crack-tip stress field (right) with inlays showing area near the initial flaw magnified.[]{data-label="fig:dirichlet-activation"}](dirichlet-R5e1-lc2e-2.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"} Fig. \[fig:phase-diagram-dirichlet\] shows the combined results of these numerical simulations for six particle sizes with different initial flaw sizes where we can make two observations. Firstly, our numerical results show that for our choice of parameters, there exists a maximum safe particle size $R_{\max}\simeq10^4l_G$ that no flaw would propagate in it. Simply put, since the minimum activated flaw size decreases with the particle size, it becomes comparable to the particle size for small particles which cannot produce high enough deriving forces to propagate them. This size is analogous to critical thickness derived in [@Huggins:2000] for a simple 1D bilayer. Secondly, we notice that as a function of growing particle radius $R\rightarrow\infty$, the smallest flaw activated asymptotically approaches a constant value $a_{0,\min}^{\infty}/l_G\rightarrow5\times10^4$. Thus the smallest flaw activated for a large particle becomes independent of its radius $R$. We can elucidate this observation noticing that in the absence of cracks, the maximum hoop stress generated under Dirichlet boundary conditions $\sigma\sim {\mathrm{E}}\beta$ is independent of the particle radius. Therefore, analogous to a flaw on the boundary of a half-space, the flaw size scales $a_{0,\min}^{\infty}\sim G_c{\mathrm{E}}/(\sigma)^2= l_c$ where the dimensionless prefactor is a function of the particle geometry. Also, we can relate our observations of minimum flaw size $a_{0,\min}$ at a given radius to results presented in the previous section \[sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-flux\] for large fluxes ${\mathcal{C}_r}\rightarrow \infty$. For example, for a $R/l_G=4.2\times10^4$ particle presented in Fig. \[fig:min-Cr-flcrack-L21\] the minimum flaw activated is predicted to be $a_0/l_G\simeq4\times10^2$ consistent with the results in Fig. \[fig:phase-diagram-dirichlet\]. ![Flaw activation diagram for circular particles with Dirichlet boundary conditions: results for the dimensionless particle size $R/l_G=2\times10^3\textup{--}4\times10^5$ vs the dimensionless initial flaw size $a_0/l_G=10^2\textup{--}1.6\times10^3$. Circles show the activated vs. crosses show the unactivated cracks.[]{data-label="fig:phase-diagram-dirichlet"}](phase_diagram_dirichlet.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Fracture of spherical cathodic particles with penny-shaped radial flaws {#sub:3D-Calculations} ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Although insight gained from the two-dimensional numerical simulations in the previous section is invaluable, only true 3D calculations can hope to capture all essential aspects of chemo-mechanical fracture in these particles. In this section, we demonstrate the similarities and differences between the simplified 2D and more realistic 3D simulations. Following the previous section, we model a spherical $R/l_G=2\times10^4$ particle with a penny-shaped flaw on its surface (see \[fig:3D-R10-init-topology\]). Unlike many similar calculations in 3D ([e.g., ]{} [@Klinsmann:2016a; @Klinsmann:2016]), in this article, we simulate the complete sphere without explicit use of any symmetries. To this end, the elastic null-space ([i.e., ]{}translation and rotational modes) was calculated and removed prior to the elastic sub-iteration in the alternate minimization algorithm ([i.e., ]{}solving ). Since the computational cost of a uniform fine mesh was prohibitive, we chose a static adaptive meshing scheme, where for $r/l_G>1.6\times10^4$ a fine mesh with an average edge length of $200l_G$ was generated and gradually coarsened to a coarse mesh with an average edge length of $500l_G$ for $r/l_G<1.2\times10^4$. This meshing scheme, for different initial flaw sizes, resulted in the computational domain discretized into $\sim13\textup{--}15\,\mathrm{M}$ tetrahedral elements (resulting overall in roughly the same number of degrees of freedom). Following the 2D simulations, we set the phase-field length scale to $\xi/R=3\times10^{-2}$ and use the material properties as presented in table \[tab:matprop-chemo-mechanical-fracture\]. Moreover, due to the prohibitive cost of the 3D simulations, we limit our investigation to three flaw sizes $a_0/l_G=10^3,1.5\times10^3,2\times10^3$ and charging rates $15\leq {\mathcal{C}_r}\leq 45$. Fig. \[fig:topology-3D\] shows the complex fracture topology that results from the activation of the penny-shaped flaw in 3D. The 3D fracture pattern highlights the role of dimensionality and follows from the fact that hoop stresses ($\sigma_{\theta\theta}$, $\sigma_{\phi\phi}$) reach their maximum values on the surface. Consequently, the tessellation of the particle surface by the crack releases the stresses and inhibits the inward propagation of the crack. These peripheral cracks only alleviate these stresses perpendicular to the crack surface, thereby causing new cracks to be initiated with different orientations than the plane of the initial penny-shaped crack. Therefore, we can hypothesize that for smaller charging rates where the opening stresses (Li ions) need to penetrate farther inside, the radial propagation is augmented compared to higher charging rates where the stresses generated are more superficial. This hypothesis is confirmed by the results of 3D simulations presented in Fig. \[fig:topology-3D\]. In that figure for all different initial flaw sizes simulated in 3D, crack propagation is abrupt and the added freedom for the cracks to release the stresses by tessellating the surface results in two dominant crack topologies: (I) cracks that propagate coplanar to the initial flaw under higher ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ (b,d in Figs. \[fig:topology-3D\]–\[fig:3D-phase-diagram\]), and (II) cracks with initial coplanar propagation that tip split and result in a more complex topology under lower ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ (a,c,e,f in Figs. \[fig:topology-3D\]–\[fig:3D-phase-diagram\]). ![Numerical simulation results for a $R/l_G=2\times10^4$ particle showing the fracture topology (iso-surface visualization for $\phi=0.5$) after initial abrupt activation (see also Fig. \[fig:3D-phase-diagram\]). (a) $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ radial penny-shaped crack under ${\mathcal{C}_r}=21$ at $t/t_C=0.5$. (b) $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ radial penny-shaped crack under ${\mathcal{C}_r}=30$ at $t/t_C=0.28$. (c) $a_0/l_G=1.5\times10^3$ radial penny-shaped crack under ${\mathcal{C}_r}=30$ at $t/t_C=0.33$. (d) $a_0/l_G=1.5\times10^3$ radial penny-shaped crack under ${\mathcal{C}_r}=45$ at $t/t_C=0.22$. (e) $a_0/l_G=10^3$ radial penny-shaped crack under ${\mathcal{C}_r}=36$ at $t/t_C=0.32$. (f) $a_0/l_G=10^3$ radial penny-shaped crack under ${\mathcal{C}_r}=45$ at $t/t_C=0.26$. []{data-label="fig:topology-3D"}](3D-topologies.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} As explained before, we account for this transition using an argument similar to the one presented in Section \[sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-flux\] for abrupt versus continuous propagation in 2D. Unlike 2D radial cracks that can only release energy by penetrating towards the center of the particle, 3D penny-shaped cracks can both propagate radially and peripherally. The radial fracture in 3D simulations is akin to the radial propagation in 2D, [i.e., ]{}the bulk elastic energy is released due to the crack opening up in the back. On the other hand, the peripheral propagation is analogous to the creation of (mod) cracks in a biaxially stretched thin-films [@Leon-Baldelli:2011; @Leon-Baldelli:2014] or formation of imperfect polygonal patterns due to thermal quenching [@Bourdin:2014a]. Therefore, since the highest opening stresses are always created on the surface of the particle, the initial propagation is always unstable in the peripheral direction. To clarify these two different fracture modes, we analyze two 3D topologies designated as cases a and b in Figs. \[fig:topology-3D\]–\[fig:3D-phase-diagram\]. Due to the complex fracture topology in 3D, we use the dimensionless surface energy ${\mathscr{F}}_{\phi}/(G_c\,R^2)$ as a measure of the surface area of the cracks, noticing that following equations and : $$\frac{{\mathscr{F}}_{\phi}}{G_c\,R^2}\simeq\frac{\mathcal{H}^2(\Gamma)}{R^2}$$ Fig. \[fig:3D-R10-lc\] depicts the dimensionless surface energy for $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ at two different dimensionless charging rates: ${\mathcal{C}_r}=21$ (blue line in Fig. \[fig:3D-R10-lc\]) and ${\mathcal{C}_r}=30$ (red line in Fig. \[fig:3D-R10-lc\]). Fig. \[fig:3D-R10-init-topology\] shows the initial penny-shaped crack of size $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ for cases a-b. Similar to the arguments presented for the 2D simulations at lower ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ (cases a,c,e,f in Figs. \[fig:topology-3D\]–\[fig:3D-phase-diagram\] and those depicted using red circles in Fig. \[fig:3D-phase-diagram\]), the flaw is only activated when the concentration has penetrated on the scale of the particle size. As seen, for example, in a-1 in Figs. \[fig:3D-R10-lc\] and \[fig:3D-R10-lc1-low-flux-topology\], the propagation of the initial flaw is first planar which then tip splits due to high biaxial stresses (due to the symmetry of the problem far from the initial flaw $\sigma_{\theta\theta}=\sigma_{\phi\phi}$). At higher ${\mathcal{C}_r}$ (cases b,d in Figs. \[fig:topology-3D\]–\[fig:3D-phase-diagram\] and those shown using orange diamonds in Fig. \[fig:3D-phase-diagram\]) the initiation is faster and creates a coplanar crack with the initial flaw as seen, for example, in b-1 in Figs. \[fig:3D-R10-lc\] and \[fig:3D-R10-lc1-high-flux-topology\]. Upon further Li ion depletion, a secondary pair of cracks are initiated perpendicular to the initial circumferential crack as depicted in b-2–3 in Figs. \[fig:3D-R10-lc\] and \[fig:3D-R10-lc1-high-flux-topology\]. We should highlight that the radial penetration of the 3D penny-shaped crack is similar to radial propagation in 2D simulations. As a result, for case a at the lower ${\mathcal{C}_r}=21$ after the initial activation the crack abruptly penetrates radial distance of $\simeq12\times10^3\,l_G$ compared to $\simeq6\times10^3\,l_G$ for the case b at the higher ${\mathcal{C}_r}=30$. ![Evolution of dimensionless surface energy ${\mathscr{F}}_{\phi}/(G_c\,R^2)$ for $R/l_G=2\times10^4$ spherical particle containing a $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ radial penny-shaped crack for ${\mathcal{C}_r}=21$ and ${\mathcal{C}_r}=30$. Associated topologies for different points in time is presented in Figs. \[fig:3D-R10-init-topology\]–\[fig:3D-R10-lc1-high-flux-topology\].[]{data-label="fig:3D-R10-lc"}](3D-R10-lc1micron-lcrack.pdf){width=".8\columnwidth"} ![Initial topology of the radial penny-shaped crack (iso-surface visualization for $\phi=0.5$) $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ in a $R/l_G=2\times10^4$ spherical particle (o in Fig. \[fig:3D-R10-lc\]).[]{data-label="fig:3D-R10-init-topology"}](3D-R10-lc1micron-init.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} ![Evolution of high-flux fracture topology (iso-surface visualization for $\phi=0.5$) for $R/l_G=2\times10^4$ spherical particle containing an initial $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ radial penny-shaped crack under ${\mathcal{C}_r}=21$: initial abrupt propagation a-1 at $t/t_C=0.5$ (left), a-2 $t/t_C=0.6$ (right) (see Figs. \[fig:3D-R10-lc\] and \[fig:3D-phase-diagram\]).[]{data-label="fig:3D-R10-lc1-low-flux-topology"}](3D-R10-lc1micron-Cr21.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} ![Evolution of low-flux fracture topology (iso-surface visualization for $\phi=0.5$) for $R/l_G=2\times10^4$ spherical particle containing an initial $a_0/l_G=2\times10^3$ radial penny-shaped crack under ${\mathcal{C}_r}=30$: initial abrupt propagation b-1 at $t/t_C=0.28$ (top left), b-2 $t/t_C=0.36$ (top right), b-3 $t/t_C=0.38$ (bottom left), b-4 $t/t_C=0.6$ (bottom right) (see Figs. \[fig:3D-R10-lc\] and \[fig:3D-phase-diagram\]).[]{data-label="fig:3D-R10-lc1-high-flux-topology"}](3D-R10-lc1micron-Cr30.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Fig. \[fig:3D-phase-diagram\] depicts the aggregate results of a series of 3D numerical simulations for a $R/l_G=2\times10^4$ particle for $a_0/l_G=10^3,1.5\times10^3,2\times10^3$ initial penny-shaped radial flaws. Despite the major difference in crack propagation path ([i.e., ]{}penetrating cracks in two-dimensional circular particles vs. surface cracks in the three-dimensional sphere), our 3D results suggest that critical flux to activate a surface flaw follows the inverse square power-law $a_{0,\min}\beta^2/l_G\sim{\mathcal{C}_r}^{-2}$ for moderate charging rates as in the 2D simulations. This is not surprising since the same arguments presented in Section \[sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-flux\] to justify the power-law still applies for spherical particles exposed to moderate fluxes. Furthermore, the results in Fig. \[fig:3D-phase-diagram\] also suggest that, like 2D simulations (see Figs. \[fig:R21-a1-Cr5-crack-propagation\]–\[fig:R21-a1-Cr8-crack-propagation\]), the transition of the inverse square power-law occurs at $a_0/l_G\simeq10^3$. ![Flaw activation diagram for a $R/l_G=2\times10^4$ radius spherical particle. Circles depict activated cracks with low-flux topology that split into multiple orientations and filled diamond depict activated cracks with high-flux topology that remain coplanar with the initial penny-shaped crack. Crosses show unactivated cracks. The gray dashed line shows the predicted power-law $a_0/l_G\sim{\mathcal{C}_r}^{-2}$ relating minimum activated flaw size and dimensionless charging rate. []{data-label="fig:3D-phase-diagram"}](3D-phase.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} We also should note that the tiling of the sphere surface is of particular theoretical interest. The polygonal tiling and its number of defects is prescribed by Euler’s celebrated theorem [@Euler:1758]. In contrast, in many physical systems, the number of defects on the curved surface goes beyond the minimum number necessary and is assigned by the local energetic minima. Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in closely connected areas of crystal formation on spherical surfaces [@Bausch:2003; @Irvine:2010; @Manoharan:2015] and pattern formation as the result of buckling [@Jimenez:2015]. Although the mechanism of surface tilings generated in this section is an attractive subject for further research, in this article, we limit ourselves to the general topology of the cracks generated. Conclusions {#sec:conclusion} =========== In this article, we developed a thermodynamically consistent framework by combining the phase-field fracture method and diffusion to model chemo-mechanical fracture. We presented our formulation in Section \[sec:formulation\] and detailed our implementation of it in Section \[sec:numerical-implementation\]. As our first case study, we investigated in Section \[sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-flux\] the fracture of 2D circular disks. Using different initial flaw sizes, we showed how the steep gradient created as a result of the charging rate could cause a surface flaw to propagate and fracture the particle. Our numerical results show that for a given particle size, there exists a maximum flaw independent charging rate that can be used as a conservative limit in practice. Furthermore, motivated by our simulation results, we showed how the activation of the surface flaws follows an inverse square law $a_{0,\min}\sim{\mathcal{C}_r}^{-2}$ over intermediate dimensionless charging rates ${\mathcal{C}_r}=O(1)$ ($t_D\sim t_C$). We justified this power-law behavior based on a Griffith type analysis of the stresses generated far from the crack-tip and showed how it could be used to calculate a maximum safe charging rate $C_{r,\max}$ given the elastic and fracture properties as well as an estimate of the flaw sizes in the system. We should note that although the activation of surface flaws follows this simple power-law expression, the precise flux to activate a flaw is dictated by a non-trivial concentration profile around the crack-tip. Since the scaling law analysis ignores the ratio of flaw size to the radius of the particle, as well as the crack-tip enrichment, the scaling constant can only be derived from the numerical simulations, especially for small particles where the initial flaw size plays a more significant role. Furthermore, we showed that depending on the particle and flaw size, the initial propagation could be abrupt or continuous for low and high fluxes, respectively. While puzzling at first, we described how the abrupt fracture propagation length decreases for increasing fluxes for moderate initial flaw sizes due to smaller bulk energy available at the fracture onset. We then extended our study to high fluxes that are necessary for the activation of very small flaws ($a_0<10^3\,l_G$ for our choice of parameters). Our results show that for these small flaws, the safe charging rate deviates from the previously obtained scaling law. We explained our observation, noting that the high charging rate creates a depleted layer on the periphery of the particle and thus loses its effectiveness in creating a steep enough gradient to activate these flaws. As a result, we found out that there exists a minimum safe flaw size $a_{0,\min}$ for a given particle size that does not propagate under any charging rate. To effectively address these maximal charging rates, in Section \[sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-dirichlet\], we examined the activation of surface flaws using potentiostatic (Dirichlet) boundary conditions. Our simulation results show that there exists a C-rate independent, safe particle size that no flaw of any size will propagate in it. In addition, they show that in large particles the minimum activated flaw size approaches a constant value ([e.g., ]{}$a_{0,\min}^{\infty}\simeq200l_G$ for our choice of parameters). In other words, our numerical simulations suggest that particles (no matter how large) containing flaws smaller than $a_{0,\min}^{\infty}$ do not crack due to diffusion-driven misfit stresses. Finally, in Section \[sub:3D-Calculations\], to investigate the role of dimensionality, we performed a series of 3D simulations on spherical particles with penny-shaped flaws. Using our numerical observations, we showed that, unlike in 2D and assumptions [@Woodford:2010] and results [@Klinsmann:2016] of previous studies, the crack topology changes from a coplanar penetrating mode to a surface tiling mode. These full ([i.e., ]{}without any symmetries assumed) 3D calculations show that the initial mechanical mode of failure in three-dimensional particles during charging is due to the fracture on their surface. While all the propagations from the initial penny-shaped crack in 3D were abrupt, we showed how the change of the fracture topology could be explained using arguments akin to those used to justify the length of abrupt propagation in 2D. Furthermore, our admittingly limited 3D results suggest that $a_{0,\min}\sim{\mathcal{C}_r}^{-2}$ scaling law is still valid in 3D for flaws larger than $a_0>10^3\,l_G$. Lastly, it is crucial to highlight that, in this article, we only model chemo-mechanical fracture due to Lithium diffusion with no phase change or discontinuity in expansion. As highlighted, for example, in [@Woodford:2012; @Woodford:2013], coherency stresses generated at the phase and grain boundaries can result in charging rate independent fracture in Li-storage materials. Acknowledgments =============== Acknowledgments: A.M. and A.K. acknowledge the support of Grant No. DE-FG02-07ER46400 from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences. The majority of the numerical simulations were performed using resources of the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) under the resource allocation TG-MSS160013. Additional numerical simulations were also performed on the Northeastern University Discovery cluster at the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center (MGHPCC). Concentration enrichment around crack-tip due to mechanical loads {#app:crack-tip-enrichment} ================================================================= Examining equations -, it is easy to notice that the ions flow toward the regions with higher hydrostatic pressures; therefore, it is not surprising that in the presence of a crack, a higher concentration will accumulate at the crack-tip (see Fig. \[fig:tip-enrichment\] for example). More specifically, for small eigen-strains ([i.e., ]{}$\beta\ll1$) the stresses become independent of the concentration field ([i.e., ]{}the diffusion equation would be driven by the magnitude of hydrostatic stress). ![Result of simulation for $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ with a $a_0/l_G=200$ initial crack, using ${\mathcal{C}_r}=22.75$ charging rate. Color plots show the concentration at $t/t_C=1.2$: around crack tip (left) concentration map of the particle (right).[]{data-label="fig:tip-enrichment"}](tip-enrichment-R21-lc1e-1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} To derive the enrichment at the crack-tip, we can rewrite the coupled equations of elasticity and concentration in terms of Airy stress function $\mathcal{A}$ in 2-D: $$\begin{aligned} \nabla^{4} \mathcal{A} &= -{\mathrm{E}}^{} \epsilon_{0} \nabla^2 c \label{eq:airy-stress-function}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathrm{E}}^{}=\dfrac{{\mathrm{E}}}{1-\nu^2}$ for plane-stress. Therefore, for small eigen-strains [i.e., ]{}$\beta\ll1$ the stresses become independent of the concentration field ([i.e., ]{}the diffusion equation would be driven by the magnitude of hydrostatic stress). Thus, for steady-state conditions and in absence of a surface flux, one can write $$\begin{aligned} J&=-\nabla\frac{\delta F}{\delta c}= 0 \nonumber \\ \frac{\delta F}{\delta \bar{c}}&={c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T\ln\left(\frac{c}{{c_{\max}}-c}\right)-{c_{\max}}\epsilon_{0}{\mathrm{Tr}}(\sigma)=\mu_{0} \\ c&=\frac{{c_{\max}}}{1+\exp\left(-\dfrac{\beta {\sigma}_{kk}+{\mu}_{0}}{{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T}\right)}\label{eq:solution-c-Fermi}\end{aligned}$$ A similar solution to can be obtained for the dilute approximation where $f(c)=c\ln(c)-c$ as: $${c}={c_{\max}}\exp\left(\dfrac{\beta {\sigma}_{kk}+{\mu}_{0}}{{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T}\right)\label{eq:solution-c-exp}$$ The above expression was also derived by the direct solution of the diffusion equation in [@Liu:1970]. To find the concentration profile around the crack-tip, we can replace the expression of ${\mathrm{Tr}}(\sigma)$ from the asymptotic plane-stress solution of mode-I fracture: $$\begin{aligned} \sigma_{xx}(r,\theta)&=\frac{K_I}{\sqrt{2\pi r}}\cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\left[1-\sin\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\sin\left(\frac{3\theta}{2}\right)\right]+O(\sqrt{r})\label{eq:crack-tip-sxx}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \sigma_{yy}(r,\theta)&=\frac{K_I}{\sqrt{2\pi r}}\cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\left[1+\sin\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\sin\left(\frac{3\theta}{2}\right)\right]+O(\sqrt{r})\label{eq:crack-tip-syy}\end{aligned}$$ where $K_I$ is the stress intensity factor. After some algebra ${\mathrm{Tr}}(\sigma)$ can be written as: $${\mathrm{Tr}}(\sigma(r,\theta))=\frac{2 K_I}{\sqrt{2\pi r}} \cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\label{eq:Tr-sigma-mode-I}$$ where $K_{I}$ is the mode-I stress intensity factor. Using we can write the concentration around the crack-tip at the time of fracture as: $$c=\frac{{c_{\max}}}{1+exp\left(-\sqrt{\dfrac{2r_c}{\pi r}}\left(\dfrac{K_I}{K_{IC}}\right)\cos\left(\dfrac{\theta}{2}\right)-\bar{\mu}_{0}\right)}\label{eq:solution-c-Fermi-Mode-I}$$ where $$\label{eq:rc} r_c=\left(\frac{\beta K_{IC}}{{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T}\right)^2=l_G\left(\frac{\beta{\mathrm{E}}}{{c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T}\right)^2$$ can be identified as the intrinsic length scale for the concentration of ions around the crack-tip. Equation shows that the ratio of the enrichment length scale to Griffith length scale scales as the square ratio of maximum misfit stresses to chemical energy. In one can find the steady-state chemical potential $\mu_{0}$, from far field concentration as $${\mu}_{0}={c_{\max}}{\mathcal{R}}T\ln\left({{c}_{\infty}}/{({c_{\max}}-{c}_{\infty})}\right)$$ As we showed in the Section \[sub:chemo-mechanical-fracture-flux\], crack-tip enrichment is a common occurrence in diffusion-driven fracture of Lithium-ion battery particles. We can easily calculate the length scale $r_c/l_G\simeq7591.75$ for at room temperature where the crack-tip concentration is captured approximately by . Fig. \[fig:comparison-rc\] shows a comparison between the results of the numerical simulation for a $R/l_G=4.2\times 10^4$ particle (Fig. \[fig:R21-a5-crack-propagation\]) and . The simulation is performed in a circular geometry of radius $R$ containing a sharp $1^{\circ}$ notch from $r=-150\,\xi$ to $r=0$ at $\theta=\pi$. To simulate near tip stress fields, the displacement fields associated with – were imposed on the boundary of the domain. The concentration is initially uniform $c/{c_{\max}}=0.5$ everywhere and the value of $\mu_0$ was calculated based on the resulting concentration at $t/t_D=1$ and $r=R$. ![Comparison of relative concentration $c/{c_{\max}}$ near crack-tip for $\beta=0.025$: numerical simulation using 2D simulations of circular geometry with asymptotic near crack-tip displacement boundary conditions (red circles), closed-form solution .[]{data-label="fig:comparison-rc"}](Pacman_crack_tip_enrichment.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} We should note that the radial crack, driven by charging the cathodic particle, can stop propagating in the middle of the particle. In this situation the enrichment carried by the crack-tip can be shielded from the depleting flux by chemo-mechanical force exerted at the crack-tip. The remaining concentration then can change the dynamics of the charging process. Furthermore, while the main focus of this article is on the diffusion of Li-ions in battery particles, crack-tip enrichment can play an important role in other systems where diffusion and fracture happen concurrently such as corrosive cracks, crack-tip embrittlement, and fracture in poroelastic media [@Song:2013; @Bouklas:2015].	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The Drude-Lorentz model for the motion of electrons in a solid is a classical model in statistical mechanics, where electrons are represented as point particles bouncing on a fixed system of obstacles (the atoms in the solid). Under some appropriate scaling assumption — known as the Boltzmann-Grad scaling by analogy with the kinetic theory of rarefied gases — this system can be described in some limit by a linear Boltzmann equation, assuming that the configuration of obstacles is random \[G. Gallavotti, \[Phys. Rev. (2) [185]{} (1969), 308\]). The case of a periodic configuration of obstacles (like atoms in a crystal) leads to a completely different limiting dynamics. These lecture notes review several results on this problem obtained in the past decade as joint work with J. Bourgain, E. Caglioti and B. Wennberg.' address: \| Ecole polytechnique\ Centre de Mathématiques L. Schwartz\ F91128 Palaiseau Cedex author: - François Golse title: \| Recent Results\ on the Periodic Lorentz Gas --- Introduction: from particle dynamics to kinetic models {#introduction-from-particle-dynamics-to-kinetic-models .unnumbered} ====================================================== The kinetic theory of gases was proposed by J. Clerk Maxwell [@Maxwell1852; @Maxwell1866] and L. Boltzmann [@Boltzmann1872] in the second half of the XIXth century. Because the existence of atoms, on which kinetic theory rested, remained controversial for some time, it was not until many years later, in the XXth century, that the tools of kinetic theory became of common use in various branches of physics such as neutron transport, radiative transfer, plasma and semiconductor physics... Besides, the arguments which Maxwell and Boltzmann used in writing what is now known as the “Boltzmann collision integral" were far from rigorous — at least from the mathematical viewpoint. As a matter of fact, the Boltzmann equation itself was studied by some of the most distinguished mathematicians of the XXth century — such as Hilbert and Carleman — before there were any serious attempt at deriving this equation from first principles (i.e. molecular dynamics.) Whether the Boltzmann equation itself was viewed as a fundamental equation of gas dynamics, or as some approximate equation valid in some well identified limit is not very clear in the first works on the subject — including Maxwell’s and Boltzmann’s. It seems that the first systematic discussion of the validity of the Boltzmann equation viewed as some limit of molecular dynamics — i.e. the free motion of a large number of small balls subject to binary, short range interaction, for instance elastic collisions — goes back to the work of H. Grad [@Grad1958]. In 1975, O.E. Lanford gave the first rigorous derivation [@Lanford1975] of the Boltzmann equation from molecular dynamics — his result proved the validity of the Boltzmann equation for a very short time of the order of a fraction of the reciprocal collision frequency. (One should also mention an earlier, “formal derivation" by C. Cercignani [@Cercignani1972] of the Boltzmann equation for a hard sphere gas, which considerably clarified the mathematical formulation of the problem.) Shortly after Lanford’s derivation of the Boltzmann equation, R. Illner and M. Pulvirenti managed to extend the validity of his result for all positive times, for initial data corresponding with a very rarefied cloud of gas molecules [@IllnerPulvirenti1986]. An important assumption made in Boltzmann’s attempt at justifying the equation bearing his name is the “Stosszahlansatz", to the effect that particle pairs just about to collide are uncorrelated. Lanford’s argument indirectly established the validity of Boltzmann’s assumption, at least on very short time intervals. In applications of kinetic theory other than rarefied gas dynamics, one may face the situation where the analogue of the Boltzmann equation for monatomic gases is linear, instead of quadratic. The linear Boltzmann equation is encountered for instance in neutron transport, or in some models in radiative transfer. It usually describes a situation where particles interact with some background medium — such as neutrons with the atoms of some fissile material, or photons subject to scattering processes (Rayleigh or Thomson scattering) in a gas or a plasma. In some situations leading to a linear Boltzmann equation, one has to think of two families of particles: the moving particles whose phase space density satisfies the linear Boltzmann equation, and the background medium that can be viewed as a family of fixed particles of a different type. For instance, one can think of the moving particles as being light particles, whereas the fixed particles can be viewed as infinitely heavier, and therefore unaffected by elastic collisions with the light particles. Before Lanford’s fundamental paper, an important — unfortunately unpublished — preprint by G. Gallavotti [@Gallavotti1972] provided a rigorous derivation of the linear Boltzmann equation assuming that the background medium consists of fixed, independent like hard spheres whose centers are distributed in the Euclidian space under Poisson’s law. Gallavotti’s argument already possessed some of the most remarkable features in Lanford’s proof, and therefore must be regarded as an essential step in the understanding of kinetic theory. However, Boltzmann’s Stosszahlansatz becomes questionable in this kind of situation involving light and heavy particles, as potential correlations among heavy particles may influence the light particle dynamics. Gallavotti’s assumption of a background medium consisting of independent hard spheres excluded this this possibility. Yet, strongly correlated background media are equally natural, and should also be considered. The periodic Lorentz gas discussed in these notes is one example of this type of situation. Assuming that heavy particles are located at the vertices of some lattice in the Euclidian space clearly introduces about the maximum amount of correlation between these heavy particles. This periodicity assumption entails a dramatic change in the structure of the equation that one obtains under the same scaling limit that would otherwise lead to a linear Boltzmann equation. Therefore, studying the periodic Lorentz gas can be viewed as one way of testing the limits of the classical concepts of the kinetic theory of gases. Acknowledgements. Most of the material presented in these lectures is the result of collaboration with several authors: J. Bourgain, E. Caglioti, H.S. Dumas, L. Dumas and B. Wennberg, whom I wish to thank for sharing my interest for this problem. I am also grateful to C. Boldighrini and G. Gallavotti for illuminating discussions on this subject. The Lorentz kinetic theory for electrons ======================================== In the early 1900’s, P. Drude [@Drude1900] and H. Lorentz [@Lorentz1905] independently proposed to describe the motion of electrons in metals by the methods of kinetic theory. One should keep in mind that the kinetic theory of gases was by then a relatively new subject: the Boltzmann equation for monatomic gases appeared for the first time in the papers of J. Clerk Maxwell [@Maxwell1866] and L. Boltzmann [@Boltzmann1872]. Likewise, the existence of electrons had been established shortly before, in 1897 by J.J. Thomson. ![Left: Paul Drude (1863-1906); right: Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853-1928)](PDrude.jpg "fig:"){width="6.0cm"}![Left: Paul Drude (1863-1906); right: Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853-1928)](HALorentz.jpg "fig:"){width="5.8cm"} The basic assumptions made by H. Lorentz in his paper [@Lorentz1905] can be summarized as follows. First, the population of electrons is thought of as a gas of point particles described by its phase-space density $f\equiv f(t,x,v)$, that is the density of electrons at the position $x$ with velocity $v$ at time $t$. Electron-electron collisions are neglected in the physical regime considered in the Lorentz kinetic model — on the contrary, in the classical kinetic theory of gases, collisions between molecules are important as they account for momentum and heat transfer. However, the Lorentz kinetic theory takes into account collisions between electrons and the surrounding metallic atoms. These collisions are viewed as simple, elastic hard sphere collisions. Since electron-electron collisions are neglected in the Lorentz model, the equation governing the electron phase-space density $f$ is linear. This is at variance with the classical Boltzmann equation, which is quadratic because only binary collisions involving pairs of molecules are considered in the kinetic theory of gases. With the simple assumptions above, H. Lorentz arrived at the following equation for the phase-space density of electrons $f\equiv f(t,x,v)$: $$(\d_t+v\cdot\grad_x+\tfrac1m F(t,x)\cdot\grad_v)f(t,x,v) =N_{at}r_{at}^2\|v\|\cC(f)(t,x,v)\,.$$ In this equation, $\cC$ is the Lorentz collision integral, which acts on the only variable $v$ in the phase-space density $f$. In other words, for each continuous function $\phi\equiv \phi(v)$, one has $$\cC(\phi)(v)=\int_{\|\om\|=1\atop\om\cdot v>0} \bigl(\phi(v-2(v\cdot\om)\om)-\phi(v)\bigr)\cos(v,\om)d\om\,,$$ and the notation $$\cC(f)(t,x,v)\hbox{ designates }\cC(f(t,x,\cdot))(v)\,.$$ The other parameters involved in the Lorentz equation are the mass $m$ of the electron, and $N_{at}$, $r_{at}$ respectively the density and radius of metallic atoms. The vector field $F\equiv F(t,x)$ is the electric force. In the Lorentz model, the self-consistent electric force — i.e. the electric force created by the electrons themselves — is neglected, so that $F$ take into account the only effect of an applied electric field (if any). Roughly speaking, the self consistent electric field is linear in $f$, so that its contribution to the term $F\cdot\grad_vf$ would be quadratic in $f$, as would be any collision integral accounting for electron-electron collisions. Therefore, neglecting electron-electron collisions and the self-consistent electric field are both in accordance with assuming that $f\ll 1$. The line of reasoning used by H. Lorentz to arrive at the kinetic equations above is based on the postulate that the motion of electrons in a metal can be adequately represented by a simple mechanical model — a collisionless gas of point particles bouncing on a system of fixed, large spherical obstacles that represent the metallic atoms. Even with the considerable simplification in this model, the argument sketched in the article [@Lorentz1905] is little more than a formal analogy with Boltzmann’s derivation of the equation now bearing his name. This suggests the mathematical problem, of deriving the Lorentz kinetic equation from a microscopic, purely mechanical particle model. Thus, we consider a gas of point particles (the electrons) moving in a system of fixed spherical obstacles (the metallic atoms). We assume that collisions between the electrons and the metallic atoms are perfectly elastic, so that, upon colliding with an obstacle, each point particle is specularly reflected on the surface of that obstacle. Undoubtedly, the most interesting part of the Lorentz kinetic equation is the collision integral which does not seem to involve $F$. Therefore we henceforth assume for the sake of simplicity that there is no applied electric field, so that $$F(t,x)\equiv 0\,.$$ In that case, electrons are not accelerated between successive collisions with the metallic atoms, so that the microscopic model to be considered is a simple, dispersing billiard system — also called a Sinai billiard. In that model, electrons are point particles moving at a constant speed along rectilinear trajectories in a system of fixed spherical obstacles, and specularly reflected at the surface of the obstacles. ![The Lorentz gas: a particle path](TrajBil){width="6.0cm"} More than 100 years have elapsed since this simple mechanical model was proposed by P. Drude and H. Lorentz, and today we know that the motion of electrons in a metal is a much more complicated physical phenomenon whose description involves quantum effects. Yet the Lorentz gas is an important object of study in nonequilibrium satistical mechanics, and there is a very significant amount of literature on that topic — see for instance [@SzaszEncyclo] and the references therein. The first rigorous derivation of the Lorentz kinetic equation is due to G. Gallavotti [@Gallavotti1969; @Gallavotti1972], who derived it from from a billiard system consisting of randomly (Poisson) distributed obstacles, possibly overlapping, considered in some scaling limit — the Boltzmann-Grad limit, whose definition will be given (and discussed) below. Slightly more general, random distributions of obstacles were later considered by H. Spohn in [@Spohn1978]. While Gallavotti’s theorem bears on the convergence of the mean electron density (averaging over obstacle configurations), C. Boldrighini, L. Bunimovich and Ya. Sinai [@BoldriBuniSinai1983] later succeeded in proving the almost sure convergence (i.e. for a.e. obstacle configuration) of the electron density to the solution of the Lorentz kinetic equation. In any case, none of the results above says anything on the case of a periodic distribution of obstacles. As we shall see, the periodic case is of a completely different nature — and leads to a very different limiting equation, involving a phase-space different from the one considered by H. Lorentz — i.e. $\bR^2\times\bS^1$ — on which the Lorentz kinetic equation is posed. The periodic Lorentz gas is at the origin of many challenging mathematical problems. For instance, in the late 1970s, L. Bunimovich and Ya. Sinai studied the periodic Lorentz gas in a scaling limit different from the Boltzmann-Grad limit studied in the present paper. In [@BuniSinai1980], they showed that the classical Brownian motion is the limiting dynamics of the Lorentz gas under that scaling assumption — their work was later extended with N. Chernov: see [@BunSinaiChern1991]. This result is indeed a major achievement in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, as it provides an example of an irreversible dynamics (the heat equation associated with the classical Brownian motion) that is derived from a reversible one (the Lorentz gas dynamics). The Lorentz gas in the Boltzmann-Grad limit\ with a Poisson distribution of obstacles ============================================ Before discussing the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas, we first give a brief description of Gallavotti’s result [@Gallavotti1969; @Gallavotti1972] for the case of a Poisson distribution of independent, and therefore possibly overlapping obstacles. As we shall see, Gallavotti’s argument is in some sense fairly elementary, and yet brilliant. First we define the notion of a Poisson distribution of obstacles. Henceforth, for the sake of simplicity, we assume a $2$-dimensional setting. The obstacles (metallic atoms) are disks of radius $r$ in the Euclidian plane $\bR^2$, centered at $c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_j,\ldots\in\bR^2$. Henceforth, we denote by $$\{c\}=\{c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_j,\ldots\}=\hbox{ a configuration of obstacle centers.}$$ We further assume that the configurations of obstacle centers $\{c\}$ are distributed under Poisson’s law with parameter $n$, meaning that $$\hbox{Prob}(\{\{c\}\,\|\,\#(A\cap\{c\})=p\})=e^{-n\|A\|}\frac{(n\|A\|)^p}{p!}\,,$$ where $\|A\|$ denotes the surface, i.e. the $2$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of a measurable subset $A$ of the Euclidian plane $\bR^2$. This prescription defines a probability on countable subsets of the Euclidian plane $\bR^2$. Obstacles may overlap: in other words, configurations $\{c\} $ such that $$\hbox{for some $j\not=k\in\{1,2,\ldots\}$, one has }\|c_i-c_j\|<2r$$ are not excluded. Indeed, excluding overlapping obstacles means rejecting obstacles configurations $\{c\}$ such that $\|c_i-c_j\|\le 2r$ for some $i,j\in\bN$. In other words, $\hbox{Prob}(d\{c\})$ is replaced with $$\frac1Z\prod_{i>j\ge 0}\indc_{\|c_i-c_j\|>2r}\hbox{Prob}(d\{c\})\,,$$ (where $Z>0$ is a normalizing coefficient.) Since the term $$\prod_{i>j\ge 0}\indc_{\|c_i-c_j\|>2r}\hbox{ is not of the form }\prod_{k\ge 0}\phi_k(c_k)\,,$$ the obstacles are no longer independent under this new probability measure. Next we define the billiard flow in a given obstacle configuration $\{c\}$. This definition is self-evident, and we give it for the sake of completeness, as well as in order to introduce the notation. Given a countable subset $\{c\}$ of the Euclidian plane $\bR^2$, the billiard flow in the system of obstacles defined by $\{c\}$ is the family of mappings $$(X(t;\cdot,\cdot,\{c\}),V(t;\cdot,\cdot,\{c\})): \,\left(\bR^2\setminus\bigcup_{j\ge 1}B(c_j,r)\right)\times\bS^1\circlearrowright$$ defined by the following prescription. Whenever the position $X$ of a particle lies outside the surface of any obstacle, that particle moves at unit speed along a rectilinear path: $$\begin{aligned} \dot{X}(t;x,v,\{c\} )&=V(t;x,v,\{c\} )\,, \\ \dot{V}(t;x,v,\{c\} )&=0\,,\qquad\hbox{ whenever }\|X(t;x,v,\{c\} )-c_i\|>r\hbox{ for all }i\,, \end{aligned}$$ and, in case of a collision with the $i$-th obstacle, is specularly reflected on the surface of that obstacle at the point of impingement, meaning that $$\begin{aligned} X(t+0;x,v,\{c\} )&=X(t-0;x,v,\{c\})\in\d B(c_i,r)\,, \\ V(t+0;x,v,\{c\} )&=\cR\left[\frac{X(t;x,v,\{c\})-c_i}{r}\right]V(t-0;x,v,\{c\} )\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\cR[\om]$ denotes the reflection with respect to the line $(\bR\om)^\bot$: $$\cR[\om]v=v-2(\om\cdot v)\om\,,\quad\|\om\|=1\,.$$ Then, given an initial probability density $f_{\{c\}}^{in}\equiv f_{\{c\}}^{in}(x,v)$ on the single-particle phase-space with support outside the system of obstacles defined by $\{c\}$, we define its evolution under the billiard flow by the formula $$f(t,x,v,\{c\} )=f^{in}_{\{c\}}(X(-t;x,v,\{c\} ),V(-t;x,v,\{c\}))\,,\quad t\ge 0\,.$$ Let $\tau_1(x,v,\{c\} ),\tau_2(x,v,\{c\} ),\ldots,\tau_j(x,v,\{c\} ),\ldots$ be the sequence of collision times for a particle starting from $x$ in the direction $-v$ at $t=0$ in the configuration of obstacles $\{c\}$: in other words, $$\begin{aligned} {}&\tau_j(x,v,\{c\} )= \\ &\quad\sup\{t\,\|\,\#\{s\in[0,t]\,\|\,\hbox{dist}(X(-s,x,v,\{c\} );\{c\} )=r\}=j-1\}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Denoting $\tau_0=0$ and $\Dlt\tau_k=\tau_k-\tau_{k-1}$, the evolved single-particle density $f$ is a.e. defined by the formula $$\begin{aligned} {}&f(t,x,v,\{c\} )=f^{in}(x-tv,v)\indc_{t<\tau_1} \\ &+\!\sum_{j\ge 1}\!f^{in}\!\left(x\!-\!\!\!\sum_{k=1}^j\!\! \Dlt\tau_kV(-\tau_k^-)\!-\!(t-\tau_j)V(-\tau_j^+), V(-\tau_j^+)\right)\!\indc_{\tau_j<t<\tau_{j+1}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ In the case of physically admissible initial data, there should be no particle located inside an obstacle. Hence we assumed that $f^{in}_{\{c\}}=0$ in the union of all the disks of radius $r$ centered at the $c_j\in\{c\}$. By construction, this condition is obviously preserved by the billiard flow, so that $f(t,x,v,\{c\})$ also vanishes whenever $x$ belongs to a disk of radius $r$ centered at any $c_j\in\{c\}$. As we shall see shortly, when dealing with bounded initial data, this constraint disappears in the (yet undefined) Boltzmann-Grad limit, as the volume fraction occupied by the obstacles vanishes in that limit. Therefore, we shall henceforth neglect this difficulty and proceed as if $f^{in}$ were any bounded probability density on $\bR^2\times\bS^1$. Our goal is to average the summation above in the obstacle configuration $\{c\} $ under the Poisson distribution, and to identify a scaling on the obstacle radius $r$ and the parameter $n$ of the Poisson distribution leading to a nontrivial limit. The parameter $n$ has the following important physical interpretation. The expected number of obstacle centers to be found in any measurable subset $\Om$ of the Euclidian plane $\bR^2$ is $$\sum_{p\ge 0}p\hbox{Prob}(\{\{c\} \,\|\,\#(\Om\cap\{c\} )=p\}) =\sum_{p\ge 0}pe^{-n\|\Om\|}\frac{(n\|\Om\|)^p}{p!}=n\|\Om\|$$ so that $$n=\#\hbox{ obstacles per unit surface in $\bR^2$.}$$ The average of the first term in the summation defining $f(t,x,v,\{c\} )$ is $$f^{in}(x-tv,v)\la\indc_{t<\tau_1}\ra=f^{in}(x-tv,v)e^{-n2rt}$$ (where $\la\,\cdot\,\ra$ denotes the mathematical expectation) since the condition $t<\tau_1$ means that the tube of width $2r$ and length $t$ contains no obstacle center. ![The tube corresponding with the first term in the series expansion giving the particle density](T1){width="7.0cm"} Henceforth, we seek a scaling limit corresponding to small obstacles, i.e. $r\to 0$ and a large number of obstacles per unit volume, i.e. $n\to\infty$. There are obviously many possible scalings satisfying this requirement. Among all these scalings, the Boltzmann-Grad scaling in space dimension $2$ is defined by the requirement that the average over obstacle configurations of the first term in the series expansion for the particle density $f$ has a nontrivial limit. In order for the average of the first term above to have a nontrivial limit, one must have $$r\to 0^+\hbox{ and }n\to+\infty\hbox{ in such a way that }2nr\to\si>0\,.$$ Under this assumption $$\la f^{in}(x-tv,v)\indc_{t<\tau_1}\ra\to f^{in}(x-tv,v)e^{-\si t}\,.$$ Gallavotti’s idea is that this first term corresponds with the solution at time $t$ of the equation $$\begin{aligned} (\d_t+v\cdot\grad_x)f&=-nrf\int_{\|\om\|=1\atop\om\cdot v>0}\cos(v,\om)d\om=-2nrf \\ f\rstr_{t=0}&=f^{in} \end{aligned}$$ that involves only the loss part in the Lorentz collision integral, and that the (average over obstacle configuration of the) subsequent terms in the sum defining the particle density $f$ should converge to the Duhamel formula for the Lorentz kinetic equation. After this necessary preliminaries, we can state Gallavotti’s theorem. Let $f^{in}$ be a continuous, bounded probability density on $\bR^2\times\bS^1$, and let $$f_r(t,x,v,\{c\} )=f^{in}((X^r,V^r)(-t,x,v,\{c\}))\,,$$ where $(t,x,v)\mapsto (X^r,V^r)(t,x,v,\{c\} )$ is the billiard flow in the system of disks of radius $r$ centered at the elements of $\{c\}$. Assuming that the obstacle centers are distributed under the Poisson law of parameter $n=\si/2r$ with $\si>0$, the expected single particle density $$\la f_r(t,x,v,\cdot)\ra\to f(t,x,v)\hbox{ in }L^1(\bR^2\times\bS^1)$$ uniformly on compact $t$-sets, where $f$ is the solution of the Lorentz kinetic equation $$\begin{aligned} (\d_t+v\cdot\grad_x)f+\si f &=\si\int_0^{2\pi} f(t,x,R[\b]v)\sin\tfrac{\b}2 \tfrac{d\b}4\,, \\ f\rstr_{t=0}&=f^{in}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $R[\b]$ denotes the rotation of an angle $\b$. The general term in the summation giving $f(t,x,v,\{c\} )$ is $$f^{in}\!\left(x\!-\!\!\!\sum_{k=1}^j\!\!\Dlt\tau_kV^r(-\tau_k^-)\!-\!(t-\tau_j)V^r(-\tau_j^+), V^r(-\tau_j^+)\right)\!\indc_{\tau_j<t<\tau_{j+1}}\,,$$ and its average under the Poisson distribution on $\{c\} $ is $$\begin{aligned} \int f^{in}\!\left(x-\!\sum_{k=1}^j\Dlt\tau_kV^r(-\tau_k^-)-(t-\tau_j)V^r(-\tau_j^+), V^r(-\tau_j^-)\right) \\ e^{-n\|T(t;c_1,\ldots,c_j)\|}\frac{n^jdc_1\ldots dc_j}{j!}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $T(t;c_1,\ldots,c_j)$ is the tube of width $2r$ around the particle trajectory colliding first with the obstacle centered at $c_1$, …, and whose $j$-th collision is with the obstacle centered at $c_j$. As before, the surface of that tube is $$\|T(t;c_1,\ldots,c_j)\|=2rt+O(r^2)\,.$$ ![The tube $T(t,c_1,c_2)$ corresponding with the third term in the series expansion giving the particle density](T12){width="8.0cm"} In the $j$-th term, change variables by expressing the positions of the $j$ encountered obstacles in terms of free flight times and deflection angles: $$(c_1,\ldots,c_j)\mapsto(\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_j;\b_1,\ldots,\b_j)\,.$$ The volume element in the $j$-th integral is changed into $$\tfrac{dc_1\ldots dc_j}{j!}=r^j\sin\tfrac{\b_1}{2}\ldots\sin\tfrac{\b_j}{2}\,\, \tfrac{d\b_1}2\ldots\tfrac{d\b_j}2d\tau_1\ldots d\tau_j\,.$$ The measure in the left-hand side is invariant by permutations of $c_1,\ldots,c_j$; on the right-hand side, we assume that $$\tau_1<\tau_2<\ldots<\tau_j\,,$$ which explains why $1/j!$ factor disappears in the right-hand side. ![The substitution $(c_1,c_2)\mapsto(\tau_1,\tau_2,\b_1,\b_2)$](chvar12){width="9.0cm"} The substitution above is one-to-one only if the particle does not hit twice the same obstacle. Define therefore $$\begin{aligned} {}&A_r(T,x,v)=\{\{c\}\,\|\,\hbox{ there exists }0<t_1<t_2<T\hbox{ and }j\in\bN\hbox{ s.t. } \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\hbox{dist}(X^r(t_1,x,v,\{c\}),c_j)=\hbox{dist}(X^r(t_2,x,v,\{c\}),c_j)=r\} \\ &\qquad=\bigcup_{j\ge 1}\{\{c\}\,\|\, \hbox{dist}(X^r(t,x,v,\{c\}),c_j)=r\hbox{ for some }0<t_1<t_2<T\}\,, \end{aligned}$$ and set $$\begin{aligned} f^M_r(t,x,v,\{c\})&=f_r(t,x,v,\{c\})-f^R_r(t,x,v,\{c\})\,, \\ f^R_r(t,x,v,\{c\})&=f_r(t,x,v,\{c\})\indc_{A_r(T,x,v)}(\{c\})\,, \end{aligned}$$ respectively the Markovian part and the recollision part in $f_r$. After averaging over the obstacle configuration $\{c\} $, the contribution of the $j$-th term in $f^M_r$ is, to leading order in $r$: $$\begin{aligned} (2nr)^je^{-2nrt}\int_{0<\tau_{1}<\ldots<\tau_j<t}\int_{[0,{2\pi}]^j} \sin\tfrac{\b_1}{2}\ldots\sin\tfrac{\b_j}{2}\tfrac{d\b_1}4\ldots\tfrac{d\b_j}4d\tau_1\ldots d\tau_j \\ \times f^{in}\left(x\!-\!\!\!\sum_{k=1}^j\!\!\Dlt\tau_k R\left[\sum_{l=1}^{k-1}\b_l\right]v\!-\!(t-\tau_j)R\left[\sum_{l=1}^{j-1}\b_l\right]v, R\left[\sum_{l=1}^{j}\b_l\right]v\right)\,. \end{aligned}$$ It is dominated by $$\\|f^{in}\\|_{L^\infty}O(\si)^je^{-O(\si)t}\frac{t^j}{j!}$$ which is the general term of a converging series. Passing to the limit as $n\to+\infty$, $r\to 0$ so that $2rn\to\si$, one finds (by dominated convergence in the series) that $$\begin{aligned} \la f^M_r(t,x,v,\{c\} )\ra\to e^{-\si t}f^{in}(x-tv,v) \\ + \si e^{-\si t}\int_0^t\int_0^{2\pi} f^{in}(x-\tau_1v-(t-\tau_1)R[\b_1]v,R[\b_1]v)\sin\tfrac{\b_1}{2}\tfrac{d\b_1}4 d\tau_1 \\ +\sum_{j\ge 2}\si^je^{-\si t}\int_{0<\tau_{j}<\ldots<\tau_1<t}\int_{[0,{2\pi}]^j} \sin\tfrac{\b_1}{2}\ldots\sin\tfrac{\b_j}{2} \\ \times f^{in}\left(x\!-\!\!\!\sum_{k=1}^j\!\!\Dlt\tau_k R\left[\sum_{l=1}^{k-1}\b_l\right]v\!-\!(t-\tau_j)R\left[\sum_{l=1}^{j-1}\b_l\right]v, R\left[\sum_{l=1}^{j}\b_l\right]v\right) \\ \times\tfrac{d\b_1}4\ldots\tfrac{d\b_j}4d\tau_1\ldots d\tau_j\,, \end{aligned}$$ which is the Duhamel series giving the solution of the Lorentz kinetic equation. Hence, we have proved that $$\la f^M_r(t,x,v,\cdot)\ra\to f(t,x,v)\hbox{ uniformly on bounded sets as }r\to 0^+\,,$$ where $f$ is the solution of the Lorentz kinetic equation. One can check by a straightforward computation that the Lorentz collision integral satisfies the property $$\int_{\bS^1}\cC(\phi)(v)dv=0\hbox{ for each }\phi\in L^\infty(\bS^1)\,.$$ Integrating both sides of the Lorentz kinetic equation in the variables $(t,x,v)$ over $[0,t]\times\bR^2\times\bS^1$ shows that the solution $f$ of that equation satisfies $$\iint_{\bR^2\times\bS^1}f(t,x,v)dxdv=\iint_{\bR^2\times\bS^1}f^{in}(x,v)dxdv$$ for each $t>0$. On the other hand, the billiard flow $(X,V)(t,\cdot,\cdot,\{c\})$ obviously leaves the uniform measure $dxdv$ on $\bR^2\times\bS^1$ (i.e. the particle number) invariant, so that, for each $t>0$ and each $r>0$, $$\iint_{\bR^2\times\bS^1}f_r(t,x,v,\{c\})dxdv=\iint_{\bR^2\times\bS^1}f^{in}(x,v)dxdv\,.$$ We therefore deduce from Fatou’s lemma that $$\begin{aligned} \la f^R_r\ra\to 0\hbox{ in }L^1(\bR^2\times\bS^1)\hbox{ uniformly on bounded $t$-sets} \\ \la f^M_r\ra\to f\hbox{ in }L^1(\bR^2\times\bS^1)\hbox{ uniformly on bounded $t$-sets} \end{aligned}$$ which concludes our sketch of the proof of Gallavotti’s theorem. For a complete proof, we refer the interested reader to [@Gallavotti1972; @Gallavotti1999]. Some remarks are in order before leaving Gallavotti’s setting for the Lorentz gas with the Poisson distribution of obstacles. Assuming no external force field as done everywhere in the present paper is not as inocuous as it may seem. For instance, in the case of Poisson distributed holes — i.e. purely absorbing obstacles, so that particles falling into the holes disappear from the system forever — the presence of an external force may introduce memory effects in the Boltzmann-Grad limit, as observed by L. Desvillettes and V. Ricci [@DesvRicci2004]. Another remark is about the method of proof itself. One has obtained the Lorentz kinetic equation after having obtained an explicit formula for the solution of that equation. In other words, the equation is deduced from the solution — which is a somewhat unusual situation in mathematics. However, the same is true of Lanford’s derivation of the Boltzmann equation [@Lanford1975], as well as of the derivation of several other models in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. For an interesting comment on this issue, see [@CerciIllnerPulvi1994], on p. 75. Santaló’s formula\ for the geometric mean free path ================================ From now on, we shall abandon the random case and concentrate our efforts on the periodic Lorentz gas. Our first task is to define the Boltzmann-Grad scaling for periodic systems of spherical obstacles. In the Poisson case defined above, things were relatively easy: in space dimension $2$, the Boltzmann-Grad scaling was defined by the prescription that the number of obstacles per unit volume tends to infinity while the obstacle radius tends to $0$ in such a way that $$\#\hbox{ obstacles per unit volume }\times\hbox{ obstacle radius }\to\si>0\,.$$ The product above has an interesting geometric meaning even without assuming a Poisson distribution for the obstacle centers, which we shall briefly discuss before going further in our analysis of the periodic Lorentz gas. Perhaps the most important scaling parameter in all kinetic models is the mean free path. This is by no means a trivial notion, as will be seen below. As suggested by the name itself, any notion of mean free path must involve first the notion of free path length, and then some appropriate probability measure under which the free path length is averaged. For simplicity, the only periodic distribution of obstacles considered below is the set of balls of radius $r$ centered at the vertices of a unit cubic lattice in the $D$-dimensional Euclidian space. Correspondingly, for each $r\in(0,\tfrac12)$, we define the domain left free for particle motion, also called the “billiard table" as $$Z_r=\{x\in\bR^D\,\|\,\hbox{dist}(x,\bZ^D)>r\}\,.$$ ![The periodic billiard table](Zricm06){width="10.0cm"} Defining the free path length in the billiard table $Z_r$ is easy: the free path length starting from $x\in Z_r$ in the direction $v\in\bS^{D-1}$ is $$\tau_r(x,v)=\min\{t>0\,\|\,x+tv\in\d Z_r\}\,.$$ Obviously, for each $v\in\bS^{D-1}$ the free path length $\tau_r(\cdot,v)$ in the direction $v$ can be extended continuously to $$\{x\in\d Z_r\,\|\,v\cdot n_x\not=0\}\,,$$ where $n_x$ denotes the unit normal vector to $\d Z_r$ at the point $x\in\d Z_r$ pointing towards $Z_r$. With this definition, the mean free path is the quantity defined as $$\hbox{Mean Free Path}=\la\tau_r\ra\,,$$ where the notation $\la\cdot\ra$ designates the average under some appropriate probability measure on $\overline{Z_r}\times\bS^{D-1}$. ![The free path length](freepath){width="9.0cm"} A first ambiguity in the notion of mean free path comes from the fact that there are two fairly natural probability measures for the Lorentz gas. The first one is the uniform probability measure on $Z_r/\bZ^D\times\bS^{D-1}$ $$d\mu_r(x,v)=\frac{dxdv}{\|Z_r/\bZ^D\|\,\|\bS^{D-1}\|}$$ that is invariant under the billiard flow — the notation $\|\bS^{D-1}\|$ designates the $D-1$-dimensional uniform measure of the unit sphere $\bS^{D-1}$. This measure is obviously invariant under the billiard flow $$(X_r,V_r)(t,\cdot,\cdot):\,Z_r\times\bS^{D-1}\to Z_r\times\bS^{D-1}$$ defined by $$\left\{\begin{matrix}\dot{X}_r=V_r \\ \dot{V}_r=0\end{matrix}\right.\quad\hbox{ whenever }X(t)\notin\d Z_r$$ while $$\left\{\begin{array}l X_r(t^+)=X_r(t^-)=:X_r(t)\hbox{ if }X(t^\pm)\in\d Z_r\,, \\ V_r(t^+)=\cR[n_{X_r(t)}]V_r(t^-) \end{array}\right.$$ with $\cR[n]v=v-2v\!\cdot\!nn$ denoting the reflection with respect to the hyperplane $(\bR n)^\bot$. The second such probability measure is the invariant measure of the billiard map $$d\nu_r(x,v)= \frac{v\!\cdot\!n_xdS(x)dv}{v\!\cdot\!n_xdxdv\hbox{-meas}(\Gamma^r_+/\bZ^D)}$$ where $n_x$ is the unit inward normal at $x\in\d Z_r$, while $dS(x)$ is the $D-1$-dimensional surface element on $\d Z_r$, and $$\Gamma^r_+:=\{(x,v)\in\d Z_r\times\bS^{D-1}\,\|\,v\cdot n_x>0\}\,.$$ The billiard map $\cB_r$ is the map $$\Gamma^r_+\ni(x,v)\mapsto\cB_r(x,v):=(X_r,V_r)(\tau_r(x,v);x,v)\in\Gamma^r_+\,,$$ which obviously passes to the quotient modulo $\bZ^D$-translations: $$\cB_r:\;\Gamma^r_+/\bZ^D\to\Gamma^r_+/\bZ^D\,.$$ In other words, given the position $x$ and the velocity $v$ of a particle immediatly after its first collision with an obstacle, the sequence $(\cB^n_r(x,v))_{n\ge 0}$ is the sequence of all collision points and post-collision velocities on that particle’s trajectory. With the material above, we can define a first, very natural notion of mean free path, by setting $$\hbox{Mean Free Path} =\lim_{N\to+\infty}\frac1{N}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\tau_r(\cB^k_r(x,v))\,.$$ Notice that, for $\nu_r$-a.e. $(x,v)\in\Gamma^+_r/\bZ^D$, the right hand side of the equality above is well-defined by the Birkhoff ergodic theorem. If the billiard map $\cB_r$ is ergodic for the measure $\nu_r$, one has $$\lim_{N\to+\infty}\frac1{N}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\tau_r(\cB^k_r(x,v)) =\int_{\Gamma^r_+/{\bZ^D}}\tau_rd\nu_r\,,$$ for $\nu_r$-a.e. $(x,v)\in\Gamma^r_+/\bZ^D$. Now, a very general formula for computing the right-hand side of the above equality was found by the great spanish mathematician L. A. Santaló in 1942. In fact, Santaló’s argument applies to situations that are considerably more general, involving for instance curved trajectories instead of straight line segments, or obstacle distributions other than periodic. The reader interested in these questions is referred to Santaló’s original article [@Santalo1943]. ![Luis Antonio Santaló Sors (1911-2001)](LASantalo.jpg){width="6.0cm"} Here is One finds that $$\ell_r:=\int_{\Gamma^r_+/{\bZ^D}}\tau_r(x,v)d\nu_r(x,v) =\frac{1-\|\bB^D\|r^D}{\|\bB^{D-1}\|r^{D-1}}$$ where $\bB^D$ is the unit ball of $\bR^D$ and $\|\bB^D\|$ its $D$-dimensional Lebesgue measure. In fact, one has the following slightly more general \[H.S. Dumas, L. Dumas, F. Golse [@Dumas2Golse1996]\] For $f\in C^1(\bR_+)$ such that $f(0)=0$, one has $$\iint_{\Gamma^r_+/\bZ^D}f(\tau_r(x,v))v\cdot n_xdS(x)dv =\iint_{(Z_r/\bZ^D)\times\bS^{D-1}}f'(\tau_r(x,v))dxdv\,.$$ Santaló’s formula is obtained by setting $f(z)=z$ in the identity above, and expressing both integrals in terms of the normalized measures $\nu_r$ and $\mu_r$. For each $(x,v)\in Z_r\times\bS^{D-1}$ one has $$\tau_r(x+tv,v)=\tau_r(x,v)-t\,,$$ so that $$\frac{d}{dt}\tau_r(x+tv,v)=-1\,.$$ Hence $\tau_r(x,v)$ solves the transport equation $$\left\{\begin{array}{lll} v\cdot\grad_x\tau_r(x,v)=-1\,,&\quad x\in Z_r\,,\,\,&v\in\bS^{D-1}\,, \\ \tau_r(x,v)=0\,,&\quad x\in\d Z_r\,,\,\,&v\cdot n_x<0\,. \end{array}\right.$$ Since $f\in C^1(\bR_+)$ and $f(0)=0$, one has $$\left\{\begin{array}{lll} v\cdot\grad_xf(\tau_r(x,v))=-f'(\tau_r(x,v))\,,&\quad x\in Z_r\,,\,\,&v\in\bS^{D-1}\,, \\ f(\tau_r(x,v))=0\,,&\quad x\in\d Z_r\,,\,\,&v\cdot n_x<0\,. \end{array}\right.$$ Integrating both sides of the equality above, and applying Green’s formula shows that $$\begin{aligned} -\iint_{(Z_r/\bZ^D)\times\bS^{D-1}}&f'(\tau_r(x,v))dxdv \\ &= \iint_{(Z_r/\bZ^D)\times\bS^{D-1}}v\cdot\grad_x(f(\tau_r(x,v)))dxdv \\ &=-\iint_{(\d Z_r/\bZ^D)\times\bS^{D-1}}f(\tau_r(x,v))v\cdot n_xdS(x)dv \end{aligned}$$ — beware the unusual sign in the right-hand side of the second equality above, coming from the orientation of the unit normal $n_x$, which is pointing towards $Z_r$. With the help of Santaló’s formula, we define the Boltzmann-Grad limit for the Lorentz gas with periodic as well as random distribution of obstacles as follows: The Boltzmann-Grad scaling for the periodic Lorentz gas in space dimension $D$ corresponds with the following choice of parameters: $$\begin{aligned} \hbox{distance between neighboring lattice points}&=\eps\ll 1\,, \\ \hbox{obstacle radius}&=r\ll 1\,, \\ \hbox{mean free path}&=\ell_r\to\frac1\si>0\,. \end{aligned}$$ Santaló’s formula indicates that one should have $$r\sim c\eps^{\frac{D}{D-1}} \hbox{ with }c=\left(\frac{\si}{\|\bB^{D-1}\|}\right)^{-\frac1{D-1}}\hbox{ as }\eps\to 0^+\,.$$ Therefore, given an initial particle density $f^{in}\in C_c(\bR^D\times\bS^{D-1})$, we define $f_r$ to be $$f_r(t,x,v)=f^{in}\left(r^{D-1}X_r\left(-\frac{t}{r^{D-1}};\frac{x}{r^{D-1}},v\right), V_r\left(-\frac{t}{r^{D-1}};\frac{x}{r^{D-1}},v\right)\right)$$ where $(X_r,V_r)$ is the billiard flow in $Z_r$ with specular reflection on $\d Z_r$. Notice that this formula defines $f_r$ for $x\in Z_r$ only, as the particle density should remain $0$ for all time in the spatial domain occupied by the obstacles. As explained in the previous section, this is a set whose measure vanishes in the Boltzmann-Grad limit, and we shall always implicitly extend the function $f_r$ defined above by $0$ for $x\notin Z_r$. Since $f^{in}$ is a bounded function on $Z_r\times\bS^{D-1}$, the family $f_r$ defined above is a bounded family of $L^\infty(\bR^D\times\bS^{D-1})$. By the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, this family is therefore relatively compact for the weak-\* topology of $L^\infty(\bR_+\times\bR^D\times\bS^{D-1})$. Problem: to find an equation governing the $L^\infty$ weak-\* limit points of the scaled number density $f_r$ as $r\to 0^+$. In the sequel, we shall describe the answer to this question in the $2$-dimensional case ($D=2$.) Estimates for the distribution of free-path lengths =================================================== In the proof of Gallavotti’s theorem for the case of a Poisson distribution of obstacles in space dimension $D=2$, the probability that a strip of width $2r$ and length $t$ does not meet any obstacle is $e^{-2nrt}$, where $n$ is the parameter of the Poisson distribution — i.e. the average number of obstacles per unit surface. This accounts for the loss term $$f^{in}(x-tv,v)e^{-\si t}$$ in the Duhamel series for the solution of the Lorentz kinetic equation, or of the term $-\si f$ on the right-hand side of that equation written in the form $$(\d_t+v\cdot\grad_x)f=-\si f+\si\int_0^{2\pi}f(t,x,R(\b)v)\sin\tfrac{\b}2\tfrac{d\b}{4}\,.$$ Things are fundamentally different in the periodic case. To begin with, there are infinite strips included in the billiard table $Z_r$ which never meet any obstacle. ![Open strips in the periodic billiard table that never meet any obstacle](corridor){width="8.0cm"} The contribution of the 1-particle density leading to the loss term in the Lorentz kinetic equation is, in the notation of the proof of Gallavotti’s theorem $$f^{in}(x-tv,v)\indc_{t<\tau_1(x,v,\{c\})}\,.$$ The analogous term in the periodic case is $$f^{in}(x-tv,v)\indc_{t<r^{D-1}\tau_r(x/r,-v)}$$ where $\tau_r(x,v)$ is the free-path length in the periodic billiard table $Z_r$ starting from $x\in Z_r$ in the direction $v\in\bS^1$. Passing to the $L^\infty$ weak-\* limit as $r\to 0$ reduces to finding $$\lim_{r\to 0}\indc_{t<r^{D-1}\tau_r(x/r,-v)} \hbox{ in }w^-L^\infty(\bR^2\times\bS^1)\,$$ — possibly after extracting a subsequence $r_n\downarrow 0$. As we shall see below, this involves the distribution of $\tau_r$ under the probability measure $\mu_r$ introduced in the discussion of Santaló’s formula — i.e. assuming the initial position $x$ and direction $v$ to be independent and uniformly distributed on $(\bR^D/\bZ^D)\times\bS^{D-1}$. We define the (scaled) distribution under $\mu_r$ of free path lengths $\tau_r$ to be $$\Phi_r(t):=\mu_r(\{(x,v)\in(Z_r/\bZ^D)\times\bS^{D-1}\,\|\,\tau_r(x,v)>t/r^{D-1}\})\,.$$ Notice the scaling $t\mapsto t/r^{D-1}$ in this definition. In space dimension $D$, Santaló’s formula shows that $$\iint_{\Gamma_r^+/\bZ^D}\tau_r(x,v)d\nu_r(x,v)\sim\tfrac{1}{\|\bB^{D-1}\|}r^{1-D}\,,$$ and this suggests that the free path length $\tau_r$ is a quantity of the order of $1/r^{D-1}$. (In fact, this argument is not entirely convincing, as we shall see below.) In any case, with this definition of the distribution of free path lengths under $\mu_r$, one arrives at the following estimate. In space dimension $D\ge 2$, there exists $0<C_D<C'_D$ such that $$\frac{C_D}{t}\le\Phi_r(t)\le\frac{C'_D}{t}\quad \hbox{ whenever }t>1\hbox{ and }\,0<r<\tfrac12\,.$$ The lower bound and the upper bound in this theorem are obtained by very different means. The upper bound follows from a Fourier series argument which is reminiscent of Siegel’s prood of the classical Minkowski convex body theorem (see [@Siegel1936; @Montgomery1994].) The lower bound, on the other hand, is obtained by working in physical space. Specifically, one uses a channel technique, introduced independently by P. Bleher [@Bleher1992] for the diffusive scaling. This lower bound alone has an important consequence: For each $r>0$, the average of the free path length (mean free path) under the probability measure $\mu_r$ is infinite: $$\int_{(Z_r/\bZ^D)\times\bS^{D-1}}\tau_r(x,v)d\mu_r(x,v)=+\infty\,.$$ Indeed, since $\Phi_r$ is the distribution of $\tau_r$ under $\mu_r$, one has $$\int_{(Z_r/\bZ^D)\times\bS^{D-1}}\tau_r(x,v)d\mu_r(x,v) =\int_0^\infty\Phi_r(t)dt\ge\int_1^\infty\frac{C_D}{t}dt=+\infty\,.$$ Recall that the average of the free path length unded the “other" natural probability measure $\nu_r$ is precisely Santaló’s formula for the mean free path: $$\ell_r=\iint_{\Gamma^+_r/\bZ^D}\tau_r(x,v)d\nu_r(x,v)=\frac{1-\|\bB^D\|r^D}{\|\bB^{D-1}\|r^{D-1}}\,.$$ One might wonder why averaging the free path length $\tau_r$ under the measures $\nu_r$ and $\mu_r$ actually gives two so different results. First observe that Santaló’s formula gives the mean free path under the probability measure $\nu_r$ concentrated on the surface of the obstacles, and is therefore irrelevant for particles that have not yet encountered an obstacle. Besides, by using the lemma that implies Santaló’s formula with $f(z)=\tfrac12z^2$, one has $$\iint_{(Z_r/\bZ^D)\times\bS^{D-1}}\tau_r(x,v)d\mu_r(x,v) =\frac1{\ell_r}\int_{\Gamma^+_r/\bZ^D}\tfrac12\tau_r(x,v)^2d\nu_r(x,v)\,.$$ Whenever the components $v_1,\ldots,v_D$ are independent over $\bQ$, the linear flow in the direction $v$ is topologically transitive and ergodic on the $D$-torus, so that $\tau_r(x,v)<+\infty$ for each $r>0$ and $x\in\bR^D$. On the other hand, $\tau_r(x,v)=+\infty$ for some $x\in\ Z_r$ (the periodic billiard table) whenever $v$ belongs to some specific class of unit vectors whose components are rationally dependent, a class that becomes dense in $\bS^{D-1}$ as $r\to 0^+$. Thus, $\tau_r$ is strongly oscillating (finite for irrational directions, possibly infinite for a class of rational directions that becomes dense as $r\to 0^+$), and this explains why $\tau_r$ doesn’t have a second moment under $\nu_r$. Proof of the Bourgain-Golse-Wennberg lower bound* We shall restrict our attention to the case of space dimension $D=2$. As mentionned above, there are infinite open strips included in $Z_r$ — i.e. never meeting any obstacle. Call a channel any such open strip of maximum width, and let $\cC_r$ be the set of all channels included in $Z_r$. If $S\in\cC_r$ and $x\in S$, define $\tau_S(x,v)$ the exit time from the channel starting from $x$ in the direction $v$, defined as $$\tau_S(x,v)=\inf\{t>0\,\|\,x+tv\in\d S\}\,,\quad (x,v)\in S\times\bS^1\,.$$ Obviously, any particle starting from $x$ in the channel $S$ in the direction $v$ must exit $S$ before it hits an obstacle (since no obstacle intersects $S$). Therefore $$\tau_r(x,v)\ge\sup\{\tau_S(x,v)\,\|\,S\in\cC_r\hbox{ s.t. }x\in S\}\,,$$ so that $$\Phi_r(t)\ge\mu_r\left(\bigcup_{S\in\cC_r}\{(x,v)\in (S/\bZ^2)\times\bS^1 \,\|\,\tau_S(x,v)>t/r\}\right)\,.$$ This observation suggests that one should carefully study the set of channels $\cC_r$. Given $\om\in\bS^1$, we define $$\cC_r(\om):=\{\hbox{channels of direction $\om$ in $\cC_r$}\}\,;$$ We begin with a lemma which describes the structure of $\cC_r(\om)$. Let $r\in[0,\tfrac12)$ and $\om\in\bS^1$. Then 1\) if $S\in\cC_r(\om)$, then $$\cC_r(\om):=\{S+k\,\|\,k\in\bZ^2\}\,;$$ 2) if $\cC_r(\om)\not=\varnothing$, then $$\om=\frac{(p,q)}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}$$ with $$(p,q)\in\bZ^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}\hbox{ such that } \hbox{g.c.d.}(p,q)=1\hbox{ and }\sqrt{p^2+q^2}<\frac1{2r}\,.$$ We henceforth denote by $\cA_r$ the set of all such $\om\in\bS^1$. Then 3\) for $\om\in\cA_r$, the elements of $\cC_r(\om)$ are open strips of width $$w(\om,r)=\frac1{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}-2r\,.$$ Statement 1) is obvious. As for statement 2), if $L$ is an infinite line of direction $\om\in\bS^1$ such that $\om_2/\om_1$ is irrational, then $L/\bZ^2$ is an orbit of a linear flow on $\bT^2$ with irrational slope $\om_2/\om_1$. Therefore $L/\bZ^2$ is dense in $\bT^2$ so that $L$ cannot be included in $Z_r$. Assume that $$\om=\frac{(p,q)}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\hbox{ with } (p,q)\in\bZ^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}\hbox{ coprime,}$$ and let $L,L'$ be two infinite lines with direction $\om$, with equations $$qx-py=a\hbox{ and }qx-py=a'\hbox{ respectively.}$$ Obviously $$\hbox{dist}(L,L')=\frac{\|a-a'\|}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\,.$$ ![A channel of direction $\om=\tfrac1{\sqrt{5}}(2,1)$; minimal distance $d$ between lines $L$ and $L'$ of direction $\om$ through lattice points](Channel){width="12.0cm"} If $L\cup L'$ is the boundary of a channel of direction $$\om=\tfrac{(p,q)}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\in\cA_0$$ included in $\bR^2\setminus\bZ^2$ — i.e. of an element of $\cC_0(\om)$, then $L$ and $L'$ intersect $\bZ^2$ so that $$a,a'\in p\bZ+q\bZ=\bZ$$ — the equality above following from the assumption that $p$ and $q$ are coprime. Since $\hbox{dist}(L,L')>0$ is minimal, then $\|a-a'\|=1$, so that $$\hbox{dist}(L,L')=\frac1{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\,.$$ Likewise, if $L\cup L'=\d S$ with $S\in\cC_r$, then $L$ and $L' $ are parallel infinite lines tangent to $\d Z_r$, and the minimal distance between any such distinct lines is $$\hbox{dist}(L,L')=\frac1{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}-2r\,.$$ This entails 2) and 3). Let $\om=\tfrac{(p,q)}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\in\cA_r$ and let $S\in\cC_r(\om)$. Cut $S$ into three parallel strips of equal width and call $\hat S$ the middle one. For each $t>1$ define $$\th\equiv\th(\om,r,t):=\arcsin\left(\frac{rw(\om,r)}{3t}\right)\,.$$ If $x\in\hat S$ and $v\in(R[-\th]\om,R[\th]\om)$, where $R[\th]$ designates the rotation of an angle $\th$, then $$\tau_S(x,v)\ge t/r\,.$$ Moreover $$\mu_r((\hat S/\bZ^2)\times(R[-\th]\om,R[\th]\om))=\tfrac23 w(\om,r)\th(\om,r,t)\,.$$ The proof of this lemma is perhaps best explained by considering Figure 11. ![Exit time from the middle third $\hat S$ of an infinite strip $S$ of width $w$](MidThird){width="12.0cm"} Recall that we need to estimate $$\mu_r\left(\bigcup_{S\in\cC_r}\{(x,v)\in (S/\bZ^2)\times\bS^1\,\|\,\tau_S(x,v)>t/r\}\right)\,.$$ Pick $$\cA_r\ni\om=\tfrac{(p,q)}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}} \not=\tfrac{(p',q')}{\sqrt{p'^2+q'^2}}=\om'\in\cA_r\,.$$ Observe that $$\begin{aligned} {}&\|\sin(\widehat{\om,\om'})\|=\tfrac{\|pq'-p'q\|}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}\sqrt{p'^2+q'^2}} \ge \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}\sqrt{p'^2+q'^2}} \\ &\ge\max\left(\tfrac{2r}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}},\tfrac{2r}{\sqrt{p'^2+q'^2}}\right) \ge\sin\th(\om,r,t)+\sin\th(\om',r,t) \\ &\ge\sin(\th(\om,r,t)+\th(\om',r,t)) \end{aligned}$$ whenever $t>1$. Then, whenever $S\in\cC_r(\om)$ and $S'\in\cC_r(\om')$ $$(\hat S\times(R[-\th]\om,R[\th]\om)))\cap(\hat S'\times(R[\th']\om',R[\th']\om'))) =\varnothing$$ with $\th=\th(\om,r,t)$, $\th'=\th'(\om',r,t)$ and $R[\th]=$the rotation of an angle $\th$. Moreover, if $\om=\tfrac{(p,q)}{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\in\cA_r$ then $$\|\hat S/\bZ^2\|=\tfrac13 w(\om,r)\sqrt{p^2+q^2}\,,$$ while $$\#\{S/\bZ^2\,\|\,S\in\cC_r(\om)\}=1\,.$$ ![image](ChannelPeriod){width="8.0cm"} A channel modulo $\bZ^2$ Therefore, whenever $t>1$ $$\begin{aligned} {}&\bigcup_{S\in\cC_r}(\hat S/\bZ^2)\times(R[-\th]\om,R[\th]\om) \\ &\qquad\subset\bigcup_{S\in\cC_r} \{(x,v)\in (S/\bZ^2)\times\bS^1\,\|\,\tau_S(x,v)>t/r\}\,. \end{aligned}$$ and the left-hand side is a disjoint union. Hence $$\begin{aligned} \mu_r\left(\bigcup_{S\in\cC_r}\{(x,v)\in (S/\bZ^2)\times\bS^1 \,\|\,\tau_S(x,v)>t/r\}\right) \\ \ge \sum_{\om\in\cA_r}\mu_r((\hat S/\bZ^2)\times(R[-\th]\om,R[\th]\om)) \\ = \sum_{g.c.d.(p,q)=1\atop p^2+q^2<1/4r^2} \tfrac13w(\om,r)\sqrt{p^2+q^2}\cdot 2\th(\om,r,t) \\ = \sum_{g.c.d.(p,q)=1\atop p^2+q^2<1/4r^2} \tfrac23\sqrt{p^2+q^2}w(\om,r)\arcsin\left(\frac{rw(\om,r)}{3t}\right) \\ \ge \sum_{g.c.d.(p,q)=1\atop p^2+q^2<1/4r^2} \tfrac23\sqrt{p^2+q^2}\frac{rw(\om,r)^2}{3t}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Now $$\sqrt{p^2+q^2}<1/4r\Rightarrow w(\om,r) =\tfrac1{\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}-2r\ge\tfrac1{2\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\,,$$ so that, eventually $$\begin{aligned} \Phi_r(t)\ge\sum_{g.c.d.(p,q)=1\atop p^2+q^2<1/16r^2} \tfrac23\sqrt{p^2+q^2}\frac{rw(\om,r)^2}{3t} \\ \ge\frac{r^2}{18t}\sum_{g.c.d.(p,q)=1\atop p^2+q^2<1/16r^2} \left[\frac{1}{r\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\right]\,. \end{aligned}$$ This gives the desired conclusion since $$\sum_{g.c.d.(p,q)=1\atop p^2+q^2<1/16r^2}\left[\frac{1}{4r\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\right] = \sum_{p^2+q^2<1/16r^2}1\sim\frac{\pi}{16r^2}\,.$$ The first equality is proved as follows: the term $$\left[\frac{1}{4r\sqrt{p^2+q^2}}\right]$$ is the number of integer points on the segment of length $1/4r$ in the direction $(p,q)$ with $(p,q)\in\bZ^2$ such that $g.c.d.(p,q)=1$. ![Black lines issued from the origin terminate at integer points with coprime coordinates; red lines terminate at integer points whose coordinates are not coprime](Klooster){width="10.0cm"} The Bourgain-Golse-Wennberg theorem raises the question, of whe- ther $\Phi_r(t)\simeq C/t$ in some sense as $r\to 0^+$ and $t\to+\infty$. Given the very different nature of the arguments used to establish the upper and the lower bounds in that theorem, this is a highly nontrivial problem, whose answer seems to be known only in space dimension $D=2$ so far. We shall return to this question later, and see that the $2$-dimensional situation is amenable to a class of very specific techniques based on continued fractions, that can be used to encode particle trajectories of the periodic Lorentz gas. A first answer to this question, in space dimension $D=2$, is given by the following Assume $D=2$ and define, for each $v\in\bS^1$, $$\phi_r(t\|v)=\mu_r(\{x\in Z_r/\bZ^2\,\|\,\tau_r(x,v)\ge t/r\}\,,\quad t\ge 0\,.$$ Then there exists $\Phi:\,\bR_+\to\bR_+$ such that $$\frac1{\|\ln\eps\|}\int_\eps^{1/4}\phi_r(t,v)\frac{dr}{r}\to\Phi(t)\hbox{ a.e. in }v\in\bS^1$$ in the limit as $\eps\to 0^+$. Moreover $$\Phi(t)\sim\frac1{\pi^2t}\hbox{ as }t\to+\infty\,.$$ Shortly after [@CagliotiFG2003] appeared, F. Boca and A. Zaharescu improved our method and managed to compute $\Phi(t)$ explicitly for each $t\ge 0$. One should keep in mind that their formula had been conjectured earlier by P. Dahlqvist [@Dahl], on the basis of a formal computation. \[T-BocaZaha\]For each $t>0$ $$\Phi_r(t)\to\Phi(t)=\int_t^\infty(s-t)g(s)ds$$ in the limit as $r\to 0^+$, where $$g(s)=\tfrac{24}{\pi^2}\times\left\{ \begin{matrix} 1\quad &s\in[0,1]\,,\\ \tfrac1s+2\left(1-\tfrac1s\right)^2\ln(1-\tfrac1s) -\tfrac12\left\|1-\tfrac2s\right\|^2\ln\|1-\tfrac2s\|\quad &s\in(1,\infty)\,. \end{matrix}\right.$$ ![Graph of $\Phi(t)$ (right) and $g(t)=\Phi''(t)$ (left)](GraphY "fig:"){width="6.8cm"}![Graph of $\Phi(t)$ (right) and $g(t)=\Phi''(t)$ (left)](GraphP "fig:"){width="6.8cm"} In the sequel, we shall return to the continued and Farey fractions techniques used in the proofs of these two results, and generalize them. A negative result for the Boltzmann-Grad limit\ of the periodic Lorentz gas =============================================== The material at our disposal so far provides us with a first answer — albeit a negative one — to the problem of determining the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas. For simplicity, we consider the case of a Lorentz gas enclosed in a periodic box $\bT^D=\bR^D/\bZ^D$ of unit side. The distance between neighboring obstacles is supposed to be $\eps^{D-1}$ with $0<\eps=1/n$, for $n\in\bN$ and $n>2$ so that $\eps<1/2$, while the obstacle radius is $\eps^D<\tfrac12\eps^{D-1}$ — so that obstacles never overlap. Define $$Y_\eps=\{x\in\bT^D\,\|\,\hbox{dist}(x,\eps^{D-1}\bZ^D)>\eps^D\} =\eps^{D-1}(Z_\eps/\bZ^D)\,.$$ For each $f^{in}\in C(\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})$, let $f_\eps$ be the solution of $$\begin{aligned} \d_tf_\eps+v\cdot\grad_xf_\eps=0\,,\quad &(x,v)\in Y_\eps\times\bS^{D-1} \\ f_\eps(t,x,v)=f_\eps(t,x,\cR[n_x]v)\,,\quad &(x,v)\in\d Y_\eps\times\bS^{D-1} \\ f_\eps\rstr_{t=0}=f^{in}\,,\quad& \end{aligned}$$ where $n_x$ is unit normal vector to $\d Y_\eps$ at the point $x$, pointing towards the interior of $Y_\eps$. By the method of characteristics $$f_\eps(t,x,v)= f^{in}\left(\eps^{D-1}X_\eps\left(-\tfrac{t}{\eps^{D-1}};\tfrac{x}{\eps^{D-1}},v\right); V_\eps\left(-\tfrac{t}{\eps^{D-1}};\tfrac{x}{\eps^{D-1}},v\right)\right)$$ where $(X_\eps,V_\eps)$ is the billiard flow in $Z_\eps$. The main result in this section is the following There exist initial data $f^{in}\equiv f^{in}(x)\in C(\bT^D)$ such that no subsequence of $f_\eps$ converges for the weak-\* topology of $L^\infty(\bR_+\times\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})$ to the solution $f$ of a linear Boltzmann equation of the form $$\begin{aligned} (\d_t+v\cdot\grad_x)f(t,x,v)&=\si\int_{\bS^{D-1}}p(v,v')(f(t,x,v')-f(t,x,v))dv' \\ f\rstr_{t=0}&=f^{in}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\si>0$ and $0\le p\in L^2(\bS^{D-1}\times\bS^{D-1})$ satisfies $$\int_{\bS^{D-1}}p(v,v')dv'=\int_{\bS^{D-1}}p(v',v)dv'=1\hbox{ a.e. in }v\in\bS^{D-1}\,.$$ This theorem has the following important — and perhaps surprising — consequence: the Lorentz kinetic equation cannot govern the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the particle density in the case of a periodic distribution of obstacles. The proof of the negative result above involves two different arguments: a\) the existence of a spectral gap for any linear Boltzmann equation, and b\) the lower bound for the distribution of free path lengths in the Bourgain-Golse-Wennberg theorem. With $\si>0$ and $p$ as above, consider the unbounded operator $A$ on $L^2(\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})$ defined by $$(A\phi)(x,v)= -v\cdot\grad_x\phi(x,v)-\si\phi(x,v)+\si\int_{\bS^{D-1}}p(v,v')\phi(x,v')dv'\,,$$ with domain $$D(A)=\{\phi\in L^2(\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})\,\| \,v\cdot\grad_x\phi\in L^2(\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})\}\,.$$ Then There exists positive constants $C$ and $\g$ such that $$\\|e^{tA}\phi-\la\phi\ra\\|_{L^2(\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})} \le Ce^{-\g t}\\|\phi\\|_{L^2(\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})}\,,\quad t\ge 0\,,$$ for each $\phi\in L^2(\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})$, where $$\la\phi\ra=\tfrac1{\|\bS^{D-1}\|}\iint_{\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1}}\phi(x,v)dxdv\,.$$ Taking this theorem for granted, we proceed to the next step in the proof, leading to an explicit lower bound for the particle density. Assume that $f^{in}\equiv f^{in}(x)\ge 0$ on $\bT^D$. Then $$f_\eps(t,x,v)\ge g_\eps(t,x,v)=f^{in}(x-tv)\indc_{Y_\eps}(x) \indc_{\eps^{D-1}\tau_\eps(x/\eps^{D-1},v)>t}\,.$$ Indeed, $g$ is the density of particles with the same initial data as $f$, but assuming that each particle disappear when colliding with an obstacle instead of being reflected. Then $$\indc_{Y_\eps}(x)\to 1\hbox{ a.e. on $\bT^D$ and }\|\indc_{Y_\eps}(x)\|\le 1$$ while, after extracting a subsequence if needed, $$\indc_{\eps^{D-1}\tau_\eps(x/\eps^{D-1},v)>t} \rightharpoonup\Psi(t,v)\hbox{ in }L^\infty(\bR_+\times\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1}) \hbox{ weak-}\,.$$ Therefore, if $f$ is a weak-\ limit point of $f_\eps$ in $L^\infty(\bR_+\times\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})$ as $\eps\to 0$ $$f(t,x,v)\ge f^{in}(x-tv)\Psi(t,v)\hbox{ for a.e. }(t,x,v)\,.$$ Denoting by $dv$ the uniform probability measure on $\bS^{D-1}$ $$\begin{aligned} \tfrac1{\|\bS^{D-1}\|}\iint_{\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1}}&f(t,x,v)^2dxdv \\ &\ge \tfrac1{\|\bS^{D-1}\|}\iint_{\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1}}f^{in}(x-tv)^2\Psi(t,v)^2dxdv \\ &= \int_{\bT^D}f^{in}(y)^2dy\tfrac1{\|\bS^{D-1}\|}\int_{\bS^{D-1}}\Psi(t,v)^2dv \\ &\ge \\|f^{in}\\|^2_{L^2(\bT^D)}\left(\tfrac1{\|\bS^{D-1}\|}\int_{\bS^{D-1}}\Psi(t,v)dv\right)^2 \\ &= \\|f^{in}\\|^2_{L^2(\bT^D)}\Phi(t)^2\,. \end{aligned}$$ By the Bourgain-Golse-Wennberg lower bound on the distribution $\Phi$ of free path lengths $$\\|f(t,\cdot,\cdot)\\|_{L^2(\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})}\ge \frac{C_D}{t}\\|f^{in}\\|_{L^2(\bT^D)}\,,\quad t>1\,.$$ On the other hand, by the spectral gap estimate, if $f$ is a solution of the linear Boltzmann equation, one has $$\\|f(t,\cdot,\cdot)\\|_{L^2(\bT^D\times\bS^{D-1})} \le\int_{\bT^D}f^{in}(y)dy+Ce^{-\g t}\\|f^{in}\\|_{L^2(\bT^D)}$$ so that $$\frac{C_D}{t}\le\frac{\\|f^{in}\\|_{L^1(\bT^D)}}{\\|f^{in}\\|_{L^2(\bT^D)}}+Ce^{-\g t}$$ for each $t>1$. Pick $\rho$ to be a bump function supported near $x=0$ and such that $$\int\rho(x)^2dx=1\,.$$ Take $f^{in}$ to be $x\mapsto\l^{D/2}\rho(\l x)$ periodicized, so that $$\int_{\bT^D}f^{in}(x)^2dx=1\,, \hbox{ while }\int_{\bT^D}f^{in}(y)dy=\l^{-D/2}\int\rho(x)dx\,.$$ For such initial data, the inequality above becomes $$\frac{C_D}{t}\le\l^{-D/2}\int\rho(x)dx+Ce^{-\g t}\,.$$ Conclude by choosing $\l$ so that $$\l^{-D/2}\int\rho(x)dx<\sup_{t>1}\left(\frac{C_D}{t}-Ce^{-\g t}\right)>0\,.$$ Remarks: 1\) The same result (with the same proof) holds for any smooth obstacle shape included in a shell $$\{x\in\bR^D\,\|\,C\eps^D<\hbox{dist}(x,\eps^{D-1}\bZ^D)<C'\eps^D\}\,.$$ 2\) The same result (with same proof) holds if the specular reflection boundary condition is replaced by more general boundary conditions, such as absorption (partial or complete) of the particles at the boundary of the obstacles, diffuse reflection, or any convex combination of specular and diffuse reflection — in the classical kinetic theory of gases, such boundary conditons are known as “accomodation boundary conditions". 3\) But introducing even the smallest amount of stochasticity in any periodic configuration of obstacles can again lead to a Boltzmann-Grad limit that is described by the Lorentz kinetic model. Example. (Wennberg-Ricci [@WennRicci2004]) In space dimension $2$, take obstacles that are disks of radius $r$ centered at the vertices of the lattice $r^{1/(2-\eta)}\bZ^2$, assuming that $0<\eta<1$. Santaló’s formula suggests that the free-path lengths scale like $r^{\eta/(2-\eta)}\to 0$. Suppose the obstacles are removed independently with large probability — specifically, with probability $p=1-r^{\eta/(2-\eta)}$. In that case, the Lorentz kinetic equation governs the 1-particle density in the Boltzmann-Grad limit as $r\to 0^+$. Having explained why neither the Lorentz kinetic equation nor any linear Boltzmann equation can govern the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas, in the remaining part of these notes, we build the necessary material used in the description of that limit. Coding particle trajectories with continued fractions ===================================================== With the Bourgain-Golse-Wennberg lower bound for the distribution of free path lengths in the periodic Lorentz gas, we have seen that the $1$-particle phase space density is bounded below by a quantity that is incompatible with the spectral gap of any linear Boltzmann equation — in particular with the Lorentz kinetic equation. In order to further analyze the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas, we cannot content ourselves with even more refined estimates on the distribution of free path lengths, but we need a convenient way to encode particle trajectories. More precisely, the two following problems must be answered somehow: for a particle leaving the surface of an obstacle in a given direction, to find the position of its next collision with an obstacle; average — in some sense to be defined — in order to eliminate the direction dependence. From now on, our discussion is limited to the case of spatial dimension $D=2$, as we shall use continued fractions, a tool particularly well adapted to understanding the rational approximation of real numbers. Treating the case of a space dimension $D>2$ along the same lines would require a better understanding of simultaneous rational approximation of $D-1$ real numbers (by $D-1$ rational numbers with the same denominator), a notoriously more difficult problem. We first introduce some basic geometrical objects used in coding particle trajectories. The first such object is the notion of impact parameter. For a particle with velocity $v\in\bS^1$ located at the position $x$ on the surface of an obstacle (disk of radius $r$), we define its impact parameter $h_r(x,v)$ by the formula $$h_r(x,v)=\sin(\widehat{n_x,v})\,.$$ In other words, the absolute value of the impact parameter $h_r(x,v)$ is the distance of the center of the obstacle to the infinite line of direction $v$ passing through $x$ . Obviously $$h_r(x,\cR[n_x]v)=h_r(x,v)$$ where we recall the notation $\cR[n]v=v-2v\cdot nn$. ![The impact parameter $h$ corresponding with the collision point $x$ at the surface of an obstacle, and a direction $v$](Impact){width="10.0cm"} The next important object in computing particle trajectories in the Lorentz gas is the transfer map. For a particle leaving the surface of an obstacle in the direction $v$ and with impact parameter $h'$, define $$T_r(h',v)=(s,h)\hbox{ with } \left\{\begin{array}{l} s=\hbox{ $r\times$ distance to the next collision point} \\ h=\hbox{ impact parameter at the next collision} \end{array}\right.$$ Particle trajectories in the Lorentz gas are completely determined by the transfer map $T_r$ and its iterates. Therefore, a first step in finding the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic, $2$-dimensional Lorentz gas, is to compute the limit of $T_r$ as $r\to 0^+$, in some sense that will be explained later. ![The transfer map](TransferMap){width="10.0cm"} At first sight, this seems to be a desperately hard problem to solve, as particle trajectories in the periodic Lorentz gas depend on their directions and the obstacle radius in the strongest possible way. Fortunately, there is an interesting property of rational approximation on the real line that greatly reduces the complexity of this problem. The 3-length theorem on a flat $2$-torus with a disk removed, consider a linear flow with irrational slope. What is the longest orbit? On a flat $2$-torus with a segment removed, consider a linear flow with irrational slope $0<\a<1$. The orbits of this flow have at most $3$ different lengths — exceptionally $2$, but generically $3$. Moreover, in the generic case where these orbits have exactly $3$ different lengths, the length of the longest orbit is the sum of the two other lengths. These lengths are expressed in terms of the continued fraction expansion of the slope $\a$. ![Three types of orbits: the blue orbit is the shortest, the red one is the longest, while the green one is of the intermediate length.The black segment removed is orthogonal to the direction of the trajectories.](BK0){width="9.0cm"} Together with E. Caglioti in [@CagliotiFG2003], we proposed the idea of using the Blank-Krikorian $3$-length theorem to analyze particle paths in the $2$-dimensional periodic Lorentz gas. More precisely, orbits with the same lengths in the Blank-Krikorian theorem define a $3$-term partition of the flat $2$-torus into parallel strips, whose lengths and widths are computed exactly in terms of the continued fraction expansion of the slope (see Figure 17[^1].) The collision pattern for particles leaving the surface of one obstacle — and therefore the transfer map — can be explicitly determined in this way, for a.e. direction $v\in\bS^1$. ![The $3$-term partition. The shortest orbits are collected in the blue strip, the longest orbits in the red strip, while the orbits of intermediate length are collected in the green strip.](BK1){width="10.0cm"} In fact, there is a classical result known as the $3$-length theorem, which is related to Blank-Krikorian’s. Whereas the Blank-Krikorian theorem considers a linear flow with irrational slope on the flat $2$-torus, the classical $3$-length theorem is a statement about rotations of an irrational angle — i.e. about sections of the linear flow with irrational slope. Let $\a\in(0,1)\setminus\bQ$ and $N\ge 1$. The sequence $$\{n\a\,\|\,0\le n\le N\}$$ defines $N+1$ intervals on the circle of unit length $\simeq\bR/\bZ$. The lengths of these intervals take at most $3$ different values. This striking result was conjectured by H. Steinhaus, and proved in 1957 independently by P. Erdös, G. Hajos, J. Suranyi, N. Swieczkowski, P. Szüsz — reported in [@Suranyi1958], and by Vera Sòs [@Sos1958]. ![Left: Hugo D. Steinhaus (1887-1972); right: Vera T. Sós](HDSteinhaus.jpeg "fig:"){width="5.05cm"}![Left: Hugo D. Steinhaus (1887-1972); right: Vera T. Sós](VTSos.jpg "fig:"){width="5.60cm"} As we shall see, the $3$-length theorem (in either form) is the key to encoding particle paths in the $2$-dimensional Lorentz gas. We shall need explicitly the formulas giving the lengths and widths of the $3$ strips in the partition of the flat $2$-torus defined by the Blank-Krikorian theorem. As this is based on the continued fraction expansion of the slope of the linear flow considered in the Blank-Krikorian theorem, we first recall some basic facts about continued fractions. An excellent reference for more information on this subject is [@Khinchin1964]. Continued fractions Assume $0<v_2<v_1$ and set $\a=v_2/v_1$, and consider the continued fraction expansion of $\a$: $$\a=[0;a_0,a_1,a_2,\ldots] =\frac1{\displaystyle a_0+\frac1{\displaystyle a_1+\ldots}}\,.$$ Define the sequences of convergents $(p_n,q_n)_{n\ge 0}$ — meaning that $$\frac{p_{n+2}}{q_{n+2}}=[0;a_0,\ldots,a_n]\,,\quad n\ge 2$$ — by the recursion formulas $$\begin{array}{ll} p_{n+1}=a_np_n+p_{n-1}\,,\quad &p_0=1\,,\,\,p_1=0\,, \\ q_{n+1}=a_nq_n+q_{n-1}\quad &q_0=0\,,\,\,q_1=1\,. \end{array}$$ Finally, let $d_n$ denote the sequence of errors $$d_n=\|q_n\alpha-p_n\|=(-1)^{n-1}(q_n\a-p_n)\,,\quad n\ge 0\,,$$ so that $$d_{n+1}=-a_nd_n+d_{n-1}\,,\quad d_0=1\,,\,\,d_1=\a\,.$$ The sequence $d_n$ is decreasing and converges to $0$, at least exponentially fast. (In fact, the irrational number for which the rational approximation by continued fractions is the slowest is the one for which the sequence of denominators $q_n$ have the slowest growth, i.e. the golden mean $$\th=[0;1,1,\ldots]=\frac1{1+\displaystyle\frac1{1+\ldots}}=\frac{\sqrt{5}-1}2\,.$$ The sequence of errors associated with $\th$ satisfies $d_{n+1}=-d_n+d_{n-1}$ for each $n\ge 1$ with $d_0=1$ and $d_1=\th$, so that $d_n=\th^n$ for each $n\ge 0$.) By induction, one verifies that $$q_nd_{n+1}+q_{n+1}d_n=1\,,\quad n\ge 0\,.$$ Notation: we write $p_n(\a),q_n(\a),d_n(\a)$ to indicate the dependence of these quantities in $\a$. Collision patterns The Blank-Krikorian $3$-length theorem has the following consequence, of fundamental importance in our analysis. Any particle leaving the surface of one obstacle in some irrational direction $v$ will next collide with one of at most $3$ — exceptionally 2 — other obstacles. Any such collision pattern involving the $3$ obstacles seen by the departing particle in the direction of its velocity is completely determined by exactly $4$ parameters, computed in terms of the continued fraction expansion of $v_2/v_1$ — in the case where $0<v_2<v_1$, to which the general case can be reduced by obvious symmetry arguments. ![Collision pattern seen from the surface of one obstacle. Here, $\eps=2r/v_1$.](3obst){width="11.0cm"} Assume therefore $0<v_2<v_1$ with $\a=v_2/v_1\notin\bQ$. Henceforth, we set $\eps=2r\sqrt{1+\a^2}$ and define $${\begin{aligned}}N(\alpha,\eps)&=\inf\{n\ge 0\,\|\,d_n(\a)\le\eps\}\,, \\ k(\alpha,\eps)&=-\left[\frac{\eps-d_{N(\alpha,\eps)-1}(\a)}{d_{N(\alpha,\eps)}(\a)}\right]\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ The parameters defining the collision pattern are $A,B,Q$ — as they appear on the previous figure — together with an extra parameter $\Si\in\{\pm 1\}$. Here is how they are computed in terms of the continued fraction expansion of $\a=v_2/v_1$: $${\begin{aligned}}A(v,r)&=1-\tfrac{d_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)}{\eps}\,, \\ B(v,r)&=1-\tfrac{d_{N(\a,\eps)-1}(\a)}{\eps}+\tfrac{k(\a,\eps)d_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)}{\eps}\,, \\ Q(v,r)&=\eps q_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)\,, \\ \Si(v,r)&=(-1)^{N(\a,\eps)}\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ The extra-parameter $\Si$ in the list above has the following geometrical meaning. It determines the relative position of the closest and next to closest obstacles seen from the particle leaving the surface of the obstacle at the origin in the direction $v$. The case represented on the figure where the closest obstacle is on top of the strip consisting of the longest particle path corresponds with $\Si=+1$, the case where that obstacle is at the bottom of this same strip corresponds with $\Si=-1$. The figure above showing one example of collision pattern involves still another parameter, denoted $Q'$ on that figure. This parameter $Q'$ is not independent from $A,B,Q$, since one must have $$AQ+BQ'+(1-A-B)(Q+Q')=1$$ each term in this sum corresponding to the surface of one of the three strips in the 3-term partition of the 2-torus. (Remember that the length of the longest orbit in the Blank-Krikorian theorem is the sum of the two other lengths.) Therefore $$Q'(v,r)=\frac{1-Q(v,r)(1-B(v,r))}{1-A(v,r)}\,.$$ Once the structure of collision patterns elucidated with the help of the Blank-Krikorian variant of the $3$-length theorem, we return to our original problem, namely that of computing the transfer map. In the next proposition, we shall see that the transfer map in a given, irrational direction $v\in\bS^1$ can be expressed explicitly in terms of the parameters $A,B,Q,\Si$ defining the collision pattern correponding with this direction. Denote $$\bK:=]0,1[^3\times\{\pm1\}$$ and let $(A,B,Q,\Si)\in\bK$ be the parameters defining the collision pattern seen by a particle leaving the surface of one obstacle in the direction $v$. Set $$\begin{array}{rl} \mathbf{T}_{A,B,Q,\Si}(h')=&(Q,h'-2\Si(1-A)) \\ \hbox{if }&1-2A<\Si h'\le1\,, \\ \mathbf{T}_{A,B,Q,\Si}(h')=&\left(Q',h'+2\Si (1-B)\right) \\ \hbox{if }&-1\le\Si h'<-1+2B\,, \\ \mathbf{T}_{A,B,Q,\Si }(h')=&\left(Q'+Q,h'+2\Si (A-B)\right) \\ \hbox{if }&-1+2B\le\Si h'\le1-2A\,. \end{array}$$ With this notation, the transfer map is essentially given by the explicit formula $\mathbf{T}_{A,B,Q,\Si}$, except for an error of the order $O(r^2)$ on the free-path length from obstacle to obstacle. One has $$T_r(h',v)=\mathbf{T}_{(A,B,Q,\Si)(v,r)}(h')+(O(r^2),0)$$ in the limit as $r\to 0^+$. In fact, the proof of this proposition can be read on the figure above that represents a generic collision pattern. The first component in the explicit formula $$\mathbf{T}_{(A,B,Q,\Si)(v,r)}(h')$$ represents exactly $r\times$ the distance between the vertical segments that are the projections of the diameters of the $4$ obstacles on the vertical ordinate axis. Obviously, the free-path length from obstacle to obstacle is the distance between the corresponding vertical segments, minus a quantity of the order $O(r)$ that is the distance from the surface of the obstacle to the corresponding vertical segment. On the other hand, the second component in the same explicit formula is exact, as it relates impact parameters, which are precisely the intersections of the infinite line that contains the particle path with the vertical segments corresponding with the two obstacles joined by this particle path. If we summarize what we have done so far, we see that we have solved our first problem stated at the beginning of the present section, namely that of finding a convenient way of coding the billiard flow in the periodic case and for space dimension $2$, for a.e. given direction $v$. An ergodic theorem for collision patterns ========================================= It remains to solve the second problem, namely, to find a convenient way of averaging the computation above so as to get rid of the dependence on the direction $v$. Before going further in this direction, we need to recall some known facts about the ergodic theory of continued fractions. The Gauss map Consider the Gauss map, which is defined on all irrational numbers in $(0,1)$ as follows: $$T:\,(0,1)\setminus\bQ\ni x \mapsto Tx=\tfrac1x-\left[\tfrac1x\right]\in(0,1)\setminus\bQ\,.$$ This Gauss map has the following invariant probability measure — found by Gauss himself: $$dg(x)=\tfrac1{\ln 2}\frac{dx}{1+x}\,.$$ Moreover, the Gauss map $T$ is ergodic for the invariant measure $dg(x)$. By Birkhoff’s theorem, for each $f\in L^1(0,1;dg)$ $$\frac1N\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}f(T^kx)\to\int_0^1f(z)dg(z)\hbox{ a.e. in }x\in(0,1)$$ as $N\to+\infty$. How the Gauss map is related to continued fractions is explained as follows: for $$\a=[0;a_0,a_1,a_2,\ldots]=\frac1{\displaystyle a_0+\frac1{\displaystyle a_1+\ldots}} \in(0,1)\setminus\bQ$$ the terms $a_k(\a)$ of the continued fraction expansion of $\a$ can be computed from the iterates of the Gauss map acting on $\a$: specifically $$a_k(\a)=\left[\frac1{T^k\a}\right]\,,\quad k\ge 0$$ As a consequence, the Gauss map corresponds with the shift to the left on infinite sequences of positive integers arising in the continued fraction expansion of irrationals in $(0,1)$. In other words, $$T[0;a_0,a_1,a_2,\ldots]=[0;a_1,a_2,a_3\ldots]\,,$$ equivalently recast as $$a_n(T\a)=a_{n+1}(\a)\,,\quad n\ge 0\,.$$ Thus, the terms $a_k(\a)$ of the continued fraction expansion of any $\a\in(0,1)\setminus\bQ$ are easily expressed in terms of the sequence of iterates $(T^k\a)_{k\ge 0}$ of the Gauss map acting on $\a$. The error $d_n(\a)$ is also expressed in term of that same sequence $(T^k\a)_{k\ge 0}$, by equally simple formulas. Starting from the induction relation on the error terms $$d_{n+1}(\a)=-a_n(\a)d_n(\a)+d_{n-1}(\a)\,,\quad d_0(\a)=1\,,\,\,d_1(\a)=\a$$ and the explicit formula relating $a_n(T\a)$ to $a_n(\a)$, we see that $$\a d_n(T\a)=d_{n+1}(\a)\,,\quad n\ge 0\,.$$ This entails the formula $$d_n(\a)=\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}T^k\a\,,\quad n\ge 0\,.$$ Observe that, for each $\th\in[0,1]\setminus\bQ$, one has $$\th\cdot T\th<\tfrac12\,,$$ so that $$d_n(\a)\le 2^{-[n/2]}\,,\quad n\ge 0\,,$$ which establishes the exponential decay mentionned above. (As a matter of fact, exponential convergence is the slowest possible for the continued fraction algorithm, as it corresponds with the rational approximation of algebraic numbers of degree $2$, which are the hardest to approximate by rational numbers.) Unfortunately, the dependence of $q_n(\a)$ in $\a$ is more complicated. Yet one can find a way around this, with the following observation. Starting from the relation $$q_{n+1}(\a)d_n(\a)+q_n(\a)d_{n+1}(\a)=1\,,$$ we see that $${\begin{aligned}}q_n(\a)d_{n-1}(\a)&=\sum_{j=1}^n(-1)^{n-j}\frac{d_n(\a)d_{n-1}(\a)}{d_j(\a)d_{j-1}(\a)} \\ &=\sum_{j=1}^n(-1)^{n-j}\prod_{k=j}^{n-1}T^{k-1}\a T^k\a \,. {\end{aligned}}$$ Using once more the inequality $\th\cdot T\th<\tfrac12$ for $\th\in[0,1]\setminus\bQ$, one can truncate the summation above at the cost of some exponentially small error term. Specifically, one finds that $${\begin{aligned}}{}&\left\|q_n(\a)d_{n-1}(\a) -\sum_{j=n-l}^n(-1)^{n-j}\frac{d_n(\a)d_{n-1}(\a)}{d_j(\a)d_{j-1}(\a)}\right\| \\ &\qquad= \left\|q_n(\a)d_{n-1}(\a) -\sum_{j=n-l}^n(-1)^{n-j}\prod_{k=j}^{n-1}T^{k-1}\a T^k\a\right\|\le 2^{-l}\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ More information on the ergodic theory of continued fractions can be found in the classical monograph [@Khinchin1964] on continued fractions, and in Sinai’s book on ergodic theory [@Sinai1994]. An ergodic theorem We have seen in the previous section that the transfer map satisfies $$T_r(h',v)=\mathbf{T}_{(A,B,Q,\Si)(v,r)}(h')+(O(r^2),0)\hbox{ as }r\to 0^+$$ for each $v\in\bS^1$ such that $v_2/v_1\in(0,1)\setminus\bQ$. Obviously, the parameters $(A,B,Q,\Si)$ are extremely sensitive to variations in $v$ and $r$ as $r\to 0^+$, so that even the explicit formula for $T_{A,B,Q,\Si}$, is not too useful in itself. Each time one must handle a strongly oscillating quantity such as the free path length $\tau_r(x,v)$ or the transfer map $T_r(h',v)$, it is usually a good idea to consider the distribution of that quantity under some natural probability measure than the quantity itself. Following this principle, we are led to consider the family of probability measures in $(s,h)\in\bR_+\times[-1,1]$ $$\de((s,h)-T_r(h',v))\,,$$ or equivalently $$\de((s,h)-T_{(A,B,Q,\Si)(v,r)}(h'))\,.$$ A first obvious idea would be to average out the dependence in $v$ of this family of measures: as we shall see later, this is not an easy task. A somewhat less obvious idea is to average over obstacle radius. Perhaps surprisingly, this is easier than averaging over the direction $v$. That averaging over obstacle radius is a natural operation in this context can be explained by the following observation. We recall that the sequence of errors $d_n(\a)$ in the continued fraction expansion of an irrational $\a\in(0,1)$ satisfies $$\a d_n(T\a)=d_{n+1}(\a)\,,\quad n\ge 0\,,$$ so that $$N(\a,\eps)=\inf\{n\ge 1\,\|\,d_n(\a)\le\eps\}$$ is transformed by the Gauss map as follows: $$N(a,\eps)=N(T\a,\eps/\a)+1\,.$$ In other words, the transfer map for the $2$-dimensional periodic Lorentz gas in the billiard table $Z_r$ (meaning, with circular obstacles of radius $r$ centered at the vertices of the lattice $\bZ^2$) in the direction $v$ corresponding with the slope $\a$ is essentially the same as for the billiard table $Z_{r/\a}$ but in the direction corresponding with the slope $T\a$. Since the problem is invariant under the transformation $$\a\mapsto T\a\,,\qquad r\mapsto r/\a$$ this suggests the idea of averaging with respect to the scale invariant measure in the variable $r$, i.e. $\frac{dr}{r}$ on $\bR_+^$. The key result in this direction is the following ergodic lemma for functions that depend on finitely many* $d_n$s. For $\a\in(0,1)\setminus\bQ$, set $$N(\a,\eps)=\inf\{n\ge 0\,\|\,d_n(\a)\le\eps\}\,.$$ For each $m\ge 0$ and each $f\in C(\bR_+^{m+1})$, one has $$\frac1{\|\ln\eta\|}\int_\eta^{1/4}f\left(\frac{d_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)}{\eps},\ldots, \frac{d_{N(\a,\eps)-m}(\a)}{\eps}\right)\frac{d\eps}\eps\to L_m(f)$$ a.e. in $\a\in(0,1)$ as $\eta\to 0^+$, where the limit $L_m(f)$ is independent of $\a$. With this lemma, we can average over obstacle radius any function that depends on collision patterns, i.e. any function of the parameters $A,B,Q,\Si$. \[T-ErgoABQsi\] Let $\bK=[0,1]^3\times\{\pm1\}$. For each $F\in C(\bK)$, there exists $\cL(F)\in\bR$ independent of $v$ such that $$\frac1{\ln(1/\eta)}\int_\eta^{1/2}F(A(v,r),B(v,r),Q(v,r),\Si(v,r))\frac{dr}{r}\to\cL(F)$$ for a.e. $v\in\mathbf{S}^1$ such that $0<v_2<v_1$ in the limit as $\eta\to 0^+$. First eliminate the $\Si$ dependence by decomposing $$F(A,B,Q,\Si)=F_+(A,B,Q)+\Si F_-(A,B,Q)\,.$$ Hence it suffices to consider the case where $F\equiv F(A,B,Q)$. Setting $\a=v_2/v_1$ and $\eps=2r/v_1$, we recall that $${\begin{aligned}}A(v,r)&\hbox{ is a function of }\frac{d_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)}{\eps}\,, \\ B(v,r)&\hbox{ is a function of }\frac{d_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)}{\eps} \hbox{ and }\frac{d_{N(\a,\eps)-1}(\a)}{\eps}\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ As for the dependence of $F$ on $Q$, proceed as follows: in $F(A,B,Q)$, replace $Q(v,r)$ with $$\frac{\eps}{d_{N(\a,\eps)-1}} \sum_{j=N(\a,\eps)-l}^{N(\a,\eps)}(-1)^{{N(\a,\eps)}-j} \frac{d_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)d_{{N(\a,\eps)}-1}(\a)}{d_j(\a)d_{j-1}(\a)}\,,$$ at the expense of an error term of the order $$O(\hbox{modulus of continuity of $F$}(2^{-m}))\to 0\hbox{ as }l\to 0\,,$$ uniformly as $\eps\to 0^+$. This substitution leads to an integrand of the form $$f\left(\frac{d_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)}{\eps}, \ldots,\frac{d_{N(\a,\eps)-m-1}(\a)}{\eps}\right)$$ to which we apply the ergodic lemma above: its Cesàro mean converges, in the small radius limit, to some limit $\cL_m(F)$ independent of $\a$. By uniform continuity of $F$, one finds that $$\|\cL_m(F)-\cL_{m'}(F)\|=O(\hbox{modulus of continuity of $F$}(2^{-m\vee m'}))$$ (with the notation $m\vee m'=\max(v,v')$), so that $\cL_m(F)$ is a Cauchy sequence as $m\to\infty$. Hence $$\cL_m(F)\to\cL(F)\hbox{ as }m\to\infty$$ and with the error estimate above for the integrand, one finds that $$\frac1{\ln(1/\eta)}\int_\eta^{1/2}F(A(v,r),B(v,r),Q(v,r),\Si(v,r))\frac{dr}{r}\to\cL(F)$$ as $\eta\to 0^+$. With the ergodic theorem above, and the explicit approximation of the transfer map expressed in terms of the parameters $(A,B,Q,\Si)$ that determine collision patterns in any given direction $v$, we easily arrive at the following notion of a “probability of transition" for a particle leaving the surface of an obstacle with an impact parameter $h'$ to hit the next obstacle on its trajectory at time $s/r$ with an impact parameter $h$. For each $h'\in[-1,1]$, there exists a probability density $P(s,h\|h')$ on $\bR_+\times[-1,1]$ such that, for each $f\in C(\bR_+\times[-1,1])$, $$\frac1{\|\ln\eta\|}\int_\eta^{1/4}f(T_r(h',v))\frac{dr}{r}\to\int_0^\infty\int_{-1}^1f(s,h)P(s,h\|h')dsdh$$ a.e. in $v\in\bS^1$ as $\eta\to 0^+$. In other words, the transfer map converges in distribution and in the sense of Cesàro, in the small radius limit, to a transition probability $P(s,h\|h')$ that is independent of $v$. We are therefore left with the following problems: a\) to compute the transition probability $P(s,h\|h')$ explicitly and discuss its properties, and b\) to explain the role of this transition probability in the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas dynamics. Explicit computation\ of the transition probability $P(s,h\|h')$ ========================================= Most unfortunately, our argument leading to the existence of the limit $\cL(F)$, the core result of the previous section, cannot be used for computing explicitly the value $\cL(F)$. Indeed, the convergence proof is based on the ergodic lemma in the last section, coupled to a sequence of approximations of the parameter $Q$ in collision patterns that involve only finitely many error terms $d_n(\a)$ in the continued fraction expansion of $\a$. The existence of the limit is obtained through Cauchy’s criterion, precisely because of the difficulty in finding an explicit expression for the limit. Nevertheless, we have arrived at the following expression for the transition probability $P(s,h\|h')$: \[T-TransiProba\] The transition probability density $P(s,h\|h')$ is expressed in terms of $a=\tfrac12\|h-h'\|$ and $b=\tfrac12\|h+h'\|$ by the explicit formula $${\begin{aligned}}P(s,h\|h')=\frac{3}{\pi^2sa}\Big[\left((s-\tfrac12sa)\!\wedge\!(1+\tfrac12sa) \!-\!(1\!\vee\!(\tfrac12s+\tfrac12sb)\right)_+ \\ +\!\left((s-\textstyle\frac12sa)\!\wedge\! 1\! -\!((\tfrac12s+\tfrac12sb)\!\vee\!\left(1\!-\!\textstyle\frac12sa\right)\right)_+ \\ \!+\!sa\!\wedge\!\|1-s\|\mathbf{1}_{s<1}+(sa\!-\!\|1-s\|)_+\Big]\,, {\end{aligned}}$$ with the notations $x\wedge y=\min(x,y)$ and $x\vee y=\max(x,y)$. Moreover, the function $$(s,h,h')\mapsto (1+s)P(s,h\|h')\hbox{ belongs to }L^2(\bR_+\times[-1,1]^2)\,.$$ In fact, the key result in the proof of this theorem is the asymptotic distribution of $3$-obstacle collision patterns — i.e. the computation of the limit $\cL(f)$, whose existence has been proved in the last section’s proposition. \[T-Meas-m\] Define $\bK=[0,1]^3\times\{\pm1\}$; then, for each $F\in C(\bK)$ $${\begin{aligned}}\frac1{\|\ln\eta\|}\int_\eta^{1/4}F((A,B,Q,\Si)(v,r))\frac{dr}{r} \to\cL(F) \\ =\int_{\bK}F(A,B,Q,\Si)dm(A,B,Q,\Si)\hbox{ a.e. in }v\in\bS^1 {\end{aligned}}$$ as $\eta\to 0^+$, where $${\begin{aligned}}dm(A,B,Q,\Si)&=dm_0(A,B,Q)\otimes\tfrac12(\de_{\Si=1}+\de_{\Si=-1})\,, \\ dm_0(A,B,Q)&=\tfrac{12}{\pi^2} \indc_{0<A<1}\indc_{0<B<1-A}\indc_{0<Q<\frac1{2-A-B}} \frac{dAdBdQ}{1-A}\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ Before giving an idea of the proof of the theorem above on the distribution of $3$-obstacle collision patterns, it is perhaps worthwhile explaining why the measure $m$ above is somehow natural in the present context. To begin with, the constraints $0<A<1$ and $0<B<1-A$ have an obvious geometric meaning (see figure 18 on collision patterns.) More precisely, the widths of the three strips in the $3$-term partition of the $2$-torus minus the slit constructed in the penultimate section (as a consequence of the Blank-Krikorian $3$-length theorem) add up to $1$. Since $A$ is the width of the strip consisting of the shortest orbits in the Blank-Krikorian theorem, and $B$ that of the strip consisting of the next to shortest orbits, one has $$0<A+B\le 1$$ with equality only in the exceptional case where the orbits have at most $2$ different lengths, which occurs for a set of measure $0$ in $v$ or $r$. Therefore, one has $$0<B(v,r)<1-A(v,r)\,,\quad\hbox{ for a.e. }r\in(0,\tfrac12)\,.$$ Likewise, the total area of the $2$-torus is the sum of the areas of the strips consisting of all orbits with the $3$ possible lengths: $${\begin{aligned}}1=QA+Q'B+(Q+Q')(1-A-B)&=Q(1-B)+Q'(1-A) \\ &\ge Q(2-A-B) {\end{aligned}}$$ as $Q'\ge Q$ (see again the figure above on collision patterns.) Therefore, the volume element $$\frac{dAdBdQ}{1-A}$$ in the expression of $dm_0$ imples that the parameters $A$, $\frac{B}{1-A}$ — or equivalently $B$ mod. $1-A$ — and $Q$ are independent and uniformly distributed in the largest subdomain of $[0,1]^3$ that is compatible with the geometric constraints. The first theorem is a consequence of the second: indeed, $P(s,h\|h')dsdh$ is the image measure of $dm(A,B,Q,\Si)$ under the map $$\bK\ni(A,B,Q,\Si)\mapsto T_{(A,B,Q,\Si)}(h',v)\,.$$ That $(1+s)P(s,h\|h')$ is square integrable is proved by inspection — by using the explicit formula for $P(s,h\|h')$. Therefore, it remains to prove the second theorem. We are first going to show that the family of averages over velocities satisfy $${\begin{aligned}}\int_{\|v\|=1\atop 0<v_2<v_1}&F(A(v,r),B(v,r),Q(v,r),\Si(v,r))dv \\ &\to\tfrac{\pi}8\int_{\bK}F(A,B,Q,\Si)dm(A,B,Q,\Si) {\end{aligned}}$$ as $r\to 0^+$ for each $F\in C_b(\bK)$. On the other hand, because of the proposition in the previous section $$\frac1{\ln(1/\eta)}\int_\eta^{1/2}F(A(v,r),B(v,r),Q(v,r),\Si(v,r))\frac{dr}{r}\to\cL(F)$$ for a.e. $v\in\mathbf{S}^1$ such that $0<v_2<v_1$ in the limit as $\eta\to 0^+$. Since we know that the limit $\cL(F)$ is independent of $v$, comparing the two convergence statements above shows that $$\cL(F)=\int_{\bK}F(A,B,Q,\Si)dm(A,B,Q,\Si)\,.$$ Therefore, we are left with the task of computing $$\lim_{r\to 0^+}\int_{\|v\|=1\atop 0<v_2<v_1}F(A(v,r),B(v,r),Q(v,r),\Si(v,r))dv\,.$$ The method for computing this type of expression is based on a\) Farey fractions (sometimes called “slow continued fractions"), and b\) estimates for Kloosterman’s sums, due to Boca-Zaharescu [@BocaZaha2007]. To begin with, we need to recall a few basic facts about Farey fractions. Farey fractions Put a filtration on the set of rationals in $[0,1]$ as follows $$\cF_\cQ=\{\tfrac{p}{q}\,\|\,0\le p\le q\le \cQ\,,\,\,\hbox{g.c.d.}(p,q)=1\}$$ indexed in increasing order: $$0=\frac01<\g_1<\ldots <\g_j=\frac{p_j}{q_j}<\ldots<\g_{\varphi(\cQ)}=\frac11=1$$ where $\varphi$ denotes Euler’s totient function: $$\phi(n)=n\prod_{p\hbox{ \tiny{prime} }\atop p\|n}\left(1-\frac1p\right)\,.$$ An important operation in the construction of Farey fractions is the notion of “mediant" of two fractions. Given two rationals $$\g=\frac{p}q\hbox{ and }\hat\g=\frac{\hat p}{\hat q}$$ with $$0\le p\le q\,,\quad 0\le\hat p\le\hat q\,,\hbox{ and } \hbox{ g.c.d.}(p,q)=\hbox{ g.c.d.}(\hat p,\hat q)=1\,,$$ their mediant is defined as $$\hbox{mediant} =\g\oplus\hat\g:=\frac{p+\hat p}{q+\hat q}\in(\g,\hat\g)\,.$$ ![The Stern-Brocot tree. Each fraction $\g$ on the $n$-th line is the mediant of the two fractions closest to $\g$ on the $n-1$-st line. The first line consists of $0$ and $1$ written as $0=\frac01$ and $1=\frac11$. Each rational in $[0,1]$ is obtained in this way.](SternBrocot2) Hence, if $\g=\frac{p}q<\hat\g=\frac{\hat p}{\hat q}$ adjacent in $\cF_\cQ$, then $$\hat aq-a\hat q=1\hbox{ and }q+\hat q>\cQ\,.$$ Conversely, $q,\hat q$ are denominators of adjacent fractions in $\cF_\cQ$ if and only if $$0\le q,\hat q\le\cQ\,,\quad q+\hat q>\cQ\,,\quad\hbox{g.c.d.}(q,q')=1\,.$$ Given $\a\in(0,1)\setminus\bQ$ and $\cQ\ge 1$, there exists a unique pair of adjacent Farey fractions in $\cF_\cQ$, henceforth denoted $\g(\a,\cQ)$ and $\hat\g(\a,\cQ)$, such that $$\g(\a,\cQ)=\frac{p(\a,\cQ)}{q(\a,\cQ)}<\a<\hat\g(\a,\cQ) =\frac{\hat p(\a,\cQ)}{\hat q(\a,\cQ)}\,.$$ At this point, we recall the relation between Farey and continued fractions. Pick $0<\eps<1$; we recall that, for each $\a\in(0,1)\setminus\bQ$, $$N(\a,\eps)=\min\{n\in\bN\,\|\,d_n(\a)\le\eps\}\,,\quad d_n(\a)=\hbox{dist}(q_n(\a)\a,\bZ)\,.$$ Set $\cQ=[1/\eps]$, and let $$\g(\a,\cQ)=\frac{p(\a,\cQ))}{q(\a,\cQ)}<\hat\g(\a,\cQ)=\frac{\hat p(\a,\cQ))}{\hat q(\a,\cQ)}$$ with $g.c.d.(p(\a,\cQ)),q(\a,\cQ))=g.c.d.(\hat p(\a,\cQ)),\hat q(\a,\cQ))=1$ be the two adjacent Farey fractions in $\cF_\cQ$ surrounding $\a$. Then a\) one of the two integers $q(\a,\cQ)$ and ${\hat q(\a,\cQ)}$ is the denominator of the $N(\a,\eps)$-th convergent in the continued fraction expansion of $\a$, i.e. $q_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)$, and b\) the other is of the form $$mq_{N(\a,\eps)}+q_{N(\a,\eps)-1}\,,\quad\hbox{ with }0\le m\le a_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)\,,$$ where we recall that $$\a=[0;a_1,a_2,\ldots]=\frac1{a_0+\displaystyle\frac1{a_1+\ldots}}\,.$$ Setting $\a=v_2/v_1$ and $\eps=2r/v_1$, we recall that, by definition $$Q(v,r)=\eps q_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)\in\{\eps q(\a,\cQ),\eps\hat q(\a,\cQ)\}\hbox{ with }\cQ=[1/\eps]\,,$$ and we further define $$D(v,r)=d_{N(\a,\eps)}/\eps=\hbox{dist}(\tfrac1\eps Q(v,r)\a,\bZ)/\eps\,,$$ and $${\begin{aligned}}\tilde Q(v,r)=\eps\hat q(\a,\cQ)\hbox{ if }q_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)=q(\a,\cQ)\,, \\ \tilde Q(v,r)=\eps q(\a,\cQ)\hbox{ if }q_{N(\a,\eps)}(\a)=\hat q(\a,\cQ)\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ Now, we recall that $A(v,r)=1-D(v,r)$; moreover, we see that $${\begin{aligned}}B(v,r)&=1-\frac{d_{N(\a,\eps)-1}(\a)}{\eps} -\left[\frac{1-d_{N(\a,\eps)-1}(\a)/\eps}{D(v,r)}\right]D(v,r) \\ \\ &=1-d_{N(\a,\eps)-1}(\a)/\eps\hbox{ mod. }D(v,r) \\ \\ &=1-\hbox{dist}(\tfrac1\eps\tilde Q(v,r)\a,\bZ)/\eps\hbox{ mod. }D(v,r)\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ To summarize, we have $$F(A(v,r),B(v,r),Q(v,r))=G(Q(v,r),\tilde Q(v,r),D(v,r))$$ and we are left with the task of computing $$\lim_{r\to 0^+}\int_{\bS_+^1}G(Q(v,r),\tilde Q(v,r),D(v,r))dv$$ where $\bS^1_+$ is the first octant in the unit circle. The other octants in the unit circle give the same contribution by obvious symmetry arguments. More specifically: Let $\a\in(0,1)\setminus\bQ$, and let $\tfrac{p}{q}<\a<\tfrac{\hat p}{\hat q}$ be the two adjacent Farey fractions in $\cF_\cQ$ surrounding $\a$, with $\cQ=[1/\eps]$. Then a\) if $\frac{p}{q}<\a\le\frac{\hat p-\eps}{\hat q}$, then $$Q(v,r)=\eps q\,,\quad\tilde Q(v,r)=\eps\hat q\,,\quad D(v,r)=\tfrac1\eps(\a q-p)\,;$$ b) if $\frac{p+\eps}{q}<\a<\frac{\hat p}{\hat q}$, then $$Q(v,r)=\eps\hat q\,,\quad\tilde Q(v,r)=\eps q\,, \quad D(v,r)=\tfrac1\eps(\hat p-\a\hat q)\,;$$ c) if $\frac{p+\eps}{q}<\a\le\frac{\hat p-\eps}{\hat q}$, then $$Q(v,r)=\eps(q\wedge\hat q)\,,\quad\tilde Q(v,r)=\eps(q\vee\hat q)\,, \quad D(v,r)=\hbox{dist}(\tfrac1\eps Q(v,r)\a,\bZ)\,.$$ Therefore, assuming for simplicity that $$G(x,y,z)=g(x,y)H'(z)\hbox{ and }\eps=1/\cQ\,,$$ one has $${\begin{aligned}}\int_{\bS_+^1}G(Q(v,r),\hat Q(v,r),D(v,r))dv \\ = \sum_{0<q,\hat q\le\cQ<q+\hat q\atop g.c.d.(q,\hat q)=1} \int_{p/q}^{(\hat p-\eps)/\hat q} g\left(\frac{q}{\cQ},\frac{\hat q}{\cQ}\right) H'(\cQ(q\a-p))d\a \\ +\hbox{ three other similar terms } \\ =\sum_{0<q,\hat q\le\cQ<q+\hat q\atop g.c.d.(q,\hat q)=1} g\left(\frac{q}{\cQ},\frac{\hat q}{\cQ}\right) \frac1{q\cQ}\left(H\left(\frac{1-q/\cQ}{\hat q/\cQ}\right)-H(0)\right) \\ +\hbox{ three other similar terms.} {\end{aligned}}$$ Then, everything reduces to computing $$\lim_{\cQ\to+\infty}\frac1{\cQ^2}\sum_{0<q,\hat q\le\cQ<q+\hat q\atop g.c.d.(q,\hat q)=1} \psi\left(\frac{q}{\cQ},\frac{\hat q}{\cQ}\right)\,.$$ We conclude with the following For $\psi\in C_c(\bR^2)$, one has $$\frac1{\cQ^2}\sum_{0<q,\hat q\le\cQ<q+\hat q\atop g.c.d.(q,\hat q)=1} \psi\left(\frac{q}{\cQ},\frac{\hat q}{\cQ}\right)\to \tfrac{6}{\pi^2}\iint_{0<x,y<1<x+y}\psi(x,y)dxdy$$ in the limit as $\cQ\to \infty$. This is precisely the path followed by F. Boca and A. Zaharescu to compute the limiting distribution of free path lengths in [@BocaZaha2007] (see Theorem \[T-BocaZaha\]); as explained above, their analysis can be greatly generalized in order to compute the transition probability that is the limit of the transfer map as the obstacle radius $r\to 0^+$. A kinetic theory in extended phase-space\ for the Boltzmann-Grad limit\ of the periodic Lorentz gas ========================================= We are now ready to propose an equation for the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas in space dimension 2. For each $r\in]0,\frac12[$, denote $$\mathbf{B}_r:\,\Gamma^+_r\ni(x,v)\mapsto\mathbf{B}_r(x,v) =(x+\tau_r(x,v)v,\mathcal{R}[x+\tau_r(x,v)v]v)\in\Gamma^+_r$$ the billiard map. For $(x_0,v_0)\in\Gamma^+_r$, set $$(x_n,v_n)=\mathbf{B}^n_r(x_0,v_0)$$ and define $$b^n_r(x,v)=(A,B,Q,\Si)(v_n,r)\,,\quad n\in\bN^\,.$$ Henceforth, for each $n\ge 1$, we denote $$\cK_n:=\bR^2\times\bS^1\times\bR_+\times[-1,1]\times\bK^n\,.$$ We make the following asymptotic independence hypothesis: there exists a probability measure $\Pi$ on $\bR_+\times[-1,1]$ such that, for each $n\ge 1$ and each $\Psi\in C(\cK_n)$ with compact support $${\begin{aligned}}{}&\lim_{r\to 0^+} \int_{Z_r\times\bS^1}\Psi(x,v,r\tau_r({\tfrac{x}r},v), h_r({\tfrac{x_1}r},v_1),b^1_r,\ldots,b^n_r)dxdv \\ &= \int_{Q_n} \Psi(x,v,\tau,h,\b_1,\ldots,\b_n)dxdvd\Pi(\tau,h)dm(\b_1)\ldots dm(\b_n)\,, {\end{aligned}}\leqno(H)$$ where $$(x_0,v_0)=(x-\tau_r(x,-v)v,v)\,,\hbox{ and }h_r({\tfrac{x_1}r},v_1)=\sin(n_{x_1},v_1)$$ and $m$ is the probability measure on $\bK$ obtained in Theorem \[T-Meas-m\]. If this holds, the iterates of the transfer map $T_r$ are described by the Markov chain with transition probability $P(s,h\|h')$. This leads to a kinetic equation on an extended phase space for the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas in space dimension 2: $${\begin{aligned}}{}&F(t,x,v,s,h)= \\ &\qquad\hbox{density of particles with velocity $v$ and position $x$ at time $t$} \\ &\qquad\hbox{that will hit an obstacle after time $s$, with impact parameter $h$.} {\end{aligned}}$$ \[T-LimitEq\] Assume (H), and let $f^{in}\ge 0$ belong to $C_c(\bR^2\times\bS^1)$. Then one has $$f_r\to\int_0^\infty\int_{-1}^1F(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,s,h)dsdh \hbox{ in $L^\infty(\mathbf{R}_+\times\mathbf{R}^2\times\mathbf{S}^1)$ weak-$$}$$ in the limit as $r\to 0^+$, where $F\equiv F(t,x,v,s,h)$ is the solution of $${\begin{aligned}}(\partial_t+&v\cdot\nabla_x-\partial_s)F(t,x,v,s,h) \\ &=\int_{-1}^1P(s,h\|h')F(t,x,R[\pi-2\arcsin(h')]v,0,h')dh'\,, \\ &\qquad F(0,x,v,s,h)=f^{in}(x,v)\int_s^\infty\int_{-1}^1P(\tau,h\|h')dh'd\tau\,, {\end{aligned}}$$ with $(x,v,s,h)$ running through $\bR^2\times\bS^1\times\bR^_+\times]-1,1[$. The notation $R[\th]$ designates the rotation of an angle $\th$. Let us briefly sketch the computation leading to the kinetic equation above in the extended phase space $\cZ=\bR^2\times\bS^1\times\bR_+\times[-1,1]$. In the limit as $r\to 0^+$, the sequence $(b^{n}_r(x,v))_{n\ge 1}$ converges to a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with values in $\bK=[0,1]\times\{\pm 1\}$, according to assumption (H). Then, for each $s_0>0$ and $h_0\in[-1,1]$, we construct a Markov chain $(s_n,h_n)_{n\ge 1}$ with values in $\bR_+\times[-1,1]$ in the following manner: $$(s_n,h_n)=\bT_{b_n}(h_{n-1})\,,\quad n\ge 1\,.$$ Now we define the jump process $(X_t,V_t,S_t,H_t)$ starting from $(x,v,s,h)$ in the following manner. First pick a trajectory of the sequence $\bbb=(b_n)_{n\ge 1}$; then, for each $s>0$ and each $h\in[-1,1]$, set $$(s_0,h_0)=(s,h)\,.$$ Define then inductively $s_n$ and $h_n$ for $n\ge 1$ by the formula above, together with $$\si_n=s_0+\ldots+s_{n-1}\,,\quad n\ge 1\,,$$ and $$v_n=R[2\arcsin(h_{n-1})-\pi]v_{n-1}\,,\quad n\ge 1\,.$$ With the sequence $(v_n,s_n,h_n)_{n\ge 1}$ so defined, we next introduce the formulas for $(X_t,V_t,S_t,H_t)$: - While $0\le t<\tau$, we set $${\begin{aligned}}X_t(x,v,s,h)&=x+t\om\,,\qquad &&S_t(x,v,s,h)&&=s-t\,, \\ V_t(x,v,s,h)&=v\,,\qquad &&H_t(x,v,s,h)&&=h\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ - For $\si_n<t<\si_{n+1}$, we set $${\begin{aligned}}X_t(x,v,s,h)&=x+(t-\si_n)v_n\,, \\ V_t(x,v,s,h)&=v_n\,, \\ T_t(x,v,s,h)&=\si_{n+1}-t\,, \\ H_t(x,v,s,h)&=h_n\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ To summarize, the prescription above defines, for each $t\ge 0$, a map denoted $T_t$: $$\cZ\times\bK^{\bN^}\ni(x,v,s,h,\bbb)\mapsto T_t(x,\om,\tau,h)=(X_t,V_t,S_t,H_t)\in Z$$ that is piecewise continuous in $t\in\bR_+$. Denote by $f^{in}\equiv f^{in}(x,v,s,h)$ the initial distribution function in the extended phase space $\cZ$, and by $\chi\equiv\chi(x,v,s,h)$ an observable — without loss of generality, we assume that $\chi\in C^\infty_c(Z)$. Define $f(t,\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ by the formula $$\begin{aligned} \int\!\!\!\iiint_{Z} &\chi(x,v,s,h)f(t,dx,dv,ds,dh) \\ &=\int\!\!\!\iiint_{Z}\bE[\chi(T_t(x,v,s,h)))]f^{in}(x,\om,\tau,h)dxdvdsdh\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\bE$ designates the expectation on trajectories of the sequence of i.i.d. random variables $\bbb=(b_n)_{n\ge 1}$. In other words, $f(t,\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ is the image under the map $T_t$ of the measure $\hbox{Prob}(d\bbb)f^{in}(x,\om,\tau,h)$, where $$\hbox{Prob}(d\bbb)=\prod_{n\ge 1}dm(b_n)\,.$$ Set $g(t,x,v,s,h)=\bE[\chi(T_t(x,v,s,h)))]$; one has $$g(t,x,v,s,h)=\bE[\indc_{t<s}\chi(T_t(x,v,s,h)))]+\bE[\indc_{s<t}\chi(T_t(x,v,s,h)))]\,.$$ If $s>t$, there is no collision in the time interval $[0,t]$ for the trajectory considered, meaning that $$T_t(x,v,s,h)=(x+tv,v,s-t,h)\,.$$ Hence $$\bE[\indc_{t<s}\chi(T_t(x,v,s,h)))]=\chi(x+tv,v,s-t,h)\indc_{t<s}\,.$$ On the other hand $${\begin{aligned}}\bE[\indc_{s<t}\chi(T_t(x,v,s,h))] = \bE[\indc_{s<t}\chi(T_{(t-s)-0}T_{s+0}(x,v,s,h))] \\ = \bE[\indc_{s<t}\chi(T_{(t-s)-0}(x+sv,\cR[\Dlt(h)]v,s_1,h_1))] {\end{aligned}}$$ with $(s_1,h_1)=\bT_{b_1}(h)$ and $\Dlt(h)=2\arcsin(h)-\pi$. Conditioning with respect to $(s_1,h_1)$ shows that $${\begin{aligned}}\bE&[\indc_{s<t}\chi(T_t(x,v,s,h)))] \\ &= \bE[\indc_{s<t} \bE[\chi(T_{(t-s)-0}(x+sv,\cR[\Dlt(h)]v,s_1,h_1))\|s_1,h_1]]\,, {\end{aligned}}$$ and $${\begin{aligned}}\bE[\chi(T_{(t-s)-0}(x+sv,\cR[\Dlt(h)]v,s_1,h_1))\|s_1,h_1] \\ = g(t-s,x+sv,\cR[\Dlt(h)]v,s_1,h_1)\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ Then $${\begin{aligned}}\bE[\indc_{s<t} \bE[\chi(T_{(t-s)-0}(x+sv,\cR[\Dlt(h)]v,s_1,h_1))\|s_1,h_1]] \\ =\indc_{s<t} \int g(t-s,x+sv,\cR[\Dlt(h)]v,\bT_{b_1}(h))]dm(b_1) \\ =\indc_{s<t} \int g(t-s,x+sv,\cR[\Dlt(h)]v,s_1,h_1)]P(s_1,h_1\|h)ds_1dh_1\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ Finally $${\begin{aligned}}g(t,x,v,s,h)&=\chi(x+tv,v,s-t,h)\indc_{t<s} \\ &+ \indc_{s<t} \int g(t-s,x+sv,\cR[\Dlt(h)]v,s_1,h_1)]P(s_1,h_1\|h)ds_1dh_1\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ This formula represents the solution of the problem $${\begin{aligned}}(\d_t-v\cdot\grad_x+\d_s)g&=0\,, \quad t,s>0\,,\,\,x\in\bR^2\,,\,\,s\in\bS^1\,,\,\,\|h\|<1 \\ g(t,x,s,0,h)&= \iint_{\bR^_+\times]-1,1[}P(s_1,h_1\|h)g(t,x,v,s_1,h_1)ds_1dh_1\,, \\ g\rstr_{t=0}&=\chi\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ The boundary condition for $s=0$ can be replaced with a source term that is proportional to the Dirac measure $\de_{s=0}$: $${\begin{aligned}}(\d_t-v\cdot\grad_x+\d_s)g&=\de_{s=0}\iint_{\bR^_+\times]-1,1[} P(s_1,h_1\|h)g(t,x,v,s_1,h_1)ds_1dh_1\,, \\ g\rstr_{t=0}&=\chi\,. {\end{aligned}}$$ One concludes by observing that this problem is precisely the adjoint of the Cauchy problem in the theorem. Let us conclude this section with a few bibliographical remarks. Although the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas is a fairly natural problem, it remained open for quite a long time after the pioneering work of G. Gallavotti on the case of a Poisson distribution of obstacles [@Gallavotti1969; @Gallavotti1972]. Perhaps the main conceptual difficulty was to realize that this limit must involve a phase-space other than the usual phase-space of kinetic theory, i.e. the set $\bR^2\times\bS^1$ of particle positions and velocities, and to find the appropriate extended phase-space where the Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas can be described by an autonomous equation. Already Theorem 5.1 in [@CagliotiFG2003] suggested that, even in the simplest problem where the obstacles are absorbing — i.e. holes where particles disappear forever, — the limit of the particle number density in the Boltzmann-Grad scaling cannot described by an autonomous equation in the usual phase space $\bR^2\times\bS^1$. The extended phase space $\bR^2\times\bS^1\times\bR_+\times[-1,1]$ and the structure of the limit equation were proposed for the first time by E. Caglioti and the author in 2006, and presented in several conferences — see for instance [@Golse2007]; the first computation of the transition probability $P(s,h\|h')$ (Theorem \[T-TransiProba\]), together with the limit equation (Theorem \[T-LimitEq\]) appeared in [@CagliotiFG2008] for the first time. However, the theorem concerning the limit equation in [@CagliotiFG2008] remained incomplete, as it was based on the independence assumption (H). Shortly after that, J. Marklof and A. Strömbergsson proposed a complete derivation of the limit equation of Theorem \[T-LimitEq\] in a recent preprint [@MarkloStrom2008]. Their analysis, establish the validity of this equation in any space dimension, using in particular the existence of a transition probability as in Theorem \[T-TransiProba\] in any space dimension, a result that they had proved in an earlier paper [@MarkloStrom2007]. The method of proof in this article [@MarkloStrom2007] avoided using continued or Farey fractions, and was based on group actions on lattices in the Euclidian space, and on an important theorem by M. Ratner implying some equidistribution results in homogeneous space. However, explicit computations (as in Theorem \[T-TransiProba\] of the transition probability in space dimension higher than $2$ seem beyond reach at the time of this writing — see however [@MarkloStrom3] for computations of the 2-dimensional transition probability for more general interactions than hard sphere collisions. Finally, the limit equation obtained in Theorem \[T-LimitEq\] is interesting in itself; some qualitative properties of this equation are discussed in [@CagliotiFG2009]. Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered} ========== Classical kinetic theory (Boltzmann theory for elastic, hard sphere collisions) is based on two fundamental principles a\) deflections in velocity at each collision are mutually independent and identically distributed b\) time intervals between collisions are mutually independent, independent of velocities, and exponentially distributed. The Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas provides an example of a non classical kinetic theory where a’) velocity deflections at each collision jointly form a Markov chain; b’) the time intervals between collisions are not independent of the velocity deflections. In both cases, collisions are purely local and instantaneous events: indeed the Boltzmann-Grad scaling is such that the particle radius is negligeable in the limit. The difference between these two cases is caused by the degree of correlation between obstacles, which is maximal in the second case since the obstacles are centered at the vertices of a lattice in the Euclidian space, wheras obstacles are assumed to be independent in the first case. It could be interesting to explore situations that are somehow intermediate between these two extreme cases — for instance, situations where long range correlations become negligeable. Otherwise, there remain several outstanding open problems related to the periodic Lorentz gas, such as i\) obtaining explicit expressions of the transition probability whose existence is proved by J. Marklof and A. Strombergsson in [@MarkloStrom2007], in all space dimensions, or ii\) treating the case where particles are accelerated by an external force — for instance the case of a constant magnetic field, so that the kinetic energy of particles remains constant. [99]{} S. Blank, N. Krikorian, Thom’s problem on irrational flows. Internat. J. of Math. 4 (1993), 721–726. P. Bleher, Statistical properties of two-dimensional periodic Lorentz gas with infinite horizon. J. Statist. Phys. 66 (1992), 315–373. F. Boca, A. Zaharescu, The distribution of the free path lengths in the periodic two-dimensional Lorentz gas in the small-scatterer limit. Commun. Math. Phys. 269 (2007), 425–471. C. Boldrighini, L.A. Bunimovich, Ya.G. Sinai, On the Boltzmann equation for the Lorentz gas. J. Statist. Phys. [32]{} (1983), 477–501. L. Boltzmann, Weitere Studien über das Wärmegleichgewicht unter Gasmolekülen. Wiener Berichte 66 (1872), 275–370. J. Bourgain, F. Golse, B. Wennberg, On the distribution of free path lengths for the periodic Lorentz gas. Commun. Math. Phys. [190]{} (1998), 491-508. L. Bunimovich, Ya.G. Sinai, Statistical properties of Lorentz gas with periodic configuration of scatterers. Commun. Math. Phys. [78]{} (1980/81), 479–497. L. Bunimovich, N. Chernov, Ya.G. Sinai, Statistical properties of two-dimensional hyperbolic billiards. Russian Math. Surveys [46]{} (1991), 47–106. E. Caglioti, F. Golse, On the distribution of free path lengths for the periodic Lorentz gas III. Commun. Math. Phys. [236]{} (2003), 199–221. E. Caglioti, F. Golse, The Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas in two space dimensions. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 346 (2008), 477–482. E. Caglioti, F. Golse, in preparation. C. Cercignani, On the Boltzmann equation for rigid spheres. Transport Theory Statist. Phys. 2 (1972), 211–225. C. Cercignani, R. Illner, M. Pulvirenti, The mathematical theory of dilute gases. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 106. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994. P. Dahlqvist, The Lyapunov exponent in the Sinai billiard in the small scatterer limit. Nonlinearity 10 (1997), 159–173. L. Desvillettes, V. Ricci, Nonmarkovianity of the Boltzmann-Grad limit of a system of random obstacles in a given force field. Bull. Sci. Math. 128 (2004), 39–46. P. Drude, Zur Elektronentheorie der metalle. Annalen der Physik 306 (3) (1900), 566–613. H.S. Dumas, L. Dumas, F. Golse, Remarks on the notion of mean free path for a periodic array of spherical obstacles. J. Statist. Phys. 87 (1997), 943–950. G. Gallavotti, Divergences and approach to equilibrium in the Lorentz and the wind–tree–models. Phys. Rev. (2) [185]{} (1969), 308–322. G. Gallavotti, Rigorous theory of the Boltzmann equation in the Lorentz gas. Nota interna no. 358, Istituto di Fisica, Univ. di Roma (1972). Available as preprint mp-arc-93-304. G. Gallavotti, “Statistical mechanics: a short treatise", Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg (1999). F. Golse, On the statistics of free-path lengths for the periodic Lorentz gas. Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress on Mathematical Physics (Lisbon 2003), 439–446, World Scientific, Hackensack NJ, 2005. F. Golse, The periodic Lorentz gas in the Boltzmann-Grad limit. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Madrid 2006, vol. 3, 183-201, European Math. Society, Zürich 2006. F. Golse, The periodic Lorentz gas in the Boltzmann-Grad limit (joint work with J. Bourgain, E. Caglioti and B. Wennberg). Oberwolfach Report 54/2006, vol. 3 (2006), no. 4, 3214, European Math. Soc., Zürich 2006 F. Golse, On the periodic Lorentz gas in the Boltzmann-Grad scaling. Ann. Faculté des Sci. Toulouse 17 (2008), 735–749. F. Golse, B. Wennberg, On the distribution of free path lengths for the periodic Lorentz gas II. M2AN Modél. Math. et Anal. Numér. [34]{} (2000), 1151–1163. H. Grad, Principles of the kinetic theory of gases, in “Handbuch der Physik", S. Flügge ed. Band XII, 205–294, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1958. R. Illner, M. Pulvirenti, Global validity of the Boltzmann equation for two- and three-dimensional rare gas in vacuum. Erratum and improved result: “Global validity of the Boltzmann equation for a two-dimensional rare gas in vacuum” \[Commun. Math. Phys. 105 (1986), 189–203\] and “Global validity of the Boltzmann equation for a three-dimensional rare gas in vacuum” \[ibid. 113 (1987), 79–85\] by M. Pulvirenti. Commun. Math. Phys. 121 (1989), 143–146. A.Ya. Khinchin, “Continued Fractions". The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.-London, 1964. O.E. Lanford III, Time evolution of large classical systems. In Dynamical Systems, Theory and Applications (Rencontres, Battelle Res. Inst., Seattle, Wash., 1974). Lecture Notes in Phys., Vol. 38, Springer, Berlin, 1975, 1–111. H. Lorentz, Le mouvement des électrons dans les métaux. Arch. Néerl. [10]{} (1905), 336–371. J. Marklof, A. Strömbergsson, The distribution of free path lengths in the periodic Lorentz gas and related lattice point problems. Preprint arXiv:0706.4395, to appear in Ann. Math.. J. Marklof, A. Strömbergsson, The Boltzmann-Grad limit of the periodic Lorentz gas. Preprint arXiv:0801.0612. J. Marklof, A. Strömbergsson, Kinetic transport in the two-dimensional periodic Lorentz gas. Nonlinearity 21 (2008), 1413–1422. J. Clerk Maxwell, Illustration of the Dynamical Theory of Gases I & II. Philos. Magazine and J. of Science 19 (1860), 19–32 & 20 (1860) 21–37. J. Clerk Maxwell, On the Dynamical Theory of Gases. Philos. Transactions of the Royal Soc. London, 157 (1867), 49–88. H.L. Montgomery, “Ten Lectures on the Interface between Analytic Number Theory and Harmonic Analysis". CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, 84. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1994. V. Ricci, B. Wennberg, On the derivation of a linear Boltzmann equation from a periodic lattice gas. Stochastic Process. Appl. 111 (2004), 281–315. L.A. Santaló, Sobre la distribución probable de corpúsculos en un cuerpo, deducida de la distribución en sus secciones y problemas analogos. Revista Union Mat. Argentina 9 (1943), 145–164. C.L. Siegel, Über Gitterpunkte in convexen Körpern und ein damit zusammenhängendes Extremalproblem. Acta Math. 65 (1935), 307–323. Ya.G. Sinai, “Topics in Ergodic Theory". Princeton Mathematical Series, 44. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994. V.T. Sós, On the distribution mod. 1 of the sequence $n\a$. Ann. Univ. Sci. Univ. Budapest. Eötvös Math. 1 (1958), 127–134. J. Suranyi, Über die Anordnung der Vielfahren einer reelen Zahl mod. 1. Ann. Univ. Sci. Univ. Budapest. Eötvös Math. 1 (1958), 107–111. H. Spohn, The Lorentz process converges to a random flight process. Commun. Math. Phys. [60]{} (1978), 277–290. D. Szasz, “Hard Ball Systems and the Lorentz Gas". Encyclopaedia of mathematical sciences, 101. Springer, 2000. S. Ukai, N. Point, H. Ghidouche, Sur la solution globale du problème mixte de l’équation de Boltzmann non linéaire. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) [57]{} (1978), 203–229. [^1]: Figures 16 and 17 are taken from a conference by E. Caglioti at the Centre International de Rencontres Mathématiques, Marseilles, February 18-22, 2008.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
[Interdisciplinary Monte Carlo Simulations]{} D. Stauffer Institute for Theoretical Physics, Cologne University, D-50923 Euroland [Biological, linguistic, sociological and economical applications of statistical physics are reviewed here. They have been made on a variety of computers over a dozen years, not only at the NIC computers. A longer description can be found in [@newbook], an emphasis on teaching in [@europe].]{} Introduction ============ The Monte Carlo methods invented for physics problems half a century ago were later also applied to fields outside of physics, like economy [@stigler], biology [@kauffman], or sociology [@schelling]. Instead of atoms one simulates animals, including people. These physics methods are often called “independent agents” when applied outside physics, to distinguish them from “representative agent” approximations and other mean field theories. “Emergence” in these fields is what physicists call self-organization, that means systems of many simple particles showing complex behaviour (like freezing or evaporating) which is not evident from the single-particle properties. The three people cited in Refs.3-5 were not physicists; two got the economics Nobel prize. But also physicists have entered these fields intensively in the last years (and much earlier for biology; see Erwin Schrödinger’s question: What is life?). The German Physical Society has since several years a working group on socio-economic problems, started by Frank Schweitzer. And our university just got approved a new Special Research Grant (SFB) where geneticists and theoretical physicists are supposed to work together. The NIC Research Group in Jülich is an earlier physics-biology example. An important difference between physics and applications outside physics is the thermodynamic limit. A glass of Cologne beer has about $10^{25}$ water molecules, which is close enough to infinity for physicists. Economists, in contrast, are less interested in stock markets with $10^{25}$ traders. Thus finite-size effects, which often are a nuisance in Statistical Physics simulations, may be just what we need outside of physics. Of this large area of computer simulations by physicists for fields outside physics I now select: population genetics, language competition, opinion dynamics, and market fluctuations, mostly following [@newbook; @europe]. Population Genetics =================== Darwinian Evolution is similar to thermal physics in that two effects compete: Mother Nature wants to select the fittest and to minimize energy; but more or less random accidents (mutations in biology, thermal noise or entropy in statistical physics) lead to deviations from ideality, like biological ageing or minimization of the free energy. The following example is ongoing work together with Cebrat, Pȩkalski, Moss de Oliveira and de Oliveira and can be regarded as an improved Eigen quasispecies model. Each individual in the population has a genome, which consists of two bit-strings inherited from the mother and the father, respectively. Each bit-string has $L$ bits with $L$ = 8,16,32,64, as is convenient for Fortran words (byte to integer\8). A bit set to one means a bad mutation in the DNA, while a zero bit is a healthy gene. All mutations are assumed to be recessive, that means they diminish the survival probability by a factor $x < 1$ if and only if both the paternal and the maternal bit-string have their corresponding bits mutated. At reproduction, the bit-strings in both the father and the mother are mutated with probability $M$ at a randomly selected position; then with probability $R$ they undergo a crossover (recombination) at some randomly selected position (like in genetic algorithms); then the bits neighbouring the crossover point are mutated with probability $M_R$; and finally one bit-string of the mother and one of the father give one child genome, with $B$ such births per iteration and per female. (The mother selects the father at random.) Mutation attempts for an already mutated bit leave this bit unchanged. At each iteration the genetic survival probability is $x^n$ where $n$ is the number of active mutations (bit-pairs set to 1) and $x$ an input parameter. To account for limitations in space and food, as well as for infections from other individuals, additional Verhulst death probabilities proportional to the current number of individuals are applied to both the newborns and at each iteration to the adults. For very small $x$, only mutation-free individuals survive: $n=0$. With growing $x$ the survival chances grow, but so does the mutation load $<n>$ which in turn reduces the survival chances. As a result, for $L = 64$ three different phase transitions can be found in Fig.1: For $0 < x < 0.45$ the population dies out; for $0.45 < x < 0.96$ it survives; for $0.96 < x < 0.98$ it dies out again, and for $0.98 < x < 1$ it survives again. The transitions at 0.45 and 0.96 seem to be first-order (jump in population and load) while the one at 0.98 is second-order (continuous). For $x > 0.98$ all bits of both bit-strings are mutated to one, which allows a simple scaling prediction of the population for general $L$ in agreement with the simulations: Results depend on $x^L$ as seen in Fig.2. For example, the critical point at birth rate $B$ is at $x = (1 + B/2)^{-1/L}$. Real animals get old with increasing age, and that can be simulated with similar techniques. The more complicated Penna bit-string model [@penna] simulates the ageing of individuals and agrees well with the empirical Gompertz law of 1825, that the mortality of adult humans increases exponentially with age [@newbook]. Language Competition ==================== Every ten days on average one human language dies out. Simulations of the bit-string Schulze model are very similar to the above population genetics, with random mutations, transfer of language bits from one language to another, and flight from small to large languages [@schulzestauffer]. The alternative Viviane model [@viviane] simplifies mutation and flight from small to large languages into one process, and ignores transfer. It gives in Fig.3 a wide range of language sizes, i.e. of the number of people speaking one language, from dying languages with only one speaker, to Chinese with $10^9$ speakers. The Schulze model gives a more realistic nearly log-normal shape for this distributions, but not the wide range of language sizes. Both the proper shape and the large size range of reality (bottom part of Fig.3) might come from non-equilibrium statistics. In the last version of the Schulze model, each language (better interpretation: its grammar) is characterized by $F$ features each of which can adopt one of $Q$ different integer values $1,2,...Q$. Each site of a large square lattice is occupied by a person speaking one language. At each iteration, each feature of each person is mutated with probability $p$. This mutation is random with probability $1-q$ while with probability $q$ the corresponding feature from one of the four lattice neighbours is adopted. Also, at each iteration, each person independently, with a probability proportional to $1-x^2$ abandons the whole language and adopts the language of one randomly selected person in the population. In the last version of the Viviane model, each lattice site is either empty of carries a population with a size randomly fixed between 1 and, say, like 127. Initially one lattice site is occupied and all others are empty. Then at each time step one empty neighbour of an occupied site is occupied with a probability proportional to the number of people which can live there. Then this new site adopts the language of one of its four lattice neighbours, with a probability proportional to the size of the language spoken at that neighbour site. However, this adopted language is mutated to a new language with probability inversely proportional to the new size of the adopted language. (This denominator is not allowed to exceed a maximum, set randomly between 1 and, say, 2048.) The whole process ends once the last lattice site has become occupied. Opinion Dynamics ================ Can a single person make a difference in public life? In chaos theory we ask whether a single butterfly in Brazil can influence a hurrican in the Caribbean. Kauffman [@kauffman] asked the analogous question whether a single biological mutation has a minor effect or disturbs the whole genetic network [@kauffman]. Physicists call this damage spreading and ask, for example, how the evolution of an Ising model is changed if one single spin is flipped and otherwise the system, including the random numbers to simulate it, remains unperturbed. This question was discussed [@fortunato; @newbook] for three models: The opportunists of Krause and Hegselmann [@krause], the negotiators of Deffuant et al [@deffuant], and the missionaries of Sznajd [@sznajd]. The opportunists take as their new opinion the average opinion of the large population to which they belong, except that they ignore those who differ too much from their own opinion. Also the negotiators ignore opinions which differ too much from their own; otherwise a randomly selected pair gets closer in their two opinions without necessarily agreeing fully. A randomly selected pair of missionaries, neighbouring on a lattice or network, convinces its neighbours if and only if the two people in the pair have the same opinion. Simulations show that the opinion change of a single person may influence the whole population for suitable parameters [@fortunato; @newbook]. For the missionaries on a scale-free network, simulations agreed nicely with election results in Brazil, apart from fitted scale factors, Fig.4. Market Fluctuations =================== How can we get rich fast by speculating on the stock market? This writer earned about one Heugel (a local currency unit of about $10^4$ Euro) by believing some theory for the Tokyo stock market [@sornette]. Details, of course, are given out only for more JUMP time. Instead this section summarizes the Cont-Bouchaud model of stock market fluctuations [@cont], because it is closest to the pre-existing physics model of percolation. Each site of a large square lattice is either occupied by an investor (with probability $p$), or empty with probability $1-p$. Sets of occupied neighbours are called clusters and are identified with groups of investors which act (buy or sell) together. At each iteration a cluster either buys (with probability $a$), sells (also with probability $a$) or sleeps (with probability $1-2a$). The traded amount is proportional to the number of investors in the trading cluster. The difference between supply and demand drives the market values up and down. This basic model gives on average: i) as many ups as downs on the market; ii) a power-law decay (“fat tail”) for the probability to have a large price change, and with modifications also: iii) volatility clustering (markets have turbulent and calm times), iv) effective multi-fractality, v) sharp peaks and flat valleys for the prices, but no prediction on how the market will move tomorrow. Apart from these nice basic properties also practical applications were made [@ehrenstein]: Does a small “Tobin” tax of a few tenths of a percent on all transactions reduce fluctuations and earn tax revenue without killing the whole market? It does, but apart from more government control over individuals there is another danger which can be simulated: If the tax revenue increases with increasing tax rate, then governments will be tempted to increase this tax again and again (as Germans just saw in fall 2005 and German student may observe in future tuition hikes.) Much better is a maximum of tax revenue at some moderate tax rate; then the government should settle on this moderate tax rate, provided it regards the simulations as reliable. Fig.5 shows that in this model such a desirable maximum exists for some parameters but not for all. Another application is the confirmation that halting the trade when excessive price changes are observed indeed helps to calm the market. Discussion ========== Interdisciplinary applications of physics methods are no longer as exotic as they were years ago; biologists and economists have started to publish papers together with computational physicists on these non-physics fields. Thanks for S. Cebrat, P.M.C. de Oliveira and S. Moss de Oliveira for comments on the manuscript. [10]{} D. Stauffer, S. Moss de Oliveira, P.M.C. de Oliveira and J.S. Sá Martins, [Biology, Sociology, Geology by Computational Physicist]{}. Elsevier, Amsterdam 2006 in press. ISBN-13: 978-0-444-52146-0 and ISBN-10: 0-444-52146-1. S. Moss de Oliveira, P.M.C. de Oliveira and D. Stauffer, [Evolution, Money, War and Computers]{}, Teubner, Leipzig and Stuttgart 1999. D. Stauffer, Eur. J. Phys. 26, S 79 (2005) and AIP Conf. Proc. 779, 49, 56, 69 and 75 (2005). G.J. Stigler, Journal of Business 37, 117 (1964). S.A. Kauffman, J. Theoretical Biology 22, 437 (1969). T.C. Schelling, J. Mathematical Sociology 1 143 (1971). T.J.P. Penna, J. Stat. Phys. 78, 1629 (1995). C. Schulze and D. Stauffer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 16, issue 5 (2005) and Physics of Life Reviews 2, 89 (2005); T. Teşileanu and H. Meyer-Ortmanns, 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C17, issue 3 = physics/0508229. For other models of language competition see D.M.Abrams and S.H. Strogatz, Nature 424, 900 (2003); M. Patriarca and T. Leppänen, Physica A 338, 296. (2004); J. Mira and A. Paredes, Europhys. Lett. 69, 1031 (2005); K. Kosmidis, J.M. Halley and P. Argyrakis, Physica A 353, 595 (2005) and in press; V. Schwämmle, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 16, 1519 (2005) and 17, issue 3; W.S.Y. Wang, J.W. Minett, Trans. Philological Soc. 103, 121 (2005), A. Baronchelli et al., physics/059075, 0511201 and 0512045. V.M. de Oliveira, M.A.F. Gomes and I.R. Tsang, Physica A, in press = physics/0505197 and 0510249 (2006). W.J. Sutherland, Nature 423, 276 (2003). S. Fortunato and D. Stauffer, page 231 in: [ Extreme Events in Nature and Society*]{}, edited by S. Albeverio, V. Jentsch and H. Kantz. Springer, Berlin - Heidelberg 2005. R. Hegselmann and U. Krause, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5, issue 3, paper 2 (jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk) (2002). G. Deffuant, F. Amblard, G. Weisbuch and T. Faure, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5, issue 4, paper 1 (jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk) (2002). K. Sznajd-Weron and J. Sznajd, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 11, 1157 (2000). A. T. Bernardes, D. Stauffer and J. Kertész: Eur. Phys. J. B 25, 123 (2002). A. Johansen and D. Sornette, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 10, 563 (1999). R. Cont and J.P. Bouchaud, eprint cond-mat/9712318 = Macroeconomic Dynamics 4, 170 (2000); D. Stauffer, Adv. Complex Syst. 4, 19 (2001). G. Ehrenstein, F. Westerhoff and D. Stauffer, Quantitative Finance 5, 213 (2005); G. Ehrenstein and F. Westerhoff, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 17, issue 5 (2006).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - \| Zhi-Yong Zhang [^1]\ College of Sciences, North China University of Technology, Beijing 100144, P.R. China title: 'Approximate nonlinear self-adjointness and approximate conservation laws' --- [Abstract:]{} In this paper, approximate nonlinear self-adjointness for perturbed PDEs is introduced and its properties are studied. Consequently, approximate conservation laws which cannot be obtained by approximate Noether theorem, are constructed by means of the method. As an application, a class of perturbed nonlinear wave equations is considered to illustrate the effectiveness. [Keywords:]{} Approximate nonlinear self-adjointness, Approximate conservation law, Perturbed PDEs Introduction ============ When the German mathematician Emmy Noether proved her theorem, she established a connection between symmetries and conservation laws of differential equations, provided that the equations under consideration are obtained from a variational principle, i.e., they are Euler-Lagrange equations [@noether; @21]. In order to invoke this powerful theorem, one requires a Lagrangian of the underlying differential equations which make it cast as an Euler-Lagrange system [@nhi1]. It is well known that there is no Lagrangian for scalar evolution equations, such as the classical heat equation, the Burgers equations, etc. [@ander-1984]. In consequence, one cannot associate conservation laws with their symmetries via Noether’s theorem. Thus, given a system without a Lagrangian formulation, one needs a corresponding algorithm to find conservation laws of the system. In [@blu11; @blu21], Anco and Bluman proposed a direct construction formula of local conservation laws for partial differential equations (PDEs) expressed in a standard Cauchy-Kovalevskaya form. Kara and Mahomed presented a partial Noether approach, which is efficient for Euler-Lagrange type equations [@kara-2006]. Recently, the general concept of nonlinear self-adjointness [@ib-2011; @nhi], which includes strict self-adjointness [@nh-2006; @nh-2007], quasi self-adjointness [@ib-2007] and weak self-adjointness [@gan-2011] stated earlier, was introduced to construct conservation laws associated with symmetries of differential equations. The main idea of the method traced back to [@ba-1931; @ca-1988] and followed in [@Olver] (see Exercise 5.37). The method introduced a formal Lagrangian of the system consisted of the governing equations together with their adjoint equations and then utilized the conservation law theorem in [@nh-2007] to construct local and nonlocal conservation laws of the PDEs under study. Owing to the fast development of nonlinear self-adjointness and its subclasses, many important physical PDEs have been studied successfully [@ib-2011; @Fs-2012; @fre-2013; @tt-2012; @gan-2012; @nhi-2011]. For example, the required conditions of self-adjointness and quasi self-adjointness for a class of third order PDEs were presented in [@tt-2012]. Gandarias and Bruz$\acute{\mbox{o}}$n considered conservation laws of a forced KdV equation via weak self-adjointness [@gan-2012]. Nonlinear self-adjointness of a generalized fifth-order KdV equation was studied in [@Fs-2012]. The authors in [@nhi-2011] showed that a (2+1)-dimensional generalized Burgers equation written as a system of two dependent variables was quasi self-adjoint. Further examples can be found in [@ib-2011; @fre-2013] and references therein. Another vital achievement in the past several decades is the emergence of approximate symmetry, which aims to deal with the differential equations with a small parameter possessing few exact symmetries or none at all and even if exist, the small parameter also disturbs symmetry group properties of the unperturbed equation. Consequently, two reasonably well-known approaches originated from Baikov et al. [@ba-1991] and Fushchich and Shtelen [@fs-1989] arose, which employed standard perturbation techniques about the symmetry operator and dependent variables to obtain approximate symmetry respectively. In [@pak; @ron], these two methods were applied to three nonlinear PDEs which showed that the second method was superior to the first one. Systematic methods for obtaining both exact symmetries and first-order approximate symmetries for ordinary differential equations (ODEs) were available in [@ib-1999]. In the meantime, the theory of approximate conservation laws associated with perturbed differential equations was introduced with regard to approximate Noether symmetries, i.e., symmetries associated with a Lagrangian of the perturbed differential equations [@kara-2002; @ah]. In [@ah-1999], the authors studied how to construct approximate conservation laws for perturbed PDEs via approximate generalized symmetries. In [@ag-2006], a basis of approximate conservation laws for perturbed PDEs was discussed. Johnpillai et.al [@ah-2009] showed how to construct approximate conservation laws of approximate Euler-type equations via approximate Noether type symmetry operators associated with partial Lagrangians. Quite recently, the concept of self-adjointness was extended to tackle perturbed PDEs and successfully applied to study two examples to obtain approximate conservation laws [@ib-2011]. However, the study of approximate conservation law is still a major object for both mathematician and physicist and should be further developed. The purpose of the paper is to perform a further study of the properties and applications of approximate nonlinear self-adjointness for perturbed PDEs. The outline of the paper is arranged as follows. In Section 2, some related basic notions and principles are reviewed and the definition of approximate nonlinear self-adjointness and its properties are given. In Section 3, the method is applied to a class of perturbed nonlinear wave equations and approximate conservation laws are constructed. The last section contains a conclusion of our results. Main results ============ We first recall some basic notions and principles associated with approximate symmetry and nonlinear self-adjointness in the first two subsections, and then give main results about approximate nonlinear self-adjointness for perturbed PDEs in the last subsection. Consider a system of $m$ PDEs with $r$th-order $$\begin{aligned} \label{perturbnew} E_{\alpha} = E_{\alpha}^0(x,u,u_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)})+ \epsilon E_{\alpha} ^1(x,u,u_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)})=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is a small parameter, $\alpha=1,\dots,m$, $x=(x^1,\dots,x^n),u=(u^1,\dots,u^m)$, $u^{\sigma}_i=\partial u^{\sigma}/\partial x^i$, $u^{\sigma}_{ij}=\partial^2 u^{\sigma}/\partial x^i\partial x^j$,…, and $u_{(i)}$ denotes the collection of all $i$th-order partial derivatives of $u$ with respect to $x$, e.g., $u_{(i)}=\{u^{\sigma}_i\}$ with $\sigma=1,\dots,m$. Note that we will use these symbols and the summation convention for repeated indices throughout the paper if no special notations are added. System (\[perturbnew\]) is called perturbed PDEs while the system which do not contain the perturbed term $\epsilon E_{\alpha} ^1(x,u,u_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)})$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \label{perturb} E_{\alpha}^0(x,u,u_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)})=0,\end{aligned}$$ is called unperturbed PDEs. The classical method for obtaining exact (Lie point) symmetries admitted by PDEs (\[perturb\]) is to find a one-parameter local transformation group $$\begin{aligned} \label{group-1} &&\no (x^i)^=x^i+\epsilon \,\xi^i(x,u)+O(\epsilon^2),\\ &&(u^{\sigma})^=u^{\sigma}+\epsilon \,\eta^{\sigma}(x,u)+O(\epsilon^2),\end{aligned}$$ which leaves system (\[perturb\]) invariant. Lie’s method requires that the infinitesimal generator of transformation (\[group-1\]), i.e., $X=\xi^i(x,u)\partial_{x^i} +\eta^{\sigma}(x,u)\partial_{u^{\sigma}}$, satisfies Lie’s infinitesimal criterion $$\label{deter-1} \text{pr}^{(k)}X(E_{\alpha}^0)=0, ~~~\mbox{when}~ E_{\alpha}^0=0,$$ where $\text{pr}^{(k)}X$ stands for $k$-order prolongation of $X$ calculated by the well-known prolongation formulae [@blu1; @Olver]. The infinitesimal, namely $\xi^i,\eta^{\sigma}$, can be found from an over-determined linear system generated by condition (\[deter-1\]). We refer to references [@blu1; @Olver] for details. Approximate symmetry -------------------- Up until now, there exist two methods to obtain approximate symmetry of perturbed PDEs. Firstly, we introduce the method originated from Fushchich and Shtelen. This method employs a perturbation of dependent variables, that is, expanding the dependent variable with respect to the small parameter $\epsilon$ yields $$\begin{aligned} \label{tran} && u^\sigma =\sum^{\infty}_{k=0}\epsilon^k u^{\sigma_k},\qquad 0<\epsilon \ll 1,\end{aligned}$$ where $u^{\sigma_k}$ are new introduced dependent variables, after inserting expansion (\[tran\]) into system (\[perturbnew\]), then approximate symmetry is defined as the exact symmetry of the system corresponding to each order in the small parameter $\epsilon$. We refer to [@fs-1989] for further details. The second approach, initiated by Baikov et al., is no perturbation of the dependant variables but a perturbation of the symmetry generator [@ba-1991]. A first-order approximate symmetry of system (\[perturbnew\]), with the infinitesimal operator form $X = X_0 +\epsilon X_1$, is obtained by solving for $X_1$ in $$\begin{aligned} \label{second} && X_1(E_{\alpha}^0)_{\mid_{E_{\alpha}^0=0}}+H=0,\end{aligned}$$ where the auxiliary function $H$ is obtained by $$\begin{aligned} \label{auxiliary} \no H=\frac{1}{\epsilon}X_0(E_{\alpha})_{\mid_{E_{\alpha}=0}}.\end{aligned}$$ $X_0$ is an exact symmetry of unperturbed PDEs $E_{\alpha}^0=0$. The notation $\|_{\Delta=0}$, hereinafter, means evaluation on the solution manifold of $\Delta=0$. We formulate the second method as follows. Definition 1. (Approximate symmetry [@ba-1991]) A first-order approximate symmetry with infinitesimal operator $X = X_0 +\epsilon X_1$ leaves system (\[perturbnew\]) approximate invariant if $X_0$ is an exact symmetry of unperturbed PDEs $E_{\alpha}^0=0$ and $X_1$ is defined by (\[second\]). The first method by Fushchich and Shtelen uses only standard Lie algorithm and can be implemented in computer algebra system, then this approximate symmetry approach may readily be extended to determine infinite-dimensional and other types approximate symmetries [@zhang1]. As for the second method, since the dependent variables are not expanded in a perturbation series, approximate solutions obtained by using a first-order approximate generator may contain higher-order terms [@pak]. Nonlinear self-adjointness -------------------------- In this subsection, we briefly recall the main idea of nonlinear self-adjointness of PDEs in order to induce approximate nonlinear self-adjointness. Let $\mathcal {L}$ be the formal Lagrangian of system (\[perturb\]) given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{lagrangian} && \mathcal {L} = v^{\beta}E_{\beta}^0(x,u,u_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)}),\end{aligned}$$ then the adjoint equations of system (\[perturb\]) are defined by $$\begin{aligned} \label{adequation} (E_{\alpha}^0)^{\ast}(x,u,v,u_{(1)},v_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)},v_{(r)})=\frac{\delta\mathcal {L}}{\delta u^{\sigma}}=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $v=(v^{1},\dots,v^m)$ and $v_{(i)}$ represents all $i$th-order derivatives of $v$ with respect to $x$, $\delta/\delta u^{\sigma}$ is the variational derivative written as $$\begin{aligned} \no\frac{\delta}{\delta u^{\sigma}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{\sigma}}+\sum_{s=1}^{\infty}(-1)^sD_{i_1}\dots D_{i_s}\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{\sigma}_{i_1\dots i_s}},\end{aligned}$$ where, hereinafter, $D_i$ denotes the total derivative operators with respect to $x^i$. For example, a dependent variable $w=w(y,z)$ with $y=x^1,z=x^2$, one has $$\begin{aligned} &&\no D_y = \frac{\partial}{\partial y} +w_y \frac{\partial}{\partial w} +w_{yy} \frac{\partial}{\partial w_y} +w_{yz}\frac{\partial}{\partial w_z} +\cdots, etc.\end{aligned}$$ In what follows, we recall the definition of nonlinear self-adjointness of differential equations. Definition 2. (Nonlinear self-adjointness [@ib-2011]) The system (\[perturb\]) is said to be nonlinearly self-adjoint if the adjoint system (\[adequation\]) is satisfied for all solutions $u$ of system (\[perturb\]) upon a substitution $$\begin{aligned} \label{sub} v^{\sigma}=\varphi^{\sigma}(x,u),~~~~\sigma=1,\dots,m,\end{aligned}$$ such that $\varphi(x,u)=(\varphi^{1},\dots,\varphi^m)\neq 0$. The substitution (\[sub\]) satisfying $\varphi(x,u)\neq 0$ solves the adjoint equations (\[adequation\]) for all solutions of system (\[perturb\]), which can be regarded as an equivalent definition of nonlinear self-adjointness [@ib-2011; @nhi]. Definition 2 is also equivalent to the following identities holding for the undetermined coefficients $\lambda_{\alpha}^{\beta}$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{iden-non} (E_{\alpha}^0)^{\ast}(x,u,v,u_{(1)},v_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)},v_{(r)})_{\|_{\{v=\varphi,\dots,v_{(r)}=\varphi_{(r)}\}}} =\lambda_{\alpha}^{\beta}E_{\beta}^0(x,u,u_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)}),\end{aligned}$$ which is applicable in the computations. Hereinafter, $\varphi_{(i)}$, similar as $v_{(i)}$ and $u_{(i)}$, stands for all $i$th-order partial derivatives of $\varphi$ with respect to $x$. Remarks 1. 1\. If the substitution (\[sub\]) becomes $v^{\sigma}=u^{\sigma}$, then system (\[perturb\]) is called strict self-adjointness. If $v^{\sigma}=\varphi^{\sigma}(u)$ is independent of $x$, then it is named by quasi self-adjointness. If $v^{\sigma}=\varphi^{\sigma}(x,u)$ involving all $x$ and $u$, then it is called weak self-adjointness. 2\. The substitution (\[sub\]) can also be extended to the case $v^{\sigma}=\varphi^{\sigma}(x,u,u_{(i)})$, which embraces the derivatives of $u$ and is called differential substitution. Obviously, the concept of quasi self-adjointness and weak self-adjointness generalize strict self-adjointness. Next, we consider an example about quasi self-adjointness while the readers can find the examples for weak self-adjointness in [@gan-2011]. Consider a nonlinear PDE studied in [@nhi] $$\label{pde} u_t-u^2u_{xx}=0,$$ which describes the nonlinear heat conduction in solid hydrogen [@nh-2006]. Let the formal Lagrangian $\mathcal {L}=v(u_t-u^2u_{xx})$, then by means of (\[adequation\]), its adjoint equation is $$\no \frac{\delta\mathcal {L}}{\delta u}=v_t+4uvu_{xx}+u^2 v_{xx}+4uu_xv_x+2vu^2_x=0,$$ which is identical to Eq.(\[pde\]) by the substitution $v=u^{-2}$, not by $v=u$. It means that Eq.(\[pde\]) is quasi self-adjoint but not strictly self-adjoint. The following theorem will be used to construct conservation laws for both unperturbed and perturbed cases [@nh-2007]. Theorem 1. Any infinitesimal symmetry (Local or nonlocal) $$\begin{aligned} &&\no X=\xi^i(x,u,u_{(1)},\dots)\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}+\eta^{\sigma}(x,u,u_{(1)},\dots)\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{\sigma}}\end{aligned}$$ of system (\[perturb\]) leads to a conservation law $D_i(C^i)=0$ constructed by the formula $$\begin{aligned} \label{formula} &&\no C^i=\xi^i\mathcal {L}+W^{\sigma}\Big[\frac{\partial \mathcal {L}}{\partial u_i^{\sigma}}-D_j(\frac{\partial \mathcal {L}}{\partial u_{ij}^{\sigma}})+D_jD_k(\frac{\partial \mathcal {L}}{\partial u_{ijk}^{\sigma}})-\dots\Big]\\&&\hspace{1cm} +D_j(W^{\sigma}) \Big[\frac{\partial \mathcal {L}}{\partial u_{ij}^{\sigma}}-D_k(\frac{\partial \mathcal {L}}{\partial u_{ijk}^{\sigma}})+\dots\Big]+D_jD_k(W^{\sigma})\Big[\frac{\partial \mathcal {L}}{\partial u_{ijk}^{\sigma}}-\dots\Big]+\dots,\end{aligned}$$ where $W^{\sigma}=\eta^{\sigma}-\xi^ju_j^{\sigma}$ and $\mathcal {L}$ is the formal Lagrangian. In applying the formula, the formal Lagrangian $\mathcal {L}$ should be written in the symmetric form with respect to all mixed derivatives $u_{ij}^{\sigma},u_{ijk}^{\sigma},\dots$. Generally speaking, the term $\xi^i\mathcal {L}$ with $\mathcal {L}$ in the form (\[lagrangian\]) can be omitted because it vanishes identically on the solution manifold of the studying PDEs. In particular, a first-order approximate conserved vector $C=(C^1,\dots,C^n)$ of system (\[perturbnew\]) satisfies $$D_i(C^i)=O(\epsilon^2)$$ for all solutions of $E_\alpha=0$. Approximate nonlinear self-adjointness -------------------------------------- This subsection will concentrate on the study of approximate nonlinear self-adjointness of perturbed PDEs. The formal Lagrangian $\mathcal {\widetilde{L}}$ of perturbed system (\[perturbnew\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{lagrangian1} \no \mathcal {\widetilde{L}} = v^{\beta}[E_{\beta}^0(x,u,u_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)})+ \epsilon\, E_{\beta}^1(x,u,u_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(r)})],\end{aligned}$$ then the adjoint equations of system (\[perturbnew\]) are written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{adequationper} E_{\alpha}^{\ast}(x,u,v,u_{(1)},v_{(1)},\dots,u_{(r)},v_{(r)})=\frac{\delta\mathcal {\widetilde{L}}}{\delta u^{\sigma}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Definition 3. (Approximate nonlinear self-adjointness) The perturbed system (\[perturbnew\]) is called approximate nonlinear self-adjointness if the adjoint system (\[adequationper\]) is approximate satisfied for all solutions $u$ of system (\[perturbnew\]) upon a substitution $$\begin{aligned} \label{sub1} v^{\sigma}=\varphi^{\sigma}(x,u)+\epsilon\phi^{\sigma}(x,u),~~~~\sigma=1,\dots,m,\end{aligned}$$ such that not all $\varphi^{\sigma}$ and $\phi^{\sigma}$ are identically equal to zero. It should be mentioned that Definition 3 extends the results for unperturbed PDEs. It means that, if regarding $\epsilon$ as a usual parameter and replacing $\varphi^{\sigma}(x,u)+\epsilon\phi^{\sigma}(x,u)$ in the right side of (\[sub1\]) by a new function $\psi^{\sigma}(x,u)$, then Definition 3 is equivalent to Definition 2 for unperturbed case. Moreover, Definition 3 also extends the results regarding perturbed ODEs [@kara-2002] to nonlinear PDEs, where the authors considered the Lagrangian maintaining the order of the perturbed parameter as stipulated by the given ODEs with Noether’s theorem. Furthermore, some necessary remarks should be demonstrated about approximate nonlinear self-adjointness. Remarks 2. Denote $\varphi(x,u)=(\varphi^{1},\dots,\varphi^m)$ and $\phi(x,u)=(\phi^{1},\dots,\phi^m)$. $\phi_{(i)}$ stands for the same meaning as $\varphi_{(i)}$. 1\. The required condition in Definition 3 means that the adjoint equations of system (\[perturbnew\]) work out $$\begin{aligned} \label{forper} && \no \hspace{-0.5cm}E_{\alpha}^{\ast}(x,u,v,u_{(1)},v_{(1)},\dots,u_{(r)},v_{(r)})_{\|_{\{v=\varphi+\epsilon \phi,\dots,v_{(r)}=\varphi_{(r)}+\epsilon \phi_{(r)}\}}}\\ && \hspace{0.5cm}-\left[(\lambda_\alpha^\beta+\epsilon\mu_\alpha^\beta) E^0_{\beta}(x,u,u_{(1)},\dots,u_{(r)})+\epsilon \lambda_\alpha^\beta E^1_{\beta}(x,u,u_{(1)},\dots,u_{(r)})\right]=O(\epsilon^2),\end{aligned}$$ with undetermined parameters $\lambda_\alpha^\beta$ and $\mu_\alpha^\beta$. Equality (\[forper\]) provides a computable formula to discriminate approximate nonlinear self-adjointness for perturbed PDEs. 2\. Similarly, as the unperturbed case, we can define approximate strict self-adjointness with $v=u+\epsilon u$ (or $u$ or $\epsilon u$), approximate quasi self-adjointness with $v=\varphi(u)+\epsilon\phi(u)$ (or $\varphi(u)$ or $\epsilon\phi(u)$) and approximate weak self-adjointness with $v=\varphi(x,u)+\epsilon\phi(x,u)$ (or $\varphi(x,u)$ or $\epsilon\phi(x,u)$) containing all $x$ and $u$. Approximate differential substitution also holds if $v$ contains the derivatives of $u$. 3\. If the substitution (\[sub1\]) does not exist for system (\[perturbnew\]), i.e., system (\[perturbnew\]) is not approximately nonlinearly self-adjoint, then the resulting conserved vectors will be nonlocal in the sense that they involve the introduced variable $v$ connected with the physical variable $u$ via adjoint equations (\[adequationper\]). In what follows, we present some properties of approximate nonlinear self-adjointness. Theorem 2. If adjoint system (\[adequation\]) exists solutions in the form $v^{\sigma}=\epsilon f^{\sigma}(x,u)$ with some functions $f^{\sigma}(x,u)$, then system (\[perturbnew\]) is approximately nonlinearly self-adjoint. Proof. Observe that $\mathcal {\widetilde{L}} = v^{\beta}E_{\beta}^0+ \epsilon\,v^{\beta} E_{\beta}^1$. If the substitution for approximate nonlinear self-adjointness of system (\[perturbnew\]) is in the form $v=\epsilon \phi(x,u)$, then by equivalent equality (\[forper\]) of Definition 3, $\mathcal {\widetilde{L}}$ is simplified to $\mathcal {\widehat{L}}=v^{\beta}E_{\beta}^0$ because the second part $\epsilon\,v^{\beta} E_{\beta}^1$ is second order of $\epsilon$. Thus in this case, the adjoint equations of system (\[perturbnew\]) become $\delta\mathcal {\widehat{L}}/\delta u^{\sigma}=\delta(v^{\beta}E_{\beta}^0)/\delta u^{\sigma}=0$, which has the same form as the adjoint equation of system (\[perturb\]), so the solutions $v^{\sigma}=\epsilon f^{\sigma}(x,u)$ of adjoint system (\[adequation\]) also satisfy $\delta\mathcal {\widehat{L}}/\delta u^{\sigma}=0$. It means that $v^{\sigma}=\epsilon f^{\sigma}(x,u)$ is just the required substitution which make system (\[perturbnew\]) to be approximate nonlinear self-adjointness. This proves the result. $\hfill \blacksquare$ For instance, consider a perturbed nonlinear wave equation $F=u_{tt}-u_{xx}+\epsilon uu_t=0$ with formal Lagrangian $\mathcal {\widetilde{L}}=v(u_{tt}-u_{xx}+\epsilon uu_t)$, the adjoint equation is $F^{\ast}=\delta\mathcal {\widetilde{L}}/\delta u= v_{tt}-v_{xx}-\epsilon uv_t=0$. The adjoint equation of unperturbed equation $u_{tt}-u_{xx}=0$ is $v_{tt}-v_{xx}=0$ which has solution in the form $v=\epsilon (c_1xt+c_2t+c_3x+c_4)$, where not all arbitrary constants $c_i\,(i=1,\dots,4)$ are zero. Then by Theorem 2, this solution makes $F^{\ast}=-\epsilon^2u(c_1x+c_2)$, thus equation $F=0$ is approximately nonlinearly self-adjoint. In particular, for linear perturbed PDEs, we have the following results. Corollary. Any system of linear perturbed PDEs is approximately nonlinearly self-adjoint. The corollary is a parallel result as unperturbed case [@ib-2011] and can be shown with almost parallel method, thus we take an example to demonstrate it. Consider the perturbed linear wave equation $u_{tt}-u_{xx}+\epsilon u_t=0$ whose formal Lagrangian is $\mathcal {\widetilde{L}}=v(u_{tt}-u_{xx}+\epsilon u_t)$, then its adjoint equation is $v_{tt}-v_{xx}-\epsilon v_t=0$ which is independent of $u$, thus any nontrivial solution is a substitution to make $u_{tt}-u_{xx}+\epsilon u_t=0$ to be approximate nonlinear self-adjointness. For the case of one dependent variable of system (\[perturbnew\]), namely $u$, we have the following results. Theorem 3. Eq.(\[perturbnew\]) is approximately nonlinearly self-adjoint if and only if it becomes approximately strictly self-adjoint after multiplied by an appropriate multiplier $\mu(x,u)+\epsilon\nu(x,u)$. Proof. Suppose Eq.(\[perturbnew\]) with one dependent variable written by $E_1=E_1^0+\epsilon E_1^1=0$ is approximately nonlinearly self-adjoint, for the substitution $v=\varphi+\epsilon \phi$, one has $$\begin{aligned} \no\frac{\delta (v E_1)}{\delta u}_{\mid_{v=\varphi+\epsilon \phi}}=(\lambda_0+\epsilon\lambda_1)E_1\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to the following system after separating it with respect to $\epsilon$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{proof2} \frac{\delta (\varphi E_1^0)}{\delta u}= \lambda_0 E_1^0, ~~~~\frac{\delta (\varphi E_1^1+\phi E_1^0)}{\delta u}= \lambda_1 E_1^0+\lambda_0 E_1^1.\end{aligned}$$ Note that hereinafter in all equalities we neglect the terms of order $O(\epsilon^2)$. On the other hand, the conditions for approximate strict self-adjointness and the variational derivative associated with equations $E_1=0$ yield $$\begin{aligned} \label{proof3} \frac{\delta [\omega (\mu(x,u)+\epsilon\nu(x,u)) E_1]}{\delta u}_{\mid_{\omega=u+\epsilon u}}= (\widetilde{\lambda}_0+\epsilon\widetilde{\lambda}_1)\, E_1.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting dependent variable $\omega=\omega_0+\epsilon\omega_1$ into (\[proof3\]) and splitting it with different order of $\epsilon$, for $\epsilon^0$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{proof11} && \no\frac{\delta (\omega_0 \mu E^0_1)}{\delta u}=\omega_0 \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u} E^0_1+\mu \omega_0\frac{\partial (E^0_1)}{\partial u}-D_{i}[\mu \omega_0\frac{\partial (E^0_1)}{\partial u_i}]+D_iD_j[\mu \omega_0\frac{\partial ( E^0_1)}{\partial u_{ij}}]+\dots\\\no&&\hspace{1.9cm}=\omega_0 \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u} E^0_1+\frac{\delta (\varphi E^0_1)}{\delta u}\\&&\hspace{1.9cm}=\widetilde{\lambda}_0 E_1^0,\end{aligned}$$ where, in Eq.(\[proof11\]), we regard $\omega_0$ as a dependent variable in the first equality while in the second equality, $\varphi=\omega_0\,\mu(x,u)$ is taken as a new dependent variable instead of $\omega_0$ to obtain the second term. With the condition $\omega=u+\epsilon u$, one has $$\begin{aligned} \label{proof4} && \frac{\delta (\omega_0 \mu E^0_1)}{\delta u}_{\mid_{\omega_0=u}}=u \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u} E^0_1+\frac{\delta (\varphi E^0_1)}{\delta u}_{\mid_{\omega_0=u}}=\widetilde{\lambda}_0 E_1^0.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, for $\epsilon^1$, one has $$\begin{aligned} \label{proof5} &&\no\hspace{-1.2cm}\frac{\delta [\omega_0 \mu E_1^1+(\omega_0\nu+\mu \omega_1)E_1^0]}{\delta u}_{\mid_{\{\omega_0=u, \omega_1=u\}}}\\\no&&\hspace{1cm}=u\Big[\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u} E^1_1+\frac{\partial (\mu+\nu)}{\partial u} E^0_1\Big]+\frac{\delta (\varphi E^1_1+\phi E^0_1)}{\delta u}_{\mid_{\{\omega_0=u, \omega_1=u\}}} \\&&\hspace{1cm}=\widetilde{\lambda}_1 E_1^0+\widetilde{\lambda}_0 E_1^1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi=\omega_0\nu(x,u)+\omega_1\mu(x,u)$ is a new dependent variable. Assume equation $E_1=0$ is approximately nonlinearly self-adjoint, then we have the multiplier $\mu+\epsilon\nu=\varphi/u+\epsilon (\phi-\varphi)/u$, with the help of (\[proof2\]),(\[proof4\]) and (\[proof5\]), Eq.(\[proof3\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{proof6} &&\no\hspace{-0.5cm}\frac{\delta [\omega (\mu(x,u)+\epsilon\nu(x,u)) E_1]}{\delta u}_{\mid_{\omega=u+\epsilon u}}\\\no&&\hspace{0.6cm}=u \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u} E^0_1+\frac{\delta (\varphi E^0_1)}{\delta u}_{\mid_{\omega_0=u}}+\epsilon u\Big[\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u} E^1_1+\frac{\partial (\mu+\nu)}{\partial u} E^0_1\Big]+\epsilon\frac{\delta (\varphi E^1_1+\phi E^0_1)}{\delta u}_{\mid_{\{\omega_0=u, \omega_1=u\}}}\\\no&&\hspace{0.6cm} =\Big[\lambda_0+\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial u}-\frac{\varphi}{u}\Big] E^0_1+\epsilon \Big[\Big(\lambda_0+\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial u}-\frac{\varphi}{u}\Big) E^1_1+\Big(\lambda_1+\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial u}-\frac{\phi}{u}\Big) E^0_1\Big] \\\no&&\hspace{0.6cm} =\widetilde{\lambda}_0E_1^0+\epsilon(\widetilde{\lambda}_1 E_1^0+\widetilde{\lambda}_0 E_1^1),\end{aligned}$$ thus $$\begin{aligned} \no\widetilde{\lambda}_0=\lambda_0+\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial u}-\frac{\varphi}{u},~~~ \widetilde{\lambda}_1=\lambda_1+\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial u}-\frac{\phi}{u}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, equation $E_1=0$ multiplied by the multiplier $\mu+\epsilon\nu$ is approximately strictly self-adjoint. Conversely, let $E_1=0$ with multiplier $\mu+\epsilon\nu$ is approximately strictly self-adjoint, then taking $\varphi=u\mu,\phi=u(\mu+\nu)$, Eq.(\[proof2\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{proof7} \no&&\frac{\delta (\varphi E_1^0)}{\delta u}= \Big[\widetilde{\lambda}_0-u \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u}\Big] E_1^0, \\\no&&\frac{\delta (\varphi E_1^1+\phi E_1^0)}{\delta u}= \Big[\widetilde{\lambda}_0-u\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u}\Big] E_1^1+\Big[\widetilde{\lambda}_1-u\frac{\partial (\mu+\nu)}{\partial u} \Big]E^0_1.\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, $$\begin{aligned} \label{proof8} \no&&\frac{\delta (v E_1)}{\delta u}_{\mid_{v=\varphi+\epsilon \phi}}=\Big[\widetilde{\lambda}_0-u \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u}\Big] E_1^0+\epsilon \Big[\widetilde{\lambda}_0-u\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u}\Big] E_1^1+\epsilon \Big[\widetilde{\lambda}_1-u\frac{\partial (\mu+\nu)}{\partial u} \Big]E_1^0,\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned} &&\no\lambda_0=\widetilde{\lambda}_0-u \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial u},~~~\lambda_1=\widetilde{\lambda}_1-u\frac{\partial (\mu+\nu)}{\partial u}.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that equation $E_1=0$ is approximately nonlinearly self-adjoint, thus complete the proof. $\blacksquare$ Remarks 3. 1\. Theorem 3 holds for some special cases of $\lambda_i,\widetilde{\lambda}_i \,(i=0,1)$. For example, if $\lambda_1=\widetilde{\lambda}_1=\phi=0$, then one find that the substitution is given by $v=\varphi$ and the multiplier becomes $\mu=\varphi/u$, which has the same results as unperturbed case [@ib-2011]. 2\. If the substitution for approximate strict self-adjointness is adopted by $v=u$, i.e., $\omega_0=u,\omega_1=0$ in the proof of Theorem 3, then we have the multiplier $\mu+\epsilon\nu$ is taken the form $(\varphi+\epsilon\phi)/u$. Similarly, if the substitution is $v= \epsilon u$, we have the multiplier $\mu+\epsilon\nu=\epsilon \phi/u$. Applications ============ In this section, we apply approximate nonlinear self-adjointness to construct approximate conservation laws of a class of perturbed nonlinear wave equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{wave} u_{tt}-[F(u)u_x]_x+\epsilon u_t=0,~~F'(u)\neq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $F(u)$ is an arbitrary smooth function. Eq.(\[wave\]) describes wave phenomena in shallow water, long radio engineering lines and isentropic motion of a fluid in a pipe etc.[@ba-1991; @char]. The perturbing term $\epsilon u_t$ arises in the presence of dissipation and the function $F(u)$ is defined by the properties of the medium and the character of the dissipation. Eq.(\[wave\]) had been studied by means of the stated two approximate symmetry methods and affluent approximate solutions were obtained [@zhang1; @ba-1991]. For Eq.(\[wave\]), we take the following formal Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned} \label{lag} && \mathcal {L}=v\left[u_{tt}-[F(u)u_x]_x+\epsilon u_{t}\right],\end{aligned}$$ and work out the variational derivative of this formal Lagrangian to obtain the system of two coupled equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{as} &&\no \frac{\delta \mathcal {L}}{\delta v}=u_{tt}-[F(u)u_x]_x+\epsilon u_t=0,\\ &&\frac{\delta \mathcal {L}}{\delta u}=v_{tt}-F(u)v_{xx}-\epsilon v_t=0,\end{aligned}$$ where the second equation is called the adjoint equation of Eq.(\[wave\]). Approximate nonlinear self-adjointness -------------------------------------- With the help of computable formula (\[forper\]), we prove the following proposition for Eq.(\[wave\]). Proposition 1. Eq.(\[wave\]) is approximately nonlinearly self-adjoint under the substitution $$\begin{aligned} \label{substitution} v=(c_1t+c_2)x+c_3t+c_4+\epsilon\left[(\frac{1}{2}c_1t^2+c_5t+c_6)x+\frac{1}{2}c_3t^2+c_7t+c_8\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $c_i(i=1,\dots,8)$ are arbitrary constants such that $v\neq0$. Proof. Assuming that $v=\varphi(x,t,u)+\epsilon \phi(x,t,u)$ and substituting it into the adjoint equation, one obtains $$\begin{aligned} \label{det} &&\no\varphi_{tt}+2\varphi_{tu}u_t+\varphi_{uu}u_t^2+\varphi_uu_{tt} +\epsilon(\phi_{tt}+2\phi_{tu}u_t+\phi_{uu}u_t^2+\phi_uu_{tt}-\varphi_t-\varphi_uu_t)\\\no &&-F(u)[\varphi_{xx}+2\varphi_{xu}u_x+\varphi_{uu}u_x^2+\varphi_uu_{xx} +\epsilon(\phi_{xx}+2\phi_{xu}u_x+\phi_{uu}u_x^2+\phi_uu_{xx})]\\ &&=(\lambda_0+\epsilon\lambda_1)[u_{tt}-F'(u)u_x^2-F(u)u_{xx}]+\epsilon \lambda_0 u_t,\end{aligned}$$ where we omit the second-order terms of $\epsilon$ in Eq.(\[det\]). Comparing the coefficients for $u_{tt},u_{xx},u^2_x,u^2_t$ in both sides, we obtain $\varphi_u=\phi_u=0$ and $\lambda_0=\lambda_1=0$, then the above equation (\[det\]) becomes $\varphi_{tt}+\epsilon(\phi_{tt}-\varphi_t)-F(u)(\varphi_{xx}+\epsilon\phi_{xx})=0$ and yields $$\begin{aligned} &&\no\varphi_{tt}=0,~~\phi_{tt}-\varphi_t=0,~~\varphi_{xx}=0,~~\phi_{xx}=0,\end{aligned}$$ which gives the solutions $\varphi=(c_1t+c_2)x+c_3t+c_4,\phi=(\frac{1}{2}c_1t^2+c_5t+c_6)x+\frac{1}{2}c_3t^2+c_7t+c_8$. This completes the proof. $\blacksquare$ Proposition 1 provides many choices for multipliers to make Eq.(\[wave\]) become approximately strictly self-adjoint. For example, after assigning proper values to some parameters, we have $v= 1+\epsilon$. Multiplying it on the left side of Eq.(\[wave\]), by means of Theorem 3, we obtain $\mu(x,t)=1/u,\nu(x,t)=0$, then Eq.(\[wave\]) multiplied by it becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{wave1} \frac{1}{u}\Big[u_{tt}-[F(u)u_x]_x+\epsilon u_t\Big]=0,\end{aligned}$$ which is approximately strictly self-adjoint because, at this time, $\mathcal {L}=v[u_{tt}-[F(u)u_x]_x+\epsilon u_t]/u$ and the adjoint equation of Eq.(\[wave1\]) is $$\begin{aligned} &&\no\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}}{\delta u}= \frac{1}{u^3}\big[u^2v_{tt}-2uu_tv_t-2uvu_{tt}+2vu_t^2-\epsilon u^2v_t\big]\\\no&&\hspace{1.1cm}+\frac{1}{u^3}[u F'(u)-2F(u)]vu_x^2+\frac{1}{u^2}[2u_xv_x+2vu_{xx}-uv_{xx}]F(u)=0,\end{aligned}$$ which becomes Eq.(\[wave1\]) by substitution $v=u$. Alternatively, one can adopt $\mu=\nu=1/u$ to make Eq.(\[wave\]) to be approximate strict self-adjointness. Approximate conservation laws ----------------------------- Now we turn to construct approximate conservation laws of Eq.(\[wave\]). The first step of the approach is to perform approximate symmetry classification of Eq.(\[wave\]). The exact symmetry of unperturbed equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{unperturbed} &&u_{tt}-[F(u)u_x]_x=0,\end{aligned}$$ is well known [@wf-1981]. The maximal Lie algebra is generated by a three-dimensional algebra and three special cases correspond to four- or five-dimensional Lie algebra. The results are reduced to those cases in Table 1 by the equivalence transformation $$\begin{aligned} &&\no\widetilde{x}=e_1x+e_2,~~\widetilde{t}=e_3t+e_4,~~\widetilde{u}=e_5u+e_6,\end{aligned}$$ where $e_i,(i=1,\dots,6)$ with $e_1e_3e_5\neq0$ are arbitrary constants. [Table 1]{}. Lie algebras of Eq.(\[unperturbed\]) ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- $\text{arbitrary}$ $X_1=\partial_x,X_2=\partial_t,X_3=x\partial_x +t\partial_t$ $e^{u}$ $X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4=x\partial_x +2\partial_u$ $u^{\mu}(\mu\neq-4,-\frac{4}{3})$ $X_1,X_2,X_3,X_5=\mu x\partial_x +2u\partial_u$ $u^{-4}$ $X_1,X_2,X_3,X_5,X_6=t^2\partial_t +tu\partial_u$ $u^{-\frac{4}{3}}$ $X_1,X_2,X_3,X_5,X_7=x^2\partial_x -3xu\partial_u$ ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Table 2 gives approximate symmetries obtained by the approach of Baikov et al. [@ba-1991]. [Table 2.]{} Approximate Lie algebras of Eq.(\[wave\]) ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- arbitrary $\widetilde{X}_1=\partial_x,\widetilde{X}_2=\partial_t,\widetilde{X}_3=\epsilon(x\partial_x+t\partial_t)$ $e^u$ $\widetilde{X}_1,\widetilde{X}_2,\widetilde{X}_3,\widetilde{X}_4=x\partial_x+t\partial_t+\epsilon t(\frac{t}{2}\partial_t-2\partial_u)$ $u^{\mu}(\mu\neq-4,-\frac{4}{3})$ $\widetilde{X}_1,\widetilde{X}_2,\widetilde{X}_3, \widetilde{X}_5=\epsilon(x\partial_x+\frac{2}{\mu}u\partial_u), \widetilde{X}_6=t\partial_t-\frac{2}{\mu}u\partial_u +\epsilon \frac{\mu t}{\mu+4}(\frac{t}{2}\partial_t-\frac{2}{\mu}u\partial_u)$ $u^{-4}$ $\widetilde{X}_1,\widetilde{X}_2,\widetilde{X}_3,\widetilde{X}_5,\widetilde{X}_6, \widetilde{X}_7=\epsilon(t^2\partial_t+tu\partial_u)$ $u^{-4/3}$ $\widetilde{X}_1,\widetilde{X}_2,\widetilde{X}_3,\widetilde{X}_5,\widetilde{X}_6, \widetilde{X}_8=\epsilon(x^2\partial_x-3xu\partial_u)$ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In what follows, we will use formula (\[formula\]) in Theorem 1 to obtain first-order approximate conservation laws of Eq.(\[wave\]) $$\begin{aligned} &&\no\left[D_t(C^1)+D_x(C^2)\right]_{\|(\ref{wave})}= O(\epsilon^2),\end{aligned}$$ by virtue of the approximate symmetries in Table 2. Inserting the formal Lagrangian (\[lag\]) into formula (\[formula\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{vector} &&\no C^1=W(\epsilon v-v_t)+v D_t (W),\\&&C^2=W\left(F(u)v_x-F'(u)u_x v\right)-D_x(W) F(u) v.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we investigate the following two cases to illustrate the effectiveness of approximate nonlinear self-adjointness in constructing approximate conservation laws, while other cases can be done by formula (\[vector\]) with similar procedure. Example 1. Now, we utilize operator $\widetilde{X}_4$ in Table 2 to calculate the conserved vector. In this case, $W=-2\epsilon t-x u_x-\big(t+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon t^2\big)u_t$ and $F(u)=e^u$, then the conserved vector (\[vector\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{cons11} &&\no C^1= t e^{u}u_x v_x+x v_tu_x+ t u_tv_t+x u_tv_x\\\no&&\hspace{1cm}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon \left(t^2 u_tv_t+4 t v_t+t^2 e^{u} u_x v_x-2t u_tv-2x u_xv-4v\right), \\\no&&C^2=-t e^{u} u_tv_x -x u_tv_t-te^{u} u_x v_t-xe^{u} u_x v_x\\&&\hspace{1cm} +\epsilon\big(x u_tv+t e^{u} u_xv-\frac{1}{2} t e^{u} (t u_x v_t+t u_tv_x+4 v_x)\big),\end{aligned}$$ where $v$ is given by the substitution (\[substitution\]). Specially, we take $v=x$, then (\[cons11\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} &&\no C^1_1=x u_t+t e^{u} u_x+\epsilon (\frac{1}{2} t^2 e^{u} u_x- x^2 u_x- t x u_t),\\\no&&C^2_1=-t e^{u} u_t-x e^{u}u_x+\epsilon(-\frac{1}{2} t^2 e^{u} u_t+x^2 u_t+t x e^{u} u_x-2 t e^{u}),\end{aligned}$$ which make $$\begin{aligned} \no\Big[D_t(C^1_1)+D_x(C^2_1)\Big]_{\|(\ref{wave})}= \epsilon ^2 x \left(t u_t-2\right).\end{aligned}$$ Example 2. Consider $\widetilde{X}_6$ for $F(u)=u^{\mu}(\mu\neq-4,-\frac{4}{3})$. Here, $W=-\frac{2}{\mu}u - \frac{2\epsilon tu}{\mu+4}-\big(t+\frac{\epsilon\mu t^2}{2(\mu+4)}\big)u_t$, then the conserved vector (\[vector\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} &&\no C^1= t u_x v_x u^\mu+ t u_t v_t- u_t v-\frac{2}{\mu} (u_t v-2 u v_t)\\\no&&\hspace{1cm}+\frac{\epsilon}{2 \mu (\mu+4)}\left(\mu^2 t^2 u_x v_x u^\mu+\mu^2 t^2u_t v_t-2\mu (\mu+2)t u_t v- 8(\mu+2)u v+4\mu tuv_t\right),\\\no&&C^2= u^\mu u_x v-tu^\mu u_x v_t- tu^\mu v_x u_t+\frac{2}{\mu} \left(u_xv-v_x u\right)u^\mu\\&&\hspace{1cm}-\frac{\epsilon t u^\mu }{2 (\mu+4)}\left(\mu t u_x v_t+ \mu t u_tv_x+4 uv_x-2 (\mu+2) u_x v\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $v$ is also given by the substitution (\[substitution\]). In particular, choosing $v=x+\epsilon t$, we have $$\begin{aligned} &&\no C^1_2=tu^\mu u_x -(\frac{2}{\mu}+1) x u_t\\\no&&\hspace{1cm}+\frac{\epsilon}{2 \mu (\mu+4)}\left(\mu^2 t^2 u^\mu u_x-2 t \left(\mu^2 x+2 \mu (x+1)+8\right) u_t-4 (2 \mu x-\mu+4 x-4) u\right), \\\no&&C^2_2=x u_xu^\mu-t u_tu^\mu +\frac{2}{\mu}\left(x u_x- u\right)u^\mu \\\no&&\hspace{1cm}-\frac{\epsilon t u^\mu }{2 \mu (\mu+4)}\left(\mu^2 t u_t-2 \mu^2 xu_x-4 \mu (x+1)u_x-16 u_x+4 \mu u\right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} &&\no\hspace{-0.2cm}\Big[D_t(C^1_2)+D_x(C^2_2)\Big]_{\|(\ref{wave})}\\\no&&\hspace{0.6cm}=-\frac{\epsilon ^2}{2 \mu (\mu +4)} \left(2\mu^2 t u_t-\mu^2t(2x+\epsilon t)u_{t}+8\mu t u_t+4 \mu u(2 t \epsilon +x+1)+16u\right).\end{aligned}$$ Conclusion ========== We provide a more detailed investigation of approximate nonlinear self-adjointness and related properties, which extends the results in both the unperturbed PDEs case and the perturbed ODEs case. The results are applied to a class of perturbed nonlinear wave equations and approximate conservation laws are obtained. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The author is grateful to Prof. N.H. Ibragimov for constructive suggestions and helpful comments. I thank the anonymous referees for their valuable advices and corrections to the paper. [99]{} E. Noether, Invariante Variationsprobleme, Nachr. König. Gissell. Wissen., Göttingen, Math.-Phys. Kl. 2 (1918) 235-257, English transl.: Transport Theory Statist. Phys. 1 (1971) 186-207. Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, The Noether Theorems: Invariance and Conservation Laws in the Twentieth Century, Springer, New York, 2011. N.H. Ibragimov, A.H. Kara and F.M. Mahomed, Lie-B$\ddot{\text{a}}$cklund and Noether symmetries with applications, Nonlinear Dyn. 15 (1998) 115-136. I.M. Anderson and T.E. Duchamp, Variational principles for second-order quasi-linear scalar equations, J. Diff. Equations 51 (1984) 1-47. S.C. Anco and G.W. Bluman, Direct construction method for conservation laws of partial differential equations, part I: examples of conservation law classifications, Eur. J. Appl. Math. 13 (2002) 545-566. S.C. Anco and G.W. Bluman, Direct construction method for conservation laws of partial differential equations, part II: general treatment, Eur. J. Appl. Math. 13 (2002) 567-585. A.H. Kara, F.M. Mahomed, Noether-type symmetries and conservation laws via partial Lagrangians, Nonlinear Dyn. 5 (2006) 367-383. N.H. Ibragimov, Nonlinear self-adjointness in constructing conservation laws, Archives of ALGA,1-99, Volume 7/8, 2010-2011. N.H. Ibragimov, Nonlinear self-adjointness and conservation laws, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44 (2011) 432002 (8pp). N.H. Ibragimov, Integrating factors, adjoint equations and Lagrangians, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 318 (2006) 742-757. N.H. Ibragimov, A new conservation theorem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 333 (2007) 311-328. N.H. Ibragimov, Quasi self-adjoint differential equations, Arch. ALGA 4 (2007) 55-60. M.L. Gandarias, Weak self-adjoint differential equations, J. Phys. A. 44 (2011) 262001 (6pp). H. Bateman, On Dissipative Systems and Related Variational Principles, Phys. Rev. 38 (1931) 815-819. G. Caviglia, Composite variational principles and the determination of conservation laws, J. Math. Phys. 29 (1988) 812-816. P.J. Olver, Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York (1993). M. Torrisi and R. Tracin$\grave{\text{a}}$, Quasi self-adjointness of a class of third order nonlinear dispersive equations, Nonlin. Anal., RWA, DOI: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2012.10.013, 2012. M.L. Gandarias and M. Bruz$\acute{\text{o}}$n, Some conservation laws for a forced KdV equation, Nonlin. Anal., RWA, 13 (2012) 2692-2700. I.L. Freire and J.C.S. Sampaio, Nonlinear self-adjointness of a generalized fifth-order KdV equation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45 (2012) 032001 (7pp). N.H. Ibragimov, M. Torrisi and R. Tracin$\grave{\text{a}}$, Self-adjointness and conservation laws of a generalized Burgers equation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44 (2011) 145201 (5pp). I.L. Freire, New classes of nonlinearly self-adjoint evolution equations of third- and fifth-order, Commun. Nonlin. Sci. Num. Simul. 18 (2013) 493-499. V.A. Baikov, R.K. Gazizov and N.H. Ibragimov, Perturbation methods in group analysis, J. Soviet. Math. 55 (1991) 1450-1490. W.I. Fushchich and W.H. Shtelen, On approximate symmetry and approximate solutions of the non-linear wave equation with a small parameter, J. Phys. A 22 (18) (1989) L887-L890. M. Pakdemirli, M. Yurusoy and T. Dolapc, Comparison of Approximate Symmetry Methods for Differential Equations, Acta Appl. Math. 80 (2004) 243-271. R. Wiltshire, Two approaches to the calculation of approximate symmetry exemplilfied using a system of advection-diffusion equations, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 197(2)(2006) 287-301. N.H. Ibragimov, Elementary Lie group analysis and ordinary differential equations, Mathematical Methods in Practice, Wiley, Chichester-New York, (1999). A.G. Johnpillai and A.H. Kara, Variational Formulation of Approximate Symmetries and Conservation Laws, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 40 (2001) 1501-1509. T. Feroze and A.H. Kara, Group theoretic methods for approximate invariants and Lagrangians for some classes of $y''+\epsilon F(t)y'+y=f(y,y)$, Int. J. Nonlin. Mech. 37 (2002) 275-280. A.H. Kara, F.M. Mahomedl and G. Ünal, Approximate symmetries and conservation laws with applications, Int. J. Theoret. Phys. 38 (1999) 2389-2399. A.G. Johnpillai, A.H. Kara and F.M. Mahomed, A basis of approximate conservation laws for PDEs with a small parameter, Int. J. Nonlinear Mech. 41 (2006) 830-837. A.G. Johnpillai, A.H. Kara and F.M. Mahomed, Approximate Noether-type symmetries and conservation laws via partial Lagrangians for PDEs with a small parameter, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 223 (2009) 508-518. G.W. Bluman and S. Kumei, Symmetries and Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York (1989). Z.Y. Zhang and Y.F. Chen, A comparative study of approximate symmetry and approximate homotopy symmetry to a class of perturbed nonlinear wave equation, Nonlinear Anal. 74 (2011) 4300-4318. I.A. Charnyi, Unstable Motion of a Real Fluid in Pipes, Nedra, Moscow 1975 (in Russian). W.F. Ames, E. Adams and R.J. Lohner, Group properties of $u_{tt} = [f(u)u_x]_x$, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 16 (1981) 439-447. [^1]: E-mail: [email protected]; Tel:+86 010 88803103	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We consider a vector-like gauge theory of fermions that confines at the multi-TeV scale, and that realizes the Higgs particle as a composite Goldstone boson. The weak interactions are embedded in the unbroken subgroup $Sp(4)$ of a spontaneously broken $SU(4)$ flavour group. The meson resonances appear as poles in the two-point correlators of fermion bilinears, and include the Goldstone bosons plus a massive pseudoscalar $\eta''$, as well as scalars, vectors and axial vectors. We compute the mass spectrum of these mesons, as well as their decay constants, in the chiral limit, in the approximation where the hypercolour $Sp(2N)$ dynamics is described by four-fermion operators, à la Nambu-Jona Lasinio. By resumming the leading diagrams in the $1/N$ expansion, we find that the spin-one states lie beyond the LHC reach, while spin-zero electroweak-singlet states may be as light as the Goldstone-boson decay constant, $f\sim 1$ TeV. We also confront our results with a set of available spectral sum rules. In order to supply composite top-quark partners, the theory contains additional fermions carrying both hypercolour and ordinary colour, with an associated flavour symmetry-breaking pattern $SU(6)/SO(6)$. We identify and analyse several non-trivial features of the complete two-sector gauge theory: the ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions; the higher-dimension operator which incorporates the effects of the hypercolour axial-singlet anomaly; the coupled mass-gap equations; the mixing between the singlet mesons of the two sectors, resulting in an extra Goldstone boson $\eta_0$, and novel spectral sum rules. Assuming that the strength of the four-fermion interaction is the same in the two sectors, we find that the coloured vector and scalar mesons have masses $\gtrsim 4 f$, while the masses of coloured pseudo-Goldstone bosons, induced by gluon loops, are $\gtrsim 1.5f$. We discuss the scaling of the meson masses with the values of $N$, of the four-fermion couplings, and of a possible fermion mass.' author: - Nicolas Bizot - Michele Frigerio - Marc Knecht - 'Jean-Loïc Kneur' bibliography: - 'biblio.bib' title: \| Non-perturbative analysis of the spectrum of meson resonances\ in an ultraviolet-complete composite-Higgs model --- Introduction ============ After the first LHC 13 TeV data have been analysed, we are left with a 125 GeV Higgs boson and no evidence for other new states. Yet, it is too early to remove from consideration sufficiently weakly-coupled new particles in the sub-TeV range, or even new coloured particles in the multi-TeV range. Even though the little hierarchy between the Higgs mass and the new states seem to require an adjustment of parameters, the theories addressing the quantum stability of the electroweak scale may still solve larger hierarchy problems. A classical possibility is a strongly-coupled sector that dynamically generates the electroweak scale. The observation of a scalar state, significantly lighter than the strong-coupling scale, suggests that the Higgs particle may be composite and, in good approximation, a Nambu-Goldstone boson (NGB) associated to the global symmetries of the new sector [@Kaplan:1983fs; @Kaplan:1983sm; @Dugan:1984hq; @Agashe:2004rs]. While an effective description of the composite Higgs couplings is possible without specifying the strong dynamics, the spectrum of additional composite states essentially depends on the underlying ultraviolet theory. Barring extra space-time dimensions, the simplest, well-understood, explicit realization is provided by a gauge theory of fermions that confines at the multi-TeV scale, with quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as a prototype. The historical incarnation being technicolor [@Weinberg:1975gm; @Susskind:1978ms], in recent years models of this sort featuring the Higgs as a composite NGB have been built [@Galloway:2010bp; @Barnard:2013zea; @Cacciapaglia:2014uja; @Ferretti:2014qta; @Vecchi:2015fma; @Ma:2015gra] and classified in some generality [@Ferretti:2013kya][@Vecchi:2015fma]. Alternative ultraviolet completions of composite Higgs models are discussed in Refs. [@Caracciolo:2012je; @vonGersdorff:2015fta; @Fichet:2016xvs; @Galloway:2016fuo]. Our motivations to analyse in detail such a scenario are manifold. A characterisation of the spectrum of composite states is critical to confront with the LHC program: does one foresee Standard Model (SM) singlet resonances close to one TeV? what are the expectations for the masses of the lightest charged and colour states? These intrinsically non-perturbative questions are especially pressing, in order to compare with the well-defined predictions of weakly-coupled theories. In addition, a quantitative description of the composite masses and couplings would allow for an explicit computation of the Higgs low energy properties, improving on the predictivity of the composite Higgs effective theory. Furthermore, decades of QCD studies have provided us with a notable collection of non-perturbative, analytic techniques to study strongly-coupled gauge theories, that have been hardly exploited in the context of models for the electroweak scale. A partial list includes anomaly matching [@'tHooft:1979bh], spectral sum rules [@Weinberg:1967kj], large-$N$ expansions [@'tHooft:1973jz; @Witten:1979kh], and the Nambu-Jona Lasinio (NJL) effective model [@Nambu:1961tp; @Nambu:1961fr] (see also Refs. [@Klevansky:1992qe; @Hatsuda:1994pi]). With this approach one can reach several non-trivial results, holding within well-defined approximations, with a relatively small computational effort, and thus one may broadly characterise several, different, possible models. This is complementary to lattice simulations, which are suitable for potentially more precise computations, in specific and/or simplified scenarios. Interestingly, we will also find that the peculiar structure of composite Higgs models requires a gauge theory that is qualitatively different from QCD, in a handful of significant features. We engage into this program by choosing, as a case study, an electroweak sector with global symmetry $SU(4)$ spontaneously broken to $Sp(4)$. This is the most economical possibility to obtain a Nambu-Goldstone Higgs doublet with custodial symmetry, starting from a set of constituent fermions. This model, with a hypercolour gauge group $Sp(2N)$, emerges as the minimal benchmark for an ultraviolet-complete composite Higgs sector. The most significant challenge facing this class of theories is to generate the large top quark Yukawa coupling, as it requires non-renormalisable operators to couple the top to the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) order parameter. A promising way to circumvent the potential suppression of the top Yukawa is partial compositeness [@Kaplan:1991dc], which calls for composite fermion resonances with the quantum number of the top quark. A minimal realization of top partial compositeness is provided by an additional sector of hypercolour fermions, which are charged under QCD, with global symmetry $SU(6)$ spontaneously broken to $SO(6)$. While this particular choice for the colour sector appears less compelling than the one for the electroweak sector, we will show that it is instructive to study it explicitly in detail. Indeed, one needs to surmount a number of model-building difficulties, which require quite technical complications: on the one hand this assesses the price to pay for top partners, on the other hand the interplay of the two sectors reveals a few novel physical phenomena, whose interest transcends the specific model under consideration. Our analysis builds on an early, enlightening study [@Barnard:2013zea], which employed four-fermion operators to understand the dynamics of this $SU(4)\times SU(6)$ model with hypercolour group $Sp(2N)$, in close analogy with the NJL description of QCD (NJL techniques have been applied to different ultraviolet-complete composite-Higgs models as well [@vonGersdorff:2015fta]). We will provide the first, thorough computation of the spectrum of the meson resonances in this scenario. To this end, we will perform a detailed scrutiny of the symmetry structure of the model, which allows for several non-trivial consistency checks, as well as for an accurate determination of the allowed range of parameters. In most of our analysis, we will stick to the chiral limit, where the constituent fermions have no bare masses, and the SM gauge and Yukawa couplings are neglected. In this limit the Higgs and the other NGBs are massless. When relevant, we will discuss in some detail the effect of fermion masses and of switching on the SM gauge fields, however we will not study the generation of Yukawa couplings and of the NGB effective potential: the usual effective theory techniques to address these issues [@Contino:2010rs; @Panico:2015jxa] hold in the present scenario as well, but we leave for future work a more specific treatment of this subject. The paper is organised as follows. In section \[general\] we review exact results on vector-like gauge theories, especially concerning the spontaneous breaking of the flavour symmetries, the associated spectral sum rules, the NGB couplings to external gauge fields. The reader more interested in the phenomenology of a specific model may just consult this part to inspect general formulas and conventions. In section \[The electroweak sector\] we study the electroweak sector with coset $SU(4)/Sp(4)$, in terms of four-fermion operators, à la NJL. The symmetry breaking is examined through the gap equation for the dynamical fermion mass, while the spin-zero and spin-one meson masses are extracted from the poles of resummed two-point correlators. The spectrum of resonances is analysed in units of the NGB decay constant, and compared with available lattice results, as well as with spectral sum rules. This analysis of the electroweak sector in isolation is self-sufficient and it already illustrates the main potentialities of our approach. The following sections require some extra model-building and rather technical computations, that however may be skipped to move directly to the phenomenological results. In section \[coloured-sector\] we introduce additional, coloured constituent fermions, in a different representation of $Sp(2N)$, to provide partners for the top quark. The consequences include non-trivial anomaly matching conditions, mixed sum rules across the two sectors, and mixed operators induced by the hypercolour gauge anomaly. In section \[The spectrum of mesonic resonances in the coloured sector\] we study the system of coupled mass-gap equations for the two sectors and derive the masses of coloured mesons. In addition, the mixing between the two flavour singlet (pseudo)scalars leads to a peculiar mass spectrum and phenomenology. Finally, in section \[conclusion\] we summarise the main results of the analysis and delineate future directions. Technical material is collected in the appendices: the generators of the flavour symmetry group in appendix \[generators\], the relevant loop functions in appendix \[loop-functions\], some details on the computation of two-point correlators in appendix \[SDresum\], and the Fierz identities relating different four-fermion operators in appendix \[fierz\]. General properties of flavour symmetries in vector-like gauge theories {#general} ====================================================================== The composite-Higgs model that we will study belongs to the class of vector-like gauge theories, namely an asymptotically free and confining gauge theory, with a set of $N_f$ Dirac fermions transforming under a (possibly reducible) self-contragredient (i.e. unitarily equivalent to its complex conjugate) representation of the gauge group, in such a way that it is possible to make all fermions massive in a gauge invariant way[^1]. Exact results concerning non-perturbative dynamical aspects in these theories are scarce, and in this section we briefly review some of those that are actually available. They concern issues related to the spontaneous breaking of the global flavour symmetries and the spectrum of low-lying bound states. Restrictions on the pattern of spontaneous symmetry breaking {#VW} ------------------------------------------------------------ An important result for the spontaneous breaking of the global flavour symmetry group $G$ for fermions with vector-like couplings to gauge fields has been obtained by Vafa and Witten [@Vafa:1983tf]. The theorem they have proven makes the following statement: [in any vector-like gauge theory with massless fermions and vanishing vacuum angles, the subgroup $H_m$ of the flavour group $G$ that corresponds to the remaining global symmetry when all fermion flavours are given identical gauge invariant masses, cannot be spontaneously broken]{}. In other words, if $G$ undergoes spontaneous breaking towards some subgroup $H$, then $H_m \subseteq H$ (in the absence of any vacuum angle). This theorem is particularly powerful when $H_m$ corresponds to a maximal subgroup of $G$, since it then allows only two alternatives: either $G$ is not spontaneously broken at all, or $G$ is spontaneously broken towards $H_m$. This is actually what happens in the three cases that we can encounter in vector-like theories [@Peskin:1980gc; @Kogan:1984nb]: $G = SU(N_f)_L \times SU(N_f)_R $ and $H_m = SU(N_f)_V $[^2]; $G = SU(2 N_f)$ and $H_m = SO(2 N_f)$; $G = SU(2 N_f)$ and $H_m = Sp(2 N_f)$. Of particular interest for the discussion that follows are the Noether currents $\mathcal{J}^A_\mu$, corresponding to the generators $T^A$ of the unbroken subgroup $H_m$, and ${\cal J}^{\hat A}_\mu$, corresponding to the generators $T^{\hat A}$ in the coset $G/H_m$. Since the latter is a symmetric space for the three cases that have just been listed, we will usually refer to the currents $\mathcal{J}^A_\mu$ (${\cal J}^{\hat A}_\mu$) as vector (axial) currents. When the fermions transform under an irreducible but real ($\epsilon = +1$ below) or pseudo-real ($\epsilon = -1$) representation of the gauge group, $G=SU(2N_f)$, and $H_m = SO (2 N_f)$ or $H_m = Sp (2N_f)$, respectively. In these two cases, it is convenient to write the fermion fields in terms of left-handed Weyl spinors $\psi_\alpha$. The currents are then defined as follow \[$\overline{\psi}_i \equiv \psi_j^\dagger \left(\Omega_\varepsilon \right)_{ji}$, where $i$ and $j$ denote gauge indices, while spinor and flavour indices are omitted\]: $$\mathcal{J}^A_\mu= {\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}} \left(\Omega_\varepsilon \right)_{ij} \left[ \varepsilon \overline{\psi}_i \overline{\sigma}_\mu T^A \psi_j -\psi_i \sigma_\mu \big(T^A \big)^T \overline{\psi}_j \right] ~, \qquad \qquad {\cal J}^{\hat A}_\mu= {\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}} \left(\Omega_\varepsilon \right)_{ij} \left[ \varepsilon \overline{\psi}_i \overline{\sigma}_\mu T^{\hat A} \psi_j -\psi_i \sigma_\mu \big(T^{\hat A} \big)^T \overline{\psi}_j \right] ~. \label{Jdef}$$ The gauge contraction $\Omega_\varepsilon$ is an invariant tensor under the action of the gauge group, which is symmetric for $\varepsilon=+1$ and antisymmetric for $\varepsilon=-1$, with $\big(\Omega_\varepsilon^2\big)_{ij} = \varepsilon \delta_{ij}$. The generators $T^A$ and $T^{\hat A}$ are characterised by the properties $$T^A\Sigma_\varepsilon +\Sigma_\varepsilon \big( T^A \big)^T=0~, \qquad\qquad T^{\hat A} \Sigma_\varepsilon -\Sigma_\varepsilon \big( T^{\hat A} \big)^T=0~, \label{Tacom}$$ and are normalised as (T\^A T\^B) = \^[AB]{} , (T\^[A]{} T\^[B]{}) = \^[[A]{}[B]{}]{} , (T\^A T\^[B]{}) = 0 . \[norm\_T\] The $2 N_f \times 2 N_f$ matrix $\Sigma_\varepsilon$ is an invariant tensor of the subgroup $H_m$ of the flavour group. It plays for this subgroup a role analogous to the role played by $\Omega_\varepsilon$ for the gauge group. In particular, it can be chosen real, it is symmetric for $\varepsilon=+1$ and antisymmetric for $\varepsilon=-1$, and satisfies $\Sigma_\varepsilon^2 = \varepsilon 1\!\!1$, where $1\!\!1$ denotes the $2 N_f \times 2 N_f$ unit matrix in flavour space. ’t Hooft’s anomaly matching condition {#anomat} ------------------------------------- Whereas the theorem of Vafa and Witten restricts the pattern of spontaneous breaking of the global flavour symmetry group $G$, it does not by itself provide information on which alternative will eventually be realized. Additional information is required to that effect. The anomaly matching condition proposed by ’t Hooft [@'tHooft:1979bh] can prove helpful in this respect. This condition uses the fact that the Ward identities satisfied by the three-point functions of the Noether currents corresponding to the symmetry group $G$ receive anomalous contributions from the massless elementary fermions [@BJanom; @Aanom; @AB2anom] i (q\_1 + q\_2)\^d\^4 x\_1 d\^4 x\_2 e\^[i q\_1 x\_1 + i q\_2 x\_2]{} T { [J]{}\^A\_(x\_1) [J]{}\^B\_(x\_2) [J]{}\^[C]{}\_(0)} = - \_ q\_1\^q\_2\^d\^[AB[C]{}]{} , \[Anom\_WI\] with $d^{AB{\hat C}} = 2 {\rm tr}(\{T^A , T^B \} T^{\hat C})$, where the trace is over the flavour group only, and $d_{HC}$ denotes the dimension of the representation of the gauge group under which the fermions transform. These anomalous contributions imply that the corresponding three-point functions have very specific physical singularities at vanishing momentum transfer [@'tHooft:1979bh; @Frishman:1980dq; @Coleman:1982yg]. Moreover, this type of singularities can only be produced by physical intermediate states consisting either of a single massless spin zero particle, or of a pair of massless spin one-half particles. If the symmetries of $G$ are not spontaneously broken, the first option is excluded. If the theory confines, this then implies that it has to produce massless spin one-half bound states (that we will call baryons). These fermionic bound states will occur in multiplets of $G$, and their multiplicities must be chosen such as to exactly reproduce the coefficient of the singularities in the current three-point functions. If it is not possible to saturate this anomaly coefficient with the exchange of massless fermionic bound states only, then massless spin-zero bound states coupled to the currents of $G$ are required, and hence $G$ is spontaneously broken. If this anomaly matching condition can be satisfied with massless spin one-half bound states only, the spontaneous breaking of $G$ towards $H_m$ is not a necessity, but it cannot be excluded either. In particular, the global symmetry is necessarily spontaneously broken if, after confinement, the theory cannot produce fermionic bound states at all. If we restrict ourselves to constituent fermions in the fundamental representation of the gauge group, this happens when the gauge group is $SU(2N)$, $SO(2N)$, or $Sp(2N)$. In these cases, the flavour group $G$ therefore necessarily suffers spontaneous breaking towards $H_m$. On the contrary, fermionic bound states can be formed in the case of $SU(N)$ or $SO(N)$ gauge groups with $N$ odd. Novel fermionic bound states may be possible if one admits elementary fermions transforming in other representations than the fundamental under the gauge group. We will discuss one such scenario below in section IV. Mass inequalities {#inequalities} ----------------- Various inequalities [@Weingarten:1983uj; @Witten:1983ut; @Nussinov:1983vh; @Espriu:1984mq; @Nussinov:1984kr] involving the masses of the gauge-singlet bound states in confining vector-like gauge theories provide additional insight into the fate of flavour symmetries in these theories, complementary to the constraints arising from the Vafa-Witten theorem and from ’t Hooft’s anomaly matching condition. The most rigorous versions of these inequalities hold under the same positivity constraint on the path-integral measure in euclidian space as required for the proof of the Vafa-Witten theorem, namely the absence of any vacuum angle. A review on these inequalities is provided by Ref. [@Nussinov:1999sx]. Of particular interest in the present context is the inequality of the type [@Weingarten:1983uj; @Nussinov:1983vh; @Espriu:1984mq; @Nussinov:1984kr] M\_[1/2]{} C(N,N\_f) M\_0 , involving, on the one hand, the mass $M_{1/2}$ of any baryon state and, on the other hand, the mass $M_0$ of the lightest quark-antiquark spin-zero state having the flavour quantum numbers of the $G/H_m$ currents. The precise value of the (positive) constant $C(N,N_f)$ and its dependence on the number of hypercolours $N$ and/or number of flavours $N_f$ is not so important here, the main point being that such an inequality again provides a strong indication that the flavour symmetry $G$ is necessarily spontaneously broken towards $G/H_m$. Super-convergent spectral sum rules {#SR} ----------------------------------- Assuming that $G$ is spontaneously broken towards $H_m$, correlation functions that are at the same time order parameters become of particular interest, since they enjoy a smooth behaviour at short distances. These improved high-energy properties allow in turn to write super-convergent sum rules for the corresponding spectral densities. The paradigmatic example is provided by the Weinberg sum rules [@Weinberg:1967kj], once interpreted [@Bernard:1975cd] and justified in the framework of QCD and of the operator-product expansion [@Wilson:1969zs], including non-perturbative power corrections [@Shifman:1978by]. Here we will consider two-point functions of certain fermion-bilinear operators, when the fermions transform under an irreducible but real or pseudo-real representation of the gauge group. Specifically, these operators comprise the Noether currents defined in Eq. (\[Jdef\]), to which we add the scalar and pseudoscalar densities defined as \[S\_and\_P\] & [S]{}\^[A]{} = (\_)\_[ij]{} , & [S]{}\^[0]{} = (\_)\_[ij]{} ,\ \ & [P]{}\^[A]{} = (\_)\_[ij]{} , & [P]{}\^[0]{} = (\_)\_[ij]{} . The singlet densities are normalised consistently with the other densities by taking $T^0= 1\!\!1 /(2\sqrt{ N_f})$. The two-point correlation functions of interest are then defined as \_V (q\^2) \^[AB]{} (q\_q\_- \_ q\^2) & = & i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [J]{}\^A\_(x) [J]{}\^B\_(0) } ,\ \_A (q\^2) \^[[A]{}[B]{}]{} (q\_q\_- \_ q\^2) & = & i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [J]{}\_\^[A]{} (x) [J]{}\^[B]{}\_(0) } , \[PiVAdef\] \_S (q\^2) \^[[A]{}[B]{}]{} & = & i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [S]{}\^[A]{} (x) [S]{}\^[B]{} (0) } ,\ \_P (q\^2) \^[[A]{}[B]{}]{} & = & i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [P]{}\^[A]{} (x) [P]{}\^[B]{} (0) } , \[PiPSdef\] where ${\hat A} \neq 0$, ${\hat B} \neq 0$, and \_[S\^0]{} (q\^2) & = & i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [S]{}\^0 (x) [S]{}\^0 (0) } ,\ \_[P\^0]{} (q\^2) & = & i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [P]{}\^0 (x) [P]{}\^0 (0) } . \[PiP0S0def\] The combinations \_[V[-]{}A]{} (q\^2) \_V (q\^2) - \_A (q\^2) , \_[S[-]{}P]{} (q\^2) \_S (q\^2) - \_P (q\^2) , \_[S[-]{}P\^0]{} (q\^2) \_S (q\^2) - \_[P\^0]{} (q\^2) , \_[S\^0[-]{}P]{} (q\^2) \_[S\^0]{} (q\^2) - \_P (q\^2) , are order parameters[^3] for the spontaneous breaking of $SU(2 N_f)$ towards $H_m$ for all values of $q^2$. As a consequence, these two-point functions behave smoothly at short distances $(Q^2 \equiv - q^2 > 0)$: \_[Q\^2 + ]{} ( Q\^2 )\^2 \_[V[-]{}A]{} (-Q\^2) = 0 , \_[Q\^2 + ]{} Q\^2 { \_[S[-]{}P]{} (-Q\^2) ; \_[S\^0[-]{}P]{} (-Q\^2) ; \_[S[-]{}P\^0]{} (-Q\^2) } = { 0 ; 0 ; 0 } . From these short-distance properties, one then derives the following super-convergent spectral sum rules \_0\^ dt [Im]{} \_[V[-]{}A]{} (t) = 0 , \_0\^ dt t [Im]{} \_[V[-]{}A]{} (t) = 0 , \[WSRVA\] \_0\^ dt [Im]{} \_[S[-]{}P]{} (t) = 0 , \_0\^ dt [Im]{} \_[S\^0[-]{}P]{} (t) = 0 , \_0\^ dt [Im]{} \_[S[-]{}P\^0]{} (t) = 0 . \[scalSR\] We will examine in the following to which extent these Weinberg-type sum rules, whose validity is quite general in view of the short-distance properties of asymptotically-free vector-like gauge theories, are actually satisfied in the specific NJL four-fermion interaction approximation. For the sake of completeness, let us mention that the two-point function \_[AP]{} (q\^2) \^[[A]{}[B]{}]{} q\_= d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [J]{}\_\^[A]{} (x) [P]{}\^[B]{} (0) } , \[PiAPdef\] also defines an order-parameter. However, there is no associated sum rule, since, as a consequence of the Ward identities, this correlator is entirely saturated by the Goldstone-boson pole ($\langle {\mathcal S}^0 \rangle$ denotes the vacuum expectation value of ${\mathcal S}^0$) \_[AP]{} (q\^2) = . \[PiAP\] It may be useful to stress, at this stage, that the sum rules displayed above are only valid in the absence of any explicit symmetry breaking effects. Introducing, for instance, masses for the fermions would modify the short-distance properties of these correlators, and thus spoil the convergence of the integrals of the corresponding spectral functions. Let us briefly illustrate the changes that occur by giving the fermions a common mass $m$, so that the currents belonging to the subgroup $H_m$ remain conserved. For the remaining currents, one now has \^\^[A]{}\_= 2 m [P]{}\^[A]{} . As far as the current-current correlators are concerned, while the two-point function of the vector currents remains transverse, the correlator of two axial currents receives a longitudinal part, i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [J]{}\_\^[A]{} (x) [J]{}\^[B]{}\_(0) } = \^[[A]{}[B]{}]{} . \[PATL\] If one considers only corrections that are at most linear in $m$, then one can still write a convergent sum rule [@Floratos:1978jb], \_0\^ dt = [O]{} (m\^2) . \[WSRmexpl\] Notice that the Ward identities relate this longitudinal piece to the two-point function of the pseudoscalar densities and to the scalar condensate, (q\^2)\^2 \_A\^L (q\^2) = 4 m\^2 \_P (q\^2) + 2 m . The presence of a fermion mass $m$ also shifts the masses of the Goldstone bosons away from zero, by an amount $\Delta_m M_{G}^2$ whose expression, at first order in $m$, actually follows from this identity and reads F\_G\^2 \_m M\_[G]{}\^2 = - 2 m + [O]{} (m\^2 m) . \[Delta\_m\] This formula involves the Goldstone-boson decay constant $F_G$ in the limit where $m$ vanishes, defined as [vac]{} [J]{}\_\^[A]{} (0) G\^[B]{} (p) = i p\_F\_G \^[[A]{}[B]{}]{} , p\^2 = 0 . \[FGdef\] Defining the coupling of the Goldstone bosons to the pseudoscalar densities, [vac]{} [P]{}\^[A]{} (0) G\^[B]{} (p) = G\_G \^[[A]{}[B]{}]{} ,p\^2 = 0 , \[GGdef\] the identity obtained in Eq. (\[PiAP\]) implies F\_G G\_G = - , \[FGrel\] in the massless limit. In contrast to the symmetry currents and to quantities derived from them, like $F_G$ or $\Pi_{V/A} (q^2)$ for instance, the (pseudo)scalar densities and their matrix elements, whether $\Pi_{S/P} (q^2)$ or $G_G$, need to be multiplicatively renormalised, and are therefore not invariant under the action of the renormalisation group. This dependence on the short-distance renormalisation scale does not impinge on the validity or usefulness of the sum rules in Eqs. (\[scalSR\]) or (\[WSRmexpl\]), which hold at every scale. Likewise, this scale dependence is exactly balanced out between the right- and left-hand sides of relations like (\[PiAP\]) or (\[FGrel\]). Coupling to external gauge fields {#gauging} --------------------------------- Eventually, some currents of the global symmetry group $G$ become weakly coupled to the standard model gauge fields. If, in the absence of these weakly coupled gauge fields, the global symmetry group $G$ is spontaneously broken towards $H_m$, turning on the gauge interactions will produce two effects. First, the Goldstone bosons will acquire radiatively generated masses. Second, transitions of a single Goldstone boson into a pair of gauge bosons are induced and, at lowest order in the couplings to the external gauge fields, the amplitude describing the transition towards a pair of zero-virtuality gauge bosons is fixed by the anomalous Ward identities in Eq. (\[Anom\_WI\]). Let us briefly discuss these two aspects in general terms. Let $\vert G^{\hat A} (p) \rangle$ denote the massless Goldstone-boson states corresponding to the generators $T^{\hat A}$ spanning the (symmetric) coset space $G/H_m$. In the presence of a perturbation that explicitly breaks the global symmetry, these Goldstone bosons become pseudo-Goldstone bosons, and their masses are shifted away from zero. At lowest order in the external perturbation, these mass shifts are given by M\^2\_[G\_[A]{}]{} = - G\^[A]{}(p) (0) G\^[A]{} (p) , p\^2=0 , \[M2expl\] with $\Delta {\cal L} (x)$ the symmetry-breaking interaction term in the Lagrangian. We are interested in particular in an interaction due to the presence of massless gauge fields that is considered weak (in particular non confining) at the scale under consideration, so that its effect can be considered as a perturbation. These external gauge fields couple to some linear combinations of the currents of the global symmetry group $G$. For a single gauge field ${\mathcal W}^\mu$, this interaction reads \_[int]{} = -ig\_[W]{} [W]{}\^\_\^[W]{} , \^[W]{}\_= (\_)\_[ij]{} , where $T^{\mathcal W}$ is an element of the algebra of $G$. At first non trivial order in the corresponding coupling $g_{\mathcal W}$, one has (x) = d\^4 y e\^[i q y]{} T { [J]{}\_\^[W]{} ( x+y) [J]{}\_\^[W]{} (x) } . \[DeltaL\] Decomposing $T^{\mathcal W}$ as $T^{\mathcal W} = T^W + T^{\hat W}$, where $T^W$ ($T^{\hat W}$) is a linear combination of the generators $T^A$ ($T^{\hat A}$) of $H_m$ (of $G/H_m$), and taking further the soft-Goldstone-boson limit in Eq. (\[M2expl\]), then results in the following expressions for the mass shifts [@Peskin:1980gc; @Preskill:1980mz] M\_[G\_[A]{}]{}\^2 = - \_0\^d Q\^2 Q\^2 \_[V[-]{}A]{} (- Q\^2) . \[rad\_masses\] Again, $F_G$ refers to the Goldstone-boson decay constant in the limit where any explicit symmetry-breaking effects vanish, see Eq. (\[FGdef\]), and we have used the short-hand notation ( T\^W \[ T\^[A]{} , T\^[B]{} \] ) f\^[[A]{}W[B]{}]{} , ( T\^[W]{} \[ T\^[A]{} , T\^B \] ) f\^[[A]{}[W]{}B]{} , with the generators normalised as in Eq. (\[norm\_T\]). Since, according to the Witten inequality [@Witten:1983ut], $- Q^2 \, \Pi_{V{\mbox -}A} (-Q^2)$ is positive, the sign of $\Delta M_{G_{\hat A}}^2$, and hence the misalignment of the vacuum, hinges on the sign of the last factor on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[rad\_masses\]). If it is positive, $\Delta M_{G_{\hat A}}^2$ is positive, and the vacuum is stable under this perturbation by a weak gauge field. If it is negative, then $\Delta M_{G_{\hat A}}^2$ is negative, which signals the instability of the unperturbed vacuum under this perturbation. In particular, if the gauge field couples only to the currents ${\cal J}^A_\mu$ corresponding to the unbroken generators (i.e. $T^{\hat W} = 0$), then $\Delta M_{G_{\hat A}}^2 \ge 0$. This is the case, for instance, of the electromagnetic field in QCD, which gives the charged pions a positive mass [@Das:1967it] (see also the discussion in Ref. [@Knecht:1997ts]), M\_[\^]{}\^2 = - \_0\^d Q\^2 Q\^2 \^[QCD]{}\_[V[-]{}A]{} (- Q\^2) , while the neutral pion remains massless. If several gauge fields are present, the total mass shift is given by a sum of contributions of the type (\[rad\_masses\]), one for each gauge field, and the stability of the vacuum may then also depend on the relative strengths of the various gauge couplings. For instance, if a subgroup $H_W$ of $H_m$ is gauged, and if the Goldstone bosons transform as an irreducible representation $R_W$ under $H_W$, the (positive) induced mass shift can be expressed [@Preskill:1980mz] in terms of the quadratic Casimir invariant of $H_W$ for the representation $R_W$, M\_[G\_[A]{}]{}\^2 = - \_0\^d Q\^2 Q\^2 \_[V[-]{}A]{} (- Q\^2) C\_2\^[(H\_W)]{} (R\_W) . \[rad\_masses\_Casimir\] The expression (\[rad\_masses\]) can also be rewritten as a contribution to the effective potential induced by a gauge-field loop. In terms of the Goldstone field U(x) = e\^[i G (x) /F\_G]{} \_ ,G (x) = 2 \_[A]{} G\^[A]{} (x) T\^[A]{} , \[Udef\]the relevant terms of the effective low-energy Lagrangian read [@Georgi:1986dw] \_[eff]{} = \_U\^\^U - C\_[W]{} T\^[W]{} U ( T\^[W]{})\^T U\^+ , with $\langle \cdots \rangle$ denoting the flavour trace, and C\_[W]{} = - \_0\^d Q\^2 Q\^2 \_[V[-]{}A]{} (- Q\^2) . As a side remark, let us notice that the procedure used here in order to determine the induced mass shifts of the Goldstone bosons can also be applied in the case where $\Delta {\mathcal L}$ in Eq. (\[M2expl\]) stands for a mass term for the fermions, e.g. \_m [L]{} = - 2 m [S]{}\^0 . Going successively through the same steps, one then reproduces the expression given in Eq. (\[Delta\_m\]). We now turn to the second issue, namely the matrix element for the transition of a Goldstone bosons into a pair of external gauge bosons with zero virtualities. At lowest order in the gauge couplings, and for $q^2 = (p-q)^2 = 0$, this matrix element reads g\_[W]{}\^2 i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [J]{}\_\^[W]{} (x) [J]{}\^[W]{}\_(0) } G\^[A]{} (p) = - \_ q\^p\^d\^[WW[A]{}]{} , with $d^{WW{\hat A}} \equiv 2 {\rm Tr}(\{ T^W , T^W \} T^{\hat A} )$, and $d_{HC}$ denotes the dimension of the representation of the hypercolour gauge group to which the fermions making up the current ${\cal J}_\mu^{\mathcal W} (x)$ belong. Here we are assuming (this will be the case of interest in the context of the composite Higgs models discussed below) that only generators of $H_m$ are weakly coupled to the external gauge fields (i.e. $T^{\hat W} =0$). The expression on the right-hand side is then obtained by saturating the Ward identity in Eq. (\[Anom\_WI\]) with the Goldstone poles. Again, if the fermions are given masses, there are corrections, indicated as ${\cal O}(m)$. At the level of the low-energy theory, this coupling is reproduced by the Wess-Zumino-Witten effective action [@Wess:1971yu; @Witten:1983tw; @Chu:1996fr]. Writing only the relevant term, one has \_[eff]{}\^[WZW]{} = - \_ [W]{}\^ (x) [W]{}\^ (x) \_[A]{} d\^[WW[A]{}]{} G\^[A]{} (x) + . \[WZW\] The electroweak sector {#The electroweak sector} ====================== In this section we analyse a composite model for the Higgs sector of the SM. We consider a flavour symmetry group $G=SU(4)\simeq SO(6)$, spontaneously broken towards a subgroup $Sp(4) \simeq SO(5)$. The five Goldstone bosons transform as $(1_L,1_R)+(2_L,2_R)$ under the custodial symmetry $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\subset Sp(4)$, corresponding to a real scalar singlet plus the complex Higgs doublet. Composite Higgs models based on this coset have been studied in Refs. [@Katz:2005au; @Gripaios:2009pe; @Frigerio:2012uc], as effective theories with a non-specified strongly-coupled dynamics. A simple UV completion is provided by a gauge theory with four Weyl fermions $\psi^a$ in a pseudo-real representation of the gauge group, and which form a condensate $\langle \psi^a\psi^b \rangle\ne 0$. Such a theory was considered in Refs. [@Ryttov:2008xe; @Galloway:2010bp; @Ferretti:2013kya; @Cacciapaglia:2014uja], as a minimal hypercolour model. The first analysis of the low energy dynamics of this theory in terms of four-fermion interactions (à la NJL) was provided in Ref. [@Barnard:2013zea]. We extend this former study by deriving additional phenomenological predictions. We will particularise the general results of section \[general\] to this specific case, and in addition we will compute the masses of the spin-zero and spin-one bound states, as well as their decay constants, by using NJL techniques. Scalar interactions of fermion bilinears and the mass gap {#colourless-sector} --------------------------------------------------------- Let us consider a $Sp(2N)$ hypercolour gauge theory and introduce four Weyl spinors $\psi^a$, in the fundamental representation of $Sp(2N)$, which is pseudo-real. The transformation properties of these elementary fermions are summarised in Table \[tabsu4\]. The dynamics of the $SU(4)/Sp(4)$ spontaneous symmetry breaking can be studied in terms of four-fermion interactions, constructed out of hypercolour-invariant, spin-zero fermion bilinears, in a NJL-like manner [@Nambu:1961tp; @Nambu:1961fr; @Klevansky:1992qe; @Hatsuda:1994pi]. The Lagrangian reads [@Barnard:2013zea] $$\mathcal{L}_{scal}^{\psi}=\frac{\kappa_A}{2N}(\psi^a \psi^b)(\overline{\psi}_a~ \overline{\psi}_b) - \frac{\kappa_B}{8N} \left[ \epsilon_{abcd}(\psi^a \psi^b)(\psi^c \psi^d)+h.c. \right] , \label{LSbasic}$$ where $a, b, \cdots=1,2,3,4$ are $SU(4)$ indices, $\epsilon_{abcd}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol and $\kappa_{A,B}$ are real, dimensionful couplings. The phase of $\kappa_B$ can be absorbed by the phase of $\psi$, so that we may take $\kappa_B$ real and positive without loss of generality.[^4] Each fermion bilinear between brackets is contracted into a Lorentz and $Sp(2N)$ invariant quantity. The hypercolour-invariant contraction is defined as (\^a \^b)\_i\^a \_[ij]{} \_j\^b = -(\^b \^a) , \[bi\_inv\] where $\Omega$ is the antisymmetric $2N \times 2N$ matrix = 0 & 11\_[N]{}\ - 11\_[N]{} &0 . \[Omega\] The antisymmetry of the hypercolour contraction implies antisymmetry in the flavour $SU(4)$ indices. Other four-fermion interactions, involving spin-one fermion bilinears, are irrelevant for the discussion of spontaneous symmetry breaking. We will introduce them later, in section \[psivectors\], when we discuss spin-one resonances. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lorentz $Sp(2 N)$ $SU(4)$ $Sp(4)$ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------------- ------------ $\psi^a_i$ $(1/2,0)$ ${\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1)}_{\, i}$ $4^a$ 4 $\overline{\psi}_{ai} \equiv \psi^{\dagger}_{aj} \Omega_{ji}$ $(0,1/2)$ ${\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1)}_{\, i}$ $\overline{4}_a$ $4^$ $M^{ab}\sim (\psi^a \psi^b)$ $(0,0)$ $1$ $6^{ab}$ $5+1$ $\overline{M}_{ab} \sim (\overline{\psi}_a \overline{\psi}_b)$ $(0,0)$ $1$ $\overline{6}_{ab}$ $5 + 1$ $ { a^\mu} \sim (\overline{\psi}_a \overline{\sigma}^\mu \psi^a)$ $(1/2,1/2)$ $1$ $1$ $1$ ${ (V^\mu,A^\mu)_a^b} $(1/2,1/2)$ $1$ $15^a_b$ $10+5$ \sim (\overline{\psi}_a \overline{\sigma}^\mu \psi^b)$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : The transformation properties of the elementary fermions, and of the spin-0 and spin-1 fermion bilinears, in the electroweak sector of the model. Spinor indexes are understood, and brackets stand for a hypercolour-invariant contraction of the $Sp(2N)$ indexes. []{data-label="tabsu4"} Note that for $\kappa_B=0$ there is an additional global $U(1)_\psi$ symmetry, which reflects a classical invariance of the $Sp(2N)$ gauge theory, the associated Noether current being $$\mathcal{J}^0_{\psi\mu} = - {\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}} \Omega_{ij} \left[ \overline{\psi}_i \overline{\sigma}_\mu \psi_j + \psi_i \sigma_\mu \overline{\psi}_j \right] , \label{U1_psi}$$ as follows from Eq. (\[Jdef\]) upon taking $\varepsilon = -1$ and a singlet generator normalised to $1\!\!1_4$. At the quantum level, this current has a hypercolour gauge anomaly, $$\partial^\mu \mathcal{J}^0_{\psi\mu} = {\displaystyle\frac{N_f^\psi g_{HC}^2}{32\pi^2}} \sum_{ I=1}^{N(2N+1)} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} G_{HC}^{I,\mu\nu} G_{HC}^{I,\rho\sigma} , \label{U1_psi_div}$$ and the corresponding symmetry is explicitly broken by instantons [@'tHooft:1976up; @'tHooft:1976fv]. Here $N_f^\psi=2$ denotes the number of Dirac flavours. The effect of the instantons can be represented by an effective vertex [@'tHooft:1976up; @'tHooft:1976fv; @'tHooft:1986nc] that breaks the $U(1)_\psi$ invariance. The important observation here is that for $2N_f^\psi = 4$ Weyl fermions in the fundamental representation of the $Sp(2N)$ gauge group, this effective vertex is precisely given by the term proportional to $\kappa_B$. It is both quartic in the fermion fields, which provides the amount of $U(1)_\psi$ breaking required, for $N_f^\psi = 2$, by the index theorem and the instanton solution with unit winding number, and invariant under the $SU(4)$ global symmetry [@Diakonov:1997sj]. It plays the same role as the analogous six-fermion ’t Hooft determinant effective Lagrangian [@'tHooft:1976up; @'tHooft:1976fv; @'tHooft:1986nc] for QCD with three flavours, which parameterises the instanton-induced anomaly interactions, explaining an $\eta'$ mass much larger than the masses of the other Goldstone boson states. Such a term was originally constructed in the quark model [@Kobayashi:1971qz], and later also introduced in the NJL model [@Bernard:1987gw; @Bernard:1987sg], see also [@Klimt:1989pm]. Similarly, in the present case, $\kappa_B\ne 0$ is therefore crucial in order to evade the additional $U(1)_\psi$ Goldstone boson. While this picture is essentially correct when considering the electroweak $SU(4)$ sector in isolation, we stress that it will be significantly modified when a coloured sector is introduced, in order to provide composite partners for the top quark, as we will discuss in section \[coloured-sector\]. This sector also has an anomalous extra $U(1)_X$ symmetry, but one linear combination of the two $U(1)$ currents remains anomaly free, which implies that the effective ’t Hooft determinant term is no longer given by the $\kappa_B$ operator. This will have some important consequences on the spectrum of resonances, but at a first stage we prefer to neglect the mixing with the coloured sector, as the results are much more transparent and it will be easy to generalise them. We assume that the $SU(4)$ global symmetry is exact, that is, we work in the chiral limit where $\psi^a$ has no elementary mass term. The $SU(4)$ Noether currents are given by Eq. (\[Jdef\]), with $\Omega_\epsilon= \Omega$ defined in Eq. (\[Omega\]). The $SU(4)$ generators decompose into five broken ones, $T^{\hat{A}}$, living in the $SU(4)/Sp(4)$ coset, and ten unbroken ones, $T^A$, whose explicit expressions are given in appendix \[generators\]. They satisfy the conditions spelled out in Eq. (\[Tacom\]), where $\Sigma_\epsilon$ stands for \_0 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0 &0 & 0 & 1\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 0\ 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 . \[Sigma\] By introducing in a standard manner [@Klevansky:1992qe; @Hatsuda:1994pi; @Barnard:2013zea] an auxiliary (antisymmetric) scalar field $M$, transforming as a gauge singlet and a flavour $SU(4)$ sextet, the Lagrangian (\[LSbasic\]) can be rewritten equivalently as $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}_{scal}^{\psi} &=& -\frac{1}{\kappa_A +\kappa_B} \left[\left(\kappa_A M^_{ab} - \frac{\kappa_B}{2}\epsilon_{abcd} M^{cd}\right)(\psi^a \psi^b) +h.c.\right] \nonumber \\ && -\frac{2 N \kappa_A}{(\kappa_A+\kappa_B)^2}M^{ab} M^_{ab} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{ N \kappa_B}{(\kappa_A+\kappa_B)^2}(\epsilon_{abcd} M^{ab} M^{cd} +h.c.) ~, \label{LSaux}\end{aligned}$$ where the equation of motion for $M$ gives M\^[ab]{}= - (\^a \^b ). The matrix field $M$, being complex and antisymmetric, can always be rotated by an $SU(4)$ transformation into the form M = 0 & 0 & m\_1 &0\ 0 & 0 & 0 & m\_2\ - m\_1 & 0 & 0 & 0\ 0 & -m\_2 & 0 & 0 . Once a $(\psi^a \psi^b)$ condensate forms, $M$ acquires a vacuum expectation value (vev) and the Yukawa couplings induce dynamical fermion masses. One can derive from Eq. (\[LSaux\]) the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg effective potential [@Coleman:1973jx], by integrating over fermions, and study the occurrence of spontaneous symmetry breaking by looking for a non-trivial minimum with $\la m_{1,2}\ra\ne 0$ [@Barnard:2013zea]. One finds that spontaneous symmetry breaking is only possible for $2\la m_1\ra =2\la m_2\ra \equiv M_\psi$, in agreement with the Vafa-Witten theorem. Below we provide an alternative derivation of the same result, which will also be useful for studying the spectrum of scalar resonances. It is convenient to introduce the combination $$\overline{M}_{ab} = \frac{1}{\kappa_A +\kappa_B} \left( \kappa_A M^_{ab} -\frac{\kappa_B}{2}\epsilon_{abcd} M^{cd} \right) ,$$ which can be expanded around the vacuum as $$\overline{M} =\frac{1}{2} M_\psi \Sigma_0 + \left( \sigma+i \eta^\prime \right) \Sigma_0 T^0_\psi + \left(S^{\hat{A}} +i G^{\hat{A}} \right) \Sigma_0 T^{\hat{A}} ~. \label{Mexp}$$ The matrix $\overline{M}$ decomposes, according to $6_{SU(4)} = (1+5)_{Sp(4)}$, into a scalar singlet $\sigma$, a pseudoscalar singlet $\eta^\prime$, a scalar quintuplet $S^{\hat{A}}$, and a pseudoscalar quintuplet $G^{\hat{A}}$, which will be identified with the physical meson resonances. Using the identity $ \epsilon_{abcd}= -(\Sigma_0)_{ab}(\Sigma_0)_{cd} +(\Sigma_0)_{ac} (\Sigma_0)_{bd} -(\Sigma_0)_{ad} (\Sigma_0)_{bc}$, and since, as already noted, $\kappa_B$ can be taken real and positive without loss of generality, the Lagrangian (\[LSaux\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}_{scal}^{\psi} = -(\psi \overline{M} \psi +h.c.) -N \left[ P_- (\sigma^2 +G_{\hat{A}}^2)+ P_+ (\eta^{\prime 2} +S_{\hat{A}}^2) \right] ~, \label{Lscal}\end{aligned}$$ where $$P_\pm =\frac{\kappa_A}{\kappa_A^2-\kappa_B^2} \pm \frac{\kappa_B}{\left\|\kappa_A^2-\kappa_B^2 \right\|} =\frac{1}{\kappa_A\mp \kappa_B} ~. \label{Sprop}$$ The sign in the last equality corresponds to the case $\kappa_A^2 > \kappa_B^2 $, which will turn out to be the relevant region of parameter space. Eqs. (\[Mexp\]) and (\[Lscal\]) define the Feynman rules for the fermion Yukawa couplings to the mesons: the four-fermion interactions mediated by $\sigma$ and $G^{\hat{A}}$ are proportional to $P_-^{-1}$, while the interactions mediated by $\eta^\prime$ and $S^{\hat{A}}$ are proportional to $P_+^{-1}$. Indeed, the Lagrangian in Eq. (\[LSbasic\]) can be directly written in terms of the fermion bilinears coupled to the mesons, upon using Fierz identities for $SU(4)$ and $Sp(4)$, derived in Appendix \[fierz\]. The replacements $\delta_{a}^c \delta_{b}^d - \delta_a^d\delta_b^c = 4(\Sigma_0 T^0_\psi)_{ab} ( T^0_\psi \Sigma_0)^{cd} + 4(\Sigma_0 T^{\hat A})_{ab} ( T^{\hat A} \Sigma_0)^{cd}$ and $\epsilon_{abcd}=-4 (\Sigma_0 T^0_\psi)_{ab} (\Sigma_0 T^0_\psi)_{cd}+4 (\Sigma_0 T^{\hat A})_{ab} (\Sigma_0 T^{\hat A})_{cd}$ in Eq. (\[LSbasic\]), lead to $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L}_{scal}^\psi &=&2 \frac{\kappa_A}{(2N)} \left[ \left(\psi \Sigma_0 T^0_\psi \psi \right) \left( \overline{\psi} T^0_\psi \Sigma_0\overline{\psi} \right) +\left(\psi \Sigma_0 T^{\hat A} \psi \right) \left( \overline{\psi} T^{\hat A}\Sigma_0 \overline{\psi} \right)\right] \nonumber \\ &+& \frac{\kappa_B}{(2N)} \left[\left(\psi \Sigma_0 T^0_\psi \psi\right) \left(\psi \Sigma_0 T^0_\psi \psi \right) - \left(\psi\Sigma_0 T^{\hat A} \psi \right)\left(\psi\Sigma_0 T^{\hat A} \psi \right)+ h.c.\right] ~. \label{LSphys}\end{aligned}$$ Most of the resonance spectrum calculations could be performed directly from the four-fermion interactions in Eq. (\[LSphys\]). Nonetheless, the introduction of auxiliary fields is convenient, because Eq. (\[Mexp\]) identifies the relevant scalar degrees of freedom, which will become dynamical resonances upon $1/N$ resummation of the interactions in their respective channels, as we will examine below. The first important step for the dynamical calculations of the resonance spectrum is to determine the mass gap, namely whether a non-trivial dynamical fermion mass, signalling the spontaneous breaking of $SU(4)$ to $Sp(4)$, develops within the NJL approximation. Let us consider the self-consistent mass gap equation [@Nambu:1961tp; @Klevansky:1992qe; @Hatsuda:1994pi], obtained from the one-loop tadpole graph, as illustrated in Fig. \[figgap\]. It is well-known that this is equivalent to computing the minimum of the one-loop effective potential. Note that, just like for the standard NJL model, only the $\sigma$-exchange does contribute, namely only the spin-zero, parity-even, $Sp(4)$-singlet fermion bilinear can take a vev. Therefore the mass-gap equation involves solely the inverse coupling $P_-$. The computation of the diagrams in Fig. \[figgap\] leads to a self-consistent condition on the dynamical fermion mass $M_\psi$, -i M\_= 2( i) (-2) Tr\[\^2\] Tr\[\_0\^2\] \^ , \[gap1\] where the first factor $2$ accounts for the normalisation $M_\psi\equiv 2\la m_{1,2} \ra$, $(-2)$ is the trace over Weyl spinor indices in the loop, $Tr[\Omega^2]=-2 N$ is the trace over hypercolour, and $Tr [\Sigma_0^2]=-4$ the one over flavour. Note that the factors $2N$ cancel, thanks to the appropriate large-$N$ normalisation of the original couplings $\kappa_{A,B}$ in Eq. (\[LSphys\]). Thus, one obtains $$1-4 P_{-}^{-1} \t A_0( M_\psi^2) = 0 ~, \label{gap}$$ where the basic one-loop scalar integral $\t A_0$ is defined in appendix \[loop-functions\]. In order to regularise the otherwise divergent integral, we introduce a (covariant 4-dimensional) cut-off $\Lambda$, which parameterises the scale at which the effective four-fermion interaction ceases to be valid and all degrees of freedom of the underlying gauge theory become relevant. Computing the integral, the gap equation takes the explicit form $$1-\frac{ M_\psi^2}{\Lambda^2} \ln \left(\frac{\Lambda^2 +M_\psi^2}{M_\psi^2}\right) =\frac{4 \pi^2}{\Lambda^2} P_- \equiv \frac{1}{\xi}~, \label{gap2}$$ in full agreement with the minimisation of the one-loop effective potential in Ref. [@Barnard:2013zea]. Eq. (\[gap2\]) has a non-trivial solution, $M_\psi\ne 0$, as long as $\xi >1$, which implies $\kappa_A^2>\kappa_B^2$ and $P_-^{-1}=\kappa_A + \kappa_B > 4\pi^2/\Lambda^2$. The existence of a minimal, critical coupling to realise spontaneous symmetry breaking is a characteristic property of the NJL model. On the other hand, the consistency requirement $M_\psi/\Lambda \lesssim 1$ implies an upper bound on the coupling, $\xi \equiv \Lambda^2 (\kappa_A + \kappa_B)/(4\pi^2)\lesssim (1-\ln 2)^{-1} \simeq 3.25$, see also Fig. \[FGLam\] below. Note that if the underlying $Sp(2N)$ gauge theory confines, it necessarily breaks $SU(4)$ into $Sp(4)$ as a consequence of the anomaly matching discussed in section \[anomat\], because the fermions $\psi$ cannot form baryons. This means that the true strong dynamics has to correspond to a super-critical value of $\kappa_A +\kappa_B$. This conclusion holds for the $\psi$-sector in isolation, but it may not be the case when a coloured $X$-sector will be added in section \[coloured-sector\], and baryons become possible, see the discussion in section \[total-break\]. Note also that, in the NJL large-$N$ approximation, the mass gap $M_\psi$ and the fermion condensate, (\^a \^b ) + (\^a \^b) \_0\^[ab]{} , = S\^\_0 , corresponding to the tadpole in Fig. \[figgap\], are trivially related: - 2 (2N) M\_A\_0(M\^2\_) = - M\_ . \[psicond\] We have also indicated the direct relation between the quark condensate and the vacuum expectation value $\la S_0^\psi \ra$ of the singlet scalar density, at this level of NJL approximation, with $S_0^\psi$ defined in Eq. (\[S\_and\_P\]). Masses of scalar resonances {#Masses and couplings of scalar resonances} --------------------------- The masses and the couplings of the composite mesonic resonances can be computed, at first order in $1/N$, by performing the resummation of the dominant large-$N$ graphs contributing to the two-point functions with the appropriate quantum numbers, according to a well-known procedure [@Nambu:1961tp; @Klevansky:1992qe; @Hatsuda:1994pi; @Klimt:1989pm; @Bijnens:1993ap]. The resummation takes the form of a geometric series, as illustrated in Fig. \[BS\]. For the two-point functions defined in Eqs. (\[PiPSdef\]) and (\[PiP0S0def\]), the outcome of this procedure translates into the generic formula \_(q\^2) , \[PiSPsum\] where $K_{\phi}$ are combinations of the four-fermion couplings in Eq. (\[LSphys\]). The expressions of $K_{\phi}$ and of the one-loop correlators $\t\Pi_\phi(q^2)$ have been collected in Table \[tab\_phi\]. They involve the one-loop two-point function ${\tilde B}_0 (q^2 , M_\psi^2)$ defined in appendix \[loop-functions\]. In this section, we will discuss the scalar and pseudoscalar channels, while the spin-one channels will be discussed in section \[Masses and couplings of vector resonances\]. Before starting this discussion, we would like to make a few remarks on the resummed correlators, some of which being also relevant for the spin-one channels. - Expression (\[PiSPsum\]) is not applicable in this simple form in the pseudoscalar channel, $\phi=G^{\hat A},\,\eta^\prime$, due to the fact that, at one loop, the axial two-point function also receives a longitudinal part, which will then mix with the pseudoscalar two-point function when the resummation in Fig. \[BS\] is performed. For the time being, we can ignore these aspects, which will be treated in detail in Section \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\], and, in the meantime, we proceed with the general discussion of masses and couplings on the basis of Eq. (\[PiSPsum\]). - The corresponding resonance masses $M_\phi$ are determined by the poles of the resummed propagators, 1-2 K\_ \_(q\^2=M\^2\_) = 0 . \[pole\] In order to discuss some general features of this type of equation, let us point out that the functions $\t\Pi_{\phi}(q^2)$ can be defined in the cut complex $q^2$-plane, where the cut lies on the real positive axis and starts at $q^2=4M_\psi^2$. The cut results from a logarithmic branch point, so that the functions $\t\Pi_{\phi}(q^2)$ become multi-valued through analytic continuation across the cut. These properties simply reflect those of the function ${\t B}_0(q^2, M_\psi^2)$ itself. In general, Eq. (\[pole\]) has solutions for complex values of $q^2$, lying on the second Riemann sheet, which are interpreted as resonances, generated dynamically through the resummation procedure. - Other solutions to Eq. (\[pole\]) than poles on the second sheet are possible. For instance, there can exist a critical value $K_\phi^{\rm crit}$, such that if the coupling $K_\phi$ satisfies $K_\phi\ge K_\phi^{\rm crit} >0$, then Eq. (\[pole\]) possesses (in addition) a real solution $0\le M_\phi \le 2 M_\psi$ [@Takizawa:1991mx], corresponding to a two-fermion bound state. As we will see below, this situation arises in the singlet pseudoscalar channel (and also in the vector channel, but this time for $K_\phi\le K_\phi^{\rm crit} <0$). As $K_\phi$ moves towards $K_\phi^{\rm crit}$ from above, the bound-state mass moves from zero towards the value $2 M_\psi$. When $K_\phi < K_\phi^{\rm crit}$, this solution of Eq. (\[pole\]) moves back towards the origin, but now on the real axis of the second Riemann sheet, and thus becomes a “virtual-state” solution [@Takizawa:1991mx]. - Another aspect concerning the solutions of Eq. (\[pole\]) is intimately connected to the fact that, in order to make this equation meaningful, it has been necessary to introduce a regularisation for the function ${\t B}_0(q^2, M_\psi^2)$. As a consequence, there are solutions corresponding to real, but negative, values of $q^2$, $q^2 = - M_{{\rm gh}{\mbox -}\phi}^2 {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}-3 \Lambda^2$. These “ghost” singularities[^5] of the functions $\overline \Pi_{\phi}(q^2)$ occur quite far from the physical region, and have only a small influence on, for instance, the values of the resonance masses. When determining the latter, we thus systematically discard them. But they have to be taken into account when considering more global properties of the functions $\overline \Pi_{\phi}(q^2)$, like the spectral sum rules of Section \[SR\]. These will be discussed within the framework of the NJL approximation below, in Section \[secWSR\]. - From a practical point of view, resonance solutions to Eq. (\[pole\]) will not be determined by looking for poles on the second sheet, but rather by solving a real equation as follows. We rewrite the denominator of Eq. (\[PiSPsum\]) as $1-2K_\phi \tilde{\Pi}_\phi(q^2)=c_0^\phi(q^2)+c_1^\phi(q^2) q^2$, where the $q^2$-dependence of the coefficients $c_{0,1}^\phi(q^2)$ comes from the loop function $\tilde{B}_0(q^2,M_\psi^2)$ only, see table \[tab\_phi\]. The meson mass is then defined implicitly by $$M_\phi^2= {\rm Re}[g_\phi(M_\phi^2)]~, \qquad\qquad g_\phi(q^2)\equiv -\frac{c_0^\phi(q^2)}{c_1^\phi(q^2)}~. \label{res_sol}$$ The value $M_\phi$ obtained this way remains a good approximation to the mass given by the real part of the resonance pole, as long as the imaginary part of $g_\phi(M_\phi^2)$ remains small, $$\left\|\frac{ {\rm Im}[g_\phi(M_\phi^2)]}{ {\rm Re} [ g_\phi(M_\phi^2)]} \right\|<1~. \label{res_width}$$ Indeed, the solution of Eq. (\[res\_sol\]) may be larger than the threshold, $M_\phi^2 > 4 M_\psi^2$, so that the loop function $\t B_0(M^2_\phi, M_\psi^2)$ develops an imaginary part. This may happen in the case of the $Sp(4)$-singlet pseudoscalar state, see Eq. (\[Meta\]), and it always happens in the case of the non-singlet scalar state, see Eq. (\[Ma2\]). This imaginary part corresponds to the unphysical decay of a meson into two constituent fermions, and reflects the well known fact that the NJL model does not account for confinement. In what follows, it will be understood that resonance masses are defined as the solutions of Eq. (\[res\_sol\]) and, in order to define a consistency condition for the NJL approximation to be reliable, we will require that Eq. (\[res\_width\]) holds. Note also that, when extracting the expressions of the pole masses, it will be often convenient to take advantage of the gap equation (\[gap\]), in order to obtain a simpler form of the solutions. $\phi$ $K_\phi$ $\t\Pi_{\phi}(q^2)$ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $G^{\hat{A}}$ $2(\kappa_A + \kappa_B)/(2N)$ $\eta^\prime$ $2(\kappa_A - \kappa_B)/(2N)$ $S^{\hat{A}}$ $2(\kappa_A - \kappa_B)/(2N)$ $\sigma$ $2(\kappa_A + \kappa_B)/(2N)$ $V_\mu^A$ $-2\kappa_D/(2N)$ $\t\Pi_{V}(q^2) =\frac{1}{3} (2N) \big[- 2 M_\psi^2 \t B_0(0,M_\psi^2) + (q^2 + 2 M_\psi^2) \t B_0(q^2,M_\psi^2)\big]$ $A_\mu^{\hat{A}}$ $-2\kappa_D/(2N)$ $\t\Pi_{A}(q^2) = \frac{1}{3} (2N) \big[- 2 M_\psi^2 \t B_0(0,M_\psi^2) + (q^2 - 4 M_\psi^2) \t B_0(q^2,M_\psi^2)\big]$ $a_\mu$ $-2\kappa_C/(2N)$ $\t\Pi_{A}^L(q^2) = - 2 (2N) M_\psi^2 \t B_0(q^2,M_\psi^2)$ $A_\mu^{\hat{A}}-G^{\hat{A}}$ $a_\mu-\eta^\prime$ : The couplings $K_\phi$ and the expressions of the one-loop spin-0 and spin-1 two-point functions. We also give the expression of the mixed (one-loop) pseudoscalar-longitudinal axial correlator, that enters in the analysis of both the quintuplet and singlet sectors. The explicit calculation of the correlators $\t \Pi_\phi (q^2)$ is detailed in appendix \[SDresum\]. []{data-label="tab_phi"} After these general considerations, we now turn to the analysis of the scalar and pseudoscalar channels of the model. The functions $\t \Pi_{S/P}(q^2)$ correspond to the one-loop estimates of the two-point functions $\Pi_{S/P} (q^2)$ defined in Eq. (\[PiPSdef\]). Notice that one needs $K_\phi \propto 1/N$, in order for the $1/N$-expansion to be well-defined. Indeed, according to section \[colourless-sector\] (see also Table \[tab\_phi\]), we have $K_{\sigma,G} = 2(\kappa_A+\kappa_B)/(2N)$ and $K_{S,\eta^\prime} = 2(\kappa_A-\kappa_B)/(2N)$. Let us consider first the pseudoscalar channels, ignoring, for the time being, the issue of mixing with the longitudinal part of the axial correlator. After taking the traces and evaluating the momentum integral, the pseudoscalar two-point correlator in the $SU(4)$ sector takes the form \_P(q\^2) = (2N ) . \[PiG\] In the case of the Goldstone states $G^{\hat A}$, Eq. (\[pole\]) becomes 1-4\_P (M\_G\^2) = 1-4(\_A+\_B) = 2M\_G\^2(\_A+\_B) B\_0(M\_G\^2,M\_\^2)=0 , \[PiGexp\] and the term proportional to $\t A_0$ cancels out upon using the mass-gap equation, Eq. (\[gap\]), a well-known feature of the standard NJL model [@Nambu:1961tp; @Klevansky:1992qe]. As a consequence, one is left with an exactly massless inverse propagator, $M_G=0$, as it should be for the Goldstone boson state. A similar computation for the $Sp(4)$-singlet pseudoscalar $\eta^\prime$, using the information provided by Table \[tab\_phi\], leads to M\_[\^]{}\^2 = g\_[\^]{}(M\_[\^]{}\^2) = (1- ) = - , \[Meta\] where we have again used Eq. (\[gap\]). In the above equation and in the following expressions of the resonance masses, it is implicitly assumed that only the real part of $g_\phi(M_\phi^2)$ is taken into account, according to Eq. (\[res\_sol\]). Note that the constraint $\kappa_A^2>\kappa_B^2$, needed for the existence of a non-trivial solution of the gap equation, also ensures that $M_{\eta^\prime}^2$ is positive. As it will be discussed in subsection \[mixing-singlets\], a similar but stronger constraint holds when the coloured sector is introduced. To roughly estimate the expected range for $M_{\eta^\prime}$, one may notice that $\t B_0 (q^2,M_\psi^2)$ is real and has a rather moderate $q^2$ dependence for $q^2\ll4M_\psi^2$, so that if $M^2_{\eta^\prime}$ lies in this range, one can use the approximate expression M\^2\_[\^]{} - , \[Metasimple\] where the expression for $\t B_0(0,M^2_\psi)$ is given in Eq. (\[B00\]). Thus $M_{\eta^\prime}$ may become arbitrarily small for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A\rightarrow 0$, as the extra $U(1)_\psi$ symmetry is restored when $\kappa_B=0$, and $\eta^\prime$ turns into the associated Goldstone boson. However, $M_{\eta^\prime}$ rapidly increases with $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ to become of order $\Lambda$. Note that, in the large-$N$ limit, one expects $M_{\eta^\prime}^2\sim 1/N$, as for the $\eta^\prime$ mass in QCD [@Witten:1979vv]. This indicates that the four-fermion couplings, normalised as in Eq. (\[LSbasic\]), should scale as $\kappa_B/\kappa_A\sim 1/N$. Large-$N$ arguments indicate that $\kappa_A$ is $N$-independent, as the associated four-fermion operator is generated from the hypercolour current-current interaction (for details see appendix \[$Sp(2N)$ current-current operators\]). Therefore, the correct scaling is reproduced for $\kappa_B = {\overline\kappa}_B/(2N)$, with an $N$-independent $\overline\kappa_B$, and the associated four-fermion operator, induced by the hypercolour anomaly, scales as $1/N^2$. For the scalar channels, the two-point function is to be found in Table \[tab\_phi\], and the corresponding scalar resonance masses are M\_\^2= 4 M\_\^2 , M\^2\_S = 4 M\_\^2 + M\_[\^]{}\^2 M\_\^2 +M\^2\_[\^]{} , \[Ma2\]where one recognises the same relation $M_\sigma= 2 M_\psi$, as in the standard NJL model for QCD with two flavours. The relation $M_S^2 \simeq M_{\eta^\prime}^2 +M_\sigma^2$ holds again if one can neglect the difference between the function $\t B_0 (p^2,M_\psi^2)$ evaluated at $p^2=M_{\eta^\prime}^2$ and at $p^2=M_S^2$. We stress that all previous expressions for the spectrum of spin-zero resonances hold in the pure chiral limit, where the $SU(4)/Sp(4)$ Goldstone bosons $G^{\hat A}$, including the Higgs, are massless. Eventually, they will receive a non-zero effective potential, radiatively induced by the SM gauge and Yukawa couplings, which break explicitly the $SU(4)$ symmetry. In particular, the top quark Yukawa coupling is generically expected to destabilise the vacuum, and to trigger EWSB, see Refs. [@Contino:2010rs; @Panico:2015jxa] for reviews. This implies that the masses of some resonances, obtained in the NJL large-$N$ approximation, may receive corrections of order ${\cal O}(m^2_{top}/\Lambda^2)$. These represent typically mild corrections for the non-Goldstone resonances, whose masses $\sim \Lambda$ are significantly larger than the electroweak scale. Thus, the qualitative features of the spectrum of meson resonances are not expected to depart from those exhibited here, once the effect of the explicit symmetry-breaking couplings is added to the picture. One should also remember that, in any case, the NJL large-$N$ approximation already constitutes a limitation to the precision that can be achieved. The radiative contribution to the pseudo-Goldstone Higgs mass, induced from the external electroweak gauge fields, is given in Eq. (\[rad\_ew\]) (see also the general discussion in section \[gauging\]). However, this contribution plays a secondary role in EWSB: since it is positive, it cannot destabilise the $Sp(4)$-invariant vacuum, and it should be overcome by the one from the top Yukawa coupling [@Contino:2010rs; @Panico:2015jxa]. In the traditional NJL literature [@Nambu:1961tp; @Klevansky:1992qe; @Hatsuda:1994pi; @Klimt:1989pm], the resonance masses are determined from the resummed scattering amplitudes for $\psi\psi\to\psi\psi$ in the various channels. These amplitudes involve the same couplings $K_\phi$ and functions $\t\Pi_{\phi}(p^2)$ as in Eq. (\[PiSPsum\]). Moreover, they also allow to define couplings between the elementary fermions and the resonances. The interested reader will find a brief discussion of these issues, not directly related to our main purposes, in App. \[SDresum\]. Vector interactions of fermion bilinears {#psivectors} ---------------------------------------- Let us now consider vector bilinears, in order to study spin-one resonances. There are two independent four-fermion vector-vector operators, that can be written as $$\mathcal{L}_{vect}^{\psi}= \frac{\kappa^\prime_C}{2N}\left(\overline{\psi}_a \overline{\sigma}^\mu \psi^a \right) \left(\overline{\psi}_b \overline{\sigma}_\mu \psi^b \right) +\frac{\kappa^\prime_D}{2N} \left(\overline{\psi}_a \overline{\sigma}^\mu \psi^b \right) \left(\overline{\psi}_b \overline{\sigma}_\mu \psi^a \right) ~, \label{L4Fvec}$$ where the coupling constants $\kappa^\prime_C$ and $\kappa^\prime_D$ are real. It turns out that consistent (non-tachyonic) spin-one resonance masses are obtained for $\kappa^\prime_{C,D} >0$, in the same way as for the NJL vector interaction in QCD. Applying the $SU(4)$ Fierz identity given by Eq. (\[SUNfierz\]), the Lagrangian can be rewritten in the ‘physical’ channels, corresponding to definite $Sp(4)$ representations, \_[vect]{}\^= ( T\^0\_ \^)\^2 + ( T\^A \^)\^2 + ( T\^[A]{} \^)\^2 , \[L4Fv\] where $\kappa_D = 2\kappa^\prime_D$, $\kappa_C = 8\kappa^\prime_C+ 2\kappa^\prime_D$, and contracted flavour indexes are understood, as well as summations over generator labels $A$ and ${\hat A}$. Introducing auxiliary vector fields, the vector sector Lagrangian takes the form \_[vect]{}\^ = - a\_( T\^0\_ \^) - V\_\^A ( T\^A \^) - A\_\^[A]{} ( T\^[A]{} \^) - a\^ a\_ - ( V\_\^A V\^[A]{} + A\_\^[A]{} A\^[[A]{}]{}) , \[Lvaux\] with vectors $V_{\mu}^A \sim 10_{Sp(4)}$, and axial vectors $(a_\mu,A_{\mu}^{\hat A}) \sim (1+5)_{Sp(4)}$. Their transformation properties are summarised in Table \[tabsu4\]. This Lagrangian defines the strength of the four-fermion interactions in the three physical channels mediated by $a_\mu$, $V_\mu^A$ and $A_\mu^{\hat A}$. We remark that additional spin-one resonances can be associated to the fermion bilinear $(\psi^a \sigma^{\mu\nu} \psi^b)\sim 10_{Sp(4)}$, or to its conjugate. However, one can check that the corresponding four-fermion interactions vanish because of Lorentz and/or $SU(4)$ invariance. Therefore, to describe these resonances one should consider higher-dimensional operators. Although such an exercise is feasible with analogous NJL techniques, it goes beyond the scope of this paper. In general, the couplings $\kappa_C$ and $\kappa_D$ are additional free parameters with respect to those in the spin-zero sector, and in the following we will provide expressions for the vector masses and couplings as functions of these couplings. However, $\kappa_C$ and $\kappa_D$ may be related to the scalar sector coupling $\kappa_A$, if one assumes that the low-energy effective interactions, between two hypercolour-singlet fermion bilinears, originate from a one-hypergluon exchange current-current interaction, as determined by the underlying hypercolour gauge interaction. This may be justified in the large-$N$ approximation (or equivalently ‘ladder’ approximation for the current-current interaction) and it proves to be a reasonably good approximation in the NJL-QCD case [@Klimt:1989pm; @Bijnens:1992uz]. Under such an assumption, one can apply Fierz identities for Weyl, as well as for $SU(4)$ and $Sp(2N)$, indices, as detailed in appendix \[fierz\], in order to relate the coefficients of the various four-fermion operators. We obtain that the vector couplings of Eq. (\[L4Fv\]) are simply related to the scalar coupling of Eq. (\[LSphys\]) by \_A = \_C=\_D . \[SVfierz4\] An analogous relation holds in the NJL-QCD case [@Klimt:1989pm], where the couplings of the scalar-scalar and vector-vector interactions are identical. We will use Eq. (\[SVfierz4\]) as a benchmark for numerical illustration, however one should keep in mind that the true dynamics may appreciably depart from this naive relation. Masses of vector resonances {#Masses and couplings of vector resonances} --------------------------- The vector meson masses can be computed, at leading order in the $1/N$ expansion, similarly to the scalar meson channels, from the resummed two-point functions, and the geometric series illustrated in Fig. \[BS\] now leads, in this approximation, to the following expressions for the vector or axial two-point correlators $\Pi_{V,A}(p^2)$ defined in Eq. (\[PiVAdef\]), \_[V/A]{}(q\^2) - , \[PiVAsum\] We have introduced one-loop correlators $\t \Pi_{V/A}(q^2)$ with a normalisation that is more convenient for our purposes, so that $\t \Pi_{V/A}(q^2)\equiv -q^2\Pi_{V/A}(q^2)\|_{1-loop}$. Similarly, for the one-loop axial longitudinal part we have $\t \Pi_{A}^L(q^2)\equiv q^2\Pi_{A}^L(q^2)\|_{1-loop}$, where $\Pi_{A}^L(q^2)$ is defined in Eq. (\[PATL\]). More precisely, upon taking the traces over spinor indices, flavour and hypercolour, the one-loop two-point vector and axial correlators take the form, \_[V]{}\^[,AB]{}(q) =\_[V]{}(q\^2) T\^ \^[AB]{} , \_[A]{}\^[, ]{}(q) = \^[ ]{} , \[PiV1loop\] where the transverse and longitudinal projectors are defined as $$T^{\mu \nu}= \eta^{\mu \nu}- \frac{q^\mu q^\nu}{q^2}~, \qquad\qquad L^{\mu \nu}= \frac{q^\mu q^\nu}{q^2} , \label{tensors-spin1}$$ and where the expressions of the functions $\t \Pi_{V/A}(q^2)$ and $\t \Pi_{A}^L(q^2)$ are given in Table \[tab\_phi\]. One should be cautious to adopt a regularisation that preserves $SU(4)$ current conservation for the one-loop correlators, which is not the case with the standard NJL cutoff regularisation. There are various ways to deal with this well-known problem [@Klevansky:1992qe], the simplest being to use dimensional regularisation for the intermediate stages of the calculation. In this way the one-loop vector correlator is automatically transverse. In the final expression for the correlators, the formally divergent loop function $\t B_0$ can be written as a function of the $D=4$ cutoff $\Lambda$, see Eq. (\[B0exp\]). The latter is then interpreted as the physical cutoff of the NJL model. As compared to the two-point axial correlator in the massless limit, defined by Eq. (\[PiVAdef\]), and as already mentioned in Section \[Masses and couplings of scalar resonances\], the one-loop expression (\[PiV1loop\]) also exhibits a longitudinal part. This is a specific trait of the NJL model, where the dynamically generated mass $M_\psi$ acts here like an explicit symmetry-breaking term. We will come back later on the manner this longitudinal piece is taken care of. For the time being, one may notice that the transverse part of the two-point axial correlator reproduces the expected physical features. Indeed, the resummed function $\overline\Pi_A (q^2)$ exhibits the massless pole[^6] due to the contribution of the Goldstone bosons, but it also has a pole from the axial-vector state $A_\mu^{\hat A}$. This second pole mass is extracted from Eq. (\[pole\]), by injecting the coupling[^7] and the transverse part of the correlator, $\t \Pi_A(q^2)$. One obtains M\_[A]{}\^2=- + 2 M\_\^2 + 4 M\_\^2 . \[MA\] The pole mass equation for the axial vector singlet $a_\mu$ is obtained with the replacements $\kappa_D\to \kappa_C$ and $M_A\to M_a$. The $V_\mu^A$ pole mass can likewise be extracted from Eq. (\[pole\]), with the replacements $K_\phi\to K_V= -2\kappa_D/(2N)$ and $\t\Pi_{\phi}(p^2)\to \t \Pi_V(p^2)$. This leads to $$M_{V}^2=-\frac{3}{4 \kappa_D \t B_0(M_V^2,M_\psi^2)}+ 2 M_\psi^2 \frac{ \t B_0(0,M_\psi^2)}{\t B_0(M_V^2,M_\psi^2)} -2 M_\psi^2 ~. \label{MV}$$ In estimating the sizes of the spin-one resonance masses, note that $ \t B_0(p^2,M_\psi^2)$ is real for $0 \le p^2 \le 4M_\psi^2$, and negative in the physically relevant range of $0 < M_\psi^2 < \Lambda^2$, with $\|\t B_0(p^2,M_\psi^2)\|\ge \|\t B_0(0,M_\psi^2)\|$. The term proportional to $1/\kappa_D$ on the right-hand side of Eqs. (\[MV\]) and (\[MA\]) is positive for $\kappa_D>0$, and gives the dominant contribution to $M_{V,A}$ for, roughly, $\kappa_D M_\psi^2 \lesssim 4\pi^2$, that is $(M_\psi/\Lambda)^2\lesssim 1/\xi$ when one takes $\kappa_D\simeq\kappa_A\gg\kappa_B$. By neglecting the difference between $\t B_0(M^2_V,M_\psi^2)$ and $\t B_0(M^2_A,M_\psi^2)$, we obtain the usual NJL relation between the axial and vector masses, $$M_A^2 \simeq M_V^2 +6 M_\psi^2 ~. \label{MVMA}$$ When one adopts the exact self-consistent pole mass definitions, $M_A$ is somewhat below the prediction of Eq. (\[MVMA\]), by typically $5-10\%$. Also, the singlet mass $M_{a}$ is equal to $M_A$ when $\kappa_D =\kappa_C$ as in Eq. (\[SVfierz4\]). As already mentioned in the general considerations at the beginning of Section \[Masses and couplings of scalar resonances\], depending on the values of the couplings, one may have resonance masses satisfying $M_\phi^2 > 4 M^2_\psi$, in which case $\tilde B_0 (M_\phi^2,M_\psi^2)$ develops an imaginary part. Indeed, this is always the case for $M_A$, as one reads off Eq. (\[MVMA\]). In such cases, the resonance mass is obtained upon solving Eq. (\[res\_sol\]), and we consider that the NJL predictions remain sensible as long as the width $\Gamma_\phi$ of the resonance, defined in Eq. (\[res\_width\]), does not exceed its mass. Goldstone decay constant and pseudoscalar-axial mixing {#Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant} ------------------------------------------------------ A key parameter of the composite sector is the Goldstone boson decay constant $F_G$, the analogous of $F_\pi$ in QCD. We recall that, when the Higgs is a composite pseudo-Goldstone boson, the electroweak precision parameters, such as $S$, $T$ (see section \[S parameter\]), and the Higgs couplings receive corrections of order $(v/f)^2$ with respect to their SM value, where $v\simeq 246$ GeV and $f\equiv \sqrt{2} F_G$. Here $f$ is the Goldstone decay constant in the normalisation that is generally adopted in the composite Higgs literature.[^8] Thus, $f$ is the physical scale most directly constrained by precision measurements, $f\gtrsim (0.5 - 1)$ TeV, the exact bound depending on the spontaneous symmetry breaking pattern, as well as on the flavour representations of the spin-one and spin-one-half composite resonances coupled to the SM fields. Therefore, it will be convenient to express all the resonance masses in units of $f$, and in the following we will adopt the more conservative bound $f\gtrsim 1$ TeV. ![The mass gap $M_\psi$ and the Goldstone decay constant $f=\sqrt{2}F_G$, in units of the cutoff $\Lambda$, as a function of the dimensionless coupling $\xi \equiv (\kappa_A+\kappa_B)\Lambda^2/(4\pi^2)$. For $\xi\le1$ there is no spontaneous symmetry breaking, $M_\psi=0$, while for $\xi\ge (1 - \ln 2)^{-1} \sim 3.25$ one has $M_\psi\gtrsim \Lambda$ and the NJL description is no longer reliable. The decay constant $f$ is proportional to $\sqrt{N}$, where $Sp(2N)$ is the hypercolour gauge group. In the complete model including a coloured sector (see section \[coloured-sector\]), one finds that $N\ge 2$ is required to allow for fermion-trilinear top partners, and $N\leq18$ is needed to preserve hypercolour asymptotic freedom [@Barnard:2013zea]. One further needs $N\leq 6$ to avoid Landau poles in the SM gauge couplings below $100$ TeV (see section \[The mass spectrum of the resonances\]). The red dashed line indicates the non-resummed decay constant $\t f =\sqrt{2}\t F_G$, while the upper (lower) red solid line corresponds to the resummed $f$, for $\kappa_D=\kappa_A$ and $\kappa_B=0$ ($\kappa_B=\kappa_A$). []{data-label="FGLam"}](gapold-extremal-kappa-B.pdf) The decay constant $F_G$, as defined by Eq. (\[FGdef\]), can most directly be extracted from the two-point axial transverse correlator, introduced in Eq. (\[PiVAdef\]), through the residue of the Goldstone boson pole. Identifying this correlator in the NJL approximation with the resummed correlator defined by Eq. (\[PiVAsum\]) and using the explicit expression in Table \[tab\_phi\], one obtains F\_G\^2 = \_[q\^20]{} = = = g\_A(0) F\^2\_G , \[FGsum\] where we have defined the axial coupling form factor g\_A(q\^2)\^[-1]{} = \^[-1]{} \[gAdef\] and the one-loop decay constant F\_G\^2 \_A(0) = -2 (2 N ) M\_\^2 B\_0(0,M\_\^2) = \^L\_A (0) . \[FG4\] At this point, one should remark that $\t F_G$ would be the complete NJL result for the Goldstone decay constant only if one would consider the scalar sector in isolation, i.e. by switching off the axial vector coupling $\kappa_{D}$. However, since by definition the Goldstone boson couples to the axial current, a non-zero $\kappa_D$ implies a non-trivial mixing of the pseudoscalar and axial vector channels, that affects the expression of the decay constant. In order to take into account this effect and to define consistently $F_G$, one needs to consider the resummed transverse axial-vector correlator $\overline \Pi_A(q^2)$ of Eq. (\[PiVAsum\]), as shown in (\[FGsum\]) above. This equation gives the complete NJL approximation for $F_G$, which should be matched with its experimental value, once it becomes available, as is the case of $F_\pi$ in the NJL approximation of QCD [@Klevansky:1992qe; @Klimt:1989pm]. The behaviour of $F_G$ is illustrated in Fig. \[FGLam\], as a function of the dimensionless coupling $\xi$. Combining the definition of $\xi$ in Eq. (\[gap2\]) with the explicit form of $\t B_0(0, M_\psi^2 )$ given in Eq. (\[B00\]), one obtains F\_G\^2 = \^2 ( - ) . Closely above the critical coupling, $\xi = 1$, the mass gap is much smaller than the cutoff, $M_\psi\ll \Lambda$, and $\t F_G$ grows rapidly with $\xi$. As $\xi-1$ becomes of order one, the mass gap approaches the cutoff, $M_\psi \lesssim \Lambda$, while $\t F_G$ stops growing and remains below the cutoff by a factor of a few, $\tilde f \equiv \sqrt{2}\t F_G\simeq \sqrt{N}\Lambda/10$. The resummed $F_G$, see Eq. (\[FGsum\]), is smaller, as $K_A$ is negative. In Fig. \[FGLam\] we assumed Eq. (\[SVfierz4\]) to hold, so that $K_A = -4\pi^2\xi/[N\Lambda^2(1+\kappa_B/\kappa_A)]$, which leads to $f\simeq (0.6-0.8) \t f$. As already mentioned at several places in this section, a non-vanishing axial-vector coupling $\kappa_D\ne 0$ implies a nontrivial mixing between the pseudoscalar and the axial longitudinal channel. Therefore, the definition of the resummed pseudoscalar correlator $\overline{\Pi}_P(q^2)$ in Eq. (\[PiSPsum\]) should be appropriately generalised in order to account for this mixing. In the process, we will also define a resummed axial longitudinal correlator $\overline{\Pi}_A^L(q^2)$, we will recover consistency relations among the Goldstone decay constants, and determine more precisely the properties of the non-Goldstone pseudoscalar $\eta^\prime$. We discuss first the quintuplet $G-A^\mu$ mixing, while the similar analysis of the singlet $\eta^\prime-a^\mu$ mixing is presented at the end of this section. The mixing phenomenon is best described using a matrix formalism, so that we are led to consider \_G= K\_G & 0\ 0 & K\_A , (q\^2) = \_P (q\^2) & \_[AP]{} (q\^2)\ \_[AP]{} (q\^2) &\_A\^L (q\^2) . \[Pi22\] Explicit expressions for all the entries of these matrices can be found in Table \[tab\_phi\]. Notice the appearance of $\tilde{\Pi}_{AP} (q^2)$, the one-loop expression of the mixed correlator $\Pi_{AP} (q^2)$ introduced in Eq. (\[PiAPdef\]), and of the one-loop longitudinal axial correlator $\tilde{\Pi}_A^L(q^2)$ defined in Eq. (\[PiV1loop\]). Note that, consistently with the normalisation of $\tilde{\Pi}_A^{L} (q^2)$ in Eq. (\[PiV1loop\]), the matrix $\mathbf{\Pi} (q^2)$ has been defined so that all its entries have the same dimensions, whence the factor of $\sqrt{q^2}$ in front of $\tilde{\Pi}_{AP} (q^2)$. The resummed large-$N$ two-point matrix correlator $\overline {\mathbf \Pi}_G$ in this basis is then given by \_G + (2 \_G) += (11- 2 \_G )\^[-1]{} , \[Pisum22\] which is the analog of Eqs. (\[PiSPsum\]) and (\[PiVAsum\]). From Eqs (\[Pi22\]), (\[Pisum22\]) one then obtains && \_G (q\^2) \_G (q\^2) & \_[AG]{} (q\^2)\ \_[AG]{} (q\^2)& q\^2\_A\^[L ]{} (q\^2) \ && = \_P (q\^2)\[1- 2 K\_A \_A\^[L]{}(q\^2)\] + 2K\_A q\^2\^2\_[AP]{}(q\^2) & \_[AP]{}(q\^2)\ \_[AP]{}(q\^2) &\_A\^[L]{}(q\^2) \[1-2 K\_G \_P(q\^2)\] + 2K\_G q\^2\^2\_[AP]{}(q\^2) , with D\_G (11 - 2 \_G )= (1- 2 K\_G \_P) (1-2 K\_A \_A\^L) -4 K\_G K\_A q\^2 \_[AP]{}\^2 = 2(\_A+\_B) q\^2 B\_0(q\^2,M\^2\_) . \[DG\] The last expression in this equation is obtained after using the gap-equation (\[gap\]) and the relation $\t \Pi_{AP}^2(q^2) = -(1/2)(2N) \t B_0(q^2,M^2_\psi) \t \Pi_A^L(q^2)$. Using the relevant expressions in Table \[tab\_phi\], gives explicitly \_G(q\^2) = (2N) , \_[AG]{}(q\^2) = , \_A\^[L]{}(q\^2) = 0 . \[Pisum22fin\] Note in particular that the [resummed]{} longitudinal axial correlator $\overline{\Pi}_A^{L}(q^2)$ vanishes identically, thus consistently recovering the conservation of the axial current in the exact chiral limit, in spite of the nonzero mass gap, which induces a non-vanishing longitudinal axial correlator at the one-loop level, $\t \Pi_A^L \propto M^2_\psi$ . Also the resummed mixed correlator $\overline{\Pi}_{AG}(q^2)$ satisfies the relation (\[PiAP\]), which shows that it is entirely saturated by the Goldstone-boson pole. Now one can extract the NJL prediction for the Goldstone constants $F_G$ and $G_G$, defined by Eqs. (\[FGdef\]) and (\[GGdef\]) respectively. The residue of $\overline{\Pi}_G (p^2)$ with respect to the Goldstone boson pole gives the pseudoscalar decay constant, G\^2\_G = -\_[q\^20]{} q\^2 \_G(q\^2) = - g\^[-1]{}\_A(0) . \[GGsum\] Next, the residue of $\overline{\Pi}_{AG} (q^2)$ determines $F_G G_G$, F\_G G\_G = -\_[q\^20]{} q\^2 \_[AG]{}(q\^2) = = 2 (2N) M\_ A\_0(M\^2\_) , \[FGGGsum\] that satisfies Eq. (\[FGrel\]), by taking the expression for $\la S^\psi_0 \ra$ derived from Eq. (\[psicond\]). Combining Eqs. (\[GGsum\]) and (\[FGGGsum\]), and using the gap equation, one consistently recovers the very same expression of $F_G$ in Eq. (\[FGsum\]), as obtained from the resummed axial transverse correlator. Note that, if one had computed $G_G$ in the limit of vanishing axial-vector coupling, $\kappa_D=0$, by taking the residue of $\overline{\Pi}_P$ in Eq. (\[PiSPsum\]), one would have missed the (inverse) axial form factor $g_A(0)$, see Eq. (\[GGsum\]). Such a correction is important e.g. when analysing the possible saturation of the scalar spectral sum rules, which will be discussed in section \[secWSR\]. Obviously, a similar pseudoscalar-axial mixing mechanism also affects the singlet sector of the model, as soon as the axial singlet coupling $\kappa_C$ is non-vanishing. The resummed correlator matrix for the singlet sector, $\mathbf{\overline{\Pi}}_{\eta^\prime}$, is defined in complete analogy with Eq. (\[Pisum22\]), by taking the same one-loop correlator matrix $\mathbf{\Pi}$, but replacing the couplings, $K_G\to K_{\eta^\prime}$ and $K_A\to K_a$ (i.e. $\kappa_D\to \kappa_C$), respectively for the pseudoscalar and axial-vector channels, according to Table \[tab\_phi\]. One main consequence of the mixing is that the pseudoscalar singlet mass $M_{\eta^\prime}$ is modified with respect to Eq. (\[Meta\]), which holds for the pseudoscalar sector “in isolation”. The $\eta^\prime$ mass rather corresponds to the pole of the determinant D\_[\^]{} (11 - 2 \_[\^]{} )= (1- 2K\_[\^]{} \_P) g\_a\^[-1]{} -4 K\_[\^]{} K\_a q\^2 \_[AP]{}\^2 = 8 \_B A\_0(M\^2\_) g\_a\^[-1]{} + 2(\_A-\_B) q\^2 B\_0(q\^2,M\^2\_) , where we defined an axial singlet form factor, g\_a(q\^2) = \^[-1]{} , in complete analogy with Eq. (\[gAdef\]) for the non-singlet sector. Therefore Eq. (\[Meta\]) gets modified (“renormalised”) by the (inverse) axial singlet form factor, M\_[\^]{}\^2 = -g\_a\^[-1]{}(M\_[\^]{}\^2) , \[Metabis\] which is the final expression that we will use in numerical illustrations of the mass spectrum in the next subsection. The mass spectrum of the resonances {#The mass spectrum of the resonances} ----------------------------------- The resonance masses have to be proportional to the unique independent energy scale of the theory, which is conveniently choosen as $f\equiv \sqrt{2} F_G$, defined in Eq. (\[FGsum\]), as explained above. In order to fix the ideas, one can take $f$ just above the lower bound imposed by electroweak precision tests, which is conservatively given by $f = 1$ TeV. Since the resonance masses are $N$-independent and $f \sim \sqrt{N}$, in principle the resonances become lighter and lighter in the large-$N$ limit. However, if the model is augmented with coloured fermions to provide top partners, as we will do in section \[coloured-sector\], the $Sp(2N)$ asymptotic freedom is lost (at one loop) for $N\ge19$ [@Barnard:2013zea]. Moreover, these coloured fermions are also charged under $U(1)_Y$, resulting in Landau poles in the SM gauge couplings ($\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_3$) possibly too close to the condensation scale of the strong sector. A naive one-loop estimation of the running of the SM gauge couplings in presence of the hypercolour fermions leads to the appearance of Landau poles around $100$ ($500$) TeV for $N=6$ $(5)$ while for $N=4$, the Landau poles appear above $4\cdot 10^3$ TeV. Then, a more reasonable interval for the number of hypercolours is $2\leq N\leq 6$. For the numerical illustration, we take the conservative value $N=4$. The resonance masses are a function of the couplings $\kappa_{A,B,C,D}$ of the four-fermion operators. For the numerical illustration, we will assume Eq. (\[SVfierz4\]) to hold, $\kappa_C=\kappa_D=\kappa_A$, and we will trade the two remaining, independent couplings for the dimensionless parameters $\xi \equiv (\kappa_A+\kappa_B)\Lambda^2/(4\pi^2)$ and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. Let us describe the main feature of the mass spectrum. Since we work in the chiral limit approximation, the resonances are complete multiplets of the unbroken $Sp(4)$ symmetry, and the Goldstone bosons $G_{\hat A}$ are massless. In the spin-zero sector, there are three independent massive states: the singlet scalar $\sigma$ and the five-plet scalar $S_{\hat A}$, see Eq. (\[Ma2\]), as well as the singlet pseudoscalar $\eta^\prime$, see Eq. (\[Meta\]). The latter is the would-be Goldstone boson of the anomalous $U(1)_\psi$, therefore $M_{\eta^\prime}$ vanishes when this symmetry is restored, that is when $\kappa_B/\kappa_A\rightarrow 0$. In the spin-one sector, there are two independent masses: the singlet axial vector $a^\mu$ and the five-plet axial vector $A^\mu_{\hat A}$ are mass-degenerate as we assume $\kappa_C=\kappa_D$, with mass given by Eq. (\[MA\]), while the ten-plet vector $V^\mu_A$ has a different mass, see Eq. (\[MV\]). Even though we neglect the mass splitting among the different electroweak components, in view of collider searches it is important to keep in mind the electroweak charges of the resonances, that are fixed by the decomposition of the $Sp(4)$ representations under the $SU(2)_w\times U(1)_Y$ gauged subgroup: 1\_[Sp(4)]{}=1\_0 , 5\_[Sp(4)]{} = (2\_[1/2]{} +h.c.)+1\_0 , 10\_[Sp(4)]{} = 3\_0 + (2\_[1/2]{} +h.c.) + (1\_1+h.c.) + 1\_0 . ![The masses of the electroweak resonances in units of the Goldstone decay constant $f$, for $N=4$ (the masses scale with $1/\sqrt{N}$), as a function of the coupling $\xi$, for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.1$ (left-hand panel) and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.5$ (right-hand panel). We displayed the full physical range for $\xi$, according to Fig. \[FGLam\]. Each curve is shaded when the corresponding pole mass equation develops a large, unphysical imaginary part, $\|{\rm Im}[g_\phi(M_\phi^2)]/{\rm Re}[g_\phi(M_\phi^2)] \|>1$. The dotted line is the cutoff of the constituent fermion loops.[]{data-label="M/FgA10"}](masses-1.pdf "fig:") ![The masses of the electroweak resonances in units of the Goldstone decay constant $f$, for $N=4$ (the masses scale with $1/\sqrt{N}$), as a function of the coupling $\xi$, for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.1$ (left-hand panel) and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.5$ (right-hand panel). We displayed the full physical range for $\xi$, according to Fig. \[FGLam\]. Each curve is shaded when the corresponding pole mass equation develops a large, unphysical imaginary part, $\|{\rm Im}[g_\phi(M_\phi^2)]/{\rm Re}[g_\phi(M_\phi^2)] \|>1$. The dotted line is the cutoff of the constituent fermion loops.[]{data-label="M/FgA10"}](masses-5.pdf "fig:") In Fig. \[M/FgA10\] we display the five independent resonance masses, $M_{\sigma,\eta^\prime,S,V,A}$, as a function of $\xi$, for two representative values of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. While $M_\sigma = 2M_\psi$ grows over the entire range for $\xi$, the other four masses follow a different pattern: they appear to be several times larger than $f$ when $\xi$ is very close to one (see the discussion in the next paragraph), then they steeply decrease to reach a minimum value$\sim (2-3)f$ for an intermediate value of $\xi$, and finally they grow roughly linearly for $\xi\gtrsim 1.5$. We recall the two approximate mass relations, $M_S\simeq (M_\sigma^2 + M_{\eta^\prime}^2)^{1/2}$ and $M_A\simeq (M_V^2+3 M_\sigma^2/2)^{1/2}$, that hold neglecting pole mass differences in the loop form factor. As a consequence, one has always $M_A>M_S>M_\sigma$, with a similar asymptotic value at large $\xi$. On the contrary, $M_V$ decreases until it becomes degenerate with $M_\sigma$, then it grows with a weaker slope. Finally, $M_{\eta^\prime}$ may also become smaller than $M_{\sigma}$ at large values of $\xi$, but only for a sufficiently small value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. For example, taking $f=1$ TeV, $N=4$ and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.1$, the resonance masses for two representative values of $\xi$ are =1.3 &: & M\_A 6.6 [TeV]{}, M\_V4.9 [TeV]{}, M\_S4.6 [TeV]{}, M\_4.1 [TeV]{}, M\_[\^]{} 3.3 [TeV]{} ,\ =2.0 &: & M\_A 9.5 [TeV]{}, M\_V6.4 [TeV]{}, M\_S8.3 [TeV]{}, M\_8.1 [TeV]{}, M\_[\^]{} 4.9 [TeV]{} . \[mass-spetrum-EW-benchmark\] In general, electroweak resonances lighter than $\simeq 4 f \simeq 4$ TeV are possible in two cases: the scalar $\sigma$ becomes light when one approaches the critical coupling $\xi=1$, where the mass gap vanishes; the pseudoscalar $\eta^\prime$ becomes light as $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ tends to zero, where the anomalous $U(1)_\psi$ symmetry is restored. These two singlet states, together with the SM singlet Goldstone boson $G^{\hat 3}$, may be observed as the lightest scalar resonances at the LHC, beside the $125$ GeV Higgs boson. In section \[mixing-singlets\] we will discuss the mixing of $\sigma$ and $\eta^\prime$ with the analogous singlet states of the colour sector, a feature that will induce corrections to their masses. A comment is in order on the region close to the critical coupling. In the limit $\xi\rightarrow 1$, one finds that $M_\sigma/f \sim [-\log(\xi-1)]^{-1/2}$ vanishes, while the other resonance masses diverge relatively to $f$, $M_{V,A,S,\eta^\prime}/f \sim (\xi-1)^{-1/2}$. The lightness of $\sigma$ may be interpreted as the signal that scale invariance is recovered below $\xi=1$, while all other resonances decouple in this limit. However, we should remark that, for some of these heavy resonances, the NJL computation of their masses cannot be trusted close to the critical coupling, because the pole of the resummed propagator develops a large, unphysical imaginary part. Recall, from the general discussion at the beginning of section \[Masses and couplings of scalar resonances\], that the curves in Fig. \[M/FgA10\] are the solution of Eq. (\[res\_sol\]),[^9] where the imaginary part of $g_\phi(M_\phi^2)$ has been neglected. The curves in Fig. \[M/FgA10\] are shaded when $\|{\rm Im}[g_\phi(M_\phi^2)]/{\rm Re}[g_\phi(M_\phi^2)] \|>1$, where we consider that the corresponding result cannot be trusted anymore. This happens when $\xi\lesssim(1.2-1.3)$, for the vector and axial-vector resonances, with masses $M_{V/A}$ close to the cutoff of the NJL model. Let us also comment on the complementary limit where $\xi$ is so large that $M_\psi/\Lambda$ becomes of order one, as illustrated in Fig. \[FGLam\]. In this case Fig. \[M/FgA10\] shows that the resonances become heavier than $\Lambda$ (except for $\eta^\prime$, if $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ is small enough). This is not necessarily problematic: while the mass $M_\psi$ of constituent fermions in the loops need to be smaller than the loop cutoff $\Lambda$, external mesons heavier than $\Lambda$ do not harm the consistency of the NJL approximation. Indeed, in QCD the NJL model predicts rather accurately resonance masses twice as large as the cutoff. Nonetheless, we notice that, for $M_\phi\sim \Lambda$, the value of the two-point function $\t B_0(M_\phi^2,M_\psi^2)$ becomes sensitive to the regularisation chosen, defined in appendix \[loop-functions\], as the cutoff-dependent finite terms become sizeable. As a consequence, we observe that the mass values in this region may vary up to a few $10\%$ in different regularisation schemes. This is an intrinsic theoretical uncertainty of the NJL approximation.\ The resonance masses in units of $f\equiv \sqrt{2} F_G$ may be compared with recent lattice studies of the same model [@Arthur:2016dir; @Arthur:2016ozw], which provide scalar and vector masses in the same units.[^10] Actually, the lattice simulations performed to date for this model are available only for an underlying $SU(2)$ gauge theory, thus equivalent to the special case $Sp(2)$ of our more general $Sp(2N)$ study. Let us recall that the meson masses scale as $M_\phi/f\sim 1/\sqrt{N}$, where the scaling originates solely from $f$ (this statement holds for a fixed value of the ratio $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$). Therefore, the mass values illustrated for $N=4$ in Fig. \[M/FgA10\] get enhanced by a factor $2$ for $N=1$, and these rescaled values can be directly compared with the lattice results. The lattice prediction for the vector masses in the chiral limit is $M_V/f = 13.1\pm 2.2$, $M_A/f = 14.5\pm 3.6$ [@Arthur:2016dir]. The latter results, although affected with relatively large uncertainties, indicate a more moderate $V-A$ mass splitting than is generally expected from the NJL model, see Eq. (\[MVMA\]), unless $M_\psi$ is rather small, which corresponds in the NJL framework to rather small values of $\xi$. More precisely, typically the previous central lattice values can be (approximately) matched for $\xi\simeq 1.1$, therefore not far above the critical NJL coupling value, where on the other hand the NJL calculation becomes less reliable, as already explained above, since entering the $\xi$ range where the $V$ and $A$ width both become relatively large. But accounting for the lattice uncertainties, the above values are also easily matched alternatively for rather large $\xi$ values, where the NJL prediction is also more reliable: for example for $N=1$ and $\xi=1.6$ \[$\xi=1.9$\], $M_V/f\|_{NJL}\simeq 11~[\simeq 12.5]$, $M_A/f\|_{NJL}\simeq 15.3~[\simeq 18]$. \[NB recall that the $V$ and $A$ masses are mildly dependent on $\kappa_B$, which enters only indirectly through the mass gap. One should also keep in mind that the Fierz-induced relation (\[SVfierz4\]) is assumed for the axial and vector coupling $\kappa_D$ in Fig. \[M/FgA10\], and since the dominant contribution to the $V, A$ masses scales as $1/\kappa_D$, a somewhat smaller (larger) $\kappa_D$ would induce somewhat larger (smaller) $V, A$ masses, for a fixed value of $\xi$\]. At least one may tentatively conclude from this comparison that intermediate $\xi$ values, say $1.2{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}\xi {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}1.6$ approximately, as well as very large $\xi >2$, appear more disfavoured. Concerning the lightest scalar masses, Ref. [@Arthur:2016ozw] provides the very recent lattice estimates $M_\sigma/f =19.2(10.8)$, $M_{\eta^\prime}/f = 12.8(4.7)$, and $M_{S}/f =16.7(4.9)$, in the chiral limit (where the scalar non-singlet $S$ is called $a_0$ in Ref. [@Arthur:2016ozw]). Compared with Fig. \[M/FgA10\] (rescaled for $N=1$) and combined with the results for the $V$ and $A$ masses, $\xi$ values very close to $1$ appear disfavoured by the $\sigma$ mass, even when taking its lowest lattice value above, because in this region the NJL prediction for $M_\sigma$ is much smaller than $M_V$, as it is clear from $M_\sigma =2M_\psi$ (see also Fig. \[M/FgA10\]). The NJL (approximate) relation $M^2_S\simeq M^2_\sigma +M^2_{\eta'}$ (see Eq. (\[Ma2\])), can be fulfilled within the large lattice uncertainties, although the rather high lattice central value of $M_{\sigma}$ is in tension with this relation. So putting all together it may indicate that relatively large values of $\xi\simeq 1.6-2$, well above the NJL critical coupling, are more favoured by lattice results. The $\eta^\prime$ pseudoscalar mass, in the NJL model, is very sensitive to the ratio $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, see Eq. (\[Metasimple\]). Modulo the large lattice uncertainties, the comparison with lattice results appears to indicate intermediate values for this ratio, $\kappa_B/\kappa_A\simeq 0.2-0.4$, such that $M_{\eta^\prime}$ is comparable with $M_V$. In conclusion the comparison of NJL and lattice results appears roughly consistent, at least the lattice results may be matched for some definite values of the NJL parameters $\xi$ and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, with no strong tensions. But it appears still an essentially qualitative comparison at the present stage, given both the intrinsic NJL uncertainties amply discussed previously, as well as the still relatively large lattice systematic uncertainties, specially for the scalar resonances: so unfortunately it cannot be taken yet as giving tight constraints on the effective NJL model parameters. Note also that other recent lattice simulations of composite Higgs model resonances are available in the literature (see e.g. [@DeGrand:2015lna; @DeGrand:2016pur]), but are based on different gauge symmetries and/or global symmetry breaking pattern, thus not directly comparable with our results. Comparison with spectral sum rules {#secWSR} ---------------------------------- Several authors [@Bijnens:1993ap; @Dmitrasinovic:1996ka; @Klevansky:1997dk] have addressed the issue of spectral sum rules, discussed in general terms in Section \[SR\], in the context of the NJL approximation applied to QCD. In this Section, we will study them in the context of the NJL approximation to the underlying $Sp(2N)$ gauge dynamics of the present composite Higgs framework. The aim will be to check whether these sum rules provide additional constraints on the parameters of the model, namely $\xi$ and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. It seems only natural to identify the spectral densities appearing in the sum rules displayed in Eqs. (\[WSRVA\]) and (\[scalSR\]) with the discontinuities of the resummed NJL two-point correlators[^11] discussed in the preceding subsections, i.e. \_[V/A]{} (t) = \_[ 0\^+]{} , \[ImPI\_VA\] or, in the singlet scalar and pseudoscalar channels, \_[S\^0/P\^0]{} (t) = \_[ 0\^+]{} , \[ImPI\_SP\] and analogous relations between ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_{S/P} (t)$ and ${\overline\Pi}_{S/P} (t)$. Before discussing the sum rules of Section \[SR\] under these identifications, let us recall that the sum rules themselves follow from the short-distance properties, which reflect the properties of the underlying $Sp(2N)$ gauge dynamics, of the two-point functions under consideration, and from general properties of quantum field theories, here essentially invariance under the Poincaré group and the spectral property. The latter allow to extend the definitions of the functions $\Pi_\phi(t)$ to functions in the complex $t$-plane, with all singularities (poles and branch points) confined to the positive real axis. The former then allow to write down unsubtracted dispersion relations for the appropriate combinations of two-point correlators, from which the sum rules follow. The necessity to introduce a regularisation (here the cut-off $\Lambda$), in order to render the one-loop correlators ${\t\Pi}_\phi(t)$ finite, and to perform the resummation shown in Fig. \[BS\], leads to functions ${\overline\Pi}_\phi (t)$ that will in general not respect all the required properties. For instance, with the choice of regularisation adopted in the present study, ghost poles on the [negative]{} real $q^2$-axis will appear, as discussed at the beginning of Section \[Masses and couplings of scalar resonances\]. This situation is well known in the context of the NJL approximation applied to QCD, where it has been examined quite extensively by the authors of Ref. [@Klevansky:1997dk], and we refer the reader to this article for additional details. ![ The figure on the left shows the spectral functions ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_V (t)$ (upper curves, in red) and $- {\rm Im} \,\Pi_{A} (t)$ (lower curves, in blue), as a function of $t/(2 M_\psi)^2$ . The plotted quantities are dimensionless and scale like $N$. The solid and dashed lines correspond to $\xi = 1.3$ and $\xi = 2$, respectively. The value of the parameter $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ has been taken equal to 0.1 in all cases. The narrow vector bound state below the continuum starting at $t=(2 M_\psi)^2$ (materialised on the figures by the vertical line) is present in ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_{V} (t)$ when $\xi=2$, but disappears for smaller values of $\xi$. The pion pole appears clearly in ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_A (t)$, but the axial-vector resonance has a mass that is always greater that $4M_\psi^2$, and therefore a narrow sub-threshold peak never occurs. The figure on the right likewise shows the functions $t \,{\rm Im} \,\Pi_V (t)$ and $t \,{\rm Im} \,\Pi_A (t)$. The latter are in units of $f^2$ and consequently are $N$- independent. []{data-label="fig_spectral_VA"}](spectral-density-ImVA.pdf "fig:") ![ The figure on the left shows the spectral functions ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_V (t)$ (upper curves, in red) and $- {\rm Im} \,\Pi_{A} (t)$ (lower curves, in blue), as a function of $t/(2 M_\psi)^2$ . The plotted quantities are dimensionless and scale like $N$. The solid and dashed lines correspond to $\xi = 1.3$ and $\xi = 2$, respectively. The value of the parameter $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ has been taken equal to 0.1 in all cases. The narrow vector bound state below the continuum starting at $t=(2 M_\psi)^2$ (materialised on the figures by the vertical line) is present in ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_{V} (t)$ when $\xi=2$, but disappears for smaller values of $\xi$. The pion pole appears clearly in ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_A (t)$, but the axial-vector resonance has a mass that is always greater that $4M_\psi^2$, and therefore a narrow sub-threshold peak never occurs. The figure on the right likewise shows the functions $t \,{\rm Im} \,\Pi_V (t)$ and $t \,{\rm Im} \,\Pi_A (t)$. The latter are in units of $f^2$ and consequently are $N$- independent. []{data-label="fig_spectral_VA"}](spectral-density-t-ImVA.pdf "fig:") The spectral densities resulting from the identifications in Eqs. (\[ImPI\_VA\]) and (\[ImPI\_SP\]) are shown in Figs. \[fig\_spectral\_VA\] and \[fig\_spectral\_SP\] (in order to make the figure more readable, we have kept $\epsilon$ in the definitions (\[ImPI\_VA\]) and (\[ImPI\_SP\]) very small, but finite). It is most instructive to analyse them in conjunction with the spectrum of the mesonic resonances, as given in Fig. \[M/FgA10\], and with the general discussion at the beginning of Section \[Masses and couplings of scalar resonances\]. Figure \[fig\_spectral\_VA\] shows the vector and axial spectral functions for two different values of the parameter $\xi$. In the axial case, one recognises the contribution from the pion pole at $t=0$, and no other narrow bound state. Only a rather broad resonance peak appears above the $t=4 M_\psi^2$ threshold, where the continuum starts. This is in agreement with Fig. \[M/FgA10\], which shows that $M_A$ is always greater than $M_\sigma = 2 M_\psi$. In the vector channel, a narrow bound state appears below the $2M_\psi$ threshold for $\xi=2$, but is absent (it has moved to the real axis on the second Riemann sheet) for $\xi = 1.3$, and is replaced by a resonance peak. Again, this agrees with Fig. \[M/FgA10\], where one sees that $M_V$ becomes greater than $2 M_\psi$ when $\xi$ takes values below $\sim 1.4$. For the non-singlet scalar spectral density, shown on the left panel of Fig. \[fig\_spectral\_SP\], there is no narrow bound state lying below the threshold of the continuum, whatever the value of $\xi$. However, the larger the value of $\xi$, the more the resonance peak moves closer to the threshold. The shape of ${\rm Im \,} \Pi_S(t)$ is also sensitive to $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. In the pseudoscalar non-singlet channel, only the massless pion pole shows up, and ${\rm Im \,} \Pi_P(t)$ is not sensitive to the value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. The singlet scalar spectral density, shown on the right panel of Fig. \[fig\_spectral\_SP\], presents a narrow peak at the threshold, for any value of $\xi$ and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. In the pseudoscalar singlet channel, the features of the spectral function become also sensitive to this second parameter, as can already be inferred upon comparing the two panels of Fig. \[M/FgA10\]. In particular, a narrow sub-threshold bound state is only present for smaller values of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. ![ The left-hand panel shows the non-singlet spectral functions ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_S (t)/10$ (upper curves, in red) and $- {\rm Im} \,\Pi_{G} (t)$ (lower curves, in blue), as functions of $t/(2 M_\psi)^2$, for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$, and for $\xi = 1.3$ (solid lines) and $\xi = 2$ (dashed lines). In the right-hand panel we fix $\xi=2$ and show the singlet spectral functions ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_\sigma (t)$ (dashed red) and $-{\rm Im} \,\Pi_{\eta^\prime} (t)$ (dashed blue) for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$, as well as ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_\sigma (t)$ (solid red) and $-{\rm Im} \,\Pi_{\eta^\prime} (t)/20$ (solid blue) for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.5$. The narrow $\eta^\prime$ bound state is present only for the smallest value of $\kappa_B/ \kappa_A$. A narrow $\sigma$ pole appears in all cases right at the threshold $t = 4 M_\psi^2$. Note that the spectral functions are all expressed in units of $f^2$, such that they are dimensionless and have no $N$-dependence. []{data-label="fig_spectral_SP"}](spectral-density-ImGS.pdf "fig:") ![ The left-hand panel shows the non-singlet spectral functions ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_S (t)/10$ (upper curves, in red) and $- {\rm Im} \,\Pi_{G} (t)$ (lower curves, in blue), as functions of $t/(2 M_\psi)^2$, for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$, and for $\xi = 1.3$ (solid lines) and $\xi = 2$ (dashed lines). In the right-hand panel we fix $\xi=2$ and show the singlet spectral functions ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_\sigma (t)$ (dashed red) and $-{\rm Im} \,\Pi_{\eta^\prime} (t)$ (dashed blue) for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$, as well as ${\rm Im} \,\Pi_\sigma (t)$ (solid red) and $-{\rm Im} \,\Pi_{\eta^\prime} (t)/20$ (solid blue) for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.5$. The narrow $\eta^\prime$ bound state is present only for the smallest value of $\kappa_B/ \kappa_A$. A narrow $\sigma$ pole appears in all cases right at the threshold $t = 4 M_\psi^2$. Note that the spectral functions are all expressed in units of $f^2$, such that they are dimensionless and have no $N$-dependence. []{data-label="fig_spectral_SP"}](spectral-density-Imetasigma.pdf "fig:") An illustration of the two Weinberg-type sum rules of Eq. (\[WSRVA\]), as well as the sum rules of Eq. (\[scalSR\]), is provided by Fig. \[fig\_Sum\_Rules\]. The integrals compared there, as functions of the coupling $\xi$ and for two values of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, run over the whole positive $t$-axis, which means that, for the sake of illustration, the NJL description has been kept even beyond its expected range of validity. Of course, it is certainly difficult to ascribe any physical meaning to the spectral densities for values of, say, $t/\Lambda^2 {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}2$ \[note that, for $\xi$ close to the critical coupling, one has $2M_\psi\ll \Lambda$, therefore the NJL description holds up to a large value of $t/(2M_\psi)^2$\]. Beyond this value of $t$, the NJL description ceases to be appropriate, and we have to assume that the underlying $Sp(2N)$ gauge dynamics takes over. However, from the experience with QCD [@Peris:1998nj], it is expected that the matching between the two regimes is not very smooth. Keeping this proviso in mind, we show, on the left-hand panel of Fig. \[fig\_Sum\_Rules\], the ratio of the integrals $\int dt ~{\rm Im} \,\Pi_V(t)$ and $\int dt ~{\rm Im} \,\Pi_A(t)$, as well as the ratio of the integrals $\int dt~ t~ {\rm Im} \,\Pi_V(t)$ and $\int dt~ t ~{\rm Im} \,\Pi_A(t)$. Similarly, the right-hand panel shows the ratios of the integrals $\int dt ~{\rm Im} \,\Pi_{\eta^\prime} (t)$ and $\int dt ~{\rm Im} \,\Pi_S (t)$, and of the integrals $\int dt ~{\rm Im} \,\Pi_G (t)$ and $\int dt ~{\rm Im} \,\Pi_\sigma (t)$. If the sum rules were satisfied exactly for all values of $\xi$, all these curves would be a constant equal to one. This is obviously not the case. The general trend is that the departure from the sum rules is more important for larger values of $\xi$. This is in line with Fig. \[M/FgA10\], from which we infer that the continuum, corresponding to $\sqrt{t} > 2 M_\psi$, starts close to the cut-off $\Lambda$ when $\xi\gtrsim1.5$, therefore the NJL description becomes questionable soon after the threshold. On the right-hand panel of Fig. \[fig\_Sum\_Rules\] we also show the ratio of the integrals $\int dt ~{\rm Im} \,\Pi_G$ and $\int dt~ {\rm Im} \,\Pi_S$. Since $\Pi_{S{\mbox -}P}$ is not an order parameter of the $SU(4)$ spontaneous breaking (see footnote \[fnte\_SP\]), there is no corresponding sum rule, and indeed this ratio deviates significantly from unity, already for lower values of $\xi$.\ ![Left panel: the ratio of the integrals, taken over the whole positive $t$-axis, $\int dt~ {\rm Im\,}\Pi_V(t)/\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_A(t)$ (blue, upper curves) and $\int dt ~t~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_V(t)/\int dt~ t~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_A(t)$ (red, lower curves), as a function of the parameter $\xi$, and for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$ (solid lines) and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.5$ (dashed lines). Right panel: the ratio of the integrals, taken over the whole positive $t$-axis, $\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_{\eta^\prime}(t)/\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_S(t)$ (green, upper curves), $\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_G(t)/\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_\sigma(t)$ (blue, middle curves) and $\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_G(t)/\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_S(t)$ (red, lower curve), as a function of the parameter $\xi$, for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$ (solid lines) and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.5$ (dashed lines, not shown in the $G/S$ case). Note that the above ratios are independent from $N$.[]{data-label="fig_Sum_Rules"}](WSR-VA-2valueskB.pdf "fig:") ![Left panel: the ratio of the integrals, taken over the whole positive $t$-axis, $\int dt~ {\rm Im\,}\Pi_V(t)/\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_A(t)$ (blue, upper curves) and $\int dt ~t~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_V(t)/\int dt~ t~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_A(t)$ (red, lower curves), as a function of the parameter $\xi$, and for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$ (solid lines) and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.5$ (dashed lines). Right panel: the ratio of the integrals, taken over the whole positive $t$-axis, $\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_{\eta^\prime}(t)/\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_S(t)$ (green, upper curves), $\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_G(t)/\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_\sigma(t)$ (blue, middle curves) and $\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_G(t)/\int dt ~{\rm Im\,}\Pi_S(t)$ (red, lower curve), as a function of the parameter $\xi$, for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$ (solid lines) and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.5$ (dashed lines, not shown in the $G/S$ case). Note that the above ratios are independent from $N$.[]{data-label="fig_Sum_Rules"}](WSR-scalar-2valueskB.pdf "fig:") In view of the difficulties to interpret the meaning of the sum rules, expressed in terms of the spectral densities provided by the NJL description through Eqs. (\[ImPI\_VA\]) and (\[ImPI\_SP\]), one may consider an alternative approach, at least when ${\rm Im}\, \t\Pi_\phi (M_\phi^2)$ vanishes or is sufficiently small so that it can be neglected. This happens, for instance, for the Goldstone state, or for $\t\Pi_V (M_V^2)$ when there is a sub-threshold vector bound state. In that case each correlator exhibits a single real pole, or narrow resonance \[except for ${\overline\Pi}_A(q^2)$, which exhibits both the Goldstone pole and the axial-meson resonance pole, the latter being not very narrow, though\], and one can saturate the sum rules with these narrow states. Introducing, similarly to $F_G$ and to $G_G$ in Eqs. (\[FGdef\]) and (\[GGdef\]), respectively, decay constants defined as 0 \_\^[A]{}(0) V\^B(p;) f\_V M\_V \^[()]{}\_(p) \^[AB]{} , 0 \_\^(0) A\^(p;) f\_A M\_A \^[()]{}\_(p) \^[ ]{} , \[fVfAdef\] where $\epsilon^{(\lambda)}_\mu(p)$ is the polarisation vector associated to $V$ or $A$, with $\sum_\lambda \epsilon^{(\lambda)}_\mu(p) \epsilon^{(\lambda)}_\nu (p) = - (\eta_{\mu\nu} - p_\mu p_\nu /M_{V,A}^2)$, as well as 0 \^ S\^(p) = G\_S \^[ ]{} , 0 \^[0]{} (p) = G\_, 0 \^[0]{} \^(p) = G\_[\^]{} , \[defGS\] the sum rules become, in this narrow-width, single-resonance approximation, f\^2\_V M\^2\_V - f\^2\_A M\^2\_A -F\^2\_G =0, f\^2\_V M\^4\_V - f\^2\_A M\^4\_A= 0, \[WSR\] and G\^2\_- G\^2\_G = 0, G\^2\_S - G\^2\_[\^]{} = 0. \[SP\_SR\] Now, taking the various expressions of the meson masses, decay constants, as obtained from the NJL large-$N$ approximation above, one can check to which extent these Weinberg-type and scalar sum rules are actually saturated by the first resonance from each of the available spectra. To proceed, one may first rewrite the [resummed]{} two-point correlators of Eq. (\[PiVAsum\]) in the pole-dominance form: from Eqs. (\[PiVAsum\]) and (\[fVfAdef\]), the residues of the vector and axial-vector channels are defined by $$f_{V/A}^2 M_{V/A}^2=\lim_{q^2\rightarrow M^2_{V,A}} (q^2-M_{V/A}^2) ~ \overline{\Pi}_{V/A}(q^2) = \frac{-1}{(2K_{V/A})^2}\left[M^2_{V/A}\,\frac{{\rm d} \tilde{\Pi}_{V/A}(q^2)}{{\rm d} q^2}\biggr\|_{q^2=M_{V/A}^2} \right]^{-1}~, \label{fVAresidue}$$ where in the second equality, we have expanded the denominator of $\overline{\Pi}_{V/A}(q^2)$ around the complex pole $M_{V/A}^2$ and used Eq. (\[pole\]). Similarly to the definition of the resonance masses in Eq. (\[res\_sol\]), one should however adopt a prescription to deal with the unphysical imaginary parts, NJL artefacts of the lack of confinement properties. We adopt the following prescription: (i) the residues are evaluated at the real pole masses $M^2_{V,A}= {\rm Re} [g_{V,A}(M^2_{V,A})]$ defined by Eq. (\[res\_sol\]), and (ii) we similarly define $f_{V,A}^2$ by the real parts of their right-hand-side expressions in Eq. (\[fVAresidue\]). Of course, in the range of parameter space where the left-over imaginary contributions in Eqs. (\[fVAresidue\]) become large, it puts a definite limit on the reliability of the the NJL calculation, as will be specified below. According to this prescription, we obtain explicitly for the vector decay constant, $$f_V^2=-\frac{3 (2N)}{16 \kappa_D^2 M_{V}^4} Re \left[ \frac{1}{\tilde{B}_0(M_{V}^2,M_\psi^2)+(M_{V}^2+2 M_\psi^2)\tilde{B}^\prime_0(M_{V}^2,M_\psi^2)} \right]~. \label{fVdef}$$ The axial decay constant $f_A^2$ is obtained in a similar way by making the following replacements $M_V \rightarrow M_A$ and $(M_{V}^2+2 M_\psi^2) \rightarrow (M_{A}^2-4 M_\psi^2)$ in the previous equation. Similarly, for the spin zero channels, the residues are defined by G\_\^2- \_[q\^2M\^2\_]{} (q\^2-M\_\^2) \_(q\^2) = \^[-1]{} . \[limit\] From Eqs. (\[PiSPsum\]) and (\[defGS\]), the scalar decay constants are explicitly given by $$G_{\sigma,S}^2=-\frac{1}{2 (2N)K_{\sigma,S}^2} ~Re\left[\frac{1}{\tilde{B}_0(M_{\sigma,S}^2,M_\psi^2)+(M_{\sigma,S}^2 -4 M_\psi^2) \tilde{B}^\prime_0(M_{\sigma,S}^2,M_\psi^2)} \right] ~, \label{Gsigdef}$$ while for the pseudoscalar decay constants we obtain $$G_{G,\eta^\prime}^2 =-\frac{1}{2 (2N)K_{G,\eta^\prime}^2} ~Re \left[\frac{g_{A,a}^{-1}(M_{G,\eta^\prime}^2)}{\tilde{B}_0(M_{G,\eta^\prime}^2,M_\psi^2)+M_{G,\eta^\prime}^2 \tilde{B}^\prime_0(M_{G,\eta^\prime}^2,M_\psi^2)} \right] ~, \label{Getadef}$$ where the axial-vector pseudoscalar mixing (see section \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\]) brings the factor $g_{A,a}^{-1}(M_{G,\eta^\prime}^2)$ for $G$ and $\eta^\prime$ respectively. Generally, we cannot expect the sum rules in the narrow width approximation to be very well satisfied, both because of the already discussed inherent approximations of the NJL framework, and also since the narrow width approximation itself is not justified in a substantial part of the parameter range, as we will examine more precisely below. To be more specific, we will use the standard definition of the width, M\_\_= , \[res\_width1\] with $\t\Pi_{\phi}^\prime(q^2)$ denoting the derivative of $\t\Pi_{\phi}(q^2)$ with respect to $q^2$. By evaluating explicitly Eq. (\[res\_width1\]) for the relevant resonances one may control the range of validity of the narrow width approximation. Before a precise illustration of the deviations from the sum rules relations in Eqs. (\[WSR\]) and (\[SP\_SR\]) in the parameter space of the model, it is instructive to examine more closely the NJL expressions of the involved quantities, Eqs. (\[fVdef\]), (\[MV\]) and (\[MA\]). Namely, let us assume momentarily that we could crudely neglect the $q^2$ dependence of $\t B_0$, i.e. taking $\t B_0(M^2_V,M^2_\psi)\simeq \t B_0(M^2_A,M^2_\psi) \equiv\t B_0$ (therefore taking also its derivative to vanish, $\t B^{\prime}_0(q^2)\simeq 0$). Within this approximation, the second sum rule in Eq. (\[WSR\]) is immediately satisfied, see Eq. (\[fVdef\]), while for the first sum rule, one can write, after some simple algebra, f\^2\_V M\^2\_V -f\^2\_A M\^2\_A f\^2\_V (6 M\^2\_) -F\^2\_G , \[WSRapprox\] where in the first equality we used the fact that the relation in Eq. (\[MVMA\]) becomes exact in this approximation, and in the last equality we used Eqs. (\[fVdef\]) and (\[MV\]) in the same approximation, and identified $F_G^2$ from its expression in Eq. (\[FG4\]). This simple exercise shows explicitly and rather intuitively where the bulk of deviations from the Weinberg sum rules (WSR) comes from: one infers that the sum rules in Eq. (\[WSR\]) will, in general, not be satisfied, since the quantities they involve are the pole masses, $M^2_V= Re[M^2_V(M^2_V)]$ and $M^2_A=Re[M^2_A(M^2_A)]$, the Goldstone decay constant $F^2_G=F^2_G(0)$, and the vector decay constants $f_{V,A}^2$ in Eq. (\[fVdef\]), actually evaluated at the different $V,A$ pole masses and involving also the non-vanishing derivative $\t B_0^\prime(M^2_{V/A})$. Accordingly since the relevant expressions like Eq. (\[fVdef\]) are to be evaluated at [different]{} values of $q^2$, this implies not quite negligible differences in $\t B_0(q^2)$, and in its derivative. Only to the extent that they display a rather mild $q^2$-dependence will the narrow-width version (\[WSR\]) of the sum rules approximatively hold [^12]. Moreover, the crudely neglected terms ${\cal O}(M^2_\psi/M^2_V)$ in Eq. (\[WSRapprox\]) are actually not so negligible, the less when $\xi$ increases, just as $M^2_A/M^2_V$ also increases with $\xi$. Thus, we generally expect stronger deviations from Eq. (\[WSR\]) for larger $\xi$ values. ![ Left panel: the two ratios $(f^2_V M^2_V)/(F^2_G + f^2_A M^2_A)$ (WSR1, blue lines) and $(f^2_V M^4_V)/(f^2_A M^4_A)$ (WSR2, red lines) as functions of the coupling $\xi$, for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$ (solid lines) and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.5$ (dashed lines). Right panel: the analog for scalar sum rules. Also indicated are the values of the most relevant resonance widths, calculated from Eq. (\[res\_width1\]) for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$. []{data-label="wsrpole"}](WSR-saturated.pdf "fig:") ![ Left panel: the two ratios $(f^2_V M^2_V)/(F^2_G + f^2_A M^2_A)$ (WSR1, blue lines) and $(f^2_V M^4_V)/(f^2_A M^4_A)$ (WSR2, red lines) as functions of the coupling $\xi$, for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$ (solid lines) and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.5$ (dashed lines). Right panel: the analog for scalar sum rules. Also indicated are the values of the most relevant resonance widths, calculated from Eq. (\[res\_width1\]) for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$. []{data-label="wsrpole"}](scalarSR-saturated.pdf "fig:") In order to illustrate more precisely the deviations from the Weinberg-like sum rules of Eq. (\[WSR\]), taking now the “exact” expressions of $f_{V/A}$, $M_{V/A}$ according to our NJL calculations and prescriptions above, we consider the two ratios \_1 , \_2 , \[WSRNJL\] which would both equal unity if the sum rules were satisfied in their narrow-width versions. Similarly, for the scalar sum rules we consider the two ratios $G_G^2/G_\sigma^2$ and $G_{\eta^\prime}^2/G_S^2$. The behaviour of these ratios with respect to $\xi$ and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ are illustrated in the left and right panels of Fig. \[wsrpole\] for the Weinberg and scalar sum rules respectively. We also indicate some specific values of the relevant resonance widths, calculated from Eq. (\[res\_width1\]) for the reference value $\kappa_B/\kappa_A = 0.1$. The corresponding shaded regions thus indicate approximately the range where the narrow width approximation can be trusted or not. Note that the $V$ and $A$ widths are very weakly sensitive to the values of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, so that the indicated ranges are also approximately valid for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.5$. In contrast the $\eta'$ and $S$ widths grow rapidly with $\kappa_B$, such that the indicated limit $\Gamma_S/M_S =1/5$ ($\Gamma_S/M_S =1/10$) is pushed, for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.5$, towards larger values of $\xi$, $\xi \simeq 1.7$ ($\xi \simeq 2$, respectively). The two sum rules of Eq. (\[WSR\]) are actually reasonably satisfied in some specific ranges of $\xi$, respectively either for intermediate values $1.6{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}\xi {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}2$, or for $\xi$ very close to $1$. Conversely the deviations appear maximal in the range $\xi\simeq 1.2-1.6$ and again for very large $\xi$. Most of these features can be understood more intuitively with the help of the above analysis. The intermediate range, where the deviations are the smallest, corresponds to a range where, at the same time, the narrow width approximation is well justified, and the relevant pole-mass differences are still moderate such that the relevant $q^2$ arguments of $\t B_0(q^2, M_\psi^2)$ are not very different. Then for very large values of $\xi$, while the $A$ width is becoming smaller, one enters the regime of increasingly large differences in the relevant $\t B_0(M^2_{A/V}, M_\psi^2)$ functions, thus increasing the deviations, although the first WSR remains relatively well satisfied. The second WSR sum rule shows more rapidly increasing and important deviations for larger values of $\xi$, as intuitively expected since the fourth power of the masses enhances the increasing $M_A/M_V$ ratio. The WSR values are not very sensitive to the ratio $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, but depend mostly on $\xi$: a larger $\kappa_B$ value essentially shifts the values of the sum rules in Fig. \[wsrpole\], as it implies larger values of $\kappa_A+\kappa_B$. Conversely for decreasing values of $\xi$, the narrow width approximation becomes totally unreliable, say for $\xi {\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}1.6$ in the case of $\Gamma_A$, where, correspondingly, the deviations are seen to be maximal. Moreover, when approaching (from below) the threshold $M_V^2=4 M_\psi^2$, $\Gamma_V$ is vanishing, but $Re[\tilde{B}_0^\prime(M_V^2, M_\psi^2)]$ tends toward infinity, so that $f^2_V\to 0$, see Eq. (\[fVdef\]). This happens around $\xi \simeq 1.4~ (1.5)$ for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.1~ (0.5)$. This peculiar feature can be understood as follow. When moving towards the threshold from below, the residue of the vector resonance, $f_V^2 M^2_V$, tends to zero, because its contribution to the spectral function is progressively transferred from the sub-threshold to the continuum part of the spectral function. Since in the pole dominance approximation one only considers the lightest resonances, just below the threshold, the continuum contribution is not included within Eq. (\[fVdef\]), therefore the crossing of the threshold appears problematic in our NJL approximation. Of course, this pathological behaviour is not present in Fig. \[fig\_Sum\_Rules\], where we consider the complete two-point functions, which include also the continuum contributions. Finally, very close to the critical coupling $\xi\simeq 1$, although both $\Gamma_{V,A}$ are large, the mass gap in this region is relatively very small, $M_\psi \ll \Lambda$, such that $M_A-M_V$ is minimal, and $F_G\simeq M_\psi$ is also relatively small. Thus taking the real contributions prescriptions according to Eq. (\[fVdef\]), one is again very close to the ideal approximation discussed above, leading to Eq. (\[WSRapprox\]). From these results, if considering that the best possible matching of the Weinberg-type sum rules, established on more general dynamical grounds, may be more important than the possible limitations of the NJL model approximation (somewhat in the spirit of Ref. [@Peris:1998nj]), one could be tempted to infer some preferred range of $\xi$ values, where both deviations are minimal (although as clear from the figure it is not possible to satisfy the two WSR exactly for the same value of $\xi$). However, given the limitations of the NJL dynamical approximation, partly responsible for the non-perfectly matched Weinberg-type sum rules, we consider this only as an indicative trend rather than a genuine dynamical constraint on the couplings. Concerning next the scalar sum rules, note that the above relations in Eqs. (\[Gsigdef\]) and (\[Getadef\]) do not lead to $G_G^2(q^2)-G_\sigma^2(q^2)=0$ and $G_{\eta^\prime}^2(q^2)-G_S^2(q^2)=0$, which would be valid only if all expressions were evaluated at the same value of $q^2$. This is due to the pseudoscalar axial mixing, i.e. a term proportional to $g_{A,a}(q^2)$ does not vanish in the difference. In addition, for $G_G^2(q^2)-G_S^2(q^2)$, there is a term proportional to $\kappa_B$ that indicates that this difference does not satisfy a convergent sum rule, consequently the discrepancy increases with $\kappa_B$. Indeed, as can be seen on Fig. \[wsrpole\], some of the scalar sum rules are approximately satisfied very close to $\xi=1$, but are rapidly and badly invalidated for larger values of $\xi$, even though the narrow width approximation is justified in this region. This is mainly due to very large differences in the argument of the relevant functions $\t B_0(q^2, M_\psi^2)$, and also, as discussed above, due to the non-vanishing of $\kappa_B$. Note that, similarly to what is discussed above for the WSRs, the scalar sum rule associated to the $\eta^\prime$ may exhibit a pathological behaviour, when the lightest resonances do not incorporate the dominant contributions. Indeed, the $\eta^\prime$ mass crosses the threshold for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.1$ and the associated ratio $G_{\eta^\prime}^2/G_S^2$ tends to zero in this regime, which lies around $\xi=1.1$. In summary, the mismatch between the NJL predictions and the spectral sum rules resides in the gap between the contribution of the low-lying resonances and the full spectral functions. Given these limitations in the comparison of our results with the spectral sum rules, and since our interest is mostly the phenomenology of the lightest composite states, in the following we will keep studying the full range for the parameters $\xi$ and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. Evaluation of the oblique parameter $S$[^13] {#S parameter} -------------------------------------------- In the absence of explicit symmetry breaking effects, like, for instance, the coupling to the external electroweak gauge fields, the vacuum state $\vert {\rm vac}\rangle_0$ is left invariant by the $Sp(4)$ subgroup of the $SU(4)$ flavour symmetry defined by the generators $T^A$ satisfying Eq. (\[Tacom\]), where $\Sigma_\epsilon$ stands for $\Sigma_0$ as given in Eq. (\[Sigma\]). After electroweak symmetry breaking through misalignment, the vacuum state becomes $\vert {\rm vac}\rangle_v$. It is left invariant by a different $Sp(4)$ subgroup, whose generators $T^A_v = U_v T^A U_v^\dagger$ now satisfy[^14] $$T^A_v\Sigma_v + \Sigma_v \big( T^A_v \big)^T=0 ,$$ with $\Sigma_v$ and the $SU(4)$ transformation $U_v$ given by $$\Sigma_v = U_v \Sigma_0 U_v^T , \qquad U_v = e^{i \sqrt{2} \langle h \rangle T^{\hat 1}/f} = \cos \left( \frac{\langle h \rangle}{2 f} \right) + 2 \sqrt{2} \, i \sin \left( \frac{\langle h \rangle}{2 f} \right) T^{\hat 1} .$$ The expression of the transformation $U_v$ conveys the information that the Higgs field $G^{\hat 1}$ takes a vev $\langle h \rangle$. The shift in the oblique parameter $S$ [@Peskin:1991sw] induced by the composite electroweak sector is given by $$\Delta S = 16 \pi \left. \frac{d \Pi^{(v)}_{3Y} (q^2)}{d q^2} \right\vert_{q^2 = 0} ,$$ where the two-point correlator $\Pi^{(v)}_{3Y} (q^2)$ has the following expression (cf. Appendix \[SU4-generators\]) $$\Pi^{(v)}_{3Y} (q^2) \left( \eta_{\mu\nu} - \frac{q_\mu q_\nu}{q^2} \right) = \frac{i}{2} \int d^4 x \, e^{i q \cdot x} {_v\langle} {\rm vac} \vert T \{ \left( J^4_\mu (x) - J^3_\mu (x) \right) \left( J^4_\nu (0) + J^3_\nu (0) \right) \} \vert {\rm vac} \rangle_v .$$ Expressing the generators $T^3$ and $T^4$ in terms of $T_v^A$ and $T_v^{\hat A}$, $T^3 = \cos (\langle h \rangle / f) T^3_v - \sin (\langle h \rangle / f) T^{\hat 2}_v$, $T^4 = T^4_v$, leads to[^15] $$\Delta S = 8 \pi \frac{v^2}{f^2} \left. \frac{d }{d q^2} \left( q^2 \Pi_{V{\mbox -}A} (q^2) \right) \right\vert_{q^2 = 0} , \quad \frac{v}{f} = \sin \left( \frac{\langle h \rangle}{f} \right) .$$ Notice that the Goldstone pole at $q^2=0$ does not contribute to this expression. The corresponding shift in the oblique parameter $T$ vanishes, due to custodial symmetry. In the NJL approximation the resummed correlator $\overline\Pi_{V-A}(q^2)$ is defined according to Eq. (\[PiVAsum\]), that implies $$\Delta S_{\rm NJL} = \frac{2N}{9\pi} \frac{v^2}{f^2} \left[ \dfrac{1}{2}+ g_A^2(0) - \dfrac 32 \left( \frac{1}{1 + x_\psi} - \ln \frac{1 + x_\psi}{x_\psi} \right) ( 1 - g_A^2(0) ) \right] = \frac{2N}{6\pi} \frac{v^2}{f^2} \left( 1+ {\cal O}(x_\psi)\right)~, \label{S-NJL}$$ where $x_\psi \equiv M_\psi^2/\Lambda^2$, the axial form factor $g_A(q^2)$ is defined in Eq. (\[gAdef\]), and its value at $q^2=0$ reads = 1 - 2x\_(1-x\_ )\^[-1]{} ( - ) . The left panel of Fig. \[S\_plot\] shows the variation of $\Delta S_{\rm NJL}$ as a function of $\xi$, that is in one-to-one correspondence with $x_\psi$, according to Eq. (\[gap2\]). As expected, $\Delta S_{\rm NJL}$ decreases when the strong sector decouples, i.e. with the increase of $f$. More precisely, for $\xi\to 1$ we have $x_\psi\rightarrow 0$ and $\Delta S_{\rm NJL} \simeq 2N/(6 \pi) (v^2/f^2)$. As $\xi$ increases, the factor $(1-g_A^2(0))$ becomes non-zero, and $\Delta S_{\rm NJL}$ first grows moderately, and then decreases as $x_\psi$ approaches one. In the range of parameter space where the narrow-width approximation applies, one may saturate the above correlator with the first light resonances, see Eq. (\[Q2PiVA\]) with $q^2=-Q^2$, and in this case one obtains [@Peskin:1991sw; @Knecht:1997ts] $\Delta S_{\rm NJL} \simeq 8 \pi (v^2/f^2) (f_V^2-f_A^2)$. ![On the left, the contribution to the $S$ parameter from the composite electroweak sector in the NJL approximation \[see Eq. (\[S-NJL\])\] as a function of the dimensionless coupling $\xi$, and for three representative values of $f$, $f=(0.5, 0.75,1)$ TeV. The value of the parameter $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ has been taken equal to $0.1$ (solid blue curves) and to $0.5$ (dashed red curves), while the number of hypercolours is fixed to $N=4$ and the vector coupling is given by $\kappa_D=\kappa_A$. The best fit for $S$ is indicated by the horizontal line at 0.05 and the region above the $3 \sigma$ limit, assuming $T=0$, is shaded. On the right, the preceding UV contribution, evaluated in the NJL approximation, as well as the IR contributions coming from the non-linear realisation of the EWSB (i.e. $\Delta S_{\rm NJL} + \Delta S_{IR}$ and $\Delta T_{IR}$), as a function of $f$. The black dots correspond to $f=0.5,0.75$ and $1$ TeV, and the curves stand for two representative values, $\xi=1.3$ and $\xi=2$, with $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.1$, $N=4$ and $\kappa_D=\kappa_A$. The 68 % (red), 95 % (orange) and 99 % (yellow) C.L. ellipses in the $S-T$ plane are extracted from the fit of Ref. [@Baak:2014ora]. As stressed in the text, one expects in general additional contributions, which could significantly impinge on the values of $S$ and $T$.[]{data-label="S_plot"}](S-parameter.pdf "fig:") ![On the left, the contribution to the $S$ parameter from the composite electroweak sector in the NJL approximation \[see Eq. (\[S-NJL\])\] as a function of the dimensionless coupling $\xi$, and for three representative values of $f$, $f=(0.5, 0.75,1)$ TeV. The value of the parameter $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ has been taken equal to $0.1$ (solid blue curves) and to $0.5$ (dashed red curves), while the number of hypercolours is fixed to $N=4$ and the vector coupling is given by $\kappa_D=\kappa_A$. The best fit for $S$ is indicated by the horizontal line at 0.05 and the region above the $3 \sigma$ limit, assuming $T=0$, is shaded. On the right, the preceding UV contribution, evaluated in the NJL approximation, as well as the IR contributions coming from the non-linear realisation of the EWSB (i.e. $\Delta S_{\rm NJL} + \Delta S_{IR}$ and $\Delta T_{IR}$), as a function of $f$. The black dots correspond to $f=0.5,0.75$ and $1$ TeV, and the curves stand for two representative values, $\xi=1.3$ and $\xi=2$, with $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.1$, $N=4$ and $\kappa_D=\kappa_A$. The 68 % (red), 95 % (orange) and 99 % (yellow) C.L. ellipses in the $S-T$ plane are extracted from the fit of Ref. [@Baak:2014ora]. As stressed in the text, one expects in general additional contributions, which could significantly impinge on the values of $S$ and $T$.[]{data-label="S_plot"}](S-parameter-ellipse.pdf "fig:") The composite sector will also modify the couplings of the Higgs boson to the electroweak gauge bosons by a factor $\sqrt{1-v^2/f^2}$. This modification will upset the cancellation of logarithmic divergences in the gauge-boson self-energies, and induce model independent shifts in both $S$ and $T$ [@Barbieri:2007bh]. These contributions from low energies are given by [@Contino:2010rs; @Panico:2015jxa] $$\Delta S_{\rm IR} = \frac{1}{6 \pi} \frac{v^2}{f^2} \ln \left( \frac{\mu}{M_h} \right), \qquad \Delta T_{\rm IR} = - \frac{3}{8 \pi} \frac{1}{\cos^2\theta_W} \frac{v^2}{f^2} \ln \left( \frac{\mu}{M_h} \right) = - \frac{9}{4} \frac{\Delta S_{\rm IR}}{\cos^2\theta_W} , \label{S-IR}$$ One finds $\Delta S_{\rm IR} = (0.045 , 0.022, 0.014)$ and $\Delta T_{\rm IR} = (-0.17, -0.08, -0.05)$, for $f = (0.5 , 0.75, 1)$ TeV, if the cut-off scale is taken equal to $4 \pi F_G = 2 \sqrt{2} \pi f$, leading to non-negligible contributions. Notice that Goldstone boson loops contribute to the low-$q^2$ end of the $\Pi_{V{\mbox -}A} (q^2)$ function, but only at sub-leading order in the $1/N$ expansion. The NJL approximation only provides leading-order contributions, and thus cannot remove this sub-leading (in the $1/N$ expansion) cut-off dependence in $\Delta S_{\rm IR}$ and $\Delta T_{\rm IR}$. The right panel of Fig. \[S\_plot\] shows the combined contributions from Eqs. (\[S-NJL\]) and (\[S-IR\]) to the $S$ and $T$ parameters as a function of $f$, for different values of $\xi$ and of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. When linear couplings between the top quark and the fermions of the strong sector are introduced, one expects in general additional contributions, which could significantly affect the $S$ and $T$ parameters. These fermionic contributions, as well as other order $1/N$ corrections than $\Delta S_{\rm IR}$ and $\Delta T_{\rm IR}$, are beyond the scope of this paper. The right panel of Fig. \[S\_plot\] thus displays only a specific kind of contributions, and does by no means constitute a complete prediction of the model under discussion as far as $S$ and $T$ are concerned. Adding the coloured sector {#coloured-sector} ========================== An appealing way to couple the SM fermions to the composite Higgs is to introduce a linear coupling between each SM fermion and a composite fermion resonance with the same quantum numbers. Such an approach, known as fermion partial compositeness [@Kaplan:1991dc; @Contino:2004vy], is especially attractive in the case of the top quark: relatively light composite top partners allow to induce the required, large top Yukawa coupling. In order for the composite sector to contain partners for the top (and possibly the other SM quarks), one needs to introduce constituent fermions $X^f$ that are charged under the colour group $SU(3)_c$. It is not possible to construct a ‘baryon’ (a hypercolour invariant spin-1/2 bound state) if $X^f$ transforms under the fundamental, pseudo-real representation of $Sp(2 N)$. Following [@Barnard:2013zea], we rather assume that $X^f$ transforms under the two-index, real representation of $Sp(2N)$ that is antisymmetric, $X^f_{ij}=-X^f_{ji}$, and traceless, $X^f_{ij}\Omega_{ji}=0$. This irreducible representation has dimension $(2N+1)(N-1)$. In order to embed a $SU(3)_c$ triplet-antitriplet pair, one has to introduce six such fermions, $f=1,\dots,6$. Then, the theory acquires a flavour symmetry $SU(6)\supset SU(3)_c$, with $X^f \sim 6_{SU(6)} = (3+\bar 3)_{SU(3)_c}$. The addition of such an $X$-sector modifies several results that we have derived for the $\psi$-sector in isolation, because the underlying $Sp(2N)$ gauge dynamics connects the two sectors in a highly non-trivial way, as we now describe. Lorentz $Sp(2 N)$ $SU(6)$ $SO(6)$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------- ---------------------- -------------- $X^f_{ij}$ $(1/2,0)$ ${\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}_{\, ij}$ $6^f$ 6 $\overline{X}_{fij} \equiv \Omega_{ik} X^\dagger_{fkl}\Omega_{lj}$ $(0,1/2)$ ${\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}_{\, ij}$ $\overline{6}_f$ $6$ $ M_c^{fg}\sim(X^f X^g)$ $(0,0)$ $1$ $21^{fg}$ $20'+1$ $ {\overline M}_{c fg}\sim(\overline{X}_f\overline{X}_g)$ $(0,0)$ $1$ $\overline{21}_{fg}$ $20'+ 1$ $ a_X^\mu \sim (\overline{X}^f \overline{\sigma}^\mu X_f)$ $(1/2,1/2)$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $(V^{\mu}_c,A^\mu_c)_f^g\sim(\overline{X}_f \overline{\sigma}^\mu X^g)$ $(1/2,1/2)$ $1$ $35^f_g$ $15+20'$ : The transformation properties of the elementary fermions, the spin-0 and spin-1 fermion bilinears, in the colour sector of the model. Spinor indexes are understood, and brackets stand for a hypercolour-invariant contraction of the $Sp(2N)$ indexes. []{data-label="tabsu6"} Once both types of fermions $\psi^a$ and $X^f$ are in presence, the flavour symmetry group becomes $G = SU(4) \times SU(6) \times U(1)$, where $U(1)$ is the non-anomalous linear combination of the two axial symmetries $U(1)_\psi$ and $U(1)_X$, which separately are both anomalous with respect to $Sp(2N)$. The current corresponding to the $U(1)_\psi$ transformations and its divergence were already given in Eqs. (\[U1\_psi\]) and (\[U1\_psi\_div\]), respectively. In the case of the $U(1)_X$ transformations, the corresponding expressions read \[a sum over the flavour indices is understood, gauge and spinor indices are omitted\] $$\mathcal{J}^0_{X\mu} = {\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}} \left[ \left( \overline{X} \overline{\sigma}_\mu X \right) - \left( X \sigma_\mu \overline{X} \right) \right]~, \label{U1_X}$$ $$\partial^\mu \mathcal{J}^0_{X\mu} = 4 \sqrt{3} \, m_X {\mathcal P}^0_X + 2 (N-1) \,{\displaystyle\frac{N_f^X g_{HC}^2}{32\pi^2}} \sum_{I=1}^{N(2N+1)} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} G_{HC}^{I,\mu\nu} G_{HC}^{I,\rho\sigma} ~, \label{U1_X_div}$$ where the factor $N_f^X=3$ accounts for the number of flavours in the $X$-sector. In the above, $\overline{X}$, as defined in Table \[tabsu6\] below, transforms under the $Sp(2N)$ gauge group in the same way as $X$, and the gauge-invariant bilinear fermion contractions between $X$ and $X$ are defined as $$(X^f X^g )\equiv X^f_{ij}\Omega_{jk} X^g_{kl} \Omega_{li} = {\rm tr} ( X^f \Omega X^g \Omega )~. \label{X_inv}$$ Contractions like $({\overline X}_f {\overline X}_g )$ and $({\overline X}_f X^g )$ are defined in the same way. For later use we have also introduced a flavour independent mass term for the $X$ fermions, $${\mathcal L}^X_m = - 2 \sqrt{3}\, m_X {\mathcal S}^0_X~, \label{X_mass}$$ with $${\mathcal S}^0_X = \frac{1}{2} \, \left[ ({\overline X} T^0_X \Sigma_{0}^c {\overline X} ) + (X \Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X X ) \right]~, \qquad\qquad {\mathcal P}^0_X = \frac{1}{2i} \, \left[ ({\overline X} T^0_X \Sigma_{0}^c {\overline X} ) - (X \Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X X ) \right]~, \label{Densities-SU6}$$ in agreement with the general definitions given in Eq. (\[S\_and\_P\]) and the normalisation adopted there for the singlet scalar and pseudoscalar densities, that is $T^0_X= 1\!\!1 /(2 \sqrt{3})$. Note that the singlet contraction of two fermions in the (anti-)fundamental of $SU(6)$ is realised through the matrix $$\Sigma_{0}^c = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1\!\!1_3 \\ 1\!\!1_3 & 0 \end{pmatrix}~,$$ which determines the $SU(6)/SO(6)$ vacuum direction. The two conditions in Eq. (\[Tacom\]) are satisfied with $\Sigma_\epsilon = \Sigma_{0}^c$ and the $SU(6)$ generators $T^F$ and $T^{\hat{F}}$ defined in appendix \[SU6-generators\]. Examining the respective $U(1)_{\psi}$ and $U(1)_{X}$ anomaly coefficients, it is easily seen that the combination of the two axial singlet currents given by \_\^0 = ([1 (1)]{}) [J]{}\_[X]{}\^0 - ([1 (1,1)]{}) [J]{}\_\^0 = ([1 (1,1)]{}) (\^a \_\_a) - ([1 (1)]{}) (X\^f \_\_f ) , \[axial\_singlet\] is free from the gauge anomaly, \^\^0\_ = 4 m\_X [P]{}\^0\_X , \[U1\_div\] where the Dynkin index $\ell (r)$ of the representation $r$ of the gauge group $Sp(2N)$ gives the normalisation of the $Sp(2N)$ generators $T^I (r)$ in this representation, \[T\^I (r) T\^J (r) \] = (r) \^[IJ]{} , ([1 (1)]{}) = 1 , ([1 (1,1)]{}) = 2 (N-1) . \[norm\_gen\]Consequently, the axial singlet transformation of [both]{} the $\psi$ and $X$ fermions, with charges satisfying q\_=-3(N-1) q\_X , \[U1\_charges\] is a true symmetry of the theory, even at the quantum level, in the limit where $m_X$ vanishes. The introduction of fermions in the two-index antisymmetric representation of the $Sp(2N)$ gauge group has another consequence. The first coefficient of the $\beta$-function of the gauge coupling $g_{HC}$ now reads b\_0 = C\_2 ([adj]{}) - \_[i=,X]{} N\_f\^i (r\_i) = (11 - 4 N\_f\^X) . \[betaHC\] Therefore, as soon as $N_f^X\ge 3$, $b_0$ stays positive and asymptotic freedom is preserved (at one loop) only if the number of colours $N$ is bounded from above, N < 2 - 1 , \[Nlimit\] which, in the case at hand ($N_f^\psi=2$ and $N_f^X=3$), means $N\le 18$. This upper bound prevents us from considering the limit $N \to \infty$ at the level of the fundamental hypercolour theory once the sector of $X$ fermions has been introduced. Notice, however, that independently from the existence of this upper bound on $N$, the anomalous contribution on the left-hand side of Eq. (\[U1\_X\_div\]) would not vanish in the ’t Hooft limit $N \to \infty$, with $N g_{HC}^2$ staying constant. Despite the absence of a well-defined large-$N$ limit at the level of the fundamental theory, it remains useful to keep the naive counting in powers of $1/N$ at the level of the NJL description of the dynamics, since it allows, for instance, to identify contributions which will be numerically suppressed even for already moderate values of $N$. Therefore, when, in the sequel, we mention or use the $1/N$ expansion, it will thus always be understood that it refers to the NJL context. The pattern of flavour symmetry breaking {#total-break} ---------------------------------------- Concerning the pattern of spontaneous symmetry breaking, there are now two possible fermion bilinears that may form a condensate. A non-zero $\la\psi^a\psi^b\ra$ would break $SU(4)\times U(1)$ to $Sp(4)$, with NGBs transforming as $(5+1)_{Sp(4)}$. A non-zero $\la X^f X^g \ra$ would break $SU(6)\times U(1)$ to $SO(6)$, with NGBs in the representation $(20'+1)_{SO(6)} = (8+6+\bar 6 +1)_{SU(3)_c}$. Light coloured scalars are phenomenologically problematic because of the strong bounds from collider searches. An important contribution to their mass is induced by gluon loops, as discussed in section \[gauging\], in appendix \[SU6-generators\] and in section \[Masses of coloured scalar resonances\]. Another possibility to lift the coloured NGBs from the low energy spectrum is to introduce the mass term (\[X\_mass\]), which explicitly breaks $SU(6)\times U(1)$ to $SO(6)$. Alternatively, if $SU(6)$ does not undergo spontaneous breaking, coloured NGBs would be absent. However, we will show below that the matching of anomalies would then require massless, coloured fermions, that again call for a large radiative mass or for $m_X\ne 0$. Since we have adopted the same fermion content as in Ref. [@Barnard:2013zea], let us stress some differences with respect to the discussion of flavour symmetries in that paper. First, the non-anomalous axial $U(1)$ symmetry was not discussed: we will show that it has several phenomenological consequences. Second, the colour triplet and antitriplet components of $X^f$ were treated separately, and the global symmetry was identified with $SU(3)\times SU(3)\times U(1)_V$, broken by a mass term to $SU(3)_c \times U(1)_V$. However, these are just maximal subgroups of the complete global symmetry $SU(6)$, and of the complete unbroken subgroup $SO(6)$, respectively. The pattern is different from QCD, because there quarks and antiquarks transform under different representations of the gauge group, while here the six copies of $X^f$ transform in the same way under $Sp(2N)$. Note that $U(1)_V$ was introduced in Ref. [@Barnard:2013zea] in order to provide top partners with the appropriate SM hypercharge, but remarkably enough such a symmetry is automatically present, as one of the unbroken generators within $SO(6)$. Once both the elementary fermions $\psi^a$ and $X^f$ are introduced, one can form several baryons. As a consequence, the anomaly matching condition provides non-trivial constraints on the spontaneous symmetry breaking, as discussed in section \[anomat\]. If one denotes by $V$ the conserved currents associated to the $H_m$ generators, and by $A$ the conserved currents associated to the generators of the coset $G/H_m$ (see section \[VW\]), one needs only consider the anomaly matching constraints that arise from the $\langle VVA \rangle$ correlators. Then, to each fermion transforming in the representation $r$ of $G$ is associated an anomaly coefficient $A(r)$, which is defined by 2 [tr]{}= A(r) d\^[[A]{}BC]{} , where $T^A (r)$ and $T^{\hat A} (r)$ are the generators of $H_m$ and of $G/H_m$, respectively, in the representation $r$, and $d^{{\hat A}BC}$ is an invariant tensor that depends on $G$. The generators of the fundamental representation $r_0$ are normalised as in Eq. (\[norm\_gen\]), and its anomaly coefficient is fixed to $A(r_0)=1$. The anomaly matching condition can be written as \_i n\_i A(r\_i) = \_i n’\_i A(r\_i) , where the left-hand (right-hand) sum runs over the representations of the constituent (composite) fermions, and $n_i$ ($n'_i$) are their multiplicities. If this equality cannot be satisfied, then $G$ necessarily undergoes spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the model under investigation, the possible trilinear baryons consist of \^[abf]{}= (\^a \^b X\^f) , \^[ab]{}\_f= (\^a \^b X\_f) , \^[af]{}\_b= (\^a \_b X\^f) , \^[fgh]{}= (X\^f X\^g X\^h) , \^[fg]{}\_h= (X\^f X\^g X\_h) , plus their conjugates, where the brackets stand for a spin-1/2, hypercolour-singlet contraction (multiple, independent contractions of this kind may be possible). Each $\Psi$ decomposes in several irreducible representations $(r_4,r_6)$ of $SU(4)\times SU(6)$, each corresponding to an independent baryon state: for example $\Psi^{abf} \sim [(6,6)+(10,6)]$. In addition, exotic baryons are also possible, formed by a larger, odd number of constituent fermions. Let us begin with the $SU(4)^3$ anomaly. As $\psi$ lies in the fundamental representation of $SU(4)$, its anomaly coefficient is $A_4(4)=1$. The $SU(4)$ representations contained in $\psi^a\psi^b$ or $\psi^a\overline\psi_b$ have coefficients $A_4(1)=A_4(6)=A_4(15)=0$ and $A_4(10)=8$. Therefore, the anomaly matching between $\psi$ and the trilinear baryons $\Psi$ reads 2NA\_4(4)= 2N = \_[(r\_4,r\_6)]{} n\_[(r\_4,r\_6)]{} A\_4(r\_4) (r\_6) = n\_[(10,6)]{} 6 8 , \[AM4\] where the sum runs over the various massless baryon states, and $n_{(r_4,r_6)}$ are their multiplicities. One can generalise the result to include exotic baryons: in full generality, hypercolour invariance requires the total number of $\psi$ and $\overline\psi$ fermions to be even; then, in order to obtain a fermion, one needs that the total number of $X$ and $\overline X$ is odd. One can check [@Yamatsu:2015npn] that (i) the anomaly coefficient of any $SU(4)$ representation, contained in $4\times \dots \times 4$ an even number of times, is a multiple of $8$, and (ii) the dimension of any $SU(6)$ representation, contained in $6\times\dots\times 6$ an odd number of time, is a multiple of $2$. As a consequence, the right-hand side of Eq. (\[AM4\]) generalises to a multiple of $2\cdot 8$, and the matching is possible only for $N=8n$, with $n$ integer. An example with $N=8$ is provided by one exotic baryon $(\psi\psi XXX)\sim (10,20)$ plus three copies of $(\overline\psi\overline\psi X)\sim (\overline{10},6)$. In summary, for $N\ne 8n$ $SU(4)$ necessarily spontaneously breaks to $Sp(4)$ and the corresponding NGB decay constant $F_G$ is non-zero. Strictly speaking, the other order parameters, such as the condensate $\la\psi\psi\ra$, may still vanish, for instance if a discrete symmetry subgroup leaves the vacuum invariant but not the $(\psi\psi)$ operator [@Dashen:1969eg]. This is, however, a rather unlikely situation to happen [@Kogan:1998zc], and we will assume that the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the $SU(4)$ flavour group (towards its $Sp(4)$ subgroup) is due to the formation of a non-vanishing $\langle \psi\psi\rangle$ condensate. This corresponds actually to the dynamical situation described by the NJL framework, where $SU(4)$ order parameters like the condensate are proportional to $F_G$. Next, let us consider the $SU(6)^3$ anomaly. The crucial observation is that there are baryons, contained either in $(\psi\overline\psi X)$ or $(XX\overline X)$, that transform under the representation $(1,6)$. These states have evidently the same anomaly coefficient $A_6(6)=1$ as the constituent fermion $X$, therefore the matching is trivially possible for any value of $N$: (2N+1)(N-1) A\_6(6) = \_[(r\_4,r\_6)]{} n\_[(r\_4,r\_6)]{} (r\_4) A\_6(r\_6) = n\_[(1,6)]{} 1A\_6(6) + … , \[AM6\] where the ellipsis stands for the contribution from larger representations, which are not relevant in the present context. As a consequence, from the point of view of the anomaly condition, the spontaneous breaking of $SU(6)$ is not a necessity, and in particular it allows the possibility that $\la XX\ra=0$. However, the mass inequalities mentioned in section \[inequalities\] require, in the case where massless baryons are present in the bound state spectrum, massless spin-zero bound states, coupled to the currents associated with the generators of the $SU(6)/SO(6)$ coset, which is tantamount to the spontaneous breaking of $SU(6)$ towards $SO(6)$. Note that the massless baryons required by anomaly matching carry colour and are phenomenologically excluded. Once these baryons are made heavy by explicit symmetry breaking, there are no exact NGBs either, and again one cannot tell whether the dynamics breaks spontaneously $SU(6)$ or not. Indeed, in either case an explicit symmetry breaking mass term $m_X XX$ is required for specular reasons: in the unbroken phase, one needs it to give a sufficiently large mass to the coloured baryons; in the broken phase, the mass term is necessary to make the coloured NGBs sufficiently heavy. Ref. [@Cacciapaglia:2015vrx] argues that the mass of the top partners can be controlled by the parameter $m_X$, if one assumes to be in the unbroken phase. Finally, one should consider the anomalies involving the non-anomalous $U(1)$. The anomaly for $U(1)SU(6)^2$ is easily matched for any $N$, by the same set of baryons that matches the $SU(6)^3$ anomaly. We also proved that the other anomalies involving $U(1)$, that is $U(1)SU(4)^2$ and $U(1)^3$, can be matched for any $N$ as well, but using a different set of baryons in each case. It is highly non-trivial to match all $U(1)$ anomalies at the same time, and thus preserve this symmetry from spontaneous breaking. As we have already argued though, it is quite unlikely that the spontaneous breaking of the $SU(4)$ flavour symmetry happens without, at the same time, also triggering the spontaneous breaking of the $U(1)$ symmetry. In the following sections, we will apply the NJL techniques to the complete model including the electroweak and the colour sector. In particular, we will study the mass gap equations that determine $\la \psi\psi \ra$ and $\la XX\ra$ in terms of the coefficients of the four-fermion operators. For $N\ne 8n$, only the phase $\la \psi\psi \ra\ne 0$ of the NJL model should be considered as a good approximation of the full dynamics, while $\la XX\ra$ is not constrained by the matching of anomalies. For $N=8n$, both condensates may or may not vanish. Sum rules and pseudoscalar decay constants in the flavour-singlet sector {#Sum rules and pseudoscalar decay constants in the flavour-singlet sector} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As a last point to be discussed in this section, let us recall that in section \[SR\] we introduced the spectral sum rules for a simple group $G$ that undergoes spontaneous breaking. That discussion applies to the $\psi$-sector alone, with coset $SU(4)/Sp(4)$, as well as to the $X$-sector in isolation, with coset $SU(6)/SO(6)$. In the complete model, one can also construct correlation functions involving simultaneously the two sectors and that are order parameters for the whole symmetry group $SU(4) \times SU(6) \times U(1)$, i.e. involving also the non-anomalous axial singlet transformations. This leads to additional sum rules that may constrain the resonance spectrum. At the level of two-point functions, the relevant order parameters involving the two sectors are: \_[S\^0]{}\^[X]{} (q\^2) & = & i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [S]{}\^0\_(x) [S]{}\^0\_X (0) } ,\ \_[P\^0]{}\^[X]{} (q\^2) & = & i d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [P]{}\^0\_(x) [P]{}\^0\_X (0) } . From them we derive two additional spectral sum rules, valid in the limit where $m_X$ vanishes: $$\int_0^\infty dt ~{\rm Im} \Pi_{S_0}^{\psi X} (t) = 0 ~, \qquad\qquad \int_0^\infty dt ~{\rm Im} \Pi_{P_0}^{\psi X} (t) = 0 ~,$$ which respectively constrain the spectrum of scalar and pseudoscalar singlets resonances. One could examine the realization of these sum rules in the NJL framework, similarly to what we did for the electroweak sector in section \[secWSR\], for instance investigating whether the first low-lying resonances in each channel saturate them. Here we rather describe some of the expected features in general terms, independently from the NJL approximation. In the singlet pseudoscalar channel, we expect two states. The first one is the Goldstone boson $\eta_0$ produced by the spontaneous breaking of the non-anomalous axial $U(1)$ symmetry. The second one is a massive pseudoscalar state $\eta^\prime$, which corresponds to the second Goldstone boson that would be present in the absence of the gauge anomaly in the divergences of the $U(1)_\psi$ and $U(1)_X$ currents. These states both couple to the (partially) conserved $U(1)$ current, defined in Eq. (\[axial\_singlet\]) above, \^0\_(0) \_0 (p) = i F\_[\_0]{} p\_ , \^0\_(0) \^(p) = i F\_[\^]{} p\_ . \[defFeta0etap\] In the limit where $m_X$ vanishes, $F_{\eta_0}$ remains nonzero and $F_{\eta^\prime} \sim {\mathcal O} (m_X)$, whereas for the masses $M_{\eta_0}^2 \sim {\mathcal O} (m_X)$ while $M_{\eta^\prime}^2$ does not vanish. Of course, there are also couplings to the individual, non conserved, $U(1)_\psi$ and $U(1)_X$ currents, defined in Eqs. (\[U1\_psi\]) and (\[U1\_X\]), respectively & \^0\_ (0) \_0 (p) = i F\_[\_0]{}\^p\_ , & \^0\_ (0) \^(p) = i F\_[\^]{}\^p\_ ,\ & \^0\_[X]{} (0) \_0 (p) = i F\_[\_0]{}\^X p\_ , & \^0\_[X]{} (0) \^(p) = i F\_[\^]{}\^X p\_ . \[defFeta\] According to the expressions given in Eqs. (\[U1\_psi\]), (\[U1\_X\]), and (\[axial\_singlet\]), these four decay constants are related to the ones in the preceding equation through $F_{\eta_0 , \eta^\prime} = F_{\eta_0 , \eta^\prime}^X - 3(N-1) F_{\eta_0 , \eta^\prime}^\psi$. Both $\eta_0$ and $\eta^\prime$ states also couple to the singlet pseudoscalar densities, & \^0\_ (0) \_0 (p) = G\_[\_0]{}\^ , & \^0\_ (0) \^(p) = G\_[\^]{}\^ ,\ & \^0\_[X]{} (0) \_0 (p) = G\_[\_0]{}\^X , & \^0\_[X]{} (0) \^(p) = G\_[\^]{}\^X , \[defGeta\] and through Eq. (\[U1\_div\]) the two following relations hold: F\_[\_0]{} M\_[\_0]{}\^2 = 4 m\_X G\_[\_0]{}\^X , F\_[\^]{} M\_[\^]{}\^2 = 4 m\_X G\_[\^]{}\^X . \[FetaMrelation\] Although they do not lead to sum rules, it is both interesting and useful to consider two-point correlators involving the axial singlet current and the singlet pseudoscalar densities, defined in analogy to Eq. (\[PiAPdef\]) for the non-singlet case, \_[A\^0P\^0]{}\^(q\^2) q\_= d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [J]{}\_\^[0]{} (x) [P]{}\^0\_ (0) } , \_[A\^0P\^0]{}\^X (q\^2) q\_= d\^4 x e\^[i q x]{} T { [J]{}\_\^[0]{} (x) [P]{}\^0\_[X]{} (0) } . \[PiAPsingdef\] $\Pi_{A^0P^0}^\psi (q^2)$ and $\Pi_{A^0P^0}^X (q^2)$ are order parameters of $SU(4)\times U(1)$ and of $SU(6)\times U(1)$, respectively, and in the limit where the current ${\cal J}_\mu^{0} (x)$ is conserved they are both saturated by the massless $\eta_0$ pole, as in Eq. (\[PiAP\]). In the presence of the mass $m_X$, this is no longer true, and the Ward identities give q\^2 \_[A\^0P\^0]{}\^(q\^2) = 4 m\_X \_[P\^0]{}\^[X]{} (q\^2) - 6 (N-1) \^0\_ ,q\^2 \_[A\^0P\^0]{}\^X (q\^2) = 4 m\_X \_[P\^0]{}\^[X]{} (q\^2) + 2 \^0\_X . \[PiAPsing\] These lead, in particular, to the constraints 4 m\_X \_[P\^0]{}\^[X]{} (0) = 6 (N-1) \^0\_ , 4 m\_X \_[P\^0]{}\^[X]{} (0) =- 2 \^0\_X , as well as F\_[\_0]{} G\_[\_0]{}\^= 6 (N-1) \^0\_+ [O]{}(m\_X) , F\_[\_0]{} G\_[\_0]{}\^X = - 2 \^0\_X + [O]{}(m\_X) , \[FGeta0\] which provide useful cross-checks for the NJL calculation. Effective couplings induced by the hypercolour gauge anomaly {#thooft} ------------------------------------------------------------ In order to study, in the NJL framework, the anomalous divergence of Eq. (\[U1\_X\_div\]), induced by the $Sp(2N)$ hypercolour gauge interaction, let us first discuss the $X$-sector in isolation. The sector of gauge configurations with unit winding number now induces $2 (N-1)$ fermionic zero modes per flavour (in the present case, $N_f^X=3$) for the Dirac operator corresponding to the $X$ and ${\overline X}$ fermions (the uninteresting case $N=1$ is, of course, discarded). Through the index theorem, these zero modes induce a violation of the $U(1)_X$ charge by $12 (N-1)$ units, which, as already discussed in Section \[colourless-sector\] for the electroweak sector, has to be reproduced by the effective ’t Hooft vertex. In the case of an $Sp(4)$ gauge group ($N=2$), it is straightforward to construct an operator $\mathcal{O}_X$ that induces this violation of the invariance under $U(1)_X$, while at the same time preserving the invariance under the $SU(6)$ flavour group: \_X = - \_[f\_1f\_6]{} \_[g\_1g\_6]{} (X\^[f\_1]{} X\^[g\_1]{})(X\^[f\_6]{} X\^[g\_6]{}) = - [det]{} (X\^[f]{} X\^[g]{}) , \[OX\] where the determinant is taken in the six-dimensional flavour space. For $N>2$ and only $6$ Weyl fermions at our disposal, one obvious extension of the above operator satisfying the required properties would consist in taking $\mathcal{O}_X^{N-1}$. One should, however, be aware that, on the one hand, this simple procedure might not comply with the properties of the ’t Hooft vertex as arising from the Grassmann integration over the fermionic collective coordinates[^16], and, on the other hand, that the ’t Hooft vertex could also involve derivatives of the fermion fields. An example where this second feature is known to happen is provided by the case of an $SU(2)\simeq Sp(2)$ gauge group with fermions in the adjoint representation [@Vainshtein:1982ic]. Delving more deeply into these issues would, however, lead us too far astray. Moreover, dealing with a term involving derivatives of the fermion fields is beyond the NJL framework as it is usually understood. From the point of view of the latter, the term $\mathcal{O}_X^{N-1}$, possessing all the required symmetry properties, is quite appropriate, and henceforth we will assume that at the level of the NJL approach, it provides the required description of the explicit breaking of the $U(1)_X$ symmetry by quantum effects. The preceding discussion considered the $SU(6)$ sector in isolation and, apart from some subtle aspects due to the representation of the gauge group under which the $X$ fermions transform, has essentially paralleled the related discussion for the $SU(4)$ sector in section \[colourless-sector\]. We will now bring the two sectors together and, as was already the case for the discussion of the anomaly matching conditions in section \[total-break\], we will find that when acting together the two sectors unravel new features. Indeed, the structure of anomaly-driven effective terms is actually different, as one should take into account that a combination of $U(1)_X$ and $U(1)_\psi$ transformations, as given in Eq. (\[U1\_charges\]), remains non-anomalous. This drastically changes the form of appropriate effective interactions generalising the ’t Hooft terms usually being given by a (flavour) determinant, since $\psi$ and $X$ are not in the same representation. Combining this information with the discussion above and in Section \[colourless-sector\], the lowest dimensional operator that breaks both $U(1)_\psi$ and $U(1)_X$ axial singlet symmetries, while preserving the $U(1)$ symmetry generated by the combination (\[axial\_singlet\]), reads \_[X]{} = A\_[X]{} \^[(N-1)]{} + h.c. , \[Lano46\] with $\mathcal{O}_X$ defined in Eq. (\[OX\]) and $\mathcal{O}_\psi$ the antisymmetric four-fermion operator in Eq. (\[LSbasic\]), \_=- \_[abcd]{}(\^a \^b)(\^c \^d) . The constant $A_{\psi X}$ can be taken real and positive by adjusting the phase of $\psi$. Its normalisation in Eq. (\[Lano46\]) has been conveniently chosen in order to compensate the different powers of $N$ contained in the condensates, see Eqs. (\[psicond\]) and (\[condensateXX\]). This normalisation, with an $N$-independent coefficient $A_{\psi X}$, would reproduce the correct behaviour of the $U(1)_{\psi,X}$ anomaly in the large-$N$ limit, would the latter exist, see the discussion around Eqs. (\[betaHC\]) and (\[Nlimit\]). Indeed, Eq. (\[U1\_X\_div\]) shows that the effect of the anomaly would not vanish in this limit, as $(N-1) g^2_{HC} \sim (N-1)/N \sim 1$. As we will see in Section \[mixing-singlets\], a trace of this feature appears in the mass of the $\eta^\prime$, which is proportional to $A_{\psi X}$, $M^2_{\eta^\prime}\sim A_{\psi X}[1+ {\cal O}(1/N)]$. After formation of the two condensates $\la \psi \psi \ra$ and $\la X X \ra$, the interaction (\[Lano46\]) will generate effective four-fermion interactions for $\psi$ and $X$, as well as a mixed $\psi\psi X X$ term, upon replacing appropriate number of fermion bilinears by their respective condensate (i.e. closing the loops). To identify these four-fermion interactions, relevant for the computation of the meson spectrum, let us first consider for simplicity the $SU(6)\to SO(6)$ sector. The fermion bilinear can be decomposed as ( X\^f X\^g ) 2 (T\_X\^0 \_[0]{}\^c )\^[gf]{} ( X \_[0]{}\^c T\^0\_X X) + 2 (T\^[F]{} \_[0]{}\^c)\^[gf]{} (X \_[0]{}\^c T\^[F]{} X) , in terms of the $SO(6)$ singlet and the two-index symmetric traceless components. Then, taking into account combinatorial factors, the operator of Eq. (\[OX\]) can be decomposed as [^17] \_X = , \[Oxinv\] where a sum over the $SU(6)$ generators $T^{\hat F}$ belonging to the $SU(6)/SO(6)$ coset is understood. For the $SU(4)\to Sp(4)$ sector, the similar appropriate decomposition into $Sp(4)$-invariant bilinears reads \_= ( \_0 T\^0\_) (\_0 T\^0\_) - (\_0 T\^[A]{} ) (\_0 T\^[A]{} ) . \[Opsiinv\] Next we insert the results (\[Oxinv\]) and (\[Opsiinv\]) into the full effective Lagrangian Eq. (\[Lano46\]), and obtain \_[X]{} = && { ()\^2 \^[6(N-1)]{} - ( )\^2 \^[6(N-1)]{}\ && -3 (N-1) ()\^2 \^[6(N-1)-2]{} \^2 } + , \[L46\] where the ellipsis denotes other interaction terms, of no relevance for our purposes. The overall constant $A_{\psi X}$ remains arbitrary, but the ratio of the coefficients of the three effective $XXXX$, $\psi\psi\psi\psi$, and $\psi\psi XX$ terms are fixed. All effective couplings in the singlet and non-singlet sectors are thus related to the unique coupling $A_{\psi X}$ in Eq. (\[Lano46\]), times appropriate powers of the two condensates and combinatorial factors (see section \[Mass gap equations and effective four-fermions couplings\] below). Spectrum of meson resonances in presence of the coloured sector {#The spectrum of mesonic resonances in the coloured sector} =============================================================== In this section we will compute the condensates and the masses of mesons, once the coloured sector is added to the electroweak sector, including their mixing through Eq. (\[L46\]). The two sectors share the same $Sp(2N)$ hypercolour gauge interaction, therefore one can, in principle, relate the sizes of the effective four-fermion operators in the two sectors. One may assume, in particular, that the effective interactions between hypercolour-singlet fermion bilinears originate from $Sp(2N)$ current-current operators (see appendix \[fierz\]). In this approximation one can link, to some extent, the couplings of the coloured operators to the electroweak ones. In this way the mass gap and the spectrum in the $SU(6)$ sector are connected to the ones in the $SU(4)$ sector. The mass gap in a theory with two sectors {#Mass gap equations and effective four-fermions couplings} ----------------------------------------- Let us begin with the coloured scalar operators, which are relevant for the mass gap and for the spin-zero mesons. Besides the anomalous operator (\[L46\]), there is one more independent four-fermion operator that describes the dynamics in analogy with the electroweak sector Lagrangian in Eq. (\[LSbasic\]), $$\mathcal{L}_{scal}^{X}=\frac{\kappa_{A6}} {(2N+1)(N-1)}(X^f X^g)({\overline X}_f {\overline X}_g) -\frac{1}{2} m_X \left[ (X \Sigma_{0}^c X)+({\overline X} \Sigma_{0}^c {\overline X}) \right] ~, \label{L4F-scal-color}$$ where the coupling constant $\kappa_{A6}$ is real and its normalisation by an inverse factor $(2N+1)(N-1)$ has been conveniently chosen to compensate for the factors of $N$ induced by the trace over hypercolour in the $X$-fermion one-loop two-point functions (see appendix \[SDresum\]). In contrast with the electroweak sector, we also include in Eq. (\[L4F-scal-color\]) an explicit symmetry-breaking mass $m_X$, already introduced in Eq. (\[X\_mass\]), which can be chosen real and positive by tuning the phase of $X$. Note that also $A_{\psi X}$ in Eq. (\[L46\]) can be chosen real and positive, by tuning the phase of $\psi$. Such a mass term may be phenomenologically necessary to raise the masses of the coloured pNGBs, in order to comply with direct collider detection limits [@Cacciapaglia:2015eqa]. More generally, a non-zero $m_X$ leads to several qualitative effects that are worth to be explored. As the contraction over $Sp(2N)$ indices in Eq. (\[X\_inv\]) is symmetric in hypercolour space, the scalar bilinear $(X^f X^g)$ must be symmetric in flavour space, that is, it transforms as the $21_s$ representation of $SU(6)$, to be compared with $(\psi^a\psi^b)$, which transforms as the $6_a$ of $SU(4)$. Since $21_{SU(6)}=(1+20')_{SO(6)}$, one can rewrite the Lagrangian (\[L4F-scal-color\]) in the physical basis, as $${\cal L}_{scal}^X= \frac{2\kappa_{A6}}{(2N+1)(N-1)}\left[ (X \Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X X )(\overline{X} T_X^0 \Sigma_{0}^c \overline{X} ) + (X \Sigma_{0}^c T^{\hat F} X ) (\overline{X} T^{\hat F} \Sigma_{0}^c\overline{X} ) \right] -\frac{1}{2} m_X \left[ (X \Sigma_{0}^c X) + ({\overline X} \Sigma_{0}^c {\overline X}) \right] , \label{L-scalar-coloured}$$ where $T^{\hat{F}}$ are the 20 broken generators spanning the $SU(6)/SO(6)$ coset. Combining the effect of the operators in Eqs. (\[LSphys\]), (\[L46\]) and (\[L-scalar-coloured\]), one can derive a system of two coupled gap equations for the $SU(4)$ and $SU(6)$ sectors, $$\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} 1-4(\kappa_A+\kappa_B) \tilde A_0(M^2_\psi) = 0~, \\ 1-4(\kappa_{A6}+\kappa_{B6}) \tilde A_0(M^2_X)-\dfrac{m_X}{M_X} = 0 ,\\ \end{array} \right. \label{gap-2sectors}$$ which determine the dynamical masses $M_\psi$ and $M_X$ as functions of the four couplings $\kappa_{A,B,A6,B6}$ and of the mass $m_X$. More precisely, when $m_X \neq 0$ the scale $M_X$ is not entirely generated by the dynamics, see Fig. \[gap-coloured\]. Just as in the electroweak sector, $M_\psi$ can be traded for $\langle \Psi\Psi \rangle$, see Eq. (\[psicond\]), the NJL dynamical mass $M_X$ is also related to the condensate $\langle XX \rangle$ in the coloured sector, $$\langle XX \rangle \equiv \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{N_f^X}}\langle S_0^X\rangle =-2 (2N +1)(N-1) M_X \tilde A_0(M^2_X) , \label{condensateXX}$$ where the factor $(2N+1)(N-1)$ comes from the trace over hypercolour. The two mass gap equations are coupled because the first operator in Eq. (\[L46\]) induces both the $\kappa_B$ and $\kappa_{B6}$ terms in Eq. (\[gap-2sectors\]). These contributions are obtained by closing all but one fermion bilinears into a tadpole loop, as illustrated in Fig. \[gapL46\] for the case of the $\psi$-sector. This amounts to replacing each bilinear by the associated condensate, and to add a combinatorial factor $2$ in $\kappa_B$, as one $\psi$-bilinear out of 2 is not closed, and $6(N-1)$ in $\kappa_{B6}$, as one $X$-bilinear out of $6(N-1)$ is not closed. Therefore, the anomalous terms in the gap equations are related to the original anomaly coefficient $A_{\psi X}$ by $$\kappa_B\equiv \frac{A_{\psi X}}{2\cdot27^{N-1}} \left[ \frac{4N^X_f \langle XX \rangle^2}{(2N+1)^2(N-1)^2} \right]^{3(N-1)} \frac{2}{2N} =[4 M_X \t A_0(M_X^2)]^{6(N-1)} ~\frac{A_{\psi X}}{2N} ~, \label{kbkb6}$$ $$\kappa_{B6}\equiv \frac{A_{\psi X}}{2\cdot 27^{N-1}} \left[ \frac{4N^\psi_f \langle \psi\psi \rangle^2}{(2N)^2}\right] \left[ \frac{4N^X_f \langle XX \rangle^2}{(2N+1)^2(N-1)^2} \right]^{3(N-1)-1} \frac{6(N-1)}{(2N+1)(N-1)} = \frac{4N}{2N+1} \frac{M_\psi^2}{M_X^2} \frac{\t A^2_0(M_\psi^2)}{\t A^2_0(M_X^2)} ~\kappa_B~. \label{kbkb62}$$ The combinatorial factors will be essential, among other things, in order to recover the singlet Goldstone boson, see section \[mixing-singlets\]. The effective couplings $\kappa_{B,B6}$ are normalised such as to contribute to the gap equations (\[gap-2sectors\]) as for a single sector in isolation. However, since they are functions of both dynamical masses, $\kappa_{B,B6}=\kappa_{B,B6}(M_\psi^2,M_X^2)$, the two gap equations are actually coupled in a non trivial way. Let us analyse in some detail the system (\[gap-2sectors\]) of two coupled gap equations, because it is qualitatively different from the canonical NJL gap equation of QCD, and, to the best of our knowledge, it was not studied in the existing literature. It is convenient to take the effective coupling $\kappa_B$ as the free parameter characterising the effect of the hypercolour anomaly, that is, to express $\kappa_{B6}$ as a function of $\kappa_B$ according to Eq. (\[kbkb62\]). This choice makes it easier to compare with the electroweak sector in isolation, and it also simplifies the algebraic form of the solutions of Eq. (\[gap-2sectors\]). As we have seen in section \[colourless-sector\], the $SU(4)$ sector forms a condensate and a non-zero dynamical mass $M_\psi$ is generated when $\xi\equiv (\kappa_{A}+\kappa_{B})\Lambda^2/(4\pi^2)$ is above the critical value $\xi =1$. Similarly, in the chiral limit $m_X=0$, a non-zero dynamical mass $M_X$ is generated when $\xi_c\equiv (\kappa_{A6}+\kappa_{B6})\Lambda^2/(4\pi^2) > 1$. Beyond that, the general resolution of the set of equations (\[gap-2sectors\]) coupled through Eq. (\[kbkb62\]) is very involved, especially for $m_X\ne 0$, and it can only be solved numerically. Still, it is instructive to consider a few special cases. ### Case $m_X = 0$, $\kappa_B = 0$ When $\kappa_B = 0$, i.e. $A_{\psi X} = 0$, the two gap equations decouple. It is convenient to introduce dimensionless variables and functions in order to rewrite them in the form $$\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} 1-\xi_A \bar A(x_\psi) = 0~, \\ 1-\xi_{A6} {\bar A} (x_X)= 0 ~,\\ \end{array} \right. \label{gap-2sectors_decoupled}$$ where $x_{\psi , X} \equiv M^2_{\psi , X} / \Lambda^2$, $\xi_{A,A6} \equiv (\Lambda^2/4\pi^2) \kappa_{A,A6}$, and ${\bar A} (x) \equiv 1 - x \ln ( 1 + 1/x )$. The solutions of the two equations in (\[gap-2sectors\_decoupled\]) are simply related as $$x_\psi (\xi_A) = x_X \left(\xi_{A6}\right)~. \qquad\qquad$$ The result is to restrict the range of the allowed values of $\xi\|_{\kappa_B=0}= \xi_A$, as compared to the case of one sector in isolation. Indeed, imposing that both conditions $0 \le x_\psi (\xi_A) \le 1$ and $0 \le x_X (\xi_{A6}) \le 1$ be satisfied simultaneously requires $${\rm max} \left( 1 , \frac{\kappa_{A}}{\kappa_{A6}} \right) \le \xi \le {\rm min} \left( 1 , \frac{\kappa_{A}}{\kappa_{A6}} \right) \frac{1}{1 - \ln 2} \qquad\qquad (\kappa_B=0) ~.$$ Hence, for $\kappa_A/\kappa_{A6} > 1$ the minimal value of $\xi$ is larger than unity, whereas for $\kappa_A/\kappa_{A6} < 1$, the highest value allowed for $\xi$ is reduced, see Fig. \[gap-coloured\]. These considerations do not depend explicitly on the value of $N$, although the actual values of $\kappa_A$ and of $\kappa_{A6}$, being determined by the hypercolour dynamics, will depend on $N$. Thus, although the two gap equations are decoupled, the presence of the second one impinges on the possible values allowed for the coupling of the second one, and vice-versa. This simply illustrates the fact that while the two gap equations may be decoupled, they nevertheless share the same effective-theory cutoff $\Lambda$. ### Case $m_X=0$, $\kappa_B \neq 0$ By treating $\kappa_B$ as an extra free parameter, the first equation in the system (\[gap-2sectors\]) is formally identical to the gap equation for the electroweak sector in isolation, Eq. (\[gap2\]), with solution $x_\psi=x_\psi(\xi)$. Then, rewriting $\kappa_{B6}$ as a function of $\kappa_B$ according to Eq. (\[kbkb62\]), the second gap equation becomes a self-consistent relation for $x_X$, that depends on $N$, $\xi$, $\xi_{A6}$, and $\xi_B\equiv (\Lambda^2/4\pi^2) \kappa_{B}$: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} 1 - \xi {\bar A} (x_\psi) = 0 ~, \\ {\cal G} (x_X , \xi_{A6}) \equiv x_X {\bar A} (x_X) \left[ 1 - \xi_{A6} {\bar A} (x_X) \right] = {\displaystyle{ \frac{4N}{2N+1} \xi_B \frac{x_\psi (\xi)}{\xi^2} }}~. \end{array} \right. \label{gap-2sectors_gen}$$ Note that the second equality assumes a consistent solution of the first equation, $x_\psi(\xi)$, which requires $1 <\xi < 1/(1-\ln 2)$. In practice we solve numerically the first equation for $x_\psi(\xi)$, then we use it as an input to solve numerically the second one for $x_X(\xi)$. In Fig. \[gap2fig\] we plot ${\cal G} (x, \xi_{A6}) $ as a function of $x$, for a few representative values of $\xi_{A6}$, as well as the right-hand side of the second equation in (\[gap-2sectors\_gen\]), for two values of $N$ and $\xi_B$, assuming for simplicity two equal mass gaps, $x_\psi=x_X=x$. The intersection between the dashed and solid curves determines the solution $x_X=x_X(N,\xi,\xi_{A6}, \xi_B)$. The function ${\cal G} (x, \xi_{A6})$ vanishes at $x=0$ and, for any fixed value $0<x<1$, it decreases with $\xi_{A6}$. For $\xi_{A6} \le 1$, ${\cal G} (x, \xi_{A6})$ increases in the whole interval $0 \le x \le 1$, while for $\xi_{A6} > 1$ it decreases to negative values for small $x$, then increases as $x$ moves towards unity, becoming positive before $x=1$, as long as $\xi_{A6} < 1/(1-\ln 2)$. On the other hand, the function $x_\psi (\xi)/\xi^2$ satisfies $0 \le x_\psi (\xi)/\xi^2 \lesssim1/10$ for $0 \le x \le 1$. Since $\xi_B \ge 0$, there is therefore no solution to the second equation in (\[gap-2sectors\_gen\]) in the interval $0 \le x_X \le 1$ when $\xi_{A6} \ge 1/(1-\ln 2)$. In contrast, for values $1 < \xi_{A6}<1/(1-\ln 2)$ there is always a non-trivial solution with $x_X<1$, as long as the right-hand side of the second equation in (\[gap-2sectors\_gen\]) is sufficiently small. Finally, for $0 < \xi_{A6}<1$ the occurrence of a solution happens only for a sufficiently large $\xi_B$, also depending on $N$. The latter properties actually reflect the critical value $\xi_{A6}+\xi_{B6} >1$, necessary in order to obtain a non-trivial mass-gap, here somewhat disguised by the change of variables. Note that for fixed values of $N$, $\xi$ and $\xi_B$, the value of $x_X$ increases with $\xi_{A6}$. ![Dotted curves: the function ${\cal G} (x , \xi_{A6}) $ for three representative values of $\xi_{A6}$ as indicated. Thick curves: right-hand side of the second equation in (\[gap-2sectors\_gen\]) for two values of $N$ and $\xi_B$ as indicated, and taking $x_\psi=x$.[]{data-label="gap2fig"}](gap2-coupled.pdf) One can make one more step in the analytical study of the two coupled gap equations. Moving the term proportional to $\xi_B$ in the first equation of (\[gap-2sectors\_gen\]) to its right-hand side, one may now eliminate $\xi_B$ between the two equations, and obtain $${\cal G} (x_\psi , \xi_{A}) = \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4 N} \right) {\cal G} (x_X , \xi_{A6}) ~. \label{GxpsiGxX}$$ A few simple remarks follow from this relation. First, if one of the masses, say $M_X$, has been determined as a function of $\xi_A$, $\xi_{A6}$ and $\xi_B$, then the relation of $M_\psi$ to $M_X$ involves only $\xi_A$, $\xi_{A6}$ and $N$, and not $\xi_B$. Second, this relation becomes rapidly independent of $N$ as $N$ increases. Third, the relatively simple Eq. (\[GxpsiGxX\]) precisely gives the exact dependence of the ratio of the two mass gaps, $M_X/M_\psi$, as functions of the basic input parameters (although it is an implicit relation, due to the non-linearity in the masses $M_X, M_\psi$), as illustrated for a few representative case in Fig. \[gap-coloured\]. More precisely, Eq. (\[GxpsiGxX\]) may be trivially expressed as = ( + ) . \[MpsiMX\] This indeed shows that, as long as $M_\psi^2, M_X^2 \ll \Lambda^2$ \[which implies $\bar A(x_X)\simeq \bar A(x_\psi)$ since $ \bar A(x) \equiv 1 - x \ln ( 1 + 1/x )\simeq 1+M^2/\Lambda^2 \ln (\Lambda^2/M^2)$\], one obtains $M_\psi < M_X$, at least for $\xi_A\simeq \xi_{A6}$. Indeed, the peculiar case of equal mass gaps, $x_\psi=x_X$, that is the one illustrated in Fig. \[gap2fig\], can only be obtained for significantly different values of $\xi_A$ and $\xi_{A6}$ (for instance when $N=4$, $\xi_{A6} =1/2$ and $\xi_B=1/2$, one has $x_\psi=x_X\simeq 0.13$, that corresponds to $\xi_A\simeq 0.9$). In the above considerations we have kept $\kappa_A$ and $\kappa_{A6}$ (equivalently, $\xi_A$ and $\xi_{A6}$) arbitrary. Let us now examine more precisely a few typical situations concerning those parameters. When $\kappa_{A6}$ is larger than $\kappa_A$, the $SU(6)$ sector first forms a condensate for $\xi <1$ (see Fig. \[gap-coloured\]), and then $M_X>M_\psi$. In the opposite case where $\kappa_{A6}$ is smaller than $\kappa_A$, the $SU(6)$ sector forms a condensate for a value $\xi>1$, and $M_X<M_\psi$. If $\xi_{A6} \gg \xi_A$, the mass gap grows rather fast, so that one eventually obtains a very large $M_X\sim \Lambda$, and conversely a very large $M_\psi$ if $\xi_{A6} \ll \xi_A$. Thus to obtain predictive calculations in both sectors from the NJL model, it requires that $\xi_A\sim \xi_{A6}$ are roughly of the same magnitude. In this way, there is a non-zero interval for the values of $\xi$ where the NJL predictions can be trusted ($\xi, \xi_c>1$ and $M_{\psi,X}<\Lambda$) in both sectors. Note that apart from these NJL consistency considerations, in principle no value of the ratio $\xi_A/\xi_{A6}$ is theoretically excluded, but the case $M_\psi=0$ and $M_X \neq 0$ evidently does not describe a composite Higgs model since then the spectrum of resonances does not contain a pNGB Higgs doublet. For $\xi_A=\xi_{A6}$, i.e. $\kappa_A = \kappa_{A6}$, and still for $m_X=0$, the ratio $M_X/M_\psi$ thus depends only of the value of $\kappa_B$ and $N$, as given precisely by the relation in Eq. (\[MpsiMX\]). When $\xi_B$ is close to zero, one gets $M_\psi \simeq M_X$, since the two gap equations are almost decoupled. Next, when $\xi_B$ increases, there is a complicated balance between the $N$, $M_\psi$ and $M_X$ dependence in Eq. (\[kbkb62\]), to determine $\kappa_{B6}/\kappa_B$, but the ratio $M_X/M_\psi$ is consistently determined from the relatively simple relation in Eq. (\[MpsiMX\]). This implies $\kappa_{B6}>\kappa_B$ and $M_X$ slightly above $M_\psi$, with a $M_X/M_\psi$ ratio that increases rather slowly with $\xi_B$, and is also a slowly increasing function of $N$. For instance for $N=2$, $M_X/M_\psi\simeq 1.14-1.21$ for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.01-0.5$. Finally, let us briefly discuss the most general case $m_X \neq 0$. The above considerations give of course only approximate relations, which however remains relatively good as long as $m_X$ remains moderate, $m_X \ll M_X$. For $m_X\ne 0$ there is no critical coupling $\xi_c$ in the $SU(6)$ sector, as the minimal value of $M_X$ is obviously non-zero, being equal to $m_X$. A non-zero $m_X$ evidently leads to $M_X> M_\psi$ for equivalent coupling values in the two sectors, see Fig. \[gap-coloured\]. ![Comparison between the mass gap $M_\psi$ of the electroweak sector (black dotted line) and the mass gap $M_X$ of the coloured sector for few representatives cases. When $\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_A$, $m_X=0$ and $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0$, the two dynamical masses are equal, $M_\psi=M_X$. To illustrate the behaviour of $M_X$ with respect to the free parameters of the theory ($\xi$, $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, $\kappa_{A6}/\kappa_A$, $m_X$ and $N$) we illustrate small departures from this particular case. The solid (dashed) red line corresponds to $\kappa_{A6}=2 (1/2)\kappa_A$ with $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0$, $m_X=0$ and $N=4$. In these cases, the critical coupling of the coloured sector is respectively smaller or larger than the one in the electroweak sector ($\xi=1$). Next, the solid blue (green) line corresponds to $\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_A$, $N=4$ with $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0$ ($\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.1$) and $m_X=\Lambda/10$ ($m_X=0$). In the case where there is an explicit symmetry-breaking mass $m_X$, there is no critical coupling in the coloured sector as the lowest value of $M_X$ is simply $m_X$. Finally note that $M_X$ is almost independent of the number of hypercolour $N$. []{data-label="gap-coloured"}](gap-coloured.pdf) A couple of remarks are in order. In section \[mixing-singlets\] we will see that the scalar singlet sector is consistent only for a very small value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, see Eqs. (\[kbcsig0\]) and (\[kbcrit\]). This is due to the requirement of vacuum stability, which is not apparent in the mass-gap equations (\[gap-2sectors\]). For example, this upper bound implies that a value $\xi_B=1/2$, as illustrated in Fig. \[gap2fig\], is actually not possible. This in turns sets a lower bound on $\xi_{A6}$, in order to stay above the critical value, $\xi_{A6}+\xi_{B6} >1$, and to obtain a non-zero value of $M_X$. Let us now comment on the dynamical relation between $\kappa_B$ and the original anomalous parameter $A_{\psi X}$, given in Eq. (\[kbkb6\]), and which involves $M_X$ and $N$. In the whole allowed range $1< \xi < (1-\ln 2)^{-1}\simeq 3.25$, even when $M_X\simeq \Lambda$ for large $\xi$, the factor in square brackets in Eq. (\[kbkb6\]) is small in $\Lambda^3$ units, essentially because of the loop-suppression, $4 M_X \t A_0(M_X^2) \simeq (4-8)\cdot 10^{-3} \Lambda^3$ (with moderate dependence on $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ and $N$). This implies a strong suppression of the effective coupling $\xi_B$ due to the large power $6(N-1)$ in Eq. (\[kbkb6\]), even for the minimal value $N=2$. Unfortunately, the original Lagrangian parameter $A_{\psi X}$ originates from non-perturbative dynamics that is not under control at the present stage, so that its size is essentially arbitrary, see also the discussion in subsection \[thooft\] after Eq. (\[OX\]). Therefore, we can just remark that, whatever the actual size of $A_{\psi X}$, the corresponding value of $\kappa_B$ is strongly suppressed by the dynamics. This may help to comply with the upper bound from vacuum stability on $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, which behaves as $1/N$ for sufficiently large $N$, as we shall discuss in section \[mixing-singlets\], because the effective coupling $\kappa_B$ in Eq. (\[kbkb6\]) contains a power-$N$ suppression factor. Masses of coloured scalar resonances {#Masses of coloured scalar resonances} ------------------------------------ The scalar and pseudoscalar resonances associated to $X$-fermion bilinears transform under the flavour symmetry as $21_{SU(6)}=(1+20')_{SO(6)}$. In analogy with the $\psi$-fermion sector, we can define a matrix $\overline{M}_c$ in flavour space, $$\overline{M}_c= \frac{1}{2} M_X \Sigma_0^c +\left( \sigma_X +i \eta_X \right) \Sigma_0^c T^0_X + \left(S_c^{\hat{F}}+ i G_c^{\hat{F}} \right) \Sigma_0^c T^{\hat{F}} ~,$$ where the components $\sigma_X$ ($\eta_X$) and $S_c^{\hat{F}}$ ($G_c^{\hat{F}}$) are respectively the $SO(6)$-singlet and twenty-plet (pseudo)scalars. The relevant operators for the computation of the spin-zero meson masses are those given in Eq. (\[L-scalar-coloured\]), plus the effective four-fermions operators $\psi^4$, $X^4$ and $\psi^2 X^2$, which are induced by the anomalous Lagrangian of Eq. (\[L46\]), after spontaneous symmetry breaking, $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L}_{\psi X}^{eff} &=& \frac{\kappa_B}{2N} \left[\left(\psi \Sigma_0 T^0_\psi \psi\right) \left(\psi \Sigma_0 T^0_\psi \psi \right) - \left(\psi\Sigma_0 T^{\hat A} \psi \right)\left(\psi\Sigma_0 T^{\hat A} \psi \right)+ h.c.\right] \nonumber \\ & + & \frac{\kappa_{B6}}{(2N+1)(N-1)} \left[ \left( 6N-7 \right) \left(X \Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X X\right) \left(X \Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X X \right) - \left(X \Sigma_{0}^c T^{\hat F} X \right)\left(X \Sigma_{0}^c T^{\hat F} X \right)+ h.c.\right] \nonumber \\ &+& \frac{\kappa_{\psi X}}{2N} \left[\left(\psi \Sigma_0 T^0_\psi \psi \right)\: (X \Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X X)+ h.c. \right]~, \label{effective-Lagrangian-2sectors}\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_B$ and $\kappa_{B6}$, defined in Eq. (\[kbkb6\]) and (\[kbkb62\]) respectively, are the same couplings that appear in the gap equations. Note the factor $(6N-7)$ that multiples $\kappa_{B6}$, because here two $X$-fermion bilinears out of $6(N-1)$ are not closed into a loop, which implies a combinatorial factor $6(N-1)[6(N-1)-1]/2$. The additional coupling $\kappa_{\psi X}$ is defined by $$\kappa_{\psi X}\equiv \frac{A_{\psi X}}{27^{N-1}} \left[\frac{4 N^\psi_f \langle \psi\psi \rangle^2 }{(2N)^2}\right]^{\frac12} \left[ \frac{4N^X_f \langle XX \rangle^2}{(2N+1)^2(N-1)^2} \right]^{3(N-1)-\frac 12} \frac{2\cdot 6(N-1)}{(2N+1)(N-1)} =\frac{8\sqrt{6} N}{2N+1} \frac{M_\psi}{M_X} \frac{\t A_0(M_\psi^2)}{\t A_0(M_X^2)} ~\kappa_B~, \label{kpsiX}$$ and it controls the mixing between the $Sp(4)$ and $SO(6)$ (pseudo)scalar singlets $\sigma_\psi$ ($\eta_\psi$) and $\sigma_X$ ($\eta_X$), which will be treated separately in section \[mixing-singlets\]. Note that all three effective couplings vanish if $\langle XX \rangle=0$. When $\langle XX \rangle\ne0$ both $\kappa_{B6}$ and $\kappa_{\psi X}$ are fully determined as a function of $M_\psi$, $M_X$ and $\kappa_B$. From Eqs. (\[L-scalar-coloured\]) and (\[effective-Lagrangian-2sectors\]) one can derive the four-fermion couplings for each physical channel, K\_[\_X (\_X)]{}= 2 , K\_[S\_c (G\_c)]{}= 2 , \[KSG\] For convenience, all the relevant four-fermion couplings for the $X$-sector spin-zero and spin-one mesons are collected in Table \[tab-coloured-functions\], together with the associated one-loop two-point functions. $\phi$ $K_\phi$ $\t\Pi^X_{\phi}(q^2)$ ------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $G_c^{\hat{F}}$ $\dfrac{2(\kappa_{A6} + \kappa_{B6})}{(2N+1)(N-1)}$ $\eta_X$ $\dfrac{2[\kappa_{A6} -(6N-7) \kappa_{B6}]}{(2N+1)(N-1)}$ $\eta_\psi-\eta_X$ $\dfrac{-\kappa_{\psi X}}{(2N)}$ $S^{\hat{F}}_c$ $\dfrac{2(\kappa_{A6} - \kappa_{B6})}{(2N+1)(N-1)}$ $\sigma_X$ $\dfrac{2[\kappa_{A6} +(6N-7) \kappa_{B6}]}{(2N+1)(N-1)}$ $\sigma_\psi-\sigma_X$ $\dfrac{\kappa_{\psi X}}{(2N)}$ $V_c^{\mu F}$ $\dfrac{-2 \kappa_{D6}}{(2N+1)(N-1)}$ $\t\Pi_{V}^X(q^2) =\frac{1}{3} (2N+1)(N-1) \big[- 2 M_X^2 \t B_0(0,M_X^2) + (q^2 + 2 M_X^2) \t B_0(q^2,M_X^2)\big]$ $A_c^{\mu {\hat{F}}}$ $\dfrac{-2 \kappa_{D6}}{(2N+1)(N-1)}$ $\t\Pi_{A}^X(q^2) = \frac{1}{3} (2N+1)(N-1) \big[- 2 M_X^2 \t B_0(0,M_X^2) + (q^2 - 4 M_X^2) \t B_0(q^2,M_X^2)\big]$ $a_X^\mu$ $\dfrac{-2 \kappa_{C6}}{(2N+1)(N-1)}$ $\t\Pi_{A}^{X L}(q^2) = - 2 (2N+1)(N-1) M_X^2 \t B_0(q^2,M_X^2)$ $A_c^{\mu {\hat{F}}}-G_c^{\hat{F}}$ $a_X^\mu-\eta_X$ : The four-fermion couplings $K_\phi$ in the $X$-sector, and the associated one-loop two-point functions $\tilde{\Pi}_\phi^X(q^2)$. The latter are related to the two-point functions of the $\psi$-sector as follows: $\tilde{\Pi}_\phi^\psi(q^2)=\tilde{\Pi}_\phi(q^2, M_\psi^2,2N)$ and $\tilde{\Pi}_\phi^X(q^2)=\tilde{\Pi}_\phi[q^2, M_X^2,(2N+1)(N-1)]$, where $\tilde{\Pi}_\phi(q^2, M_\psi^2,2N)$ are defined in Table \[tab\_phi\]. We also give the expression of the mixed (one-loop) pseudoscalar-longitudinal axial correlator, as well as those of the couplings mixing the singlet scalars of the two sectors, $\sigma_\psi$ and $\sigma_X$, and the singlet pseudoscalars $\eta_\psi$ and $\eta_X$. The explicit calculation of the correlators $\t \Pi_\phi^X (q^2)$ is detailed in appendix \[SDresum\]. []{data-label="tab-coloured-functions"} We now calculate the masses of the scalar and pseudoscalar non-singlet resonances $S_c^{\hat{F}}$ and $G_c^{\hat{F}}$. As already mentioned above, for the scalar and pseudoscalar singlet $\sigma_X$ and $\eta_X$, there is a mixing with the corresponding resonances $\sigma_\psi$ and $\eta_\psi$ of the electroweak sector, so that the whole singlet sector will be treated separately in section \[mixing-singlets\]. Concerning the non-singlet pNGB $G_c$, we should also consider more generally a non-trivial pseudoscalar-axial vector mixing for non-vanishing vectorial four-fermion couplings, as we anticipate will be introduced below in Section \[Masses of coloured vector resonances\], in analogy with the electroweak sector discussed in Section \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\]. With the additional explicit breaking mass term $m_X$ of Eq. (\[L4F-scal-color\]), the pseudoscalar axial-vector mixing formalism of Section \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\] can easily be generalised with explicitly $m_X$-dependent resummed matrix correlator $\mathbf{\overline{\Pi}}_{G_c}(m_X)$, the analogue of Eqs. (\[Pisum22\]) and (\[Pisum22fin\]) for the coloured sector. Note that all of the one-loop two-point functions $\t \Pi(q^2,M_X^2)\equiv\t \Pi^X_\phi(q^2)$ of the $SU(6)$ sector can be obtained from those in table \[tab\_phi\] with the following replacements: $M_\psi\rightarrow M_X$ and $(2N)\rightarrow(2N+1)(N-1)$ (see appendix \[SDresum\] for details). Accordingly the pNGB obviously gets a nonzero mass, whose expression is obtained from the zero of the determinant, analogous to (\[DG\]) for the $SU(4)$ sector, as D\_[G\_c]{} = g\_[A\_c]{}\^[-1]{} +2(\_[A6]{}+\_[B6]{}) B\_0(p\^2,M\^2\_X)p\^2 2(\_[A6]{}+\_[B6]{}) B\_0(p\^2,M\^2\_X)(p\^2-M\^2\_[G\_c]{}). \[DGc\] The calculation of the scalar $S_c^{\hat{F}}$ mass is simpler and follows the same derivation as for the scalar mass of the $SU(4)$ sector. Thus we obtain $$M_{G_c}^2 = -(\frac{m_X}{M_X}) \frac{g_{A_c}^{-1}(M_{G_c}^2)}{2(\kappa_{A6}+\kappa_{B6}) \t B_0 \left( M_{G_c}^2,M_X^2 \right)} ~, \qquad\qquad M_{S_c}^2= 4 M_X^2 -\frac{8 \kappa_{B6} \t A_0(M^2_X) +\frac{m_X}{M_X} } { 2(\kappa_{A6}-\kappa_{B6}) \t B_0 \left(M_{S_c}^2, M_X^2 \right)}~. \label{Msignomix}$$ where as before the pole masses are defined as $M_{G_c}^2=M_{G_c}^2(p^2=M_{G_c}^2)$. Accordingly, similarly to $M_\eta^2$ in Eq. (\[Metabis\]), when a non-vanishing coloured sector vector coupling $\kappa_{D6}$ is considered (see Section \[Masses of coloured vector resonances\]), the pseudoscalar Goldstone mass $M_{G_c}^2$ is renormalised by the (inverse) axial form factor $g_{A_c}^{-1}(p^2\equiv M^2_{G_c}) \equiv 1 -2 K_{A_c} \t \Pi_A^{L X}(M^2_{G_c})$ where $K_{A_c}$ is defined in Table \[tab-coloured-functions\]. Note that there is another source of explicit symmetry breaking which may a priori lead to sizable contributions to the masses. Indeed, when we switch on the SM gauge interactions, new contributions to the masses of the coloured states arise. In the following, we will only consider the gauge corrections to the masses of the pNGB states, since the latter are the lightest resonances of the coloured sector. Therefore those corrections are more relevant than e.g. for the other scalar states. The gauge contributions to the pNGB masses are given in general terms in section \[gauging\] and in appendix \[SU6-generators\] for the particular case of the $SU(6)$ sector. The pNGB $G_c^{\hat{F}}$ decompose as an octet $O_c \sim 8_0$ and two sextet $(S_c +\overline{S}_c)\sim (6_{4/3} + \overline{6}_{-4/3})$ under $SU(3)_c \times U(1)_D$ \[$U(1)_D$ is the hypercharge component in the $X$ sector, and is also defined in appendix \[SU6-generators\]\]. Consequently, there are two sources of gauge contributions which lead to a mass splitting between the octet and sextet components: one from the gauging of QCD and one from the gauging of the hypercharge. However, from Eq. (\[rad\_qcd\]) one can see that the QCD corrections are almost the same for the two components as $\Delta M^2_{O_c}/\Delta M^2_{S_c}\|_{QCD}=9/10$. For simplicity we will neglect this small difference. In addition, the contribution coming from the gauging of $U(1)_Y$ is sub-dominant compared to the one from QCD, and we will safely neglect it. This is due to the small value of the ratio $g^\prime/g_s$ at the energy scale of a few TeVs we are interested in. Then the gauge contributions mainly originate from QCD and to evaluate the latter, we need to compute the integral in Eq. (\[rad\_qcd\]) within the NJL framework. To do that, we simply cut the integral at $Q^2= \Lambda^2$, where $\Lambda$ stands for the cutoff of the NJL model, and $F_{G_c}$ is given by the expression $$F_{G_c}^2= -2 (2N+1)(N-1) M_X^2 \t B_0(M_{G_c}^2,M_X^2) g_{A_c} (M_{G_c}^2)~,$$ which can easily be inferred adapting Eqs. (\[FG4\]) and (\[FGsum\]) to the $SU(6)$ sector. Note that, for simplicity, the mass $M_{G_c}$ in the right-hand side is taken without gauge corrections. The resulting radiative pNGB masses, obtained from Eq. (\[rad\_qcd\]), are illustrated in the left panel of Fig. \[Msu6gA10gB\], where by definition $M^2_{G_c}=\Delta M^2_{O_c}$, as $m_X=0$. These numerical results will be discussed in more details in section \[spectrum-coloured\]. Let us just mention that this gauge-induced mass could be sufficient by itself to comply with the lower collider bounds [@Cacciapaglia:2015eqa]. Masses of coloured vector resonances {#Masses of coloured vector resonances} ------------------------------------ In order to calculate the masses of the vector and axial-vector resonances present in the coloured sector, we start from the following vector-vector four-fermion operators $${\cal L}_{vect}^X= \frac{\kappa_{C6}}{(2N+1)(N-1)} \left(\overline{X} \, T^0_X \, \overline{\sigma}^\mu X \right)^2 +\frac{\kappa_{D6}}{(2N+1)(N-1)} \left[\left(\overline{X} \, T^F \, \overline{\sigma}^\mu X \right)^2 + \left(\overline{X} \, T^{\hat F} \, \overline{\sigma}^\mu X \right)^2 \right], \label{kcd6}$$ where as in the electroweak sector, due to the global $SU(6)$ symmetry, the four-fermions coupling $\kappa_{D6}$ of the vector channel is the same as the axial non-singlet channel. From the above operators we obtain the vector and axial-vector four-fermions couplings $K_{V_c},K_{A_c}$ and $K_{a_X}$ (see table \[tab-coloured-functions\]) and we derive the masses of the vector $V_c^F$ and axial $A_c^{\hat{F}},a_X$ resonances $$M_{V_c}^2=-\frac{3}{4 \kappa_{D6} \t B_0(M_{V_c}^2,M_X^2)}+ 2 M_X^2 \frac{ \t B_0(0,M_X^2)}{\t B_0(M_{V_c}^2,M_X^2)} -2 M_X^2 , \label{vector-colored-mass}$$ M\_[A\_c]{}\^2=- + 2 M\_X\^2 + 4 M\_X\^2 . \[axial-vector-colored-mass\] Just like in the electroweak sector, if one neglects the $p^2$ dependence of the $\tilde{B}_0$ function, one obtains the usual NJL relation between the axial and vector masses, that is $M_{A_c}^2 \simeq M_{V_c}^2+6 M_X^2$. The mass of the axial singlet $a_c^\mu$ is obtained by making the replacements $A_c^\mu \rightarrow a_X^\mu$ and $\kappa_{D6}\rightarrow \kappa_{C6}$ in Eq. (\[axial-vector-colored-mass\]). Note that we have not considered the following operator $${\cal L}_{vect}^{\psi X}= \frac{\kappa_{\psi X}^V}{(2N)} \left(\overline{\psi}\, T^0_\psi \, \overline{\sigma}^\mu \psi \right) \left(\overline{X} \, T^0_X \, \overline{\sigma}_\mu X \right)~,$$ which induces a mixing between the axial singlets of the two sectors, $a^\mu_\psi$ and $a_X^\mu$. This mixing term respects all symmetries of the theory and should be present in general. However, we neglected it as it is not generated by applying a Fierz transformation to the $Sp(2N)$ current-current operators in Eq. (\[LUV0\]). Note also that, in principle, the spin one masses receive SM gauge contributions as $V^\mu_c\sim 15_{SO(6)}=(1+8+3+\overline{3})_{SU(3)_c}$ and $A^\mu_c \sim 20'_{SO(6)} =(8+6+\overline{6})_{SU(3)_c}$. However, following the discussion of section \[Masses of coloured scalar resonances\] for the scalar masses, we will not consider such contributions here. The mass spectrum of the coloured resonances {#spectrum-coloured} -------------------------------------------- In general the couplings of the four-fermion operators are free parameters. However $\kappa_{A6}$ and $\kappa_{C6,D6}$ may be related if we assume that the dynamics is induced by $Sp(2N)$ current-current operators. In this case, as in the $\psi$-sector, we find that the scalar and vector four-fermion couplings are equal, see appendix \[Fierz-transfoSP2N\]. However, we also find that the size of these couplings relatively to the ones in the electroweak sector is not fixed by the current-current approximation. The reason is that, contrary to the case of the $\psi$-sector, the $X$-sector current-current operator cannot be recast in terms of $Sp(2N)$ singlet-singlet operators only, see appendix \[Fierz-transfoSP2N\]. Nonetheless in this section, for the sake of illustration, we will take equal couplings in the two sectors $$\kappa_{A6} =\kappa_{C6}=\kappa_{D6}= \kappa_A ~. \label{Fierz-SU(6)-sector}$$ With this choice, as shown in Fig. \[gap-coloured\], the range of validity of the NJL approximation is approximatively the same in the two sectors. The resonance masses of the coloured sector are illustrated in Fig. \[Msu6gA10gB\]. To ease the comparison with the electroweak sector, the masses are in units of $f=\sqrt{2} F_G \gtrsim 1$ TeV, and are plotted as functions of the coupling $\xi$ defined by Eq. (\[gap2\]). Note that in section \[The mass spectrum of the resonances\], for the $SU(4)$ sector in isolation, the only constraint from vacuum stability was $\kappa_B/\kappa_A <1$: here we anticipate a similar but stronger bound, see Eqs. (\[kbcsig0\]) and (\[kbcrit\]) below. Consequently the value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ is fixed to $0.01$ for illustration, which is safely below this upper bound in the case $N=4$. Then, if one assumes that Eq. (\[Fierz-SU(6)-sector\]) holds, there is just one additional free parameter compared to the $SU(4)$ sector in isolation, namely the explicit symmetry-breaking mass term $m_X$. We illustrate two representative cases: one with no explicit breaking, $m_X=0$, and another one with explicit symmetry breaking, for which we take as a representative value $m_X=0.1 f$. In the case with no explicit breaking (left panel of Fig. \[Msu6gA10gB\]), the behaviour of the masses is qualitatively similar to the $SU(4)$ sector, except for the pNGBs ${G_c}$. This is due to the relations between the couplings of the four-fermion interactions: $\kappa_A=\kappa_{A6}$ and $\kappa_{B}\sim \kappa_{B6}\ll \kappa_{A}$. The pNGB of the coloured sector receive a significant contribution to their masses from the gauging of the colour group, as discussed in section \[Masses of coloured scalar resonances\]. As it can be seen from Fig. \[Msu6gA10gB\], this contribution satisfies $\Delta M_{G_c}\gtrsim 1.3 f$, which is enough to comply with the present collider bounds, as long as $f\gtrsim 1$ TeV. Thus, we conclude that it is actually possible to introduce top quark partners without the need of an explicit mass term $m_X$ for the coloured fermions. On the other hand, if we want to raise the mass of coloured pNGBs, while keeping a low mass scale of the theory, $f=1$ TeV, one needs to introduce a non-zero $m_X$, as illustrated in the right panel of Fig. \[Msu6gA10gB\] for $m_X=0.1 f$. As all the coloured masses receive a contribution from $m_X$, for sufficiently large values of $m_X$ one could even decouple the coloured sector from the electroweak sector. ![The masses of the coloured resonances in units of the Goldstone decay constant $f\equiv \sqrt{2} f_G$, for $N=4$ (the masses scale as $1/\sqrt{N}$), as a function of the coupling $\xi$, for $\kappa_B/ \kappa_A=0.01$, $\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_A$, $m_X=0$ (left-hand panel) and $m_X=f/10$ (right-hand panel). We displayed the full physical range for $\xi$, according to Fig. \[FGLam\]. Each curve is shaded when the corresponding pole mass develops a large, unphysical imaginary part, $\|{\rm Im} g_\phi(M_\phi^2)/{\rm Re} g_\phi(M_\phi^2)\|>1$, as defined from Eq. (\[res\_width\]). The dotted line is the cutoff of the constituent fermion loops. The Goldstone mass $M_{G_c}$ include the radiative corrections as discussed in section \[Masses of coloured scalar resonances\].[]{data-label="Msu6gA10gB"}](masses-mXzero.pdf "fig:") ![The masses of the coloured resonances in units of the Goldstone decay constant $f\equiv \sqrt{2} f_G$, for $N=4$ (the masses scale as $1/\sqrt{N}$), as a function of the coupling $\xi$, for $\kappa_B/ \kappa_A=0.01$, $\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_A$, $m_X=0$ (left-hand panel) and $m_X=f/10$ (right-hand panel). We displayed the full physical range for $\xi$, according to Fig. \[FGLam\]. Each curve is shaded when the corresponding pole mass develops a large, unphysical imaginary part, $\|{\rm Im} g_\phi(M_\phi^2)/{\rm Re} g_\phi(M_\phi^2)\|>1$, as defined from Eq. (\[res\_width\]). The dotted line is the cutoff of the constituent fermion loops. The Goldstone mass $M_{G_c}$ include the radiative corrections as discussed in section \[Masses of coloured scalar resonances\].[]{data-label="Msu6gA10gB"}](masses-mX-non-zero.pdf "fig:") Finally, we display here the masses of the colour resonances for the same parameters as in Eq. (\[mass-spetrum-EW-benchmark\]), $N=4$, $\xi=1.3$ and $\xi=2$, fixing $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.01$ and for the two representative values of $m_X$: =1.3, m\_X=0 &: & M\_[A\_c]{} 6.6 [TeV]{}, M\_[V\_c]{}5.1 [TeV]{}, M\_[S\_c]{}4.3 [TeV]{}, M\_[G\_c]{} 1.3[TeV]{} ,\ =1.3, m\_X =0.1 [TeV]{} &: & M\_[A\_c]{} 7.0 [TeV]{}, M\_[V\_c]{}5.2 [TeV]{}, M\_[S\_c]{}4.9 [TeV]{}, M\_[G\_c]{} 2.0 [TeV]{} . =2.0, m\_X=0 &: & M\_[A\_c]{} 9.7 [TeV]{}, M\_[V\_c]{}6.3 [TeV]{}, M\_[S\_c]{}8.4 [TeV]{}, M\_[G\_c]{} 1.4[TeV]{} ,\ =2.0, m\_X =0.1 [TeV]{} &: & M\_[A\_c]{} 9.9 [TeV]{}, M\_[V\_c]{}6.4 [TeV]{}, M\_[S\_c]{}8.5 [TeV]{}, M\_[G\_c]{} 1.8 [TeV]{} . Flavour-singlet sector {#mixing-singlets} ---------------------- The $\psi-X$ mixing in the (scalar and pseudoscalar) singlet sector, induced by the Lagrangian (\[L46\]), is most conveniently treated in matrix formalism. Furthermore, since our model includes non-vanishing singlet axial-vector couplings both in the $SU(4)$ and $SU(6)$ sectors, we should take into account the additional pseudoscalar-axial mixing, similarly to the case of the $SU(4)$ sector in isolation treated in section \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\]. Accordingly, we shall consider $2 \times 2$ and $4 \times 4$ matrix equations for the correlators in the scalar and pseudoscalar sectors, respectively. ### Scalar-singlet mixing {#Scalar mixing and eigenstates} Let us start with the scalar sector and consider the diagonal one-loop scalar-correlator matrix $\mathbf{\Pi}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}$ and the matrix of scalar couplings $\mathbf{K}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}$, \_[\_\_X]{} = \_[S]{}\^& 0\ 0 & \_[S]{}\^X , \_[\_\_X]{} = K\_[\_]{} & K\_[X]{}\ K\_[X]{} & K\_[\_X]{} , where $K_{\sigma_\psi}$, $K_{\sigma_X }$ and $K_{\psi X}\equiv\kappa_{\psi X}/(2N)$ are collected in Tables \[tab\_phi\] and \[tab-coloured-functions\]. Note that when $K_{\psi X}=0$ (equivalently $A_{\psi X}=0$) there is no mixing between the singlets $\sigma_\psi$ and $\sigma_X$. For simplicity, we have introduced the shorthand notations $\t \Pi^\psi_i \equiv \t \Pi_i(p^2,M_\psi^2)$ and $\t \Pi^X_i\equiv \t \Pi_i(p^2,M_X^2)$ for the one-loop correlators. From the above matrices, one can now define the resummed matrix correlator $\mathbf{\overline{\Pi}}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}$ \_[\_\_X]{}= \_[\_\_X]{} + \_[\_\_X]{} (2 \_[\_\_X]{}) \_[\_\_X]{} += (11 - 2\_[\_\_X]{} \_[\_\_X]{})\^[-1]{} \_[\_\_X]{}, \[Pisigc\] and the resonance mass eigenvalues are obtained as the roots of the equation $ \det (1\!\!1 - 2 \mathbf{\Pi}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X} \,\mathbf{K}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}) = 0$, where $$\begin{aligned} \det (1\!\!1 - 2\mathbf{\Pi}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X} \mathbf{K}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}) &=& 1 - 2K_{\sigma_\psi} \t \Pi_{S}^\psi -2 K_{\sigma_X} \t \Pi_{S}^X + 4 \left(K_{\sigma_\psi} K_{\sigma_X} -K_{\psi X}^2\right) \t \Pi_{S}^\psi \t\Pi_{S}^X \nonumber \\ &=& c^S_0(p^2) + c^S_1(p^2) p^2 +c^S_2(p^2) (p^2)^2 ~. \label{detsig}\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients $c^S_i(p^2)$ are functions of the couplings $K_i$, and of the loop functions $\t A_0(M^2_\psi)$, $\t A_0(M^2_X)$, $\t B_0(p^2, M^2_\psi)$, and $\t B_0(p^2, M^2_X)$. It is convenient to write the determinant as if it were a quadratic form in $p^2$, because the $p^2$-dependence of the coefficients $c^S_i(p^2)$, through the loop functions $\t B_0(p^2,M^2_{\psi,X})$, does not induce additional pole structure. Then, the scalar-singlet pole masses are obtained as the roots of this quadratic equation, evaluated at a self-consistent value of $p^2$, $$M_{\sigma_0,\sigma'}^2 = {\rm Re} [g_{\sigma_0,\sigma'}(M_{\sigma_0,\sigma'}^2)] ~,\qquad\quad g_{\sigma_0,\sigma^\prime}(p^2) \equiv \dfrac{-c_1^S(p^2) \pm \sqrt{[c_1^S(p^2)]^2- 4 c_2^S(p^2) c_0^S(p^2)}}{2 c_2^S(p^2)}~. \label{sig0sigp}$$ The explicit expressions of the two scalar singlet masses $M^2_{\sigma_0}, M^2_{\sigma^\prime}$ are straightforwardly derived from the above equations, but are not very simple or telling, even in the chiral limit $m_X=0$, so that we refrain from giving them here. In the numerical illustrations below we use these exact expressions. As we will examine quantitatively below, the lightest scalar mass $M_{\sigma_0}$ is a [decreasing]{} function of $r\equiv \kappa_B/\kappa_A$, at least as long as $M_{\psi,X} \ll \Lambda$, and it can even vanish at a critical value $r_c$, becoming formally tachyonic beyond. This critical value should therefore be considered as an intrinsic upper bound, since for $r\ge r_c$ the minimum of the effective scalar potential is destabilised, that is, the solution of the NJL mass-gap equations becomes unreliable. It is clear that $M_{\sigma_0}$ can only vanish if $c^S_0(0)=0$ in Eq. (\[detsig\]) (irrespectively of the additional $p^2$-dependence from the $\t B_0$ functions). The latter condition determines $r_c$ as a function of the parameters $N$, $M_X$ and $M_\psi$, once one eliminates the coupling $\kappa_{A6}$ using Eq. (\[gap-2sectors\]), as well as $\kappa_{B6}$ and $\kappa_{\psi X}$ using Eqs. (\[kbkb62\]) and (\[kpsiX\]). Then, in the chiral limit $m_X=0$, the condition $c^S_0(0)=0$ takes the form 1+ 2r + r\^2 =0 , \[kbcsig0\] where $f_6\equiv 1+2B_6(0)M^2_X/A_6$ , and we are using the shorthand notations $A_4\equiv \t A_0(M^2_\psi)$, $A_6\equiv \t A_0(M^2_X)$, and similarly for the functions $B_{4,6}(p^2)$. The mass of $\sigma_0$ vanishes as long as Eq. (\[kbcsig0\]), that is quadratic in $r$, has a real and positive root $r_c$, whose value depends on the dynamical masses $M_{\psi,X}$ and on $N$. For example, if one fixes $\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_A$, one finds that $\xi{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}1.4-1.5$ implies $\kappa_B/\kappa_A \le r_c \ll 1$ already for $N=2$, and the upper bound becomes more stringent proportionally to $\sim 1/N$. For $m_X=0$ and $\xi=1.3$, one finds $r_c \simeq 0.103 $ for $N=2$, and $r_c \simeq 0.024 $ for $N=4$. However, for larger values of $\xi{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}1.7-1.8$, Eq. (\[kbcsig0\]) has no longer a real positive root, instead $M_{\sigma_0}(\xi,r)$ has a positive minimum, at increasingly large values of $r$ as $\xi$ increases. As we will see in the next subsection, there is another upper bound on $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, Eq. (\[kbcrit\]), originating from the pseudoscalar-singlet mixing, also related to vacuum stability. Assuming again $\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_A$, one finds that for $\xi{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}1.4$ the bound from Eq. (\[kbcrit\]) has a numerical value very close to the solution $r_c$ of Eq. (\[kbcsig0\]), although its analytic form is different. For larger values of $\xi$, the bound from Eq. (\[kbcrit\]) is much more stringent and therefore supersedes the condition $r<r_c$. As we will examine in concrete illustrations below, these bounds put stringent restrictions on the singlet mass spectrum. As further explained below for the pseudoscalar case, these constraints should be viewed as an appropriate generalisation of the constraint $\kappa_B/\kappa_A < 1$, that applies to the $SU(4)$ sector in isolation. Concerning the scalar decay constants, defined as in Eq. (\[defGS\]) with the obvious replacement $S\to S_0^\psi, S_0^X$, they can be derived by generalising the procedure explained in section \[secWSR\]. They are defined by the residues of the diagonal elements of $\mathbf{\overline{\Pi}}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}$ at the respective pole masses, (G\^\_[\_0]{})\^2 -\_[p\^2M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} (p\^2-M\^2\_[\_0]{}) \_[\_\_X]{}\^[11]{}(p\^2) ,(G\^X\_[\_0]{})\^2 -\_[p\^2M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} (p\^2-M\^2\_[\_0]{}) \_[\_\_X]{}\^[22]{}(p\^2) , \[GSpsiX\] and analogously for $\sigma_0\rightarrow \sigma^\prime$. These decay constants enter in the scalar sum rules in combination with the other (pseudo)scalar decay constants. We refrain here to give their explicit expressions, which are not simple. The results obtained from Eq. (\[GSpsiX\]) can be crosschecked with the off-diagonal elements of $\mathbf{\overline{\Pi}}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}$, as $G_{\sigma_0}^\psi G_{\sigma_0}^X= - \lim_{p^2\to M^2_{\sigma_0}} (p^2-M^2_{\sigma_0}) \mathbf{\overline{\Pi}}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}^{12}(p^2) $, and similarly for $\sigma'$. ### Pseudoscalar singlet mixing {#Pseudoscalar singlet mixing and properties} Considering now the more involved pseudoscalar sector, we start from the complete $4 \times 4$ matrix coupling and correlator to account both for singlet mixing and pseudoscalar-axial singlet vectors $a^\mu_\psi, a^\mu_X$ mixing. The latter mixing is treated similarly to the pseudoscalar axial-vector mixing for the Goldstone boson sector as considered in section \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\]. Accordingly we have \_[\_\_X]{}= K\_[\_]{}& -K\_[X]{} & 0 & 0\ -K\_[X]{} & K\_[\_X]{} & 0 & 0\ 0 & 0 & K\_a & 0\ 0 & 0 & 0 & K\_[a\_c]{} , \_[\_\_X]{} = \_P\^& 0 & \_[AP]{}\^& 0\ 0 & \_P\^X & 0 & \_[AP]{}\^X\ \_[AP]{}\^& 0 & \_A\^[L ]{} & 0\ 0 & \_[AP]{}\^X & 0 & \_A\^[L X]{} , \[KPieta\] where all the relevant pseudoscalar and axial-vector correlators and couplings for the $SU(4)$ and $SU(6)$ sectors are given respectively in Tables \[tab\_phi\] and \[tab-coloured-functions\] (and we have used in Eq. (\[KPieta\]) the same short-hand notation as in section \[Scalar mixing and eigenstates\]). From the above matrices, we obtain the resummed two-point correlator defined as $$\bold{\overline{\Pi}}_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}= (\bold{1\!\!1}- 2\bold{\Pi}_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}\:\bold{K}_{\eta_\psi \eta_X})^{-1}\; \bold{\Pi}_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}~. \label{Pieta}$$ According to the previous equation, the pseudoscalar mass eigenvalues are given by the zeros of the determinant of $\bold{1\!\!1} -2 \bold{K_{\eta_\psi \eta_X} \Pi_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}}$, which we give explicitly only in the chiral limit $m_X=0$ for simplicity. Note that the latter determinant keeps the form of a quadratic equation, apart from further $p^2$-dependence from the $\t B_0$ function appearing in the coefficients. After using the relevant relations, Eqs. (\[kbkb6\]), (\[kbkb62\]) and (\[kpsiX\]), and the mass gap equations (\[gap-2sectors\]) in order to express all the effective four-fermion couplings $\kappa_i$ in terms of $\kappa_B$ alone, we obtain = p\^2 , \[deteta\] where in notations similar to the scalar case, we define the relevant coefficients of the quadratic equation as $$c^P_1(p^2)= 4\frac{\kappa_B A_4}{(2N+1)A_6 M_X^2}\, \left[12 N(N-1) B_4(p^2) M_\psi^2 g_{a_c}^{-1}(p^2) +(2N+1) B_6(p^2) M_X^2 g_a^{-1}(p^2) \right]~,$$ $$c^P_2(p^2) = -\frac{B_4(p^2) B_6(p^2)}{(2N+1)A_6^2 M_X^2}\, \left[ 24 N(N-1) \kappa_B A_4 M_\psi^2 -(2N+1)(\kappa_A-\kappa_B) A_6 M_X^2 \right] . \label{D2eq}$$ The appearance of the axial singlet form factors $g_a$, $g_{a_c}$ is a result of the mixing between the singlet pseudoscalar axial-vector g\_a\^[-1]{}(p\^2) = 1+ \_A\^[L ]{}(p\^2) , g\_[a\_c]{}\^[-1]{}(p\^2) = 1+ \_A\^[L X]{}(p\^2) . The pseudoscalar analogue of the term $c_0^S(p^2)$ in the determinant of $\bold{1\!\!1} -2\bold{K_{\eta_\psi \eta_X} \Pi_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}}$ vanishes in the chiral limit $m_X=0$, as is explicit from Eq. (\[deteta\]), after non-trivial cancellations using the gap equations (\[gap-2sectors\]), and Eqs.(\[kbkb6\]) and (\[kbkb62\]), thereby exhibiting the remaining singlet Goldstone boson associated with the non-anomalous combination of $U(1)_\psi$ and $U(1)_X$ transformations. Obviously, the other pseudoscalar singlet has a non-vanishing mass even for $m_X=0$, with a relatively compact expression, $$M_{\eta^\prime}^2= {\rm Re}[g_{\eta'}(M_{\eta'}^2)] +{\cal O}(m_X)~, \qquad\qquad g_{\eta'}(p^2) \equiv -\frac{c^P_1(p^2)}{c^P_2(p^2)} ~. \label{Metap}$$ Note that for sufficiently large $N$ (but keeping in mind $N \le 18$), $M^2_{\eta^\prime}$ is of order ${\cal O}(N^0)$, using that $\kappa_B\simeq 1/N$, while the not-shown ${\cal O}(m_X)$ term is of order $1/N$. This is naively compatible with the behaviour of the anomaly, which also goes like a constant for sufficiently large values of $N$, see Eq. (\[U1\_X\_div\]) (considering that $g_{HC}^2\simeq 1/N$). An important, interesting feature of the whole model emerges from the examination of Eq. (\[Metap\]): for any $p^2$, the function $g_{\eta'}(p^2)$ has a [pole]{} at a particular value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, as follows from Eq. (\[D2eq\]), = . \[kbcrit\] In other words, the $\eta^\prime$ mass grows rapidly and decouples when approaching from below the critical value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ defined by Eq. (\[kbcrit\]). This is not unexpected, as it is simply a generalisation of a property already observed in the $SU(4)$ sector in isolation. In the latter case, recall that the mass-gap equation (\[gap\]) has solutions only for $\kappa^2_B <\kappa^2_A$, as discussed after Eq. (\[gap2\]): as also explained in Ref. [@Barnard:2013zea], and apparent in Eqs. (\[Lscal\]) and (\[Sprop\]), for $\kappa_B > \kappa_A$ the effective potential is destabilised around the origin, already at tree level and, although one could expect a spontaneous symmetry breaking of some of the symmetries, one cannot perform a proper minimisation to determine the vacuum, within the NJL framework. This feature is reflected also directly in the resonance mass spectrum, where the $\eta^\prime$ mass (for the $SU(4)$ sector in isolation) of Eq. (\[Meta\]) clearly has a pole for $\kappa_B=\kappa_A$ and becomes tachyonic for large $\kappa_B$. Now the critical value in the full model, determined by Eq. (\[kbcrit\]), should be considered accordingly as an absolute upper bound on $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. It takes a more involved dynamical form (depending also on the values of the mass gaps $M_\psi$ and $M_X$) precisely because the mixing, as induced by the effective operators in Eq. (\[L46\]), couples the two sectors, mass gaps and couplings, in a non-trivial way and involves $N$-dependent combinatorial factors. Note that, upon using the relation (\[kbkb62\]), the critical coupling in (\[kbcrit\]) translates into a simpler upper limit on $\kappa_{B6}$, approximately: < , \[kb6crit\] (upon neglecting higher order terms in $\kappa^2_{B6}$), in which the combinatoric factor $6(N-1)$ can be understood upon comparing with Eq. (\[effective-Lagrangian-2sectors\]), so that Eq. (\[kb6crit\]) is a more transparent analogue of the limit $\kappa_B < \kappa_A$ in the $SU(4)$ sector in isolation (let aside the presence of the loop functions $A_4/A_6$, that reflects the non-trivial dynamical connection between the two sectors). The bottom line is that Eq. (\[kbcrit\]) gives a tight upper bound on $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, due in particular to the small coefficient $1/24$. To get an idea, consider the chiral limit $m_X=0$ and fix $\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_A$: as discussed in section \[Mass gap equations and effective four-fermions couplings\], then $M_X$ lies slightly above $M_\psi$, with e.g. $M_X/M_\psi\simeq 1.15$ for $N=2$ and small $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. Thus, neglecting for simplicity the relatively small differences in the $\t A_0$ loop functions, Eq. (\[kbcrit\]) gives typically $\kappa_B/\kappa_A < 5/48 (M^2_X/M^2_\psi) \simeq 0.12$ for $N=2$, and the latter ratio decreases quite rapidly for larger $N$ due to the $\sim 1/N$ behaviour of Eq. (\[kbcrit\]), for instance $\kappa_B/\kappa_A < 1/32 (M^2_X/M^2_\psi) \simeq 0.04$ for $N=4$. More precisely, the physical upper bound on $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ is even more stringent. As the “running” mass $g_{\eta'}(p^2)$ grows rapidly when approaching from below the limiting value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ defined by Eq. (\[kbcrit\]), the corresponding pole-mass self-consistent equation for $M^2_{\eta'}$, given in Eq. (\[Metap\]), ceases to have a solution for a slightly smaller value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. Moreover a large width develops much below this bound, which turns out to rapidly exceed the pole mass. Accordingly, the NJL description of the $\eta'$ mass looses its validity for even smaller values of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. For a not too small $m_X \ne 0$, as discussed above, $M_X$ can be substantially larger than $M_\psi$, therefore the bound in Eq. (\[kbcrit\]) is delayed to larger $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. Still, it remains quite constraining as long as $m_X$ remains moderate with respect to $\Lambda$. A hierarchy among the mass gaps, $M_X\gg M_\psi$, can be also realised by taking $\kappa_{A6} > \kappa_A$, again relaxing the upper bound on $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. In summary, the detailed structure of the mixing sets the maximal allowed value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, with important consequences for the resonance mass spectrum, as we will illustrate below. For $m_X \ne 0$, the exact expressions of the two pseudoscalar singlet masses $M_{\eta_0}, M_{\eta^\prime}$ (used in our numerical analysis) become rather involved: Eq. (\[deteta\]) is modified to a “quadratic” polynomial equation in $p^2$ (i.e. upon formally neglecting the additional $p^2$-dependence coming from the loop functions, entering the polynomial coefficients). This is then more similar to the eigenvalue equation of the scalar case above, see Eqs. (\[detsig\]) and (\[sig0sigp\]), now with coefficients $c^{P}_i(p^2)$ which depends on $m_X$, where the coefficient of $(p^2)^0$ takes the form c\^P\_0 = 8 A\_4 \_B g\_a\^[-1]{}g\_[a\_c]{}\^[-1]{}. Indeed, the pNGB $\eta_0$ mass is given to a very good approximation by the first order expansion in $c^P_0$, namely M\^2\_[\_0]{} = - , \[Meta0\] which essentially captures its correct behaviour as long as $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ is moderate and $m_X \ll \Lambda$. For large values of $N$, $M^2_{\eta_0}$ is of order $1/N$. Once having determined the $\eta_0$ and $\eta^\prime$ masses, one can proceed to extract all relevant pseudoscalar decay constants from the pole mass residues of the matrix elements $\overline{\bold{\Pi}}_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}^{ij}(q^2)$ ($i,j=1,\cdots , 4$), where the resummed two-point correlator $\overline{\bold \Pi}_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}(q^2)$ is defined in Eq. (\[Pieta\]). The procedure is similar to the one explained in section \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\] for the simpler non-singlet case. More precisely, from the definitions of the decay constants $F^{\psi (X)}_{\eta_0}$, $G^{\psi (X)}_{\eta_0}$ in Eqs. (\[defFeta\]) and (\[defGeta\]), one obtains in general for $m_X\neq 0$ & \_[q\^2 M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} (q\^2-M\^2\_[\_0]{}) \^[11(22)]{}\_[\_\_X]{}(q\^2) -(G\^[(X)]{}\_[\_0]{})\^2 , & \_[q\^2 M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} (q\^2-M\^2\_[\_0]{}) \^[12,21]{}\_[\_\_X]{}(q\^2) -G\^\_[\_0]{} G\^\_[\_0]{} , \[PietaFG1\] & \_[q\^2 M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} \^[13,31]{}\_[\_\_X]{}(q\^2) - , & \_[q\^2 M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} \^[14,41]{}\_[\_\_X]{}(q\^2) - ,\ & \_[q\^2 M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} \^[23,32]{}\_[\_\_X]{}(q\^2) - , & \_[q\^2 M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} \^[24]{}\_[\_\_X]{}(q\^2) - , \[PietaFG\] as well as && \_[q\^2 M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} \^[33]{}\_[\_\_X]{}(q\^2) - , \_[q\^2 M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} \^[44]{}\_[\_\_X]{}(q\^2) - ,\ & & \_[q\^2 M\^2\_[\_0]{}]{} \^[34,43]{}\_[\_\_X]{}(q\^2) - , \[PietaPiL\] where the factors $2\sqrt{2}$ and $2 \sqrt{3}$ take into account the normalisation of the $U(1)_\psi$ and $U(1)_X$ currents, respectively. Similar expressions hold for the $\eta^\prime$ with the obvious replacement $\eta_0 \to \eta^\prime$. Notice that the information on both diagonal and non-diagonal terms allow to extract unambiguously the signs of $G^{\psi (X)}_{\eta_0 (\eta^\prime)}$ and $F^{\psi (X)}_{\eta_0 (\eta^\prime)}$. In the chiral limit, the pole of the $\eta_0$ migrates from the longitudinal to the transverse axial correlator. Consequently, in that case one can not extract the decay constants $F^{\psi (X)}_{\eta_0}$ from Eq. (\[PietaPiL\]), but only from Eq. (\[PietaFG\]). In the following, for reasons of simplicity, we present analytical results only for the chiral limit $m_X = 0$. Let us consider the resummed axial longitudinal correlators, given by $q^2 \overline{\Pi}^L_{a_{\psi(X)}}(q^2)=8 (12) \overline{\bold \Pi}^{33 (44)}_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}(q^2)$ and $q^2 \overline{\Pi}^L_{a_{\psi} a_X}(q^2)=4 \sqrt{6} ~\overline{\bold \Pi}^{34,43}_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}(q^2)$, see Eq. (\[PietaPiL\]). One can check that the linear combination corresponding to the conserved $U(1)$ current, vanishes for any $q^2$ \_0\^L(q\^2) = 9(N-1)\^2 \_[a\_]{}\^[L]{} (q\^2) -6(N-1) \_[a\_a\_X]{}\^[L]{}(q\^2) + \_[a\_X]{}\^[L]{}(q\^2) =0 , \_[a\_a\_X]{}\^[L]{} = . This is an important check, since the $U(1)$ current is conserved, despite the non-zero mass gap spoiling the Ward identity at the naive one-loop level. Then, once fully resummed, there is no longitudinal part in the corresponding axial two-points function, generalising, for the more involved singlet sector, the results obtained in section \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\] for the simpler $SU(4)$ sector in isolation with (Goldstone) pseudoscalar-axial mixing. Coming now to the decay constants defined from Eqs. (\[PietaFG1\]) and (\[PietaFG\]), using the gap equations (\[gap-2sectors\]) and the constraints among the effective couplings in Eqs. (\[kbkb6\]), (\[kbkb62\]) and (\[kpsiX\]), and after some algebra, one obtains (in the chiral limit) $$(G_{\eta_0}^\psi)^2= \frac{-12(2N)^2 (N-1) A_4^2 M_\psi^2 g_a^{-1}(0) g_{a_c}^{-1}(0)} {12 N(N-1) B_4(0) M_\psi^2 g_{a_c}^{-1}(0) +(2N+1) B_6(0) M_X^2 g_a^{-1}(0)} ~, \qquad (G_{\eta_0}^X)^2= \frac{(2N+1)^2 A_6^2 M_X^2}{6 (2N)^2 A_4^2 M_\psi^2} (G_{\eta_0}^\psi)^2~, \label{Geta0psi}$$ $$(F_{\eta_0}^\psi)^2 =\frac{-96 (2N)^2 (N-1)B_4^2(0) M_\psi^4 g_a(0) g_{a_c}^{-1}(0)} {12 N(N-1) B_4(0) M_\psi^2 g_{a_c}^{-1}(0) +(2N+1) B_6(0) M_X^2 g_a^{-1}(0)} = \tilde{\Pi}_A^{L \psi}(0) g_a(0) \left[1- 4 \kappa_B\frac{A_4 B_6(0) g_a^{-1}(0)}{A_6\,c^P_1(0)} \right]~, \label{Feta0psi}$$ $$\begin{aligned} &&(F_{\eta_0}^X)^2 = \frac{-24 (N-1)(2N+1)^2 B_6^2(0) M_X^4 g_{a}(0)^{-1} g_{a_c}(0)} {12 N(N-1) B_4(0) M_\psi^2 g_{a_c}^{-1}(0) +(2N+1) B_6(0) M_X^2 g_a^{-1}(0)} \nonumber \\ &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad =\tilde{\Pi}_A^{L X}(0) g_{a_c}(0) \left[1- 24 \kappa_B \frac{(2N)(N-1) B_4(0) A_4 M_\psi^2 g_{a_c}^{-1}(0)} {(2N+1) A_6 M^2_X\,c^P_1(0)} \right]~. \label{Feta0X}\end{aligned}$$ Notice from the second expressions of Eqs. (\[Feta0psi\]) and (\[Feta0X\]) that the naive expressions of these decay constants, namely when the two sectors are in isolation, are respectively recovered for $M_X \to 0$ ($M_\psi\to 0$) as intuitively expected. One can compute in a similar way the decay constants associated with the $\eta^\prime$. We do not explicitly give them because the $\eta^\prime$ is not a pNGB and these expressions are rather involved. The conserved $U(1)$ current ${\cal J}^\mu_0$ of Eq. (\[axial\_singlet\]) implies F\_[\_0 , \^]{} = F\_[\_0 , \^]{}\^X - 3(N-1) F\_[\_0 , \^]{}\^ . \[lincomb\] From Eqs. (\[Feta0psi\]) and (\[Feta0X\]), we obtain the decay constant of the ${\eta_0}$ in the chiral limit F\^2\_[\_0]{} = -24 (N-1)+[O]{}(m\_X) , F\^2\_[\^]{} = [O]{}(m\_X) . \[Feta0\] As expected on general grounds (see section \[Sum rules and pseudoscalar decay constants in the flavour-singlet sector\]), $F_{\eta_0}$ is non-zero in the chiral limit, while $F_{\eta^\prime}$ vanishes. Furthermore, one can also check, after some algebra, that the generally expected relations in Eq. (\[FetaMrelation\]) are indeed well satisfied (at least up to terms of higher orders in $m_X$) by our expressions above, which is a very non-trivial crosscheck of the NJL calculations. Likewise the general relations given in Eq. (\[FGeta0\]) are also well satisfied, providing an additional non-trivial crosscheck. Actually, in the chiral limit the decay constants $F_{\eta_0}$ for the true Goldstone can be more directly calculated from the resummed transverse axial correlator $\overline{\Pi}_{a_\psi}(q^2)$ and $\overline{\Pi}_{a_X}(q^2)$ evaluated at $q^2=0$, in direct analogy with the non-singlet calculation of $F_G$. From Eq. (\[FGsum\]), one obtains F\_[\_0]{}\^2 \_[q\^20]{}\[-q\^2 \_0(q\^2)\]= -\_[q\^20]{} q\^2 \[9(N-1)\^2 \_[a\_]{}(q\^2)+ \_[a\_X]{}(q\^2)\] , \[Feta0altern\] where the second equality comes from Eq. (\[axial\_singlet\]), taking into account that there is no mixing for the transverse contributions, i.e. $\overline{\Pi}_{a_\psi a_X}(q^2)=0$. The transverse resummed correlators are simply given by expressions similar to the one in Eq. (\[FGsum\]): $-q^2 \overline{\Pi}_{a_{\psi}}(q^2) = 8 \t \Pi^\psi_A(q^2) g_A(q^2)$ and $-q^2 \overline{\Pi}_{A_{X}}(q^2) = 12 \t \Pi^X_A(q^2) g_{A_c}(q^2)$. Thus using the expression of the one-loop functions $\t \Pi^{\psi(X)}_A(0)$ from Table \[tab\_phi\] and Table \[tab-coloured-functions\] directly gives F\_[\_0]{}\^2 = 9(N-1)\^2 + , which is consistent with Eq. (\[Feta0\]). ### The mass spectrum of the singlet resonances {#The mass spectrum of the singlet resonances} We now study the mass spectrum of the scalar and pseudoscalar singlet resonances. Before turning to the more involved case including the mixing between the resonances from the electroweak and the coloured sectors, let us consider the instructive no-mixing case, where $A_{\psi X}=0$ and consequently $\kappa_B=\kappa_{B6}=\kappa_{\psi X}=0$. From Eq. (\[detsig\]) we obtain for the scalar singlet masses $$A_{\psi X}=0: \qquad\qquad M_{\sigma_0}^2=4 M_\psi^2 =M_{\sigma_\psi}^2~, \qquad M_{\sigma^\prime}^2=4 M_X^2 - \frac{m_X}{M_X} \frac{1}{2 \kappa_{A6} B_6(M_{\sigma^\prime}^2)} =M_{\sigma_X}^2~,$$ which of course reproduce the masses in isolation. As discussed above, in our benchmark case where $\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_A$ we have $M_\psi \leqslant M_X$, so that in the no-mixing case we have $M_{\sigma_0}^2\leqslant M_{\sigma^\prime}^2$ where the equality is valid for $m_X=0$. In the same way, from Eq. (\[deteta\]) we obtain for the pseudoscalar masses $$A_{\psi X}=0: \qquad\qquad M_{\eta_0}^2=0=M_{\eta_\psi}^2~, \qquad M_{\eta^\prime}^2=-\frac{m_X}{M_X} \frac{g_{a_c}^{-1}}{2\kappa_{A6}B_6}= M_{\eta_X}^2~.$$ Again, the latter expressions reproduce those in isolation, and $M_{\eta_0}^2\leqslant M_{\eta^\prime}^2$, where the equality is valid for $m_X=0$. Once we switch on the mixing, important new features arise, as discussed above: in particular, the upper bound on $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ from Eq. (\[kbcrit\]), and the corresponding rapid growth of $M_{\eta^\prime}$ when approaching from below the critical value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[plot-kB-singlet\] for $N=2$ and $N=4$, as usual assuming $\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_A$. Consequently, the $\eta^\prime$ mass may be of order $f$ for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A\ll 0.01$, but once $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ grows to larger values, already well below the bound of Eq. (\[kbcrit\]), $\eta'$ decouples rapidly. Another interesting feature is implicit in the $\eta_0$ mass expression Eq.(\[Meta0\]): namely, $M_{\eta_0}$ rapidly reaches an asymptotic limit for moderate $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ values, for fixed $N$, and this (approximate) maximum decreases as $1/N$ for large $N$, as also illustrated in Fig. \[plot-kB-singlet\]. More precisely, in the approximation of neglecting the differences in momenta of the loop functions, one obtains for large $N$ values M\^2\_[\_0]{}- +[O]{}(1/N\^2). \[approxMeta0\]Of course $\eta_0$ being a pNGB, $M_{\eta_0}^2$ vanishes linearly in $m_X$. This shows in addition that $M_{\eta_0}$ is approximately $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$-independent, once this ratio takes moderately large values, as shown in Fig. \[plot-kB-singlet\]. Its mass can be well below $f$, for sufficiently large $N$ and/or small $m_X$. \ The two [scalar]{} singlet masses are defined implicitly by Eq. (\[sig0sigp\]). The heaviest state $\sigma^\prime$ always lies in the multi-TeV range, as illustrated in Figs. \[plot-kB-singlet\] and \[plot-xi-singlet\]. More interestingly, as explained in section \[Scalar mixing and eigenstates\], for $\xi{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}1.7-1.8$ the lightest scalar mass $M_{\sigma_0}$ is a decreasing function of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ and vanishes at a critical value given by the (positive) root of Eq. (\[kbcsig0\]). This critical value is different from the one defined by Eq. (\[kbcrit\]), but for $\xi{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}1.4$ it is numerically very close to the latter, more precisely it lies (slightly) below, for any $N\ge 2$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[plot-kB-singlet\] for $N=2$ and $N=4$. Beyond the critical value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$, $\sigma_0$ becomes tachyonic and the effective scalar potential is destabilised, therefore $M_{\sigma_0}$ can be very small just before reaching the critical value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. Recall, however, that for $\xi{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}1.7$, the solution $M_{\sigma_0}=0$ at positive $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ disappears, being replaced by a minimum positive pass, that is reached for an increasing value of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ as $\xi$ increases. But, in this range for $\xi$, the bound from Eq. (\[kbcrit\]) is more stringent, restricting $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ to be much smaller and therefore rendering non-physical the behaviour of $M_{\sigma_0}(\kappa_B/\kappa_A)$ for larger values of $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$. Finally we also illustrate in Fig. \[plot-xi-singlet\] the $\xi$-dependence of the scalar and pseudoscalar singlet masses, for representative values of $N$, and for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ fixed safely below the upper bound in Eq. (\[kbcrit\]). Notice that $M_{\sigma_0}$ vanishes for a sufficiently low value of $\xi$, where one saturates the condition of Eq. (\[kbcsig0\]), because the positive root of this equation decreases with $\xi$. As a consequence, the whole meson mass spectrum should not be trusted for $\xi$ smaller than this critical value, as the vacuum becomes unstable. ![Singlet scalar and pseudoscalar meson masses in units of $f$, as a function of $\xi$ for $N=4$, $\kappa_A=\kappa_{A6}$, $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.01$, $m_X=0$ (left panel) and $m_X=f/10$ (right panel). The Goldstone boson $\eta_0$ is massless in the chiral limit.[]{data-label="plot-xi-singlet"}](masses-singlet-mx0-1.pdf "fig:") ![Singlet scalar and pseudoscalar meson masses in units of $f$, as a function of $\xi$ for $N=4$, $\kappa_A=\kappa_{A6}$, $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.01$, $m_X=0$ (left panel) and $m_X=f/10$ (right panel). The Goldstone boson $\eta_0$ is massless in the chiral limit.[]{data-label="plot-xi-singlet"}](masses-singlet-mxnon0-1.pdf "fig:") To conclude this section, let us briefly discuss the $\eta_0$ couplings to the SM gauge bosons. The collider phenomenology of this singlet has already been discussed in general in Ref. [@Belyaev:2016ftv]. As mentioned at the end of section \[gauging\], in the chiral limit the anomalous coupling of a pseudo-Goldstone boson to a pair of gauge bosons is fully determined by the Wess-Zumino-Witten effective action. While the $SU(4)/Sp(4)$ \[$SU(6)/SO(6)$\] pseudo-Goldstone bosons may couple only to the electroweak (colour) gauge bosons, the $\eta_0$ is specially interesting as it couples to both, because it couples to both the $\psi$ and $X$-fermion number currents ${\cal J}^0_{\psi\mu}$ and ${\cal J}^0_{X\mu}$. The two currents have a $U(1)_Y$ anomaly, and ${\cal J}^0_{\psi\mu}$ \[${\cal J}^0_{X\mu}$\] has a $SU(2)_L$ \[$SU(3)_c$\] anomaly as well. Then, specialising Eq. (\[WZW\]) to our model, the $\eta_0$ couplings to the SM gauge bosons take the form [rcl]{} [L]{}\_[eff,\_0]{}\^[WZW]{} &=& - (2N) (g\^2 W\_[i]{}\^\_i +g’\^2 B\_\^)\ &&- (2N+1)(N-1) (2 g\_s\^2 G\_[a]{}\^\_a + g’\^2 B\_\^)\ &=& \_0 , \[WZWeta0\]where the first (second) line is the contribution of the $\psi$ ($X$) fermion loops, and the dots stand for couplings involving the $Z$ or $W$ field strengths. Here $\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}\equiv \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} F^{\rho\sigma}/2$ and the coefficients $k^0_{\gamma\gamma,gg}$ are straightforwardly computed using $B_{\mu\nu}\supset c_wA_{\mu\nu}$, $W_{3\mu\nu}\supset s_wA_{\mu\nu}$, and $e=gs_w=g' c_w$, and similarly for couplings involving the $Z$ or $W$ field strengths. The decay widths into massless gauge bosons are (\_0 )= 4\_[em]{}\^2 M\_[\_0]{}\^3 (k\^0\_)\^2 ,(\_0 gg)= 32\_s\^2 M\_[\_0]{}\^3 (k\^0\_[gg]{})\^2 . Note that these rates are determined only by group theory factors, up to the decay constant $F_{\eta_0}$. The latter can be computed in the NJL approximation, and the result is given in Eq. (\[Feta0\]). Thus, the golden channel for the discovery of $\eta_0$ at the LHC is production via gluon-gluon fusion and decay into two gauge bosons: di-jet, di-photon, $\gamma Z$, $ZZ$ and $WW$ final states. We recall that the mass of $\eta_0$ is induced by the explicit breaking of the anomaly-free $U(1)$ symmetry: this is due either to an explicit mass term for the constituent fermions, $m_X\ne 0$, or to the proto-Yukawa couplings of the SM fermions to the composite sector, that we do not specify in this paper. Our NJL result for $M_{\eta_0}$ is given in Eqs. (\[Meta0\]), (\[approxMeta0\]). The corrections to Eq. (\[WZWeta0\]), that strictly holds in the chiral limit, are expected to be subleading, as long as $\eta_0$ is significantly lighter than the non-Goldstone resonances. Note that the ratio $\Gamma(\eta_0 \rightarrow gg)/\Gamma(\eta_0 \rightarrow \gamma\gamma) = 18(2N+1)^2/(N-4)^2 \cdot \alpha_s^2/\alpha_{em}^2 $ is independent from $F_{\eta_0}$ and $M_{\eta_0}$, and is larger than $2\cdot 10^4$ for any $N$. Thus a discovery appears more likely in the di-jet channel. Indeed, the alleged di-photon resonance at 750 GeV could not be fitted by $\eta_0$, because the gluons-to-photons ratio is too large [@Belyaev:2015hgo]. Comments on spectral sum rules {#sum-rules-full-model} ------------------------------ In this section, we comment on the spectral sum rules when both the electroweak and the coloured sectors are included. We will not enter in the details here but rather focus on the main differences as compared to the electroweak sector in isolation. The latter has been extensively discussed in section \[secWSR\]. A few modifications are worth noticing. While in the electroweak sector the sum rule involving $\Pi_{S-P}^\psi (q^2)$ is not expected to hold (see footnote \[fnte\_SP\]), in the coloured sector $\Pi_{S-P}^X (q^2)$ is an order parameter, therefore the first sum rule in Eq. (\[scalSR\]) is operative as well. On the other hand, the presence of an explicit symmery-breaking mass term $m_X \neq 0$ spoils the convergence of the integrals in Eqs. (\[WSRVA\]) and (\[scalSR\]), so that one can only write the convergent sum rule of Eq. (\[WSRmexpl\]). Therefore, the saturation of the coloured-sector sum rules is expected to worsen as $m_X$ increases. Recall that the NJL approximation already implies large departures from the sum rules as shown, for the electroweak sector, in Figs. \[fig\_Sum\_Rules\] and \[wsrpole\]. Another qualitative difference is induced by the interplay between the two sectors. Indeed, the mixings, defined by Eqs. (\[Pisigc\]) and (\[Pieta\]), between the (pseudo)scalar singlets of the two sectors modify the two-point (pseudo)scalar singlet correlators as compared to their expressions when considered in isolation. As a consequence, the singlet two-point correlators develop two poles, corresponding to the $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma^\prime$ ($\eta_0$ and $\eta^\prime$) in the (pseudo)scalar case. Let us assume that $m_X=0$ and take the example of the order parameters $\Pi_{S^0-P^0}^{\psi (X)}(q^2)$, which involves only the singlets densities $S^0_{\psi, X}$ and $P^0_{\psi, X}$. The corresponding sum rules are then given by $$\begin{aligned} \int dt ~ {\rm Im} \overline{\Pi}_{S_0-P_0}^{\psi (X)}(t) &\equiv & \int dt \left[ {\rm Im} \overline{\bold\Pi}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}^{11 (22)} (t)- {\rm Im} \overline{\bold\Pi}_{\eta_\psi \eta_X}^{11 (22)} (t) \right]=0 \nonumber \\ &=& (G_{\sigma_0}^{\psi (X)})^2+ (G_{\sigma^\prime}^{\psi (X)})^2-(G_{\eta_0}^{\psi (X)})^2- (G_{\eta^\prime}^{\psi (X)})^2=0~,\end{aligned}$$ where the second line has been obtained by assuming the saturation, in the narrow-width approximation, of the correlators by the first light resonances. The expressions of the scalar decay constants $G_i^{\psi (X)}$ can be obtained from sections \[Scalar mixing and eigenstates\] and \[Pseudoscalar singlet mixing and properties\]. ![Left panel: The spectral function ${\rm Im} \Pi_{S_0}^{\psi X}(t)$ as a function of $t/(2 M_\psi)^2$ for three values $\xi=1.15$ (solid green line), $\xi=1.3$ (dashed blue line) and $\xi=2$ (solid red line). The other parameters are fixed to $N=4$, $\kappa_{A6}/\kappa_A=1$, $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.01$ and $m_X=0$. One clearly sees the two poles, associated with the $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma^\prime$ scalar singlets, which become closer and closer as $\xi$ increases. In the opposite limit where $\xi$ decreases, the $\sigma_0$ becomes lighter and lighter up to be massless for $\xi \simeq 1.15$ while the $\sigma^\prime$ always stays close to the threshold $4 M_\psi^2 \simeq 4 M_X^2$. The residues of the poles have an opposite sign in agreement with the expectation from the associated sum rule. Right panel: The absolute value of the ratio of the integral $ \int^{t_0}_0 dt ~{\rm Im} \Pi_{S_0}^{\psi X}(t)/ \int_{t_0}^\infty dt ~{\rm Im} \Pi_{S_0}^{\psi X}(t)$ (lower blue lines) as a function of $\xi$ for two values of the number of hypercolours $N=4$ (solid line) and $N=2$ (dashed line). As explained in the text, ${t_0}$ is the value above which the spectral density becomes negative. Also shown is the absolute value of the ratio $(G_{\sigma_0}^{\psi} G_{\sigma_0}^{X})/(G_{\sigma^\prime}^{\psi} G_{\sigma^\prime}^{X})$ (upper red solid and dashed lines). The other parameters are fixed to $\kappa_{A6}/\kappa_A=1$, $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.01$ and $m_X=0$. []{data-label="spectral-density-mixing-singlet"}](spectral-density-singlet-mixing.pdf "fig:") ![Left panel: The spectral function ${\rm Im} \Pi_{S_0}^{\psi X}(t)$ as a function of $t/(2 M_\psi)^2$ for three values $\xi=1.15$ (solid green line), $\xi=1.3$ (dashed blue line) and $\xi=2$ (solid red line). The other parameters are fixed to $N=4$, $\kappa_{A6}/\kappa_A=1$, $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.01$ and $m_X=0$. One clearly sees the two poles, associated with the $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma^\prime$ scalar singlets, which become closer and closer as $\xi$ increases. In the opposite limit where $\xi$ decreases, the $\sigma_0$ becomes lighter and lighter up to be massless for $\xi \simeq 1.15$ while the $\sigma^\prime$ always stays close to the threshold $4 M_\psi^2 \simeq 4 M_X^2$. The residues of the poles have an opposite sign in agreement with the expectation from the associated sum rule. Right panel: The absolute value of the ratio of the integral $ \int^{t_0}_0 dt ~{\rm Im} \Pi_{S_0}^{\psi X}(t)/ \int_{t_0}^\infty dt ~{\rm Im} \Pi_{S_0}^{\psi X}(t)$ (lower blue lines) as a function of $\xi$ for two values of the number of hypercolours $N=4$ (solid line) and $N=2$ (dashed line). As explained in the text, ${t_0}$ is the value above which the spectral density becomes negative. Also shown is the absolute value of the ratio $(G_{\sigma_0}^{\psi} G_{\sigma_0}^{X})/(G_{\sigma^\prime}^{\psi} G_{\sigma^\prime}^{X})$ (upper red solid and dashed lines). The other parameters are fixed to $\kappa_{A6}/\kappa_A=1$, $\kappa_B/\kappa_A=0.01$ and $m_X=0$. []{data-label="spectral-density-mixing-singlet"}](integration-saturation-singlets.pdf "fig:") When the two sectors are present, an additional $U(1)$ symmetry is also preserved, and leads to two additional sum rules (see section \[Sum rules and pseudoscalar decay constants in the flavour-singlet sector\]). For simplicity, in the sequel we focus only on the scalar sum rule, in order to avoid the complications coming from the pseudoscalar-axial mixing. The corresponding sum rule takes the following form $$\int dt ~{\rm Im} \overline{\Pi}_{S_0}^{\psi X} \equiv \int dt ~{\rm Im} \overline{\bold\Pi}_{\sigma_\psi \sigma_X}^{12} (t) = G_{\sigma_0}^{\psi} G_{\sigma_0}^{X}- G_{\sigma^\prime}^{\psi} G_{\sigma^\prime}^{X}=0~, \label{sum-rule-scalar12}$$ where in the last equality the saturation of the correlator by the first light resonances has been assumed. Let us focus on this sum rule, as all the new features induced by the interplay between the two sectors are contained in the correlator $\overline{\Pi}_{S_0}^{\psi X}(q^2)$. First, one clearly sees the two poles associated to $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma^\prime$ in the spectral density, which is displayed in Fig. \[spectral-density-mixing-singlet\] for different values of $\xi$ and $N=4$. Increasing the value of $\xi$, the two poles become closer and closer in agreement with Fig. \[plot-xi-singlet\]. In principle there are two distinct thresholds above which the loops involving the fermions $\psi$ or $X$ develop an imaginary part. However, as the mixing parameter $\kappa_B/\kappa_A$ is small, these two thresholds are very close (see Fig. \[gap-coloured\]) and one can consider in a good approximation only one threshold located around $4M_\psi^2 \simeq 4 M_X^2$. While in the spectral density the second pole associated to the $\sigma^\prime$ remains always close to this threshold, one sees that the $\sigma_0$ pole moves continuously from $p^2\simeq 4M_\psi^2$ (for large values of $\xi$) down to $p^2=0$ (for $\xi \simeq 1.15$) when the $\sigma_0$ becomes massless (see Fig. \[plot-xi-singlet\]). From Eq. (\[sum-rule-scalar12\]), one also sees that the residues of the two poles in the spectral density should have an opposite sign in order to respect the sum rule. This is in agreement with the left panel of Fig. \[spectral-density-mixing-singlet\]. As the scalar singlets are narrow and the continuum part of the spectral density is small, one expects the sum rule of Eq. (\[sum-rule-scalar12\]) to be well respected by the NJL approximation and the saturation by the first light resonances to be a good approximation.[^18] The saturation of the sum rule (\[sum-rule-scalar12\]) is illustrated in the right panel of Fig. \[spectral-density-mixing-singlet\]. We plot the absolute value of the ratio of integrals $ \int^{t_0}_0 dt ~{\rm Im} \Pi_{S_0}^{\psi X}(t)/ \int_{t_0}^\infty dt ~{\rm Im} \Pi_{S_0}^{\psi X}(t)$, as a function of $\xi$ and for two different values of the number of hypercolours, $N=4$ and $N=2$. In the true theory, this ratio is predicted to be one regardless of the value of the parameter $t_0$. In our NJL approximation of the strong dynamics, the result of the integration may depend on the value of $t_0$, that we conventionally choose as the value of $t$ where the spectral density vanishes. In this way, one compares the positive and negative parts of the spectral densities, in the same spirit as for the saturation of the sum rule with the two lightest resonances. To illustrate the latter, we plot the absolute value of the ratio $(G_{\sigma_0}^{\psi} G_{\sigma_0}^{X})/(G_{\sigma^\prime}^{\psi} G_{\sigma^\prime}^{X})$, that is obtained in the same way as in section \[secWSR\], but the explicit expression is more involved due to the mixing and we refrain from giving it here. Below the critical value $\xi \simeq 1.15$ ($\xi \simeq 1.04$) for $N=4$ ($N=2$), this ratios becomes meaningless, as the $\sigma_0$ pole disappears from the spectral density, such that a large departure from one is observed. In summary, the right panel of Fig. \[spectral-density-mixing-singlet\] shows that the ratio of integrals (of decay constants) is smaller (larger) than one, but this departure from the sum-rule prediction is reasonably small as long as $\xi$ is well above the instability region (see section \[secWSR\] for a detailed discussion of the limitations of the NJL approximation with regard to the sum rules). Conclusion ========== The general idea of a composite, Nambu-Goldstone Higgs particle provides a very attractive framework for the EWSB. We considered an asymptotically-free gauge theory confining at the multi-TeV scale and that has the potential to provide a self-consistent, ultraviolet-complete framework to study the composite Higgs phenomenology. The minimal model features four flavours of constituent fermions $\psi^a$, which condense as the hypercolour interaction becomes strong. The first, remarkable result is that, unavoidably, the corresponding $SU(4)$ flavour symmetry breaks spontaneously to $Sp(4)$, as required in order to generate a NGB Higgs. This follows from general results on vector-like gauge theories, reviewed in sections \[VW\]-\[anomat\]. Furthermore, such a dynamical symmetry breaking is successfully described by a four-fermion operator, à la NJL: when the four-fermion coupling exceeds a critical value, a non-zero mass gap develops, as shown in section \[colourless-sector\]. The meson resonances are described by two-point correlators of fermion bilinears. The meson spins (zero or one) and their representations under the flavour group are determined by the quantum numbers of the associated hypercolour-singlet fermion bilinears. Following the standard NJL approach, we computed all the relevant two-point correlators, resummed at leading order in the number of hypercolours $N$: the meson mass is determined by the correlator pole, while the residue at the pole fixes the meson decay constant. In section \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\] we have shown that the NGB decay constant $f$ is almost ten times smaller than the cutoff of the constituent fermion loops, therefore our effective theory is well under control up to meson masses of order $\sim10f$. Recall that electroweak precision measurements require $f\gtrsim 1$ TeV and that fine-tuning in the composite Higgs potential is proportional to the ratio $v^2/f^2$. In order to correlate the various meson masses, we made the hypothesis that the hypercolour dynamics is dominated by current-current interactions, see appendix \[$Sp(2N)$ current-current operators\], and we used Fierz transformations to relate the different four-fermion operators. In particular, in section \[Fierz-transfoSP2N\] we derived some $Sp(2N)$ Fierz identities which, to the best of our knowledge, are not available elsewhere in the literature. In section \[The mass spectrum of the resonances\] we illustrated our results for the mass spectrum of electroweak mesons: for a reasonably small number of hypercolours, say $2N \lesssim 10$, the spin-one mesons are always heavier than $5f$, while the spin-zero mesons can be as light as $f$, and therefore accessible at the LHC, in the following special cases. The singlet scalar mass $M_\sigma$ vanishes when the four-fermion coupling approaches its critical value, that is, when the condensate vanishes. The singlet pseudoscalar mass $M_{\eta^\prime}$ is induced by the axial anomaly: the anomalous contribution is expected to scale as $M_{\eta'}^2\sim 1/N$, but we did not attempt to quantify its absolute size. Therefore, we cannot exclude a very light value for $M_{\eta^\prime}$. Note that these results for $\sigma$ and $\eta'$ hold for the electroweak sector in isolation: the effects of the mixing with the singlets of the colour sector are summarised below. The non-singlet scalar $S$ can also be light if both $\sigma$ and $\eta^\prime$ are, as $M_S^2\simeq M_\sigma^2 + M_{\eta^\prime}^2$. In addition, one should keep in mind that the set of NGB is formed by the Higgs doublet plus a SM singlet $\eta$; their masses arise only from SM loops, which we did not study here, and are expected to lie at or below the scale $f$. In section \[secWSR\] we performed an important test of the accuracy of our methods, by comparing our results with spectral sum rules, that have to be satisfied by the exact two-point correlators. We thus identified the values of the four-fermion coupling that best reproduce the sum rules. Conversely, our results in the effective NJL approximation depart significantly from the sum rules, when the continuum part of the spectral function becomes sizable. We also compared our results with available lattice simulations for $N=1$, finding a fair agreement within the large error bars, with a preference for certain values of the four-fermion couplings; however our methods are expected to be more accurate when $N$ is large. In section \[S parameter\] we estimated the contribution of the composite sector to the oblique parameter $S$, demonstrating that it is under control. In order to provide composite partners for the top quark, one needs to introduce additional constituent fermions $X^f$, in a different hypercolour representation, such that fermion-trilinear baryons can be formed, with the quantum numbers of the top quark. A gauge theory with fermions in two different representations presents qualitatively new features, such as one non-anomalous $U(1)$ flavour symmetry, with an associated Nambu-Goldstone meson $\eta_0$. In section \[Sum rules and pseudoscalar decay constants in the flavour-singlet sector\] we showed that this implies two additional sum rules, as well as a mixing between the singlet scalars and pseudoscalars of the two sectors. In addition, the axial anomaly should only generate operators that respect the non-anomalous $U(1)$ symmetry. As a consequence, we demonstrated in section \[thooft\] that the effect of the anomaly is described by an operator of very large dimension, involving $4+12(N-1)$ fermions. Our analysis of this operator correctly takes into account all the symmetries of the model, and thus provides fully coherent results, and its large dimension may indicate that the effects of the anomaly are suppressed in such a scenario. On the other hand, we cannot exclude that such suppression is an artefact of our approximation of the true dynamics, in terms of fermionic operators only. The dynamics of spontaneous flavour symmetry breaking also complicates in the presence of two sectors. Our analysis of anomaly matching in section \[total-break\] shows that the condensate $\langle\psi\psi\rangle$ necessarily forms, with the possible exception of the case when $N$ is a multiple of $8$. However the condensate $\langle XX\rangle$ may not form in the presence of light, coloured baryons. Indeed, in section \[Mass gap equations and effective four-fermions couplings\] we showed that the system of two coupled mass-gap equations is very sensitive to the relative size of four-fermion couplings in the two sectors. As the NJL techniques can provide information on the spectrum of coloured mesons only in the case of a non-vanishing mass gap, we focused on the region of parameters where a non-zero $\langle XX\rangle$ develops as well. Let us remark that the solution of the gap equations corresponds to a stable minimum of the effective potential only for some range of the four-fermion couplings, and of course meson masses are under control only within this range. In the present case, it turns out that the potential is stable (no tachyons) as long as the operators induced by the axial anomaly are suppressed with respect to the others, by a factor of ten to one hundred, as described in section \[mixing-singlets\]. Therefore, we concentrated on the mass spectrum in this region of parameters. We computed the masses of coloured mesons with the same techniques described for the electroweak sector. The results are illustrated in section \[spectrum-coloured\]. Once again, spin-one mesons are extremely heavy, above $\sim 5 f$. The situation is much more interesting for the coloured NGBs $G_c$, organised a real QCD octet and a complex sextet, which are massless in the chiral limit. We computed the contribution to their masses from gluon loops, and we found $M_{G_c} \gtrsim 1.5 f$, as long as $2N \lesssim 10$. This may be sufficiently large to comply with present collider searches. Therefore, contrary to common lore, it is not strictly necessary to introduce an explicit mass term $m_X XX$. Nonetheless, we studied also the case $m_X\ne 0$, as some qualitative features of the mass gap and of the meson spectrum are very sensitive to this parameter. In particular, the singlet pseudoscalar $\eta_0$ is an exact NGB in the chiral limit, therefore its mass is controlled by the size of $m_X$ (and by the size of the couplings to external SM fermions), as discussed in section \[mixing-singlets\]. A prominent opportunity for the discovery of composite NGBs at the LHC is offered by their anomalous couplings to two SM gauge bosons, determined by the Wess-Zumino-Witten term. We provided the general formula for these couplings, and we specifically discussed the phenomenological consequences for the $\eta_0$ state. The mass of the other singlet pseudoscalar $\eta^\prime$ is extremely sensitive to the effective anomaly coefficient: one may have $M_{\eta'} \lesssim f$ for $\kappa_B/\kappa_A\ll 0.01$, but as soon as $\kappa_B/\kappa_A \sim 0.1$ this state decouples, $M_{\eta'} \gtrsim 10 f$. Finally, the heaviest singlet scalar $\sigma^\prime$ always lies in the multi-TeV range, while the lightest singlet scalar $\sigma_0$ may be as light as $f$. Indeed, we already remarked that the vacuum provided by the mass-gap equations is stable only within specific ranges of the effective four-fermion couplings. Whenever the latter are close to the boundary of the stability region, $M_{\sigma_0}$ vanishes. In section \[sum-rules-full-model\] we commented on the spectral sum rules in the presence of two sectors, illustrating in particular the interplay among the singlet spectral functions. We presented the first thorough analysis of the spectrum of meson resonances, in a confining gauge theory with fermions in two different representations of the gauge group. The main limitation of this study is the absence of interactions with external fermion fields. The interest of such interactions is twofold: to generate Yukawa couplings between the composite Higgs and the SM fermions, and to induce radiatively a Higgs potential that realizes EWSB. As a matter of fact, the coloured sector of the model is engineered to contain fermion-trilinear bound states, which may mix linearly with the SM fermions. The mass spectrum of these baryons and their couplings to the mesons can be computed by generalising the techniques used in this paper. Indeed, in the QCD literature, several analytical predictions for the masses and couplings of baryons are consistent with experiments and with lattice simulations. Thus, one may predict the properties of composite top quark partners that reside in definite representations of the flavour group, and then compute the Higgs effective potential induced by the top sector loops. Such a theory has a lesser number of free parameters than a generic composite Higgs model with no specific ultraviolet completion, therefore the challenge will be to reproduce the Higgs mass with a minimal amount of fine tuning of the parameters. We aim to study the fermion bound states of the theory in a separate publication [@baryons-paper]. Acknowlegdments {#acknowlegdments .unnumbered} =============== This work has been carried out thanks to the support of the OCEVU Labex (ANR-11-LABX-0060) and the A\MIDEX project (ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02) funded by the “Investissements d’Avenir” French government program managed by the ANR. MF acknowledges partial support from the European UnionÕs Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreements No 690575 and No 674896. Generators of the flavour group and embedding of the SM group {#generators} ============================================================= In this appendix, we give explicit representations for the generators of the flavour groups $SU(4)$ and $SU(6)$ and describe how the SM gauge fields are coupled to the elementary fermion fields. There are general procedures to construct a basis of the Gell-Mann type for any $SU(n)$ group, starting from the well-known representations of the generators for the cases $n = 2$ and $n = 3$, see for instance [@Bouzas:2003ju]. The relations in Eq. (\[Tacom\]) allow to distinguish the generators $T^A$ for the unbroken subgroups, $Sp(4)$ and $SO(6)$, from the generators $T^{\hat A}$ in the corresponding coset spaces. For $n=2N_f$ flavours, choosing the $2 N_f \times 2 N_f$ matrix $\Sigma_\varepsilon$ in the form \_= 0 & 11\ 11 & 0 , the general solution of Eq. (\[Tacom\]) can be expressed as [@Peskin:1980gc] T\^A = [A]{}\^A & [B]{}\^A\ [B]{}\^[A]{} & - ([A]{}\^A)\^T , T\^[A]{} = [C]{}\^[A]{} & [D]{}\^[A]{}\ [D]{}\^[[A]{}]{} & + ([C]{}\^[A]{})\^T , where the $N_f \times N_f$ submatrices ${\cal A}^A$ and ${\cal C}^{\hat A}$ are hermitian, with ${\cal C}^{\hat A}$ traceless, whereas $({\cal B}^A)^T = - \varepsilon {\cal B}^A$ and $({\cal D}^{\hat A})^T = + \varepsilon {\cal D}^{\hat A}$. The $SU(4)$ sector {#SU4-generators} ------------------ According to the preceding discussion, the 15 $SU(4)$ generators can be chosen as follows. The 10 generators of the subgroup $Sp(4)$ read T\^[1,2,3,4]{} = \_[1,2,3,0]{} & 0\ 0 & - \_[1,2,3,0]{}\^T ,T\^[5,6,7]{} = 0 & \_[1,3,0]{}\ \_[1,3,0]{} & 0 ,T\^[8,9,10]{} = 0 & i \_[1,3,0]{}\ -i \_[1,3,0]{} & 0 , where $\sigma_i$, $i=1,2,3$ denote the Pauli matrices while $\sigma_0$ stands for the $2\times 2$ unit matrix. The corresponding coset $SU(4)/Sp(4)$ is then generated by the 5 matrices T\^[[1]{},[2]{},[3]{}]{} = \_[1,2,3]{} & 0\ 0 & \_[1,2,3]{}\^T , T\^[4]{} = 0 & \_[2]{}\ \_[2]{} & 0 , T\^[5]{} = 0 & i \_[2]{}\ -i \_[2]{} & 0 . The set of generators T\^[1,2,3]{}\_[L,R]{} = , - , \[EW-generators\] constitute a $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$ subalgebra of $Sp(4)$, and provide the generators for the electroweak interaction and the custodial symmetry. With this convention, a multiplet $\psi^a$ in the fundamental of $SU(4)$ and of $Sp(4)$ decomposes as $(\psi^1~\psi^3)^T \sim (1_L,2_R)$ and $(\psi^2~\psi^4)^T \sim (2_L,1_R)$. The generator $T^{\hat 3}$ is associated with a NGB singlet under $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$, whereas the remaining four generators of the $SU(4)/Sp(4)$ coset correspond to the Higgs bidoublet $H$, transforming as $(2_L,2_R)$. Under the diagonal $SU(2)_V$ subgroup, generated by $T^a_L + T^a_R$, the generators $T^{\hat 2}$, $T^{\hat 4}$, $T^{\hat 5}$ transform as a triplet, and $T^{\hat 1}$ as a singlet. The external electroweak gauge fields $W_\mu^{1,2,3}$ and $B_\mu$ will then couple to the $\psi$ fermions through the combination -i[V]{}\_-i g ( W\_\^1 T\^1\_L + W\_\^2 T\^2\_L + W\_\^3 T\^3\_L ) - i g\^B\_T\^3\_R . \[Vsource\]According to Eq. (\[rad\_masses\]), the masses of the NGBs that are radiatively induced by the gauging are given by M\_H\^2 = M\_[1,2,4,5]{}\^2 = - \_0\^d Q\^2 Q\^2 \^\_[V[-]{}A]{} (-Q\^2) ( 3 g\^2 + g\^[2]{} ) , M\_[3]{}\^2 = 0 . \[rad\_ew\] Of course, this positive contribution to the Higgs doublet mass should be overcome by a negative one from the top quark couplings, in order to trigger EWSB. One can estimate quantitatively $\Delta M_H^2$ from the explicit form of the correlator $\Pi_{V-A}^\psi (-Q^2)$ as computed in the NJL approximation. If one assumes further that the lightest resonances saturate in good approximation the correlator (see section \[secWSR\]), the integrand takes the simplified form -Q\^2 \_[V-A]{}\^(-Q\^2) F\^2\_[G]{} +f\^2\_[A]{} M\^2\_[A]{} -f\^2\_[V]{} M\^2\_[V]{} , \[Q2PiVA\] where the expressions of the resonance masses and decay constants are explicitly given sections \[Masses and couplings of vector resonances\], \[Resummed correlators and the Goldstone decay constant\] and \[secWSR\]. Integrating Eq. (\[Q2PiVA\]) over $Q^2$ up to the NJL cutoff $\Lambda^2$, one obtains -\_0\^[\^2]{} dQ\^2 Q\^2 \_[V-A]{}\^(-Q\^2) (F\^2\_[G]{} +f\^2\_[A]{} M\^2\_[A]{} -f\^2\_[V]{} M\^2\_[V]{})\^2 + f\^2\_[V]{} M\^4\_[V]{} - f\^2\_[A]{} M\^4\_[A]{} . \[rad\_qcdfin\] Assuming that the Weinberg sum rules (\[WSR\]) hold, the first term proportional to $\Lambda^2$ vanishes while the remaining terms simplify and lead to $$\Delta M_H^2 \simeq \frac{3}{64 \pi^2} \frac{1}{F_G^2} (3g^2+g^{\prime 2}) ~f_V^2 M_V^4 \ln \frac{M_A^2}{M_V^2}~.$$ This estimation of $\Delta M_H^2$ is of course relevant only if the $V-A$ correlator is well saturated by the lightest resonances and the Weinberg sum rules hold. The $SU(6)$ sector {#SU6-generators} ------------------ We decompose the 35 $SU(6)$ generators according to the $SO(6)$ subgroup and the coset $SU(6)/SO(6)$. We denote by $\lambda_a$, $a=1,2,\ldots 8$, the $SU(3)$ Gell-Mann matrices, and we also define $\lambda_0 = \sqrt{2/3}\ diag(1,1,1)$. A convenient basis for the 15 unbroken generators is given by T\^[1,,8,9]{} = \_[1,,8,0]{} & 0\ 0 & - \_[1,,8,0]{}\^T , T\^[10,11,12]{} = 0 & \_[2,5,7]{}\ \_[2,5,7]{} & 0 , T\^[13,14,15]{} = 0 & i \_[2,5,7]{}\ -i \_[2,5,7]{} & 0 . The eight generators $T^{1,\cdots ,8}$ together with $T^9$ form a $SU(3)_C\times U(1)_D$ maximal subalgebra, that can accommodate the strong interaction gauge group, as well as a part of the hypercharge gauge group $U(1)_Y$, with $Y=T^3_R + D$, where $T^3_R$ is defined in Eq. (\[EW-generators\]) and $D=(4/\sqrt{3})\cdot T_9$. The 20 broken generators read [c]{} T\^[[1]{},,[8]{}]{} = \_[1,,8]{} & 0\ 0 & \_[1,,8]{}\^T , \ T\^[[9]{},,]{} = 0 & \_[1,3,4,6,8,0]{}\ \_[1,3,4,6,8,0]{} & 0 , T\^[,,]{} = 0 & i \_[1,3,4,6,8,0]{}\ -i \_[1,3,4,6,8,0]{} & 0 . The generators $T^{{\hat 1},\cdots ,{\hat 8}}$ are associated to the NGBs multiplet $O_c\sim 8_0$ under $SU(3)_C\times U(1)_D$, while $T^{{\hat 9},\cdots ,{\hat 20}}$ correspond to the NGBs $(S_c + \overline{S}_c) \sim (6_{4/3}+\overline{6}_{-4/3})$. The constituent fermions $X$ transform as $(3_{2/3}+\overline{3}_{-2/3})$ under $SU(3)_C\times U(1)_D$, where the normalization of the $D$-charge is chosen to reproduce the correct hypercharge of top quark partners. Therefore, the external colour gauge fields $G_\mu^{1,\cdots,8}$ and $B_\mu$ couple to the $X$ fermions through the combination -i g\_c G\_\^a T\^a - i g\^ B\_T\^9 . According to Eq. (\[rad\_masses\]), the masses of the NGBs that are radiatively induced by the gauging are given by [l]{} M\_[O\_c]{}\^2 = M\_[1,, 8]{}\^2 = - \_0\^d Q\^2 Q\^2 \^X\_[V[-]{}A]{} (-Q\^2) g\_s\^2 ,\ M\_[S\_c]{}\^2 = M\_[9,, 20]{}\^2 = - \_0\^d Q\^2 Q\^2 \^X\_[V[-]{}A]{} (-Q\^2) ( g\_s\^2 + g’\^2 ) . \[rad\_qcd\] The quantitative estimate of the integral of the $V-A$ two-point function is discussed in section \[Masses of coloured scalar resonances\]. Loop functions ============== The one-loop integrals relevant for our purposes are the one- and two-point functions, A\_0(m\^2)i ,B\_0(p\^2,m\^2)i . In the context of the NJL model, the one-point function is regularised by introducing a cut-off $\Lambda$ on the Euclidean four-momentum, A\_0(m\^2) = . \[A0def\] The zero-momentum two-point function is given by B\_0(0,m\^2) = = = . \[B00\]For the finite, $p^2$-dependent part of the two-point function, we adopt the simple regularisation B\_0(p\^2,m\^2) = B\_0(0,m\^2) + f () , \[B0exp\] where f(r) = { [ll]{} 4 ( )\^[1/2]{} ( )\^[1/2]{} - 4 & [ (for ]{} 0 < r < 1)\ \ 4 ( )\^[1/2]{}- 4 & [ (for ]{} 1<r)\ \ 4 ( )\^[1/2]{}- 4 & [ (for ]{} r<0) . . We remark that the finite terms are regularisation-dependent, therefore our expression may differ from analogous ones in the NJL literature at order $p^2/\Lambda^2$. Two-point correlators of fermion bilinears at one loop {#SDresum} ====================================================== In this appendix we present the detailed computation of the five one-loop two-point functions $\t \Pi_\phi (q^2,M_f^2)=\t \Pi_\phi^f(q^2)$ where $\phi=\{S, P, V, A, AP \}$ and $M_f$ is the dynamical mass of the hypercolour fermions $f=\psi, X$. These two-point functions are crucial quantities in the NJL model as they are involved in the estimation of the masses and decay constants of the electroweak and coloured composite resonances (see sections \[The electroweak sector\] and \[The spectrum of mesonic resonances in the coloured sector\]). For the two-component Weyl spinors, we follow the conventions of Ref. [@Dreiner:2008tw] ($\psi$ and $\psi^\dagger$ propagate in the loops). The Feynman rules appearing in the vertices can be extracted from the currents and densities given respectively in Eqs. (\[Jdef\]) and (\[S\_and\_P\]). Let us first focus on the electroweak sector. In the scalar and pseudoscalar non-singlet channels we get $$\begin{aligned} i \t \Pi_{S(P)}^\psi(q^2) \delta^{\hat{A}\hat{B}} &= & (-1) \int^\Lambda \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} Tr \left[i \Sigma_0 T^{\hat{A}} \Omega\Gamma_{S(P)}~ \frac{i \sigma \cdot k}{k^2-M^2_\psi} ~ i T^{\hat{B}}\Sigma_0 \Omega \Gamma_{S(P)}^\dagger ~\frac{i \overline{\sigma} \cdot (k+q)}{(k+q)^2-M^2_\psi} \right] \nonumber \\ &+& (-1) \int^\Lambda \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} Tr \left[i \Sigma_0 T^{\hat{A}} \Omega \Gamma_{S(P)} ~\frac{i M_\psi \Sigma_0 \Omega}{k^2-M^2_\psi} ~i \Sigma_0 T^{\hat{B}} \Omega \Gamma_{S(P)} ~\frac{i M_\psi \Sigma_0 \Omega}{(k+q)^2-M^2_\psi} \right]~, \label{Pi-general}\end{aligned}$$ where the first (second) integral corresponds to the loop involving the kinetic (massive) part of the propagators. The factors $\Gamma_{S(P)}= 1 ~(i)$, which distinguish the scalar and pseudoscalar channels, are a consequence of Eq. (\[S\_and\_P\]). These factors are the equivalent of the $\gamma_5$ matrix in Dirac notation and they give a relative sign between the two channels in the second term of Eq. (\[Pi-general\]), exactly like in QCD. Similarly for the vector and axial-vector two points functions one obtains $$\begin{aligned} i \t \Pi^{\mu \nu, AB(\hat{A}\hat{B})}_{V(A)} (q^2,M_\psi^2) &= & (-1) \int^\Lambda \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} Tr \left[i T^{A(\hat{A})} \overline{\sigma}^\mu~ \frac{i \sigma \cdot k}{k^2-M^2_\psi} ~ i T^{B(\hat{B})} \overline{\sigma}^\nu ~\frac{i \sigma \cdot(k+q)}{(k+q)^2-M^2_\psi} \right] \nonumber \\ &+& (-1) \int^\Lambda \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} Tr \left[i T^{A(\hat{A})} \overline{\sigma}^\mu ~\frac{i M_\psi \Sigma_0 \Omega}{k^2-M^2_\psi} ~ (-i T^{B(\hat{B})})^T \sigma^\nu ~\frac{i M_\psi \Sigma_0 \Omega }{(k+q)^2-M^2_\psi} \right]~, \label{Pi-general-vector}\end{aligned}$$ where the functions $\t \Pi^{\mu \nu, AB(\hat{A}\hat{B})}_{V(A)} (q^2)$ are defined in Eq. (\[PiV1loop\]). The vector and axial-vector channels only differ by the flavour trace \[see Eqs. (\[Tacom\]) and (\[norm\_T\])\] which again gives a relative sign between the two channels in the second integral. Finally, for the axial pseudoscalar two-point function one has $$\begin{aligned} i\t \Pi_{AP}^{\mu, \hat{A} \hat{B}}(q^2, M_\psi^2)\equiv i \t \Pi_{AP}^\psi(q^2) p^\mu \delta^{\hat{A}\hat{B}} &=&(-1)\int^\Lambda \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} Tr \left[i T^{\hat{A}} \overline{\sigma}^\mu ~\frac{i \sigma \cdot k}{k^2-M^2_\psi} ~i T^{\hat{B}}\Sigma_0 \Omega \Gamma_{P} ~\frac{i M_\psi \Sigma_0 \Omega }{(k+q)^2-M^2_\psi} \right] \nonumber \\ &+& (-1)\int^\Lambda \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} Tr \left[i T^{\hat{A}} \cdot \overline{\sigma}^\mu ~\frac{i M_\psi \Sigma_0 \Omega}{k^2-M^2_\psi} ~i \Sigma_0 T^{\hat{B}} \Omega \Gamma_{P}^\dagger ~\frac{i \sigma \cdot (k+q) }{(k+q)^2-M^2_\psi} \right]~,\end{aligned}$$ where this time the integrals contain both the kinetic and the massive parts of the propagators. Evaluating the Lorentz, flavour and hypercolour traces, one can check that the above equations are quite consistent with the ones given in table \[tab\_phi\]. Note that the correlators in the singlet channels are obtained by replacing the generators $T^{\hat{A}}$ by the normalised identity matrix $T^0_\psi$ which only changes the flavour tensor structure of the loops, leading to the same result for the two-point functions $\t \Pi_\phi^f(q^2)$. Let us now turn to the correlators of the coloured $SU(6)$ sector. The latter can be derived in complete analogy with the ones in the electroweak sector. Besides the obvious replacements $M_\psi \rightarrow M_X$, $\Sigma_0\rightarrow \Sigma_0^c$ and $T^0_\psi \rightarrow T^0_X$, the major modification originates from the hypercolour traces. Indeed, the fermions $X$ are in the two-index antisymmetric and traceless representation of $Sp(2N)$. Consequently, the hypercolour traces give a factor $(2N+1)(N-1)$ \[instead of $(2N)$ [^19]\] which of course corresponds to the dimension of the hypercolour $X-$representation. Note that this difference with respect to the electroweak sector can easily be inferred by considering the vector form $X^{\hat{I}}$ \[$\hat{I}=1, \cdots ,(2N+1)(N-1)$\] defined in Eq. (\[XXrelation\]). Then, the one-loop two-point functions $\t \Pi^X_\phi(q^2)$, summarised in table \[tab-coloured-functions\], are related to the ones in the electroweak sector as follow $$\tilde{\Pi}_\phi^\psi(q^2)=\tilde{\Pi}_\phi(q^2, M_\psi^2,2N)~, \qquad\qquad \tilde{\Pi}_\phi^X(q^2)=\tilde{\Pi}_\phi[q^2, M_X^2,(2N+1)(N-1)]~.$$ As explained in section \[Masses and couplings of scalar resonances\], the resummation of the above one-loop two-point functions, at leading order in $1/N$, gives the NJL resummed correlators, $\overline{\Pi}_\phi$, from which the masses and decay constants of the composite resonances are extracted. Usually, in the NJL literature, one considers the $T$-matrix element $\overline{T}_\phi(q^2)$, rather than $\overline{\Pi}_\phi(q^2)$. As illustrated in Fig. \[BS2\], the geometrical series that defines $\overline{T}_\phi$ starts with the four-fermion interaction $K_\phi$, instead of the one-loop two-point function $\t \Pi^f_\phi(q^2)$, see Fig. \[BS\]. Consequently the $T$-matrix element is given by \_(q\^2) = . \[T-matrix\] The poles of $\overline{T}_\phi(q^2)$ and of $\overline{\Pi}_\phi(q^2)$ are of course identical and are given by $1= 2 K_\phi\,\t\Pi^f_{\phi}(M_\phi^2)$. The only difference comparing Eqs. (\[PiSPsum\]) and (\[T-matrix\]) comes from the numerators of the series, which lead different to residues. The residues of $\overline{\Pi}^f_\phi$ have been extensively studied in sections \[The electroweak sector\] and \[The spectrum of mesonic resonances in the coloured sector\] while the residues of the $T$-matrix are the couplings $g_{\phi ff}$ of the physical resonance $\phi$ to the fundamental fermions $f$. In analogy with Eq. (\[limit\]), these couplings are given by $$g_{\phi ff}^{2}=- \lim\limits_{q^2\rightarrow M_\phi^2} (q^2-M_\phi^2) \overline{T}_\phi(q^2) = \left[ 2 \left.\frac{d \t\Pi_{\phi}^f(q^2)}{d q^2}\right\|_{q^2=M_\phi^2} \right]^{-1} ~.$$ They behave like $\simeq 1/\sqrt N$, as expected from general large-$N$ considerations. Relating four-fermion operators by Fierz identities {#fierz} =================================================== The couplings of the various four-fermions operators may be related under some assumption on the underlying dynamics (see Refs. [@Klimt:1989pm; @Buck:1992wz] for the case of QCD). In this way one can predict the relative strength of the various physical channels (spin-zero versus spin-one, electroweak sector versus colour sector, etc.). We will start from $Sp(2N)$ current-current operators, that encode the ultraviolet dynamics in the ‘ladder’ approximation, that holds when $N$ is (moderately) large, and we will use Fierz transformations to generate the various $Sp(2N)$ singlet-singlet operators. We will also take this opportunity to summarise general results on Fierz transformations associated to the $SU(N)$ and $Sp(2N)$ groups. Hypercolour current-current operators {#$Sp(2N)$ current-current operators} ------------------------------------- Let us derive the $Sp(2N)$ current-current operators from the covariant derivatives of the fermions $\psi$ and $X$. They belong to the fundamental representation, $\psi \sim {\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1)}$, and to the two-index, traceless ($X_{ij} \Omega_{ji}=0$) and antisymmetric ($X_{ij}=-X_{ji}$) representation, $X\sim {\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}$. The covariant derivatives read $$\left(D^\mu \psi \right)_i=\left[\partial^\mu \delta_{ij}-i g_{HC} (T^I)_{ij} {\cal G}^\mu_I \right] \psi_j~, \label{Covariant1}$$ $$\left(D^\mu X \right)_{ij}= \partial^\mu X_{ij}-i g_{HC} \left[ (T^I)_{ik} X_{kj}+ (T^I)_{jk} X_{ik}\right] {\cal G}^\mu_I = \left[ \partial^\mu \delta_{ik} \delta_{jl}-i g_{HC} (T^I_X)_{ijkl} {\cal G}^\mu_I \right] X_{kl}~, \label{Covariant2}$$ where ${\cal G}^\mu_I$ are the hypergluon fields, and $g_{HC}$ is the hypercolour gauge coupling. The hypercolour generators acting on $\psi_j$, $(T^I)_{ij}$, and on $X_{kl}$, $(T^I_X)_{ijkl} \equiv (T^I)_{ik} \delta_{jl} - \delta_{il}(T^I)_{jk} $, are normalised as $${\rm Tr} (T^I T^J) \equiv \frac{1}{2}\ell\left( {\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1)} \right)\delta^{IJ} = \frac{1}{2}\delta^{IJ} ~, \qquad\qquad {\rm Tr} ( T^I_X T^J_X ) \equiv (T^I_X)_{ijkl} (T^J_X)_{klij} \equiv \frac{1}{2} \ell\left( {\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)} \right)\delta^{IJ} =(N-1) \delta^{IJ}~.$$ The non-derivative terms in Eqs. (\[Covariant1\]) and (\[Covariant2\]) determine the coupling of the technigluons to the $Sp(2N)$-currents ${\cal J}^{\mu I}_\psi$ and ${\cal J}^{\mu I}_X$, which transform under the adjoint representation ${\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2)}$, $${\cal L}_{UV}=g_{HC}\left( {\cal J}^{\mu I}_\psi + {\cal J}^{\mu I}_X\right) {\cal G}_{\mu I} ~, \label{LUVint}$$ where $${\cal J}^{\mu I}_\psi= \psi \left(\Omega T^I \right) \sigma^\mu \overline{\psi} ~, \qquad\qquad {\cal J}^{\mu I}_X= 2\ {\rm Tr}\left[ X \left(\Omega T^I \right) \sigma^\mu \overline{X}\Omega \right]~. \label{SP2N-currents}$$ Here $\Omega_{ij}$ is the $Sp(2N)$ invariant tensor, the trace is taken over $Sp(2N)$ indexes, and the expression of ${\cal J}^{\mu I}_X$ has been simplified using ${\rm Tr}\left[ X \Omega \sigma^\mu \overline{X} \left(\Omega T^I \right) \right] = - {\rm Tr}\left[X \left(\Omega T^I \right) \sigma^\mu \overline{X}\Omega\right]$. It is understood that each fermion flavour $\psi^a$ ($X^f$) behaves equally with respect to the $Sp(2N)$ dynamics, that is, the $Sp(2N)$ currents are flavour singlets. It will be useful to rearrange the fermion components $X_{ij}$ as a vector $X^{\hat{I}}$, with one index $\hat I$ of the representation $\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)$, $$X_{ij}= \sqrt{2} (T^{\hat{I}}\Omega)_{ij} X^{\hat{I}} ~, \qquad\qquad X^{\hat{I}}= -\sqrt{2} (\Omega T^{\hat{I}})_{ij} X_{ji} ~, \label{XXrelation}$$ so that the second current in Eq. (\[SP2N-currents\]) can be written in terms of the generators in the representation $\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)$, that are given by $SU(2N)$ structure constants, \^[I]{}\_X = X\^ (T\^I\_[1 (1,1)]{} )\^ \^\^ , (T\^I \_[1 (1,1)]{} )\^ i f\^[ I ]{} = 2 [Tr]{}( \[T\^,T\^I \] T\^ ) . We assume that the confining strong dynamics can be described, in first approximation, by the exchange of one hypergluon which acquired a dynamical mass, which is the usual NJL assumption in QCD [@Klevansky:1992qe]. Then, the strong dynamics is supposed to generate, in the ’ladder’ approximation, $Sp(2N)$ current-current operators only, $${\cal L}_{eff} = \frac{\kappa_{UV}}{2N} \biggl[ {\cal J}^{\mu I}_\psi {\cal J}_{\psi \mu}^I + {\cal J}^{\mu I}_X {\cal J}_{X \mu}^I +2 {\cal J}^{\mu I}_\psi {\cal J}_{X \mu}^I \biggr] ~, \label{LUV0}$$ where $\kappa_{UV}/(2N) \sim g_{HC}^2/\Lambda^2$ stands for the exchange of one ‘massive’ hypergluon. The large-$N$ scaling of the gauge coupling is $g_{HC}\sim 1/ \sqrt{2N}$, while $\kappa_{UV}$ and $\Lambda$ are $N$-independent. The operators in Eq. (\[LUV0\]) are the product of fermion bilinears in the adjoint representation of $Sp(2N)$. In order to study physical resonances, which correspond to $Sp(2N)$-singlet fermion bilinears, we need to rewrite these operators by using Fierz transformations in the Lorentz, flavour and hypercolour spaces. Note that the last operator in Eq. (\[LUV0\]) does not contribute to any meson resonance, because by a Fierz transformation one obtains only ‘diquark-diquark’ operators, such as $(\psi X) (\overline{\psi}\, \overline{X})$, which are not hypercolour singlets, and therefore are not relevant for our analysis. The Fierz transformations of Weyl indices are determined by the well-known identities $$\left( \sigma^\mu \right)_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} \left( \sigma_\mu \right)_{\beta \dot{\beta}} = -\left( \sigma^\mu \right)_{\alpha \dot{\beta}} \left( \sigma_\mu \right)_{\beta \dot{\alpha}}= 2 ~\varepsilon_{\alpha \beta} \varepsilon_{\dot{\alpha} \dot{\beta}} ~. \label{fierz-weyl}$$ The $SU(N)$ and $Sp(2N)$ Fierz transformations, relevant for flavour and hypercolour indexes respectively, are presented in sections \[Fierz-transfos-SUN\] and \[Fierz-transfoSP2N\] below. General properties of Fierz transformations {#Fierz-general-section} ------------------------------------------- In this section we derive general properties of the coefficients in Fierz transformations. For a given irreducible representation $R$ of the symmetry group under consideration, let us construct the tensor products ${\cal R} \otimes \overline{{\cal R}} = \sum_{\cal_A} {\cal R}_{\cal A}$ and ${\cal R} \otimes {\cal R} = \tilde\sum_{\cal A} {\cal R}_{\cal A}$, where the index ${\cal A}$ runs over the irreducible representations contained in the product. One can choose [@Brauner] a set of matrices $\{\Gamma^{\cal A}_a \}$ ($\{\tilde\Gamma^{\cal A}_a \}$), with $a=1,\cdots, {\rm dim}{\cal R}_{\cal A}$, which form a basis of the vector space ${\cal R} \otimes \overline{{\cal R}}$ (${\cal R} \otimes {\cal R}$). In the following, we will add a tilde wherever there is no conjugate in the tensor product. Such matrices have size ${\rm dim}{\cal R}\times {\rm dim}{\cal R}$ and satisfy the orthogonality relations $${\rm Tr}(\Gamma_a^{\cal A} \Gamma_b^{\cal B})=\alpha ~\delta^{\cal A B} g^{\cal A}_{ab}~, \qquad\qquad {\rm Tr}(\tilde\Gamma_a^{\cal A} \tilde\Gamma_b^{{\cal B}\dagger})=\alpha ~\delta^{\cal A B} g^{\cal A}_{ab}~,$$ where $\alpha$ is a normalisation constant and $g^{\cal A}_{ab}$ is a generic metric (in particular, $g^{\cal A}_{ab}g^{{\cal A}bc}=\delta_a^c$ and $\Gamma^{a{\cal A}}\equiv g^{{\cal A}ab} \Gamma^{\cal A}_b$). Any ${\rm dim}{\cal R}\times {\rm dim}{\cal R}$ matrix $M$ can be decomposed on the basis $\{\Gamma^{\cal A}_a \}$ as $$M=\sum\limits_{\cal A} \sum\limits_a c^{a{\cal A}} \Gamma^{\cal A}_a =\sum\limits_{\cal A}^\sim \sum\limits_a d^{a{\cal A}} \tilde\Gamma^{\cal A}_a~, \qquad\qquad c^{a{\cal A}}= \frac{1}{\alpha} {\rm Tr} (\Gamma^{a{\cal A}} M)~, \qquad d^{a{\cal A}}= \frac{1}{\alpha} {\rm Tr} (\tilde\Gamma^{a{\cal A}\dagger} M)~.$$ Replacing the explicit form of $c^{a{\cal A}}$ and $d^{a{\cal A}}$ in $M$ we obtain the completeness relations $$\sum\limits_{\cal A} \sum\limits_a (\Gamma^{a{\cal A}})_{ij} (\Gamma_a^{\cal A})_{kl} = \sum\limits_{\cal A}^\sim \sum\limits_a (\tilde\Gamma^{a{\cal A}})_{ij} (\tilde\Gamma_a^{{\cal A}\dagger})_{kl} = \alpha~ \delta_{il} \delta_{kj}~. \label{Fierz-completeness-relation}$$ which are relevant to derive the Fierz coefficients. Let us consider an interaction among four objects transforming as $({\cal R} \otimes \overline{{\cal R}})_{\cal A} ({\cal R} \otimes \overline{{\cal R}})_{\cal A}$, where the subscripts indicate that each pair is contracted in the component ${\cal R}_{\cal A}$. Then, the Fierz transformations can be written as $$\sum\limits_a (\Gamma^{a{\cal A}})_{ij} (\Gamma_a^{\cal A})_{kl} = \sum\limits_{\cal B} C_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} \sum\limits_b (\Gamma^{b{\cal B}})_{il} (\Gamma_b^{\cal B})_{kj} = \sum\limits_{\cal B}^{\sim} D_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} \sum\limits_b (\tilde \Gamma^{b{\cal B}})_{ik} (\tilde \Gamma_b^{{\cal B}\dagger})_{jl}~, \label{Fierz-general}$$ where $C_{{\cal A} {\cal B}}$ and $D_{{\cal A} {\cal B}}$ are the Fierz coefficients for the channels $j\leftrightarrow l$ and $j\leftrightarrow k$, respectively. In terms of ‘quarks’ $\sim {\cal R}$ and ‘antiquarks’ $\sim \overline{\cal R}$, one can dub them the ‘quark-antiquark’ and the ‘quark-quark’ channels, respectively. Analogously, for the interaction $({\cal R} \otimes {\cal R})_{\cal A} (\overline{\cal R} \otimes \overline{\cal R})_{\overline{\cal A}}$, the Fierz transformations read $$\sum\limits_a (\tilde\Gamma^{a{\cal A}})_{ij} (\tilde\Gamma_a^{{\cal A}\dagger})_{kl} = \sum\limits_{\cal B} \tilde C_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} \sum\limits_b (\Gamma^{b{\cal B}})_{il} (\Gamma_b^{{\cal B}T})_{kj} = \sum\limits_{\cal B} \tilde D_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} \sum\limits_b (\Gamma^{b{\cal B}})_{ik} (\Gamma_b^{\cal B})_{jl}~, \label{Fierz-general-bis}$$ One can derive several, general constraints on the Fierz-coefficient matrices $C,D,\tilde C,\tilde D$. Applying twice a Fierz transformation on the same indexes the original contraction is recovered, therefore one obtains $$\sum\limits_{\cal B} C_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} C_{{\cal B} {\cal C}}=\delta_{{\cal A}{\cal C}}~, \qquad \sum\limits_{\cal B}^\sim D_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} \tilde{D}_{{\cal B} {\cal C}}=\delta_{{\cal A}{\cal C}}~, \qquad \sum\limits_{\cal B} \tilde C_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} D_{{\cal B} {\cal C}}= s_{\cal A} \delta_{{\cal A}{\cal C}}~, \qquad \sum\limits_{\cal B} \tilde D_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} D_{{\cal B} {\cal C}}=\delta_{{\cal A}{\cal C}}~, \label{Fierz-sum}$$ where $s_{\cal A} = +1$ ($ -1$) when the representation ${\cal R}_{\cal A}$ belongs to the (anti-)symmetric part of the tensor product ${\cal R} \otimes {\cal R}$, and correspondingly the matrices $\tilde\Gamma^{\cal A}_a$ are (anti-)symmetric. Therefore, one has $C=C^{-1}$, while both $\tilde C$ and $\tilde D$ can be fully determined in terms of the matrix $D$. The contraction associated to the singlet representation, ${\cal R}_\bullet \subset {\cal R} \otimes \overline{{\cal R}}$, can be chosen as $\Gamma^\bullet_{ij} = \delta_{ij}\sqrt{\alpha/{\rm dim}{\cal R}}$. Therefore, Eq. (\[Fierz-completeness-relation\]) determines the first row of $C$ and $D$, C\_= , [R]{}\_[A]{} , D\_= , [R]{}\_[A]{} . \[FierzSinglet\]Indeed, from Eq. (\[Fierz-general\]) one can obtain explicit expressions of the Fierz coefficients, $$C_{\cal AB}= \frac{1}{\alpha^2}\sum\limits_a {\rm Tr} [\Gamma^{a {\cal A}} \Gamma^{ {\cal B}}_b \Gamma^{{\cal A}}_a \Gamma^{b {\cal B}}]~, \qquad\qquad D_{\cal AB}= \frac{1}{\alpha^2}\sum\limits_a {\rm Tr} [\Gamma^{a {\cal A}} (\tilde\Gamma^{ {\cal B}}_b)^T (\Gamma^{{\cal A}}_a)^T \tilde\Gamma^{b {\cal B}\dagger}]~, \label{Fierz-formal-expression}$$ which are valid for every $b$. The direct computation of such expressions, however, may be very complicated in practice. By summing over $b$ the two identities in Eq. (\[Fierz-formal-expression\]), one obtains quantities invariant under the exchanges ${\cal A} \leftrightarrow {\cal B}$ and $C\leftrightarrow C^{-1}$ ($D\leftrightarrow D^{-1}$), therefore one concludes that $$C_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} ~ {\rm dim}{\cal R}_{\cal B} = C_{{\cal B} {\cal A}} ~ {\rm dim} {\cal R}_{\cal A} ~, \qquad\qquad D_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} ~ {\rm dim}{\cal R}_{\cal B} = (D^{-1})_{{\cal B} {\cal A}} ~ {\rm dim} {\cal R}_{\cal A} ~. \label{Fierz-dim}$$ In particular, Eq. (\[FierzSinglet\]) implies $C_{{\cal A} \bullet}= C_{\bullet {\cal A}} ~ {\rm dim} {\cal R}_{\cal A}= {\rm dim} {\cal R}_{\cal A}/ {\rm dim} {\cal R}$. In the special case of a (pseudo-)real representation ${\cal R}$, taking $\psi \sim {\cal R}$ and $\psi^\dagger \sim \overline{\cal R}$, one has $\overline{\psi}_i \equiv \psi^\dagger_j (\Omega_\epsilon)_{ji} \sim {\cal R}$, where $\Omega_\epsilon$ is the invariant tensor establishing the equivalence of ${\cal R}$ and $\overline{\cal R}$, which is symmetric ($\epsilon=+1$) or antisymmetric ($\epsilon=-1$) in the case of real or pseudo-real representations, respectively. Therefore, the set of matrices $\{\Gamma^{\cal A}_a\}$ and $\{\tilde\Gamma^{\cal A}_a\}$ can be identified, according to $\tilde\Gamma^{\cal A}_a = \Gamma^{\cal A}_a \Omega_\epsilon$. In addition, the equality $\Omega_\epsilon \tilde\Gamma^{\cal A\dagger}_a = \epsilon \tilde\Gamma^{\cal A}_a \Omega_\epsilon$ holds, which implies in particular $(\psi \tilde\Gamma^{\cal A}_a \psi)^\dagger = \epsilon \overline\psi \tilde\Gamma^{\cal A}_a \overline\psi$. Then, it is convenient to rewrite the Fierz transformations in Eq. (\[Fierz-general\]) \[or, equivalently, Eq. (\[Fierz-general-bis\])\] in terms of the interaction $({\cal R} \otimes {\cal R})_{\cal A} ({\cal R} \otimes {\cal R})_{\cal A}$, $$\sum\limits_a (\tilde\Gamma^{a{\cal A}})_{ij} (\tilde\Gamma_a^{\cal A})_{kl} = \sum\limits_{\cal B}^\sim C_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} \sum\limits_b (\tilde\Gamma^{b{\cal B}})_{il} (\tilde\Gamma_b^{\cal B})_{kj} = \epsilon\sum\limits_{\cal B}^{\sim} D_{{\cal A} {\cal B}} \sum\limits_b (\tilde \Gamma^{b{\cal B}})_{ik} (\tilde \Gamma_b^{\cal B})_{jl}~. \label{Fierz-general-ter}$$ It follows immediately that the two sets of Fierz coefficients are related as D\_[[A]{} [B]{}]{} = s\_[A]{} C\_[[A]{} [B]{}]{} s\_[B]{} , \[CDsigns\] where $s_{\cal A,B} = \pm 1$ denotes, once again, the (anti-)symmetry of ${\cal R}_{\cal A,B}$ within ${\cal R} \otimes {\cal R}$. In this (pseudo-)real case the singlet contraction corresponds to $\tilde\Gamma^\bullet_{ij} = (\Omega_\epsilon)_{ij}\sqrt{\alpha/{\rm dim}{\cal R}}$, therefore $s_\bullet = \epsilon$, and one recovers Eq. (\[FierzSinglet\]). $SU(N)$ Fierz transformations {#Fierz-transfos-SUN} ----------------------------- Let us derive the Fierz transformations associated to the fundamental representation of $SU(N)$ (see e.g. [@Buballa:2003qv]). In our model they are relevant for the flavour indexes, as the fermions $\psi^a$ and $X^f$ transform in the fundamental of $SU(4)$ and $SU(6)$, respectively. In the ‘quark-antiquark’ channel, $(\overline{N}_a N^b)(\overline{N}_c N^d)\rightarrow (\overline{N}_a N^d)(\overline{N}_c N^b)$, one can employ the completeness relation of Eq. (\[Fierz-completeness-relation\]) for $\overline{N}\otimes N$, $$\sum_{I=1}^{N^2-1} (T^I)^{a}_{~b} (T^I)^{c}_{~d} + (T^0)^a_{~b} (T_0)^c_{~d} = \frac{1}{2} \delta^{a}_{~d} \delta^{c}_{~b} ~, \label{SUNcomp}$$ where $T^I$ are the $(N^2-1)$ generators of $SU(N)$, $T^0\equiv 1\!\!1 / \sqrt{2N}$, and $\alpha=\ell (N)/2=\ell(\overline{N})/2= 1/2$ as we adopted the normalisation ${\rm Tr}(T^I T^J)=\delta^{IJ}/2$. The first row of the Fierz-coefficient matrix $C_{\cal AB}$ is simply obtained by reshuffling the indexes in Eq. (\[SUNcomp\]), (T\^0)\^[a]{}\_[ b]{} (T\^0)\^[c]{}\_[ d]{} = (T\^0)\^[a]{}\_[ d]{} (T\^0)\^[c]{}\_[ b]{} + \_I (T\^I)\^[a]{}\_[ d]{}(T\^I)\^[c]{}\_[ b]{} , \[SUNfierz\]The second row can be determined by imposing $C^2\equiv 1\!\!1$, as follows from Eq. (\[Fierz-sum\]). Thus, one concludes that (T\^0)\^a\_[ b]{} (T\^0)\^c\_[ d]{}\ \_I (T\^I)\^a\_[ b]{} (T\^I)\^c\_[ d]{} = C (T\^0)\^a\_[ d]{} (T\^0)\^c\_[ b]{}\ \_I (T\^I)\^a\_[ d]{} (T\^I)\^c\_[ b]{} = &\ & - (T\^0)\^a\_[ d]{} (T\^0)\^c\_[ b]{}\ \_I (T\^I)\^a\_[ d]{} (T\^I)\^c\_[ b]{} . In the ‘quark-quark’ channel, $(\overline{N}_a N^b)(\overline{N}_c N^d)\rightarrow (\overline{N}_a \overline{N}_c)(N^b N^d)$, one needs also the completeness relation for $N\otimes N$, that involves $N(N+1)/2$ symmetric matrices $\Gamma_S^I$, and $N(N-1)/2$ antisymmetric matrices $\Gamma_A^I$, $$\sum_{I=1}^{N(N+1)/2} (\Gamma^{I\dagger}_{S})^{ab} (\Gamma^I_S)_{cd} + \sum_{I=1}^{N(N-1)/2} (\Gamma^{I\dagger}_{A})^{ab} (\Gamma^I_A)_{cd} =\frac{1}{2} \delta^{a}_{~d} \delta_{~c}^{b}~.$$ A convenient basis of (anti-)symmetric matrices is provided by $\Gamma^0 \equiv \Sigma_\epsilon T^0$, $\Gamma^I \equiv \Sigma_\epsilon T^I$, and $\Gamma^{\hat I} \equiv \Sigma_\epsilon T^{\hat I}$, where $(\Sigma_\epsilon)_{ab}$ is the invariant tensor of a maximal $SU(N)$ subgroup, which is $SO(N)$ in the case $\epsilon=+1$, and $Sp(N)$ in the case $\epsilon=-1$ (present only for $N$ even). Here the index $I$ runs over the subgroup generators only, and the index ${\hat I}$ spans the coset. When $\epsilon=+1(-1)$, $\Sigma_\epsilon$ is a symmetric (antisymmetric) matrix and, according to Eq. (\[Tacom\]), $\Gamma^0$ and $\Gamma^{\hat I}$ are symmetric (antisymmetric), while $\Gamma^I$ are antisymmetric (symmetric). Using this basis for the matrices $\Gamma^I_{S,A}$, one can construct explicitly the Fierz-coefficient matrix $D_{\cal AB}$, (T\^0)\^a\_[ b]{} (T\^0)\_[ d]{}\^[c]{}\ \_I (T\^I)\^a\_[ b]{} (T\^I)\_[ d]{}\^[c]{} = D \_I (\_S\^[I]{})\^[ac]{} (\_S\^I)\_[bd]{}\ \_I (\_A\^[I]{})\^[ac]{} (\_A\^I)\_[bd]{} = & -\ & \_I (\_S\^[I]{})\^[ac]{} (\_S\^I)\_[bd]{}\ \_I (\_A\^[I]{})\^[ac]{} (\_A\^I)\_[bd]{} . \[D-SU\] For example, the first row of $D_{\cal AB}$ can be obtained from Eq. (\[SUNfierz\]) by contracting with $(\Sigma_\epsilon)^{dd'}(\Sigma_\epsilon)_{c'c}$, and inverting appropriate pairs of (anti-)symmetrised indexes: the result agrees with Eq. (\[FierzSinglet\]). The second row is determined e.g. by Eq. (\[Fierz-dim\]), up to an overall sign, that can be fixed once again by (anti-)symmetrising over appropriate indexes. $Sp(2N)$ Fierz transformations {#Fierz-transfoSP2N} ------------------------------ Let us derive the Fierz transformations associated to the hypercolour representations of the fermions $\psi_i$ and $X_{ij}$, that is, ${\tiny \yng(1)}$ and ${\tiny \yng(1,1)}$ respectively. The group $Sp(2N)$ is a subgroup of $SU(2N)$, corresponding to the vacuum direction $\Sigma_-\equiv \Omega$, defined in Eq. (\[Omega\]). Taking advantage of Eq. (\[Tacom\]), one can decompose the $U(2N)$ completeness relation (\[SUNcomp\]) into two parts, corresponding to the $Sp(2N)$ subalgebra and its coset, $$\begin{aligned} \sum \limits_{I=1}^{N(2N+1)} (T^I)_{ij} \:(T^I)_{kl} &=& \frac{1}{4} (\delta_{il}\delta_{kj} -\Omega_{ik}\Omega_{jl})~:\qquad Sp(2N)~, \label{SPNcomp} \\ \sum \limits_{\hat{I}=1}^{(2N+1)(N-1)} (T^{\hat{I}})_{ij} \:(T^{\hat{I}})_{kl} + (T^0)_{ij} \:(T^0)_{kl} &=& \frac{1}{4} (\delta_{il}\delta_{kj} +\Omega_{ik}\Omega_{jl}) ~:\qquad U(2N)/Sp(2N)~. \label{SUN-SPNcomp}\end{aligned}$$ The product of two fundamental representations of $Sp(2N)$ reads $$\Yvcentermath1 {\small\yng(1)}\times {\small \yng(1)}= \left.\bullet\right._a ~+~ \left.{\small\yng(2)}\right._s ~+~ \left.{\small\yng(1,1)}\right._a ~, \label{product-rep1}$$ where the bullet stands for the singlet and the subscripts indicate whether the contraction is symmetric or antisymmetric under the exchange of the two factors. These representations have dimensions $$\Yvcentermath1 d \left({\tiny \yng(1)} \right)= 2N~, \qquad d \left(\bullet \right)= 1~,\qquad d \left({\tiny \yng(2)} \right)= N(2N+1)~, \qquad d \left({\tiny \yng(1,1)} \right)=N(2N-1)-1=(2N+1)(N-1)~. \label{dim1}$$ Note that, for $N=1$, the two-index antisymmetric representation is absent. The two indexes in ${\tiny \yng(1)}_i {\tiny \yng(1)}_j$ are contracted by an appropriate set of (anti-)symmetric matrices $\t\Gamma^a_{\cal A}$, that can be conveniently chosen as \_ T\^0 = , \^I\_[(2)]{}T\^I , \^[I]{}\_[(1,1)]{}T\^[I]{} , in one-to-one correspondence with the generators of $U(2N)$. Multiplying (\[SPNcomp\]) and (\[SUN-SPNcomp\]) by $\Omega_{mi} \Omega_{nk}$ one obtains useful equalities to determine the Fierz transformations of $({\tiny \yng(1)}_i {\tiny \yng(1)}_j)({\tiny \yng(1)}_k {\tiny \yng(1)}_l)$. Thus, the matrix of Fierz coefficients for the channel $(il)(kj)$, $C_{\cal AB}$, can be fully determined in agreement with the general results of section \[Fierz-general-section\]: $$\begin{pmatrix} \vspace{0.1 cm} (\Omega T^0)_{ij} (\Omega T^0)_{kl} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_I (\Omega T^I)_{ij} (\Omega T^I)_{kl} \\ \sum \limits_{\hat{I}} (\Omega T^{\hat{I}})_{ij} (\Omega T^{\hat{I}})_{kl} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \vspace{0.2 cm} \frac{1}{2N} & \frac{1}{2N} & \frac{1}{2N} \\ \vspace{0.2 cm} \frac{2N+1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{(2N+1)(N-1)}{2N} & \frac{N-1}{2N} & -\frac{N+1}{2N} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \vspace{0.1 cm} (\Omega T^0)_{il} (\Omega T^0)_{kj} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_I (\Omega T^I)_{il} (\Omega T^I)_{kj} \\ \sum \limits_{\hat{I}} (\Omega T^{\hat{I}})_{il} (\Omega T^{\hat{I}})_{kj} \end{pmatrix}~, \label{fierzspqqbar}$$ According to Eq. (\[CDsigns\]), the Fierz coefficients in the channel $(ik)(jl)$ are given by $D_{\cal AB} = - C_{\cal AB}$ when both ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ are (anti-)symmetric contractions, and $D_{\cal AB} = C_{\cal AB}$ otherwise. We can now determine the coefficients $\kappa_{A,C,D}$ of the four-fermion operators in the $\psi$-sector, which are defined by Eqs. (\[LSphys\]) and (\[L4Fv\]), assuming that the dynamics is well approximated by the $\psi$-sector current-current operator of Eq. (\[LUV0\]), with coefficient $\kappa_{UV}$. Note that the ’t Hooft operator with coefficient $\kappa_B$, defined by the second line of Eq. (\[LSphys\]), is not generated by the current-current interaction, as the latter preserves the anomalous $U(1)_\psi$ symmetry, therefore the size of $\kappa_B$ is unrelated to $\kappa_{UV}$. On the contrary, the sizes of $\kappa_{A,B,C}$ can be related to $\kappa_{UV}$ by performing the pertinent set of Fierz transformations over Lorentz, $SU(4)$ flavour, and $Sp(2N)$ hypercolour indexes. Naively, with this procedure the current-current operator is recast into a sum over several operators: those with two hypercolour-singlet fermion bilinears, which correspond to physical meson states, plus those with two hypercolour-non-singlet fermion bilinears. The former operators receive a coefficient $$\kappa_A=\kappa_C= \kappa_D= \frac{2N+1}{4N} \kappa_{UV}~. \label{link-couplings-electroweak}$$ However, the latter operators could also contribute to these couplings, by further Fierz transformations. Therefore, the above equalities cannot be firmly established on this basis. Fortunately, there exists a unique way to express the current-current operator in terms of hypercolour-singlet fermion bilinears only, by using the identity $$\sum\limits_I \left(\Omega T^I \right)_{ij} \left(\Omega T^I \right)_{kl}=\frac{1}{4} \left(\Omega_{il} \Omega_{kj}-\Omega_{ik}\Omega_{jl} \right)~, \label{Fierz-identity-fundamental}$$ which is obtained e.g. by considering the first row of Eq. (\[fierzspqqbar\]) and symmetrising over the indexes $(il)$, or equivalently by multiplying the $Sp(2N)$ completeness relation (\[SPNcomp\]) by $\Omega_{i'i}\Omega_{k'k}$. Employing this relation we obtain $$\kappa_A= \kappa_C= \kappa_D= \frac{1}{2} \kappa_{UV}~. \label{link-couplings-electroweak-2}$$ Therefore, in the current-current approximation, the scalar coupling $\kappa_{A}$ and the vector couplings $\kappa_{C,D}$ are equal and $N$-independent when $N$ becomes large, as $\kappa_{UV}$ is. Notice that the naive relations in Eq. (\[link-couplings-electroweak\]) were correct al leading order in $1/N$. The equality between vector and scalar couplings also holds in the standard NJL model for QCD [@Barnard:2013zea]. Let us now analyse the product of two $Sp(2N)$ two-index traceless antisymmetric representations ${\tiny \yng(1,1)}$, that exist only for $N>1$, and are relevant for the colour sector of our model. The tensor product, $$\Yvcentermath1 {\small\yng(1,1)}\times {\small\yng(1,1)}= \left.\bullet\right._s ~+~ \left.{\small\yng(2)}\right._a~+ ~ \left.{\small\yng(1,1)}\right._s~+ ~ \left.{\small\yng(2,2)}\right._s~+ ~ \left.{\small\yng(1,1,1,1)}\right._s~+ ~ \left.{\small\yng(2,1,1)}\right._a~, \label{product-rep2}$$ contains three four-index representations, of dimensions 1 d ([(2,2)]{} )= (4 N\^3-7 N +3 ), d ([(1,1,1,1)]{} )= (4 N\^3-12 N\^2-N+3 ), d ([(2,1,1)]{} )= (4 N\^4-4N\^3-9N\^2 +N + 2 ). \[dim-X-fermion\] These numbers can be derived taking into account the symmetry properties of each representation in Eq. (\[product-rep2\]), and subtracting the dimensions of the smaller representations, obtained by taking traces, as given in Eq. (\[dim1\]). Note that, for $N=2$, the third, fifth and sixth representation on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[product-rep2\]) are absent: $5\times 5 = 1_s+10_a+14_s$. For $N=3$, the fifth representation only is absent: $14 \times 14 = 1_s+21_a+14_s+90_s+70_a$. Finally, for $N>3$ all the components of the tensor product exist. The indexes in ${\tiny \yng(1,1)}_{ij} {\tiny \yng(1,1)}_{kl}$ are contracted into the representation ${\cal R}$ by a set of tensors $(\t\Gamma^a_{\cal R})_{ijkl}$, with $a=1,\dots,\rm{dim}{\cal R}$. Equivalently, one can use a single index running over the $(2N+1)(N-1)$ components of ${\tiny \yng(1,1)}$, $$X_{li} (\t\Gamma_{\cal R}^{a})_{ijkl} X_{jk} = X_{\hat{I}} (\t\Gamma^{a}_{\cal R})_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} X_{\hat{J}}~.$$ where $X_{ij}$ and $X_{\hat I}$ are related by Eq. (\[XXrelation\]). In this notation, the completeness relation reads $$\sum\limits_{\cal R}\sum_a (\t\Gamma^{a}_{\cal R})_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma^{a}_{\cal R})_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} = \frac{1}{2} \ell({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}) \delta_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} \delta_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} = (N-1)\delta_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} \delta_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} ~, \qquad {\cal R}=\bullet, \Yvcentermath1 {\tiny \yng(2), \yng(1,1),\yng(2,2), \yng(1,1,1,1),\yng(2,1,1)} ~. \label{completeness-relation-X}$$ In fact, the set of matrices $\{\t\Gamma^{a}_{\cal R} \}$ corresponds to the generators of the group $U\left[(2N+1)(N-1) \right]$, normalised as ${\rm Tr}[\t\Gamma^{a}_{\cal R} \t\Gamma^{b}_{\cal R'}]= \frac{1}{2}\ell({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}) \delta_{\cal R R'}\delta^{ab}$. Let us provide the explicit form of these matrices for the smallest representations. The singlet contraction is given by $$(\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{ijkl}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N+1}} \Omega_{ij} \Omega_{kl}~, \qquad\qquad (\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{\hat{I} \hat{J}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N+1}} \delta_{\hat{I} \hat{J}}~. \label{Contraction1}$$ The adjoint contraction, already employed in section \[$Sp(2N)$ current-current operators\], is given by $$(\t\Gamma_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2)}}^{K})_{ijkl}= (\Omega T^I)_{ij} \Omega_{kl} - \Omega_{ij} (\Omega T^I)_{kl}~, \qquad\qquad (\t\Gamma_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2)}}^{K})_{\hat{I}\hat{J}} =-if^{\hat{I}\hat{J}K} = -2 {\rm Tr} ([T^{\hat I} , T^{\hat J} ] T^K)~. \label{Contraction2}$$ The two-index antisymmetric contraction has a similar structure, with the unbroken generators $T^I$ replaced by the broken ones $T^{\hat{I}}$, $$(\t\Gamma_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}}^{\hat{K}})_{ijkl}= (\Omega T^{\hat{K}})_{ij} \Omega_{kl} +\Omega_{ij} (\Omega T^{\hat{K}})_{kl}~, \qquad\qquad (\t\Gamma_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}}^{\hat{K}})_{\hat{I}\hat{J}}= d^{\hat{I} \hat{J} \hat{K}} = 2 {\rm Tr} (\{T^{\hat{I}} , T^{\hat{J}} \} T^{\hat{K}})~. \label{Contraction3}$$ One can easily check that the symmetry properties of the contractions in Eqs. (\[Contraction1\]), (\[Contraction2\]) and (\[Contraction3\]) agree with those indicated in Eq. (\[product-rep2\]). The singlet Fierz coefficients in the channel $(\hat{I} \hat{L}) (\hat{K} \hat{J})$, $C_{\bullet{\cal R}}$, are easily determined from the completeness relation (\[completeness-relation-X\]), in agreement with Eq. (\[FierzSinglet\]). The coefficients $C_{{\cal R}\bullet}$ are determined in turn by Eq. (\[Fierz-dim\]). Thus, we can write $$\begin{pmatrix} \vspace{0.1 cm} (\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,2)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,2)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(1,1,1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(1,1,1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} \\ \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \vspace{0.1 cm} \frac{1}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} & \frac{1}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} & \frac{1}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} & \frac{1}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} & \frac{1}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} & \frac{1}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \frac{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2)}\right)}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} 1 & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \frac{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2,2)}\right)}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \frac{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1,1,1)}\right)}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \frac{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2,1,1)}\right)}{d \left({\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(1,1)}\right)} & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \vspace{0.1 cm} (\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,2)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,2)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(1,1,1,1)}}^{a} )_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(1,1,1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} \\ \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} \end{pmatrix}~. \label{Fierz2}$$ One needs further algebraic manipulations to determine the non-singlet Fierz coefficients $C_{\cal R R'}$, which anyhow will not be needed for our purposes. For concreteness, let us display the explicit result in the case $N=2$, where there are only three representations in the tensor product ${\tiny \yng(1,1)}\times {\tiny \yng(1,1)}$. Using repeatedly the completeness relation and the (anti-)symmetrisation over appropriate pairs of indexes, we conclude that the matrix $C$ in the case $N=2$ takes the form $$\begin{pmatrix} \vspace{0.1 cm} (\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,2)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,2)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{L}} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \vspace{0.1 cm} \frac{1}{5} & \frac{1}{5} & \frac{1}{5} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} 2 & \frac 12 & -\frac 12 \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \frac{14}{5} & - \frac{7}{10} & \frac{3}{10} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \vspace{0.1 cm} (\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_\bullet)_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} \\ \vspace{0.1 cm} \sum \limits_{a} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,2)}}^{a})_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_{{\tiny \yng(2,2)}}^{a})_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} \end{pmatrix}~. \label{FierzN=2}$$ The Fierz coefficients $D_{\cal R R'}$ in the channel $(\hat{I} \hat{K}) (\hat{J} \hat{L})$ are determined by Eq. (\[CDsigns\]), with $\epsilon=+1$ as $\tiny\yng(1,1)$ is a real representation. Since we aim to rewrite the $X$-sector current-current operator of Eq. (\[LUV0\]) in terms of hypercolur-singlet fermion bilinears, the relevant Fierz coefficients are $$C_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2)}~\bullet } =-D_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2)}~\bullet } =\frac{N}{N-1}~.$$ In analogy with the above procedure in the $\psi$-sector, one can try to determine the coefficients $\kappa_{A6,C6,D6}$ of the four-fermion operators in the $X$-sector, which are defined by Eqs. (\[L4F-scal-color\]) and (\[kcd6\]). If one applies a pertinent Fierz transformation, over Lorentz, $SU(6)$ and $Sp(2N)$ indexes, to the $X$-sector current-current operator in Eq. (\[LUV0\]), one obtains $$\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_{C6}= \kappa_{D6}= \kappa_{UV}~. \label{link-couplings-coloured}$$ This indicates that the scalar and vector operators of the coloured sector receive the same coefficient, that is twice as large as for the corresponding operators of the electroweak sector, see Eq. (\[link-couplings-electroweak-2\]). However, at the same time $\kappa_{UV}$ also contributes to other operators, that involve hypercolour-non-singlet fermion bilinears, therefore the above relations are ambiguous, as they rely on a specific recasting of the current-current operator, that is not unique. Another possible recasting is obtained by anti-symmetrising Eq. (\[completeness-relation-X\]), with respect to the pair of indexes $(\hat K\hat L)$, to remove the symmetric components of Eq. (\[product-rep2\]), $$\sum_a (\t\Gamma_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{I}\hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2)}}^{a})_{\hat{K}\hat{L}} + \sum_a (\t\Gamma_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2,1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{I}\hat{J}} (\t\Gamma_{{\Yvcentermath1 \tiny \yng(2,1,1)}}^{a})_{\hat{K}\hat{L}} = \frac{(2N+1)(N-1)}{2} \left[(\t\Gamma_{ \bullet})_{\hat{I} \hat{L}} (\t\Gamma_{ \bullet})_{\hat{K} \hat{J}} - (\t\Gamma_{ \bullet})_{\hat{I} \hat{K}} (\t\Gamma_{ \bullet})_{\hat{J} \hat{L}}\right] ~. \label{Fierz-2index-second-approach}$$ This relation is the analog of Eq. (\[Fierz-identity-fundamental\]), associated to the tensor product ${\tiny \yng(1)}\times {\tiny \yng(1)}$. In general, this procedure does not allow to express the current-current contraction in terms of singlet-singlet contractions only, because the product ${\tiny \yng(1,1)}\times {\tiny \yng(1,1)}$ contains another antisymmetric representation, besides the adjoint. The exception is the case $N=2$, where the second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (\[Fierz-2index-second-approach\]) is absent. If one neglects this second term even for $N>2$, the relation between the current-current operator and the singlet-singlet operators becomes $$\kappa_{A6}=\kappa_{C6}=\kappa_{D6}=\frac{(2N+1)(N-1)^2}{2N}\kappa_{UV}~. \label{relation-coupling-SU6-2}$$ Note that these couplings can be much larger than those in Eq.(\[link-couplings-coloured\]), when $N$ is large. The problem is that the current-current operator contains terms leading in $1/N$, that cannot be written as singlet-singlet contractions only, except for $N=2$. In the latter case, Eq. (\[relation-coupling-SU6-2\]) is exact and its right-hand side reads $5\kappa_{UV}/4$, to be compared with Eq. (\[link-couplings-electroweak-2\]) in the electroweak sector. We conclude that, for $N>2$, the strength of the coloured-sector couplings cannot be fixed in terms of $\kappa_{UV}$, and we treat it as a free parameter. In particular, $\kappa_{A6}$ is independent from the strength of the electroweak-sector coupling $\kappa_A$: in our phenomenological analysis we take $\kappa_{A6}\sim\kappa_A$, such that the domain of validity of the NJL calculations is similar in the two sectors, and the NJL predictions can be compared. On the other hand, the equality between the scalar and vector couplings in each sector is a solid prediction of the current-current approximation, that holds independently from their absolute sizes. Finally, we remind that all predictions discussed in this appendix depend on the validity of the effective Lagrangian of Eq. (\[LUV0\]), that relies on the ‘ladder’ approximation for the hypercolour dynamics. Therefore significant departures from these predictions cannot be excluded. [^1]: It is also possible to give all fermions gauge invariant masses in the case of an odd number of Weyl fermions in the same [real*]{} representation of the gauge group. Such theories do not have a conserved fermion number, and are not vector-like [@Vafa:1983tf; @Kosower:1984aw]. Although it can provide interesting composite-Higgs models, as discussed, for instance, in Ref. [@Ferretti:2014qta], this class of theories will not be addressed here. [^2]: The issue of the $U(1)_V$ symmetry is somewhat subtle, but we will not need to discuss it here. [^3]: Concerning $\Pi_{S{\mbox -}P} (q^2)$, this statement and the ensuing sum rule hold only to the extent that the tensor $d^{{\hat A}{\hat B}{\hat C}} \equiv 2 {\rm tr}(\{T^{\hat A} , T^{\hat B} \} T^{\hat C})$ does not vanish identically, which is not the case, for instance, when $G=SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$ and $H_m=SU(2)_V$, but also, more interestingly for our purposes, when $G=SU(4)$ and $H_m=Sp(4)$.\[fnte\_SP\] [^4]: In comparison to Ref. [@Barnard:2013zea], we choose an opposite sign for $\kappa_B$, and a different but equivalent vacuum alignment defined by Eq. (\[Sigma\]). Combining these two different conventions, the mass gap defined by Eq. (\[gap2\]) has the same expression as in Ref. [@Barnard:2013zea]. This is because the two vacua are related by a $U(4)$ transformation with determinant minus one, that changes the sign of $\epsilon_{abcd}$. [^5]: These pathologies are absent if the Pauli-Villars regularisation is adopted [@Klevansky:1997dk], but they reappear in another guise. [^6]: As expected, such a massless pole does not occur in $\overline\Pi_V (q^2)$, defined in Eq. (\[PiVAsum\]), since, as can be inferred from Table \[tab\_phi\], $\t \Pi_{V}(q^2)$ vanishes for $q^2 = 0$. [^7]: Note the relative minus sign between the four-fermion couplings in the Lagrangian of Eq. (\[L4Fv\]) $K_A= -2\kappa_D/(2N)$, and the couplings $K_{V,A}$ that enter in the denominator of the resummed correlators in Eq. (\[PiVAsum\]). This follows from the proper definition of the argument of the associated geometric series. [^8]: \[ftn7\] The relation $f\equiv\sqrt{2} F_G$ follows from our definitions of $F_G$, see Eq. (\[FGdef\]), and of the Goldstone matrix $U$, see Eq. (\[Udef\]). After the gauging of the SM group, the covariant derivative acting on the Goldstone bosons reads $D_\mu U = \partial_\mu U - i {\cal V}_\mu U - i U {\cal V}_\mu^T$, where the external source ${\cal V}_\mu$ is defined by Eq. (\[Vsource\]). This determines the non-linear corrections to the electroweak precision parameters in terms of $v/f$. [^9]: The function ${\rm Re\,} {\t B_0}(q^2, M_\psi^2)$ develops a cusp at $q^2 = 4 M_\psi^2$. Through the definition of the masses $M_\phi$ adopted here, this cusp naturally shows up in Fig. \[M/FgA10\] (and in Fig. \[fig\_Sum\_Rules\] below) as soon as the value of a resonance mass goes through $2 M_\psi$. In practice, this only occurs for $M_V$ and $M_{\eta^\prime}$, at the cross-over from a bound state to a genuine resonance. [^10]: Our normalisation of $f$, see footnote \[ftn7\], appears consistent with what is called $F_{PS}$ in the notations of Ref. [@Arthur:2016dir] thus we compare our NJL predictions in units of $f$ directly with their numbers, assuming that the same normalisation has been used in those lattice calculations. [^11]: At the level of one-loop two-point correlators, the spectral sum rule (\[WSRmexpl\]) is trivially satisfied, provided one identifies $m$ with $M_\psi$, due to the identity $\t \Pi_V (q^2) - \t \Pi_A (q^2) = - \t \Pi_A^L (q^2) $. The identities $$\t \Pi_S (q^2) - \t \Pi_P (q^2) = \t \Pi_{S} (q^2) - \t \Pi_{\eta^\prime} (q^2) = \t \Pi_\sigma (q^2) - \t \Pi_G (q^2) = 2 (2N) M_\psi^2 \t B_0 (q^2 , M_\psi^2)$$ allow only for the difference of the two last sum rules in Eq. (\[scalSR\]), involving $\t\Pi_{S{\mbox -}\eta^\prime} - \t\Pi_{\sigma{\mbox -}G}$, to be satisfied at one-loop. The sum rule involving $\Pi_{S{\mbox -}P}$ is not expected to hold, since this correlator does not constitute an order parameter for $SU(4)/Sp(4)$, see footnote \[fnte\_SP\]. \[1loop\_ids\] [^12]: We note that those finding and observations are qualitatively similar to the WSR results for the NJL model applied to low energy QCD in ref. [@Peris:1998nj], although those authors used somewhat different approximations than ours. [^13]: We thank Alex Pomarol for encouraging us to estimate the ultraviolet correction to $S$ in the present model. [^14]: Similarly, the generators of the coset space $SU(4)/Sp(4)$ corresponding to this new orientation of the $Sp(4)$ subgroup are given by $T^{\hat A}_v = U_v T^{\hat A} U_v^\dagger$, and satisfy $T^{\hat A}_v\Sigma_v - \Sigma_v \big( T^{\hat A}_v \big)^T=0$. [^15]: One can repeat the same exercice when in addition the singlet Goldstone boson $G^{\hat 3}$ takes a vev $\langle \eta \rangle$. This will leave the expression for $\Delta S$ unchanged, the relation between $v$ and the two vev’s being given by $$\frac{v}{f} = \frac{\langle h \rangle}{\sqrt{\langle h \rangle^2 + \langle \eta \rangle^2}} \sin \left( \frac{\sqrt{\langle h \rangle^2 + \langle \eta \rangle^2}}{f} \right).$$ [^16]: Useful introductions to instantons are provided by Refs. [@Coleman:1978ae; @Olive:1979ke; @Vandoren:2008xg] [^17]: The coefficient of $\left( X \Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X X\right)^6$ in ${\rm det} ( X^f X^g )$ is $2^6 \, {\rm det}(\Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X)= - 1/27$, and the coefficient of $\left( X \Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X X\right)^4 \left(X \Sigma_{0}^c T^{\hat F} X\right)\left(X \Sigma_{0}^c T^{\hat G} X\right)$ is $ 2^6 \, {\rm det}(\Sigma_{0}^c T^0_X) (2 \sqrt{3})^2 \frac{1}{2} \left[ {\rm tr} (T^{\hat F}) {\rm tr} (T^{\hat G}) - {\rm tr} (T^{\hat F} T^{\hat G}) \right] = \frac{1}{9} \,\delta^{{\hat F}{\hat G}}$. [^18]: Note that in the electroweak sector in isolation, the continuum of the scalar singlet density is also small and the pole is narrow. However, there is no sum rule involving only scalar singlets, so that the above argument does not apply. [^19]: More precisely, due to the antisymmetry of the hypercolour singlet contractions, the corresponding traces of the electroweak sector contribute to the one-loop functions with a factor $\pm (2N)$ where the sign corresponds to a particular (massive or kinetic) loop in a given channel. The minus sign is always compensate by the flavour trace which contains in that case $\Sigma_0^2=-1\!\!1$. On the contrary, the hypercolour and flavour contractions in the coloured sectors are symmetric and always positive.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Understanding the mechanics of brain embryogenesis can provide insights on pathologies related to brain development, such as lissencephaly, a genetic disease which cause a reduction of the number of cerebral sulci. Recent experiments on brain organoids have confirmed that gyrification, i.e. the formation of the folded structures of the brain, is triggered by the inhomogeneous growth of the peripheral region. However, the rheology of these cellular aggregates and the mechanics of lissencephaly are still matter of debate.\ In this work, we develop a mathematical model of brain organoids based on the theory of morpho-elasticity. We describe them as non-linear elastic bodies, composed of a disk surrounded by a growing layer called cortex. The external boundary is subjected to a tissue surface tension due the intercellular adhesion forces. We show that the resulting surface energy is relevant at the small length scales of brain organoids and significantly affects the mechanics of cellular aggregates. We perform a linear stability analysis of the radially symmetric configuration and we study the post-buckling behaviour through finite element simulations.\ We find that the process of gyrification is triggered by the cortex growth and modulated by the competition between two length scales: the radius of the organoid and the capillary length due to surface tension. We show that a solid model can reproduce the results of the in-vitro experiments. Furthermore, we prove that the lack of brain sulci in lissencephaly is caused by a reduction of the cell stiffness: the softening of the organoid strengthens the role of surface tension, delaying or even inhibiting the onset of a mechanical instability at the free boundary. author: - \| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Davide Riccobelli</span>$^1$[^1] $\,\,\cdot$ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Giulia Bevilacqua</span>$^{2}$[^2]\ $^1$ SISSA – International School for Advanced Studies, via Bonomea 265, Trieste, Italy.\ $^2$ MOX – Politecnico di Milano, piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, Milano, Italy bibliography: - 'refs.bib' title: '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Surface tension controls the onset of gyrification in brain organoids</span>' --- Introduction ============ The formation of folded structures in human and animal brains allows to increase the extension of the cerebral cortex, packing a larger number of neurons in a limited space. The creation of these furrows and ridges called sulci and gyri, respectively, is fundamental for a healthy development of the brain in embryogenesis. The mechanics underlying this morphogenetic phenomenon is not still completely understood.\ Recent experiments performed on human brain organoids [@Karzbrun_2018] apparently confirm that sulci are generated by brain cortex buckling triggered by growth [@Ronan_2013; @budday2014role; @Bayly_2014]. In [@Karzbrun_2018], the authors observed an increased growth of the cortex with respect to the underlying lumen. In some pathological situations such as lissencephaly, a genetic mutation, the physiological generation of brain sulci is inhibited or even suppressed. This disease, related to the LIS1 heterozygous ($+/-$) mutation, is correlated to nutritional disorders, alterations in muscle tone and severe psychomotor and mental retardation [@Dobyns_1993]. The mathematical description of the brain sulci embryogenesis can provide new insights to understand the mechanisms underlying this disease. A well developed framework to model growth induced mechanical instabilities is the theory of morpho-elasticity [@Goriely_2017], where living tissues are treated as growing elastic materials. A spatially inhomogeneous growth generates microstructural misfits, leading to a geometrically incompatible relaxed configuration. The restoration of the compatibility requires to elastically distort the body and generate residual stresses [@Hoger_1985; @Rodriguez_1994].\ Differential growth and residual stresses are involved in the morphogenesis of tissues [@Ambrosi_2017_2] such as intestinal villi [@Balbi_2013; @Ben_Amar_2013; @Ciarletta_2014] and they enhance the mechanical strength of several biological structures, such as arteries [@Chuong_1986]. A first model of the experiments on brain organoids [@Karzbrun_2018] has been developed by [@balbi2018mechanics]. The authors model the organoid as a non-linear elastic material, where gyrification is triggered by a remodelling of the cortex and the contraction of the lumen. In their model, the selection of the critical wavelength is dictated by different mechanical properties of the lumen and the cortex. Despite the good agreement with experimental results, [@Engstrom_2018] noticed that brain organoids exhibit an unconventional behaviour: the cortex is thinner in correspondence of sulci and thicker in correspondence of gyri, in contrast with the morphology predicted by elastic models. In this paper, we revisit the model proposed by [@balbi2018mechanics] to overcome the limitations remarked by [@Engstrom_2018], proposing a different explanation of lissencephaly.\ In cellular aggregates, cohesion among cells is due to adhesion forces induced by adhesion molecules [@Turlier_2015; @Ma_tre_2015]. Internal cells are surrounded by other cells, so that the sum of all these forces is zero and each cell is in mechanical equilibrium. Conversely, cells at the boundary of the agglomerate possess a portion of their membrane which is not in contact with other cells: the total adhesion force acting on such cells is non null and it is perpendicular to the free surface of the cellular agglomerate (see Fig. \[fig:surf\_tens\] for a graphical representation). These forces generate deformation and the appearance of a boundary layer at the periphery that can be treated as a surface effect called tissue surface tension [@Steinberg_1963]. ![Cells in the bulk (left) and on the free surface (right) of a cellular lattice. Adhesion forces generated by the surrounding cells are denoted by the red arrows. The sum of all these forces on an internal cell is zero, while it is non-zero and perpendicular to the boundary for a cell on the free surface.[]{data-label="fig:surf_tens"}](organoid_surf_tens){width="80.00000%"} Such mechanical unbalance is reminiscent of the mechanics of surface tension in fluids and soft gels [@Style_2017]. Since organoids and embryos are characterized by small length scales, surface effects arising from cohesion forces cannot be neglected. The presence of tissue surface tension has been used in fluid models of cellular agglomerates [@foty1996surface; @Davis_1997; @Forgacs_1998] but it is usually overlooked in solid models. Surface tension has been used within the framework of the theory of non-linear elasticity to regularize the [@Biot] instability, i.e. the buckling instability of an elastic half-space under compression. Without taking into account surface tension, all the wrinkling modes become unstable at the same compression rate. The introduction of a small surface tension regularizes the problem, penalizing the short wavelength modes [@Ben_Amar_2010; @Dervaux_2011]. At small length scales, elasto-capillary forces can deform soft gel beams [@Mora_2010; @Mora_2013] even inducing mechanical instabilities [@Taffetani_2015; @Xuan_2016]. Surface tension can also enhance the resistance to fracture in soft solids [@Liu_2014; @Hui_2016].\ The work is organized as follows: in Section \[sec:surface\_tension\] we justify the assumption of a solid model for brain organoids and we compute an estimation of the surface tension acting on a solid cellular aggregate. In Section \[sec:elastic\_model\] we develop the elastic model of brain organoids. In Section \[sec:lin\_stab\] we perform a linear stability analysis of the radially symmetric configuration and in Section \[sec:post\_buckling\] we implement a finite element code to study the post-buckling behaviour. Finally, in Section \[sec:discussion\] we discuss the outcomes of our model together with some concluding remarks. Intercellular adhesion generates surface tension in cellular aggregates {#sec:surface_tension} ======================================================================= At the micro-scale, cellular aggregates are composed by several constituents that, in bulk, have a solid or a fluid-like mechanical nature, like cells, the extracellular matrix, the interstitial fluid, and so on. From a macroscopic point of view, cellular aggregates can be treated as continuum media but their rheology is still a matter of debate. In fact, cellular aggregates are frequently modelled as fluids [@Foty_1994; @Manning_2010] that can bear external loading thanks to the tissue surface tension. Another point of view is that cellular aggregates behave as active viscoelastic solids [@Kuznetsova_2007; @Ambrosi_2017; @Karzbrun_2018]. Some important features of biological tissues mechanics cannot be reproduced by fluid-like models. First, there are experimental evidences that cell mitosis and apoptosis (i.e. the cell division and death respectively) are regulated by mechanical stress [@Montel_2012; @Montel_2012_2]. In particular, in [@Cheng_2009], the authors report an increased cell duplication in the regions where the compressive stress exerted by the surrounding material on the tumour spheroid is minimum. This spatially inhomogeneous growth can be explained only by using a solid description of the cellular agglomerate: the stress tensor of a fluid at rest corresponds to an hydrostatic pressure which is independent on the spatial position [@Ambrosi_2017]. Furthermore, contrarily to fluids, solids can store mechanical stress even in the absence of external loads. These stresses are called residual [@Hoger_1985] and they are created when differential growth in solid matter develops microstructural misfits. These geometrical incompatibilities are restored by elastic distortions of the body, generating mechanical stress [@Rodriguez_1994; @Goriely_2017; @Riccobelli_2019]. Contrary to the fluid approach, the tissue surface tension of cellular aggregates is frequently neglected in solid models. Nonetheless, also solids possess surface tension [@Style_2017] and it can play an important role, when the aggregate is very soft or has a small size. In fact, surface tension introduces a new length scale in the problem: let $\mu$ be the shear modulus of the cellular agglomerate and $\gamma$ the surface tension, then the capillary length $l_\text{c}$ is defined as [@Mora_2013; @Style_2017] $$l_\text{c} = \frac{\gamma}{\mu}.$$ Whenever this length-scale is of the same order of the characteristic length of the body (e.g. the radius of a spheroid) surface tension cannot be neglected: it can produce a non-negligible deformation [@Mora_2013; @Style_2013; @Mora_2015] and it can even induce mechanical instabilities [@Mora_2010; @Taffetani_2015; @Xuan_2016]. Cellular aggregates are very soft and the effect of the surface tension can be highly relevant, as we show in the following. Estimation of the surface tension acting on a multicellular spheroid {#sec:surf_tens_spheroid} -------------------------------------------------------------------- There are experimental evidences that a tensile skin, having the thickness of a couple of cells, generates an isotropic compression inside multicellular aggregates [@Lee_2019]. This phenomenon can be explained as a manifestation of tissue surface tension induced by intercellular adhesion: the tensile skin is indeed very thin and such boundary layer can be treated as a surface tension. Modelling the unloaded multicellular spheroid as a ball occupying the domain $$\Omega_\text{s} = \left\{\vect{X}\in\R^3\;\|\;\|\vect{X}\|<R_\text{o}\right\},$$ we assume that the spheroid is composed of an incompressible elastic material. Let $\tens{T}$ be the Cauchy stress tensor, the balance of the linear and angular momentum reads $$\label{eq:equi_sphero} \diver \tens{T} = \vect{0}.$$ If the spheroid is subjected to surface tension $\gamma$, the boundary condition reads [@Style_2017] $$\label{eq:surf_tens_spheroid} \tens{T}\vect{n} = \gamma \mathcal{K} \vect{n}, \qquad\text{at }R = R_\text{o}$$ where $R$ denotes the radial position and $\mathcal{K}$ is twice the mean curvature. We prove that the undeformed reference configuration is in mechanical equilibrium. Assuming that residual stresses are absent [@Lee_2019], the Cauchy stress is given by [@ogden1997non] $$\tens{T} = -p\tens{I}$$ where $\tens{I}$ is the identity and $p$ is the pressure field that enforces the incompressibility constraint. A constant pressure field $p$ satisfies the equilibrium equation . Assuming that a surface tension $\gamma$ acts at the external boundary of the spheroid, the boundary condition reads of the surface and $\vect{n}$ is the external normal. From Eq. we get $$p = \frac{2 \gamma}{R_\text{o}}$$ which is nothing else that the Young-Laplace equation. We obtain an expression for $\gamma$, such as $$\label{eq:surf_tens_spheroid_2} \gamma = \frac{p R_\text{o}}{2}.$$ From the work of [@Lee_2019], we get that the typical radius of a spheroid is $\sim 400\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ and the internal pressure $p$ is about $500\,\text{Pa}$ (Fig. 5d in [@Lee_2019]). From these data and from Eq. , we estimate that the surface tension acting on the spheroid is $\gamma\simeq 0.1\,\mathrm{N}/\mathrm{m}$. Elastic model of brain organoids {#sec:elastic_model} ================================ In this Section, we illustrate a model of brain organoids, described as growing hyperelastic bodies subjected to surface tension Kinematics ---------- We denote by $\vect{X}$ the material position coordinate. The experiments of [@Karzbrun_2018] suggest to adopt a two-dimensional domain equipped with polar coordinates. Let $$\Omega_0 = \left\{\vect{X} = [R \cos\Theta,\,R\sin\Theta]\in\R^2 \;\|\;0\leq R<R_\text{o}\text{ and }0\leq\Theta<2\pi\right\}$$ be the reference configuration of the organoid. We indicate with $\vect{\varphi}:\Omega_0\rightarrow\R^2$ the deformation field, so that the actual configuration of the body $\Omega$ is given by $\vect{\varphi}(\Omega_0)$. Then $\vect{x}= \vect{\varphi}(\vect{X})$ be the actual position of the point $\vect{X}$ and the displacement vector is defined as $\vect{u}(\vect{X}) = \vect{\varphi}(\vect{X})-\vect{X}$. Let $\tens{F}$ be the deformation gradient, i.e. $\tens{F} = \Grad\vect{\varphi}$. We exploit a multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient (known as Kröner-Lee decomposition [@Kr_ner_1959; @Lee_1969]) to model the growth, so that $$\tens{F} = \tens{F}_\text{e}\tens{G}$$ where the growth tensor $\tens{G}$ accounts for the local inelastic distortion due to the body growth while $\tens{F}_\text{e}$ describe the elastic distortion necessary to maintain the geometrical compatibility of the body and to balance the external and internal forces [@Rodriguez_1994]. Since human cells are mainly composed of water, it is reasonable to model the organoid as an incompressible medium, namely we enforce that $$\label{eq:incompressibility} \det\tens{F}_\text{e} = 1.$$ In [@Karzbrun_2018], the authors identified two distinct regions in brain organoids: an internal lumen and an external ring, called cortex, the latter being characterized by a faster growth. Indicating with $R_\text{i}$ the radius of the lumen, we denote these two regions by $\Omega_{0\text{L}}$ and $\Omega_{0\text{R}}$: $$\Omega_{0\text{L}} = \{\vect{X}\in\Omega\;\|\;R<R_\text{i}\},\qquad \Omega_{0\text{C}} = \{\vect{X}\in\Omega\;\|\;R_\text{i}< R <R_\text{o}\},$$ and their images through $\vect{\varphi}$ are denoted by $\Omega_\text{L}$ and $\Omega_\text{R}$ respectively. We assume that the growth tensor $\tens{G}$ takes diagonal form $$\label{eq:tensG} \tens{G} = \left\{ \begin{aligned} &\tens{I} &&\text{if }R<R_\text{i},\\ &g\tens{I} &&\text{if }R_\text{i}< R < R_\text{o}, \end{aligned} \right.$$ where the scalar quantity $g$ is the growth rate of the cortex with respect to the lumen. We now introduce some mechanical constitutive assumptions. Mechanical constitutive assumptions and force balance equations --------------------------------------------------------------- We assume that the organoids are composed of an incompressible hyperelastic material with strain energy density $\psi$. The first Piola–Kirchhoff stress $\tens{P}$ and the Cauchy stress tensors $\tens{T}$ are then given by $$\tens{P} = (\det{\tens{G}})\tens{G}^{-1}\frac{\partial\psi(\tens{F}_\text{e})}{\partial\tens{F}_\text{e}}-p\tens{F}^{-1}\qquad\tens{T} = \frac{1}{\det\tens{F}}\tens{F}\tens{P}$$ where $p$ is the Lagrange multiplier enforcing the incompressibility constraint . The balance of the linear and angular momentum reads $$\label{eq:balance} \Diver\tens{P} = \vect{0}\text{ in }\Omega_{0\text{L}},\,\Omega_{0\text{C}},\qquad\text{or}\qquad\diver\tens{T}=\vect{0}\text{ in }\Omega_\text{L},\,\Omega_\text{C}$$ in the material and actual reference frame, respectively. We assume that the center of the organoid is fixed, i.e. $$\label{eq:BCcenter} \vect{u}(\vect{0}) = \vect{0}$$ while a constant surface tension $\gamma$ acts at the external boundary of the organoid, so that [@Style_2017] $$\label{eq:BC_capi_T} \tens{T}\vect{n} = \gamma \mathcal{K} \vect{n}$$ where $\vect{n}$ is the outer normal in spatial coordinates and $\mathcal{K}$ is the oriented curvature of the boundary curve $\vect{\mathcal{L}}$ parametrized clockwise, i.e. $$\label{eq:clockwise} \vect{\mathcal{L}}(\Theta) = \vect{\varphi}\left([R_o\cos(\Theta),\,R_o\sin(-\Theta)]\right).$$ The Lagrangian form of the boundary condition is obtained performing a pull-back $$\label{eq:PN} \tens{P}^T\vect{N} = (\det{\tens{F}})\gamma \mathcal{K} \tens{F}^{-T}\vect{N}$$ Finally, we enforce the continuity of the stress at the interface $R = R_\text{i}$, so that $$\label{eq:cont_stress} \lim_{R\rightarrow R_\text{i}^-}\tens{P}^T\vect{N} = \lim_{R\rightarrow R_\text{i}^+}\tens{P}^T\vect{N}.$$ We assume that the organoid is composed by a neo–Hookean elastic material, so that the strain energy density is given by $$\label{eq:strain_energy} \psi(\tens{F}) = \frac{\mu}{2}(I_1-2),$$ where $I_1$ is trace of the right Cauchy-Green tensor $\tens{C} = \tens{F}^T\tens{F}$. The stress tensors $\tens{P}$ and $\tens{T}$ read $$\label{eq:stress_tensors} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &\tens{P} = \mu (\det{\tens G}) \tens{G}^{-1}\tens{G}^{-T}\tens{F}^{-T} - p\tens{F}^{-1},\\ &\tens{T} = \mu \tens{F}\tens{G}^{-1}\tens{G}^{-T}\tens{F}^T - p\tens{I}. \end{aligned} \right.$$ Eqs. and , together with the kinematic constraint Eq. and the boundary condition Eq. define the non linear elastic problem. In the next Section we look for a radially symmetric solution. Equilibrium radially-symmetric solution --------------------------------------- Let $(r,\,\theta)$ be the actual radial and polar coordinates of a point. Let $(\vect{E}_R,\,\vect{E}_\Theta)$ and $(\vect{e}_r,\,\vect{e}_\theta)$ be the local vector basis in polar coordinates in the Lagrangian and Eulerian reference frame, respectively. We look for a radially-symmetric solution of the form $$\vect{\varphi}(\vect{X}) = r(R)\vect{e}_r.$$ The deformation gradient expressed in polar coordinates reads $$\label{eq:Fbase} \tens{F} = \diag\left(r', \frac{r}{R}\right).$$ It is immediate to notice that $$r(R) = R\qquad\text{for }R<R_\text{i},$$ where $r_\text{i} = r(R_\text{i}) = R_\text{i}$. In the cortex, from the incompressibility equation , we get $$r'r = R.$$ Performing an integration and imposing that $R_\text{i}=r_\text{i}$, we get $$\label{eq:r} r(R) = g\sqrt{R^2 +\left(\frac{1}{g^2}-1\right)R_\text{i}^2}.$$ It remains to determine the pressure field $p$. First, we notice that, inverting and differentiating , we obtain $$\label{eq:Rr'} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &R = \frac{1}{g}\sqrt{r^2+(g^2-1)R_\text{i}^2},\\ &r' = g\frac{\sqrt{r^2+(g^2-1)R_\text{i}^2}}{r}, \end{aligned} \right.\qquad\text{in }R_\text{i}<R<R_\text{o}$$ respectively. The curvature of the boundary line is $r_\text{o}^{-1}$, where $$r_\text{o} = r(R_\text{o}) = g\sqrt{R_\text{o}^2 +\left(\frac{1}{g^2}-1\right)R_\text{i}^2};$$ so that the boundary condition reads $$\tens{T}\vect{e}_r = -\frac{\gamma}{r_\text{o}}\vect{e}_r.$$ Since the deformation depends only on the radial position $r$, the balance of the linear and angular momentum in polar coordinates reads $$\label{eq:divTrad} \frac{d T_{rr}}{dr} + \frac{T_{rr}-T_{\theta\theta}}{r}=0$$ where $T_{ij}$ are the components of the Cauchy stress tensor $\tens{T}$ in polar coordinates. From , and , the Cauchy stress in the cortex reads $$\label{eq:Tcortex} \tens{T} = \diag\left( \frac{\mu \left(R_\text{i}^2 \left(g^2-1\right)+r^2\right)}{r^2}-p ,\,\frac{\mu r^2}{R_\text{i}^2 \left(g^2-1\right)+r^2}-p\right).$$ We can integrate from $r_\text{o}$ to $r$, obtaining $$\label{eq:Trrcortex} T_{rr}(r) = -\frac{\gamma}{r_\text{o}}+\int^{r_\text{o}}_r\left[\frac{\mu \left(-\frac{\rho ^4}{R_\text{i}^2 \left(g^2-1\right)+\rho ^2}+R_\text{i}^2 \left(g^2-1\right)+\rho ^2\right)}{\rho ^3}\right]\,d\rho.$$ We can find the pressure field in the cortex (i.e. for $r_\text{i}<r<r_\text{o}$ by plugging Eq. into Eq. , obtaining $$\label{eq:pCortex} \begin{multlined} p = f_p(r) := \frac{1}{2} \left(\mu \left(\frac{R_{\text i}^2 \left(g^2-1\right)}{r^2}+2\right)+\right.\\ +\mu \left(-\log \left(R_{\text i}^2 \left(g^2-1\right)+r^2\right)+\log \left (R_{\text i}^2 \left(g^2-1\right)+r_{\text o}^2\right)+2 \log \left(\frac{r}{r_{\text o}}\right)\right)+\\ \left.+\frac{\mu R_{\text i}^2 \left(g^2-1\right)+2 \gamma r_{\text o}}{r_{\text o}^2}\right). \end{multlined}$$ Finally, we impose the continuity of the stress at $r = r_\text{i} = R_\text{i}$ to get the pressure for $r<r_\text{i}$. Since the lumen remains undeformed, the Cauchy stress reads $$\tens{T} = -p_\text{L}\tens{I},$$ and, using Eq. and Eq. , we can write the solution $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:r<ri} &\left\{ \begin{aligned} &r = R\\ &p = p_\text{L} := f_p(r_\text{i})+\mu -g^2 \mu \end{aligned} \right.&&\text{for }r<r_\text{i},\\ \label{eq:ri<r<ro} &\left\{ \begin{aligned} &r = g\sqrt{R^2 +\left(\frac{1}{g^2}-1\right)R_\text{i}^2}\\ &p = p_\text{C} := f_p(r) \end{aligned} \right.&&\text{for }r_\text{i}<r<r_\text{o}.\end{aligned}$$ In the next section a linear stability analysis of the solution given by Eqs. - is perform. Linear stability analysis {#sec:lin_stab} ========================= Incremental equations --------------------- In order to investigate the stability of the radially symmetric solution, we apply the theory of incremental deformations superposed on finite strains [@ogden1997non]. Let $\delta \vect{u}$ be the incremental displacement field and let $\tens{\Gamma} = \grad\delta \vect{u}$. We introduce the push-forward of the incremental Piola-Kirchhoff stress in the axisymmetric deformed configuration; such a tensor is given by $$\label{eq:A0} \delta \tens{P} = \mathcal{A}_0 : \tens{\Gamma} +p \tens{\Gamma} - \delta p \tens{I}$$ where $\mathcal{A}_0$ is the fourth order tensor of instantaneous elastic moduli, $\delta p$ is the increment of the Lagrangian multiplier that imposes the incompressibility constraint. The two dots operator $(:)$ denotes the double contraction of the indices $$(\mathcal{A}_0 : \tens{\Gamma})_{ij} = (A_0)_{ijhk}\Gamma_{kh},$$ where the convention of summation over repeated indices is used. The components of the tensor $\mathcal{A}_0$ for a neo–Hookean material, are given by $$(A_0)_{ijhk} = \mu \delta_{ik}(B_\text{e})_{ih}$$ where $\tens{B}_\text{e} = \tens{F}_\text{e} \tens{F}_\text{e}^T$ and $\delta_{ik}$ is the Kronecker Delta. The incremental equilibrium equation and the linearised form of the incompressibility constraint are given by $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} \label{eq:deltaP} &\Diver\delta\tens{P} = \vect{0} &&\hbox{in } \Omega_{0\text{L}}, \,\Omega_{0\text{C}} \\ &\tr \, \tens{\Gamma} = 0 &&\hbox{in } \Omega_{0\text{L}},\, \Omega_{0\text{C}}. \end{aligned} \right.$$ The linearised form of the kinematic constraint and of the boundary condition complement the incremental equations $$\begin{gathered} \label{eq:BC_incrementedu} \delta\vect{u}(\vect{0}) = \vect{0}\\ \label{eq:BC_incrementedP} \delta \tens{P}\, \vect{e}_r = \gamma\delta\mathcal{K} \,\vect{e}_r - \gamma\mathcal{K} \tens{\Gamma}^T\, \vect{e}_r,\end{gathered}$$ where $\delta \mathcal{K}$ is the increment of the curvature. Finally, we enforce the continuity of the incremental displacement of the stress at the interface, i.e. $$\label{eq:cont_incr} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &\lim_{r\rightarrow R_\text{i}^-}\delta\vect{u} = \lim_{r\rightarrow R_\text{i}^+}\delta\vect{u},\\ &\lim_{r\rightarrow R_\text{i}^-}\delta\tens{P}^T\vect{e}_r = \lim_{r\rightarrow R_\text{i}^+}\delta\tens{P}^T\vect{e}_r, \end{aligned} \right.$$ In the following, we rewrite the incremental problem given by the Eqs. - into a more convenient form using the [@Stroh_1962] formulation. Stroh formulation ----------------- We rewrite the incremental problem in non-dimensional form using the length scale $R_\text{o}$ and the shear modulus $\mu$. The behaviour of the problem is governed by the non-dimensional parameters $$\label{eq:par_adim} \alpha_\gamma = \frac{l_{\text c}}{R_{\text o}}= \frac{\gamma}{\mu R_\text{o}}, \quad \alpha_R = \frac{R_{\text i}}{R_{\text o}},$$ in addition to the growth parameter $g$.\ For the sake of brevity, we introduce the multi-index ${\text W} = \{{\text L},{\text C}\}$. The quantities with subscript ${\text L}$ are computed in the lumen, while the ones in the cortex have the subscript ${\text C}$. We denote with $u_{\text W}$ and $v_{\text W}$ the components of $\delta \vect{u}_{\text W}$ while $\delta P^{\text W}_{rr}$ and $\delta P^{\text W}_{r\theta}$ are the components of the incremental stress projected along the radial vector $\vect{e}_r$. We can reduce the system of partial differential equations into a system of ordinary differential equations by assuming the following ansatz for the incremental displacement, pressure and stress: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:ul} u_{\text W}(r,\theta)&=U_{\text W}(r) \cos(m\theta)\\ \label{eq:vl} v_{\text W}(r,\theta)&=V_{\text W}(r) \sin(m\theta)\\ \label{eq:deltaprr} \delta P^{\text W}_{rr}&= s_{rr}^{\text W}(r) \cos(m\theta)\\ \label{eq:deltaprteta} \delta P^{\text W}_{r\theta}& = s_{r\theta}^{\text W}(r) \sin(m\theta)\\ \label{eq:deltapres} \delta p^{\text W}_{r\theta}& = Q^{\text W}(r) \cos(m\theta)\end{aligned}$$ where $m\in \{n\in\mathbb{N}\;\|\;n\geq 2\}$ is the circumferential wavenumber and $U_{\text W}, V_{\text W},s_{rr}^{\text W}$ and $s_{r\theta}^{\text W}$ are scalar functions of $r$. By substituting into , we obtain the following expression for $Q^{\text L}$ and $Q^{\text C}$ $$\begin{aligned} Q^{\text L}(r) &= - s_{rr}^{\text L}(r)+p_{\text L}U'_{\text L}(r)\\ Q^\Cped (r)&=U'_{\Cped}(r) \left(\frac{\alpha_R^2 \left(g^2-1\right)}{r^2}+p_{\text C}+1\right)-s_{r\theta}^{C}(r), \end{aligned}$$ where $p_\text{L}$, $p_\text{C}$ are defined in Eq. . By the choices - and using a well established procedure, the incremental problem can be rewritten in the [@Stroh_1962] form $$\label{eq:etalumen} \frac{d \vect{\eta}_{\text W}}{d r} = \frac{1}{r} \tens{N}_{\text W} \vect{\eta}_{\text W} \quad \hbox{with } {\text W = \{ \text{L} ,\,\text{C}\}}$$ where $\vect{\eta}_{\text W}$ is the displacement-traction vector: $$\vect{\eta}_{\text W} = [\vect{U}_{\text W}, r\vect{\Sigma}_{\text W}] \quad \hbox{where} \quad \left\{ \begin{aligned} &\vect{U}_{\text W} = [U_{\text W},V_{\text W}],\\ &\vect{\Sigma}_{\text W}= [s_{rr}^{\text W}, s_{r\theta}^{\text W}]. \end{aligned} \right.$$ The matrix $\tens{N}_{\text W} \in \mathbb{R}^{4\times4}$ is the Stroh matrix and it has the following sub-block form $$\tens{N}_L= \begin{bmatrix} \tens{N}^{\text W}_1 &\tens{N}^{\text W}_2\\ \tens{N}^{\text W}_3 &\tens{N}^{\text W}_4 \end{bmatrix}.$$ For the lumen ($r< r_\text{i}$), the sub-blocks read: $$\label{eq:strohlumen} \begin{aligned} &\tens{N}^{\text L}_1= \begin{bmatrix} -1 & -m \\ mp_{\Lped} & p_\Lped \end{bmatrix}, &&\tens{N}^{{\text L}}_3 = \begin{bmatrix} -p_L ^2 m^2+m^2+2 p_L +2 & m \left(-p_L ^2+2 p_L+3\right)\\ 1 & -m p_L \end{bmatrix},\\ &\tens{N}^{\text L}_2= \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 \\\end{bmatrix}, &&\tens{N}^{\text L}_4 = \begin{bmatrix} m \left(-p_L ^2+2 p_L +3\right) & \left(2 m^2-p_L+1\right) (p_L+1)\\ m & -p_L \end{bmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$ In the cortex ($r_\text{i}<r<r_\text{o}$), the sub-blocks are given by $$\label{eq:strohcortex} \begin{gathered} \tens{N}^\Cped_1= \begin{bmatrix} -1 & -m \\ mp_\Cped\beta_\Cped & p_\Cped\beta_\Cped \end{bmatrix},\qquad \tens{N}^\Cped_2= \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0\\ 0 & \beta_{\Cped} \\\end{bmatrix},\qquad \tens{N}^\Cped_4 = \begin{bmatrix} 1 &-mp_\Cped\beta_\Cped\\ m & -p_\Cped\beta_\Cped \end{bmatrix},\\ \tens{N}^{\Cped}_3 = \begin{bmatrix} 1/\beta_\Cped+(1+m^2)\beta_\Cped+p_\Cped(2-mp_\Cped\beta_\Cped)& m\beta_\Cped\left(2+1/\beta_\Cped^2+2p_\Cped/\beta_\Cped-p_\Cped^2\right)\\ m\beta_\Cped\left(2+1/\beta_\Cped^2+2p_\Cped/\beta_\Cped-p_\Cped^2\right) & m^2/\beta_{\Cped}+(1+m^2)\beta_{\Cped}+2m^2p_\Cped-p_\Cped^2\beta_\Cped\end{bmatrix}; \end{gathered}$$ where $$\beta_\text{C} = \frac{r^2}{r^2+(g^2-1)\alpha_R^2}.$$ Interestingly, the coefficient of the Stroh matrix are constant in the lumen (see Eq. ). This allows us to solve analytically the incremental problem for $r<r_\text{i}$. Incremental solution for the lumen ---------------------------------- We follow the procedure used in [@Dervaux_2011] and in [@balbi2018mechanics]. Since Eq. with $\text{W} = \text{L}$ is a system of ODEs with constant coefficients, its solution can be rewritten in terms of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\tens{N}_{\text L}$. The eigenvalues of $\tens{N}_{\text L}$ are $\lambda_1 = m-1$, $\lambda_2 = m+1$, $\lambda_3 = -m+1$ and $\lambda_4 = -m-1$. The general integral of Eq. is given by $$\label{eq:sollumen} \vect{\eta}_{\text L} = c_1 \vect{w}_1 r^{m-1} + c_2 \vect{w}_2 r^{m+1}+c_3 \vect{w}_3 r^{m-1} + c_4 \vect{w}_2 r^{m+1},$$ where $\vect{w}_i$ are the eigenvectors of $\tens{N}_\text{L}$ associated with the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$, $i = 1,\dots,\,4$. Since the incremental solution must satisfy the kinematic constraint , we immediately get that $c_3 = c_4 = 0$ while $$\label{eq:w_i} \begin{aligned} \vect{w}_1 &= \left[-1,1,-(m-1) (1+p_\text{L}),(m-1) (1+p_\text{L})\right]\\ \vect{w}_2 &=\left[-m,m+2,-(m+1) (m (1+p_\text{L})-4),(m+1) ((m+2)+(m-2) p_\text{L})\right]. \end{aligned}$$ The two constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ will be fixed by imposing the continuity of the displacement and of the stress at $r = r_{\text i}$ (i.e. by enforcing the equations ). Numerical procedure for the solution in the cortex -------------------------------------------------- The incremental problem in the cortex cannot be solved analytically since the coefficient of the Stroh matrix $\tens{N}_\text{C}$ given by are not constant. To overcome this difficulty, we implement a numerical code to solve based on the impedance matrix method [@biryukov1985impedance; @Biryukov_1995]. We first introduce the conditional impedance matrix, defined as $$\label{eq:impedancematrix} r \vect{\Sigma}_\Cped(r) = \tens{Z}_{\Cped}(r,r_{\text o})\vect{U}_{\Cped}(r);$$ where the name conditional derives from the fact that its expression depend on an auxiliary condition at $r = r_\text{o}$, which in this case is provided by the boundary condition . In the following paragraphs we expose a procedure to construct the matrix $\tens{Z}_\text{C}(r,\,r_\text{o})$. The incremental boundary condition Eq. reads $$\label{eq:BC_incrementedP2} \delta\tens{P}^T \vect{e}_{r} = \alpha_\gamma \delta\mathcal{K}\, \vect{e}_{r} +\frac{\alpha_\gamma}{r_{\text o}}\tens{\Gamma}^T\,\vect{e}_r,\qquad \text{at }r = r_\text{o}.$$ where the incremental curvature $\delta\mathcal{K}$ is given by (see the Appendix \[app:A\] for the details of the computation): $$\delta\mathcal{K} = \frac{1}{r_\text{o}^2}\left(\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial \theta}+\dfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial \theta^2}\right),\qquad \text{at }r = r_\text{o}.$$ From the ansatz of variable separation in Eqs.- and using the incremental form of the incompressibility constraint , the boundary condition is equivalent to $$\label{eq:P_tens_sup} \delta\tens{P}^T \vect{e}_{r}= -\frac{\alpha_\gamma}{r_{\text o}^2}\left[(m^2U_\Cped+mV_\Cped)\cos (m\theta),(mU_\Cped+V_\Cped)\sin (m\theta)\right]\qquad\text{at }r=r_\text{o}.$$ We can now define the auxiliary impedance matrix [@Norris_2010] as $$\label{eq:zi} \tens{Z}_{\text o} = -\frac{\alpha_\gamma}{r_{\text o}} \begin{bmatrix} m^2 & m\\ m &1 \end{bmatrix},$$ so that the boundary condition is equivalent to the equation $$\label{eq:auxiliary_condition} r_\text{o}\vect{\Sigma}_\text{C}(r_\text{o}) = \tens{Z}_\text{o}\vect{U}(r_\text{o}).$$ We introduce the matricant $$\tens{M}^{\Cped}(r,r_{\text o}) = \begin{bmatrix} \tens{M}^{\Cped}_1(r,r_{\text o}) &\tens{M}^{\Cped}_2(r,r_{\text o})\\ \tens{M}^{\Cped}_3(r,r_{\text o})&\tens{M}^{\Cped}_4(r,r_{\text o}) \end{bmatrix}, \qquad \tens{M}^{\Cped}(r,r_{\text o}) \in \R^{4\times4}$$ called conditional matrix, defined as the solution of the problem $$\label{eq:matricant} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &\frac{d\tens{M}^{\Cped}}{dr} = \frac{1}{r}\tens{N}_\Cped\tens{M}^{\Cped}(r,r_{\text o})\\ &\tens{M}^\text{C}(r_{\text o},r_{\text o}) = \tens{I}. \end{aligned} \right.$$ From the definition , the Stroh form of the incremental problem and the Eq. , we get $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} &\vect{U}_\Cped(r) = (\tens{M}_1^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o}) + r_\text{o}\tens{M}_2^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o})\tens{Z}_\text{o})\vect{U}_\Cped(r_{\text o})\\ &r\vect{\Sigma}_\Cped(r) = (\tens{M}_3^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o}) + r_\text{o}\tens{M}_4^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o})\tens{Z}_\text{o})\vect{U}_\Cped(r_{\text o}) \end{aligned} \right.$$ so that $$\label{eq:schifo} r\vect{\Sigma}_\Cped(r) = (\tens{M}_3^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o}) + r_\text{o}\tens{M}_4^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o})\tens{Z}_\text{o})(\tens{M}_1^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o}) + r_\text{o}\tens{M}_2^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o})\tens{Z}_\text{o})^{-1}\vect{U}_\Cped(r).$$ From , the conditional impedance matrix is given by $$\tens{Z}_\text{C}(r,\,r_\text{o}) = (\tens{M}_3^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o}) + r_\text{o}\tens{M}_4^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o})\tens{Z}_\text{o})(\tens{M}_1^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o}) + r_\text{o}\tens{M}_2^\text{C}(r,r_{\text o})\tens{Z}_\text{o})^{-1}.$$ From now on, we omit the dependence of $\tens{Z}_\text{C}$ wherever convenient for sake of simplicity. By using Eq. , we can rewrite the Stroh problem in the cortex into a differential Riccati equation. Indeed, from , with $W=C$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:riccatiU} \frac{d \vect{U}_\Cped}{d r} &= \frac{1}{r} \left(\tens{N}_1^\Cped\vect{U}_\Cped+\tens{N}_2^\Cped\tens{Z}_\Cped\vect{U}_\Cped\right),\\ \label{eq:riccatiZU} \frac{d\tens{Z}_\Cped}{dr}\vect{U}_\Cped+\tens{Z}_\Cped\frac{d\vect{U}_\Cped}{dr} &= \frac{1}{r} \left(\tens{N}_3^\Cped\vect{U}_\Cped+\tens{N}_4^\Cped\tens{Z}_\Cped\vect{U}_\Cped\right).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting Eq. into Eq. we get the Riccati equation $$\label{eq:riccati} \frac{d \tens{Z}_\Cped}{d r} = \frac{1}{r} \left(\tens{Z}_\Cped\tens{N}_1^\Cped-\tens{Z}_\Cped\tens{N}_2^\Cped\tens{Z}_\Cped+\tens{N}_3^{\Cped}+\tens{N}_4^{\Cped}\tens{Z}_\Cped\right).$$ We integrate Eq. from $r_{\text o}$ to $r_{\text i}$, using as initial condition the auxiliary impedance matrix defined in , i.e. $$\tens{Z}_\text{c}(r_\text{o},\,r_\text{o}) = \tens{Z}_\text{o}.$$ To construct a bifurcation criterion, we follow [@balbi2018mechanics]. From the continuity of the displacement-traction vector $\vect{\eta}_\Cped(r_{\text i}) =\vect{\eta}_\Lped(r_{\text i})$ we get $$r_{\text i}\vect{\Sigma}_\Lped(r_{\text i})= r_{\text i}\vect{\Sigma}_\Cped(r_{\text i}) = \tens{Z}_\Cped(r_{\text i},r_{\text o})\vect{U}_\Cped(r_{\text i}) = \tens{Z}_\Cped(r_{\text i},r_{\text o})\vect{U}_\Lped(r_{\text i}),$$ so that non-null solutions of the incremental problem exist if and only if $$\label{eq:stopcondition} \det \left[\tens{A}-\tens{Z}_\Cped(r_{\text i},r_{\text o})\tens{B}\right]=0,$$ where $$A_{ij} = (w_i)_{j+2} \qquad B_{ij} = (w_i)_{j},\qquad i,j=1,2,$$ with $\vect{w}_i$ defined in . For a fixed value of the control parameter $g$ we integrate the Riccati equation from $r= r_{\text o}$ up to $r = r_{\text i}$ making use of the the software <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mathematica</span> 11.3 (Wolfram Research, Champaign, IL, USA). We iteratively increase the control parameter $g$ until the bifurcation criterion is satisfied. Discussion of the results {#subsec:result_linear} ------------------------- First, we need to identify an interval of interest for the adimensional parameter $\alpha_\gamma$. We have estimated the surface tension of cellular aggregates in Section \[sec:surf\_tens\_spheroid\]. From the stress profiles reported by [@Lee_2019], we obtain a surface tension of the order of $10^{-1} \mathrm{N/m}$. According to [@Karzbrun_2018], the shear modulus of the wild-type brain organoid is $\mu \simeq 900\,\mathrm{Pa}$ (Young modulus $E \simeq 2.7\,\mathrm{kPa}$) while $\mu \simeq 333\,\mathrm{Pa}$ (Young modulus $E \simeq 1\,\mathrm{kPa}$) for the unhealthy ones, afflicted by lissencephaly (i.e. when the mutation LIS1 $+/-$ is present). Provided that the typical radius of the organoid is about $R_\text{o}=400\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ [@Karzbrun_2018], $\alpha_\gamma$ ranges between $0.25$ for the wild-type organoids and $0.75$ for the ones affected by lissencephaly.\ Let us now discuss the results of the linear stability analysis. For fixed values of the adimensional parameters $\alpha_R$ and $\alpha_\gamma$, we denote by $g_m$ the first value of $g$ such that the bifurcation criterion is satisfied for the wavenumber $m$. We define the critical threshold $g_\text{cr}$ as the minimum $g_m$ for $m\geq 2$ and the critical mode $m_\text{cr}$ as the wavenumber corresponding to $g_\text{cr}$. In Fig. \[fig:fixalphaR\], we plot the critical values $g_{\text cr}$ and $m_{\text cr}$ versus $\alpha_{ \gamma}$ for two different values of $\alpha_R$, i.e. in the first one $\alpha_R = 0.9$, while in the other one $\alpha_R= 0.95$. [.5]{} ![Plot of the marginal stability threshold $g_\text{cr}$ and of the critical mode $m_\text{cr}$ versus $\alpha_\gamma$ for (a) $\alpha_R=0.9$ and (b) $\alpha_R=0.95$.[]{data-label="fig:fixalphaR"}](marg_stab_ar_09.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} [.5]{} ![Plot of the marginal stability threshold $g_\text{cr}$ and of the critical mode $m_\text{cr}$ versus $\alpha_\gamma$ for (a) $\alpha_R=0.9$ and (b) $\alpha_R=0.95$.[]{data-label="fig:fixalphaR"}](marg_stab_ar_095.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} We observe that, for relatively small values of $\alpha_\gamma$, the marginal stability threshold $g_{\text cr}$ increases monotonously as $\alpha_\gamma$ increases, while the critical wavenumber $m_\text{cr}$ decreases. There is a change in the behaviour of the instability when the parameter $\alpha_\gamma$ is sufficiently large: the critical wavenumber $m_\text{cr}$ increases suddenly and the marginal stability threshold $g_{cr}$ remains nearly constant about $g_\text{cr}\simeq 2.5$.\ The threshold at which this transition occurs strongly depends on $\alpha_R$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:fixalphaR\]. Indeed, when $\alpha_R= 0.9$, $g_{\text cr}$ increases from $1.745$ to $2.481$ with $\alpha_\gamma \in (0,1.34)$, while when $\alpha_R = 0.95$, $g_{\text cr}$ increases in approximately the same range as for $\alpha_R = 0.9$, i.e. $(1.671, 2.510)$, but $\alpha_\gamma$ varies in a smaller interval, i.e. $\alpha_\gamma \in (0,0.86)$. To study the morphology of the critical mode, we have integrated Eq. to compute the incremental displacement field, as described in [@Destrade_2009]. We depict in Tab. \[tab:parametricplot\] a morphological diagram where we show the solution of the incremental problem for different values of $\alpha_\gamma$ and $\alpha_R$. For small values of $\alpha_\gamma$, we observe that the instability mainly releases elastic energy at the free boundary, displaying a wrinkling pattern: the wavenumber decreases and the critical mode displays a more rounded boundary as we increase $\alpha_\gamma$. Furthermore, for large values of $\alpha_\gamma$ there is a drastic change in the features of the instability: the morphological transition localizes at the interface between the cortex and the lumen with a high critical wavenumber. $\alpha_{\gamma} = 0$ $\alpha_{\gamma} = 0.5$ $\alpha_{\gamma} = 1$ $\alpha_{\gamma} = 2$ ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- $\alpha_R = 0.9$ ![image](alphag0_alphaR09.pdf){height="18.00000%"} ![image](alphag05_alphaR09.pdf){height="18.00000%"} ![image](alphag1_alphaR09.pdf){height="18.00000%"} ![image](alphag2_alphaR09.pdf){height="18.00000%"} $\alpha_R = 0.95$ ![image](alphag0_alphaR095.pdf){height="18.00000%"} ![image](alphag05_alphaR095.pdf){height="18.00000%"} ![image](alphag1_alphaR095.pdf){height="18.00000%"} ![image](alphag2_alphaR095.pdf){height="18.00000%"} : Solutions of the linearised incremental problem at different $\alpha_R$ and different $\alpha_\gamma$. The amplitude of the incremental radial displacement has been set equal to $0.05 R_\text{o}$ for the sake of graphical clarity. []{data-label="tab:parametricplot"} [.5]{} ![Plot of the marginal stability threshold $g_\text{cr}$ and of the critical mode $m_\text{cr}$ versus $\alpha_R$ for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$, (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$, (c) $\alpha_\gamma=1$, (d) $\alpha_\gamma=1.5$.[]{data-label="fig:fixalphagamma"}](marg_stab_ag_0.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} [.5]{} ![Plot of the marginal stability threshold $g_\text{cr}$ and of the critical mode $m_\text{cr}$ versus $\alpha_R$ for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$, (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$, (c) $\alpha_\gamma=1$, (d) $\alpha_\gamma=1.5$.[]{data-label="fig:fixalphagamma"}](marg_stab_ag_05.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} \ [.5]{} ![Plot of the marginal stability threshold $g_\text{cr}$ and of the critical mode $m_\text{cr}$ versus $\alpha_R$ for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$, (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$, (c) $\alpha_\gamma=1$, (d) $\alpha_\gamma=1.5$.[]{data-label="fig:fixalphagamma"}](marg_stab_ag_1.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} [.5]{} ![Plot of the marginal stability threshold $g_\text{cr}$ and of the critical mode $m_\text{cr}$ versus $\alpha_R$ for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$, (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$, (c) $\alpha_\gamma=1$, (d) $\alpha_\gamma=1.5$.[]{data-label="fig:fixalphagamma"}](marg_stab_ag_15.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} We also investigate the influence of $\alpha_R$ on the instability by fixing $\alpha_\gamma$ (see Fig. \[fig:fixalphagamma\]). In the absence of surface tension (i.e. $\alpha_\gamma=0$), we observe that $g_{\rm cr}$ decreases monotonously as $\alpha_R$ increases (see Fig. \[fig:alphagamma0\]). The behaviour is the opposite in the presence of surface tension, where the marginal stability threshold $g_\text{cr}$ monotonously increases with $\alpha_R$. Moreover, as one can observe from Figs. \[fig:alphagamma1\]-\[fig:alphagamma15\], the transition from a surface instability to an interfacial instability is anticipated when $\alpha_\gamma$ increases. For the range of parameters in which the critical mode displays an interfacial instability, we observe that $g_\text{cr}$ increases linearly with $\alpha_R$.\ As it concerns the critical wavenumber $m_{\rm cr}$, we can see that it increases in all the cases, both in the presence and in the absence of surface tension.\ We observe that our model correctly captures the main features of organoid development. First, for small values of $\alpha_\gamma$, a morphological transition takes place at the free boundary, giving rise to a wrinkling pattern: as $\alpha_\gamma$ increases, we observe a decrease of the critical wavenumber and an higher marginal stability threshold. This is in agreement with the experiments of [@Karzbrun_2018]: if the cells have the LIS1 $+/-$ mutation, the authors observed that the elastic modulus of the cells is $2.7$ times lower than the one of healthy cells, so that $\alpha_\gamma$ is much larger. They have also reported a reduction of the number of folds in organoids affected by lissencephaly. As one can observe from the plots of Figs. \[fig:fixalphaR\]-\[fig:fixalphagamma\] and from the morphological diagram of Table \[tab:parametricplot\], as we increase $\alpha_\gamma$ the number of wrinkles decreases and the critical threshold increases, in accordance with [@Karzbrun_2018]. Furthermore, for large values of $\alpha_\gamma$, wrinkles at the free surface are completely absent, as happens in the most serious case of lissencephaly. Compared to the model proposed by [@balbi2018mechanics], in which the authors do not take into account the tissue surface tension, our theoretical description presents some advantages. In fact, we do not introduce different shear moduli for the cortex and the lumen to modulate the critical wavenumber and the critical growth threshold. This choice is motivated by the experimental results of [@Karzbrun_2018]: the authors reported a unique value of elastic modulus for the organoid and they did not experimentally measure a change in the shear moduli between the cortex and the lumen.\ In our model the selection of the critical wavenumber is controlled by the competition between surface capillary energy and bulk elasticity. Furthermore, we are able to justify the complete absence of surface wrinkles in the most severe cases of lissencephaly, which corresponds to the case of large $\alpha_\gamma$. Notwithstanding the good agreement with the experimental results of our model, it is to be reported that solid models of brain organoids have been criticized recently by [@Engstrom_2018]. The authors interestingly observe that the folds of the cortex display an “antiwrinkling” behaviour: the cortex is thicker in correspondence of furrows and thinner at the ridges of wrinkles. The authors claim that solid models do not show this feature and, thus, they are inadequate to model multicellular aggregates. In the next section we implement a numerical code to approximate the fully non-linear problem and we show that the “antiwrinkling” phenomenon is provoked by tissue surface tension. Post-buckling analysis {#sec:post_buckling} ====================== Description of the numerical method ----------------------------------- ![Representation of the conformal mapping $\vect{g}$ that maps the computational domain $\Omega_\text{n}$ to the reference configuration $\Omega_0$[]{data-label="fig:comp_domain"}](compdomain){width="60.00000%"} In this section we show the results of the numerical approximation of the non-linear problem given by Eqs. -- to investigate the post-buckling behaviour of the organoid. We use as computational domain the rectangle obtained through the conformal mapping corresponding to the polar coordinate transformation, as done in [@Riccobelli_2017]: let $$\Omega_\text{n} = (0,\,1)\times(0,\,\pi),$$ where $(\vect{e}_1,\,\vect{e}_2)$ represents the canonical vector basis. Given $\vect{X}_\text{n}\in\Omega_\text{n}$, the components represent the referential radial coordinate normalized with respect to the external radius, and the referential polar angle, respectively: $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} &X^\text{n}_1 = \frac{R}{R_\text{o}},\\ &X^\text{n}_2 = \Theta, \end{aligned} \right.$$ as represented in Fig. \[fig:comp\_domain\]. The function $$\vect{g}(\vect{X}_\text{n}) = \left[R_\text{o} X^\text{n}_1\cos(X^\text{n}_2), R_\text{o} X^\text{n}_1\sin(X^\text{n}_2)\right]$$ maps the computational domain to a half circle, which represent half of the reference configuration. The full domain can be obtained thanks to the axial symmetry of the problem. ![Mesh generated through GMSH for $\alpha_R=0.9$. The maximum diameter of this mesh elements is $0.2488$ while the minimum diameter is $0.0017$.[]{data-label="fig:mesh"}](mesh_full){width="50.00000%"} We discretise the computational domain through the software GMSH [@Geuzaine_2009]. We use a triangular grid, with a progressive refinement of the elements from $X_1^\text{n} = 0$ up to $X_1^\text{n} = \alpha_R$. In the cortex we instead use a structured mesh (i.e. for $\alpha_R<X_1^\text{n}<1$), see Fig. \[fig:mesh\]. We implement a numerical code based on the mixed finite element method to enforce the incompressibility constraint . We discretise the displacement field $\vect{u}$ using continuous, piecewise quadratic functions, while we approximate the pressure through piecewise constant functions. The corresponding mixed finite element is the $\vect{P}_2-P_0$ element, which is numerically stable for the incompressible hyperelastic problem [@Boffi_2013]. We use an index $h$ when we refer to the discretised counterpart of the mathematical quantities. We adimensionalise the system of equation with respect to $\mu$ and $R_\text{o}$ as we did at the continuum level. We set the following boundary conditions $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} &\vect{u}_h = \vect{0} &&\text{if }X^\text{n}_1 = 0,\\ &\vect{u}_h\cdot\vect{e}_2 = 0 &&\text{if }X^\text{n}_2 = 0\text{ or }X^\text{n}_2 = \pi,\\ &\tens{P}_h^T\vect{e}_2 \cdot\vect{e}_1 = 0 &&\text{if }X^\text{n}_2 = 0\text{ or }X^\text{n}_2 = \pi,\\ &\tens{P}_h^T\vect{e}_1 = \det{\tens{F}_h}\alpha_\gamma \mathcal{K}_h \tens{F}_h^{-T}\vect{e}_1 &&\text{if }X^\text{n}_1 = 1.\\ \end{aligned} \right.$$ We solve the discretised form of the equilibrium equation in the Lagrangian form using a Newton method. The control parameter $g_\text{o}$ is incremented incremented of $\delta g$ when the Newton method converges, the found numerical solution is used as initial guess for the new Newton cycle. The increment $\delta g$ is automatically reduced near the theoretical marginal stability threshold and when the Newton method does not converge. The numerical simulation is stopped when $\delta g < 10^{-6}$.\ To trigger the mechanical instability, a small perturbation of an amplitude of $\sim 10^{-5}$ is applied at the free boundary of the mesh. The numerical algorithm is implemented in Python through the open-source computing platform FEniCS (version 2018.1) [@Logg_2012]. We use PETSc [@balay2018petsc] as linear algebra back-end and MUMPS [@Amestoy_2000] as linear solver. Results of the finite element simulations ----------------------------------------- In this section, we discuss the results of the numerical simulations for $\alpha_R = 0.9$. [.5]{} ![Buckled configuration for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$ and $g=1.7556$ and (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$ and $g = 2.1646$.[]{data-label="fig:deformazione"}](disp_g_0 "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} [.5]{} ![Buckled configuration for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$ and $g=1.7556$ and (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$ and $g = 2.1646$.[]{data-label="fig:deformazione"}](disp_g_05 "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} In Fig. \[fig:deformazione\], we plot the buckled configuration of the organoid. As predicted by the critical modes of the linear stability analysis plotted in Table \[tab:parametricplot\], in presence of surface tension (Fig. \[fig:deformazionealphagamma05\]) the free boundary is smoother and rounded. We now show a quantitative analysis of the numerical solution depicted in Fig. \[fig:deformazione\]. We define $\Delta r$ as the amplitude of the pattern at the free surface, i.e. $$\Delta r = \max_{\Theta\in[0,\pi]} r(R_\text{o},\,\Theta) - \min_{\Theta\in[0,\pi]} r(R_\text{o},\,\Theta)$$ where $r$ denotes the actual radial position of the point with polar coordinates $(R,\,\Theta)$. In Fig. \[fig:ampiezza\], we show how the amplitude of the pattern $\Delta r$ evolves with respect to the growth rate $g$. We observe that there is an excellent agreement with the marginal stability thresholds computed in the previous section, proving the consistence of the numerical code with respect to the theoretical predictions. [.5]{} ![Bifurcation diagrams for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$ and (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$. The orange square denotes the theoretical marginal stability threshold computed as exposed in Section \[sec:lin\_stab\]. The good agreement between the linear stability analysis and the finite element code outcomes validates the numerical algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:ampiezza"}](bif_diag_g_0 "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} [.5]{} ![Bifurcation diagrams for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$ and (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$. The orange square denotes the theoretical marginal stability threshold computed as exposed in Section \[sec:lin\_stab\]. The good agreement between the linear stability analysis and the finite element code outcomes validates the numerical algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:ampiezza"}](bif_diag_g_05 "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} Both the bifurcation diagrams exhibit a continuous transition from the unbuckled to the buckled configuration, displaying the typical behaviour of a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation. Let $$E = \int_\Omega \psi(\tens{F})\,dV + \gamma \int_{\partial \Omega} \|\tens{F}^{-T}\vect{N}\|\,dS$$ be the total mechanical energy of the organoid. We compute the ratio of the energy $E_\text{th}$ of the base solution given by Eqs. - and the energy $E_\text{num}$ arising from the numerical simulations. [.5]{} ![Plot of the ratio $E_\text{th}/E_\text{num}$ for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$ and (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$. The orange square denotes the theoretical marginal stability threshold computed as exposed in Section \[sec:lin\_stab\].[]{data-label="fig:energia"}](energy_g_0 "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} [.5]{} ![Plot of the ratio $E_\text{th}/E_\text{num}$ for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$ and (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$. The orange square denotes the theoretical marginal stability threshold computed as exposed in Section \[sec:lin\_stab\].[]{data-label="fig:energia"}](energy_g_05 "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} In Fig. \[fig:energia\] we plot the ratio $E_\text{num}/E_\text{th}$ versus the control parameter $g$ for both $\alpha_\gamma=0$ and $\alpha_\gamma = 0.5$. In both cases, the buckled configuration exhibits a total lower mechanical energy with respect to the unbuckled state. Furthermore we observe that the energy lowers continuously, confirming that the bifurcation is supercritical. [.5]{} ![Thickness of the cortex of ridges (blue) and furrows (green) for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$ and (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$. The latter situation, in which the the thickness of ridges is higher that the one of furrows, corresponds to the “antiwrinkling” behaviour described in [@Engstrom_2018].[]{data-label="fig:thick_cortex"}](h_g_0 "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} [.5]{} ![Thickness of the cortex of ridges (blue) and furrows (green) for (a) $\alpha_\gamma=0$ and (b) $\alpha_\gamma=0.5$. The latter situation, in which the the thickness of ridges is higher that the one of furrows, corresponds to the “antiwrinkling” behaviour described in [@Engstrom_2018].[]{data-label="fig:thick_cortex"}](h_g_05 "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} Finally, we compute the thickness of the cortex at the ridges and at the furrows of the buckled configuration (which correspond to the gyri and the sulci of the fully developed brain respectively). Interestingly, we observe that the thickness of the ridges is higher than the one of the furrows for $\alpha_\gamma = 0$ (see Fig. \[fig:spesssorealphagamma0\]), while the behaviour is the opposite in the case of $\alpha_\gamma = 0.5$ (see Fig. \[fig:spesssorealphagamma05\]). The latter case is tipical of brain organoids as observed in [@Engstrom_2018].\ These numerical results prove that the “antiwrinkling” behaviour, as named by [@Engstrom_2018], is due to the presence of surface tension, which is highly relevant due to the small radius of a brain organoid. If we consider a fully developed brain, its tipical size is of order of decimeters. In this case, keeping $\gamma$ and $\mu$ fixed, $\alpha_\gamma$ reduces of five order of magnitudes with respect to the case of the organoid and the contribution of surface tension to the total energy becomes negligible. Experimental results show that gyri are thicker than sulci [@Holland_2018], differently from what happens at the small length scales of the brain organoid. This is in agreement with the outcomes of our model in the case $\alpha_\gamma=0$, confirming that the “antiwrinkling” behaviour is caused by the competition of bulk elastic energy and the surface tension. However, our numerical algorithm has some limitations. The Newton method does not converge anymore slightly past the marginal stability threshold. In fact, the bifurcation diagrams of Fig. \[fig:ampiezza\] show that the amplitude of the pattern increases very rapidly beyond the marginal stability threshold. As one can observe in Fig. \[fig:deformazionealphagamma0\], the deformation tends to localize near the furrows, highlighting a possible subcritical transition to a folded state, which would be in agreement with the experimental observations of [@Karzbrun_2018]. The numerical approximation of a layer growing on a substrate with similar mechanical properties is particularily tricky, even numerically [@Fu_2015]. Future efforts will be devoted to the improvement of the numerical scheme, implementing an arclength continuation method to study the wrinkle-to-fold transition in brain organoids. Discussion and concluding remarks {#sec:discussion} ================================= In this work, we have developed a model of brain organoids to describe the formation of cerebral sulci and to investigate the influence of surface tension on such a morphogenetic process. The physical basis of the model is stated in Section \[sec:surface\_tension\], where we have estimated the magnitude of surface tension acting on a solid multicellular aggregate. Using the experimental data reported in [@Lee_2019], we have showed that the tissue surface tension acting on a solid multicellular aggregate is of the order of $10^{-1} \, \mathrm{N}/\mathrm{m}$. We have then built in Section \[sec:elastic\_model\] an elastic model of brain organoids. They are described as disks surrounded by a growing rim and subjected to a surface tension generated by cell adhesion forces [@Manning_2010]. We have assumed that the two regions (disk and outer rim) are composed of the same incompressible neo–Hookean material. The system is governed by the dimensionless parameters $g$, i.e. the homogeneous growth rate of the cortex, $\alpha_R$ and $\alpha_\gamma$, which are the lumen radius and the capillary length respectively, normalized with respect to the initial radius of the organoid. We have computed a radially symmetric solution and we have studied its linear stability in Section \[sec:lin\_stab\]. We have employed analytical and numerical tools, such as the theory of incremental deformations, the Stroh formulation and the impedance matrix method. In particular, we have proposed a novel extension of the last method to take into account surface tension.\ The outcomes are discussed in Section \[subsec:result\_linear\]. Surface tension influences both the critical wavenumber $m_\text{cr}$ and the marginal stability threshold $g_\text{cr}$. Experimental observations of [@Karzbrun_2018] reported that, when the LIS1 $+/-$ mutation is present, the shear modulus of the organoid is reduced and the critical wavenumber decreases compared with the healthy organoids. In our model the softening of cells, due to lissencephaly, corresponds to an increase of the parameter $\alpha_\gamma$, so that surface tension is predominant and the critical wavenumber decreases, in accordance with the experiments performed by [@Karzbrun_2018]. Moreover, we have observed that, for larger $\alpha_\gamma$, a transition from a surface to an interfacial instability occurs: buckling localizes at the interface between the cortex and the lumen. In this case the cortex remains smooth as one can observe in the most severe cases of lissencephaly. The results are reported in Figs. \[fig:fixalphaR\]-\[fig:fixalphagamma\] and in Tab. \[tab:parametricplot\]. Finally, in Section \[sec:post\_buckling\], we have implemented a finite element code to approximate the fully non-linear problem. The numerical algorithm is based on a mixed variational formulation and a Newton method. In Fig. \[fig:deformazione\]-\[fig:thick\_cortex\] the outcomes of the numerical simulations are reported. The results show that the surface tension rounds the external boundary. Both in the presence and in the absence of surface energy, the bifurcation is supercritical, displaying a continuous transition from the unbuckled to the buckled state. Moreover, we show that the “antiwrinkling” behaviour of the cortex (namely the thickness of the outer layer is larger in the furrows) is due to the presence of a surface energy. This strengthens the importance of considering surface tension in the modelling of cellular aggregates. Summing up, in this paper we have developed a new model of brain organoids based on the theory of non-linear elasticity coupled with active phenomena, such as growth and the tissue surface tension. The outcomes of the model provide a novel explanation of the experimental results reported in [@Karzbrun_2018], showing that lissencephaly is caused by a competition between surface tension and bulk elastic energy. Indeed, organoids affected by lissencephaly are much softer than the healthy ones, so that the role of surface tension is predominant versus bulk elasticity. Future efforts will include the improvement of the numerical scheme in order to capture possible secondary bifurcations. Possible extensions include the implementation of an arclength continuation method to improve the numerical convergence in presence of turning points. From an experimental point of view, it would be important to quantitatively measure the surface tension acting on the organoid cortex. Another possible line of research is the study of the influence of surface tension on the growth of cellular aggregates. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The authors wish to thank Davide Ambrosi, Pasquale Ciarletta, and Giovanni Noselli for helpful suggestions and fruitful discussions. DR gratefully acknowledge the support of the European Research Council (AdG-340685 MicroMotility). Computation of the incremental curvature {#app:A} ======================================== The external boundary in the actual incremental configuration is given by $$\label{eq:ext_bound} \vect{\alpha}(\theta) = (r_\text{o}+u(r_\text{o},\,\theta))\left[\cos(\theta+v(r_\text{o},\,\theta)),\,\sin\left(-\theta-v(r_\text{o},\,\theta\right)\right],$$ since the parametrization of $\vect{\alpha}$ is counter-clockwise . By differential geometry, the oriented curvature of $\vect{\alpha}$ is given by $$\label{eq:curvatura_formula} \mathcal{K} = \frac{\alpha_x'(\theta)\alpha''_y(\theta)-\alpha_y'(\theta)\alpha''_x(\theta)}{\|\vect\alpha'(\theta)\|^3},$$ where with $'$ we denote the derivative with respect to $\theta$. By combining Eq. and Eq. we obtain $$\label{eq:curvatura_tot} \mathcal{K}=\frac{\left(v'+1\right) \left((u+r_\text{o}) \left(u''-(u+r_\text{o}) \left(v'+1\right)^2\right)-2 u'^2\right)-(u+r_\text{o}) u' v''}{\left(u'^2+(u+r_\text{o})^2 \left(v'+1\right)^2\right)^{3/2}}.$$ We can linearise the relation with respect to $u$, $v$, and their derivatives to get the following expression of the incremental curvature $$\delta\mathcal{K} = \frac{u''+u'}{r_\text{o}^2}.$$ [^1]: [`[email protected]`](mailto:[email protected]) [^2]: [`[email protected]`](mailto:[email protected])	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We analyze full-polarization VLBA data of ground-state, main-line OH masers in 18 massive star-forming regions previously presented in a companion paper. From the aggregate properties of our sources, we confirm results previously seen in the few individual sources studied at milliarcsecond angular resolution. The OH masers often arise in the shocked neutral gas surrounding ultracompact regions. Magnetic fields as deduced from OH maser Zeeman splitting are highly ordered, both on the scale of a source as well as the maser clustering scale of $\sim 10^{15}$ cm. Results from our large sample show that this clustering scale appears to be universal to these masers. OH masers around ultracompact regions live $\sim 10^4$ years and then turn off abruptly, rather than weakening gradually with time. These masers have a wide range of polarization properties. At one extreme (e.g., W75 N), $\pi$-components are detected and the polarization position angles of maser spots show some organization. At the other extreme (e.g., W51 e1/e2), almost no linear polarization is detected and total polarization fractions can be substantially less than unity. A typical source has properties intermediate to these two extremes. In contrast to the well ordered magnetic field inferred from Zeeman splitting, there is generally no clear pattern in the distribution of polarization position angles. This can be explained if Faraday rotation in a typical OH maser source is large on a maser amplification length but small on a single ($e$-folding) gain length. Increasing or decreasing Faraday rotation by a factor of $\sim 5$ among different sources can explain the observed variation in polarization properties. Pure $\pi$-components (in theory 100% linearly polarized) have long been sought, but seldom found. We suggest that almost all $\pi$-components acquire a signficant amount of circular polarization from low-gain stimulated emission of a $\sigma$-component from OH appropriately shifted in velocity and lying along the propagation path.' author: - 'Vincent L. Fish' - 'Mark J. Reid' title: 'Full-Polarization Observations of OH Masers in Massive Star-Forming Regions: II. Maser Properties and the Interpretation of Polarization' --- Introduction ============ Hydroxyl (OH) masers are common in massive star-forming regions (SFRs). Their small size and large Zeeman splitting coefficient allow them to serve as probes of the velocity and magnetic fields on a very small scale. Because OH masers often cluster together in large numbers on subarcsecond scales [e.g., @reidw3], very long baseline interferometric (VLBI) techniques are required to identify individual maser features. Due both to this close clustering of maser spots and to the tendency for the two components of a ground-state Zeeman pair to have highly unequal fluxes [@cook], the resolution afforded by VLBI is necessary in order to identify most Zeeman pairs [see, for instance, @fish03]. Likewise, identifying individual maser spots in a cluster is a prerequisite to understanding the linear polarization of OH masers, since blending of the linear polarization from adjacent masers with different polarization properties can corrupt the interpretation of the polarization. Over a quarter century has passed since the first OH maser source was observed with VLBI resolution: W3(OH) by @reidw3. Since then, only a few more interstellar ground-state OH maser sources have been observed at VLBI resolution [@haschick81; @zheng97; @slysh01b; @slysh]. In order to understand the range of environments probed by OH masers in massive SFRs, we have undertaken a survey of the OH masers in 18 massive SFRs with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s[^1] Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA). The data have already been published as @paperi [hereafter Paper I]. In this paper we analyze the results both in terms of relevance to individual sources and as a large collection of OH masers that can shed additional light on the physical processes of OH masers and the interpretation of their polarization. A brief overview of linear polarization theory is provided in §\[lintheory\]. In §\[results\], we consider the set of OH masers as a whole to derive statistical properties. In §\[discussion\], we present plausibility arguments to attempt to identify the physical processes responsible for the observed properties of OH masers. Finally, we summarize our results in §\[conclusions\]. Comments on individual sources are included in Appendix \[sourcenotes\]. Linear Polarization Theory\[lintheory\] ======================================= In the presence of a magnetic field, each of the main-line $^2\Pi_{3/2}, J = 3/2$ OH transitions split into three lines: two elliptically-polarized $\sigma$-components shifted in frequency by the Zeeman effect, and one linearly-polarized $\pi$-component at the natural frequency of oscillation for the velocity of the emitting material [see, e.g., @davies]. Due in part to unequal amplification, this clear pattern of three lines has only been seen once [@hutawarakorn]. To this point, there have been few, if any, unambiguous detections of $\pi$-components. Often, a single $\sigma$-component is seen by itself, without an accompanying $\sigma$-component polarized in the opposite circular handedness strong enough to be detected. Significant linear polarizations, which could be produced by $\pi$-components, have been seen [@slysh]. However, $\sigma$-components associated with magnetic fields with a nonzero perpendicular (line-of-sight) component are in general elliptically polarized, and elliptical polarization is the sum of circular and linear polarizations. Thus, significant linear polarization fractions can be produced by both $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components, the latter theoretically being 100% linearly polarized in all instances. The existence of maser spots with large (but not unity) fractional linear polarization suggests that $\pi$-components may in practice be partially circularly polarized as well. It is difficult to select an observational threshold of the linear polarization fraction that divides $\sigma$-components from $\pi$-components. Theoretical modelling by @gkk3 and @grayfield suggests that amplification of $\pi$-components is stronger than that of $\sigma$-components for $\theta \gtrsim 55\degr$, where $\theta$ is the angle of the magnetic field to the line of sight. This corresponds to a linear polarization fraction $\geq 0.50$. But since linear and circular polarization fractions add in quadrature, a completely polarized spot is not more linear than circular until the linear polarization fraction exceeds 0.71. Even then it is unclear how $\pi$-components, which are theoretically totally linearly polarized, can acquire a circular component of polarization. This issue is discussed in further detail in §\[overlap\]. It is important to distinguish between $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components, because the interpretation of the orientation of the magnetic field based on the linear polarization position angle is different for the two cases. The electric vector for a $\sigma$-component is perpendicular to the two-dimensional magnetic field direction (i.e., on the plane of the sky), while the electric vector for a $\pi$-component is parallel to the two-dimensional magnetic field direction. Thus, without information as to which maser spots are $\sigma$-components and which are $\pi$-components, there is a $90\degr$ ambiguity in the direction of the magnetic field on the plane of the sky. Results\[results\] ================== Are Zeeman Triplets Ever Seen?\[triplet\] ----------------------------------------- @hutawarakorn identified a complete Zeeman triplet in the northernmost group of OH masers in , the first and only OH Zeeman triplet identified. Figure \[w75n-triplet\] shows a spectrum of a subregion of the northernmost group of OH masers. Three maser lines can be seen at 4.1, 5.7, and 7.3 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. The splitting of the 4.1 and 5.7 [km s$^{-1}$]{} maser lines is consistent with a magnetic field of $+5.5$ mG and a velocity of 5.7 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. We confirm the existence of this triplet, although the three components are not perfectly aligned spatially. The angular separation between the $\pi$- and RCP $\sigma$-component is 55 mas, which corresponds to a two-dimensional linear separation of $1.6 \times 10^{15}$ cm (110 AU). This is roughly the cluster scale of OH masers (see §\[clusterscale\]), though larger than the typical scale of separation between the two $\sigma$-components in a Zeeman pair. It is possible that the $\pi$- and both $\sigma$-components all are located in the same cloudlet but from amplification paths that are not coincident. ![Zeeman triplet in W75 N. Top: Contour maps of the three Zeeman components with polarization vectors included. Note that the polarization vectors of the $\sigma$-components are roughly perpendicular to that of the $\pi$-component. LSR velocities in [km s$^{-1}$]{} are shown in the upper right of each panel. Bottom: Spectrum of the dotted box region in the upper plots. The feature labelled “artifact” is due to the sidelobe of a very strong maser spot outside the region shown. The velocities of the three marked components are consistent with a $+5.5$ mG magnetic field.\[w75n-triplet\]](f1.eps){width="6.0in"} The linear polarization fractions of the $\sigma$-components are 16% and 20%, while the corresponding fraction of the $\pi$-component is 86%. The polarization position angles of the $\sigma$-components at 4.1 and 7.3 [km s$^{-1}$]{} are $-45\degr$ and $-67\degr$, respectively, while the position angle of the $\pi$-component at 5.7 [km s$^{-1}$]{} is $54\degr$. This roughly fits the theory that $\pi$-components are linearly polarized with a position angle perpendicular to that of the $\sigma$-components. The angle of the magnetic field to the line of sight, $\theta$, can be derived from the formula $$f = \frac{\sin^2 \theta}{1 + \cos^2\theta},$$ where $f$ is the linear polarization fraction of a $\sigma$-component [@gkk2]. This angle is $32\degr$ and $35\degr$ for the two $\sigma$-components of the Zeeman triplet. Equal amplification rates of the $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components occur when $\sin^2 \theta = 2/3$, or for $\theta \approx 55\degr$, with $\pi$-components favored when the magnetic field is more highly inclined to the line of sight [@gkk3]. Modelling of OH hyperfine populations for conditions typically found at maser sites shows that the amplification of $\pi$-components falls off rapidly for $\theta < 55\degr$ [@grayfield]. For smaller $\theta$, beaming and competitive gain favor $\sigma$-components, suppressing amplification of $\pi$-components. Yet the inclination of the magnetic field to the line of sight is $\sim 35\degr$, not $55\degr$, in the only confirmed Zeeman triplet. Figure \[w75n-ppa\] shows a plot of the fractional linear polarization of maser spots in the northernmost cluster of OH spots in W75 N versus the position angle of polarization. The masers seem to be grouped into two populations. The first group consists of masers whose position angle is less than $90\degr$. These masers have a high linear polarization fraction. The second group, with position angles $> 90\degr$, are mostly circularly polarized. If we interpret these groups as $\pi$- and $\sigma$-components respectively, the magnetic field implied from linear polarization lies at position angle $48\degr$ in the region, with a scatter of $24\degr$. This would indicate that the direction of the magnetic field on the plane of the sky is roughly aligned along the NE-SW distribution of maser spots and the elongation of the continuum source VLA 1. ![Linear polarization fractions as a function of polarization position angle (PPA) in the northern cluster of W75 N. The elongation angle of VLA 1 (43$\degr$) is marked along with the angle perpendicular to it. The PPAs of highly linearly-polarized spots (left of dotted line) tend to be aligned parallel to the axis of the continuum source, while the PPAs of highly circularly-polarized spots (right of dotted line) are roughly oriented perpendicular. If these groups are interpreted as $\pi$- and $\sigma$-components respectively, the implied projected magnetic field direction is at a position angle near $43\degr$.\[w75n-ppa\]](f2.eps){width="6.0in"} Clustering Scale\[clusterscale\] -------------------------------- In W3(OH), @reidw3 found that the clustering scale of OH masers was approximately $10^{15}$ cm. They calculated a two-point spatial correlation function and found that the probability per unit solid angle of finding another maser spot within angular distance $l$ of a spot decreased sharply for $l \gtrsim 10^{15}$ cm. We performed a similar analysis on each of our sources, and the results for the ten having a large number of maser spots are shown in Figure \[fig-all-seps\]. For all ten sources, the probability $P(l)$ drops sharply between a separation of 0 and $10^{15}$ cm (67 AU). The other sources in this study show similar behavior, although the plots are “noisier” owing to the smaller number of maser spots in the sources. This evidence argues in favor of a common clustering scale for OH masers in all massive SFRs. The maser spots within these clusters represent paths in the same condensation where the physical conditions are favorable to exponential amplification. If so, the overall extent of these condensations is perhaps a few times as large ($\sim 150$ AU), since paths through the periphery of the condensation are much less likely to produce comparable amplification lengths. In §\[shocks\] we suggest that instabilities in the shocked neutral gas may lead to the formation of such condensations. ![Two-point spatial correlation function of the masers in ten massive SFRs. $P(l)$ is the probability per unit solid angle that a maser spot can be found at angular distance $l$ from any given maser spot. The angular distances have been multiplied by the distance to each source to give the linear separation, plotted as the abscissa. The probabilities $P(l)$ have been normalized to the greatest value. Note that $P(l)$ drops to $e^{-1}$ at a separation of about $10^{15}$ cm for all ten sources.\[fig-all-seps\]](f3.eps){width="6.0in"} Zeeman Pairs and Component Intensities\[components\] ---------------------------------------------------- In total, we find 184 Zeeman pairs in the entire sample set. These Zeeman pairs are listed in Table 21 of Paper I. A histogram of the distribution of implied magnetic field strengths is given in Figure \[zeeman-numbers\]. The distribution rises with increasing magnetic field strength to about 4 mG, then falls. Few Zeeman pairs are found that imply a splitting greater than about 8 mG, and the largest magnetic field strength found is 21 mG in e2. There is theoretical support for the existence of an upper limit to the strength of the magnetic field in a Zeeman pair for OH masers. The collapse of material increases both the density and the magnetic field; @mouschovias suggests that the relation could be as steep as $n \propto B^2$, and Zeeman measurements of the magnetic field in molecular clouds are consistent with this relation [e.g., @crutcher]. At some density, the rate of collisional deexcitation will be higher than the pump rate (presumably from radiative excitation), and the population inversion between the lower and upper states will be destroyed. The rate of collisions of H$_2$ with OH is $n_{{\mathrm H}_2} \langle\sigma v\rangle$, where $\langle\sigma v\rangle = 10^{-9} - 10^{-10}$ cm$^{3}~$s$^{-1}$, and the pump rate likely is $\sim 0.03$ s$^{-1}$, as would be expected for a far-infrared rotational transition [@goldreichhouches]. Thus the population inversion will be destroyed by thermal collisions when the density is a few times $10^8$ cm$^{-3}$. We note that the range of detected magnetic fields in our Zeeman pairs is a factor of 35 (0.6 to 21 mG), or roughly $\sqrt{10^3}$. If the $B^2 \propto n$ scaling law applies throughout this entire range, this implies that the range of densities sampled by those masers in Zeeman pairs is a factor of $10^3$, or about $n_{{\mathrm H}_2} = 10^5 - 10^8$, assuming that the 21 mG magnetic field in W51 e2 is near the upper end of magnetic field strengths allowable before collisional depopulation of the upper state is significant. The lack of Zeeman pairs below 0.5 mG may be an observational effect. For such small magnetic fields, the splitting is less than a typical line-width, and we make no attempt to identify Zeeman pairs less than 0.5 mG due to the difficulty of distinguishing small Zeeman shifts from other effects. For example, consider a right-elliptically polarized $\sigma$-component in a region where the magnetic field orientation varies along the amplification path, as in Figure \[freq-dep\]. The linear component of the polarization will be seen as weak emission in LCP. If there is also a velocity gradient along the amplification path, the linear polarization component may be shifted in velocity with respect to the circular polarization component. This would manifest itself in our observations as a velocity difference between the lines seen in the two circularly-polarized feeds: the RCP feed would detect nearly all the emission, while the LCP feed would detect only the weaker, velocity-shifted linear component. For the parameters shown in Figure \[freq-dep\], the shift between LCP and RCP velocity corresponds to an apparent magnetic field strength of 0.1 mG at 1667 MHz in the Zeeman interpretation, although broader lines and more extreme variations of the linear polarization fraction across a linewidth can produce larger apparent shift between the components. ![Histogram of magnetic field strengths implied by Zeeman splitting. The solid and dotted lines plot the same data but with the bins shifted by 0.5 mG. The dropoff near zero is due to observational limits. The implied total density is shown at the top, assuming $n_{\mathrm H_2} = 2 \times 10^{6}$ cm$^{-3}$ at 4 mG as suggested for W3(OH) [@rmb] and an $n \propto B^2$ scaling law. The 19.8 and 21.0 mG fields in W51, not included in this plot, would correspond to a density of $5 \times 10^7$ cm$^{-3}$ under these assumptions.\[zeeman-numbers\]](f4.eps){width="5.0in"} ![Velocity shift due for a right elliptically-polarized line with FWHM 0.5 [km s$^{-1}$]{} whose linear polarization fraction varies across the linewidth as shown in the top panel. The linear fraction could vary in this manner (for instance) due to a bend in the magnetic field along the amplification path. The bottom panel shows the line as would be detected by RCP and LCP feeds. The LCP line is shifted 0.03 [km s$^{-1}$]{} with respect to the RCP line.\[freq-dep\]](f5.eps){width="5.0in"} Figure \[zeemanseps\] shows a histogram of the separation between the $\sigma$-components in each Zeeman pair for which the $\sigma$-component separation is less than $\approx 10^{15}$ cm. Zeeman pairs with larger separations are identified when unambiguous, but they have been excluded from the present consideration in order not to introduce bias. The rapid falloff of the number of pairs identified with increasing component separation suggests that the dearth of identifiable Zeeman pairs at larger separations is real. Note that Figure \[zeemanseps\] has not been normalized by area; were it to be so normalized, it would fall even faster. If the distribution of Zeeman component separations were uniformly random, a plot of the unnormalized number of identifiable Zeeman components versus component separation would be an increasing function of separation (at least up to a distance beyond which pairing is no longer unambiguous). This is certainly not observed, providing further evidence that the $10^{15}$ cm clustering scale is a physically significant scale over which physical parameters are sufficiently coherent to provide an environment conducive to maser activity. Thus it appears that the spatial separation of the $\sigma$-components in a Zeeman pair is generally a factor of several smaller than the size of the cluster containing the pair. Nevertheless, there are some pairs of maser spots polarized predominantly in opposite circular senses whose separation is comparable to or exceeds $10^{15}$ cm. It is possible that these are not true Zeeman pairs of $\sigma$-components from the same masing subregion but rather two oppositely-polarized $\sigma$-components from different Zeeman pairs, of which only one component is seen in each. Such a situation could arise if amplification at each maser site favors only one sense of circular polarization, as described below. The magnetic fields implied by these Zeeman “cousins” would be less accurate due to two effects. First, the systemic velocity at each maser site may be different due to turbulence. @reidw3 calculate that a typical intracluster turbulent velocity is 0.6 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. This corresponds to an effective Zeeman splitting of 1.0 mG in the 1665 MHz transition and 1.7 mG in the 1667 MHz transition. Second, the magnetic field strength may be different at the maser sites. This difference is generally less than 1 mG (see §\[magstruc\]). The magnetic field strengths implied by Zeeman cousins should therefore be accurate to better than 2 mG. ![Histogram of identified Zeeman component separations. Note the rapid falloff of the distribution of $\sigma$-component separations in a Zeeman pair. This suggests that the components of a Zeeman pair are generally separated by a distance less than the $10^{15}$ cm ($\sim 67$ AU) clustering scale (see §\[clusterscale\]). Ten Zeeman pairs with component separations exceeding 80 AU are not shown. The plot is not normalized by area; the falloff would be much faster if it were. \[zeemanseps\]](f6.eps){width="5.0in"} Figure \[fluxratios\] shows the ratio of the LCP and RCP fluxes for the $\sigma$-components in each Zeeman pair. We observe that this ratio occasionally reaches values near 100. This is probably not a hard upper limit but a result of observational constraints. Maser spots weaker than 50 to 100 mJy are too weak to be detected in our survey; maser spots stronger than 10 Jy are rare. ![Flux ratios of $\sigma$-components in Zeeman pairs. Data for 1665 MHz pairs are represented by open triangles, while data for 1667 MHz pairs are represented by filled squares. Dotted lines are drawn at ratios of 3 and $1/3$. The 19.8 and 21.0 mG fields in W51 are not included.\[fluxratios\]](f7.eps){width="5.0in"} A simple test to determine whether our data have unknown systematics is to compare the number of Zeeman pairs with greater flux in the LCP and RCP components. There are 119 Zeeman pairs in the 1665 MHz transition and 65 in the 1667 MHz transition. The LCP component is stronger than the RCP in 69 of the 1665 MHz pairs and 44 of the 1667 MHz pairs. If Zeeman pairs with stronger LCP and RCP components are equally common, we would expect the number of Zeeman pairs in each polarization to be $59.5 \pm 5.5$ at 1665 MHz and $32.5 \pm 4.0$ at 1667 MHz[^2]. The deviations from these values are not statistically significant. The ratio of intensities of the $\sigma$-components in a Zeeman pair does not appear to be substantially different for the 1665 and 1667 MHz transtions. Figure \[flux-ratios-freq\] shows a histogram of the flux ratios of Zeeman components. There is not an appreciable difference between the 1665 and 1667 MHz transitions for flux ratios less than 10. The larger number of high flux ratios ($> 10$) for the 1665 MHz transition appears real, although it may partially be due to a selection effect. As Figure \[flux-binning\] shows, the brighter component in a typical 1665 MHz Zeeman pair is brighter than that of a 1667 MHz pair. The detection limit in our survey varies somewhat by source but is approximately 0.1 Jy. Thus, the identification of a Zeeman pair with flux ratio $x$ requires that the stronger component have a flux density higher than $0.1\,x$ Jy. The relative scarcity of 1667 MHz Zeeman pairs with a flux ratio greater than 10 can be explaned by the paucity of Zeeman components with a flux density greater than 1 Jy. Only in one-third of cases does a 1667 MHz Zeeman pair include a component stronger than 1 Jy, while over half of 1665 MHz pairs include a component above this threshold. At higher flux density thresholds, the difference becomes more extreme. The relative absence of 1667 MHz Zeeman pairs with large flux ratios, noted previously in W3(OH) [@wright04b], is consistent with the picture that maser transitions with smaller Zeeman splitting coefficients tend to have Zeeman pairs in which the $\sigma$-components are more equal in intensity [e.g., @moran78; @caswellv]. @cook theorized that correlated velocity and magnetic field gradients could be the cause of unequal spot intensities in Zeeman pairs. @deguchi argued that even absent a magnetic field gradient, a velocity gradient alone is sufficient to produce unequal intensities. Velocity gradients (either alone or in combination with magnetic field gradients) are less likely to disrupt amplification of only one of the $\sigma$-components of a Zeeman pair for the 1667 MHz transition than for the 1665 MHz transition. Measured line widths for maser spots at 1667 and 1665 MHz are similar, but the Zeeman splitting coefficient is smaller for the 1667 MHz transition than for the 1665 MHz transition. The magnetic field strength required to produce an effective velocity shift greater than the linewidth of a component is therefore greater for 1667 MHz masers than for 1665 MHz masers. ![Histogram of flux ratios in Zeeman pairs. The flux ratio, determined by taking the ratio of the stronger flux to the weaker flux in a Zeeman pair, is binned by factors of 1.5. The dotted line shows data for the 1665 MHz transition, and the solid line shows data for the 1667 MHz transition. The data for the two transitions are scaled by the total number of Zeeman pairs identified in the transition. The histograms are similar for flux ratios less than 10, but 25 of the 28 pairs with flux ratios greater than 10 are in the 1665 MHz transition.\[flux-ratios-freq\]](f8.eps){width="5.0in"} ![Histogram of peak flux densities in Zeeman pairs (peak flux density in either LCP or RCP). Flux densities are binned by increments of 1 Jy. For clarity, points stronger than 40 Jy are suppressed. These consist of three points at 1665 MHz (72, 163, 239 Jy) and two at 1667 MHz (41, 85 Jy). The stronger component of a 1665 MHz pair tends to be stronger than that of a 1667 MHz pair.\[flux-binning\]](f9.eps){width="5.0in"} Maser Spot Statistics --------------------- We find a total of 342 spots stronger in RCP and 351 in LCP at 1665 MHz, as well as 178 in RCP and 185 in LCP at 1667 MHz. As expected, there does not appear to be a preference for masers to appear preferentially in one circular polarization than the other, though occasionally an individual source may have a preponderance of maser spots in one polarization, as is the case in W75 S, in which we find 35 RCP and 19 LCP spots in the 1665 MHz transition. For a source with 54 spots, we would expect $27 \pm 4$ spots in each polarization, so the deviation seen in W75 S is not significant. There are nearly twice as many spots detected at 1665 MHz than at 1667 MHz, although one source () has one more spot in 1667 MHz than at 1665 MHz. This fits with theoretical modelling, which shows that while 1665 MHz and 1667 MHz masing often occur under the same physical conditions, the area of physical parameter space conducive to amplification is larger for 1665 MHz masers than for 1667 MHz masers [@cragg]. Magnetic Field Structure\[magstruc\] ------------------------------------ Magnetic fields as determined from Zeeman splitting of OH masers are predominantly ordered in massive SFRs [e.g., @baart85; @garcia]. In all sources with the possible exception of , the line-of-sight direction of the magnetic field (i.e., either toward or away from the Sun) is either constant for all Zeeman pairs or shows only one organized reversal in which there exists a line that can be drawn that separates the side of the SFR where the magnetic field is positive from the side where it is negative. The relative consistency of magnetic field strengths in clusters of OH masers argues in favor of an organized field structure. When multiple Zeeman pairs are seen in the same cluster, the range of field strengths is rarely greater than 2 mG (i.e., $\pm 1$ mG) and often significantly less. In no case does the sign of the magnetic field change between two Zeeman pairs in the same cluster of spots within $\sim3 \times 10^{15}$ cm. Figure \[cluster-bsig\] shows the fractional variation of magnetic field strength measurements in clusters compared with the source as a whole. The intracluster variation in the magnetic field strength is generally smaller than the intrasource variation. If variations in magnetic field strength are due to variations in density, this suggests that density fluctuations within a cluster may also be smaller than fluctuations on the scale of the masing region of a massive SFR. Given the uniformity of magnetic field direction in the line-of-sight dimension, it is somewhat surprising that linear polarization vectors in the same cluster, when converted to magnetic field directions, are often quite disordered. Table \[sep-ppa\] shows the relative variation of polarization position angle (PPA) as a function of maser spot separation. This statistic has a range of \[0,90\], since a PPA of angle $x$ is equivalent to one of angle $x + 180\degr$ and the difference cannot exceed $90\degr$. For pairwise separations shown in the first column of Table \[sep-ppa\], the rms of the difference in PPA between the two maser spots was calculated. The statistic was applied only to spots with a linear polarization fraction less than 0.707 (equal parts linear and circular for a totally polarized maser). This is designed to choose only $\sigma$-components. Any statistic comparing the magnetic field direction at both $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components would have to account for the natural $90\degr$ difference arising from the PPAs of $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components in the same magnetic field. A sample of maser spots with a uniform random distribution of PPAs would have an rms of $52\degr$. The rms value of the PPA difference between maser spots is roughly constant to within the errors for all maser spot separations. Even at the smallest scale ($< 10^{14}$ cm) the rms in PPA differences is consistent with a random distribution. Given the regularity of magnetic field direction both on source and cluster scales, the PPA differences cannot be due to magnetic field variations within a cluster. Probably Faraday rotation is large enough in most sources, even on AU scales, to scramble the linear polarization directions. See §\[faraday\] for further discussion of the possible effects of Faraday rotation. [cccc]{} 0 — $10^{14}$ & 25 & $45\fdg7$ &$9\fdg1$\ $10^{14}$ — $10^{15}$ & 189 & $46\fdg6$ &$3\fdg4$\ $10^{15}$ — $10^{16}$ & 566 & $49\fdg6$ &$2\fdg1$\ $10^{16}$ — $10^{17}$ & 1707 & $51\fdg8$ &$1\fdg3$ [a]{}[Number of pairs of maser spots with linear polarization fractions less than that shown in the column headings such that the separation between the maser spots is less than that shown in the first column.]{} [b]{}[Standard error of the mean: $\mathrm{rms}/\sqrt{N}$.]{} ![Plot of magnetic field strength variation in clusters (smaller than $\approx 3 \times 10^{15}$ cm) and sources. The fractional variation (rms/mean) of the magnetic field strength $\|B\|$ for each cluster of two or more Zeeman pairs is plotted against the fractional error for the source as a whole. G9.622$+$0.195 and G34.257$+$0.154 are each treated as two separate sources. Open squares indicate data points for the middle source in G9.622$+$0.195, G35.577$-$0.029, G40.622$-$0.137, and S269, in which all Zeeman pairs are found in a single cluster. The dotted line indicates equal fractional errors in cluster and whole-source magnetic field strength. 39 of the 43 filled squares fall below this line, indicating that the magnetic field variation in a cluster is less than the variation in the source as a whole.\[cluster-bsig\]](f10.eps){width="5.0in"} Relation of OH Masers to the Region\[relation-hii\] ---------------------------------------------------- The association between OH masers and UC regions has been noted by many authors, including @dieter66 and @mezger67. Our larger sample of OH masers mapped with milliarcsecond resolution allows us to confirm this finding. For each continuum source with nearby masers, we determined an ellipse whose major and minor axes best matched the overall extent of continuum emission (full width at zero power for a $4\,\sigma$ detection). The center of the region was taken to be the center of the ellipse, and the radius of the region was taken to be the geometric mean of the semi-major and semi-minor axes. The distance of each OH maser from the center of the region, in units of region radii, was computed. Two possible sources of error are the uncertainty in map registration between the OH masers and continuum images and the uncertainty in the assignment of the center of continuum emission in each source. The former is estimated to be $0\farcs 3$ ($1\, \sigma$) by @arm. The latter may vary depending on source structure. For a circular region, we estimate a 10% error, which would correspond to a $1\,\sigma$ error of $0\farcs 1$ for a typical $1\arcsec$ UCregion, resulting in a total error of $0\farcs 3$ for the combination of the two effects. For large (e.g., ) or irregularly-shaped (e.g., ) regions, the error in the estimate of the center of continuum emission may be slightly higher. The distribution of the distance of OH masers, normalized by area, from the center of the region is shown in Figure \[mas-hii\]. Masers in , , and were treated as containing three, two, and four continuum sources respectively, and masers distances were calculated from the nearest source. Several sources were excluded from this analysis because no nearby continuum source was detected: the northern grouping of G9.622$+$0.195, G40.622$-$0.137, , , and . Additionally, W75 N and the two southeastern continuum sources of Cep A were excluded since it is not always clear which of several continuum sources to associate a maser spot with. Including and G40.622$-$0.137, 50% of maser spots are located within 1.5 radii of a UC region; this number grows to 58% when these two sources are excluded. The distribution of maser spots in these two sources is clearly offset from the region, suggesting that the masers may be associated with a second, undetected continuum source nearby. The large peak near 0.5 region radii in Figure \[mas-hii\] is due mainly to the western cluster of maser spots in G5.886$-$0.393. Overall, it appears that the distribution of OH masers peaks near the center of the region, consistent with @garay. The tail of the distribution of maser spots at several radii from the UC region may represent spots associated with another star, not with the nearest detectable continuum source, as in ON 2 N and W51 (e1 and e2). These results are not consistent with a random distribution of OH maser spots within a shell around the region. A uniform random distribution would peak at a projected radius $r_\mathrm{proj} > 1$ (in region radii). For density distributions falling off as $r^{-1}$ or $r^{-2}$, the peak of the distribution will be at $r_\mathrm{proj} = 1$. In all cases, the distribution of OH masers would be expected to double across $r_\mathrm{proj} = 1$ because masers located behind the region would be obscured by the UC region, which is optically thick at $\lambda = 18$ cm. We see no evidence for this discontinuity at 1 region radius in our data. Figure \[mas-nohii\] shows the distribution of projected linear distances of OH masers from the center of the associated UCregion. 82% of maser spots are located within 13000 AU of the center of the region. Also shown is the assumed dynamical age of the masers for an expansion speed of 3 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. This is consistent with the speed measured in W3(OH) from both proper motion of OH masers [@w3oh] and direct expansion of the UC itself [@kawamura]. The dynamical age of most masers is less than $2 \times 10^4$ yr. While the number of OH maser spots cuts off at a dynamical age of several $\times 10^4$ yr, individual OH masers do not appear to fade appreciably during this time. Figure \[flux-rad\] shows the relation of maser power per bandwidth (i.e., flux density normalized to a constant distance) to the separation between the UC region center and the masers. Figure \[meanflux-rad\] shows the mean power per bandwidth and standard error of the mean for the same data. The maser power per bandwidth appears to be constant with distance from the center of the region. If the distance of the masers from the region is indeed correlated with their age, OH masers do not become systemically brighter (or fainter) with age, at least not in the $4 \times 10^4$ yr timescale our data span. Figure \[flux-hii\] shows the relation of maser power per bandwidth to the size of the associated UC region. Since regions undergo expansion, their size is a measure of the age of the system. Again, there does not appear to be a correlation between the maser power per bandwidth and the age of the system. However, we do not see any maser spots located more than 30000 AU (0.15 pc) from the center of the associated UC region (including G351.775$-$0.538, for which the nearest UC region is several arcseconds away). @habing79 have observed that OH masers are not seen around regions once they leave the ultracompact phase ($d < 0.15$ pc). Indeed, not only are OH masers not seen around “compact (C) regions” ($0.1 < d < 1$ pc), they are not seen at comparable radii around ultracompact regions. The lack of OH masers at large distances from the associated ultracompact region was first noted by @habing74, who suggested that OH maser phenomena disappear at a radius of 15000 AU (0.07 pc). Our larger sample size at much higher angular resolution indicates that there is a sharp cutoff at about twice this radius. It is possible that the physical conditions (such as temperature and density) responsible for maser activity do not exist at large radii. Alternatively, the ionization front catches up to the shock front as the region expands into an environment whose density decreases with radius, thereby destroying the OH masers, which are believed to exist in the region between the ionization and shock fronts (see §\[shocks\]). ![Histogram of distances between OH masers and UC regions shown in units of equal area. Masers that cannot be identified as unambiguously associated with a particular region have been excluded; see §\[relation-hii\] for details. We find that 58% of OH masers appear within 1.5 radii of the regions, suggesting that OH masers in massive SFRs with regions are indeed spatially associated with them. The bump at 2.7 radii is due primarily to the masers in ON 2 N; it is probable that these masers are not actually associated with the region shown in Figure 23 of Paper I. A small tail of the distribution out to 6 radii has been suppressed for clarity.\[mas-hii\]](f11.eps){width="4.0in"} ![Histogram of absolute distances between OH masers and UC regions. The data are as in Figure \[mas-hii\] but plotted in distance units and not normalized by area. The expansion age, defined as radius divided by expansion speed, shown at the top would be appropriate for expansion at 3 [km s$^{-1}$]{}, as measured for W3(OH).\[mas-nohii\]](f12.eps){width="5.0in"} ![Distribution of maser power per bandwidth with radius. All flux densities are multiplied by the square of the distance to the source in kiloparsecs. The horizontal axis shows the distance of each maser spot from the center of the associated UC region. Multiple regions in the same source (e.g., G9.622$+$0.195) are considered independently. Data are not plotted when no nearby UC region is seen (e.g., S269 and G351.775$-$0.538) or when it is unclear which region to match maser spots with (W75 N). There does not appear to be a correlation between the power per bandwidth and the distance of maser spots from the UC region. The slight dip near zero radius is due to the inclusion of Cep A, whose proximity allowed detection of spots of weaker normalized flux density than for other sources.\[flux-rad\]](f13.eps){width="5.0in"} ![Distribution of mean maser power per bandwidth with radius. The plot shows the mean of the maser flux normalized to a distance of 1 kpc as well as the standard error of the mean ($\mathrm{rms}/\sqrt{N}$). Errorbars are not symmetric because a linear average is plotted on a logarithmic scale. The data are binned by units of 2000 AU. The mean power per bandwidth and the distance of maser spots from the UC region is constant with distance, although large deviations are possible due to source-to-source differences. See Figure \[flux-rad\] for more details. \[meanflux-rad\]](f14.eps){width="5.0in"} ![Distribution of maser power per bandwidth with region size. The horizontal axis shows the geometric mean of the semi-major and semi-minor axes of the UC region, converted to linear distance. See Figure \[flux-rad\] for more details. There does not appear to be a correlation between the size of the region and the power per bandwidth of the maser spots surrounding it. Since the size of an region is a measure of its age, this suggests that OH masers do not become systemically fainter over the range of ages of the regions in our sample. As in Figure \[flux-rad\], the dip near zero radius is due to Cep A.\[flux-hii\]](f15.eps){width="5.0in"} Relation of OH Masers to the Surrounding Material ------------------------------------------------- In order to interpret the bulk motions of OH masers, it is necessary to determine the velocity of the massive star or stars being formed. Frequently this is determined through hydrogen recombination line observations, which give information on the velocity of the ionized region surrounding the central star. But recombination lines are not well suited to the task. Recombination lines are subject to sometimes severe Doppler and impact broadening. Even at high frequency, different recombination lines can be biased by a few [km s$^{-1}$]{} [@berulis83; @sams96] due to differing optical depths in an expanding region. We have observed the $(J,K) = (1,1)$ line of ammonia in order to provide a context for the OH maser observations. @rmb argue, based on the similarity of distribution of NH$_3$ absorption and OH maser emission in W3(OH), that the two species are found in the same clumps of material. The physical conditions they deduce from NH$_3$ $(1,1)$ and $(2,2)$ observations are consistent with the physical conditions necessary for OH maser activity. Also, the velocity of peak absorption in NH$_3$ closely matches the average velocity of the OH masers. Unfortunately, in many sources NH$_3$ absorption is not clearly detected, and NH$_3$ emission velocities must be used instead. NH$_3$ emission is a less reliable indicator of the velocity of the central star, since emission usually traces motions on a larger scale (often $> 1\arcmin$). In the region of W3(OH), ammonia emission velocities differ from the average OH maser velocity by approximately 4 [km s$^{-1}$]{} [@wilson93]. It is possible that systemic biases of a few [km s$^{-1}$]{} are introduced using emission velocities, but there is no way to obtain the radial velocity of the star to greater accuracy. The spectra in Figures 40 to 42 of Paper I are provided for regions of emission or absorption located roughly coincident with the extent of OH masers on the sky. It is important to remember that while OH masers exist primarily near a UC region, the neutral NH$_3$ may exist at a wide range of radii. Thus the inferred NH$_3$ velocities could in principle be affected by motion of material quite distant from the region. The NH$_3$ velocity may be shifted from the rest velocity of the star by an amount comparable to the velocity dispersion of the molecular cloud. From the virial theorem, the velocity dispersion is $$\Delta v = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{2R}},$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the total mass, and $R$ is the radius of the sphere. For a cloud with $M = 100 M_\sun$ and a radius of 0.1 pc, $\Delta v \approx 1.5$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. When the velocity of the nearby NH$_3$ is measured, it generally falls toward the middle of the range of OH maser velocities, as shown in Figures 40 to 42 of Paper I. There are some minor exceptions to this rule. In G35.577$-$0.029 and Mon R2, the NH$_3$ velocity is near an extremum of OH maser velocities. (In the OH masers fall into two disjoint groups at $2.5 - 6$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} and $13 - 17$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}, and NH$_3$ emission detected in a broad region located 5to 30 north of ON 1 (not shown in the panel) falls near 11 [km s$^{-1}$]{}.) Figure \[vel-nh3\] shows a histogram of the differences between OH maser velocities and the adopted NH$_3$ velocity for all sources having detected NH$_3$. Of the 926 OH maser spots, 51.7% are blueshifted with respect to the NH$_3$ velocity, and 48.3% are redshifted. The median velocity difference is $-0.30$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} with an rms of $1.89$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}, while half the differences fall within the range $-3.52$ to $+3.01$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. Since a zero difference falls comfortably within this range, we cannot confidently state that OH masers are consistently blueshifted or redshifted with respect to the surrounding material, as might be expected if a single type of motion, such as expansion or contraction, dominates OH maser kinematics. When only maser spots located within one projected region radius are considered ($N = 261$), the median velocity difference is $+0.22$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} with an rms of $1.90$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} (Figure \[vel-nh3-atop\]), with half the differences falling in the range $-2.58$ to $+3.98$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. In either case, there does not appear to be a detectable difference between the OH and NH$_3$ velocities to within our errors. If expansion dominates the dynamics of the masing regions, the masers projected atop the UC region (and therefore in front of it, since UC regions are in general optically thick at $\lambda = 18$ cm) should be blueshifted with respect to the large-scale ambient material. However, the opposite appeared to be true of W3(OH) [@reidw3], although later proper motion measurements of the OH masers definitively established that they are expanding [@w3oh]. It is worth pointing out however that in G43.796$-$0.127, where nearly all of the masers are projected against the UC region, the OH masers are preferentially blueshifted with respect to the NH$_3$ emission, mildly suggestive of expansion. Because of the aforementioned possibility of systemic errors of a few [km s$^{-1}$]{} in determining the radial velocity of the central star from NH$_3$ velocity measurements, we cannot identify whether a single type of motion, such as gravitational infall or slow expansion, dominates the kinematics of OH masers in massive star-forming regions. We can in general rule out kinematic modes in which the OH masers would be moving at tens of [km s$^{-1}$]{} or more, such as a freely expanding region at $\gtrsim 10$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. ![Histogram of differences between OH and NH$_3$ velocities for those sources in Figures 40 to 42 of Paper I with an NH$_3$ velocity indicated. The median velocity difference is $-0.30$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}with a standard deviation of 1.89 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. The mean is $-0.29$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}with a standard error of the mean (rms/$\sqrt{N}$) of 0.06 [km s$^{-1}$]{}, assuming all masers have independent velocities. Taking clumping into account, the standard error of the mean could be higher by a factor of $\approx 3$. \[vel-nh3\]](f16.eps){width="5.0in"} ![Histogram of differences between OH and NH$_3$ velocities for those maser spots located within one radius of the associated UC region. The median velocity difference is $+0.22$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} with a standard deviation of 1.90 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. The mean is $0.79$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} with a standard error of the mean of 0.12 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. \[vel-nh3-atop\]](f17.eps){width="5.0in"} Discussion\[discussion\] ======================== Saturation\[saturation\] ------------------------ Interstellar OH masers are most likely saturated [@reidw3]. The saturation temperature, $T_s$, for OH masers is given by $$T_s = \frac{h\nu}{2k}\frac{\Gamma}{A}\frac{4\pi}{\Omega}$$ [@reidmoranbook], where $A$ is the Einstein coefficient, $\Gamma$ is the decay rate, and $\Omega$ is the solid angle of beaming. For $\Gamma$ = 0.03 s$^{-1}$ as typical for a far-infrared rotational transition likely pumping the maser, the saturation temperature is $(2 \times 10^{8})\, \Omega^{-1}$ K. The most compact maser component from the space-VLBI observation of G34.257$+$0.154 by @slyshspace has a beaming angle $\Omega \approx 0.01$, which corresponds to a maximum saturation temperature $T_s \approx 2 \times 10^{10}$ K. For the most part, the brightness temperatures ($T_B$) listed in Tables 2 through 20 of Paper I are below this value. But these are apparent brightness temperatures calculated from the undeconvolved spot size, which are likely scatter broadened for most sources. Many of our spots appear to be partially resolved, as shown in Table \[deconv-table\]. However, several caveats apply to the deconvolved spot parameters. First, the measured spot size may be larger than the physical spot size due to interstellar scattering. Second, large deconvolved spot sizes may be the result of misidentifying spatially blended maser spots as a single spot. Third, determining the deconvolved spot size of a small maser spot is less accurate than for a large maser spot, because the deconvolved spot size is obtained from differencing two larger numbers (the squares of the undeconvolved spot size and the beam size). The net of all three effects is that maser spot sizes are probably smaller than that calculated from deconvolution, and that the overestimation may be greater for heavily scatter-broadened sources. Even a deconvolved spot size would underestimate the actual $T_B$ by the square of the ratio of the apparent spot size to the unbroadened spot size. For a typical FWHM spot size of 3 mas in W75 N (which has very little scatter broadening), $T_s = 5 \times 10^{9}$ K. This corresponds to a flux density of $S_\nu = 2 k T_s \Omega_\mathrm{spot} \lambda^{-2}$, where $\Omega_\mathrm{spot}$ is the solid angle subtended by the maser spot. Taking $\Omega_\mathrm{spot} \leq 1.7 \times 10^{-16}$ sr, the saturation value $S_\nu \leq 7 \times 10^{-25}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$, or 0.07 Jy. This is near our detection limit, so nearly all spots that we detect are partially saturated if the spot sizes for W75 N are typical. [lccccc]{} G5.886$-$0.393 & 3.8 & 98 & 19.66 & 12.44 & 30.33\ G9.622$+$0.195 & 5.7 & 38 & 16.44 & 10.86 & 21.05\ G10.624$-$0.385 & 4.8 & 14 & 23.55 & 19.48 & 28.96\ G34.257$+$0.154 & 3.8 & 88 & 5.46 & 0.00 & 13.50\ G35.577$-$0.029 & 10.5 & 15 & 16.22 & 12.39 & 19.55\ G40.622$-$0.137 & 2.2 & 39 & 19.68 & 15.57 & 24.22\ G43.796$-$0.127 & 9.0 & 60 & 7.96 & 0.00 & 13.11\ W51 e1 & 7.0 & 97 & 10.51 & 6.62 & 20.07\ W51 e2 & 7.0 & 94 & 9.53 & 5.19 & 15.23\ ON 1 & 3.0 & 49 & 2.68 & 0.00 & 7.30\ K3$-$50 & 8.7 & 17 & 31.46 & 23.45 & 34.82\ ON 2 N & 5.6 & 73 & 25.29 & 13.69 & 37.11\ W75 S & 2.0 & 65 & 4.17 & 1.57 & 7.75\ W75 N & 2.0 & 120 & 3.14 & 0.00 & 8.90\ Cep A & 0.7 & 62 & 6.77 & 1.95 & 12.96\ NGC 7538 & 2.8 & 30 & 6.83 & 3.19 & 11.20\ S269 & 3.8 & 19 & 6.08 & 1.23 & 9.47\ Mon R2 & 0.9 & 27 & 7.86 & 2.20 & 13.49\ G351.775$-$0.538 & 2.2 & 50 & 67.40 & 45.35 & 76.07 Faraday Rotation\[faraday\] --------------------------- Faraday rotation can complicate the interpretation of linear polarization in two ways. First, external Faraday rotation between a maser and the observer will cause the polarization position angle (PPA) of linear polarization to rotate, making interpretation of the magnetic field direction on the plane of the sky more difficult. Second, internal Faraday rotation along the amplification path may decrease the linear polarization fraction of the radiation, completely circularizing it if the Faraday rotation is strong enough [@gkk2]. Since this also reduces the effective gain length for linear polarization, Faraday rotation may also prevent otherwise highly linearly-polarized maser components from being amplified to the limits of detectability. Thus, spots with a large linear polarization fraction (e.g., $\pi$-components and $\sigma$-components where the magnetic field is near the plane of the sky) may be suppressed relative to spots with a small linear polarization fraction (e.g., $\sigma$-components where the magnetic field is directed along the line of sight). External Faraday rotation in the interstellar medium between a maser and the observer would cause a rotation of the PPA of the linear polarization of each spot, given by $$\mathrm{RM} = 8.1 \times 10^{5} \int n_e B_\parallel \, dl,$$ where RM is the rotation measure in rad m$^{-2}$, $n_e$ in cm$^{-3}$, $B_\parallel$ is the component of the magnetic field parallel to the direction of propagation in G, and $dl$ in is the differential path length along the line of sight in pc [@thompson]. In some regions, such as the northern cluster in W75 N, the linear polarization vectors are predominantly aligned along the line of maser spots (see §\[triplet\]). An RM of about 10 rad m$^{-2}$ would produce a rotation of the PPAs in a source of $20\degr$. A rotation of the polarization vectors by an amount greater than this would cause the vectors to no longer appear to be aligned with larger structures, unless the rotation was near a multiple of $180\degr$. According to the ATNF Pulsar Catalogue [@manchester05][^3], the only pulsar with known rotation measure located within $10\degr$ of W75 N at comparable heliocentric distance is B2021+51, for which the RM is $-6.5$ rad m$^{-2}$ [@manchester72]. Internal Faraday rotation over the region of amplification may destroy linear polarization in both $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components, possibly suppressing $\pi$-components altogether. The Faraday rotation over a region with average electron density $n_e$ and parallel magnetic field strength $B_\parallel$ is $$\psi = 0 \fdg 05 \left(\frac{n_e}{1~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}\right) \left(\frac{B_\parallel}{1~\mathrm{mG}}\right) \left(\frac{L}{10^{14}~\mathrm{cm}}\right) \left(\frac{\lambda}{18~\mathrm{cm}}\right)^2,$$ where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the transition. For a typical ground-state ($\lambda = 18$ cm) OH maser, $B \approx 5$ mG. The effective amplification length $L$ is likely to be less than the clustering scale due to velocity coherence. A crude estimate is that $L \approx D \Delta v/\Delta V$, where $D = 10^{15}$ cm is the diameter of the masing cloud, $\Delta v = 0.2$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} is a typical maser line width, and $\Delta V \approx 2$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} is a reasonable velocity shift across the cloud based on observations of W3(OH) [@reidw3] and theoretical modelling [@pavlakis96]. Thus, for an effective amplification length $L = 10^{14}$ cm, an electron density of about 300 cm$^{-3}$ would be sufficient to produce a rotation of $90\degr$ along the path of amplification. For H$_2$ densities of $10^5$ to $10^8$ as is typical in OH masing regions [@cragg], this would require a fractional ionization ($n_e / n_{\mathrm H_2}$) of $3 \times 10^{-6}$ to $3 \times 10^{-3}$. This is higher than the ionization rate that would be expected from cosmic-ray ionization alone [@shubook], but consistent with the $10^{-4}$ that occurs in the regions around regions where OH masers may exist [@sternberg; @garcia]. Ionized carbon and to a lesser extent sulfur may play an important role in producing free electrons, due to their abundance and ease of photoionization. While the hydrogen in the region absorbs all the ultraviolet photons with energies greater than 13.6 eV, many softer photons pass through undisturbed. @sternberg calculate that the ionization fraction may be slightly greater than $10^{-4}$ in the region, located around the region, and about $10^{-5}$ in the region, in turn located around the region. Based on their models of photon-dominated regions as well as the locations of OH maser spots just outside regions, it is likely that they exist near or embedded in the regions. We can form a consistent picture of linear polarization in OH masers if the amount of Faraday rotation in a typical maser source is near a critical point, i.e., such that the product $n_e B_\parallel L \approx$ several $\times 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$ mG. Based on maser line widths and brightness temperatures, the amplification length is typically at least 20 unsaturated gain lengths and probably greater for highly saturated masers [@reidmoranbook]. A typical maser spot has a significant amount ($> 1$ rad) of Faraday rotation over the amplification length but a small amount ($< 1$ rad) over a single gain length. In this case, some linear polarization will survive amplification, but Faraday rotation scrambles the PPA of the linear polarization, so it will not be simply interpretable as a magnetic field direction. If the Faraday rotation is a factor of $\sim 5$ smaller, the Faraday rotation over the amplification length will be small, so high linear polarization fractions may be observed, and the PPA may still be correlated with the magnetic field direction. On the other hand, if the Faraday rotation is a factor of $\sim 5$ larger, the Faraday rotation over a gain length can be large, and linear polarization fractions will approach zero [@gkk2]. In cases where the Faraday rotation per gain length is significant, interpretation of the PPA will be difficult because maser amplification will stimulate emission in the orthogonal linear mode as well [@melrose04]. Significant generalized Faraday rotation may also circularize $\pi$-components. An example of a source with small internal Faraday rotation over the entire amplification length is W75 N, in which $\pi$-components are detected in abundance, especially in the northernmost group of maser spots (see §\[triplet\]). As Figure \[w75n-ppa\] shows, $\pi$- and $\sigma$-components are easily identifiable in this group based on the PPA of the linear polarization. It is interesting to note that modelling of the OH masers in W75 N by @gray03 indicates that the maser amplification length is several orders of magnitude smaller than that typically assumed in other sources, although the density is also higher. For the range of ionization fractions given above, the resulting Faraday rotation would be less than 1 radian over the amplification length. At the other extreme is W51 e1 and e2, in which practically no linear polarization whatsoever is detected. This is consistent with significant Faraday rotation along a gain length, which would suppress the amplification of $\pi$-components and circularize the otherwise elliptically-polarized $\sigma$-components. Such Faraday depolarization may also explain certain maser features that are seen with similar flux densities in RCP and LCP but without any detected linear polarization, such as spots 18, 24, and 36 in Table 9 of Paper I. It is highly unlikely that the lack of linear polarization in W51 can be due to chance alignments of the magnetic field in an extremely narrow cone oriented toward or away from us at each maser site, producing $\sigma$-components that are purely circularly polarized, because the magnetic field is seen to reverse line-of-sight direction across the source. Thus, the inclination of the magnetic field to the line of sight must take on values intermediate to the $0\degr$ and $180\degr$ required for pure-circular masers in the absence of Faraday rotation. A medium range of Faraday rotation would be enough to partially (but not totally) circularize $\sigma$-components. The observed circular polarization fraction will in general be a complicated function of the electron density, maser gain length, and angle of propagation with respect to the magnetic field direction, but the presence of Faraday rotation will strictly increase the circular polarization fraction compared to the case in which no Faraday rotation is present [@field94]. Straightforward application of equation (50) of @gkk2 without accounting for Faraday rotation will cause the inclination of the magnetic field to the line of sight to be underestimated. Faraday rotation may also explain why linear polarization vectors appear to be disorganized in some sources. If a large electron density is required for Faraday rotation along the amplification path in the interior of a masing cloud, it is likely that the electron density is high exterior to the masing cloud as well. This would rotate the apparent PPA of the maser emission. Fluctuations in the electron density, possibly caused by density inhomogeneities or anisotropy of the ionizing radiation field, could cause emission from adjacent maser spots to be Faraday rotated by different amounts. If this is indeed the case, reconstructing the magnetic field orientation in the plane of the sky is a difficult task, and reconstructing the full three-dimensional orientation of the magnetic field may be nearly impossible. Scatter broadening of some sources implies strong density fluctuations and a high column density of electrons along the radiation propagation path. Since the scatter broadening is proportional to the distance between the source and the scattering screen [e.g., @boyd72], a screen of electrons near the source is unlikely to increase the angular size as much as a cloud of electrons several kiloparsecs away in the Galactic plane. The lack of correlation between scattered size and Faraday depolarization provides further evidence that the scattering is external to the masing regions. W51 is not a particularly scatter-broadened source, yet essentially no linear polarization is detected. G351.778$-$0.538 is heavily scatter-broadened, but several spots with a high degree of linear polarization are seen. Figure \[ml-spot\] shows a plot of the linear polarization fraction as a function of spot size for all sources combined. There does not appear to be a correlation of the linear fraction with the size of the observed maser spots. This suggests that the electron screen responsible for scattering is Galactic in origin. ![Plot of linear polarization fraction as a function of spot size. The spot size is taken to be the geometric mean of the undeconvolved spot fit major and minor axes. The relative lack of spots with a high linear polarization fraction at large spot sizes may be due to blending of adjacent spots within the beam. The linear polarization fraction does not appear to be otherwise correlated with the observed spot size.\[ml-spot\]](f18.eps){width="5.0in"} Total Polarization\[totpol\] ---------------------------- Of the maser spots in our sample, 97% are at least 75% polarized. Although Tables 2 to 20 of Paper I do not list the total polarization fraction explicitly, it can be approximated by noting that the total polarization fraction is $\sqrt{Q^2 + U^2 + V^2} / I$, where $Q, U, V,$ and $I$ are the Stokes parameters. Stokes $I$ and $V$ can be obtained from the sum and difference, respectively, of the listed RCP and LCP flux densities of spots, and the linear flux density gives $\sqrt{Q^2 + U^2}$. In 86% of the maser spots, LCP and RCP fluxes are not both detected, implying that the spot is circularly polarized to the limits of detectability. For other spots, frequently $Q^2 + U^2 + V^2 \approx I^2$, indicating that many spots are nearly 100% polarized, as shown in Figure \[tot-pol\]. A portion of the discrepancy from equality in the above equation can be explained by a variety of factors. As can be seen in Tables 2 to 20 of Paper I, when the same maser spot is seen in both RCP and LCP emission, the position and velocity of the peak emission may be slightly different in both. Blending of strong adjacent maser spots can also make determination of fit parameters difficult. Furthermore, the linear polarization fraction of a maser spot may vary across a spot size. ![Total polarization of maser spots. Only spots with nonzero observed fluxes in all three of RCP, LCP, and Linear ($\sqrt{Q^2 + U^2}$) are shown, which excludes 942 spots. Positive circular polarization fraction corresponds to positive Stokes V (i.e., RCP flux greater than LCP flux). Curves showing 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% total polarization are drawn. Most maser spots are $> 75\%$ polarized. \[tot-pol\]](f19.eps){width="5.0in"} Nevertheless, there are certainly spots that appear to be only partially polarized (Figure \[tot-pol\]). Unpolarized emission ($Q = U = V = 0$) would appear as equal flux densities in the LCP and RCP feeds with no detectable linear polarization. In W51 e1, for example, there are a number of maser spots where the LCP and RCP flux densities are nearly equal and centered at roughly the same position and velocity. Since there is nearly no detected linear polarization in the OH masers in this source, it is possible that these maser spots are only partially polarized. These maser spots could also be produced by masing in sites where the magnetic field splitting is small compared to the line width [@gkk2]. Our data do not provide sufficient resolution to tell whether the spots with roughly equal RCP and LCP fluxes are due to two 100% polarized spots that are at slightly different positions and velocities or whether they are due to a single spot that is not 100% polarized. Overlap of Masing Clumps\[overlap\] ----------------------------------- Theoretically, $\pi$-components are favored for magnetic fields inclined $\ge 55\degr$ to the line of sight [@gkk3; @grayfield] and $\sigma$-components are favored for smaller angles. Consider an ensemble of maser sites, each threaded by an independent, randomly-oriented magnetic field. The fraction of maser sites for which amplification of $\sigma$-components is favored is $$2 \cdot \frac{1}{4\pi} \cdot \int_{\phi = 0}^{2\pi}\int_{\theta = 0}^{55\degr} \sin \theta \, d\theta d\phi = 0.426,$$ where the factor of two accounts for the possibilities of the magnetic field being oriented toward or away from the observer. Accounting for the fact that two $\sigma$-components are produced for each $\pi$-component by Zeeman splitting, $\sigma$-components would comprise $2 * 0.426 / (1 + 0.426) = 60\%$ of total maser spots. As discussed in §\[magstruc\], the magnetic field in any individual source is highly ordered, and the distribution of magnetic field orientations at maser sites is not oriented in a uniformly random direction. But for a large sample of sources distributed throughout the Galactic plane, it is plausible that the range of magnetic field directions sampled will approach a uniform random sample. However, in our sample a large majority of maser spots have a small or zero linear polarization fraction. Two-thirds of maser spots have no detectable linear polarization at all. As discussed in §\[faraday\], amplification of $\pi$-components may be reduced by Faraday rotation along the amplification path. Two additional effects pointed out by @elitzuriii may explain the larger fraction of $\sigma$-components we detect. First, although an inclination of $55\degr$ divides angular phase space into two distinct regions in which $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components dominate, the relative amplification of $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components is larger for $\theta < 55\degr$, where $\sigma$-components dominate, than for $\theta > 55\degr$, where $\pi$-components dominate. In the unsaturated regime, the ratio of the absorption coefficients for $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components, $\kappa^\sigma / \kappa^\pi$, reaches a minimum of 0.5 at $\theta = 90\degr$. For comparison, $\kappa^\sigma / \kappa^\pi$ reaches a value of 2 at $39\degr$ and grows in an unbounded manner as $\theta \rightarrow 0\degr$ (see §3 of @elitzuriii). Unsaturated $\pi$-components should on average be weaker than unsaturated $\sigma$-components, so the percentage of $\sigma$-components above a reasonable detection threshold would be higher than the 60% expected based on an analysis of the sizes of angular phase space alone. Second, as masers saturate, competitive gain will favor the stronger component. Saturated $\sigma$-components will reduce the absorption coefficient $\kappa^\pi$ by a factor of 3, but saturated $\pi$-components only reduce $\kappa^\sigma$ by a factor of 2 [@elitzuriii]. Thus, $\sigma$-components should be even more numerous than $\pi$-components even if the masers are saturated. However, it is clear that some $\pi$-components are seen in the $^2\Pi_{3/2}, J = 3/2$ maser transitions. Some maser spots exhibit a high degree of linear polarization as would be expected for $\pi$-components, and the distribution of PPA in some sources strongly suggests that $\pi$-components are seen (see §\[notes-w75n\]). Nevertheless, maser spots that we believe are $\pi$-components are not 100% linearly polarized. Since $\Delta m_f = 0$ radiation is inherently linearly polarized, circular polarization must be generated externally. We speculate that these $\pi$-components with nonzero circular polarization arise from the superposition of two masing clumps along the line of sight. If the emission from a $\pi$-component spot intersects a region of OH appropriately shifted in velocity, it may stimulate emission in a $\sigma$ mode. Since the incident radiation from the first cloud (i.e., the $\pi$-component) is highly amplified and therefore bright, it can strongly stimulate the second cloud, since the incident linear polarization will be seen by the second cloud as a superposition of the two opposite-handed circular modes. Even if the amplification in the second cloud is very weak, a significant amount of circular polarization can be added, and the radiation will no longer be completely linearly polarized, as shown in Appendix \[stokesappendix\]. The distinction between a $\pi$- and a $\sigma$-component may be blurred if there is $\gtrsim 1$ gain length of material in the second cloud. This circularization of a bright $\pi$-component due to an extremely weak $\sigma$-component requires that the weak cloudlet be in front of the bright maser from the observer’s perspective. If the $\sigma$-component is behind the $\pi$-component, the propagation path of radiation passes first through the weak ($\sigma$) cloudlet and then through the strong $\pi$-component. The radiation field that the cloudlet amplifies, whether background continuum or its own spontaneous emission, is much weaker than in the case where the radiation from the $\pi$-component stimulates emission from the $\sigma$-component, so the superposition of spots would be indistinguishable from an isolated $\pi$-component with no surrounding material. In principle the reverse scenario could occur as well: a $\sigma$-component stimulates emission in the $\pi$-mode from a smaller cloud of OH gas at the appropriate velocity for amplification. This would have the effect of adding extra linear polarization to a $\sigma$-component. Since $\sigma$-components are in general elliptically polarized (i.e., have a nonzero linear polarization fraction), it may not be possible to distinguish observationally between a $\sigma$-component that has stimulated weak emission in the $\pi$-mode from a second maser clump and one that has not. The linear polarization fraction of a $\sigma$-component is a function of the inclination of the magnetic field to the line of sight [@gkk2], so this effect could lead to overestimation of the magnetic field inclination at OH maser sites. It is probable that the overlap of maser components along the line of sight would add circular polarization to $\pi$-components more systemically than it would add linear polarization to $\sigma$-components. For most common bulk material motions (e.g., infall, outflow, rotation), the radial component of the velocity field will change monotonically along a ray from a maser spot to the observer. If the change in radial velocity along the line of sight exceeds the Zeeman splitting between a $\sigma$- and $\pi$-component (1.2 [km s$^{-1}$]{} at 1665 MHz and 0.7 [km s$^{-1}$]{} at 1667 MHz for a 4 mG magnetic field), the radiation from the $\pi$-component may stimulate weak amplification from OH in a $\sigma$ mode. But a $\sigma$-component could only stimulate emission from the $\pi$ mode of a cloud of OH along the line of sight if the change in radial velocity were in the same sense as the Zeeman splitting of the $\sigma$-component. Given that only a small column density of OH along the line of sight between a maser and the observer is required to add significant circular polarization to the observed maser, it is likely that a large fraction of $\pi$-components will be misidentified as $\sigma$-components. Unless there is an abrupt outer edge to the radial distribution of OH in a massive star-forming region, the radiation from many $\pi$-components will stimulate weak emission in a $\sigma$-mode of the surrounding OH. Elongated Arrangements of Maser Spots\[elongated\] -------------------------------------------------- In several sources, OH masers are found in elongated filamentary arrangements. For instance, there is a line of maser spots near the origin in the W75 S map shown in Figure 25 of Paper I, and the masers in W75 N (Figure 27 of Paper I) appear to be oriented primarily along two perpendicular axes. In the filamentary arrangement of maser spots seen in the northern grouping of W75 N, the sky projection of the magnetic field as deduced from the PPA of the linear portion of the polarization implies that the magnetic field may be aligned predominantly along the line of elongation. Often there is a velocity gradient along the elongation, such as in W75 S or the masers in a NE/SW line in ON 2 N. These lines of masers with velocity gradients are common in CH$_3$OH. @norris93 observed 10 sources for which the maser spots were distributed mostly in a line with the major axis of the distribution several times greater than the minor axis. Plots of the velocity of the maser spots versus the major axis offset are generally distributed into two quadrants rather than tightly along a straight line [@norris98]. The authors speculated that the masers are tracing circumstellar disks and that the deviation from a straight line in the velocity-major axis plots is due to maser amplification at different radii in the same circumstellar disk. More recent observations do not seem to favor the interpretation of these maser arrangements as circumstellar disks, however. First, @debuizer looked for H$_2$ $\nu = 1 - 0$ S(1) emission in massive SFRs for which circumstellar disks were suspected on the basis of collinear[^4] distributions of methanol masers. Since molecular hydrogen is a diagnostic of shocked outflows, it was expected that the H$_2$ emission would be oriented primarily perpendicular to the putative disks. Instead, the H$_2$ emission in almost all of the sources for which it was detected was preferentially oriented parallel to the line of methanol masers. De Buizer suggested that the masers were instead tracing an outflow. Second, the proper motions of maser spots in the two linear structures in G9.62$+$0.20 are directed primarily perpendicular to the structures @minierevn. This suggests that in at least some cases methanol masers may trace shocks rather than circumstellar disks. Whether this applies to similar arrangements of OH masers is not yet well established. It is believed that the lifetimes of methanol and hydroxyl masers overlap but are not identical [@reidsumm]. It is therefore possible that structures delineated by OH masers trace a different evolutionary phase of forming high-mass stars than do CH$_3$OH masers. An alternate possibility to the disk hypothesis is that these elongated arrangements of maser spots may simply be a result of the motion of material threaded by magnetic fields. This could be a result of 1) collapse in the early stages of star formation or 2) shock-driven outflows in later stages. In case 1), as clouds of OH and other material fall inward, they will draw the magnetic field inward with them. This will tend to align field lines with the material elongations, provided there is enough angular momentum to avoid spherical collapse. In case 2), a shock propagating outward from the boundary of the UC region compresses material ahead of it, leading to elongations along the shock front. The drift speed for ambipolar diffusion of a magnetic field out of a maser cloud is $$v_\mathrm{d} = 0.6 \left(\frac{B}{5 \times 10^{-3}~\mathrm{G}}\right)^2 \left(\frac{n}{10^6~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-2} \left(\frac{r}{10^{15}~\mathrm{cm}}\right)^{-1} \left(\frac{\alpha}{2 \times 10^{-9}~\mathrm{cm}^3~\mathrm{s}^{-1}}\right)^{-1} \left(\frac{x_e}{10^{-5}}\right)~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1},$$ where $r$ is the radius of a maser spot, $\alpha$ is the ion-neutral collision rate coefficient, and $x_e$ is the ionization fraction [@black79]. The drift speed is less than a typical shock speed ($ > 5$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}), especially if carbon is ionized in any substantial fraction. Thus, the magnetic field will be dragged along and compressed by the shock, resulting in a field oriented parallel to the shock front and therefore along the material elongation. Unless the shock is totally planar, there may be velocity gradients along the elongations. The slight curvature to some of these elongations may also be explained by the expansion of a spherical shock front or a planar shock into an inhomogeneous medium. This is in contrast to models explaining elongated arrangements of maser spots as disks, where little curvature would be expected if preferentially seen edge-on. Nevertheless, some curvature along the elongations may be produced if a disk is inclined. Is There a Connection Between Maser Clusters and Shocks?\[shocks\] ------------------------------------------------------------------ As mentioned in §\[clusterscale\], there is a characteristic maser clumping scale of $\sim 10^{15}$ cm. Additionally, maser clusters tend to be concentrated on or near the periphery of regions. This is not always the case in complicated sources such as W75 N, but more often than not these maser clusters appear near the boundary of an region, especially given that we observe three-dimensional distributions of masers in projection. Occasionally even individual clusters are elongated in a filamentary manner, as in W3(OH) [@reidw3]. It is possible that these clusters of OH masers form in shocked neutral gas outside the ionization boundary. The initial growth phase of a UC region involves an $R$-type ionization front [see, e.g., @kahn54]. When the speed of the ionization front slows to twice the sound speed of the ionized material, a transition occurs and the ionization front changes to a weak $D$-type [@shubook]. This is characterized by the existence of two separate fronts: an ionization (I) front and a shock (S) front that precedes it. @kawamura directly measured the expansion speed of the UC region, i.e., the I front, in W3(OH) to be $3 - 5$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. Since the speed of the I front is less than the sound speed in the ionized material ($\sim 10$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}), the ionization front must be of $D$-type in W3(OH). Others have theorized that masers near a UC region appear in the shocked neutral material between the I and S fronts [e.g., @baldwin; @elitzur]. Theoretical calculations suggest that I-S fronts are inherently prone to instabilities [@vandervoort]. Less clear is the exact mechanism of instability growth, although there is no shortage of candidates [@dyson]. @giuliani found that the slab of material between the I and S fronts was unstable to oscillatory transverse perturbations. The wavelength of fastest perturbation growth was found to increase with time. @vishniac obtained similar results and additionally suggested that unstable small-scale fragmentation would eventually allow neutral gas to be swept up behind the fragments and lead to Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, although it is unclear whether this would occur at the time and size scales of ultracompact regions. @pottasch argued based on the evolutionary sequence of perturbation shapes of the bright rims in diffuse nebulae that the Rayleigh-Taylor instability alone cannot be the cause of fingering, although his analysis was based on older, lower-density regions. Vishniac also speculated that magnetic fields might produce elongated, filamentary structures. Two-dimensional simulations by @garciasegura demonstrate the appearance of this hydrodynamical instability regardless of the density structure of the neutral gas and details of the radiative cooling law included. The wavelength of the fastest-growing perturbations increases with time, with interfragment spacings on the order of several times 100 AU near the base of the fingers and approximately 100 AU near the tips for UC ages near $10^4$ years, as shown graphically in their Figure 6. Note that this is consistent with both the clustering scale and the dynamical age of OH masers, as discussed in §§\[clusterscale\] and \[relation-hii\]. Assuming that some clusters near UC regions form in the shocked neutral medium between the I and S fronts, two projection-related factors would imply that clusters should be more frequently found at the periphery of regions rather than atop them, an effect not seen (see §\[relation-hii\]). First, velocity gradients are likely to be higher along the fingers of shocked neutral material than across them. Amplification lengths should therefore be longer on average for fingers pointing in the plane of the sky, where the velocity gradient is tangential in projection, than for fingers pointing toward us (i.e., projected near the center of the region). Still, potential path lengths are longer along fingers rather than across them, and it is unclear whether velocity gradients are large enough to favor amplification across rather than along the fingers. Second, the magnetic field threading the neutral material will be dragged along with it. Field lines will be folded such that a field line entering the finger from the neutral material will exit the finger back into the neutral material after bending through $\approx 180\degr$. This would imply an effective reversal of the line-of-sight direction for lines of sight along fingers. However, intra-cluster magnetic field line reversals are never seen. Indeed, the magnetic fields deduced from OH maser in clusters superposed atop regions in ON 1 and W3(OH) suggest that there is a consistent line-of-sight field direction in those sources even atop the region. It is possible that OH masing clumps occur near the “palms” of the fingers or that the fingers of neutral material containing the OH masers are not very long. In either case, the bend in the magnetic field lines could be much less than $180\degr$, consistent with our lack of detection of line-of-sight field reversals in these clusters. Large-scale ($> 1000$ AU) collinear maser structures, such as the NE/SW line in ON 2 N, probably cannot be explained by shock instabilities around the UC region because they are larger in scale than the region itself. It is still possible that these structures occur in neutral gas that has been shocked by another source in the star-forming complex. There is often a velocity gradient along these structures, which could be explained by a curved or decelerating shock. Relation of OH Masers to Galactic Magnetic Fields ------------------------------------------------- Noting that line-of-sight directions obtained from Zeeman splitting in eight Galactic OH maser sources were consistent with a clockwise Galactic field, @davies postulated that OH masers in massive star-forming regions traced the Galactic magnetic field. Follow-up studies by @reid90 and @reid93 supported this claim but were suggestive of a more complicated Galactic field structure. Subsequent analyses employing this technique on ever-larger sample sizes have indicated that correlations with the Galactic magnetic field may exist [@baudry97; @fish03], but detailed probing of the Galactic field with this method remains elusive. Observational limitations of this method consist of unknown distances to many of the sources as well as possibly incorrect magnetic field data resulting from inadequate spatial resolution to unambiguously identify Zeeman pairs of maser features, since few sources have been observed at VLBI resolution. Additionally, magnetic field information has thus far been limited to the sign of the line-of-sight field orientation (i.e, whether the magnetic field points in the hemisphere toward or away from the Sun). This may be insufficient to accurately probe a predominantly toroidal Galactic magnetic field at lower Galactic longitudes, in the direction of the majority of massive star-forming regions (as well as most of the spiral structure of the Galaxy). If the magnetic field orientation in massive star-forming regions is correlated with the Galactic field, the processes of high-mass star formation must not tightly wrap the magnetic field configuration despite the rotation and collapse necessary to produce the central condensation, a proposition for which there is theoretical support [e.g., @lishu; @allenshu]. As discussed in §\[magstruc\], an ordered magnetic field can be inferred from the regularity of the line-of-sight direction of the magnetic field over large portions of the source and the field strengths inferred from Zeeman pairs within the same clusters of $10^{15}$ cm. Furthermore, the magnetic fields deduced from OH Zeeman splitting in massive SFRs separated by distances on the order of a kiloparsec show a preference to be co-aligned [@fram]. A numerical investigation of the collapse of rotating, magnetized, isothermal cloud cores suggests that collapse can occur without introducing a significant twist to the magnetic field [@allenshu]. These authors find that the maximum pitch angle of the magnetic field is approximately $20 \degr$ along a ridge of accreting material (see their Figure 4). Inward from this ridge the magnetic field resists wrapping, while outward from the ridge the wrap from differential rotation is small. Simulations by @matsumoto04 confirm that the magnetic field of a collapsing core maintains alignment with the magnetic field of the parent cloud. They find that a young star’s magnetic field is inclined no more than 30 from that of the parent cloud for a weak initial field strength ($\approx 20~\mu$G at a density of $2.6 \times 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$), with much better alignment when the initial field strength is greater. If these models are correct, the magnetic field orientation before collapse might be partially preserved in the material surrounding the core. Since the fields around newly-formed massive stars are ordered (see §\[magstruc\]), this suggests that magnetic field orientations deduced from OH maser Zeeman splitting may be indicative of the Galactic magnetic field. A VLBI survey of OH masers in massive star-forming regions would eliminate Zeeman pairing ambiguity and possibly allow for three-dimensional modelling of the ambient magnetic field in the few sources in which the Faraday rotation is small enough that the full magnetic field orientation can be inferred from the observed linear polarization fraction and PPA of maser spots. If accurate distances can be obtained as well, as through trigonometric parallaxes of higher frequency maser transitions, OH masers may prove to be a useful tool for probing the Galactic magnetic field. Summary of Interstellar OH Maser Properties\[conclusions\] ========================================================== - Ground-state OH masers typically cluster on a scale of $10^{15}$ cm, providing evidence that their distribution is linked to a process with an inherent scale, as opposed to turbulence (which is generally scale-free). The magnetic field strengths implied by Zeeman splitting suggest that OH masers occur in regions of density $10^5$ to several $\times 10^7$ cm$^{-3}$. OH masers are found preferentially near the UC region in massive SFRs. Their distribution around UCregions suggest an expansion age of $\approx 10^4$ years for typical expansion velocities. OH masers do not appear to be systemically shifted from the velocity of the associated star by more than a few [km s$^{-1}$]{}, although possible exceptions exist, as in G5.886$-$0.393 and W75 N VLA 2. Taken together, these pieces of evidence support the theory that most OH masers occur in the shocked neutral gas between the ionization and shock fronts of UC regions. The distribution of maser fluxes with distance from the central UC region suggests that OH masers turn off abruptly rather than weakening gradually after $\sim 10^4$ years. - Some OH masers are seen far from or without any associated region. It is unclear whether these masers are pumped by a star with an associated weak, undetected hypercompact region or whether they are shock-excited without an ionization front. In some sources (e.g., ), OH masers appear to trace a collinear structure with a velocity gradient. These formations probably trace shock fronts rather than protostellar disks. - Magnetic fields are ordered in massive SFRs, lending observational support to theories that indicate that the ambient magnetic field direction may be preserved during massive star formation. Nearly all sources show either a consistent line-of-sight magnetic field direction or a single reversal of the line-of-sight direction across the source. Within a maser cluster of size $10^{15}$ cm, line-of-sight magnetic field direction reversals are never seen, and the field strengths deduced from Zeeman splitting are almost always consistent within $\pm 1$ mG. - We do see both $\pi$- and $\sigma$-components, including a “Zeeman triplet” in W75 N (see §\[triplet\]). But OH maser spots that are 100% linearly polarized, as theoretically expected of $\pi$-components, are extremely rare. There is a range of sources with qualitatively different linear polarization properties. At one extreme (as in W75 N) high linear polarization fractions are seen, and the PPAs show some correlation with observed structures and probable magnetic field directions. In most sources the linear polarization fractions are much less than 1 and PPAs cannot be easily interpreted as magnetic field directions. At the other extreme are sources such as W51 e1 and e2, in which little or no linear polarization is detected and the total polarization fraction of some maser spots is much less than unity. - The wide range of polarization properties observed in OH masers may be explained by a combination of Faraday rotation and overlap of maser components. If OH masers are indeed near or embedded in regions, the electron density may be high enough that the masers are near a critical point of Faraday rotation. A typical maser spot likely has large ($> 1$ rad) Faraday rotation over the entire amplification length, but not over a single gain length of the maser. If Faraday rotation is a factor of $\sim 5$ lower, the total Faraday rotation along the amplification path may be small enough such that the PPAs are still roughly aligned with the magnetic field lines. On the other hand, if Faraday rotation is a factor of $\sim 5$ larger, the Faraday rotation per gain length could exceed 1 rad, destroying linear polarization and depolarizing the maser. Even if the Faraday rotation is small enough to allow amplification of a 100% linearly polarized $\pi$-component, its polarization may be partially circularized by one of the $\sigma$-modes of a weakly-inverted clump of OH between the maser site and the observer. This is likely a very important effect, as only a modest inversion and a small column density of OH are required to add significant circular polarization to a $\pi$-component. - Theoretically the linear polarization fractions and directions of maser components can be used to determine the full, three-dimensional orientation of the magnetic field at masing sites. But the interpretation of PPAs may be very difficult in sources for which the amount of Faraday rotation along the propagation path between the source and the observer is unknown. Inferring a magnetic field orientation in the plane of the sky also requires unambiguous identification of $\sigma$- and $\pi$-components, due to the $90\degr$ difference in PPA response to a magnetic field. Zeeman pairs provide the surest method of identifying $\sigma$-components, but their polarization properties may be too contaminated by internal Faraday rotation and maser overlap to permit interpretation of the inclination of the magnetic field to the line of sight. We thank M. D. Gray, M. Elitzur, and J.-P. Macquart for helpful comments in preparation. [Facility: ]{} Notes on Individual Sources\[sourcenotes\] ========================================== G5.886$-$0.393\[appendixgfive\] ------------------------------- There is a reversal of the line-of-sight direction of the magnetic field across the source. All Zeeman pairs in the south of the source indicate a negative magnetic field (i.e., oriented in the hemisphere pointing toward the Sun), while all pairs in the north of the source indicate a positive magnetic field. Nearly all of the maser spots identified in the northeastern cluster constitute a component of a Zeeman pair. In total, there are eight Zeeman pairs in the cluster – four each in the 1665 and 1667 MHz transitions. The magnetic field strengths are consistent, ranging from 1.2 to 2.0 mG in the cluster. The center (material) velocities of the Zeeman pairs range from 8.6 to 10.0 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. This is in excellent agreement with @caswell01, who find a 6035 MHz Zeeman pair in this region centered at 9.96 [km s$^{-1}$]{} with a splitting of 1.49 mG. We can define the Zeeman pairing efficiency as twice the number of Zeeman pairs divided by the total number of maser spots (in both polarizations and transitions) in a region. In the limiting case where every maser spot is a $\sigma$-component in a detectable Zeeman pair, the Zeeman pairing efficiency would be 100%. For the northeastern cluster (Figure 3 of Paper I), the Zeeman pairing efficiency is 84%. The pairing efficiency in the western half of the source is only 16%. We note that the velocities of maser spots range from 2.6 to 15.8 [km s$^{-1}$]{} in the western half of the source This is a much larger range than for the northeastern cluster, which has a larger Zeeman pairing efficiency. Since velocity coherence is necessary for the amplification of both $\sigma$-components of a Zeeman pair, it is reassuring to note that the region with the more coherent velocity field also produces Zeeman pairs more efficiently. @zijlstra observe OH emission from $-45$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} to 17 [km s$^{-1}$]{} and interpret this emission as tracing a bipolar outflow. Our observations span only the upper end of this velocity range. We see redshifted emission extending to the southwest of the western group of masers, in general agreement with @zijlstra They do not see emission at 8.6 to 10.0 [km s$^{-1}$]{} in the eastern half of the source, probably due to the large channel width (2.2 [km s$^{-1}$]{} velocity equivalent) and beam size of their observations. They also do not see emission at the appropriate velocities corresponding to the isolated $-2.4$ and $+1.2$ mG Zeeman pairs we detect. At 6035 MHz, @caswell01 finds emission in the velocity range corresponding to our observations and absorption from $-25$ to $+2$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}, supporting the model of @zijlstra @feldt03 detect a candidate O-type ionizing star at $\Delta\alpha = -2\farcs 6 \pm 0\farcs 2, \Delta\delta = 0\farcs 0 \pm 0\farcs 2$ in Figure 1 of Paper I. The star’s location is coincident with the isolated $1.2$ mG Zeeman pair to within positional errors. The brighter RCP component of this Zeeman pair has a flux density of 2.37 Jy. Since the region is optically thick at $\lambda = 18$ cm [@afflerbach96], it is unlikely that direct amplification of stellar radiation is important. Is the spatial coincidence of this maser spot with the projected location of the star due to chance, or is amplification favored due to the stellar radiation? Nine other main-line maser features in G5.886$-$0.393 are brighter than this feature, indicating that the observed flux density is not strongly affected by whether the maser is projected atop the star. However, the observed flux density of strong ($> 1$ Jy) maser spots may be relatively insensitive to initial conditions if they are at least partially saturated. Due to interstellar scattering, it is possible to get only a lower limit for maser brightness temperatures, but it is probable that the brightest maser spots in this source are saturated (see §\[saturation\]). G9.622$+$0.195 -------------- The G9.62$+$0.19 complex contains several UC regions, as well as a hot molecular core [@cesaroni]. We detect OH masers around sources D, E, and G in the nomenclature system of @garayg9 and @testi. At source E, we find two Zeeman pairs which both indicate a positive magnetic field. At source G, we find two Zeeman pairs which both indicate a negative magnetic field. Few OH maser spots and no Zeeman pairs are identified at source D, while no maser activity at all is seen near the hot core (source F), located between sources D and G. We do not see the isolated 1665 MHz RCP maser detected between sources E and G in @arm. This maser spot has likely weakened below our detectability threshold in the 10 years since their observations. Water maser emission is seen at this site and associated with sources D, E, and G [@hofner96]. G10.624$-$0.385 --------------- Overall evidence indicates that is undergoing collapse. Observations of NH$_3$ show that the molecular material is rotating and falling inward, with rapid spiral motions inward of about 0.05 pc [@ho86; @keto87]. The plane of rotation cuts through the center of the region and is oriented approximately 20 west of north [@keto88]. Coherent inward motions are also seen within the ionized gas in the region [@keto02]. We detect relatively few maser spots in G10.624$-$0.385. Emission falls into three regions: a clump to the east, a clump $2\arcsec$ to the west of the previous clump, and an isolated maser spot to the northwest. We find only one Zeeman pair, indicating a magnetic field of $-6$ mG in the easternmost clump. The west clump appears arclike, with a length of about 150 mas. This is the only clump to show any linear polarization, most of which is oriented roughly perpendicular to the arc. None of the maser spots we detect lies along the plane of rotation. The ground-state masers we detect span a velocity range of $-2.4$ to $+3.3$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. This is in agreement with the velocity span of excited states of OH: $-2.0$ to $-1.5$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} in $^2\Pi_{1/2}, J = 1/2$ emission [@gardner83], $-2.5$ to $+1.0$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} in $^2\Pi_{3/2}, J = 7/2$ absorption [@gbtoh], and $-1.9$ to $-0.4$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} in $^2\Pi_{3/2}, J = 9/2$ absorption [@walmsley86]. G34.257$+$0.154 --------------- The G34.3$+$0.2 complex contains several UC regions. Most prominent is the “cometary” region, labelled C in the nomenclature of @gaume94. The morphology of region C can be explained as a bow shock due to the supersonic relative motion of the exciting source with respect to the surrounding medium [@reid85; @maclow91]. Region C may be composed of more than one continuum component [@sewilo04]. Two fainter components, labelled A and B by @reid85, are located to the southeast and northeast of region C, respectively. The complex has a kinematic distance of 3.8 kpc (Galactic center distance $r_0 = 10$ kpc) [@reifenstein]. A blueshifted outflow extending to the northwest is seen by @hatchell01. Components A and C were detected in the mid-infrared, but component B was not, suggesting that it is deeply embedded and therefore very young [@campbell00]. Based on this and the spectral index of component B [$0.9 \pm 0.4$, from @gaume94], Hatchell et al. conclude that component B is the source of the outflow. Unlike other sources, there is not a single line that can be drawn across the entirety of G34.257$+$0.154 which separates regions of positive and negative magnetic field. However, such lines can be drawn for the masers associated with regions B and C separately. Region B contains many Zeeman pairs with positive magnetic field near the continuum source and a single Zeeman pair with negative magnetic field to the northeast of the source. All of the Zeeman pairs ahead of the bow shock in region C imply a negative magnetic field except for a small region near the region to the south. There is good qualitative agreement between the magnetic field measured here and similar VLBA observations of the source in 1995 by @zrm. In the northern half of the source, the field directions are identical between the two observations, and field magnitudes agree to better than 0.3 mG where they overlap. In the center and south, we find larger field magnitudes than reported by Zheng et al. Line-of-sight field directions are again in agreement, although Zheng et al. find Zeeman pairs implying magnetic fields of $+0.5$ and $-0.5$ mG near the origin of Figure 9 of Paper I. At this same location, @gasiprong find only one Zeeman pair implying a magnetic field of $-5.0$ mG. In this region, we infer magnetic fields of $-0.6$, $-5.1$, $-5.7$, and $-6.0$ mG from four Zeeman pairs. At 6035 MHz, @caswellv and @caswell01 find three Zeeman pairs indicating a magnetic field of $-4$ mG. Their observations do not have the necessary angular resolution to determine which region the 6035 MHz are associated with, but their results are largely consistent with magnetic fields obtained from the cometary region C, especially in the north. @gasiprong also observed linear polarization with the MERLIN array. It is difficult to compare our results directly with theirs, since the $0\farcs 16$ resolution afforded by MERLIN is insufficient to separate distinct maser components with very different linear polarization position angles. Nevertheless, for the brighter spots it is possible to identify a maser spot in our data that corresponds to a similar spot in the Gasiprong study. Polarization position angles generally agree to 10$\degr$ or $20\degr$. G35.577$-$0.029 --------------- This source contains two UC regions. All of the maser activity appears to be associated with the western region. We detect maser spots only on the western limb of the western region with the exception of one isolated spot to the east. Due to registration uncertainties, it is not clear whether this spot is located directly atop the region or on the eastern limb. We detect three Zeeman pairs in the western clump of emission, with all three implying a magnetic field in the range of $-4$ to $-6.3$ mG. G40.622$-$0.137 --------------- There is a large ($\sim 1\arcsec$) cluster of OH maser emission centered approximately $1\farcs 5$ away from the only detected region. We detect two Zeeman pairs in the same region, consistent with a field strength of approximately $-6$ mG. @caswellv find one Zeeman pair in 6035 MHz OH maser emission implying a magnetic field of $+1.7$ mG, suggesting that there may be a reversal of the line-of-sight direction of the magnetic field in this source. Methanol and water masers are also seen within less than 1 of the reference position [@forster89; @beuther02]. G43.796$-$0.127\[notes-g43\] ---------------------------- The X-band continuum maps show two sources – a bright source to the northwest, and a weak source to the southeast. All maser emission lies atop the northwest source. A total of seven Zeeman pairs were identified. Five of these indicate a positive magnetic field, and two indicate a negative magnetic field. Unlike in other sources in which a reversal is seen, it is not possible to draw a single straight line such that the magnetic field on each side of the line has a uniform line-of-sight direction. A Zeeman measurement of 6035 MHz (excited-state) OH emission implies a magnetic field of $+3.6$ mG [@caswellv]. Three measurements of the Zeeman effect in H$_2$O masers, which trace a higher range of densities, imply a magnetic field of $-13.3$ to $-46.1$ mG [@sarma]. We have adopted an ammonia velocity of 45.2 [km s$^{-1}$]{} for G43.796$-$0.127. The NH$_3$ spectrum itself (see Figure 41 of Paper I) is complicated, and it is difficult to identify which line is the main line and which are hyperfine lines. We identify the line at 45.2 [km s$^{-1}$]{} as the main line because its velocity most closely matches that of the CS $J = 7 \rightarrow 6$ velocity of 44.3 [km s$^{-1}$]{} [@plume]. Since the critical density of CS $J = 7 \rightarrow 6$ is $2 \times 10^7$ cm$^{-3}$, we feel confident that it is tracing the same high-density material as the NH$_3$ emission. W51 --- We find a total of 46 Zeeman pairs near sources e1 and e2, making W51 the most prolific massive SFR in terms of the number of Zeeman pairs in our survey. As previously reported [@arm2], source e2 contains two Zeeman pairs implying the strongest magnetic fields ever seen in interstellar OH masers: 19.8 mG and 21 mG. Source e1 shows a reversal of the line-of-sight field direction, which points toward the Sun in the northern half of the source and away from the Sun in the southern half. Source e2 is the clearest example yet that shows the extent to which magnetic fields are ordered in massive SFRs. All 22 Zeeman pairs indicate a positive magnetic field. Although there is a huge variation in the strength of the magnetic field across the source, multiple Zeeman pairs in each cluster have consistent field strengths to within about 1 mG. W51 is remarkable among our source sample as having almost no detectable linear polarization. Three maser spots near the origin in source e1 have linear polarization fractions of 1% to 2%. No linear polarization was detected for any other spot in source e1 or any spot at all in source e2. The plausibility of circularization due to high Faraday rotation along maser amplification paths is discussed in §\[faraday\]. ON 1\[notes-on1\] ----------------- The maser spots appeared to be grouped into three regions. The masers in the northern group have velocities near 4 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. The masers in the central group are located at about $13-14$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. The southern maser spots fall primarily along an extended collinear feature. The velocities in this line range from 13 to 15 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. OH masers are not seen at intermediate velocities. Methanol masers show a similar velocity structure [@szymczak00]. Zeeman splitting in ON 1 is everywhere consistent with a magnetic field pointing in the hemisphere toward the Sun. We do not find any unambiguous Zeeman pairs in the northern group. At 6031 and 6035 MHz, @desmurs98 find four Zeeman pairs implying magnetic fields from $-3.6$ to $-6.3$ mG. These maser spots appear to fall slightly north and west of the northern group of maser spots detected in the ground-state transitions here and in @arm, but their center velocities fall between 13.7 and 15.3 [km s$^{-1}$]{} as compared with a velocity range of 3.2 to 6.2 [km s$^{-1}$]{} in the northern ground-state group. It is unclear whether this 10 [km s$^{-1}$]{} difference reflects a large velocity gradient in the northern part of the source or whether the 6031 and 6035 MHz emission comes from a different area, reflecting registration uncertainties between the various sets of observations. Two 13441 MHz Zeeman pairs at 14.1 and 0.3 [km s$^{-1}$]{} indicate magnetic fields of $-3.8$ and $-8.3$ mG, respectively [@gbtoh]. Since registration uncertainties of a few tenths of an arcsecond may exist between the continuum image and our maser spot maps, one possible interpretation is that the northern and southern maser groups are located on the limb of the UC region, while the center group is projected onto the region. While the precise locations of these groups relative to the region along the line of sight is unknown, the center group must be located in front of the region, since the region is optically thick at 18 cm [@zhengon1]. The authors also noted an arcminute-scale gradient of $11 \pm 2$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} pc$^{-1}$ in NH$_3$ emission with a velocity of $\sim 12$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} near the region (comparable to that of the southern group of OH masers) and an H$76\alpha$ recombination velocity of $5.1 \pm 2.5$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}, blueshifted with respect to the NH$_3$ emission. They concluded that the motions in ON 1 were consistent with infall and rotation. The velocities of the three groups of maser spots we observe may be consistent with infall and rotation on a smaller angular scale as well. If the north and south maser groups are at limbs of the rotation, the implied rotation speed would be 5 [km s$^{-1}$]{} centered at 9 [km s$^{-1}$]{} and roughly aligned with the direction of rotation noted by Zheng et al. The center maser group might then be infalling at 5 [km s$^{-1}$]{} as well. At this radius, 5 [km s$^{-1}$]{} corresponds to the freefall velocity for a $20~M_\sun$ star, so if net rotation is also sustained, rapidly spiralling infall must be occurring. Nevertheless, this could explain why the RCP maser emission in the northern group is seen farther from the center of the region than the LCP emission. Because the magnetic field splits the RCP emission to a lower LSR velocity than the LCP emission, the coherent path length is larger farther away from the center of the region. K3$-$50 ------- This region has a diameter of over 0.1 pc, which is large for an ultracompact region. Masers are found only to the north and east of the region. The line-of-sight magnetic field direction points toward the Sun at all maser groups. However, due to the lack of maser emission to the south and west of the region, we cannot conclusively rule out a magnetic field reversal across . Using the Effelsberg 100 m telescope, @baudry97 find two 6035 MHz Zeeman pairs indicating field strengths of $-5.3$ and $-9.1$ mG centered at $-18.68$ and $-19.44$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}, respectively. These are redshifted compared to the Zeeman pairs we identify, whose center velocities range from $-22.30$ to $-19.79$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. Two components at $-20.1$ to $-20.2$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} and $-25.0$ to $-25.5$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} are seen in absorption in the $^2\Pi_{3/2}, J = 7/2$ lines [@gbtoh]. ON 2 N ------ Eleven Zeeman pairs have been identified in ON 2 N, all indicating a positive magnetic field. All of the OH maser emission is located to the south and west of the UC region, in the same area as the H$_2$O maser emission [@hofner96]. There are three groups of maser spots arranged roughly in a line with a position angle 35 east of north beginning at the region. This line of spots exhibits a velocity gradient with the most redshifted emission toward the southwest. A cluster of maser spots with a large velocity dispersion is offset from this line and elongated perpendicular to it. Almost all spots with any detectable linear polarization, as well as all spots with a high linear polarization fraction, are offset from the line of masers. W75 S ----- We have identified 13 Zeeman pairs around the UC region in W75 S. There is a reversal of the line-of-sight magnetic field direction across this SFR. Seven Zeeman pairs to the east indicate a magnetic field pointing toward the Sun, while six to the west indicate a magnetic field in the opposite direction. Additionally, field strengths within maser clusters are remarkably consistent. The six Zeeman pairs in the western cluster imply field strengths of $5.6$ to $6.6$ mG, and the six Zeeman pairs to the southeast of the region imply field strengths of $-3.8$ to $-5.3$ mG. A collinear arrangement of maser spots exists near the origin in Figure 25 of Paper I. An enlargement of this region is shown in Figure \[w75sdisk\], along with a best-fit line. There is a velocity gradient along this line with the velocity increasing to the north. If these masers are interpreted as tracing a circumstellar disk in Keplerian rotation, the radius of the disk is at least 400 AU, and the central mass is at least 6 M$_\sun$. See §\[elongated\] for further discussion of the possible interpretations of this structure. ![Left: Enlargement of collinear maser arrangement in W75 S. The maser spots are tightly grouped along a line, as shown. Right: Plot of radial velocity $v_\mathrm{LSR}$ versus distance along major axis. The line of best fit, representing a velocity gradient, is shown. \[w75sdisk\]](f20a.eps "fig:"){height="3.0truein"} ![Left: Enlargement of collinear maser arrangement in W75 S. The maser spots are tightly grouped along a line, as shown. Right: Plot of radial velocity $v_\mathrm{LSR}$ versus distance along major axis. The line of best fit, representing a velocity gradient, is shown. \[w75sdisk\]](f20b.eps "fig:"){height="2.5truein"} W75 N\[notes-w75n\] ------------------- The region of OH masing in W75 N coincides with three continuum sources, identified from north to south as VLA 1, VLA 2, and VLA 3 by @torrelles. Based on an elongation of VLA 1 (at position angle $\sim 43\degr$) and the spectral index of the source, the authors conclude that there is an ionized, biconical, partially optically thick jet emanating from the source. In addition to this flow, there is a larger, 3-pc flow oriented at position angle $62 \fdg 5$ that does not appear to be driven by the outflow in VLA 1 [@shepherd2]. W75 N contains OH maser spots distributed primarily along two axes. Along the north-south axis the magnetic field is oriented away from the Sun, while along the east-west axis the field is oriented toward the Sun. At the intersection of these two axes there are two Zeeman pairs, each indicating a different sign of the magnetic field. It appears that most masers are associated with VLA 1. However, the dynamics of the cluster at the limb of VLA 2 (Figure 28 of Paper I) are unlike the rest of the masers, suggesting that these masers are indeed associated with VLA 2. Other maser species exist in W75 N as well. H$_2$O masers are seen close to the regions, with spots distinctly on the limbs of VLA 2 and VLA 3 as well as along the position angle of the jet in VLA 1 [@torrelles]. CH$_3$OH masers are seen primarily as an extension to the north of the north-south axis of OH masers, and they are distributed in a line with position angle $42\degr$ [@minier2]. Thus, the CH$_3$OH masers appear to be associated with VLA 1. The region around VLA 2 contains a large number of OH maser spots at a wide range of velocities. The difference in velocity between the most blueshifted and most redshifted spot in this region is 34 [km s$^{-1}$]{}[@ellder; @hutawarakorn]. Our bandwidth only covered about 21 [km s$^{-1}$]{} of this range. We detect maser emission in both the highest and lowest usable velocity channel at which we observed. A large velocity dispersion in H$_2$O masers is also seen in this region [@torrelles2]. Based on these large velocity dispersions, the location of VLA 2, and the steeply rising spectrum of continuum emission, @hutawarakorn conclude that VLA 2 is the source of the large-scale molecular outflow. @slysh01 interpret the maser spots in the north-south axis as being a disk centered at VLA 1. Since the observations detailed in Paper I, a 1665 MHz maser in W75 N has become the strongest ever detected, reaching a flux of approximately 1 kJy [@alakoz05]. They find a 750 Jy RCP feature at 1.8 [km s$^{-1}$]{}, as well as two other new features near 0 and $-1$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. All three features are predominantly linearly polarized and are therefore likely $\pi$-components or $\sigma$-components where the magnetic field is oriented close to the plane of the sky. These are offset by about $-0.5$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} compared to the bright features in Paper I. It is possible that these features are new or that the masers near VLA 2 are accelerating. This latter possibility cannot be ruled out because of the nature of the masers near VLA 2. They are observed to span a velocity range 34 [km s$^{-1}$]{} wide and appear to be associated with an outflow [@ellder; @hutawarakorn]. If the outflow is decelerating, it is possible that masers entrained in the flow may appear at slightly different velocities between epochs. Cep A ----- Cep A is a complex molecular cloud condensation. @hughes84 detected no fewer than 14 regions in the complex, and subsequent observations have uncovered even more radio continuum sources [@hughes88; @curiel02]. HW 2, the brightest continuum source in Figure 30 of Paper I, appears to contain at least four compact sources [@hughes95] and is believed to be the source of two thermal jets [@rodriguez94; @hughes01]. The 6 cm radio jet is oriented at a position angle of 44$\degr$ and is observed to have a projected velocity of $950 \pm 150$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} [@rodriguez01]. Water masers are seen associated with this jet [@torrelles96], and their proper motions suggest the presence of at least three distinct sites of star formation within a projected 200 AU radius [@torrelles01]. To the south in Figure 30 of Paper I are three continuum sources: HW 3c, HW 3div, and HW 3dii in the nomenclature of @hughes95 and @torrelles98. Source HW 3c shows evidence of multiple components [@hughes95]. Water masers are seen around HW 3dii and the nearby source HW 3di, which is not detectable in our X-band image [@torrelles98]. We detect OH masers around HW 2, HW 3c, and HW 3div, as well as a cluster of masers between HW 3div and HW 3dii and a lone maser not near any continuum source. @bartkiewicz05 identify seven Zeeman pairs at 1665 MHz and two at 1667 MHz with MERLIN. Four of these (Z$_2$, both Z$_7$’s, and Z$_8$) agree with our findings in terms of central velocity and magnetic field strength to within the errors expected from velocity resolution. Pairs Z$_5$ and Z$_6$ also agree with the magnetic field strength we find in the respective maser clusters, although several maser spots are blended together at these locations in the MERLIN beam. We do not find counterparts for pairs Z$_1$ and Z$_3$, and we do not have the velocity coverage necessary to observe Z$_4$. NGC 7538 -------- is a complex star-forming region. The continuum source in Figure 32 of Paper I, known as IRS 1, contains a core of two compact components and a larger, spherical region to the south [@turner84; @campbell84]. @scoville86 argued for the existence of an ionized stellar wind outflow based on the spectral index of millimeter continuum emission and for a possible disk oriented east-west based on $^{13}$CO emission. @gaume95 find that the distribution of continuum emission is clumpy and suggest that photoionization from the central star is responsible for this emission. There is a bipolar, high-velocity CO flow around IRS 1 [@fischer85], possibly collimated by a denser ring of material seen in CS [@kawabe92]. This outflow, as well as other outflows and stellar winds in the IRS 1-3 region, may be driving the expansion of a molecular half-shell [@xu03]. NGC 7538 is also remarkable in the variety of maser species detected. Among these are rare maser species such as H$_2$CO [@forster80], $^{14}$NH$_3$ [@madden86], and $^{15}$NH$_3$ [@mauersberger86]. H$_2$O masers [@genzel76; @kameya90] and CH$_3$OH masers from a variety of transitions [e.g., @wilson84; @wilson85; @batrla87] are seen in NGC 7538 as well. OH maser emission has been seen in the 1665, 1667, and 1720 MHz $^2\Pi_{3/2}, J = 3/2$ lines [e.g., @downes70; @dickel82; @hutawarakorn03], the 6035 MHz $^2\Pi_{3/2}, J = 5/2$ line [@guilloteau84], and the 4765 MHz $^2\Pi_{1/2}, J = 1/2$ line [@palmer84]. @hutawarakorn03 find one Zeeman pair in each of the 1667 and 1720 MHz transitions implying magnetic fields of $-1.7$ and $-2.0$ mG, respectively. We find no Zeeman pairs at 1667 MHz, but we do detect a Zeeman pair of $+0.7$ mG at 1665 MHz, suggesting that there is a reversal of the line-of-sight direction of the magnetic field across the source. S269 ---- We have found three Zeeman pairs in S269, consistent with a magnetic field of $-4.0$ to $-4.5$ mG. Otherwise, S269 is one of the simplest sources in our study. It exhibits few maser spots. There is not much linear polarization of maser emission in this source. The VLA survey was unable to detect any continuum emission, nor was ammonia emission found. And the range of velocities of maser emission is a mere $3.9$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. The magnetic field appears to be oriented toward the Sun everywhere across the region of maser emission. All RCP emission, excluding weak features associated with the linearly-polarized component of two strong left-elliptically polarized masers, occurs at lower velocity than the LCP emission. Figure \[s269-spec\] shows the spectrum of the 1665 MHz emission. When the spectra are corrected for Zeeman splitting (“demagnetized”) for a $-4.0$ mG magnetic field, the total velocity range spanned by the RCP and LCP features decreases from 3.9 [km s$^{-1}$]{} to 1.5 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. S269 also exhibits a high degree of variability. @clegg93 notes a 1665 MHz maser of 16 Jy LCP flux at 17.9 [km s$^{-1}$]{} in 1991.5, diminishing to 1 Jy by 1992.1. In 1991.6, @arm find that this maser has a flux of 7.5 Jy LCP. The closest feature we find to matching this is a 1665 MHz maser of 0.11 Jy LCP flux at 17.8 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. We detect this feature in the 17.76 and 17.93 [km s$^{-1}$]{} velocity channels, but the lack of detection in a third channel prevents us from being able to accurately determine the velocity and linewidth of this feature. ![Top: Observed spectra of 1665 MHz emission from S269. RCP emission is shown in bold, and LCP emission is shown in normal weight. The two weak RCP bumps at the same velocities as the strong LCP features at 16.0 and 16.8 [km s$^{-1}$]{} are due to the elliptical polarization of the LCP features. Bottom: The same spectra when corrected for a $-4.0$ mG magnetic field. Note that the velocity range is more than halved compared to the observed spectra.\[s269-spec\]](f21.eps){width="6.0in"} Mon R2 ------ The Mon R2 molecular cloud is one of the nearest high-mass star-forming regions, but it contains almost no stars of spectral type earlier than B1 [@hughes85]. An unusual property of Mon R2 is that maser emission from the 4765 MHz ($^2\Pi_{1/2}, J = 1/2, F = 1 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}0$) transition of OH is stronger than from the ground-state ($^2\Pi_{3/2}, J = 3/2$) set of transitions, suggesting that the physical conditions are denser and hotter than normally seen for ground-state OH masers, as noted by @smits98. They detect two masers at 10.65 [km s$^{-1}$]{} with linear polarization position angles of 13 and 14. This is in excellent agreement with the brightest maser feature we detect, coincident with the brightest 4765 MHz maser to within registration uncertainties, which has linear polarization with a position angle of 13. The velocity of this 1665 MHz maser feature is 10.29 [km s$^{-1}$]{} when corrected for the Zeeman splitting of the $-2.6$ mG magnetic field at the site. The 4765 MHz masers in Mon R2 are highly variable, doubling in strength in less than 19 days and reaching a peak of nearly 80 Jy before “disappearing” [@smits03]. @smits03 finds that 1665 and 1667 MHz emission is much less variable, varying relatively smoothly with changes in flux density not exceeding a factor of two over a timescale of more than four years. G351.775$-$0.538 ---------------- G351.775$-$0.538 contains what was the strongest known interstellar OH maser spot (400 Jy in LCP) until the recent flare in W75 N [@alakoz05]. @ch80 first noted that the brightness of this maser spot is highly variable, and it has been monitored frequently since then [see @macleod]. Ground-state masers have previously been seen at velocities as low as $-27.8$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}[@arm] and as high as $7$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} [@macleod]. Our VLBA observations covered only the top half of this range. There is a reversal of the line-of-sight magnetic field direction across the source, as has been previously noted at 1665 and 1667 MHz by @arm2 and @fram. This reversal is seen at 1720 MHz as well, where @caswell04 finds magnetic fields of $+3$ and $-6$ mG. @caswellv find a $-3.3$ mG field at 6035 MHz. Because G351.775$-$0.538 is a low Declination source, $(u,v)$-coverage is poor, especially along north-south baselines. The synthesized beam and spot sizes as listed in Table 20 of Paper I are thus very large. This may explain the separations of Zeeman components for G351.775$-$0.538 (see Table 21 of Paper I), which are larger than for other sources. Maser Overlap Polarization Calculation\[stokesappendix\] ======================================================== In this appendix we consider the polarization properties expected of a $\pi$-component that stimulates weak amplification from a $\sigma$-mode of a clump of OH between the first maser and the observer, as described in §\[overlap\]. It is helpful to analyze the radiation in terms of the Stokes parameters, which are defined in terms of the electric fields in the radiation as follows: $$\begin{aligned} I &=& <\epsilon_x \epsilon_x^> + <\epsilon_y \epsilon_y^> \nonumber \\ Q &=& <\epsilon_x \epsilon_x^> - <\epsilon_y \epsilon_y^> \nonumber \\ U &=& <\epsilon_x \epsilon_y^> + <\epsilon_x^ \epsilon_y> \nonumber \\ V &=& i(<\epsilon_x \epsilon_y^> - <\epsilon_x^ \epsilon_y>)\end{aligned}$$ They can also be written in terms of the electric fields in the two senses of circular polarization: $$\begin{aligned} I &=& \frac{1}{2}(I_{rr} + I_{ll}) \nonumber \\ Q &=& \frac{1}{2}(I_{rl} + I_{lr}) \nonumber \\ U &=& \frac{i}{2}(I_{rl} - I_{lr}) \nonumber \\ V &=& \frac{1}{2}(I_{rr} - I_{ll}), \label{stokesdef2}\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{rr} = <\epsilon_r \epsilon_r^{}>$, etc. Consider a simple case of weak maser amplification in the absence of Faraday rotation. We will start with radiation that is 100% linearly polarized in the $x$-direction, as could be produced by a $\pi$-component. The Stokes parameters of the radiation are $$I = I_0, Q = I_0, U = 0, V = 0,$$ so the polarization fractions ($m_L$ linear, $m_C$ circular, and $m_T$ total) are $$m_L = 1, m_C = 0, m_T = 1.$$ Now suppose that this radiation is fed into a second, weak maser spot shifted in velocity such that emission is stimulated in the RCP $\sigma$-mode. The amplification factor is such that the flux density in the RCP mode is multiplied by a factor of 2. Then $$\begin{aligned} I_{rr} &\rightarrow& 2I_{rr} = 2I_0 \nonumber \\ I_{ll} &\rightarrow& I_{ll} = I_0 \nonumber \\ I_{rl} &\rightarrow& \sqrt{2} I_0 \nonumber \\ I_{lr} &\rightarrow& \sqrt{2} I_0,\end{aligned}$$ where the factors of $\sqrt{2}$ are due to the fact that if the flux density increases by a factor of 2, the electric field amplitude increases by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$. Substituting these values into equation (\[stokesdef2\]) results in the following: $$\begin{aligned} I &=& \frac{1}{2}(2I_0 + I_0) = \frac{3}{2} I_0 \nonumber \\ Q &=& \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{2} I_0 + \sqrt{2} I_0) = \sqrt{2} I_0 \nonumber \\ U &=& \frac{i}{2}(\sqrt{2} I_0 - \sqrt{2} I_0) = 0 \nonumber \\ V &=& \frac{1}{2}(2I_0 - I_0) = \frac{1}{2} I_0. \label{stokesresults}\end{aligned}$$ Converting equation (\[stokesresults\]) to polarization fractions, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} m_L &=& \frac{\sqrt{Q^2+U^2}}{I} = \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3} \approx 0.943 \nonumber \\ m_C &=& \frac{V}{I} = \frac{1}{3} \approx 0.333 \nonumber \\ m_T &=& \frac{\sqrt{Q^2+U^2+V^2}}{I} = \sqrt{m_L^2+m_C^2} = 1.000.\end{aligned}$$ The net effect is that the maser is still 100% polarized, but the linear polarization fraction has dropped to less than unity and the circular polarization fraction is reasonably large. For amplification of a single circular mode by a factor of $n$, the linear polarization fraction is $$m_L = \frac{2\sqrt{n}}{1+n}.$$ The circular and linear polarization fractions become equal at $n \approx 6$, or approximately 1.8 $e$-fold amplification lengths for an unsaturated maser. Afflerbach, A., Churchwell, E., Acord, J. M., Hofner, P., Kurtz, S., & De Pree, C. G. 1996, , 106, 423 Alakoz, A. V., Slysh, V. I., Popov, M. V., & Val’tts, I. E. 2005, Ap. Lett., 31, 375 Allen, A., Li, Z.-Y., & Shu, F. H. 2003, , 599, 363 Argon, A. L., Reid, M. J., & Menten, K. M. 2000, , 129, 159 Argon, A. L., Reid, M. J., & Menten, K. M. 2002, in IAU Symposium 206, Cosmic MASERs: From Protostars to Blackholes, ed. V. Migenes and M. J. Reid (San Francisco: ASP), 367 Baart, E. E., & Cohen, R. J. 1985, , 213, 641 Baldiyn, J. E., Harris, L. S., & Ryle, M. 1973, , 241, 38 Bartkiewicz, A., Szymczak, M., Cohen, R. J., & Richards, A. M. S. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 623 Batrla, W., Matthews, H. E., Menten, K. M., & Walmsley, C. M. 1987, , 326, 49 Baudry, A., Desmurs, J. F., Wilson, T. L., & Cohen, R. J. 1997, , 322, 255 Berulis, I. I., & Ershov, A. A. 1983, Lett., 9, 341 Beuther, H., Walsh, A., Schilke, P., Sridharan, T. K., Menten, K. M., & Wyrowski, F. 2002, , 390, 289 Black, J. H., & Hartquist, T. W. 1979, , 232, L179 Bloemhof, E. E., Reid, M. J., & Moran, J. M. 1992, , 397, 500 Boyd, R. W., & Werner, M. W. 1972, , 174, L137 Campbell, B. 1984, , 282, L27 Campbell, M. F., Garland, C. A., Deutsch, L. K., Hora, J. L, Fazio, G. G., Dayal, A., & Hoffman, W. F. 2000, , 536, 816 Caswell, J. L. 2001, , 326, 805 Caswell, J. L. 2004, , 349, 99 Caswell, J. L., & Haynes, R. F. 1980, 3509 Caswell, J. L., & Vaile, R. A. 1995, , 273, 328 Cesaroni, R., Churchwell, E., Hofner, P., Walmsley, C. M., & Kurtz, S. 1994, , 288, 903 Clegg, A. W. 1993, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, 412, 279 Cook, A. H. 1966, , 211, 503 Cragg, D. M., Sobolev, A. M., & Godfrey, P. D. 2002, , 331, 521 Crutcher, R. M. 1999, , 520, 706 Curiel, S., et al. 2002, , 564, L35 Davies, R. D. 1974, in [IAU Symposium 60, Galactic Radio Astronomy]{}, ed. F. J. Kerr and S. C.Simonson III (Dordrecht:Reidel), p. 275 De Buizer, J. M. 2003, , 341, 277 Deguchi, S., & Watson, W. D. 1986, , 300, L15 Desmurs, J. F., & Baudry, A. 1998, , 340, 521 Dickel, H. R., Rots, A. H., Goss, W. M., & Forster, J. R. 1982, , 198, 265 Dieter, N. H., Weaver, H., & Williams, D. R. W. 1966, , 31, 132 Downes, D. 1970, , 5, 53 Draine, B. T. 1980, , 241, 1021 Dyson, J. E., Williams, R. J. R., Hartquist, T. W. & Pavlakis, K. G. 2002, (SC), 12, 8 Elitzur, M. 1996, , 457, 415 Elitzur, M., & de Jong, T. 1978, , 67, 323 Elldér, J. 1973, Research Report No. 116, Research Lab. of Electronics and Onsala Space Obs. Feldt, M., et al. 2003, , 599, L91 Field, D., & Gray, M. D. 1994, , 292, 271 Fischer, J., Sanders, D. B., Simon, M., & Solomon, P. M. 1985, , 293, 508 Fish, V. L., Reid, M. J., Argon, A. L., & Menten, K. M. 2002, in IAU Symposium 206, Cosmic MASERs: From Protostars to Blackholes, ed. V. Migenes and M. J. Reid (San Francisco: ASP), 371 Fish, V. L., Reid, M. J., Argon, A. L., & Menten, K. M. 2003, , 596, 328 Fish, V. L., Reid, M. J., & Menten, K. M. 2005, , 623, 269 Fish, V. L., Reid, M. J., Argon, A. L., & Zheng, X. W. 2005, , 160, 220 (Paper I) Forster, J. R., & Caswell, J. L. 1989, , 213, 339 Forster, J. R., Goss, W. M., Wilson, T. L., Downes, D., & Dickel, H. R. 1980, , 119, 84, L1 Garay, G., Reid, M. J., & Moran, J. M. 1985, , 289, 681 Garay, G., Rodríguez, L. F., Moran, J. M., & Churchwell, E. 1993, , 418, 368 García-Barreto, J. A., Burke, B. F., Reid, M. J., Moran, J. M., Haschick, A. D., & Schilizzi, R. T. 1988, , 326, 954 García-Segura, G., & Franco, J. 1996, , 469, 171 Gardner, F. F., & Martín-Pintado, J. 1983, , 121, 265 Gasiprong, N., Cohen, R. J., & Hutawarakorn, B. 2002, , 336, 47 Gaume, R. A., Fey, A. L., & Claussen, M. J. 1994, , 432, 648 Gaume, R. A., Goss, W. M., Dickel, H. R., Wilson, T. L., & Johnston, K. J. 1995, , 438, 776 Genzel, R., & Downes, D. 1976, , 262, 564 Giuliani, J. L. 1979, , 233, 280 Goldreich, P. 1975, in Les Houches Session XXVI: Physique Atomique et Moléculaire et Matière Interstellaire, ed. R. Balian, P. Encrenaz, and J. Lequeux (North-Holland Publishing: Amsterdam), 409 Goldreich, P., Keeley, D. A., & Kwan, J. Y. 1973a, , 179, 111 Goldreich, P., Keeley, D. A., & Kwan, J. Y. 1973b, , 182, 55 Gray, M. D., & Field, D.1995, , 298, 243 Gray, M. D., Hutawarakorn, B., & Cohen, R. J. 2003, , 343, 1067 Guilloteau, S., Baudry, A., Walmsley, C. M., Wilson, T. L., & Winnberg, A. 1984, , 131, 45 Habing, H. J., Goss, W. M., Matthews, H. E., & Winnberg, A. 1974, , 35, 1 Habing, H. J., & Israel, F. P. 1979, , 17, 345 Haschick, A. D., Reid, M. J., Burke, B. F., Moran, J. M., & Miller, G. 1981, , 244, 76 Hatchell, J., Fuller, G. A., & Millar, T. J. 2001, , 372, 281 Ho, P. T. P., & Haschick, A. D. 1986, , 304, 501 Hofner, P., & Churchwell, E. 1996, , 120, 283 Hughes, V. A. 1988, , 333, 788 Hughes, V. A. 2001, , 563, 919 Hughes, V. A., & Baines, J. G. N. 1985, , 289, 238 Hughes, V. A., Cohen, R. J., & Garrington, S. 1995, , 272, 469 Hughes, V. A., & Wouterloot, J. G. A. 1984, , 276, 204 Hutawarakorn, B., & Cohen, R. J. 2003, , 345, 175 Hutawarakorn, B., Cohen, R. J., & Brebner, G. C. 2002, , 330, 349 Kahn, F. D. 1954, , 12, 187 Kameya, O., Morita, K.-I., Kawabe, R., & Ishiguro, M. 1990, , 355, 562 Kawabe, R., Suzuki, M., Hirano, N., Akabane, K., Barsony, M., Najita, J. R., Kameya, O., & Ishiguro, M. 1992, , 44, 435 Kawamura, J. H., & Masson, C. R. 1998, , 509, 270 Keto, E. 2002, , 568, 754 Keto, E. R., Ho, P. T. P., & Haschick, A. D. 1987, , 318, 712 Keto, E. R., Ho, P. T. P., & Haschick, A. D. 1988, , 324, 920 Li, Z.-Y., & Shu, F. H. 1996, , 472, 211 MacLeod, G. C., & Gaylard, M. J. 1996, , 280, 868 Mac Low, M., van Buren, D., Wood, D. O. S., & Churchwell, E. 1991, , 369, 395 Madden, S. C., Irvine, W. M., Matthews, H. E., Brown, R. D., & Godfrey, P. D. 1986, , 300, L79 Manchester, R. N. 1972, , 172, 43 Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, , 129, 1993 Matsumoto, T., & Tomisaka, K. 2004, , 616, 266 Mauersberger, R., Wilson, T. L., & Henkel, C. 1986, , 160, L13 Melrose, D. B., & Judge, A. C. 2004, , 70, 056408 Mezger, P. G., & Höglund, B. 1967, , 147, 490 Minier, V., Booth, R. S., Ellingsen, S. P., Conway, J. E., & Pestalozzi, M. R. 2001, in Proceedings of the 5th European VLBI Network Symposium, eds.J. E. Conway, A. G. Polatidis, R. S. Booth, & Y. Pihlström, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 178 Minier, V., Conway, J. E., & Booth, R. S. 2001, , 369, 278 Moran, J. M., Reid, M. J., Lada, C. J., Yen, J. L., Johnston, K. J., & Spencer, J. H. 1978, , 224, L67 Mouschovias, T. C. 1976, , 207, 141 Norris, R. P., et al. 1998, , 508, 275 Norris, R. P., Whiteoak, J. B., Caswell, J. L., Wieringa, M. H., & Gough, R. G. 1993, , 412, 222 Palmer, P., Gardner, F. F., & Whiteoak, J. B. 1984, , 211, 41P Pavlakis, K. G., & Kylafis, N. D. 1996, , 467, 309 Plume, R., Jaffe, D. T., & Evans, N. J., II 1992, , 78, 505 Pottasch, S. R. 1958 Rev. Mod.Phys., 30, 1053 Rand, R. J., & Kulkarni, S. R. 1989, , 343, 760 Reid, M. J. 2002, in IAU Symposium 206, Cosmic MASERs: From Protostars to Blackholes, ed. V. Migenes and M. J. Reid (San Francisco: ASP), 506 Reid, M. J., Haschick, A. D., Burke, B. F., Moran, J. M., Johnston, K. J., & Swenson, G. W., Jr.1980, , 239, 89 Reid, M. J., & Ho, P. T. P. 1985, , 288, L17 Reid, M. J., & Moran, J. M. 1988, in Galactic and Extragalactic Radio Astronomy, ed.G. Verschuur & K. I. Kellermann (Berlin:Springer), 255 Reid, M. J., & Menten, K. M.1993, LNP Vol. 412: Astrophysical Masers, 412, 137 Reid, M. J., Myers, P. C., & Bieging, J. H. 1987, , 312, 830 Reid, M. J., & Silverstein, E. M. 1990, , 361, 483 Reifenstein, E. C., Wilson, T. L., Burke, B. F., Mezger, P. G., & Altenhoff, W. J. 1970, , 4, 357 Rodríguez, L. F., Garay, G., Curiel, S., Ramírez, S., Torrelles, J. M., Gómez, Y., & Velázquez, A. 1994, , 430, L65 Rodríguez, L. F., Torrelles, J. M., Anglada, G., & Martí, J. 2001, , 37, 95 Sarma, A. P., Troland, T. H., Crutcher, R. M., & Roberts, D. A. 2002, , 580, 937 Sams, B. J. III, Moran, J. M., & Reid, M. J. 1996, , 459, 632 Scoville, N. Z., Sargent, A. I., Sanders, D. B., Claussen, M. J., Masson, C. R., Lo, K. Y., & Phillips, T. G. 1986, , 303, 416 Sewilo, M., Churchwell, E., Kurtz, S., Goss, W. M., & Hofner, P. 2004, , 605, 285 Shepherd, D. S., Testi, L., & Stark, D. P. 2003, , 584, 882 Shu, F. H. 1992, The Physics of Astrophysics v. 2: Gas Dynamics (University Science: Sausalito, CA) Slysh, V. I., et al. 2001, , 320, 217 Slysh, V. I., Migenes, V., Val’tts, I. E., Lyubchenko, S. Yu., Horiuchi, S., Altunin, V. I., Fomalont, E. B., & Inoue, M. 2002, , 564, 317 Slysh, V. I., Val’tts, I. E., & Migenes, V. 2001, Astronomy Reports, 45, 942 Slysh, V. I., Voronkov, M. A., & Val’tts, I. E. 2002, in IAU Symposium 206, Cosmic MASERs: From Protostars to Blackholes, ed. V. Migenes and M. J. Reid (San Francisco: ASP), 105 Smits, D. P. 2003, , 339, 1 Smits, D. P., Cohen, R. J., & Hutawarakorn, B. 1998, , 296, L11 Sternberg, A., & Dalgarno, A. 1995, , 99, 565 Szymczak, M., Hrynek, G., & Kus, A. J. 2000, , 143, 269 Testi, L., Hofner, P., Kurtz, S., & Rupen, M. 2000, , 359, L5 Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., & Swenson, G. W., Jr. 2001, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy (2d ed.; New York: Wiley-Interscience) Torrelles, J. M. et al. 2001, , 560, 853 Torrelles, J. M. et al. 2003, , 598, L115 Torrelles, J. M., Gómez, J. F., Garay, G., Rodríguez, L. F., Curiel, S., Cohen, R. J., & Ho, P. T. P. 1998, , 509, 262 Torrelles, J. M., Gómez, J. F., Rodríguez, L. F., Curiel, S., Ho, P. T. P., & Garay, G. 1996, , 457, L107 Torrelles, J. M., Gómez, J. F., Rodríguez, L. F., Ho, P. T. P., Curiel, S., & Vázquez, R. 1997, , 489, 744 Turner, B. E., & Matthews, H. E. 1984, , 277, 164 Vandervoort, P. O. 1962, , 135, 212 Vishniac, E. T. 1983, , 274, 152 Walmsley, C. M., Baudry, A., Guilloteau, S., & Winnberg, A. 1986, , 167, 151 Wilson, T. L., Gaume, R. A., & Johnston, K. J. 1993, , 402, 230 Wilson, T. L., Walmsley, C. M., Menten, K. M., & Hermsen, W. 1985, , 147, L19 Wilson, T. L., Walmsley, C. M., Snyder, L. E., & Jewell, P. R. 1984, , 134, L7 Wright, M. M., Gray, M. D., & Diamond, P. J. 2004, , 350, 1272 Xu, Y., Zheng, X. W., & Jiang, D. R. 2003, , 3, 133 Zheng, X.-W. 1997, , 21, 182 Zheng, X., Reid, M. J., & Moran, J. M. 2000, , 357, L37 Zheng, X. W., Ho, P. T. P., Reid, M. J., & Schneps, M. H. 1985, , 293, 522 Zijlstra, A. A., Pottasch, S. R., Engels, D., Roelfsema, P. R., Te Lintel Hekkert, P., & Umana, G. 1990, , 246, 217 [^1]: The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. [^2]: For a binomial distribution, $\sigma^2 = Npq$, where $N$ is the sample size and $p$ and $q$ are the probabilities of each outcome ($S_\mathrm{LCP} > S_\mathrm{RCP}$ and $S_\mathrm{LCP} < S_\mathrm{RCP}$). [^3]: The catalogue is available online at http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat . [^4]: We will refer to structures of maser spots aligned along the same line as collinear* to avoid any possible confusion with linear polarization.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'It is widely believed that the emergent magnetic gauge symmetry of SQCD is analogous to a hidden local symmetry (HLS). We explore this idea in detail, deriving the entire (spontaneously broken) magnetic theory by applying the HLS formalism to spontaneously broken $SU(N)$ SQCD. We deduce the Kähler potential in the HLS description, and show that gauge and flavour symmetry are smoothly restored along certain scaling directions in moduli space. We propose that it is these symmetry restoring directions, associated with the $R$-symmetry of the theory, that allow full Seiberg duality. Reconsidering the origin of the magnetic gauge bosons as the $\rho$-mesons of the electric theory, colour-flavour locking allows a simple determination of the parameter $a$. Its value continuously interpolates between $a=2$ on the baryonic branch of moduli space – corresponding to “vector meson dominance" – and $a=1$ on the mesonic branch. Both limiting values are consistent with previous results in the literature. The HLS formalism is further applied to $SO$ and $Sp$ groups, where the usual Seiberg duals are recovered, as well as adjoint SQCD. Finally we discuss some possible future applications, including (naturally) the unitarisation of composite $W$ scattering, blended Higgs/technicolour models, real world QCD and non-supersymmetric dualities.' author: - 'Steven Abel[^1]' - 'James Barnard[^2]' title: '[IPPP/12/06, DCPT/12/12]{}\' --- Introduction and conclusions ============================ Several ideas have been put forward for dealing with strongly coupled theories. An early example, that works surprisingly well for QCD, is the notion of hidden local symmetry (HLS). Take a theory with flavour symmetry $G$ spontaneously broken to a subgroup $H$. The strategy is to first use low energy theorems describing the associated Nambu-Goldstone bosons (NGBs) to construct an effective, nonlinear sigma model description on the manifold $G/H$ [@Coleman:1969sm; @Callan:1969sn; @Weinberg:1996kr]. As it happens, this model is gauge equivalent to a linear model with flavour symmetry $G$ and a broken [gauge]{} symmetry $H$, thus providing an alternative effective description [@Bando:1984ej; @Bando:1987br]. The broken gauge symmetry is the HLS, in the sense that it was not present in the original theory but “emerges” in the low energy physics. A somewhat more modern tool for tackling strongly coupled theories is Seiberg duality, applicable to certain $\cN=1$ supersymmetric gauge theories [@Seiberg:1994pq; @Intriligator:1995au]. In its default form, the duality links the low energy physics of $SU(N)$ SQCD with $N$ colours and $N+n$ flavours, with that of a second SQCD theory with $n$ colours, $N+n$ flavours of quark, some elementary singlets (identified as bound state mesons) and a Yukawa coupling between them all in the superpotential. The duality also extends to $SO$ and $Sp$ gauge groups [@Intriligator:1995ne] as well as a veritable zoo of other, more intricate theories [@Kutasov:1995ve; @Kutasov:1995np; @Intriligator:1995ax; @Pouliot:1995zc; @Kutasov:1995ss; @Pouliot:1995sk; @Pouliot:1996zh; @Brodie:1996vx; @Brodie:1996xm; @Abel:2009ty; @Craig:2011tx; @Craig:2011wj]. The key feature of Seiberg duality is that it is a strong-weak duality which can, in certain circumstances, yield calculable results in strongly coupled theories. In particular, choosing $N\ge2n$ renders the original, electric theory asymptotically free and the dual, magnetic theory IR free. Despite the fact that Seiberg duality is well tested and well understood from a practical point of view, the question of [why]{} it exists has remained only partially answered. Refs. [@Harada:1999zj; @Harada:2003jx] and, more recently, refs. [@Komargodski:2010mc; @Kitano:2011zk] reinterpreted the duality by proposing that the magnetic gauge group is in fact an HLS of the electric theory. By analogy with QCD the magnetic gauge fields are then related to $\rho$-mesons of the electric theory. Indeed, hints of this idea are already apparent in the flavour symmetry breaking pattern of SQCD: at a generic point in moduli space SU(N+n)\_LSU(N+n)\_RSU(n)\_LSU(n)\_R , and the surviving non-Abelian factors clearly have the same form as the magnetic gauge group. Previous investigations of this interpretation focused mainly on the phase structure of the theory, or on the Noether currents and comparison with QCD. In this article we will instead return to the full, supersymmetric HLS formalism of refs. [@Bando:1984cc; @Bando:1987br]. This approach yields many new results, all supporting the idea that Seiberg duality is just the way that HLS manifests itself in supersymmetry. A difference between Seiberg duality and HLS that will be central to our discussion is that, whereas the former is a duality that exists between unbroken theories, the HLS is defined as a spontaneously broken symmetry. The property of supersymmetric theories that allows us to reconcile this difference is that their potentials have enhanced complex flavour symmetries. As a consequence their moduli spaces contain both NGBs [and]{} quasi-NGBs, and there is a tendency for flavour symmetries to be broken by expectations of the latter. One can therefore change the pattern of flavour symmetry breaking simply by moving around the moduli space. It is then interesting to investigate what happens in the HLS description at points with enhanced flavour symmetry. We will see that the previously broken HLS can be (partially) restored. The newly massless gauge fields correspond to combinations of the NGBs that can no longer be considered NGBs at such points. This is the general mechanism connecting HLS to Seiberg duality, and is the focus of section \[sec:HL\]. Applying the HLS formalism to SQCD (section \[sec:HQ\]) provides an explicit realisation. We initiate the procedure at a generic point in the electric theory’s moduli space, where the flavour symmetry is maximally broken, and use the HLS formalism to recover the usual magnetic dual in a confined phase. The magnetic superpotential is instrumental in this result. It is required to avoid the double-counting of certain degrees of freedom, but it can also be considered as a UV completion that drives the breaking of the HLS (i.e. the magnetic gauge symmetry) via confinement. We find it an appealing feature of SQCD that one can identify the dynamical mechanism that breaks the HLS. Equivalently, one can start from the magnetic theory, drive it into a confined phase via a meson expectation and recover the electric theory as the HLS description instead. Regardless of which gauge group is taken to be the HLS, one can smoothly scale all symmetry breaking expectations to zero by moving along the quasi-NGB direction associated with spontaneously broken $R$-symmetry. In this limit gauge and flavour symmetry are restored in both theories, thus recovering full Seiberg duality. After re-establishing the HLS interpretation of Seiberg duality we derive several new results. The mapping of electric $\rho$-mesons to magnetic gauge fields is immediate and explicit. Comparing this result with a second derivation (using Noether currents and colour-flavour locking as in ref. [@Komargodski:2010mc]) allows us to fix the value of the parameter $a$, analogous to that appearing in the chiral Lagrangian of real world QCD. On a baryonic branch of SQCD we find $a=2$ (as in ref. [@Komargodski:2010mc]) and on a mesonic branch $a=1$ (consistent with ref. [@Kitano:2011zk]). Electric quark mass terms are easily accommodated. They reduce the size of the unbroken flavour symmetry leading to a higgsing of the magnetic gauge group. We can also fix the duality scale, which would otherwise be a free parameter, at particular points in moduli space. These results are presented in section \[sec:CH\]. In sections 5 and \[sec:VS\] we extend the discussion in various novel directions; section 5 discusses what can be learnt by gauging $R$-symmetry, and in section \[sec:VS\] we show that the HLS interpretation can be straightforwardly extended to the $SO$ and $Sp$ versions of Seiberg duality, as well as adjoint SQCD. In addition to its theoretical interest, a better understanding of Seiberg duality opens up several areas of application. Including operators charged under the magnetic gauge group in the duality’s dictionary allows us to discuss dynamical processes. This can lead to a semi-calculable description of the unitarisation of composite $W$ scattering. By gauging the flavour symmetry one can also interpolate continuously between higgsing/technicolour descriptions of (supersymmetric) electroweak symmetry breaking. Lessons learnt from applying the HLS formalism to SQCD may help understand the reason $a=2$ is selected in real world QCD. Finally we (recklessly) speculate that the whole procedure could be implemented as a systematic way of finding non-supersymmetric dualities. These issues are discussed in section \[sec:AP\]. Hidden local symmetry and SUSY\[sec:HL\] ======================================== Consider a theory with a flavour symmetry $G$ broken to some subgroup $H$. Low energy theorems tell us that the behaviour of the associated NGBs depends not on the specifics of the theory, but only on the symmetry breaking pattern $G\to H$. Any effective Lagrangian that realises this provides a valid description of the underlying theory’s IR physics [@Weinberg:1996kr]. In non-supersymmetric theories a general approach is to realise the flavour symmetry nonlinearly, via a sigma model description on the manifold $G/H$ [@Coleman:1969sm; @Callan:1969sn]. It turns out that this description is gauge equivalent to one with a linearly realised flavour symmetry $G$ and a broken gauge symmetry $H$. The gauge symmetry, which is not present originally, is said to emerge as a hidden local symmetry of the underlying theory. Ref. [@Bando:1987br] contains a comprehensive review of this idea and its application to supersymmetric theories. We begin by briefly summarising this latter aspect. SUSY tells us that each real NGB comes with two massless superpartners: one real scalar and one Weyl fermion. The extra light scalars can be considered a direct consequence of the holomorphy of the superpotential, which elevates real constants parameterising flavour transformations to complex ones. At the superpotential level the original flavour symmetry is therefore enhanced to its complex extension $G^c$. Typically this results in more symmetry generators being broken, hence more massless scalars. While the genuine NGBs are coordinates for the real manifold $G/H$, the full set of massless scalars spans the larger, complex manifold $G^c/\hat{H}$. Here $\hat{H}\supseteq H^c$ is the complex symmetry group preserved by the moduli space of the theory. That it contains $H^c$ follows from the fact that generators of $H^c$ are constrained to be Hermitian, whereas those of $\hat{H}$ are not. Thus a supersymmetric theory with flavour symmetry breaking $G\to H$ can be described by a sigma model on the manifold $G^c/\hat{H}$. The NGBs are, of course, the usual massless scalars corresponding to the $G\to H$ part of the symmetry breaking. Any other massless scalars are known as quasi-NGBs and are forbidden from getting mass terms only by SUSY. The precise number of quasi-NGBs depends on how much bigger $G^c/\hat{H}$ is than $G/H$ and is given by \[eq:HLNM\] N\_M=-=+-. We count independent real dimensions such that $\dim{[G^c]}=2\dim{[G]}$ and so on. Ref. [@Bando:1987br] mainly studied the limiting case of $\hat{H}\simeq G\times H$, whereupon $N_M=0$ and all massless scalars are NGBs. The other extreme is $\hat{H}=H^c$, whereupon $N_M=\dim{[G/H]}$ and there is a one to one correspondence between NGBs and superfields. More generally, one can separate chiral superfields into P and M-types. P-type (or pure) superfields have NGBs for both scalar components. M-type (or mixed) superfields contain one NGB and one quasi-NGB. Hence $N_M$ also gives the number of M-type superfields. Whatever the value of $N_M$, one can define dimensionless superfields $\Pi^a$ to accommodate the normalised NGBs. These are assembled into a chiral superfield matrix[^3] \[eq:HLxiPi\] ()=e\^[(x)]{},[where]{}(x)=\^a(x)\^a. The $\hat{T}^a$ are the broken generators of $G^c$ and we have chosen a basis such that $$\begin{aligned} {\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[\hat{T}^{a\dag}\hat{T}^b\right]} & =\frac{1}{2}\delta^{ab} & {\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[\hat{S}^{\alpha\dag}\hat{S}^\beta\right]} & =\frac{1}{2}\delta^{\alpha\beta} & {\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[\hat{T}^{a\dag}\hat{S}^\alpha\right]} & =0\end{aligned}$$ for generators $\hat{S}^\alpha$ of $\hat{H}$. Note that these generators are not necessarily Hermitian for arbitrary complex groups. The scalar components of $\xi$ are by definition elements of $G^c$, and provide standard representatives of each coset in the left coset space $G^c/\hat{H}$. Acting on $\xi$ with a group element $g^\dag\in G$ does not usually preserve this parameterisation, but instead mixes in components involving the $\hat{S}^\alpha$ via g\^()=(\^)\^[-1]{}(,g) for some element $\hat{h}^{-1}\in\hat{H}$ that depends on $\Pi$ and $g$ in some complicated way. This means that $\xi$ transforms under flavour transformations according to \[eq:HLGNLS\] ()(\^)=g()\^[-1]{}(,g) so the flavour symmetry is realised nonlinearly. We could just as well have chosen $\xi$ to provide representatives of the [right]{} coset space $G^c/\hat{H}$ instead, whereupon $\hat{h}$ acts from the left and $g^\dag$ from the right in the above expression. Before continuing, we briefly consider the expansion of the scalar component \[eq:HLxiPis\] ()e\^[(x)]{}e\^[i(x)]{} where $\kappa$ and $\pi$ are Hermitian scalar matrices. Roughly speaking, the anti-Hermitian scalar part of $\Pi$ contains the NGBs and provides the phase factor $e^{i\pi}$. This parameterises a nonlinear sigma model on $G/H$; which would have been constructed in a non-supersymmetric theory. It satisfies the constraint $(e^{i\pi})^\dag(e^{i\pi})=\uno$ with the non-zero right hand side being a direct consequence of the symmetry breaking. Meanwhile the Hermitian scalar parts of $\Pi$ provide $\kappa$, modifying this non-supersymmetric constraint to $\xi^\dag\xi=e^{2\kappa}$. Therefore $\kappa$ parameterises fluctuations in the order parameters of the symmetry breaking. That order parameters can appear as low energy degrees of freedom is a key feature of SUSY and, in principle, allows some of the symmetry breaking to be dialled down. It occurs because said order parameters often arise from expectations of quasi-NGBs, leading to rich structure in the low energy theory. This feature will be important when we come to discuss Seiberg duality as it enables the duality to be established for unbroken, not just broken, gauge symmetries. Moving back to the task at hand we require any effective Lagrangian to be invariant under the nonlinear transformation . Building one is slightly trickier than in non-supersymmetric theories, mainly because $\hat{h}^\dag\neq\hat{h}^{-1}$ for an arbitrary complex group. One proceeds by defining projection operators $\eta$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HLeta} \eta^\dag & =\eta & \eta^2 & =\eta & \hat{h}\eta & =\eta\hat{h}\eta\end{aligned}$$ for every $\hat{h}\in\hat{H}$. The first two expressions are generic features of such operators. The third one states that the $\eta$ projected subspace (with $\eta$ acting from the right) is closed under $\hat{H}$, i.e.\[eq:HLxiHeta\] \_(\^)=(\^)=g\_()\^[-1]{}\_(,g),[where]{}\^[-1]{}\_(,g)=\^[-1]{}(,g). There is one projection operator for each $H$-irreducible block in $G$. We are now able to write down a Kähler potential \[eq:HLK0\] K\^S\_=v\_\^2 for a real dimension 1 parameter $v_\eta$ associated with the scale of symmetry breaking in the underlying theory. Because of the projection of $\xi_\eta$ and $\xi_\eta^\dagger$ it is not possible to split the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic factors in the determinant.[^4] This Kähler potential transforms according to $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HLKSt} K^{S\prime}_\eta & =v_\eta^2\ln{\det{{\left[\xi^\dag_\eta(\Pi^{\dag\prime})\xi_\eta(\Pi^\prime)\right]}}} \nonumber\\ & =v_\eta^2\ln{\det{{\left[\hat{h}^{\dag-1}_\eta(\Pi^\dag,g^\dag)\xi^\dag_\eta(\Pi^\dag)g^\dag g\xi_\eta(\Pi)\hat{h}^{-1}_\eta(\Pi,g)\right]}}} \nonumber\\ & =K^S_\eta+v_\eta^2\ln{\det{[\hat{h}^{\dag-1}_\eta(\Pi^\dag,g^\dag)]}}+v_\eta^2\ln{\det{[\hat{h}^{-1}_\eta(\Pi,g)]}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\hat{h}^{-1}_\eta$ is a holomorphic function the last two terms have no D-term. Therefore they do not contribute to the action which is consequently invariant. Any linear combination of Kähler potentials of this form for different projection operators thus produces a suitable effective Lagrangian. The resulting description is the expected nonlinear sigma model on the complex manifold $G^c/\hat{H}$. We now turn to an HLS description, which is a linear description of the same system based on a theory with a flavour symmetry $G$ and a complex gauge symmetry $\hat{H}$.[^5] In the HLS theory, a chiral superfield $\xi$ is defined to live in a matrix representation of $G$ transforming as (x)g(x)\^[-1]{}(x). This is essentially the same variable used above, although it is now considered to be an elementary chiral superfield rather than a function of $\Pi$. The same projection operators are introduced such that \_(x)g\_(x)\^[-1]{}\_(x),[where]{}\^[-1]{}\_(x)=\^[-1]{}(x)and we define an $\eta$ projected vector superfield $V_\eta=V(x)\eta(\hat{S}^\alpha+\hat{S}^{\alpha\dag})\eta$, transforming in the usual way e\^[-V\_]{}\_(x)e\^[-V\_]{}\^\_(x) under $\eta$ projected gauge transformations. We then write down a Kähler potential \[eq:HLKVeta\] K\^V\_=v\_\^2 i.e. a gauge theory with an FI-term $v_\eta^2V_\eta$ and $\hat{H}$ invariant auxiliary chiral superfield $d_\eta$. One role of $d_\eta$ will be to ensure that any quasi-NGBs associated with the breaking of $U(1)$ symmetries remain unfixed by the vector superfield equations of motion. A secondary role is clear from the fact that shifts in $d_\eta$ correspond to (complexified) gauge shifts in $V_\eta$, therefore restoring the “radial" degrees of freedom that are absent in the non-linear sigma model. We shall comment more on this later. Currently there are no kinetic terms for the vector superfield. It is an auxiliary degree of freedom and one can solve the equations of motion to find \[eq:HLVsolnS\] d\_\^(x)d\_(x)e\^[V\_]{}=\_\^(x)\_(x). (Note that the equations of motion still give $\xi_\eta^\dag\xi_\eta\propto\eta$ even if $\hat {H}$ does not contain a $U(1)$ subgroup such that the FI-term vanishes.) Substituting back into eq. , ignoring constant terms and a term proportional to $\ln{(d_\eta^\dag d_\eta)}$ (which vanish after the superspace integration) gives K\^V\_=v\_\^2=K\^S\_. Note that this expression is gauge invariant even though it has no $V_\eta$ because of the discussion around eq. . Hence any Kähler potential \[eq:HLKeta2\] K\_=(1-a\_)v\_\^2+a\_v\_\^2 for an arbitrary, real constant $a_\eta$ reduces to $K^S_\eta$ after solving the vector superfield equations of motion. This arbitrary constant relates the vector superfield mass to the gauge coupling $g_\eta$ via $m_{V_\eta}^2=a_\eta g_\eta^2v_\eta^2$. It is analogous to the $a$ parameter appearing in the chiral Lagrangian of regular QCD, where dynamics seems to fix its value to $2$. Finally, observe that the transformation properties of $\xi$ mean that it can be written in the form \[eq:HLxisigma\] (x)=e\^[(x)]{}e\^[(x)]{},[where]{}(x)=\^(x)\^. Fixing gauge such that $\sigma=0$ (the unitary gauge), $\xi$ becomes a function of $\Pi$ only and is identical to its counterpart in eq. . However, flavour transformations do not respect this choice as ((x))g((x))=e\^[\^(x)]{}e\^[(x)]{}. To maintain the gauge fixing they must be accompanied by gauge transformations ((x))g((x))\^[-1]{}((x),g)=(\^(x)) exactly reproducing the nonlinear transformation properties of eq. . Despite the current lack of kinetic terms for the vector superfields many examples are known in which they develop dynamically, elevating the auxiliary vector superfields into true gauge fields. Alternatively one might think of the HLS description without kinetic terms as being strongly coupled, with the kinetic terms being suppressed by the gauge coupling. In SQCD the appropriate interpretation will depend on where one is on the moduli space. That said, there is no symmetry stopping us adding gauge field kinetic terms to eq. by hand. This is the approach usually taken for $\rho$-mesons in real world QCD, where it is anyway expected that kinetic terms are generated dynamically. Note that, for the sake of pedagogy, we have been treating the whole of $\hat{H}$ democratically. Often, different parts of $\hat{H}$ will have different properties. For example, some of $\hat{H}$ may be anomalous, as will turn out to be the case in SQCD. The HLS formalism remains applicable but the anomaly tells us that that part of the gauge symmetry cannot be restored. In other cases kinetic terms may fail to arise dynamically for some components of $V_\eta$ which remain as auxiliary fields. We shall continue to refer to the “$\hat{H}$ gauge theory”, but bearing this in mind. In summary, the two candidate low energy descriptions, a nonlinear sigma model on the complex manifold $G^c/\hat{H}$ and an $\hat{H}$ gauge theory with flavour symmetry $G$, are gauge equivalent to one another. The $\hat{H}$ gauge symmetry arises as an HLS and there is one vector superfield for each projection operator satisfying eq. (or $H$-irreducible block of $G$). Restoring the gauge symmetry\[sec:RGS\] --------------------------------------- Many supersymmetric theories break their flavour symmetry via quasi-NGB expectations. It is then possible to smoothly take a limit in which the symmetry is (partially) restored. Here, we investigate in general terms how the HLS description behaves in this limit. It will be an important component of our discussion of SQCD in the following section. We begin by saying a little more about the auxiliary chiral superfield $d_\eta$. In the Wess-Zumino gauge, the solution to the vector superfield equations of motion demands vacuum expectations \[eq:HLxiex\] \_\^(x)\_(x)=d\_\^(x)d\_(x)for the scalar components of $\xi$. Gauge symmetry breaking is thus manifest for $d_\eta\neq0$: the scalar expectations provide a mass term for $V_\eta$. Returning to eq. , suppose there is a broken generator $\hat{T}^1$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HLT1def} \hat{T}^1\eta & =\eta & [\hat{T}^1,\hat{T}^a]\eta & =0.\end{aligned}$$ Equivalently, the restriction of $\hat{T}^1$ to the $\eta$ projected subspace generates a complexified $U(1)$ symmetry. We can pull out the associated NGB superfield to write \[eq:HLPikappa\] \_\^()\_()=e\^[2\|\_(x)]{}e\^[\_[a1]{}\^[a]{}(x)\^[a]{}]{}e\^[\_[a1]{}\^a(x)\^a]{}so the scale of $\xi_\eta^\dag\xi_\eta$ is able to fluctuate, as parameterised by the real scalar \[eq:HLkappadef\] \|\_(x)=. This is simply the superpartner of the NGB for the broken $U(1)$, and evidently a quasi-NGB of the theory. As already stated, one job of $d_\eta$ is to ensure that the expectation of this quasi-NGB is not determined by the equations of motion. To this end, eq. fixes $d_\eta^\dag d_\eta=e^{2\bar{\kappa}_\eta}$ in the Wess-Zumino gauge. The solution to the vector superfield equations of motion becomes \[eq:HLxiex2\] e\^[2\|\_(x)]{}e\^[V\_]{}=\_\^(x)\_(x) with the scalar components getting expectations $\xi_\eta^\dag\xi_\eta=e^{2\bar{\kappa}_\eta}\eta$ in the Wess-Zumino gauge as required. Note that this issue is restricted to quasi-NGBs associated with complexified $U(1)$ symmetries in $\hat{H}$, since the FI-term in the Kähler potential is only relevant to them. In the absence of $U(1)$ symmetries in $\hat{H}$ the vector superfield equations of motion give $\xi^\dag_\eta\xi_\eta\propto\eta$ but leave its overall scale unfixed. Our general strategy is now to define the HLS description at a point in moduli space where its gauge symmetry is broken, then use the quasi-NGB $\bar{\kappa}_\eta$ to move to where gauge symmetry is restored. One cannot go directly to an HLS description with unbroken gauge symmetry as the sigma model description, from which the HLS description is derived, is not well defined at these points in moduli space. The HLS description can, in fact, be considered to resolve the behaviour of the sigma model description as such points. Eq. implies that the expectation of $\xi_\eta$ vanishes and gauge symmetry is restored in the limit $d_\eta\to0$, i.e. $e^{\bar{\kappa}_\eta}\to0$. However, the Kähler potential blows up in this limit unless we simultaneously take $v_\eta\to0$. Actually, this is precisely what we should do. Recall from the discussion around eq. that $\bar{\kappa}_\eta$ parameterises fluctuations in the order parameter for the $\eta$ projected part of the symmetry breaking. Since $v_\eta$ corresponds to the scale of this symmetry breaking, any scaling of $e^{\bar{\kappa}_\eta}$ is matched by a scaling of $v_\eta$. Specifically, the combination $v_\eta e^{-\bar{\kappa}_\eta}$ remains fixed. If we now define canonically normalised, dimensionful chiral superfields $q_\eta=\sqrt{a_\eta}v_\eta\xi_\eta/d_\eta$ the Kähler potential becomes K\_=(1-a\_)v\_\^2+ up to terms that vanish after the superspace integral. In the $e^{\bar{\kappa}_\eta}\to0$ limit with constant $v_\eta e^{-\bar{\kappa}_\eta}$ it dramatically simplifies to K\_=. This Kähler potential is smooth everywhere and describes an unbroken gauge theory with massless matter, in which the $\eta$ projected part of $G\times\hat{H}$ is realised linearly. The normalisation of $q$ is determined at the point in moduli space where the HLS description is first defined, then remains constant as the symmetry restoring limit is taken. Hence many different normalisations lead to the same unbroken description. We will see a manifestation of this effect in Seiberg duality: the duality scale $\mu$. Also note that, as mentioned earlier, the massless degree of freedom that was absent from the sigma model, corresponding to the radial mode $v_\eta$, can be associated with the $V_\eta$ field. Regardless of whether $V_\eta$ becomes a dynamical gauge field or remains as an auxiliary field, this degree of freedom passes to $q$ and $\tilde{q}$. (In the former case we can always go to the WZ gauge to make the bottom component of $V_\eta$ zero.) Meanwhile, in the sigma model description, the Kähler metric based on eq. vanishes when $v_\eta\to0$. Since part of the flavour symmetry is restored in this limit, it comes as no surprise to find that a description built around a broken flavour symmetry breaks down, and one has to revert to the underlying theory with restored flavour symmetry. Indeed when $v_\eta\to0$ the $U(1)$ symmetry is restored so there is no longer a NGB, but the scalar partner of $\bar{\kappa}_\eta$ stays massless due to continuity of the moduli space. The same thing happens to the NGBs of any other part of the flavour symmetry restored when $v_\eta\to0$. Although the total number of massless degrees of freedom is unchanged the parameterisation used in eq. no longer makes sense. Not all of the light states can be attached to a broken symmetry generator so the description is invalid. So we see that in both descriptions there are ‘new’ massless degrees of freedom in the limit $v_\eta\to0$. In the HLS description they are vector superfields, in the sigma model description they are former NGBs. Comparing the two we therefore conjecture that HLS gauge fields emerge from NGBs that can no longer be considered such at points of enhanced symmetry in the underlying theory. Using the equations of motion for the vector superfields we can actually be a little more specific. They are easily rearranged to read \[eq:HLVsolnS2\] V\_== upon substitution of eq. . Expanding to leading order in the NGB superfields gives V\_(+\^)+\^where we use the fact that $\eta\uno\eta$ is simply the identity element of the $\eta$ projected subspace and the implied sum in $\Pi$ is understood. Hence $V_\eta$ can indeed be related to the $\eta$ projection of the NGB superfields: precisely those whose scalar components are no longer NGBs when $v_\eta\to0$. Finally, we can make a stronger claim for the vector superfields concerning the kinetic terms. Returning to eq. we can rewrite the gauge coupling in the Kähler potential as K\_a\_v\_\^2 by factoring out the $\kappa_\eta$ part of $\xi_\eta$. As the dynamical degree of freedom $\kappa_\eta$ appears to mix with the trace of the vector superfield, it is plausible that the vector superfield becomes dynamical via a mixing with this quasi-NGB. We will see more examples of the equivalence between vector superfields and quasi-NGBs later on. Hidden local symmetry in SQCD\[sec:HQ\] ======================================= Many of the abstract ideas of the previous section can be crystallised by considering the example of SQCD. Indeed, we will provide further arguments that the magnetic dual can be interpreted as the HLS description as suggested in refs. [@Komargodski:2010mc; @Kitano:2011zk]. To do so we will first derive the appropriate sigma model description, then go onto show that it is gauge equivalent to the usual magnetic theory. We take an electric theory with $N$ colours and $N+n$ flavours. The anomaly free flavour symmetry is G=SU(N+n)\_LSU(N+n)\_RU(1)\_BU(1)\_R under which electric quarks $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}$ transform as per table \[tab:HQel\]. Gauge invariant meson and baryon operators $$\begin{aligned} M^i_j & =\tilde{Q}^i_\alpha Q^\alpha_j & B_{j_1\ldots j_N} & =\epsilon_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_N}Q^{\alpha_1}_{j_1}\ldots Q^{\alpha_N}_{j_N} & \tilde{B}^{i_1\ldots i_N} & =\epsilon^{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_N}\tilde{Q}_{\alpha_1}^{i_1}\ldots\tilde{Q}_{\alpha_N}^{i_N}\end{aligned}$$ parameterise the theory’s moduli space. At a generic point they pick up expectations $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQelvevs} M & ={\rm diag}{\left(\tilde{v}_1v_1,\ldots,\tilde{v}_Nv_N,0,\ldots,0\right)} & B_{1\ldots N} & =v_1\ldots v_N & \tilde{B}^{1\ldots N} & =\tilde{v}_1\ldots\tilde{v}_N\end{aligned}$$ up to symmetry transformations. D-flatness demands that the difference $\|v_i\|^2-\|\tilde{v}_i\|^2$ is a constant but the parameters are otherwise free. For non-zero $v$’s and $\tilde{v}$’s the gauge symmetry is completely broken. Since the electric quark matrices are rank $N$, the flavour symmetry breaking is limited to \[eq:HQsympatt\] H=SU(n)\_LSU(n)\_RU(1)\_[B\^]{}U(1)\_[R\^]{} where the unbroken $U(1)$ symmetries are a mixture of the original ones with $SU(N+n)_L\times SU(N+n)_R$ transformations. The order parameters are conveniently organised by defining $$\begin{aligned} v & =\|B_{1\ldots N}\|^{1/N} & \tilde{v} & =\|\tilde{B}^{1\ldots N}\|^{1/N}\end{aligned}$$ and there is a constraint on the moduli space B\_[1…N]{}\^[1…N]{}-[det]{}\_N(M)=0. [\|c\|c\|cccc\|]{}& SU(N) & SU(N+n)\_L & SU(N+n)\_R & U(1)\_B & U(1)\_R\ Q & & & [1]{} & 1/N & n/(N+n)\ & & [1]{} & & -1/N & n/(N+n)\ Let us now look at one sector of the symmetry breaking in detail, e.g. $SU(N+n)_L\to SU(n)_L$. Without loss of generality we consider this to be triggered by an expectation of the $N\times(N+n)$ quark matrix \[eq:HQQvev\] Q= [v]{} & 0 ,[where]{} [v]{}=[diag]{}(v\_1,…,v\_N). The broken and unbroken generators acting (somewhat confusingly) on the right are complex matrices with the forms $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQgens} \hat{T}_L & =\bordermatrix{& N & n \cr N & \hat{T}_{L,N}+n\uno & \hat{T}_u \cr n & 0 & -N\uno} & \hat{S}_L & =\bordermatrix{& N & n \cr N & 0 & 0 \cr n & \hat{S}_l & \hat{S}_{L,n}}\end{aligned}$$ up to unimportant normalisation factors. Both $\hat{T}_{L,N}$ and $\hat{S}_{L,n}$ are traceless. An $SU(n)^c$ subgroup is evidently generated by $\hat{S}_{L,n}$ but there remain $2Nn$ additional unbroken generators. Therefore =2(n\^2-1)+2Nn and eq. tells us that there are $N^2$ quasi-NGBs. In other words there are $N^2$ M-type and $Nn$ P-type superfields associated with the $SU(N+n)_L$ factor, saturating the degrees of freedom available in $Q$. Similar reasoning applies for the $SU(N+n)_R$ factor where $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQTRdef} \hat{T}_R & =\begin{pmatrix} \hat{T}_{R,N}-n\uno & 0 \\ \hat{T}_l & N\uno \end{pmatrix} & \hat{S}_R & =\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \hat{S}_u \\ 0 & \hat{S}_{R,n} \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ for traceless matrices $\hat{T}_{R,N}$ and $\hat{S}_{R,n}$ acting on the left (for consistent confusion). In addition to these generators there are identity matrices from each of the two $U(1)$ factors. Only a linear combination of the original baryon number generator with $\hat{T}_L$ and $\hat{T}_R$ is broken. It can be absorbed into the existing generators by redefining $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQTSL} \hat{T}_L & =\begin{pmatrix} \hat{T}_{L,N}+\uno & \hat{T}_u \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} & \hat{T}_R & =\begin{pmatrix} \hat{T}_{R,N}-\uno & 0 \\ \hat{T}_l & 0 \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQTSR} \hat{S}_L & =\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ \hat{S}_l & \hat{S}_{L,n}+\uno \end{pmatrix} & \hat{S}_R & =\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \hat{S}_u \\ 0 & \hat{S}_{R,n}-\uno \end{pmatrix} & \hat{S}_{B^\prime} & =\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \uno \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ with the difference in sign for the $\uno$ component arising from $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}$ having equal and opposite baryon number. On the other hand, we include the broken $R$-symmetry generator in its entirety. Unbroken symmetry transformations therefore have the forms $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQhLRdef} \hat{h}_L & =\begin{pmatrix} \uno & 0 \\ \hat{h}_{L,l} & \hat{h}_{L,n} \end{pmatrix} & \hat{h}_R & =\begin{pmatrix} \uno & \hat{h}_{R,u} \\ 0 & \hat{h}_{R,n} \end{pmatrix} &\end{aligned}$$ where $\det{(\hat{h}_{L,n})}=\det{(\hat{h}_{R,n})}=1$, in addition to a separate $U(1)_{B^\prime}$ transformation. Including the full $R$-symmetry generator in the $\hat{T}$’s enables us to avoid complications inherent to gauged $R$-symmetries (discussed in section \[sec:GR\]). However, it also leads to different representatives for the $G^c/\hat{H}$ coset space relative to eq. , as we do not remove all contributions from the $\hat{H}$ generators. One can think of this as leaving more gauge redundancy in the $\xi$’s than is usual in the HLS formalism. Even though it isn’t explicitly part of the HLS, we will still see gauge-like properties in the $R$-symmetry sector of the HLS description. ### Standard coset description {#standard-coset-description .unnumbered} At this point we have to decide whether we want the sigma model description’s variables to live in left or right cosets of $G^c/\hat{H}$. The obvious choice is for $\hat{h}_L$ to act on the right and $\hat{h}_R$ on the left (and vice-versa for $g_L$ and $g_R$), mirroring the original flavour transformations of the quarks. It is then possible to find a unique projection operator satisfying eq. for $\hat{h}_L$, and $\eta\hat{h}_R=\eta\hat{h}_R\eta$ for $\hat{h}_R$: \[eq:HQetadef\] = 0 & 0\ 0 & . The action of $\hat{h}_L$ and $\hat{h}_R$ on the $\eta$ projected subspace $$\begin{aligned} \eta\hat{h}_L\eta & =\hat{h}_{L,n} & \eta\hat{h}_R\eta & =\hat{h}_{R,n}\end{aligned}$$ is simply an $SU(n)^c_L\times SU(n)^c_R\times U(1)_{B^\prime}^c$ transformation. Using eqs. , and we can then define chiral superfields $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQxidef} \xi & =e^{\kappa_R}\begin{pmatrix} \xi_N & \xi_u \\ 0 & \uno \end{pmatrix} & \tilde{\xi} & =e^{\kappa_R}\begin{pmatrix} \tilde{\xi}_N & 0 \\ \tilde{\xi}_l & \uno \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $\det{(\tilde{\xi}_N\xi_N)}=1$, and the independent superfield $\kappa_R$ comes from the broken $U(1)_R$ generator. Applying the projection operator we find a low energy sigma model description in terms of chiral superfields $\xi_\eta=\xi\eta$ and $\tilde{\xi}_\eta=\eta\tilde{\xi}$ transforming as $$\begin{aligned} \label{HQqxi} \xi_\eta=e^{\kappa_R}\begin{pmatrix} \xi_u \\ \uno \end{pmatrix} & \longrightarrow g_L\xi_\eta\hat{h}_{L,n}^{-1} & \tilde{\xi}_\eta=e^{\kappa_R}\begin{pmatrix} \tilde{\xi}_l & \uno \end{pmatrix} & \longrightarrow\hat{h}_{R,n}\tilde{\xi}_\eta g_R^\dag\end{aligned}$$ and with equal and opposite charge under $U(1)_{B^\prime}$. The nonlinear dependence of $\hat{h}_{L,n}^{-1}$ on $\Pi$ and $g_L$ is understood. Both $\xi_u$ and $\tilde{\xi}_l$ contain $Nn$ chiral superfield degrees of freedom generated by off diagonal components of the broken generators. These are the P-type superfields of the flavour symmetry breaking. Meanwhile $\kappa_R$ is an M-type superfield. The Kähler potential for this description follows straight from eq. and is \[eq:HQKsigma\] K\^S=. ### Flipped coset description {#flipped-coset-description .unnumbered} Alternatively we can choose $\hat{h}_L$ to act on the left and $\hat{h}_R$ on the right (and versa-vice for $g_L$ and $g_R$). Eq. is mostly unchanged but the projection operator should now satisfy $\eta^\prime\hat{h}_L=\eta^\prime\hat{h}_L\eta^\prime$ and $\hat{h}_R\eta^\prime=\eta^\prime\hat{h}_R\eta^\prime$; the unique solution being \^= & 0\ 0 & 0 . This is actually a special choice because it satisfies $\eta^\prime\hat{h}_L=\eta^\prime\hat{h}_R=\eta^\prime$. Hence the $\eta^\prime$ projected subspace is invariant under $\hat{H}$, not just closed. The unbroken baryon number symmetry is also projected out. This already suggests that flipping the cosets should result in a description of quasi-NGBs acting as order parameters, which are invariant under $\hat{H}$ by definition. We are thus able to define a second set of chiral superfields $\xi_\eta^\prime=\eta^\prime\xi$ and $\tilde{\xi}_\eta^\prime=\tilde{\xi}\eta^\prime$ with transformation properties $$\begin{aligned} \xi_\eta^\prime=e^{\kappa_R}\begin{pmatrix} \xi_N & \xi_u \end{pmatrix} & \longrightarrow\xi_\eta^\prime g_L^\dag & \tilde{\xi}_\eta^\prime = e^{\kappa_R} \begin{pmatrix} \tilde{\xi}_N \\ \tilde{\xi}_l \end{pmatrix} & \longrightarrow g_R\tilde{\xi}_\eta^\prime\end{aligned}$$ which are conveniently assembled into a single variable \[eq:HQMdef\] \_\^\_\^=e\^[2\_R]{} \_N\_N & \_N\_u\ \_l\_N & \_l\_u g\_R\[\_\^\_\^\]g\_L\^. Due to its invariance under $\hat{H}$, the Kähler potential for $\tilde{\xi}_\eta^\prime\xi_\eta^\prime$ is constrained only by the flavour symmetry. Any real function invariant under $SU(N+n)_L\times SU(N+n)_R\times U(1)_B\times U(1)_R$ will do. Note that this superfield contains the remaining $N^2$ M-type superfields, thus encapsulating the other low energy quasi-NGB degrees of freedom (although there are $N^2$ from each half of the flavour symmetry breaking, half of them are eaten by the electric gauge fields and one accounted for by $\kappa_R$). It also contains a copy of the superfield degrees of freedom that are already present in $\xi_\eta$ and $\tilde{\xi}_\eta$, although now of course transforming in a different way. Thus we must ensure that these degrees of freedom are included only once if we wish to use both standard and flipped coset descriptions at the same time. Rediscovering the magnetic theory\[sec:RM\] ------------------------------------------- We now seek an HLS description. Following section \[sec:HL\] we consider a theory based on an $SU(n)_L\times SU(n)_R\times U(1)_{B^\prime}$ gauge group. It is immediately apparent that (individually at least) both $SU(n)$ factors have cubic anomalies for the anticipated matter content. In practise there is nothing stopping us implementing an anomalous gauge symmetry in an effective theory, as long as its gauge fields are massive (which of course they are by construction in the HLS description). Clearly a limit in which [all]{} gauge fields become massless cannot exist. Nonetheless, the approach still gives a valid description of the low energy physics and, moreover, there is nothing forbidding limits in which the gauge fields of an anomaly free subgroup become massless. [\|c\|cc\|cc\|c\|cc\|]{}& SU(n)\_L & SU(n)\_R & SU(n) & SU(n)\^& U(1)\_[B\^]{} & SU(N+n)\_L & SU(N+n)\_R\ \_& & [1]{} & & & +1 & & [1]{}\ \_& [1]{} & & & & -1 & [1]{} &\ Guided by eq. we therefore write down a Kähler potential $$\begin{aligned} K= & {\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[(1-a)v^2\ln{(\xi_\eta^\dag\xi_\eta)}+(1-\tilde{a})\tilde{v}^2\ln{(\tilde{\xi}_\eta\tilde{\xi}_\eta^\dag})\right]}+ \nonumber\\ & {\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[av^2{\left({\left(\frac{\xi_\eta^\dag\xi_\eta}{d_\eta^\dag d_\eta}\right)}e^{V_{B^\prime}-V_L}-V_{B^\prime}\right)}+\tilde{a}\tilde{v}^2{\left({\left(\frac{\tilde{\xi}_\eta\tilde{\xi}_\eta^\dag}{d_\eta^\dag d_\eta}\right)}e^{V_R-V_{B^\prime}}+V_{B^\prime}\right)}\right]}\end{aligned}$$ for the standard coset description. All superfields are functions of superspace coordinates and transform as in table \[tab:HQxi\]. The vector superfields $V_L$ and $V_R$ are constructed from the $\eta$ projected generators $\eta(\hat{S}_L+\hat{S}_L^\dag)\eta$ and $\eta(\hat{S}_R+\hat{S}_R^\dag)\eta$ respectively. The FI-terms pick out $V_{B^\prime}$, the $U(1)_{B^\prime}$ vector superfield being the only one with non-zero trace. Solving the equations of motion one can easily show that this theory is gauge equivalent to the sigma model description of eq. . Instead of sticking with the original $SU(n)_L\times SU(n)_R$ symmetry, consider taking the linear combination $SU(n)\times SU(n)^\prime$ defined in table \[tab:HQxi\]. The associated vector superfields are $$\begin{aligned} V & =\frac{1}{2}{\left(V_L+V_R\right)} & V^\prime & =\frac{1}{2}{\left(V_L-V_R\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ The gauge symmetry associated with $V$ is the anomaly free, diagonal combination with $\hat{h}_{R,n}=\hat{h}_{L,n}=\hat{h}_n$. In terms of these new vector superfields the Kähler potential is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQK} K= & {\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[(1-a)v^2\ln{(\xi_\eta^\dag\xi_\eta)}+(1-\tilde{a})\tilde{v}^2\ln{(\tilde{\xi}_\eta\tilde{\xi}_\eta^\dag)}\right]}+ \nonumber\\ & {\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[av^2{\left({\left(\frac{\xi_\eta^\dag\xi_\eta}{d_\eta^\dag d_\eta}\right)}e^{V_{B^\prime}-V-V^\prime}-V_{B^\prime}\right)}+\tilde{a}\tilde{v}^2{\left({\left(\frac{\tilde{\xi}_\eta\tilde{\xi}_\eta^\dag}{d_\eta^\dag d_\eta}\right)}e^{V-V_{B^\prime}-V^\prime}+V_{B^\prime}\right)}\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ All vector superfield equations of motion are solved for $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQVsol} \xi_\eta^\dag\xi_\eta & = e^{2\bar{\kappa}_R}e^{V-V_{B^\prime}+V^\prime} & \tilde{\xi}_\eta\tilde{\xi}_\eta^\dag & =e^{2\bar{\kappa}_R}e^{V_{B^\prime}-V+V^\prime}\end{aligned}$$ after substituting $e^{\kappa_R}$ for $d$ and defining $2\bar{\kappa}_R=\kappa_R+\kappa_R^\dag$ as per section \[sec:RGS\]. At this point we chose to fix the gauge for $SU(n)^\prime$ and $U(1)_{B^\prime}$ by absorbing the vector superfields $V^\prime$ and $V_{B^\prime}$ into $\xi$ and $\tilde{\xi}$. Conversely, we see that the chiral superfield $\kappa_R$, related to the spontaneously broken $R$-symmetry, could instead be considered as parameterising a gauge transformation. Specifically, it would realise an HLS corresponding to the unbroken $U(1)_{R^\prime}$ symmetry, that has thus far been omitted from the HLS gauge group. One can quite generally choose the Wess-Zumino gauge for subgroups of $\hat{H}$, then trade the scalar components of vector superfields for the corresponding quasi-NGBs (or vice-versa) in the above manner. We therefore rewrite the vector superfields in the original Kähler potential as a sum of chiral superfields, then absorb them into dimensionful degrees of freedom $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQqdef} V^\prime & =-\ln{(\sigma_n\sigma_n^\dag)} & V_{B^\prime} & =\ln{(\sigma_B\sigma_B^\dag)} & q & =\frac{\sqrt{a}v\xi_\eta\sigma_n\sigma_B}{d_\eta} & \tilde{q} & =\frac{\sqrt{\tilde{a}}\tilde{v}\sigma_n\tilde{\xi}_\eta}{d_\eta\sigma_B}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_n$ transforms in the fundamental of $SU(n)^\prime$ such that $e^{-V^\prime}$ has the correct transformation properties. Note that since $SU(n)^\prime$ is anomalous $V^\prime$ would only ever be expected to play the role of an auxiliary field in the low energy theory anyway. Only $V$ can survive to become a true gauge field. Eq. allows us to extract $\sigma_n$ and $\sigma_B$ from $q$ and $\tilde{q}$ via the baryon expectations $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQsigmab} \det{(\sigma_n)} & =\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{b}^{N+1\ldots N+n}b_{N+1\ldots N+n}}{(\sqrt{\tilde{a}a}\tilde{v}v)^n}} & \sigma_B & =\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{\tilde{a}}\tilde{v}(b_{N+1\ldots N+n})^{1/n}}{\sqrt{a}v(\tilde{b}^{N+1\ldots N+n})^{1/n}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the erstwhile gauge fields $V^\prime$ and $V_{B^\prime}$ can be replaced by $b$ and $\tilde{b}$. That these expressions are given in terms of particular baryonic degrees of freedom is a side effect of our particular choice of electric quark expectation . In full generality, one has $$\begin{aligned} \det{(\sigma_n\sigma_n^\dag)} & =\sqrt{\frac{(\tilde{b}\tilde{b}^\dag)(b^\dag b)}{(\tilde{a}a\tilde{v}^2v^2)^n}} & \sigma_B\sigma_B^\dag & =\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{a}\tilde{v}^2(b^\dag b)^{1/n}}{av^2(\tilde{b}\tilde{b}^\dag)^{1/n}}}\end{aligned}$$ and $q$ and $\tilde{q}$ are $SU(n)^\prime$ singlets transforming as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQmgmat} q & \in(\afund,\fund,{\bm1}) & \tilde{q} & \in(\fund,{\bm1},\afund)\end{aligned}$$ under $SU(n)\times SU(N+n)_L\times SU(N+n)_R$. Upon substituting in all new degrees of freedom we find the final form for the Kähler potential \[eq:HQKfin\] K=+v\^2+\^2. Explicit dependence on $a$ and $\tilde{a}$ is removed after eliminating $V_{B^\prime}$ using the vector superfield equations of motion. The first terms here are simply the canonical Kähler potential of an $SU(n)$ gauge theory, under which $q$ and $\tilde{q}$ transform in the antifundamental and fundamental representations respectively. This is precisely what we expect from the Seiberg dual, where the magnetic gauge field $V_{\rm mg}$ is identified with that of the diagonal $SU(n)$ gauge symmetry $V$. All symmetry breaking is then driven by the remaining terms. From eqs. and with all NGB expectations rotated to zero, the expectations of $q$ and $\tilde{q}$ are found to be $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQqvevs} q & =\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ b^{1/n}\uno \end{pmatrix} & \tilde{q} & =\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \tilde{b}^{1/n}\uno \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ An important observation is that the HLS description exhibits colour-flavour locking. The $q$ and $\tilde{q}$ expectations break $SU(n)\times SU(N+n)_L\times SU(N+n)_R$ to $SU(N)_L\times SU(N)_R\times SU(n)_L\times SU(n)_R$, where $SU(n)_{L/R}$ is the diagonal combination of $SU(n)\subset SU(N+n)_{L/R}$ with the gauged $SU(n)$. The orthogonal $SU(n)^\prime$ gauge symmetry, whose erstwhile gauge fields were absorbed into $q$ and $\tilde{q}$, does not mix with the flavour symmetry in this way. Magnetic mesons and the superpotential -------------------------------------- We have just shown how to derive the quark sector of the Seiberg dual theory, but the meson superfield and associated superpotential remain absent. To find them, we consider the flipped coset sigma model description and use eq. to define \[eq:HQMdef2\] M=ve\^[2\_R]{} \_N\_N & \_N\_u\ \_l\_N & \_l\_u which is a gauge singlet in the $(\afund,\fund)$ representation of $SU(N+n)_L\times SU(N+n)_R$, and is considered an elementary chiral superfield. For simplicity we have chosen electric quark expectations with ${\bm v}=v\uno$ and $\tilde{\bm v}=\tilde{v}\uno$.[^6] [\|c\|c\|cccc\|]{}& SU(n) & SU(N+n)\_L & SU(N+n)\_R & U(1)\_B & U(1)\_R\ q & & & [1]{} & 1/n & N/(N+n)\ & & [1]{} & & -1/n & N/(N+n)\ M & [1]{} & & & 0 & 2n/(N+n)\ Although it has been provocatively labelled with an “$M$” we should confirm that this object, derived from the flipped coset description, really can be interpreted as the superfield corresponding to $\tilde{Q}Q$. To do so, we expand the quarks in the broken electric theory around their expectations as $$\begin{aligned} Q & =\begin{pmatrix} v\uno+\delta Q & P \end{pmatrix} & \tilde{Q} & =\begin{pmatrix} \tilde{v}\uno+\delta\tilde{Q} \\ \tilde{P} \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ using components $\delta Q$ and $P$. Normalised NGB superfields are then given explicitly by $$\begin{aligned} \Pi & =\frac{1}{v}\begin{pmatrix} \delta Q & P \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} & \tilde{\Pi} & =\frac{1}{\tilde{v}}\begin{pmatrix} \delta\tilde{Q} & 0 \\ \tilde{P} & 0 \end{pmatrix}\, .\end{aligned}$$ Using this basis to parameterise the Goldstone manifold we find from eq. that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:HQxiQ} \xi & =\begin{pmatrix} e^{\delta Q/v} & (e^{\delta Q/v}-\uno)\delta Q^{-1}P \\ 0 & \uno \end{pmatrix} & \tilde{\xi} & =\begin{pmatrix} e^{\delta\tilde{Q}/\tilde{v}} & 0 \\ \tilde{P}\delta\tilde{Q}^{-1}(e^{\delta\tilde{Q}/\tilde{v}}-\uno) & \uno \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Plugging into eq. and expanding to leading order gives M= v+v+Q & P\ v & P =Q as required. Note also that the meson expectation breaks the $SU(N)_L\times SU(N)_R$ factor of the flavour symmetry that is not broken by the expectations of $q$ and $\tilde{q}$. Having identified the meson superfield we define a real duality scale $\mu$ for normalisation, whereupon the superpotential \[eq:HQWdef\] W= is the unique choice compatible with eq. . It is then straightforward to reconstruct the anomaly free $U(1)$ symmetries as in table \[tab:HQmg\]. Of course the superpotential is not merely allowed: it is required. Simultaneously using normal and flipped coset descriptions means some of the degrees of freedom in $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}$ have been counted twice. However, in conjunction with the expectation of $M$, the superpotential gives a mass $m_q=v\tilde{v}/\mu$ to $N$ flavours of $q$ and $\tilde{q}$. Hence they are integrated out and the double counted degrees of freedom are removed. Solving the equations of motion for the massive flavours and substituting back in, $W$ disappears and the sigma model description is again recovered. Therefore the superpotential does not prevent the HLS and sigma model descriptions coinciding at low energy. A second way of thinking about the superpotential is to recall that everything takes place on top of a non-zero meson background. Ergo we can consider $M$ as as a source for $q\tilde{q}$.[^7] It is then interesting to comment on the parallels between the superpotential and gauge sectors. One can think of the superpotential as a sort-of chiral ‘gauge’ coupling with the meson as its ‘gauge’ field. Just as the Kähler potential part of the theory deals with redundancies inherent to the NGB sector, so the superpotential deals with those in the quasi-NGB sector. Indeed, the corresponding ‘gauge’ transformations map $M\to g_RMg_L^\dag$, thereby moving one around the moduli space. For appropriate supermultiplets (perhaps those of $\cN=2$ SUSY), it seems likely that the two sectors could be unified into a single current interaction. We will not explore this direction here. Either way, integrating out the massive degrees of freedom leaves an SQCD-like theory with $n$ colours and $n$ flavours. This is well known to confine [@Intriligator:1995au] due to its quantum deformed moduli space \[eq:HQQdefMS\] b\^[N+1…N+n]{}\_[N+1…N+n]{}=m\_q\^N\_[mg]{}\^[2n-N]{}=(v)\^N\^[-N]{}\_[mg]{}\^[2n-N]{}. Here, $b$ and $\tilde{b}$ are the usual baryon degrees of freedom, we have set $q\tilde{q}=0$ and $\Lambda_{\rm mg}$ is the dynamical scale[^8] of the HLS description’s gauge group. We thus see that the superpotential drives confinement in the HLS description, and is therefore responsible for breaking the gauge symmetry. So in addition to ensuring that the HLS description ultimately has the correct degrees of freedom, the superpotential also allows for a UV completion in which the gauge symmetry breaking is not simply encoded in the field definitions. From the HLS point of view this confinement is inevitable because, once the magnetic quark degrees of freedom are made massive (as they must be in order to avoid double counting), it is the only way to reproduce the $G\rightarrow H$ symmetry breaking of the original nonlinear sigma model. Gauge symmetry restoration and the baryonic branch -------------------------------------------------- SQCD provides a perfect illustration of the discussion of symmetry restoration in section \[sec:RGS\]. To restore the gauge symmetry one takes the limit $e^{\bar{\kappa}_R}\to0$ holding $ve^{-\bar{\kappa}_R}$ and $\tilde{v}e^{-\bar{\kappa}_R}$ fixed. It is the $U(1)_R$ symmetry and its associated quasi-NGB $\bar{\kappa}_R$ that enables magnetic quarks to be scaled in this way. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that we know $R$-charges are generally related to scaling dimensions in superconformal field theories. The decay constants, HLS gauge field masses and meson expectation all vanish in this limit, with the magnetic quark masses following suit. The gauge symmetry is therefore restored (as is the full flavour symmetry) and all additional terms vanish from eq. , leaving $SU(n)$ SQCD+M with massless quarks and a canonical quark Kähler potential. To recast the meaning of the limit in the language of Seiberg duality, recall that all order parameters arise from quasi-NGB expectations in the electric theory. By choosing non-zero values for $v$ and $\tilde{v}$ we therefore define the duality at a particular point in moduli space, where the flavour symmetry is maximally broken. Travelling away from this point in the magnetic theory, along the quasi-NGB direction that breaks $U(1)_R$, all fields (and consequently order parameters) are scaled to zero. Duality implies that one should simultaneously move to the same point in the electric theory’s moduli space, hence all order parameters vanish there as well. In the full theory this would, of course, restore the corresponding electric gauge symmetry. Note that the process is insensitive to the initial values of $v$ and $\tilde{v}$ so they remain independent parameters. Before taking the $e^{\bar{\kappa}_R}\to0$ limit the expectations of $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}$ saturated their ranks, forbidding expectations for the components of the electric quarks $P$ and $\tilde{P}$ (which instead contain NGBs of the symmetry breaking). As the quark expectations start to vanish the constraint is relaxed and new flat directions open up; precisely those parameterised by the $\rho$-mesons constructed from $P$ and $\tilde{P}$. At the same time the HLS gauge fields become massless. Already we are starting to see hints that the magnetic gauge fields can be identified with electric $\rho$-mesons. Note also that the magnetic quarks become massless as the meson expectation vanishes. Initially, one may think this leads to double counted degrees of freedom in the HLS description. However, the electric gauge fields become massless in this limit as well (besides which, the sigma model description breaks down so its degrees of freedom are ill defined). Indeed, if we are to identify magnetic gauge fields with electric $\rho$-mesons, duality suggests we should also identify electric gauge fields with magnetic $\rho$-mesons. Thus the newly massless magnetic quarks represent electric gauge fields rather than double counted degrees of freedom. Another interesting limit to consider is the baryonic branch of the theory. Here, one has a vanishing expectation for $\tilde{Q}$ but Q= v& 0 i.e. only the baryon direction of moduli space has non-zero expectation. The unbroken flavour symmetry is then H=SU(N)\_LSU(n)\_LSU(N+n)\_RU(1)\_[B\^]{}U(1)\_[R\^]{}. Hence all breaking is confined to the $SU(N+n)_L$ factor. Following the standard procedure one does not expect magnetic antiquarks $\tilde{q}$ to appear in the HLS description at all. The same is true for the meson superfield, for which only the components arising from $\xi_\eta^\prime$ are present. Specifically, one would write down \[eq:HQKq\] K= in place of eq. . The rest of the reasoning of section \[sec:RM\] remains unchanged and yields a theory with \[eq:HQKq2\] K=+v\^2 and no superpotential. However, this theory clearly fails to capture all of the low energy physics as there are no degrees of freedom corresponding to the massless chiral superfields $\tilde{Q}$. This is because no scalar components of $\tilde{Q}$ are NGBs on the baryonic branch so are not represented in a description based on NGB superfields. Suppose we include the magnetic antiquarks, meson superfield and $V_R$ anyway, and continue to use the Kähler potential with superpotential . Expanding around the vacuum using eq. for the expectation of $q$, the superpotential becomes W=b\^[1/n]{}(+Y)+…,[where]{} = & ,[and]{} M= X &\ Z & Y . Hence all components of $\tilde{q}$ are massive. Upon integrating them out the Kähler potential reduces back to eq. and the superpotential vanishes. One can therefore include the magnetic antiquarks even though they are not explicitly generated by NGB superfields. Once again the superpotential has proven itself instrumental in removing superfluous degrees of freedom from the HLS description. Furthermore, the meson is now expanded to leading order as M=Q=v & 0\ & 0 . Its massless components $X$ and $Z$ are directly related to $\tilde{Q}$; degrees of freedom that would otherwise be missing. Rather than arising from the flipped coset HLS description, the meson is now an extra matter superfield added by hand (or indeed just left alone for the whole procedure). Meanwhile the superpotential ensures that the components $\tilde{Z}$ and $Y$, that correspond to degrees of freedom already accounted for in the quark sector, are massive and so removed from the low energy theory. We therefore conclude that the HLS description derived in section \[sec:RM\] also describes the baryonic branch of the theory, even though the symmetry breaking pattern is different there. While the branch with $\tilde{v}=0$ is the only one discussed in this section, it is clear that the same reasoning applies to $v=0$. Summary ------- In this section we have argued that the magnetic gauge group of Seiberg duality arises as an HLS, corresponding to the diagonal subgroup of the $SU(n)_L\times SU(n)_R$ flavour symmetry preserved at a generic point in moduli space. The magnetic quarks and mesons are constructed from NGBs associated with the flavour symmetry breaking, with the superpotential $W=\mu^{-1}{\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[Mq\tilde{q}\right]}$ ensuring that no degrees of freedom are counted twice. Equivalently, the combination of meson and superpotential can be thought of a source for $q\tilde{q}$ due to the fact that there is a non-zero meson background, or as a facilitator for a consistent UV completion of the HLS description. The HLS formalism only defines the duality at points in moduli space where both electric and magnetic gauge groups are completely broken. However, the presence of a spontaneously broken $R$-symmetry allows a limit to be taken in which both are restored. The limit is smoothly attained by travelling along the quasi-NGB direction responsible for breaking $R$-symmetry until $R$-symmetry, and all other symmetries, are restored. Although there are no explicit kinetic terms for the HLS gauge fields, we assume they are generated dynamically (as argued in ref. [@Bando:1987br]) when the magnetic theory is in a higgsed phase, or when its gauge group is unbroken. When it is in a confined phase we instead consider the kinetic terms to be suppressed by the divergent gauge coupling. In either case, they are not forbidden by any symmetry so we are anyway free to add them by hand.[^9] Consequences of the HLS interpretation\[sec:CH\] ================================================ Now that the HLS description of electric SQCD has been formally identified with the magnetic dual, we would like to use the interpretation to try and learn some more about Seiberg duality. Our main results will be to confirm the identification of $\rho$-mesons with magnetic gauge fields (proposed in ref. [@Komargodski:2010mc]), to improve our understanding of the effect of electric quark masses and to determine the value of the duality scale $\mu$ in certain regimes. $\rho$-mesons\[sec:rho\] ------------------------ The quickest way to understand the origin of the magnetic gauge fields is to consult the solution to their equations of motion . These imply V\_[mg]{}=. At leading order in $1/v$ and $1/\tilde{v}$, eq. then gives V\_[mg]{} - or, in terms of components \[eq:CHVmg\] V\_[mg]{}\^. This unambiguously identifies the gauge fields of the magnetic theory with the $\rho$-mesons of the electric theory. An orthogonal approach, using the colour-flavour locking observed in SQCD, is to examine the Noether currents attached to the unbroken $SU(n)_L$ and $SU(n)_R$ parts of the flavour symmetry.[^10] In electric variables they are $$\begin{aligned} \cJ^\alpha_L & =-{\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[\vphantom{\tilde{P}^\dag}PS^\alpha P^\dag e^{V_{\rm el}}\right]} & \cJ^\alpha_R & ={\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[\tilde{P}^\dag S^\alpha\tilde{P}e^{-V_{\rm el}}\right]}\end{aligned}$$ for an electric gauge superfield $V_{\rm el}$. In the magnetic theory one has $$\begin{aligned} \cJ^\alpha_L & ={\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[p^\dag S^\alpha pe^{-V_{\rm mg}}\right]}+\mbox{mesons} & \cJ^\alpha_R & =-{\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[\tilde{p}S^\alpha\tilde{p}^\dag e^{V_{\rm mg}}\right]}+\mbox{mesons}\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ and $\tilde{q}$ have been parameterised using $n\times n$ matrices $p$ and $\tilde{p}$: $$\begin{aligned} q & =\begin{pmatrix} \delta q \\ p \end{pmatrix} & \tilde{q} & =\begin{pmatrix} \delta\tilde{q} & \tilde{p} \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ For small fluctuations in $V_{\rm el}$ and $V_{\rm mg}$ these currents can be expanded around the vacuum of the electric theory as $$\begin{aligned} \cJ^\alpha_L & \approx-{\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[\vphantom{\tilde{P}^\dag}S^\alpha P^\dag P\right]}+\mbox{3 particles} & \cJ^\alpha_R & \approx{\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[S^\alpha\tilde{P}\tilde{P}^\dag\right]}+\mbox{3 particles}\end{aligned}$$ or, expanding around magnetic expectations $p=b^{1/n}\uno$ and $\tilde{p}=\tilde{b}^{1/n}\uno$, $$\begin{aligned} \cJ^\alpha_L & \approx-\frac{1}{2}(b^\dag b)^{1/n}V_{\rm mg}^\alpha+\mbox{2 particles} & \cJ^\alpha_R & \approx-\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{b}\tilde{b}^\dag)^{1/n}V_{\rm mg}^\alpha+\mbox{2 particles.}\end{aligned}$$ Equating the two we can therefore write \[eq:CHVcfl\] V\_[mg]{}\^-\_L\^-\_R\^ for any constant $c$. This result is identical to that of eq. for expectations $b^\dag b=(1+c)^nv^{2n}$ and $\tilde{b}\tilde{b}^\dag=(1-c)^n\tilde{v}^{2n}$. Invoking the baryon map familiar from Seiberg duality we also have $$\begin{aligned} b^\dag b & =-(-\mu)^n\Lambda_{\rm el}^{n-2N}B^\dag B=-(-\mu)^n\Lambda_{\rm el}^{n-2N}v^{2N} \nonumber\\ \tilde{b}\tilde{b}^\dag & =-(-\mu)^n\Lambda_{\rm el}^{n-2N}\tilde{B}\tilde{B}^\dag=-(-\mu)^n\Lambda_{\rm el}^{n-2N}\tilde{v}^{2N}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $c$ is determined solely by the electric quark expectations: \[eq:CHcdef\] [()]{}\^n=[()]{}\^[2N-2n]{}. All conclusions reached in this section are perturbative in nature and only apply when the fluctuations in $P$ and $\tilde{P}$ can be considered small. These are generically of order $\Lambda_{\rm el}$, the dynamical scale of the electric theory, so one requires $v>\Lambda_{\rm el}$. This limit will be emphasised when we consider the behaviour of electric and magnetic theories in section \[sec:mu\]. On a mesonic branch of the theory $\tilde{v}=v$ and we have $c=0$, which fixes $b=\tilde{b}=v^n$. Hence the magnetic quarks are normalised so that their expectations, and therefore the symmetry breaking scale, correspond exactly to their electric counterparts (this idea will be useful when discussing the duality scale). Referring back to eq. and setting the expectations of all fluctuations around the vacuum to zero then implies that $a=\tilde{a}=1$, as proposed for the mesonic branch in ref. [@Kitano:2011zk]. Baryonic branches have one of $v$ of $\tilde{v}$ equal to zero and so $c=\pm 1$. Setting $\tilde{v}=0$, for example, implies that $c=1$, whereupon the magnetic gauge field is given by $V_{\rm mg}\approx2v^{-2n}{\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[S^\alpha P^\dag P\right]}$. The absence of $\tilde{P}$ is is to be expected since the electric antiquarks no longer take part in the flavour symmetry breaking. Furthermore, the magnetic quarks pick up a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ in their normalisation implying that $a=2$ is now the correct choice, as proposed for the baryonic branch in ref. [@Komargodski:2010mc]. Electric quark masses\[sec:EQM\] -------------------------------- Adding electric quark masses is well known to provide another way to higgs the magnetic gauge group. The superpotential deformation \[eq:CHWel\] W\_[el]{}=- for a rank $k\le n$ matrix ${\bm m}$ gives masses to $k$ flavours. It also explicitly breaks the flavour symmetry to SU(N+n-k)\_LSU(N+n-k)\_RU(1)\_B. In the magnetic theory one adds the corresponding linear meson deformation W\_[mg]{}=- for the $N\times N$ component of the meson $X$. The F-terms for $X$ fix $\tilde{p}p=\mu{\bm m}$, higgsing the magnetic gauge group to $SU(n-k)$ at the origin of moduli space and giving mass to $k$ flavours of magnetic quark. Duality is thus preserved at low energy, where massive flavours are integrated out of both descriptions. From an HLS point of view we can understand this effect by varying the ratio $m/v$, where $m$ denotes a typical electric quark mass. If $v\gg m$ the electric theory retains an approximate $SU(N+n)_L\times SU(N+n)_R$ flavour symmetry at the electric higgsing scale. The HLS interpretation thus results in a magnetic theory based on a broken $SU(n)$ gauge group. In line with our earlier discussion, the gauge group in this regime is broken by the confinement occurring once when the heavy magnetic quarks are integrated out. The difference is a small correction to the gauge field masses from $\tilde{p}p\neq0$. This only mildly breaks their degeneracy and is in accord with the approximate nature of the original $SU(N+n)_L\times SU(N+n)_R$ flavour symmetry. If $v\ll m$ and $k<n$ the electric theory has $k$ fewer flavours at the electric higgsing scale. This limits the possible symmetry breaking to H=SU(n-k)\_LSU(n-k)\_RU(1)\_[B\^]{}. Accordingly, the HLS description’s gauge group is diminished to $SU(n-k)$. Below the magnetic higgsing scale $\sqrt{\mu m}$ this matches the magnetic gauge group found through Seiberg duality. Further still into the IR the magnetic theory again confines and breaks the residual gauge symmetry, as is usual in the HLS interpretation. That the magnetic gauge group is completed to $SU(n)$ above the higgsing scale is necessary for continuity on the moduli space; as $v$ is increased we must recover the $m\ll v$ scenario. Equivalently, the electric quark mass term lifts some of the quasi-NGBs parameterised by $\rho$-mesons. Indeed, one expects $\rho$-mesons composed of quarks with mass $m>v$ to themselves have mass greater than $v$. Due to their identification with these states, one expects the masses of the magnetic gauge fields to be similarly raised. Of particular interest is the choice $k=n$. Now the electric theory has $N$ colours and $N$ flavours below the scale $m$, so confines with its own quantum deformed moduli space \[eq:CHQdefel\] -B=m\^n\_[el]{}\^[2N-n]{}. By adjusting $m/v$ we can then vary between higgsed and confined electric phases. At the same time the magnetic theory varies between confined and higgsed phases. We can exploit this effect to see that a [higgsed]{} $SU(n)$ HLS emerges from a [confining]{} $SU(N)$ gauge theory as we shall see in the following section. In fact, the choice $v\ll m$ and $k=n$ can be recast as a reversal of the HLS interpretation. The duality scale\[sec:mu\] --------------------------- Another interesting corollary is the ability to fix the duality scale for a given electric quark expectation in certain regimes. We generically find that $\mu$ should be chosen such that the scale of symmetry breaking is the same in both electric and magnetic theories. In the following, we choose a specific, single point in moduli space with $\kappa_R=0$. Consider first the case with no electric quark mass terms. Using eq. when $v=\tilde{v}$ we have $c=0$, ergo $b=\tilde{b}=v^n$ (up to phase factors). Eq. can then be solved for $\mu$: \^N=v\^[2(N-n)]{}\_[mg]{}\^[2n-N]{}. This should be compared with the relationship between electric and magnetic dynamical scales \^[N+n]{}=\_[el]{}\^[2N-n]{}\_[mg]{}\^[2n-N]{} usually found in Seiberg duality. Solving for $\mu$ we find \[eq:CHmu\] =\_[el]{}[()]{}\^[2(n-N)/n]{}=v[()]{}\^[(n-2N)/n]{} and therefore \_[mg]{}=\_[el]{}[()]{}\^[2(N\^2-n\^2)/n(N-2n)]{}=v[()]{}\^[N(2N-n)/n(N-2n)]{} for a given choice of $\Lambda_{\rm el}$ and $v$. The magnitude of $\Lambda_{\rm mg}$ can also be compared to the magnetic quark mass m\_q==\_[el]{}[()]{}\^[2N/n]{}=v[()]{}\^[(2N-n)/n]{} generated by the meson expectation, as well as the confinement scale of the magnetic theory $v$. ![One loop RG flows for the gauge coupling $\alpha=g^2/4\pi$ (as a function of logarithmic RG scale $t$) in massless SQCD when $v=10\Lambda_{\rm el}$. Blue denotes the electric theory, red the magnetic and dashed lines a higgsed gauge group. [Left]{}: the conformal window for $N=3$ and $n=2$. [Right]{}: the free magnetic phase for $N=5$ and $n=2$.\[fig:CHRGv\]](RGcw.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![One loop RG flows for the gauge coupling $\alpha=g^2/4\pi$ (as a function of logarithmic RG scale $t$) in massless SQCD when $v=10\Lambda_{\rm el}$. Blue denotes the electric theory, red the magnetic and dashed lines a higgsed gauge group. [Left]{}: the conformal window for $N=3$ and $n=2$. [Right]{}: the free magnetic phase for $N=5$ and $n=2$.\[fig:CHRGv\]](RGfm.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} These expressions are only valid when the perturbative arguments of section \[sec:rho\] are valid, so can reliably be used to set $b=v^n$ and $\tilde{b}=\tilde{v}^n$; i.e. $v>\Lambda_{\rm el}$ such that fluctuations in $P$ and $\tilde{P}$ are small. Choosing $N<2n<4N$ puts the theory in the conformal window. Inspection of the above formulae then gives $\Lambda_{\rm mg}<v$. Alternatively, choosing $N\ge2n$ puts us in the free magnetic phase and yields $\Lambda_{\rm mg}>v$. In both cases the low energy behaviour is the same. The magnetic theory confines at the scale $v$ whereas the electric theory is higgsed and provides a perturbative, low energy description. Some example RG flows are shown in figure \[fig:CHRGv\]. Trying to take $v$ below $\Lambda_{\rm el}$ in this framework entails higgsing the electric theory in a strongly coupled electric regime, hence one looses some degree of theoretical control. The magnetic theory also appears to confine below its dynamical scale in the conformal window, and above it in the free magnetic phase. While the former is conceptually okay (despite not yielding a useful low energy description) the latter does not make physical sense. This tells us that the assumptions used to fix $\mu$ break down, as expected. It seems likely that, rather than being determined by eq. , $\mu$ is fixed at $\Lambda_{\rm el}$ for all choices $v<\Lambda_{\rm el}$. Now consider turning on an electric quark mass ${\bm m}=m\uno$, with $v=\tilde{v}$ hence $c=0$ maintained. When $v>\sqrt{\mu m}$ there are no qualitative changes to the above; the higgsing scale of the electric theory remains higher than the confinement scale induced by the quark mass terms, i.e. $v>(m^n\Lambda_{\rm el}^{2N-n})^{1/2N}$. Similarly, the confinement scale of the magnetic theory remains higher than the higgsing scale induced by the quark mass terms. However, when $v=\sqrt{\mu m}$ (corresponding to $m=m_q$) the confinement and higgsing scales of electric and magnetic theories all become equal. One cannot decrease $v$ any further than this; the electric quark expectations are fixed at $\sqrt{\mu m}$ by the geometry of the quantum deformed moduli space . Thus the scale appearing in eq. should be replaced accordingly. In addition, the magnetic quark expectations are no longer determined by confinement; they are fixed at $\sqrt{\mu m}$ by the higgsing superpotential. Thus the scale appearing in eq. should also be replaced. Upon updating both scales, the two expressions for the magnetic gauge field remain consistent provided $(\mu m)^N=m^n\Lambda_{\rm el}^{2N-n}$. Equivalently, the magnetic quarks are still normalised such that magnetic and electric symmetry breaking scales are equal. This is analogous to the result $b=\tilde{b}=v^n$ found in section \[sec:rho\] on the mesonic branch, the implication being that the duality scale should always be chosen so as to enact this normalisation. Consequently, one has $$\begin{aligned} \mu & =\Lambda_{\rm el}{\left(\frac{m}{\Lambda_{\rm el}}\right)}^{(n-N)/N}=m{\left(\frac{m}{\Lambda_{\rm el}}\right)}^{(n-2N)/N}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned} \Lambda_{\rm mg} & =\Lambda_{\rm el}{\left(\frac{m}{\Lambda_{\rm el}}\right)}^{(N^2-n^2)/N(N-2n)}=m{\left(\frac{m}{\Lambda_{\rm el}}\right)}^{n(2N-n)/N(N-2n)}\end{aligned}$$ from the usual relationship between electric and magnetic scales. Note that the parameter $v$ is now redundant. ![One loop RG flows for the gauge coupling $\alpha=g^2/4\pi$ (as a function of logarithmic RG scale $t$) in massive SQCD when $v=0$ and $m=100\Lambda_{\rm el}>m_q$. Blue denotes the electric theory, red the magnetic and dashed lines a higgsed gauge group. [Left]{}: the conformal window for $N=3$ and $n=2$. [Right]{}: the free magnetic phase for $N=5$ and $n=2$.\[fig:CHRGm\]](RGcwm.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![One loop RG flows for the gauge coupling $\alpha=g^2/4\pi$ (as a function of logarithmic RG scale $t$) in massive SQCD when $v=0$ and $m=100\Lambda_{\rm el}>m_q$. Blue denotes the electric theory, red the magnetic and dashed lines a higgsed gauge group. [Left]{}: the conformal window for $N=3$ and $n=2$. [Right]{}: the free magnetic phase for $N=5$ and $n=2$.\[fig:CHRGm\]](RGfmm.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} Choosing $m>\Lambda_{\rm el}$ one thus has $\Lambda_{\rm mg}<\sqrt{\mu m}$ in the conformal window and $\Lambda_{\rm mg}>\sqrt{\mu m}$ in the free magnetic phase. The roles of electric and magnetic theories are then reversed: the electric theory confines in the IR, while the magnetic theory is higgsed and provides a perturbative, low energy description. Some example RG flows are shown in figure \[fig:CHRGm\]. Just like $v$ in the massless case, trying to take $m$ below $\Lambda_{\rm el}$ leads to ill defined low energy physics in this framework. This is because the expansion scale in eq. is now $\sqrt{\mu m}$. When $m>\Lambda_{\rm el}$, fluctuations of $P$ and $\tilde{P}$ are therefore sufficiently small for the expansion to be trusted. At smaller values of $m$ the perturbative approximation is invalidated. Variation between confined and higgsed phases in the magnetic theory is clear. The most useful regime is the clearly latter, where the electric theory confines and can be described at low energy by a higgsed magnetic theory. However, Seiberg duality is (of course) a duality, so the whole HLS interpretation should work both ways. We will shortly see that this is indeed true, but a brief examination of figures \[fig:CHRGv\] and \[fig:CHRGm\] already reveals an electric/magnetic exchange symmetry with $v\leftrightarrow\sqrt{\mu m}$ and $m\leftrightarrow m_q$. Gauged $U(1)_R$\[sec:GR\] ========================= So far we have been focussing on how the HLS maps onto the magnetic description in Seiberg duality. The HLS theory describes the same low energy physics as the $G^c/\hat{H}$ nonlinear sigma model of broken $SU(N)$ SQCD, which can be thought of as the linear UV completion. However, it is interesting to ask what, given the magnetic HLS theory, one can learn about the full $SU(N)$ electric theory if its form is not assumed a priori. Consider the Kähler potential of the electric theory in the symmetry restoring limit, $K\supset Q^\dagger Q+\tilde{Q}^\dagger\tilde{Q}$, where we will take as read appropriate factors of $e^V$ to make it gauge invariant. This term is proportional to the anomalous current $U(1)_A$, which is in turn related to the global $R$-current supermultiplet (as described in [@Abel:2011wv]). Indeed, as we have seen, the modulus $\kappa_R$ for the breaking of $U(1)_R$ can play a role in the restoration of symmetry. It can also be recast as a gauge field. Therefore in order to answer this question one is motivated to first consider gauging $U(1)_R$. This has to be carried out within the framework of superconformal ${\cal N}=1$ supergravity [@Ferrara:1983dh; @Barbieri:1982ac; @Chamseddine:1995gb]. The additional fields of interest for our discussion are the $U(1)_R$ gauge field $V_R$ and the conformal compensator $\phi$. Assuming the usual $R$-charge for the gauginos of $+1$, the fields transform under a $U(1)_R$ transformation as $$\begin{aligned} \phi & \longrightarrow e^{2i\chi/3}\phi \nonumber\\ V_R & \longrightarrow V_R+i(\chi-\chi^\dag) \nonumber\\ \phi_i & \longrightarrow e^{-iR_i\chi}\phi_i \end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_i$ are generic matter superfields (i.e. quarks and mesons) with superconformal $R$-charges $R_i$ and $\chi$ is a chiral superfield. Note that the extra scaling symmetry introduced by superconformality changes $\kappa_R$ from an M-type to a P-type superfield. The general Lagrangian is of the form $$\begin{aligned} \cL={\int\mathrm{d}^{4}\theta\,}{\left(\phi^\dag e^{-2V_R/3}\phi\right)}K{\left((e^V\phi)^i,\phi_i^\dag e^{R_iV_R }\right)} & +{\int\mathrm{d}^{2}\theta\,}\phi^3 W(\phi_i)+\mbox{h.c.}+ \nonumber\\ &+\mbox{gauge/gravity terms.}\end{aligned}$$ For the superpotential $W$ to give an invariant term it should transform as $W\to e^{-i2\chi}W$, i.e. it has $R$-charge $+2$ as usual.[^11] Thus the relevant terms in the magnetic theory take the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{rabbit} \cL\supset{\int\mathrm{d}^{4}\theta\,}{\left(\phi^\dag e^{-2V_R/3}\phi\right)} & {\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[q^\dag e^{R_qV_R}q+\tilde{q}^\dag e^{R_{\tilde{q}}V_R}\tilde{q}+\Phi^\dag e^{R_MV_R}\Phi+v^2\uno\right]}+ \nonumber\\ {\int\mathrm{d}^{2}\theta\,}\phi^3 & {\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[\Phi q\tilde{q}\right]}+\mbox{h.c.}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the canonically normalised meson by $\Phi \sim M/ \mu $ and the trace is over the $n+N$ flavour indices (with contraction over $SU(n)$ colour being understood). We have taken degenerate expectations in the FI-term. The $R$-charges $R_q=R_{\tilde{q}}=N/(N+n)$ are fixed by absence of $SU(n)-SU(n)-R$ anomalies, while $R_M=2n/(N+n)$ is fixed by the superpotential coupling in eq. : they are as given in table \[tab:HQxi\]. As per the Seiberg magnetic dual this theory has an anomalous global $U(1)_A$ symmetry, under which the quarks and antiquarks have charge $+1$ and the meson has charge $-2$. In the normal HLS fashion one solves the equation of motion of the $V_R$ field \[zebra\] [(R\_q-)]{}q\^qe\^[R\_qV\_R]{}+[(R\_-)]{}\^e\^[R\_V\_R]{}+[(R\_-)]{}\^e\^[R\_M V\_R]{}=v\^2 which gives (q\^q+\^)e\^[R\_qV\_R]{}-2\^e\^[R\_M V\_R]{}=v\^2. The LHS of this equation is the current $\cJ_A$, hence we can rewrite the equation as \[aardvark\] \_A=v\^2. As we have seen, the magnetic theory spontaneously breaks the $SU(N+n)_L\times SU(N+n)_R$ flavour symmetry to the colour-flavour locked $H\simeq SU(n)\times SU(n)^\prime$ because $q^\dag q$ and $\tilde{q}^\dag\tilde{q}$ have rank $n$. Thus the quarks contribute only rank $n$ to the LHS of eq. , while the colour singlet mesons contribute the remaining rank $N$ expectation. This breaks the original symmetry as $G\times H_{\rm(local)}\to H_{\rm(global)}$. However, the RHS of eq. is flavour symmetric and so, therefore, is the LHS. Indeed the expectations (setting elements $q=\tilde{q}$) have to satisfy $$\begin{aligned} \label{bumblebee} q=\tilde{q} & \sim e^{-NV_R/2(N+n)} & \Phi & \sim e^{-nV_R/(N+n)}.\end{aligned}$$ We shall return to this result below. Now suppose that we knew only this magnetic theory, and wanted to infer the properties of the electric one by mapping the equations above. More precisely, let us assume that there are no colour singlet states in the UV completion, and determine the form that eq. must take in terms of electric degrees of freedom. By definition there is no $SU(n)$ HLS in the electric theory to mix with the original $SU(n)_L\times SU(n)_R$ flavour symmetry. Hence a necessary requirement for the $H$ subgroup to remain unbroken is that the LHS of eq. maps in the electric theory to the sum of two Hermitian $(N+n)\times(N+n)$ matrices, whose ranks are given by $[{\rm rank}(G)-{\rm rank}(H)]/2=N$ (one to break $SU(N+n)_L\rightarrow SU(n)_L$ and one to break $SU(N+n)_R\rightarrow SU(n)_R$). It is a theorem that every rank $N$, Hermitian, $(N+n)\times(N+n)$ matrix $A$ has a rank factorisation $A=Q^\dag Q$, where $Q$ is an $N\times(N+n)$ matrix. Therefore even when the electric theory is not weakly coupled, the LHS of eq. is proportional to where $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}^\dag$ are some $N\times(N+n)$ matrices. For a weakly coupled UV completion, $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}$ are of course identified with the electric quarks transforming as fundamental and anti-fundamental under $SU(N)$. Eq. written in terms of weakly coupled canonically normalised electric degrees of freedom must take the form \[coyote\] [(R\_Q-)]{}Q\^Qe\^[R\_QV\_R]{}+[(R\_-)]{}\^e\^[R\_V\_R]{}=v\^2 . Equating the LHS of eqs. with the LHS of we find consistency with the mapping of non-holomorphic operators discussed in [@Luty:1999qc; @Abel:2011wv] which, among other things, enables one to track soft terms through strong coupling. Absence of $SU(N)-SU(N)-R$ anomalies then fixes $R_Q=R_{\tilde{Q}}=n/(n+N)$, with the result that $Q\tilde{Q}\sim e^{-nV_R/(N+n)}\sim\Phi $. Furthermore the other expectations in eq. are consistent with the mapping $q^n\to Q^N $ and with the classical constraints $\det{(M)}=B\tilde{B}$. Of course, we knew from Seiberg duality that this had to be the case since these identifications are known to be consistent with $R$-symmetry. However, since a field’s $R$-charge directly determines its expectation when one solves the $V_R$ equation of motion, the role of $R$-symmetry in the matching of moduli spaces is self-evident. Finally, if we begin with no meson in the magnetic theory (and no superpotential there), there is clearly a role reversal: the rank condition on the magnetic quarks leaves an $SU(N)_L\times SU(N)_R$ flavour symmetry unbroken, with the $SU(N)$ electric gauge symmetry acting as the HLS for the anomaly free diagonal subgroup. Variations of Seiberg duality\[sec:VS\] ======================================= Seiberg duality also exists for gauge theories based on $SO$ and $Sp$ groups, so the HLS interpretation ought to work for these as well. To show this, it is convenient to first invert the HLS interpretation so as to derive the electric description instead. Dual gauge groups for $SO$ and $Sp$ theories are then determined by the rank of meson expectation that causes the magnetic theory to confine. In some senses this is actually a more natural way to think of the HLS interpretation. There is no need to introduce a superpotential and one automatically finds a confining original theory being described by a higgsed HLS theory. Consider starting from a magnetic $SU$ theory with $n$ colours and $N+n$ flavours, then giving an expectation to $M$ to provide a mass term for some of the magnetic quarks. The maximum rank for this expectation is $N$. Larger values lead to an effective theory with fewer flavours than colours, in which case an ADS superpotential [@Affleck:1983mk; @Affleck:1984xz] is generated and the theory no longer has a vacuum. When the rank condition is saturated the maximum possible flavour symmetry is preserved by choosing M=v & 0\ 0 & 0 whereupon $SU(N+n)_L\times SU(N+n)_R\times U(1)_B\times U(1)_R$ is broken to $SU(N)\times SU(n)_L\times SU(n)_R\times U(1)_B$. Integrating out the $N$ massive flavours the theory confines (as described by eq. ), further breaking the flavour symmetry to $SU(N)\times SU(n)_L\times SU(n)_R$ and completely breaking the gauge symmetry. Both surviving $SU(n)$ factors can be thought of as a mixture of flavour and global gauge transformations. Note that it is vital that all gauge fields are rendered massive if we are to find a sigma model (and therefore HLS) description at low energy. This will be important when we move onto the other gauge groups. Splitting generators into those that are broken and those that are not we find broken generators $$\begin{aligned} \hat{T}_L & =\begin{pmatrix} \hat{T}_N+n\uno & \hat{T}_u \\ 0 & -N\uno \end{pmatrix} & \hat{T}_R & =\begin{pmatrix} -\hat{T}_N-n\uno & 0 \\ \hat{T}_l & N\uno \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ for a traceless, anti-Hermitian matrix $\hat{T}_N$ and arbitrary complex matrices $\hat{T}_u$ and $\hat{T}_l$. There are also identity matrices for the two broken $U(1)$ symmetries. The unbroken generators are $$\begin{aligned} \begin{pmatrix} \hat{S}_N & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} && \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \hat{S}_{L,n} \end{pmatrix} && \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \hat{S}_{R,n} \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ for traceless, Hermitian matrices $\hat{S}_N$, $\hat{S}_{L,n}$ and $\hat{S}_{R,n}$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} \xi & =e^{\kappa_R}\begin{pmatrix} e^{\kappa_B}\xi_N & \xi_u \\ 0 & e^{\kappa_B}\uno \end{pmatrix} & \tilde{\xi} & =e^{\kappa_R}\begin{pmatrix} e^{-\kappa_B}\xi_N^{-1} & 0 \\ \xi_l & e^{-\kappa_B}\uno \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $\det{(\xi_N)}=1$. The chiral superfields $\kappa_R$ and $\kappa_B$ originate from the broken $R$- and baryon number symmetries respectively. There are two projection operators: $$\begin{aligned} \eta & =\begin{pmatrix} \uno & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} & \eta^\prime & =\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \uno \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Each commutes with $\hat{S}$ so we are free to work with left or right cosets for $\xi$ and $\tilde{\xi}$. The $\eta^\prime$ projection of $\hat{S}$ would lead to an $SU(n)$ gauge theory, simply reproducing the magnetic theory we first thought of. We therefore consider the $\eta$ projection instead, which projects $\hat{S}$ down to the generators of $SU(N)^c$. We choose cosets for $\xi$ and $\tilde{\xi}$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:VStran} \xi & \longrightarrow \hat{h}\xi g_L^\dag & \tilde{\xi} & \longrightarrow g_R\tilde{\xi}\hat{h}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ under nonlinear flavour transformations and define $$\begin{aligned} \xi_\eta & =\eta\xi=e^{\kappa_R}\begin{pmatrix} e^{\kappa_B}\xi_N & \xi_u \end{pmatrix} & \tilde{\xi}_\eta & =\tilde{\xi}\eta=e^{\kappa_R}\begin{pmatrix} e^{-\kappa_B}\xi_N^{-1} \\ \xi_l \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ The $SU(n)_L\times SU(n)_R$ part of the unbroken flavour symmetry is realised linearly in $g_L$ and $g_R$. This leads to a sigma model description with K\_S=v\^2 for a polynomial $f$, which is the most general Kähler potential invariant under eq. (and includes terms of the form ). For the HLS description we write down a trial Kähler potential K\_V=v\^2. There is no FI-term as $V=V^\alpha\hat{S}_N^\alpha$ is traceless. Solving the equations of motion for $V$ gives \_\_\^e\^V=\_\^\_e\^[-V]{} and so K\_V=2v\^2. To reproduce the sigma model description we therefore write down a full HLS description Kähler potential K=v\^2+av\^2. Defining dimensionful chiral superfields $Q=\sqrt{a}v\xi$ and $\tilde{Q}=\sqrt{a}v\tilde{\xi}$, and absorbing all non-gauge terms in $f$ this becomes K=+v\^2 i.e. an $SU(N)$ gauge theory with $N+n$ flavours of electric quark $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}$. The definitions of $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}$, along with the constraint $\det{(\xi_N)}=1$, determine their expectations to be rank $N$ and of order $\sqrt{a}v$. The electric gauge group is thus completely higgsed, as required. $SO$ dualities -------------- Seiberg duality for $SO$ gauge groups [@Seiberg:1994pq; @Intriligator:1995au; @Intriligator:1995id] can be summarised in table \[tab:VSSO\]. Starting from a magnetic theory with $n+4$ colours (i.e. gauge group $SO(n+4)$) and $N+n$ flavours, we again consider giving an expectation to the magnetic meson. Because of the superpotential this still give masses to magnetic quarks. [\|c\|c\|cc\|]{}& SO(n+4) & SU(N+n) & U(1)\_R\ q & & & (N-2)/(N+n)\ M & [1]{} & & 2(n+2)/(N+n)\ & SO(N) & SU(N+n) & U(1)\_R\ Q & & & (n+2)/(N+n)\ The maximum rank allowed for the meson expectation is $N$, above which the theory has no vacuum due to the generation of an ADS superpotential. Assuming the rank condition is saturated, the flavour symmetry is broken to $SO(N)\times SU(n)$ as the meson is in the symmetric representation of $SU(N+n)$. At the same time the gauge sector of the magnetic theory confines after integrating out the massive quarks, so a low energy sigma model description is appropriate. Since the generators of $SO(n+4)$ are antisymmetric tensors one can define the hybrid baryon b\^\_[j\_1…j\_n]{}=\_[\_1…\_[n+4]{}]{}[W]{}\_\^[\_1\_2]{}[W]{}\_\^[\_3\_4]{}q\^[\_5]{}\_[j\_1]{}…q\^[\_[n+4]{}]{}\_[j\_n]{} where ${\cal W}_\alpha$ (being careful not to confuse the spinor index $\alpha$ with the gauge indices $\alpha_i$) is the antisymmetric field strength superfield. The F-terms for $M$ fix the expectation of $q$ to be at most rank $n$, so this is the only baryon-like operator whose expectation does not vanish. It is a singlet under the residual $SU(n)$ so a non-zero expectation for $b^{\prime\prime}$ leaves this part of the flavour symmetry intact. At the quark level, this can be understood as a mixing between real $SU(n)$ flavour transformations and complexified, global $SO(n)\subset SO(n+4)$ gauge transformations. We then proceed exactly as before to find an HLS description with gauge group $SO(N)$, where the unbroken $SU(n)$ part of the flavour symmetry is realised linearly. Since there is only one $SU(N+n)$ factor in the flavour symmetry there are no $\tilde{Q}$ superfields and the Kähler potential is \[eq:VSK\] K=v\^2+ for $SO(N)$ gauge field $V$, and $Q$ transforming as in table \[tab:VSSO\]. This is exactly the electric theory anticipated. Note that the associated metric is smooth everywhere so there is no problem in taking the symmetry restoring limit $Q\to0$. Furthermore, both the gauge and $SU(N)$ part of the flavour symmetry are broken by a maximal, rank $N$ expectation of $Q$ following from the usual definition of $Q$. This in turn implies a rank $N$ expectation for the electric meson $QQ$ and baryon $B=Q^N$. The mapping of these expectations to their magnetic counterparts $$\begin{aligned} M^{ij} & \longleftrightarrow Q^{\alpha i}Q^{\alpha j} & b^{\prime\prime}_{j_1\ldots j_n} & \longleftrightarrow\epsilon_{j_1\ldots j_nj_{1+n}\ldots j_{N+n}}B^{j_{1+n}\ldots j_{N+n}}\end{aligned}$$ agrees with that expected from Seiberg duality. $Sp$ dualities -------------- $Sp$ theories are extremely similar to $SO$ theories from an HLS point of view. Duality for them [@Intriligator:1995ne] is summarised in table \[tab:VSSp\]. Starting from a magnetic theory with $2n-4$ colours (i.e. gauge group $Sp(2n-4)$ – the factor of 2 ensuring that the number of colours is even) and $2N+2n$ flavours, we take the familiar approach of giving an expectation to the magnetic meson. Magnetic quarks are again rendered massive and, for this class of theory, the maximum allowed rank for the meson expectation is $2N+2$. This leads to confinement with total flavour symmetry breaking, ergo no $H$ to form the basis of an HLS description. Taking the next largest rank of $2N$ results in flavour symmetry breaking $SU(2N+2n)\to Sp(2N)\times SU(2n)$, as the meson is in the antisymmetric representation of $SU(2N+2n)$. The theory goes on to confine after integrating out the massive quarks, but with no further flavour symmetry breaking. The HLS description should therefore have gauge group $Sp(2N)$ and the $SU(2n)$ part of the unbroken symmetry is realised linearly. Again, we explicitly point out that the confinement is vital in order for a sigma model description to apply at low energy. The Kähler potential is that of eq. , but with $V$ an $Sp(2N)$ gauge superfield, and $Q$ transforming as in table \[tab:VSSp\]. The conventional Seiberg dual electric theory is therefore recovered. A rank $2N$ expectation for $Q$ breaks the gauge and $SU(2N)$ part of the flavour symmetry. As for the $SO$ version there are no problems in the symmetry restoring limit $Q\to0$ and the mapping M\^[ij]{}Q\^[i]{}Q\^[j]{} is in agreement with that predicted by Seiberg duality. [\|c\|c\|cc\|]{}& Sp(2n-4) & SU(2N+2n) & U(1)\_R\ q & & & (N+1)/(N+n)\ M & [1]{} & & 2(n-1)/(N+n)\ & Sp(2N) & SU(2N+2n) & U(1)\_R\ Q & & & (n-1)/(N+n)\ Adjoint $SU(N)$ SQCD -------------------- Theories with colour adjoints $X$ were examined in [@Kutasov:1995ve; @Kutasov:1995np; @Kutasov:1995ss]. There is convincing evidence that in the presence of a superpotential for the adjoints W= an $SU(N)$ electric theory with $N_f$ flavours of quarks and anti-quarks maps to a magnetic $SU(n=kN_f-N)$ theory with its own adjoint $x$ and superpotential $W\supset{\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[x^{k+1}\right]}$. The particle content in both theories is shown in table \[tab:KSSem\]. $$\nonumber \begin{array}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|}\hline \widerow & SU(kN_f-N) & SU(N_f)_L & SU(N_f)_R & U(1)_B & U(1)_R \\\hline \widerow q & \afund & \fund & {\bm{\mathrm{1}}} & \phantom{-}\frac{1}{n}\phantom{-} & 1-\frac{2}{k+1}\frac{n}{N_f} \\\hline \widerow \tilde{q} &\fund & \bm{1} &\afund & -\frac{1}{n}\phantom{-} & 1-\frac{2}{k+1}\frac{n}{N_f} \\\hline \widerow x & {\bm{\mathrm{adj}}} & {\bm{\mathrm{1}}} & {\bm{\mathrm{1}}} & 0 & \frac{2}{k+1} \\\hline \widerow M_j & {\bm{\mathrm{1}}} & \afund & \fund & 0 & 2-\frac{4}{k+1}\frac{N}{N_f} + \frac{2j}{k+1} \\\hline\hline \widerow & SU(N) & SU(N_f)_L & SU(N_f)_R & U(1)_B & U(1)_R \\\hline \widerow Q & \fund & \afund & {\bm{\mathrm{1}}} & \phantom{-}\frac{1}{N}\phantom{-} & 1-\frac{2}{k+1}\frac{N}{N_f} \\\hline \widerow \tilde{Q} &\afund & \bm{1} &\fund & -\frac{1}{N}\phantom{-} & 1-\frac{2}{k+1}\frac{N}{N_f} \\\hline \widerow X & {\bm{\mathrm{adj}}} & {\bm{\mathrm{1}}} & {\bm{\mathrm{1}}} & 0 & \frac{2}{k+1} \\\hline \end{array}$$ In order to understand this duality we first consider the moduli space of the electric theory. Here the adjoint field enhances the moduli space. Indeed the mesons are given by $M_j=\tilde{Q} X^j Q$, where $j=0\ldots k-1$. The $X$ equation of motion ensures that the chiral ring is truncated as $X^{k}=0$. Flavour can in principle be broken by giving expectations to “dressed” quarks $Q_j=X^j Q$. Since these directions are not distinguished in the moduli space, their expectations break the enhanced complex flavour group $G^c=SU(kN_f)_L^c\times SU(kN_f)_R^c\times U(1)_B^c\times U(1)_R^c$. At this point the rank condition in the electric theory still holds: we can only assign a rank $N$ expectation to the combined $Q_j$ and $\tilde{Q}_j$ system, and the flavour group is broken to $SU(kN_f-N)_L\times SU(kN_f-N)_R\times U(1)_{B^\prime}\times U(1)_{R^\prime}$. Note that there are $2N_fN+N^2-1$ degrees of freedom available for the dressed quarks, and we require $2kN_fN$ degrees of freedom for the P and M-type superfields. Hence we require $2N_f+N>2kN_f$ which we can write as \[banana\] N\_f+N>(2k-1)N\_f. The free magnetic window of adjoint SQCD is $2N>(2k-1)N_f>(2k-1)(N+1)/k$, with $kN_f=N+1$ signalling $s$-confinement. Since by assumption $N_f>N$, the condition in eq. defining when we are able to use the HLS formalism also seems to define the upper edge of the free magnetic window. The HLS description now closely follows the discussion in Section 3, but with the flavour symmetries enhanced to $SU(kN_f)$ factors, and with the HLS being assigned to the anomaly free diagonal $SU(kN_f-N)_L\times SU(kN_f-N)_R$ group. In the standard coset description, $\xi_u$ and $\tilde{\xi}_l$ are $N\times(kN_f-N)$ matrices, with the latter index being identified with magnetic colour. The full $\xi_\eta$ transforms as $\xi_\eta \rightarrow g_L\xi_\eta\hat{h}^{-1}_{L,kN_f-N}$ and similar for $\tilde{\xi}_\eta$, where $g_L$ are flavour rotations in $SU(kN_f)$, giving precisely the degrees of freedom of the dressed magnetic quarks. The flipped coset description producing the mesons goes over all $SU(kN_f)$ indices and hence reproduces all $M_{j=0\ldots k-1}$ mesons. The discussion extends quite directly to the more complicated $SU(N)$ duals discussed in refs. [@Brodie:1996vx; @Brodie:1996xm] – for example the SQCD model presented there with two adjoints has $3kN_f$ flavours of dressed quarks, and the magnetic gauge group is accordingly $SU(3kN_f-N)$. Applications\[sec:AP\] ====================== Our main aim in this work has been to place Seiberg duality on a more dynamical footing. In this way we hope ultimately to use the duality to learn more about dynamical processes in strongly coupled theories, rather than just the properties of the Lagrangians and vacua. This section briefly summarises some of the applications we have in mind. Detailed investigations are left for future work. Composite gauge fields ---------------------- An obvious application is composite gauge field scattering, as illustrated in figure \[fig:CHRGm\]. An electric theory where $n$ flavours have equal mass $m>\Lambda_{\rm el}$ is taken to be the ‘true’ theory, but it confines in the IR meaning that the low energy physics is obscured. Fortunately, Seiberg duality steps in and provides an alternative, perturbative description in the shape of a higgsed magnetic theory. The magnetic gauge group is an emergent symmetry, with the massive gauge fields originating purely from composite operators. If this were true, one would expect to see effects from the underlying electric theory near to the confinement scale. In particular, signs of compositeness should start to appear in magnetic gauge field scattering amplitudes. Using the HLS interpretation we can start to quantify such phenomena. As discussed in sections \[sec:rho\] and \[sec:mu\], magnetic gauge fields are explicitly related to electric $\rho$-mesons via V\_[mg]{}\^ where =\_[el]{}[()]{}\^[n/2N]{} is the higgsing scale of the magnetic theory, and also the confinement scale of the electric theory. Schematically, one expects elastic scattering amplitudes for the longitudinal components of magnetic gauge bosons to grow with the centre of mass energy squared $s$. This divergence is the standard unitarity violation problem. It is addressed in the current framework at the higgsing scale of the magnetic theory, whereupon Higgs boson exchange unitarises the scattering. The associated Higgs field is itself a composite object so, in effect, we have a composite Higgs model. However, the higgsing description is short lived and the composite nature of the gauge bosons immediately becomes apparent. Their amplitudes are instead mapped onto the equivalent $\rho$-meson scattering amplitudes in the electric theory. In the perturbative regime the leading order contribution of figure \[fig:PArhos\] dominates, scaling as $\alpha(s)/s$ for running electric gauge coupling $\alpha(s)$. Asymptotic freedom ensures that these amplitudes remain under control as the centre of mass energy is increased further. ![The general form of the leading order processes contributing to $\rho$-meson scattering in a perturbative electric theory.\[fig:PArhos\]](rhos.eps){width="40.00000%"} The overall situation is illustrated in figure \[fig:PACS\]. Approaching from below the higgsing scale we anticipate the appearance of a resonance in $V_{\rm mg}V_{\rm mg}\to V_{\rm mg}V_{\rm mg}$ scattering, corresponding to the magnetic Higgs boson. Approaching from above we expect the $\rho\rho\to\rho\rho$ amplitude to diverge as the electric theory becomes strongly coupled. Interpolating between the two therefore suggests a top heavy, broadened ‘resonance’ around the higgsing/confinement scale $\sqrt{\mu m}$. ![The schematic behaviour of elastic scattering amplitudes (as a function of $t=\ln{s}$) for the longitudinal components of magnetic gauge bosons. Below the higgsing scale the amplitude grows with $s$ before hitting a Higgs resonance at $\sqrt{\mu m}$. Above the higgsing scale it matches onto the amplitude for elastic $\rho$-meson scattering in the electric theory, which goes like $\alpha(s)/s$ in the perturbative regime. The dashed line crudely interpolates between the two perturbative regimes, tracing out a top heavy, broadened ‘resonance’.\[fig:PACS\]](PACS.eps){width="40.00000%"} This could, for example, be the case in the electroweak sector of the Standard Model. All we really know is that low energy physics is well described by a broken $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge theory. We do not know that this is ever an actual symmetry of nature. It could merely emerge as an effective description of some other, strongly coupled theory. One can also consider weakly gauging the original diagonal $SU(n)$ flavour factor. In this case we denote the full gauge group as $SU(n)_c\times SU(n)_e$. $SU(n)_c$ is the usual, composite, magnetic colour factor and $SU(n)_e$ is the elementary factor from the gauged flavour symmetry. The only difference in the resulting HLS description is that the surviving diagonal subgroup SU(n)\_cSU(n)\_eSU(n) is now a gauge symmetry, which comes with [partially]{} composite gauge fields. Taking gauge couplings $g_c$ and $g_e$ for each factor, the tree level mass eigenstates are $$\begin{aligned} V_h & =\frac{g_cV_c-g_eV_e}{\sqrt{g_c^2+g_e^2}} & V_l & =\frac{g_eV_c+g_cV_e}{\sqrt{g_c^2+g_e^2}}\end{aligned}$$ with mass squared $(g_c^2+g_e^2)\mu m$ and zero respectively. The running gauge couplings are evaluated at the higgsing scale $\sqrt{\mu m}$ so the composition of the mass eigenstates can vary. In the free magnetic phase, $g_c$ increases and the heavy state becomes more composite for larger values of $\sqrt{\mu m}$. When $\sqrt{\mu m}=\Lambda_{\rm mg}$, the coupling $g_c$ hits its Landau pole and the heavy state is fully composite. Models with partially composite gauge fields arising from Seiberg duality have recently been studied in the context of the electroweak sector of the MSSM [@Abel:2010vb; @Craig:2011ev; @Csaki:2011xn; @Csaki:2012fh]. It has been suggested that they have several phenomenological advantages, including an increased Higgs mass and a “natural” superpartner spectrum with light stops.[^12] In these models the symmetry breaking typically occurs in two phases, corresponding to two different electric quark masses $m_1>m_2$. At the higher scale $\sqrt{\mu m_1}$ the $SU(2)_c\times SU(2)_e$ gauge symmetry is broken to its diagonal subgroup, which is identified with the $SU(2)$ of the MSSM. At $\sqrt{\mu m_2}$ this is further broken by the usual (composite) Higgs fields. For $m_1\gg m_2$ the two processes are well separated and the final $SU(2)$ breaking looks like a vanilla Higgs mechanism (albeit with a potential different from that usually found in the MSSM). For $m_1\sim m_2$ this separation does not exist and the underlying strong coupling has a large effect. The final $SU(n)$ breaking starts to look more like that of a technicolour model, being driven by confinement in the electric theory. Between these two regimes one has a composite Higgs model, with the compositeness becoming more noticeable as the ratio $m_1/m_2$ is increased. Hence this framework can be used to continuously interpolate between higgsing and technicolour descriptions of (supersymmetric) electroweak symmetry breaking. The HLS interpretation allows a concrete UV completion (i.e. electric theory) to be defined for these models. It also allows for the exploration of phenomenology away from the far IR or UV, such as the gauge boson scattering amplitudes discussed above. Comments on real world QCD -------------------------- Much of the original work on hidden local symmetries was motivated by trying to understand the chiral Lagrangian of low energy QCD. Indeed, this was also the primary phenomenological focus of refs. [@Komargodski:2010mc; @Kitano:2011zk]. Consequently, our discussion would not really be complete without some brief comments on lessons that might be learned in this area. Real world QCD is not supersymmetric so there is a limit to how trustworthy any insights derived from Seiberg duality can be. In particular, many of our conclusions rely on the existence of quasi-NGBs that simply do not exist in the absence of SUSY. One could, for example, attempt to construct a chiral Lagrangian accounting for heavy quarks by writing down an electric theory with $N=n=3$. Three flavours (top, bottom and charm) have masses way above the electric (i.e. QCD) scale so are integrated out. The electric theory subsequently confines at a scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^6=m_tm_bm_c\Lambda_{\rm el}^3$. Since $N=n$ for this theory the magnetic description has the same gauge group. In addition, section \[sec:mu\] suggests $\mu=\Lambda_{\rm el}=\Lambda_{\rm mg}$ for such theories. The gauge group is higgsed to $SU(2)$ at a scale $\sqrt{\mu m_t}$, which is further higgsed to nothing at a scale $\sqrt{\mu m_b}$. We therefore have magnetic gauge fields with masses $$\begin{aligned} m_3 & =g_{\rm mg}{\left(\frac{m_t^{1/3}\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}{(m_bm_c)^{1/6}}\right)}\frac{m_t^{1/3}\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}{(m_bm_c)^{1/6}} & m_2 & =g_{\rm mg}{\left(\frac{m_b^{1/3}\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}{(m_tm_c)^{1/6}}\right)}\frac{m_b^{1/3}\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}{(m_tm_c)^{1/6}} \end{aligned}$$ for running gauge coupling $g_{\rm mg}$, evaluated at each of the two higgsing scales. A QCD scale of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}=400$ MeV would give $m_3\approx4$ GeV and $m_2\approx0.7$ GeV: too small to correspond to any of the vector mesons in the heavy quark sector of QCD. However, this is to be expected. The magnetic gauge fields arise from quasi-NGBs in SQCD, which have no right to remain massless without SUSY. It is therefore unsurprising that they end up with much larger masses in QCD, where SUSY is taken away. An aspect of the above discussion [not]{} strongly affected by SUSY is the argument used to fix the value of $a$ in section \[sec:rho\]. The general strategy was to derive two separate expressions for the magnetic gauge fields: one from the equations of motion turned out by the HLS formalism, and one from the Noether currents for the unbroken flavour symmetry. By comparing them we were able to fix the normalisation of the magnetic quarks and, consequently, the value of $a$. The same idea ought to work for real world QCD. In SQCD we knew exactly what the electric and magnetic quark expectations were, and could easily write down explicit expressions for the NGBs. In QCD the moduli space is less well understood, with fermion, rather than scalar, expectations providing the order parameters for the symmetry breaking. Hence a direct translation of our results is not possible. Nonetheless, the HLS formalism has been applied to massless, two flavour QCD [@Bando:1984ej; @Bando:1987br] where the quark condensate is assumed to break the chiral $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ flavour symmetry to its diagonal subgroup. The formalism results in HLS gauge field equations of motion that set V\^\_=-\^\^\_\^for pions $\pi^a$. One can also write down the current for the unbroken flavour symmetry in the HLS description. In the unitary gauge it is [@Komargodski:2010mc][^13] \[eq:APJ\] J\^\_=2av\^2V\^\_+2v\^2(a-2)\^\^\_\^+ If we then consider a pure gauge field state the current is given by $J^\alpha_\mu=2av^2V^\alpha_\mu+\mbox{3 particles}$. Substituting in the gauge field equations of motion simplifies the expression to $J^\alpha_\mu=-2av^2\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}\pi^\beta\partial_\mu\pi^\gamma+\mbox{3 particles}$. On the other hand, one can calculate the current directly from the sigma model description to find $J^\alpha_\mu=-4\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}\pi^\beta\partial_\mu\pi^\gamma$. Consistency thus requires $a=2$. Of course, there remains the question of how a pure gauge field state can exist when the equations of motion fix $V^\alpha_\mu=-\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}\pi^\beta\partial_\mu\pi^\gamma$. In a sense it cannot. But as far as the physical currents are concerned it can, provided $a=2$ such that the pion contribution disappears. So $a=2$ can be considered a direct consequence of allowing ‘pure’ gauge field states (i.e. $\rho$-mesons) to exist in the HLS description of QCD. On non-supersymmetric duality ----------------------------- This discussion brings us finally to non-supersymmetric dualities which, of course, it would be very interesting to establish. In the past there have been various attempts in this direction. None of them are quite as compelling as Seiberg duality itself, mainly because non-supersymmetric theories do not usually have interesting moduli spaces. Other matching tests such as ’t Hooft anomaly matching are significantly weaker, often not uniquely pinning down the dual description. Moreover the most constraining anomalies involve the $R$-symmetry, which is not available in non-supersymmetric theories. We have seen that the notion of an HLS provides a somewhat more mechanical route to dualities. To establish a pair of Seiberg duals one begins with the electric theory of interest. Its higgsing leads to a nonlinear sigma model that can in turn be expressed as a linearised HLS theory. The existence of $R$-symmetry then guarantees a modulus along which the gauge symmetries in both descriptions are smoothly restored. This procedure does not rely on the usual tests of moduli space or anomaly matching. In principle at least, it is clear what would be required in order to establish such a duality without SUSY. First one requires an electric theory that can be higgsed or confined to give a nonlinear sigma model. This is linearised in the HLS formalism, and the identification of magnetic degrees of freedom made in the same manner as for the SUSY theories. In order to be able to take a symmetry restoring limit one would then need a scaling symmetry to be present. Thus the theories of interest would most likely be of the kind discussed in [@Shaposhnikov:2008xi], in which scale invariance is spontaneously broken by a “dilaton” playing much the same role as the conformal compensator (equivalently $\kappa_R$) in the SUSY case. Having established a candidate duality in this way one could, of course, still apply all the usual tests. Any duality constructed via the HLS formalism that passed them all would surely be on firm footing indeed. ### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} We would like to thank Matt Buican, Tony Gherghetta and Matthew McCullough for discussion and comments. JB is supported by the Australian Research Council. [10]{} S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, [[Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.]{}]{}, [Phys.Rev.]{} [177]{} (1969) 2239–2247. J. Callan, Curtis G., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, [[Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.]{}]{}, [Phys.Rev.]{} [177]{} (1969) 2247–2250. S. Weinberg, [[The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 2: Modern applications]{}]{}. Cambridge University Press, 1996. M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki and T. Yanagida, [[Is the $\rho$ meson a dynamical gauge boson of hidden local symmetry?]{}]{}, [ Phys.Rev.Lett.]{} [54]{} (1985) 1215. M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki, [[Nonlinear realization and hidden local symmetries]{}]{}, [Phys. Rept.]{} [164]{} (1988) 217–314. N. Seiberg, [[Electric-magnetic duality in supersymmetric non-Abelian gauge theories]{}]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [B435]{} (1995) 129–146 \[[[hep-th/9411149]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411149)\]. K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, [[Lectures on supersymmetric gauge theories and electric-magnetic duality]{}]{}, [Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.]{} [45BC]{} (1996) 1–28 \[[[ hep-th/9509066]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9509066)\]. K. A. Intriligator and P. Pouliot, [[Exact superpotentials, quantum vacua and duality in supersymmetric $SP(N_c)$ gauge theories]{}]{}, [Phys.Lett.]{} [B353]{} (1995) 471–476 \[[[ hep-th/9505006]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9505006)\]. D. Kutasov, [[A Comment on duality in $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric non-Abelian gauge theories]{}]{}, [Phys. Lett.]{} [B351]{} (1995) 230–234 \[[[hep-th/9503086]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9503086)\]. D. Kutasov and A. Schwimmer, [[On duality in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory]{}]{}, [Phys. Lett.]{} [B354]{} (1995) 315–321 \[[[hep-th/9505004]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9505004)\]. K. A. Intriligator, R. G. Leigh and M. J. Strassler, [[New examples of duality in chiral and nonchiral supersymmetric gauge theories]{}]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [B456]{} (1995) 567–621 \[[[hep-th/9506148]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9506148)\]. P. Pouliot, [[Chiral duals of nonchiral SUSY gauge theories]{}]{}, [ Phys.Lett.]{} [B359]{} (1995) 108–113 \[[[hep-th/9507018]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9507018)\]. D. Kutasov, A. Schwimmer and N. Seiberg, [[Chiral rings, singularity theory and electric-magnetic duality]{}]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [B459]{} (1996) 455–496 \[[[hep-th/9510222]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9510222)\]. P. Pouliot and M. Strassler, [[A chiral $SU(n)$ gauge theory and its nonchiral Spin(8) dual]{}]{}, [Phys.Lett.]{} [B370]{} (1996) 76–82 \[[[hep-th/9510228]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9510228)\]. P. Pouliot and M. Strassler, [[Duality and dynamical supersymmetry breaking in Spin(10) with a spinor]{}]{}, [Phys.Lett.]{} [B375]{} (1996) 175–180 \[[[hep-th/9602031]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9602031)\]. J. H. Brodie, [[Duality in supersymmetric SU($N_c$) gauge theory with two adjoint chiral superfields]{}]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [B478]{} (1996) 123–140 \[[[hep-th/9605232]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9605232)\]. J. H. Brodie and M. J. Strassler, [[Patterns of duality in $\mathcal{N}=1$ SUSY gauge theories or: Seating preferences of theater-going non-Abelian dualities]{}]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [B524]{} (1998) 224–250 \[[[hep-th/9611197]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9611197)\]. S. Abel and J. Barnard, [[Electric/magnetic duality with gauge singlets]{}]{}, [JHEP]{} [0905]{} (2009) 080 \[[[ 0903.1313]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/0903.1313)\]. N. Craig, R. Essig, A. Hook and G. Torroba, [[New dynamics and dualities in supersymmetric chiral gauge theories]{}]{}, [JHEP]{} [1109]{} (2011) 046 \[[[1106.5051]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/1106.5051)\]. N. Craig, R. Essig, A. Hook and G. Torroba, [[Phases of N=1 supersymmetric chiral gauge theories]{}]{}, [JHEP]{} [1112]{} (2011) 074 \[[[1110.5905]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/1110.5905)\]. M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, [[Conformal phase transition and fate of the hidden local symmetry in large $N_f$ QCD]{}]{}, [Phys.Rev.Lett.]{} [83]{} (1999) 3374–3377 \[[[ hep-ph/9906445]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9906445)\]. M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, [[Hidden local symmetry at loop: A New perspective of composite gauge boson and chiral phase transition]{}]{}, [ Phys.Rept.]{} [381]{} (2003) 1–233 \[[[hep-ph/0302103]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0302103)\]. Z. Komargodski, [[Vector mesons and an interpretation of Seiberg duality]{}]{}, [JHEP]{} [02]{} (2011) 019 \[[[ 1010.4105]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/1010.4105)\]. R. Kitano, [[Hidden local symmetry and color confinement]{}]{}, [JHEP]{} [1111]{} (2011) 124 \[[[ 1109.6158]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/1109.6158)\]. M. Bando, T. Kuramoto, T. Maskawa and S. Uehara, [[Nonlinear realization in supersymmetric theories]{}]{}, [Prog.Theor.Phys.]{} [72]{} (1984) 313. S. Abel, M. Buican and Z. Komargodski, [[Mapping anomalous currents in supersymmetric dualities]{}]{}, [Phys.Rev.]{} [D84]{} (2011) 045005 \[[[1105.2885]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/1105.2885)\]. S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, T. Kugo and A. Van Proeyen, [[Relation between different auxiliary field formulations of $\mathcal{N}=1$ supergravity coupled to matter]{}]{}, [Nucl.Phys.]{} [B223]{} (1983) 191. R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. Stelle, [[Supergravity, R invariance and spontaneous supersymmetry breaking]{}]{}, [Phys.Lett.]{} [ B113]{} (1982) 219. A. H. Chamseddine and H. K. Dreiner, [[Anomaly free gauged R-symmetry in local supersymmetry]{}]{}, [Nucl.Phys.]{} [B458]{} (1996) 65–89 \[[[hep-ph/9504337]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9504337)\]. M. A. Luty and R. Rattazzi, [[Soft supersymmetry breaking in deformed moduli spaces, conformal theories, and $\mathcal{N}=2$ Yang-Mills theory]{}]{}, [JHEP]{} [9911]{} (1999) 001 \[[[hep-th/9908085]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9908085)\]. I. Affleck, M. Dine and N. Seiberg, [[Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking in Supersymmetric QCD]{}]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [B241]{} (1984) 493–534. I. Affleck, M. Dine and N. Seiberg, [[Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking in Four-Dimensions and Its Phenomenological Implications]{}]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [B256]{} (1985) 557. K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, [[Duality, monopoles, dyons, confinement and oblique confinement in supersymmetric $SO(N_c)$ gauge theories]{}]{}, [ Nucl.Phys.]{} [B444]{} (1995) 125–160 \[[[hep-th/9503179]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9503179)\]. S. Abel and T. Gherghetta, [[A slice of $AdS_5$ as the large $N$ limit of Seiberg duality]{}]{}, [JHEP]{} [1012]{} (2010) 091 \[[[1010.5655]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/1010.5655)\]. N. Craig, D. Stolarski and J. Thaler, [[A fat Higgs with a magnetic personality]{}]{}, [JHEP]{} [1111]{} (2011) 145 \[[[1106.2164]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/1106.2164)\]. C. Csaki, Y. Shirman and J. Terning, [[A Seiberg dual for the MSSM: partially composite $W$ and $Z$]{}]{}, [Phys.Rev.]{} [D84]{} (2011) 095011 \[[[1106.3074]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/1106.3074)\]. C. Csaki, L. Randall and J. Terning, [[Light stops from Seiberg duality]{}]{}, [[1201.1293]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/1201.1293). M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, [[Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy problem]{}]{}, [Phys.Lett.]{} [B671]{} (2009) 162–166 \[[[0809.3406]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/0809.3406)\]. [^1]: `[email protected]` [^2]: `[email protected]` [^3]: Here, and henceforth, $x$ is used as shorthand for all superspace coordinates [^4]: For this reason the identity is not included among the $\eta$’s as the resulting term in the Kähler potential does not contribute to the metric. [^5]: Note that complex gauge symmetries are the norm in supersymmetric theories where gauge transformations are necessarily parameterised by chiral superfields. For example, in a theory with gauge group $H$ in the Wess-Zumino gauge, $H$ gauge transformations mix with SUSY transformations so that the full theory has a complexified gauge group $H^c$ in superspace. [^6]: Otherwise the $v\tilde{v}$ prefactor is removed and one makes the replacements $\xi_N\to{\bm v}\xi_N$ and $\tilde{\xi}_N\to\tilde{\xi}_N\tilde{\bm v}$, with similar generalisations in what follows. [^7]: We should point out that the superpotential should be considered as the 1PI effective superpotential for this interpretation to hold. However, since the electric theory is completely higgsed it contains no massless, interacting degrees of freedom. Hence the 1PI effective action successfully captures the low energy physics. Equivalently, observe that the source in this case is nothing but a quark mass term so bestows the HLS description with a mass gap. [^8]: By “dynamical scale” we are formally referring to the real scale at which the one loop RG equation for the corresponding gauge coupling diverges. [^9]: It is also plausible that kinetic terms are (at least partly) generated through a mixing with the a quasi-NGB $\bar{\kappa}_B$, as discussed at the end of section \[sec:RGS\]. To check for this, one could consider the full unbroken $U(1)_B$ generator when constructing $\xi$ and $\tilde{\xi}$ then factor out a chiral superfield $\kappa_B$, as was done with $\kappa_R$. An $e^{\pm\bar{\kappa}_B}$ term would appear alongside the vector superfield terms in the Kähler potential, facilitating the mixing of the two. [^10]: This approach was used in ref. [@Komargodski:2010mc] for a vacuum with broken SUSY. The application here is practically identical. [^11]: At the quantum level there also appear wavefunction renormalisation factors ${\cal Z}_i$. These will be set to one here (they are discussed in ref. [@Luty:1999qc]). Also note this approach is not quite that taken in ref. [@Luty:1999qc] – the $V_R$ here is the actual $R$-gauge field rather than the gauge field of a normal anomaly free gauge group. [^12]: We should make the parenthetical remark that this second observation is based on the RG flow of the anomalous current operator, and it is therefore reliant on underlying assumptions about the initial pattern of SUSY breaking – that it is universal, for example. With a generic pattern of SUSY breaking mass squareds, the RG flow would simply expose those components that are proportional to anomaly free currents and which therefore map trivially (c.f. ref. [@Abel:2011wv]). Since the latter are traceless that would in turn imply very undesirable tachyonic mass squareds in the IR. [^13]: In deriving this expression, the $SU(2)$ generators are chosen to satisfy ${\mathop{\rm Tr}\left[S^\alpha S^\beta\right]}=2\delta^{\alpha\beta}$.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - Dirk Helbing date: 'Received: date / Revised version: date' title: 'Pattern Formation, Social Forces, and Diffusion Instability in Games with Success-Driven Motion' --- Introduction ============ Game theory is a well-established theory of individual strategic interactions with applications in sociology, economics, and biology [@Neumann; @Axelrod; @Rapoport; @Gintis; @Binmore; @Nowak], and with many publications even in physics (see Ref. [@Network2] for an overview). It distinguishes different behaviors, so-called strategies $i$, and expresses the interactions of individuals in terms of payoffs $P_{ij}$. The value $P_{ij}$ quantifies the result of an interaction between strategies $i$ and $j$ for the individual pursuing strategy $i$. The more favorable the outcome of the interaction, the higher is the payoff $P_{ij}$. There are many different games, depending on the structure of the payoffs, the social interaction network, the number of interaction partners, the frequency of interaction, and so on [@Gintis; @Binmore]. Theoretical predictions for the selection of strategies mostly assume a rational choice approach, i.e. a payoff maximization by the individuals, although experimental studies [@Kagel; @Camerer; @Henrich] support conditional cooperativity [@Conditional] and show that moral sentiments [@Unselfish] can support cooperation. Some models also take into account learning (see, e.g. [@Flache] and references therein), where it is common to assume that more successful behaviors are imitated (copied). Based on a suitable specification of the imitation rules, it can be shown [@imit1; @imit2; @Kluwer] that the resulting dynamics can be described by game-dynamical equations [@gamedyn1; @gamedyn2], which agree with replicator equations for the fitness-dependent reproduction of individuals in biology [@Eigen; @Fisher; @Schuster]. Another field where the quantification of human behavior in terms of mathematical models has been extremely successful concerns the dynamics of pedestrians [@molnar], crowds [@panic], and traffic [@tilch]. The related studies have led to fundamental insights into observed self-organization phenomena such as stop-and-go waves [@tilch] or lanes of uniform walking direction [@molnar]. In the meantime, there are many empirical [@crowdturb] and experimental results [@TranSci; @Hoogendoorn], which made it possible to come up with well calibrated models of human motion [@ACS3; @Yu]. Therefore, it would be interesting to know what happens if game theoretical models are combined with models of driven motion. Would we also observe self-organization phenonomena in space and time? This is the main question addressed in this paper. Under keywords such as “assortment” and “network reciprocity”, it has been discussed that the clustering of cooperators can amplify cooperation, in particular in the prisoner’s dilemma [@Pepper; @cluster1; @cluster2; @cluster3]. Therefore, the pattern formation instability is of prime importance to understand the emergence of cooperation between individuals. In Sec. \[results\], we will study the instability conditions for the prisoner’s dilemma and the snowdrift game. Moreover, we will see that games with success-driven motion and asymmetrical diffusion may show pattern formation, where a homogeneous distribution of strategies would be stable [without]{} the presence of diffusion. It is quite surprising that sources of noise like diffusion can support the self-organization in systems, which can be described by game-dynamical equations with success-driven motion. This includes social, economic, and biological systems. We now proceed as follows: In Sec. \[PrisDil\], we introduce the game-dynamical replicator equation for the prisoner’s dilemma (PD) and the snow-drift game (SD). In particularly, we discuss the stationary solutions and their stability, with the conclusion that cooperation is expected to disappear in the prisoner’s dilemma. In Sec. \[withSpace\], we extend the game-dynamical equation by the consideration of spatial interactions, success-driven motion, and diffusion. Section \[COMPA\] compares the resulting equations with reaction-diffusion-advection equations and discusses the similarities and differences with Turing instabilities and differential flow-induced chemical instabilities (DIFICI). Afterwards, Sec. \[results\] analyzes the pattern formation instability for the prisoner’s dilemma and the snowdrift game with its interesting implications, while details of the instability analysis are provided in Appendix \[BBB\]. Finally, Sec. \[forces\] studies the driving forces of the dynamics in cases of large deviations from stationary and homogeneous strategy distributions, before Sec. \[summa\] summarizes the paper and presents an outlook. The Prisoner’s Dilemma without Spatial Interactions {#PrisDil} =================================================== In order to grasp the major impact of success-driven motion and diffusion on the dynamics of games (see Sec. \[withSpace\]), it is useful to investigate first the game-dynamical equations without spatial interactions. For this, we represent the proportion of individuals using a strategy $i$ at time $t$ by $p_i(t)$. While the discussion can be extended to any number of strategies, we will focus on the case of two strategies only for the sake of analytical tractability. Here, $i=1$ shall correspond to the cooperative strategy, $i=2$ to defection (cheating or free-riding). According to the definition of probabilities, we have $0\le p_i(t) \le 1$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$ and the normalization condition $$p_1(t) + p_2(t) = 1 \, . \label{normalize}$$ Let $P_{ij}$ be the payoff, if strategy $i$ meets strategy $j$. Then, the expected payoff for someone applying strategy $i$ is $$E_i(t) = \sum_{j=1}^2 P_{ij} p_j(t) \, , \label{compeq}$$ as $p_j(t)$ represents the proportion of strategy $j$, with which the payoffs $P_{ij}$ must be weighted. The average payoff in the population of individuals is $$\overline{E}(t) = \sum_{l=1}^2 E_l(t) p_l(t) = \sum_{l=1}^2 \sum_{j=1}^2 p_l(t) P_{lj} p_j(t) \, .$$ In the game-dynamical equations, the temporal increase $dp_i(t)/dt$ of the proportion of individuals using strategy $i$ is proportional to the number of individuals pursuing strategy $i$ who may imitate, i.e. basically to $p_i(t)$. The proportionality factor, i.e. the growth rate $\lambda(i,t)$, is given by the difference between the expected payoff $E_i(t)$ and the [average]{} payoff $\overline{E}(t)$: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{dp_i(t)}{dt} &=& \lambda(i,t) p_i(t) = \big[E_i(t) - \overline{E}(t)\big] p_i(t) \nonumber \\ &=& \bigg( \sum_{j=1}^2 P_{ij} p_j(t) - \sum_{l=1}^2\sum_{j=1}^2 p_l(t) P_{lj} p_j(t) \bigg) p_i(t) \, . \quad \label{gamedyn}\end{aligned}$$ The equations (\[gamedyn\]) are known as replicator equations. They were originally developed in evolutionary biology to describe the spreading of “fitter” individuals through their higher reproductive success [@Eigen; @Fisher; @Schuster]. However, the replicator equations were also used in game theory, where they are called “game-dynamical equations” [@gamedyn1; @gamedyn2]. For a long time, it was not clear whether or why these equations could be applied to the frequency $p_i(t)$ of behavioral strategies, but it has been shown that the equations can be derived from Boltzmann-like equations for imitative pair interactions of individuals, if “proportional imitation” or similar imitation rules are assumed [@imit1; @imit2; @Kluwer]. Note that one may add a mutation term to the right-hand side of the game-dynamical equations (\[gamedyn\]). This term could, for example, be specified as $$\begin{aligned} W_2 p_2(t) - W_1 p_1(t) &=& rq [1-p_1(t)] - r(1-q) p_1(t) \nonumber \\ &=& r [ q - p_1(t) ] \label{mutant}\end{aligned}$$ for strategy $i=1$, and by the negative expression of this for $i=2$. Here, $r$ is the overall mutation rate, $W_2=rq$ the mutation rate towards cooperation, and $W_1=r(1-q)$ the mutation rate towards defection [@Kluwer]. This implementation reflects spontaneous, random strategy choices due to erroneous or exploration behavior and modifies the stationary solutions. It can be shown that $$\sum_{i=1}^2 \frac{dp_i(t)}{dt} = 0 \, ,$$ so that the normalization condition (\[normalize\]) is fulfilled at all times $t$, if it is fulfilled at $t=0$. Moreover, the equation $dp_i(t)/dt = \lambda p_i(t)$ implies $p_i(t)\ge 0$ at all times $t$, if $p_i(0)\ge 0$ for all strategies $i$. We may now insert the payoffs of the prisoner’s dilemma, i.e. $$\begin{aligned} P_{11} &=& R \mbox{ (``reward''),} \nonumber \\ P_{12} &=& S \mbox{ (``sucker's payoff''),} \nonumber \\ P_{21} &=& T \mbox{ (``temptation''), and}\nonumber \\ P_{22} &=& P \mbox{ (``payoff'')} \label{PAYOFF}\end{aligned}$$ with the assumed payoff relationships $$T > R > P > S \, . \label{condi}$$ Additionally, one often requires $$2R > S + T \, .\label{xcv}$$ The “reward” $R$ is the payoff for mutual cooperation and the “punishment” $P$ the payoff for mutual defection, while $T$ is the “temptation” of unilateral defection, and a cheated cooperator receives the sucker’s payoff $S$. While we have $P>S$ in the prisoner’s dilemma, the snowdrift game (also known as chicken or hawk-dove game) is characterized by $S>P$, i.e. it is defined by $$T > R > S > P \, . \label{snow}$$ Both games are characterized by a temptation to defect ($T>R$), while the prisoner’s dilemma has the additional challenge that there is a high risk to cooperate ($S<P$). This difference has a large influence on the resulting level $p_1(t)$ of cooperation: Inserting the above payoffs into Eq. (\[gamedyn\]), one eventually obtains the game-dynamical equation $$\frac{dp_1(t)}{dt} = [1-p_1(t)] \big[-A + Bp_1(t)\big] p_1(t) \, . \label{prison}$$ This directly follows from Eq. (\[prison0\]) of Appendix \[AAA\], when the abbreviations $$A=P-S \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad B = P+R-S-T \label{pardef}$$ are used to pronounce the equation’s structure. Setting $dp_1(t)/dt = 0$, one obviously finds three stationary solutions $p_1(t) = p_1^k$, namely $$p_1^1 = 0\, , \quad p_1^2 = 1 \, \quad \mbox{and} \quad p_1^3 = \frac{A}{B} \, . \label{statso}$$ Not all of these solutions are stable with respect to small deviations. In fact, a linear stability analysis (see Appendix \[AAA\]) delivers the eigenvalues $$\lambda_1 = -A, \qquad \lambda_2 = A-B, \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \lambda_3 = A\left( 1 - \frac{A}{B}\right) .$$ The stationary solution $p_1^k$ is stable with respect to perturbations (i.e. small deviations from them), if $\lambda_k \le 0$, while for $\lambda_k>0$, the deviation will grow in time. Due to $$A-B=T-R >0 \, ,$$ the solution $p_1^2=1$ corresponding to 100% cooperators is unstable with respect to perturbations, i.e. it will not persist. Moreover, the solution $p_1^1$ will be stable in the prisoner’s dilemma because of $A = P-S>0$. This corresponds to 0% cooperators and 100% defectors, which agrees with the expected result for the one-shot prisoner’s dilemma (if individuals decide according to rational choice theory). In the snowdrift game, however, the stationary solution $p_1^1 = 0$ is unstable due to $A = P-S< 0$, while the additional stationary solution $p_1^3 = A/B< 1$ is stable. Hence, in the snowdrift game with $B< A < 0$, we expect the establishment of a fraction $A/B$ of cooperators. For the prisoner’s dilemma, the solution $p_1^3$ does not exist, as it does not fall into the range between 0 and 1 that is required from probabilities: If $B>0$, we have $p_1^3 = A/B > 1$, while $p_1^3 = A/B < 0$ for $B<0$. In summary, for the prisoner’s dilemma, there is no evolutionarily stable solution with a [finite]{} percentage of cooperators, if we do not consider spontaneous strategy mutations (and neglect the effect of spatial correlations through the applied factorization assumption). According to the above, cooperation in the PD is essentially expected to disappear. Strategy mutations, of course, can increase the stable level $p_1^1$ of cooperation from zero to a finite value. Specifically, $p_1^1$ will assume a value close to zero for small values of $r$, while it will converge to $q$ in the limit $r\rightarrow \infty$. In the next section, we will show that 1. when the proportions of cooperators and defectors are allowed to vary in space, i.e. if the distribution of cooperators and defectors is [inhomogeneous]{}, the proportion of cooperators may locally grow, 2. we obtain such a variation in space by success-driven motion, as it can [de]{}stabilize a homogeneous distribution of strategies, which gives rise to spatial pattern formation in the population (agglomeration or segregation or both [@EPL]). Together with the well-known fact that a clustering of cooperators can promote cooperation [@Pepper; @cluster1; @cluster2; @cluster3], pattern formation can potentially amplify the level of cooperation, as was demonstrated numerically for a somewhat related model in Ref. [@ACS5].[^1] We will also show that, in contrast to success-driven motion, random motion (“diffusion” in space) stabilizes the stationary solution $p_1^1$ with 0% cooperators (or, in the presence of strategy mutations, with a small percentage of cooperators). Taking into Account Success-Driven Motion and Diffusion in Space {#withSpace} ================================================================ We now assume that individuals are distributed over different locations $x\in [0,L]$ of a one-dimensional space. A generalization to multi-dimensional spaces is easily possible. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the spatial variable $x$ is scaled by the spatial extension $L$, so that $x$ is dimensionless and varies between 0 and 1. In the following, the proportion of individuals using strategy $i$ at time $t$ and at a location between $x$ and $x+dx$ is represented by $p_i(x,t)dx$ with $p_i(x,t) \ge 0$. Due to the spatial degrees of freedom, the proportion of defectors is not immediately given by the the proportion of cooperators anymore, and the previous normalization condition $p_2(t) = 1-p_1(t)$ is replaced by the less restrictive condition $$\sum_{i=1}^2 \int\limits_0^L dx \, p_i(x,t) = 1 \, . \label{normalize2}$$ This allows the fractions of cooperators and defectors to uncouple locally, i.e. the proportion of cooperators does not have to decrease anymore by the same amount as the proportion of defectors increases. Note that, if $\rho_i(x,t) = p_i(x,t)N/L$ represents the density of individuals pursuing strategy $i$ at location $x$ and time $t$, Eq. (\[normalize2\]) can be transferred into the form $$\sum_{i=1}^2 \int\limits_0^1 dx \, \rho_i(x,t) = \frac{N}{L} = \rho \, ,$$ where $N$ is the total number of individuals in the system and $\rho$ their average density. One may also consider to treat unoccupied space formally like a third strategy $i=0$. In this case, however, the probabilities $p_i(x,t)$ in all locations $x$ add up to the maximum concentration $p_{\rm max}$, see Eq. (\[Prefa\]). This means $$p_0(x,t) = p_{\rm max} - p_1(x,t) - p_2(x,t)$$ and $$\frac{\partial p_0(x,t)}{\partial t} = - \frac{\partial p_1(x,t)}{\partial t} - \frac{\partial p_2(x,t)}{\partial t} \, .$$ Therefore, $p_0(x,t)$ can be eliminated from the system of equations, because unoccupied space does not [interact]{} with strategies 1 and 2. As a consequence, the dynamics in spatial games with success-driven motion is different from the cyclic dynamics in games considering volunteering [@volun]: In order to survive invasion attempts by defectors in the prisoner’s dilemma, one could think that cooperators would seek separated locations, where they would be “loners”. However, cooperators do not tend to maneuver themselves into non-interactive states [@ACS5]: On the contrary: The survival of cooperators rather requires to have a larger average number of interaction partners than defectors have. After this introductory discussion, let us now extend the game-dynamical equations according to $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial p_i(x,t)}{\partial t} &=& \bigg( \sum_{l=1}^2 p_l \sum_{j=1}^2 P_{ij} p_j - \sum_{l=1}^2 \sum_{j=1}^2 p_l P_{lj} p_j \bigg) p_i(x,t) \nonumber \\ &-& \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left( p_i(x,t) \frac{\partial E_i(x,t)}{\partial x} \right) + D_i \frac{\partial^2 p_i(x,t)}{\partial x^2} \qquad \label{spacedyn}\end{aligned}$$ with the local expected success $$E_i(x,t) = \sum_{j=1}^2 P_{ij} p_j(x,t) \, ,$$ compare Eq. (\[compeq\]). The additional sum $\sum_l p_l$ had to be introduced for reasons of normalization, as we do not have $p_1+p_2 = 1$ any longer.[^2] $\partial p_i(x,t)/\partial t$ represents the (partial) time derivative. The first term in large brackets on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) assumes that locally, an imitation of more successful strategies occurs. An extension of the model to interactions with [neighboring]{} locations would be easily possible. The second term, which depends on $E_i(x,t)$, describes success-driven motion [@withTamas; @withTadek]. Finally, the last term represents diffusion, and $D_i \ge 0$ are called diffusion coefficients or diffusivities. These terms can be generalized to multi-dimensional spaces by replacing the spatial derivative $\partial/\partial x$ by the nabla operator $\vec{\nabla}$. The notion of success-driven motion is justified for the following reason: Comparing the term describing success-driven motion with a Fokker-Planck equation [@FPG], one can conclude that it corresponds to a systematic drift with speed $$V_i(x,t) = \frac{\partial E_i(x,t)}{\partial x} \, . \label{expli}$$ According to this, individuals move into the direction of the gradient of the expected payoff, i.e. the direction of the (greatest) increase of $E_i(x,t)$. In order to take into account capacity constraints (saturation effects), one could introduce a prefactor $$C(x,t) = 1 - \sum_{l=1}^2 \frac{p_l(x,t)N}{\rho_{\rm max}L} \ge 0 \, , \label{Prefa}$$ where $\rho_{\rm max} = p_{\rm max} N/L \ge N/L > 0$ represents the maximum density of individuals. This would have to be done in the imitation-based replicator terms in the first line of Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) as well. In the following, however, we will focus on the case $C=1$, which allows for a local accumulation of individuals. The last term in Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) is a diffusion term which reflects effects of random motion in space [@FPG]. It can be easily seen that, for $D_i > 0$, the diffusion term has a smoothing effect: It eventually reduces the proportion $p_i(x,t)$ in places $x$ where the second spatial derivative $\partial^2 p_i/\partial x^2$ is negative, in particular in places $x$ where the distribution $p_i(x,t)$ has maxima in space. In contrast, the proportion $p_i(x,t)$ increases in time, where $\partial^2 p_i/\partial x^2 > 0$, e.g. where the distribution has its minima. Assuming an additional smoothing term $$D_0 \, \frac{\partial^4 p_i(x,t)}{\partial x^4} \label{D0}$$ with a small constant $D_0 > 0$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) makes the numerical solution of this model well-behaved (see Appendix \[BBB\]). When Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) is solved, one may, for example, assume periodic boundary conditions (i.e. a circular space). In this case, we have $p_i(1,t) = p_i(0,t)$ and $\partial^k p_i(1,t)/\partial x^k = \partial^k p_i(0,t)/\partial x^k$, and by means of partial integration, it can be shown that $$\frac{\partial }{\partial t} \sum_{i=1}^2 \int\limits_0^1 dx \, p_i(x,t) = 0 \, .$$ Therefore, Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) fulfils the normalization condition (\[normalize2\]) at all times, if it is satisfied at $t=0$. Furthermore, it can be shown that $p_i(x,t) \ge 0$ for all times $t$, if this is true at time $t=0$ for all strategies $i$ and locations $x$. Comparison with Reaction-Diffusion-Advection Equations {#COMPA} ------------------------------------------------------ It is noteworthy that the extended game-dynamical model (\[spacedyn\]) has some similarity with reaction-diffusion-advection (RDA) equations. These equations have been developed to describe the dynamics of chemical reactions with spatial gradients, considering the effects of differential flows and diffusion. Specifically, the kinetics of (binary) chemical reactions is reflected by non-linear terms similar to those in the first line on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[spacedyn\]). The first term in the second line represents advection terms (differential flows), while the last term of Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) delineates diffusion effects. Considering this apparent similarity, what dynamics do we expect? It is known that reaction-diffusion equations can show a Turing instability [@Turing1; @Turing3] (also without an advection term). Specifically, for a chemical activator-inhibitor system, one can find a linearly unstable dynamics, if the diffusivities $D_1$ and $D_2$ are different. As a consequence, the concentration of chemicals in space will be non-homogeneous. This effect has been used to explain pattern formation processes in morphogenesis [@Meinhardt; @Turing2]. Besides the Turing instability, a second pattern-forming instability can occur when chemical reactions are coupled with differential flows. These so-called “differential flow-induced chemical instabilities” (DIFICI) can occur even for equal or vanishing diffusivities $D_i = D$, but they may also interact with the Turing instability [@DIF1; @DIF2; @DIF3; @DIF4; @DIF5]. The difference of the extended game-dynamical equation (\[spacedyn\]) as compared to the RDA equations lies in the specification of the velocity $V_i(x,t)$, which is determined by the gradient of the expected success $E_i(x,t)$. Therefore, the advective term is self-generated by the success of the players. We may rewrite the corresponding term in Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) as follows: $$- \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left( p_i \frac{\partial E_i}{\partial x} \right) = - \sum_{j=1}^2 P_{ij} \frac{\partial p_i}{\partial x} \frac{\partial p_j}{\partial x} - \sum_{j=1}^2 p_i P_{ij} \frac{\partial^2 p_j}{\partial x^2} \, . \label{CONSI}$$ According to the last term of this equation, the advection term related to success-driven motion implies effects similar to a diffusion term with negative diffusion coefficients $p_i P_{ij}$ (if $P_{ij} > 0$). Additionally, there is a non-linear dependence on the gradients $\partial p_i/\partial x$ and $\partial p_j/\partial x$ of the strategy distributions in space. Both terms couple the dynamics of different strategies $j$. As a consequence of this, the resulting instability conditions and dynamics are different from the RDA equations. We will show that, without success-driven motion, diffusion cannot trigger pattern formation. Diffusion rather counteracts spatial inhomogeneities. Success-driven motion, in contrast, causes pattern formation in a large area of the parameter space of payoffs, partly because of a negative diffusion effect. Besides this, we will show that different diffusivities $D_i$ may trigger a pattern formation instability in case of payoff parameters, for which success-driven motion does not destabilize homogeneous strategy distributions in the absence of diffusion. This counter-intuitive effect reminds of the Turing instability, although the underlying mathematical model is different, as pointed out before. In particular, the largest growth rate does not occur for finite wave numbers, as Appendix \[BBB\] shows. The instability for asymmetric diffusion is rather related to the problem of “noise-induced transitions” in systems with multiplicative noise, which are characterized by space-dependent diffusion coefficients [@Horsthemke]. A further interesting aspect of success-driven motion is the circumstance that the space-dependent diffusion effects go back to binary interactions, as the multiplicative dependence on $p_i$ and $p_j$ shows. Linear Instability of the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Snowdrift Game {#results} =================================================================== After inserting the payoffs (\[PAYOFF\]) of the prisoner’s dilemma and the snowdrift game into Eq. (\[spacedyn\]), one can see the favorable effect on the spreading of cooperation that the spatial dependence, in particular the relaxed normalization condition (\[normalize2\]) can have: For $i=1$, Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial p_1(x,t)}{\partial t} &=& p_2 \Big[ (R - T) p_1 + (S - P) p_2 \Big] p_1 \nonumber \\ &+& \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left[ (D_1 - p_1 R) \frac{\partial p_1}{\partial x} - p_1 S \frac{\partial p_2}{\partial x}\right] \, . \qquad \label{spacedyn4}\end{aligned}$$ It is now an interesting question, whether the agglomeration of cooperators can be supported by success-driven motion. In fact, the second line of Eq. (\[spacedyn4\]) can be rewritten as $$(D_1 - p_1R) \frac{\partial^2 p_1}{\partial x^2} - R \left(\frac{\partial p_1}{\partial x}\right)^2 \! - p_1S \frac{\partial^2 p_2}{\partial x^2} - S \frac{\partial p_1}{\partial x} \, \frac{\partial p_2}{\partial x} \, . \label{spacedyn5}$$ This shows that a curvature $\partial^2 p_i/\partial x^2 < 0$ can support the increase of the proportion of strategy $i$ as compared to the game-dynamical equation (\[gamedyn\]) without spatial dependence. The situation becomes even clearer, if a linear stability analysis of Eqs. (\[spacedyn4\]) is performed (see Appendix \[BBB\]). The result is as follows: If the square of the wave number $\kappa$, which relates to the curvature of the strategy distribution, is large enough (i.e. if the related cluster size is sufficiently small), the replicator terms in the first line on the right-hand side of equation (\[spacedyn\]) become negligible. Therefore, the conditions, under which homogeneous initial strategy distributions $p_i^0$ are linearly unstable, simplify to $$\begin{aligned} p_1^0R + p_2^0P > D_1 + D_2 \label{so1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$(p_1^0R-D_1) (p_2^0P-D_2) < p_1^0 p_2^0 ST \, , \label{so}$$ see Eqs. (\[directed1\]) and (\[directed\]).[^3] If condition (\[so1\]) or condition (\[so\]) is fulfilled, we expect emergent spatio-temporal pattern formation, basically agglomeration or segregation or both [@EPL]. As has been pointed out before, the agglomeration of cooperators can increase the level of cooperation. This effect is not possible, when spatial interactions are neglected. In that case, we stay with Eq. (\[prison\]), and the favorable pattern-formation effect cannot occur. Let us now discuss a variety of different cases: 1. In case of diffusive motion only (i.e. no success-driven motion), Eq. (\[so1\]) must be replaced by $$0 > D_1 + D_2$$ and Eq. (\[so\]) by $$D_1D_2 < 0 \, ,$$ which cannot be fulfilled. Therefore, diffusion without success-driven motion does not support pattern formation or a related increase in the level of cooperation. 2. In the case of success-driven motion with finite diffusion, Eqs. (\[so1\]) and (\[so\]) imply $$\begin{aligned} p_1^0 R + (1-p_1^0) P > D_1 + D_2 \label{so3}\end{aligned}$$ and $$(p_1^0R-D_1) \big[ (1-p_1^0)P-D_2\big] < p_1^0 (1-p_1^0) ST \, , \label{so4}$$ if the normalization condition $p_2^0 = 1 - p_1^0$ for a homogeneous initial condition is taken into account. These instability conditions hold for both, the prisoner’s dilemma and the snowdrift game. Inequality (\[so3\]) basically says that, in order to find spontaneous pattern formation, the agglomerative tendency $R$ of cooperators or the agglomerative tendency $P$ of defectors (or both) must be larger than the diffusive tendency. This agglomeration, of course, requires the reward $R$ of cooperation to be positive, otherwise cooperators would not like to stay in the same location. The alternative instability condition (\[so4\]) requires that the product $RP$ of the payoffs resulting when individuals of the same strategy meet each other is smaller than the product $ST$ of payoffs resulting when individuals with different strategies meet each other. This basically excludes a coexistence of the two strategies in the same location and is expected to cause segregation. It is noteworthy that condition (\[so4\]) is not invariant with respect to shifts of all payoffs $P_{ij}$ by a constant value $c$, in contrast to the replicator equations (\[prison0\]). 3. In case of the prisoner’s dilemma without strategy mutations, the stable stationary solution for the case without spontaneous strategy changes is $p_1^0 = p_1^1 = 0$. This simplifies the instability conditions further, yielding $$\begin{aligned} P > D_1 + D_2 \label{so5}\end{aligned}$$ and $$-D_1 (P-D_2) < 0 \, . \label{so6}$$ In order to fulfil one of these conditions, the punishment $P$ must be positive and larger than $D_2$ to support pattern formation (here: an aggregation of defectors). Naturally, the survival or spreading of cooperators requires the initial existence of a finite proportion $p_1^0 > 0$ of them, see the previous case. 4. In the special case $P=S=0$ [@ACS5], Eqs. (\[so3\]) and (\[so4\]) become $$p_1^0R > D_1 + D_2$$ and $$- (p_1^0R-D_1) D_2 < 0 \, ,$$ which requires $p_1^0R > D_1$. Therefore, a finite initial proportion $p_1^0$ of cooperators is needed again for pattern formation (an agglomeration of cooperators). This can be easily reached by spontaneous strategy changes. 5. Neglecting diffusion for a moment (i.e. setting $D_1=D_2 =0$), [no]{} pattern formation should occur, if the condition $$RP > ST \label{ineq1}$$ and, at the same time, $$p_1^0R + (1-p_1^0)P < 0 \label{ineq2}$$ is fulfilled. Equation (\[ineq1\]) implies the stability condition $$S < \frac{RP}{T} \, . \label{SRT}$$ Besides $T>R$, we have to consider here that $S<P$ in the prisoner’s dilemma and $S>P$ in the snowdrift game (see Fig. \[FIG1\]).[^4] 6. Finally, let us assume that the stability conditions $ST-RP < 0$ and $p_1^0 R+ (1-p_1^0)P<0$ for the previous case without diffusion ($D_1=D_2=0$) are [fulfilled]{}, so that no patterns will emerge. Then, depending on the parameter values, the instability condition following from Eq. (\[so4\]), $$\begin{aligned} & & -(D_1-D_2) \underbrace{(1-p_1^0)}_{\ge 0}P \nonumber \\ &<& \underbrace{D_2}_{\ge 0} \underbrace{[p_1^0R+ (1-p_1^0)P]}_{<0} \nonumber \\ & & \underbrace{-D_1D_2}_{\le 0} + \underbrace{p_1^0(1-p_1^0)}_{\ge 0} \underbrace{(ST-RP)}_{<0} \, , \qquad\end{aligned}$$ may still be matched, if $(D_1-D_2)$ is sufficiently large. Therefore, aymmetrical diffusion ($D_1\ne D_2$) can trigger a pattern formation instability, where the spatio-temporal strategy distribution without diffusion would be stable. The situation is clearly different for symmetrical diffusion with $D_1=D_2$, which cannot support pattern formation. Although the instability due to asymmetrical diffusion reminds of the Turing instability, it must be distinguished from it (see Sec. \[COMPA\]). So, how can the instability then be explained? The reason for it may be imagined as follows: In order to survive and spread, cooperators need to be able to agglomerate locally and to invade new locations. While the first requirement is supported by success-driven motion, the last one is promoted by a larger diffusivity $D_1 > D_2$ of cooperators. ![Payoff-dependence of pattern-formation in the prisoner’s dilemma with $S<P$ and the snowdrift game with $S>P$ according to a linear stability analysis for spatial games with success-driven motion, but no diffusion, strategy mutations, or noise. One can clearly see that spontaneous pattern-formation prevails (green area), and that there is only a small area for $P<0$ (marked red), where a homogeneous initial condition is stable with respect to small perturbations.[]{data-label="FIG1"}](game.png){width="9cm"} Social Forces in Spatial Games with Success-Driven Motion {#forces} ========================================================= In the previous section, we have shown how success-driven motion destabilizes homogeneous strategy distributions in space. This analysis was based on the study of linear (in)stability (see Appendix \[BBB\]). But what happens, when the deviation from the homogeneous strategy distribution is large, i.e. the gradients $\partial p_i/\partial x$ are not negligible any longer? This can be answered by writing Eq. (\[expli\]) explicitly, which becomes $$V_i(x,t) = \sum_{j=1}^2 P_{ij} \frac{\partial p_j(x,t)}{\partial x} = \sum_{j=1}^2 f_{ij}(x,t) \, .$$ Here, the expression $$f_{ij}(x,t) = P_{ij} \frac{\partial p_j(x,t)}{\partial x}$$ (which can be extended by saturation effects), may be interpreted as interaction force (“social force”) excerted by individuals using strategy $j$ on an individual using strategy $i$.[^5] It is visible that the [sign]{} of $P_{ij}$ determines the [character]{} of the force. The force is attractive for positive payoffs $P_{ij}>0$ and repulsive for negative payoffs $P_{ij}<0$. The [direction]{} of the force, however, is determined by spatial changes $\partial p_j(x,t)/\partial x$ in the strategy distribution $p_j(x,t)$ (i.e. not by the strategy distribution itself). It is not the [size]{} of the payoffs $P_{ij}$ which determines the strength of the interaction force, but the payoff [times]{} the gradient of the distribution of the strategy $j$ one interacts with (and the availability and reachability of more favorable neighboring locations, if the saturation prefactor $C$ is taken into account). Due to the dependence on the gradient $\partial p_j(x,t)/\partial x$, the impact of a dispersed strategy $j$ on individuals using strategy $i$ is negligible. This particularly applies to scenarios with negative self-interactions ($P_{jj} < 0$). Note that success-driven motion may be caused by repulsion away from the current location or by attraction towards more favorable neighborhoods. In the prisoner’s dilemma, for example, cooperators and defectors feel a strong attraction towards areas with a higher proportion of cooperators. However, cooperators seek each other mutually, while the attraction between defectors and cooperators is weaker. This is due to $T+S < 2R$, see inequality (\[xcv\]). As a result, even if $P>0$, cooperators are moving away from defectors due to $R>P$ in order to find more cooperative locations, while defectors are following them. Another interesting case is the game with the payoffs $P_{11}=P_{22}=-P$ and $P_{12}=P_{21}=Q>P$, where we have negative self-interactions among identical strategies and positive interactions between different strategies. Simulations for the no-imitation case show that, despite of the dispersive tendency of each strategy, strategies tend to agglomerate in certain locations thanks to the stronger attractive interactions between different strategies (see Fig. 3 in Ref. [@withTadek]). The idea of social forces is long-standing. Montroll used the term to explain logistic growth laws [@Montroll], and Lewin introduced the concept of social fields to the social sciences in analogy to electrical fields in physics [@Lewin]. However, a formalization of a widely applicable social force concept was missing for a long time. In the meantime, social forces were successfully used to describe the dynamics of interacting vehicles [@tilch] or pedestrians [@molnar], but there, the attractive or repulsive nature was just assumed. Attempts to systematically derive social forces from an underlying decision mechanism were based on direct pair interactions in behavioral spaces (e.g. opinion spaces), with the observation that imitative interactions or the readiness for compromises had attrative effects [@Kluwer; @MatSoc]. Here, for the first time, we present a formulation of social forces in game-theoretical terms. Considering the great variety of different games, depending on the respective specification of the payoffs $P_{ij}$, this is expected to find a wide range of applications, in particular as success-driven motion has been found to produce interesting and relevant pattern formation phenomena [@withTadek; @ACS5]. Summary, Discussion, and Outlook {#summa} ================================ In this paper, we have started from the game-dynamical equations (replicator equation), which can be derived from imitative pair interactions between individuals [@imit1; @imit2]. It has been shown that no cooperation is expected in the prisoner’s dilemma, if no spontaneous strategy mutations are taken into account, otherwise there will be a significant, but usually low level of cooperation. In the snowdrift game, in contrast, the stationary solution corresponding to no cooperation is unstable, and there is a stable solution with a finite level of cooperation. These considerations have been carried out to illustrate the major difference that the introduction of spatial interactions based on success-driven motion and diffusion makes. While diffusion itself tends to support homogeneous strategy distributions rather than pattern formation, success-driven motion implies an unstable spatio-temporal dynamics under a wide range of conditions. As a consequence, small fluctations can destabilize a homogeneous distribution of strategies. Under such conditions, the formation of emergent patterns (agglomeration, segregation, or both) is expected. The resulting dynamics may be understood in terms of social forces, which have been formulated here in game-theoretical terms. The destabilization of homogeneous strategy distributions and the related occurence of spontaneous pattern formation has, for example, a great importance for the survival and spreading of cooperators in the prisoner’s dilemma. While this has been studied numerically in the past [@ACS5], future work based on the model of this paper and extensions of it shall analytically study conditions for the promotion of cooperation. For example, it will be interesting to investigate, how relevant the imitation of strategies in [neighboring]{} locations is, how important is the [rate]{} of strategy changes as compared to location changes, and how crucial is a territorial effect (i.e. a limitation $p_{\rm max}$ of the local concentration of individuals, which may protect cooperators from invasion by defectors). Of course, instead of studying the continuous game-dynamical model with success-driven motion and calculating its instability conditions, one can also perform agent-based simulations for a discretized version of the model. For the case without imitation of superior strategies and symmetrical payoffs ($P_{ij}=P_{ji}$), it has been shown that the analytical instability conditions surprisingly well predict the parameter areas of the agent-based model, where pattern-formation takes place [@EPL]. Despite the difference in the previously studied model (see footnote 2), this is also expected to be true for the non-symmetrical games studied here, in particular as we found that the influence of imitation on the instability condition is negligible, if the wave number $\kappa$ characterizing inhomogeneities in the initial distribution is large. This simplified the stability analysis a lot. Moreover, it was shown that [asymmetrical]{} diffusion can drive our game-theoretical model with success-driven motion from the stable regime into the unstable regime. While this reminds of the Turing instability [@Turing1], it is actually different from it: Compared to reaction-diffusion-advection equations, the equations underlying the game-dynamical model with success-driven motion belong to another mathematical class, as is elaborated in Sec. \[COMPA\]. In Sec. \[forces\], it was pointed out that, in the prisoner’s dilemma, cooperators evade defectors, who seek cooperators. Therefore, some effects of success-driven motion (leaving unfavorable neighborhoods) may be interpreted as punishment of the previous interaction partners, who are left behind with a lower overall payoff. However, “movement punishment” of defectors by leaving unfavorable environments is different from the “costly” or “altruistic punishment” discussed in the literature [@Punish]: In the strict sense, success-driven motion neither imposes costs on a moving individual nor on the previous interaction partners. If we would introduce a cost of movement, it would have to be paid by both, cooperators who evade defectors, and defectors who follow them. Therefore, costly motion would be expected to yield similar results as before, but it would still be different from altruistic punishment. It should also be pronounced that, besides avoiding unfavorable locations, success-driven motion implies the seeking of favorable environments, which has nothing to do with punishment. Without this element, e.g. when individuals leave unfavorable locations based on a random, diffusive motion, success-driven motion is not effective in promoting cooperation. Therefore, the mechanism of success-driven motion, despite some similar features, is clearly to be distinguished from the mechanism of punishment. Finally, note that migration may be considered as one realization of success-driven motion. Before, the statistics of migration behavior was modeled by the gravity law [@gravity1; @gravity2] or entropy approaches [@entropy1; @entropy2], while its dynamics was described by partial differential equations [@part1; @part2] and models from statistical physics [@Weidlich]. The particular potential of the approach proposed in this paper lies in the integration of migration into a game-theoretical framework, as we formalize success-driven motion in terms of payoffs and strategy distributions in space and time. Such integrated approaches are needed in the social sciences to allow for consistent interpretations of empirical findings within a unified framework. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} --------------- The author would like to thank Peter Felten for preparing Fig. 1 and Christoph Hauert for comments on manuscript [@ACS5]. [99]{} J. von Neumann, O. Morgenstern, [Theory of Games and Economic Behavior]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1944). R. Axelrod, [The Evolution of Cooperation]{} (Basic, New York, 1984). A. Rapoport, [Game Theory as a Theory of Conflict Resolution]{} (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1974). H. Gintis, [Game Theory Evolving]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000). K. Binmore, [Playing for Real]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007). M. A. Nowak, [Evolutionary Dynamics]{} (Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006). G. Szabó, G. Fath, Phys. Rep. 446, 97-216 (2007). J. H. Kagel, A. E. Roth (eds.), [Handbook of Experimental Economics]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995). C. F. Camerer, [Behavioral Game Theory]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2003). J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis (eds.) [Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004). U. Fischbacher, S. Gächter, E. Fehr, Economics Letters 71, 397–404 (2001). E. Sober, D. S. Wilson, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998). M. W. Macy, A. Flache, [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA)]{} 99, Suppl. 3, 7229–7236 (2002). D. Helbing, in [Economic Evolution and Demographic Change. Formal Models in Social Sciences]{}, edited by G. Haag, U. Mueller, K. G. Troitzsch (Springer, Berlin, 1992), pp. 330-348. D. Helbing, Theory and Decision [40]{}, 149-179 (1996). D. Helbing, [Quantitative Sociodynamics]{} (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1995). J. Hofbauer, K. Sigmund, [Evolutionstheorie und dynamische Systeme]{} (Paul Parey, Berlin, 1984). J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund, [The Theory of Evolution and Dynamical Systems]{} (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1988). M. Eigen, Naturwissenschaften [58]{}, 465ff (1971). R. A. Fisher, [The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1930). M. Eigen, P. Schuster, [The Hypercycle]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1979). D. Helbing, P. Molnár, Phys. Rev. E [51]{}, 4282-4286 (1995). D. Helbing, I. Farkas, T. Vicsek, Nature [407]{}, 487-490 (2000). D. Helbing and B. Tilch (1998) Physical Review E 58, 133-138. D. Helbing, A. Johansson, H. Z. Al-Abideen, Phys. Rev. E [75]{}, 046109 (2007). D. Helbing, L. Buzna, A. Johansson, T. Werner, Transportation Science [39]{}(1), 1-24 (2005). S. P. Hoogendoorn, W. Daamen, [Transportation Science]{} [39]{}(2), 147-159 (2005). A. Johansson, D. Helbing, P.S. Shukla, Advances in Complex Systems [10]{}, 271-288 (2007). W. Yu, A. Johansson, Phys. Rev. E [76]{}, 046105 (2007). J. W. Pepper, [Artificial Life]{} [13]{}, 1-9 (2007). C. Hauert, S. De Monte, J. Hofbauer, K. Sigmund, Science [296]{}, 1129-1132 (2002). M. Doebeli, C. Hauert, [Ecology Letters]{} [8]{}, 748-766 (2005). C. Hauert, [Proc. R. Soc. Lond.]{} B [268]{}, 761-769 (2001). D. Helbing, W. Yu, [Advances in Complex Systems]{} [11]{}(4), 641-652 (2008). G. Szabó, C. Hauert, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} 89, 118101 (2002). D. Helbing, T. Vicsek, New Journal of Physics [1]{}, 13.1-13.17 (1999). D. Helbing, T. Platkowski, International Journal of Chaos Theory and Applications [5]{}(4), 47-62 (2000). H. Risken, [The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1989). A. M. Turing, [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London]{} B [237]{}, 37-72 (1952). A. D. Kessler, H. Levine, [Nature]{} [394]{}, 556-558 (1998). A. Gierer and H. Meinhardt, [Kybernetik]{} [12]{}, 30-39 (1972). J. D. Murray, [Mathematical Biology]{}, Vol. II (Springer, New York, 2002). A. B. Rovinsky and M. Menzinger, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [69]{}, 1193-1196 (1992). S. P. Dawson, A. Lawniczak, and R. Kapral, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [100]{}, 5211-5218 (1994). A. B. Rovinsky and M. Menzinger, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [72]{}, 2017-2020 (1994). Y. Balinsky Khazan and L. M. Pismen, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [58]{}, 4524-4531 (1998). R. Satnoianu, J. Merkin, and S. Scott, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [57]{}, 3246-3250 (1998). W. Horsthemke, R. Lefever, [Noise-Induced Transitions]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1984). D. Helbing, T. Platkowski, [Europhysics Letters]{} 60, 227-233 (2000). C. Hauert, M. Doebeli, [Nature]{} 428, 643-646 (2004). E. W. Montroll, [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA]{} [75]{}, 4633-4637 (1978). K. Lewin, [Field Theory in the Social Science]{} (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1951). D. Helbing, Journal of Mathematical Sociology [19]{} (3), 189-219 (1994). E. Fehr and S. Gächter, [Nature]{} 415, 137-140 (2002). E. Ravenstein, [The Geographical Magazine]{} [III]{}, 173-177, 201-206, 229-233 (1876). G. K. Zipf, [Sociological Review]{} [11]{}, 677-686 (1946). A. G. Wilson, [J. Transport Econ. Policy]{} [3]{}, 108-126 (1969). S. Brice, [Transpn. Res. B]{} [23]{}(1), 19-28 (1989). H. Hotelling, [Environment and Planning]{} A [10]{}, 1223-1239 (1978). T. Puu, [Environment and Planning]{} A [17]{}, 1263-1269 (1985). W. Weidlich, G. Haag (eds.) [Interregional Migration]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1988). K. F. Riley, M. P. Hobson & S. J. Bence, [Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering]{} (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 2006). Linear Stability Analysis of the Game-Dynamical Equation Without Spatial Interactions {#AAA} ===================================================================================== Inserting the payoffs (\[PAYOFF\]) of the prisoner’s dilemma or the snowdrift game into Eq. (\[gamedyn\]), we get the game-dynamical equation $$\begin{aligned} \frac{dp_1(t)}{dt} &=& \big[ Rp_1 + Sp_2 - R(p_1)^2 \nonumber \\ &-& (S+T)p_1p_2 - P(p_2)^2 \big] p_1(t) \, . \end{aligned}$$ Considering Eq. (\[normalize\]), i.e. $p_2(t) = 1 - p_1(t)$, we find $$\begin{aligned} \frac{dp_1}{dt} &=& \big[ Rp_1 + S(1-p_1) - R(p_1)^2 \nonumber \\ && -(S+T)p_1(1-p_1) - P(1-p_1)^2 \big] p_1(t)\nonumber \\[1mm] &=& (1-p_1) \big[(S-P) + (P+R-S-T)p_1\big] p_1(t) \, .\qquad \label{prison0}\end{aligned}$$ This is a mean-value equation, which assumes a factorization of joint probabilities, i.e. it neglects correlations [@Kluwer]. Nevertheless, the following analysis is suited to provide insights into the dynamics of the prisoner’s dilemma and the snowdrift game. Introducing the useful abbreviations $$A=P-S \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad B = P+R-S-T ,$$ Eq. (\[prison0\]) can be further simplified, and we get $$\frac{dp_1(t)}{dt} = [1-p_1(t)] \big[-A + Bp_1(t)\big] p_1(t) \, .$$ Obviously, shifting all payoffs $P_{ij}$ by a constant value $c$ does not change Eq. (\[prison\]), in contrast to the case involving spatial interactions discussed later. Let $p_1^k$ with $k\in \{1,2,3\}$ denote the stationary solutions (\[statso\]) of Eq. (\[prison\]), defined by the requirement $dp_1/dt = 0$. In order to analyze the stability of these solutions with respect to small deviations $$\delta p_1(t) = p_1(t) - p_1^k \, , \label{devi}$$ we perform a linear stability analysis in the following. For this, we insert Eq. (\[devi\]) into Eq. \[prison\]), which yields $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d\delta p_1(t)}{dt} &=& (1-p_1^k - \delta p_1) (-A + Bp_1^k + B\, \delta p_1)(p_1^k + \delta p_1) \nonumber \\ &=& \big[ (1-p_1^k)p_1^k + (1-2p_1^k)\delta p_1 - (\delta p_1)^2 \big] \nonumber \\ &\times& (-A + Bp_1^k + B\, \delta p_1) \, .\end{aligned}$$ If we concentrate on sufficiently small deviations $\delta p_1(t)$, terms containing factors $[\delta p_1(t)]^m$ with an integer exponent $m> 1$ can be considered much smaller than terms containing a factor $\delta p_1(t)$. Therefore, we may linearize the above equations by dropping higher-order terms proportionally to $[\delta p_1(t)]^m$ with $m>1$. This gives $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d\delta p_1}{dt} &=& \big[ (1-p_1^k)p_1^k + (1-2p_1^k)\delta p_1(t) \big](-A+Bp_1^k) \nonumber \\ & & + (1-p_1^k)p_1^k B\, \delta p_1(t ) \nonumber \\[1mm] &=& \big[ (1-2p_1^k) (-A+Bp_1^k) + (1-p_1^k)p_1^k B\big] \delta p_1(t) ,\qquad \label{linearized}\end{aligned}$$ as $(1-p_1^k)p_1^k(-A+Bp_1^k) = 0$ for all stationary solutions $p_1^k$. With the abbreviation $$\lambda_k = (1-2p_1^k) (-A+Bp_1^k) + (1-p_1^k)p_1^k B \, ,$$ we can write $$\frac{d\delta p_1(t)}{dt} = \lambda_k \, \delta p_1(t) \, .$$ If $\lambda_k < 0$, the deviation $\delta p_1(t)$ will exponentially decay with time, i.e. the solution will converge to the stationary solution $p_1^k$, which implies its stability. If $\lambda_k > 0$, however, the deviation will grow in time, and the stationary solution $p_1^k$ is unstable. For the stationary solutions $p_1^1 = 0$, $p_1^2 = 1$, and $p_1^3 = A/B$ given in Eq. (\[statso\]), we can easily find $$\lambda_1 = -A, \quad \lambda_2 = A-B \, , \quad \mbox{and} \quad \lambda_3 = A \left( 1 - \frac{A}{B}\right) \, ,$$ respectively. Linear Stability Analysis of the Model with Success-Driven Motion and Diffusion {#BBB} =============================================================================== In order to understand spatio-temporal pattern formation, it is not enough to formulate the (social) interaction forces determining the [motion]{} of individuals. We also need to grasp, why spatial patterns can [emerge]{} from small perturbations, even if the initial distribution of strategies is uniform (homogeneous) in space. If Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) is written explicitly for $i=1$, we get $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial p_1}{\partial t} &=& \Big[ (p_1+p_2)(P_{11}p_1+P_{12}p_2) - P_{11}(p_1)^2 \nonumber \\ & & - (P_{12}+P_{21})p_1p_2 - P_{22} (p_2)^2 \Big] p_1(x,t) \nonumber \\ &-& \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \bigg[ p_1 \bigg( P_{11} \frac{\partial p_1}{\partial x} + P_{12} \frac{\partial p_2}{\partial x} \bigg) \bigg] + D_1\frac{\partial^2 p_1}{\partial x^2} \, .\quad \label{spacedyn2}\end{aligned}$$ The equation for $i=2$ looks identical, if only $p_1(x,t)$ and $p_2(x,t)$ are exchanged in all places, and the same is done with the indices 1 and 2. We will now assume a homogeneous initial condition $p_i(x,0) = p_i^0$ (i.e. a uniform distribution of strategies $i$ in space) and study the spatio-temporal evolution of the deviations $\delta p_i(x,t) = p_i(x,t) - p_i^0$. Let us insert for $p_1^0$ one of the values $p_1^k$, which are stationary solutions of the partial differential equation (\[spacedyn\]), as $p_2^0 = (1-p_1^0)$ holds for homogeneous strategy distributions due to the normalization condition (\[normalize2\]). Assuming small deviations $\delta p_i(x,t)$ and linearizing Eq. (\[spacedyn2\]) by neglecting non-linear terms, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial \delta p_1}{\partial t} &=& \Big[ (P_{11}-P_{21}) p_1^0p_2^0 + (P_{12}-P_{22})(p_2^0)^2 \Big] \delta p_1 \nonumber \\ &+& \Big[ (P_{11}-P_{21})(p_1^0\,\delta p_2+p_2^0\,\delta p_1) \nonumber \\ & & + 2(P_{12}-P_{22})p_2^0\,\delta p_2\Big] p_1^0 \nonumber \\ &-& p_1^0 \bigg( P_{11} \frac{\partial^2 \delta p_1}{\partial x^2} + P_{12} \frac{\partial^2 \delta p_2}{\partial x^2} \bigg) + D_1\frac{\partial^2 \delta p_1}{\partial x^2} \, . \qquad \label{linea}\end{aligned}$$ Again, a mutation term $W_2\delta p_2(x,t) - W_1\delta p_1(x,t)$ reflecting spontaneous strategy changes may be added, see Eq. (\[mutant\]). The analogous equation for $\delta p_2(x,t)$ is obtained by exchanging strategies $1$ and $2$. In Eq. (\[linea\]), it can be easily seen that success-driven motion with $P_{ij}>0$ has a similar functional form, but the opposite sign as the diffusion term. While the latter causes a homogenization in space, success-driven motion can cause local agglomeration [@withTadek], first of all for $P_{ij} > 0$. It is known that linear partial differential equations like Eq. (\[linea\]) are solved by (a superposition of) functions of the kind $$\delta p_i(x,t) = \mbox{e}^{\tilde{\lambda}t} \Big[a_{i} \cos(\kappa x) + b_{i} \sin(\kappa x )\Big] \, , \label{ansatz}$$ where $a_{i}$ and $b_{i}$ are initial amplitudes, $\tilde{\lambda}=\tilde{\lambda}(\kappa)$ is their growth rate (if positive, or a decay rate, if negative), and $\kappa = \kappa_n = 2\pi n/L$ with $n \in \{1,2,\dots\}$ are possible “wave numbers”. The “wave length” $2\pi/\kappa = L/n$ may be imagined as the extension of a cluster of strategy $i$ in space. Obviously, possible wave lengths in case of a circular space of diameter $L=1$ are fractions $L/n$. The general solution of Eq. (\[linea\]) is $$\delta p_i(x,t) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mbox{e}^{\tilde{\lambda}(\kappa_n) t} \Big[a_{i,n} \cos(\kappa_n x) + b_{i,n} \sin(\kappa_n x )\Big] \, , \label{generalsol}$$ i.e. a linear superposition of solutions of the form (\[ansatz\]) with all possible wave numbers $\kappa_n$. For $t=0$, the exponential prefactor $\mbox{e}^{\tilde{\lambda}(\kappa_n)t}$ becomes 1, and Eq. (\[generalsol\]) may then be viewed as the Fourier series of the spatial dependence of the initial condition $\delta p(i,x,0)$. Hence, the amplitudes $a_{i,n}$ and $b_{i,n}$ correspond to the Euler-Fourier coefficients [@Maths]. Let us now determine the possible eigenvalues $\tilde{\lambda}(\kappa)$. For the ansatz (\[ansatz\]), we have $\partial \delta p_i(x,t)/\partial t = \tilde{\lambda} \delta p_i(x,t)$ and $\partial^2 \delta p_i(x,t)/\partial x^2 = -\kappa^2 \delta p_i(x,t)$. Therefore, the linearized equations can be cast into the following form of an eigenvalue problem with eigenvalues $\tilde{\lambda}$: $$\tilde{\lambda} \left( \begin{array}{c} \delta p_1(x,t) \\ \\ \delta p_2(x,t) \end{array} \right) = \underbrace{\left(\begin{array}{ccc} M_{11} & & M_{12} \\ & & \\ M_{21} & & M_{22} \end{array}\right)}_{=\underline{M}} \left( \begin{array}{c} \delta p_1(x,t) \\ \\ \delta p_2(x,t) \end{array} \right) \, . \label{eigenvalue}$$ Here, we have introduced the abbreviations $$\begin{aligned} M_{11} &=& A_{11} + (p_1^0 P_{11}-D_1)\kappa^2 \, , \label{abb1} \\ M_{12} &=& A_{12} + p_1^0 P_{12}\kappa^2 \, , \\ M_{21} &=& A_{21} + p_2^0 P_{21}\kappa^2 \, , \\ M_{22} &=& A_{22} + (p_2^0 P_{22}-D_2)\kappa^2 \label{abb4}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} A_{11} &=& \Big[ (P_{12}-P_{22})p_2^0 + 2(P_{11}-P_{21})p_1^0\Big] p_2^0 \\ A_{12} &=& \Big[(P_{11}-P_{21})p_1^0 + 2(P_{12}-P_{22})p_2^0\Big] p_1^0 \, , \\ A_{21} &=& \Big[ (P_{22}-P_{12})p_2^0 + 2(P_{21}-P_{11})p_1^0\Big] p_2^0 \, , \\ A_{22} &=& \Big[ (P_{21}-P_{11})p_1^0 + 2(P_{22}-P_{12})p_2^0\Big] p_1^0 \end{aligned}$$ The eigenvalue problem (\[eigenvalue\]) can only be solved, if the determinant of the matrix $(\underline{M} - \tilde{\lambda}\underline{1})$ vanishes, where $\underline{1}$ denotes the unit matrix [@Maths]. In other words, $\tilde{\lambda}$ are solutions of the so-called “characteristic polynomial” $$\begin{aligned} & & (M_{11} - \tilde{\lambda})(M_{22} - \tilde{\lambda}) - M_{12}M_{21} \nonumber \\ &=& \tilde{\lambda}^2 - (M_{11}+M_{22})\tilde{\lambda} + M_{11}M_{22} - M_{12}M_{21} = 0 \, . \qquad \end{aligned}$$ This polynomial is of degree 2 in $\tilde{\lambda}$ and has the following two solutions: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\lambda}(\kappa) &=& \frac{M_{11}+M_{22}}{2} \nonumber \\ &\pm& \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ (M_{11}+M_{22})^2 - 4(M_{11}M_{22} - M_{12}M_{21} )} \, . \qquad \label{EM}\end{aligned}$$ The fastest growing mode (i.e. the value of the wave number $\kappa$ with the largest real value $\mbox{Re}(\tilde{\lambda})$ of $\tilde{\lambda}$) usually determines the length scale of the emerging patterns. Considering (\[abb1\]) to (\[abb4\]), we can easily see that the largest value of $\mbox{Re}(\tilde{\lambda})$ is reached in the limit $\kappa \rightarrow \infty$. This is due to the relationship of success-driven motion with negative diffusion. Hence, the finally resulting distribution would be a superposition of delta peaks. As this is not favorable from a numerical perspective, the smoothing term (\[D0\]) may be added, which implies the additional terms $D_0\kappa^4$ in Eqs. (\[abb1\]) and (\[abb4\]). These terms imply, in fact, that $\mbox{Re}(\tilde{\lambda})$ reaches its maximum value for a finite value of $\kappa$. Note, however, that discrete models involving success-driven motion also tend to end up with distributions approximating a superposition of delta peaks [@withTamas; @withTadek]. When deriving the instability conditions from Eq. (\[EM\]) in the following, we will focus on the particularly interesting case, where the mathematical expression under the root is non-negative (but the case of a negative value if $4M_{12}M_{21} < - (M_{11}-M_{22})^2$ could, of course, be treated as well). It can be shown that $\tilde{\lambda}$ becomes positive, if one of the following instability conditions is fulfilled: $$M_{11} + M_{22} > 0$$ or $$M_{11}M_{22} < M_{12}M_{21} \, .$$ In this case, we expect the amplitudes of the small deviations $\delta p_i(x,t)$ to grow over time, which gives rise to spatial pattern formation (such as segregation). Inserting the abbreviations (\[abb1\]) to (\[abb4\]), the instability conditions become $$\big[ A_{11} + (p_1^0P_{11}-D_1)\kappa^2 \big] + \big[ A_{22} + (p_2^0P_{22}-D_2) \kappa^2 \big] > 0 \label{of1}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} & & \big[ A_{11} + (p_1^0P_{11}-D_1)\kappa^2 \big] \big[ A_{22} + (p_2^0P_{22}-D_2)\kappa^2 \big] \nonumber \\ &<& \big( A_{12} + p_1^0P_{12}\kappa^2 \big) \big( A_{21} + p_2^0P_{21}\kappa^2 \big) \, . \label{of}\end{aligned}$$ If $\kappa$ is large enough (i.e. if the related cluster size is sufficiently small), the instability conditions (\[of1\]) and (\[of\]) simplify to $$\begin{aligned} p_1^0P_{11} + p_2^0P_{22} > D_1 + D_2 \label{directed1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$(p_1^0P_{11}-D_1)(p_2^0P_{22}-D_2) < p_1^0P_{12} p_2^0P_{21} \, . \label{directed}$$ These are further discussed in the main text. [^1]: In contrast to this EPJB paper, the one published in Advances in Complex Systems (ACS) studies the dynamics in a two-dimensional grid, assuming spatial exclusion (i.e. a cell can only be occupied once), neglecting effects of noise and diffusion, and choosing the payoffs $P=S=0$, which restricts the results to a degenerate case of the prisoner’s dilemma and the snowdrift game. Moreover, this EPJB paper focusses on the pattern formation instability rather than the amplification of the level of cooperation, formalizes social forces resulting from success-driven motion, and discusses pattern formation in the spatial prisoner’s dilemma induced by asymmetrical diffusion. [^2]: Rather than multiplying the first sum over $j$ in Eq. (\[spacedyn\]) by $\sum_l p_l$, one could also divide the second sum over $j$ by $\sum_l p_l$, corresponding to a subtraction of the average expected success $\sum_l p_l E_l/\sum_l p_l$ from the expected success $E_i$. The alternative specification chosen here assumes that the number of strategic game-theoretical interactions of an individual per unit time is proportional to the number of individuals it may interact with, i.e. proportional to $\sum_l p_l(x,t)$. Both specifications are consistent with the game-dynamical equation (\[gamedyn\]), where $\sum_l p_l(t) = 1$. [^3]: This instability condition has been studied in the context of success-driven motion [without]{} imitation and for games with symmetrical payoff matrices (i.e. $P_{ij} = P_{ji}$), which show a particular behavior [@EPL]. Over here, in contrast, we investigate continuous spatial games involving imitation (selection of more successful strategies), and focus on [asymmetrical]{} games such as the prisoner’s dilemma and the snowdrift game (see Sec. \[results\]), which behave very differently. [^4]: Strictly speaking, we also need to take into account Eq. (\[ineq2\]), which implies $P<0$ for the stationary solution $p_1^0 = p_1^1=0$ of the prisoner’s dilemma and generally $P < - p_1^0 R/(1-p_1^0)$. In case of the snowdrift game [@Space3], it is adequate to insert the stationary solution $p_1^0 = p_1^3 = A/B$, which is stable in case of [no]{} spatial interactions. This leads to the condition $P < - p_1^3R/(1-p_1^3) = AR/(A-B) = (P-S)R/(T-R)$, i.e. $SR < (2R- T) P$. The question is, whether this condition will reduce the previously determined area of stability given by $S<RP/T$ with $P<0$, see Eq. (\[SRT\]) and Fig. \[FIG1\]. This would be the case, if $(2-T/R)P>RP/T$, which by multiplication with $RT/P$ becomes $(2RT-T^2) > R^2$ or $(T-R)^2 < 0$. Since this condition cannot be fulfilled, it does not impose any further restrictions on the stability area in the snowdrift game. [^5]: Note that this identification of a speed with a force is sometimes used for dissipative motion of the kind $m_\alpha d^2x_\alpha/dt^2 = - \gamma_\alpha dx_\alpha/dt + \sum_\beta F_{\alpha\beta}(t)$, where $x_\alpha(t)$ is the location of an individual $\alpha$, the “mass” $m_\alpha$ reflects inertia, $\gamma_\alpha$ is a friction coefficient, and $F_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ are interaction forces. In the limiting case $m_\alpha \rightarrow 0$, we can make the adiabatic approximation $dx_\alpha/dt = \sum_\beta F_{\alpha\beta}(t)/\gamma_\alpha = \sum_\beta f_{\alpha\beta}(t)$, where $dx_\alpha/dt$ is a speed and $f_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ are proportional to the interaction forces $F_{\alpha\beta}(t)$. Hence, the quantities $f_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ are sometimes called “forces” themselves.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We propose a simple but useful parametrization of the flavor composition of ultrahigh-energy neutrino fluxes produced from distant astrophysical sources: $\phi^{}_e : \phi^{}_\mu : \phi^{}_\tau = \sin^2 \xi \cos^2 \zeta : \cos^2 \xi \cos^2 \zeta : \sin^2 \zeta$. We show that it is possible to determine or constrain $\xi$ and $\zeta$ by observing two independent neutrino flux ratios at the second-generation neutrino telescopes, provided three neutrino mixing angles and the Dirac CP-violating phase have been well measured in neutrino oscillations. Any deviation of $\zeta$ from zero will signify the existence of cosmic $\nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ neutrinos at the source, and an accurate value of $\xi$ can be used to test both the conventional mechanism and the postulated scenarios for cosmic neutrino production. address: \| CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China\ and Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,\ P.O. Box 918, Beijing 100049, China author: - '[Zhi-zhong Xing]{} [^1] and [Shun Zhou]{} [^2]' title: 'Towards Determination of the Initial Flavor Composition of Ultrahigh-energy Neutrino Fluxes with Neutrino Telescopes' --- Introduction ============ High-energy neutrino telescopes are going to open a new window on the Universe, since they can be used to probe and characterize very distant astrophysical sources [@Review]. The promising IceCube neutrino telescope [@Halzen], which has a kilometer-scale detector, is now under construction. If the relative fluxes of ultrahigh-energy $\nu^{}_e$ ($\overline{\nu}^{}_e$), $\nu^{}_\mu$ ($\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu$) and $\nu^{}_\tau$ ($\overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$) neutrinos are successfully measured at IceCube and other neutrino telescopes, it will be possible to diagnose the relevant cosmic accelerators (e.g., their locations and characteristics) and examine the properties of neutrinos themselves (e.g., neutrino mixing and leptonic CP violation). Indeed, robust evidence for neutrino masses and lepton flavor mixing has been achieved from the recent solar [@SNO], atmospheric [@SK], reactor [@KM] and accelerator [@K2K] neutrino oscillation experiments. Due to neutrino oscillations, the neutrino fluxes observed at the detector $\Phi^{\rm D} = \{\phi^{\rm D}_e, \phi^{\rm D}_\mu, \phi^{\rm D}_\tau \}$ are in general different from the source fluxes $\Phi = \{\phi^{}_e, \phi^{}_\mu, \phi^{}_\tau \}$. Note that our notation is $\phi^{(\rm D)}_\alpha \equiv \phi^{(\rm D)}_{\nu^{}_\alpha} + \phi^{(\rm D)}_{\overline{\nu}^{}_\alpha}$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$), where $\phi^{(\rm D)}_{\nu^{}_\alpha}$ and $\phi^{(\rm D)}_{\overline{\nu}^{}_\alpha}$ denote the $\nu^{}_\alpha$-neutrino and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\alpha$-antineutrino fluxes, respectively. The relation between $\phi^{}_{\nu^{}_\alpha}$ (or $\phi^{}_{\overline{\nu}^{}_\alpha}$) and $\phi^{\rm D}_{\nu^{}_\beta}$ (or $\phi^{\rm D}_{\overline{\nu}^{}_\beta}$) is given by $$\begin{aligned} \phi^{\rm D}_{\nu^{}_\beta} & = & \sum_\alpha \left ( \phi^{}_{\nu^{}_\alpha} P^{}_{\alpha \beta} \right ) \; , \nonumber \\ \phi^{\rm D}_{\overline{\nu}^{}_\beta} & = & \sum_\alpha \left ( \phi^{}_{\overline{\nu}^{}_\alpha} \bar{P}^{}_{\alpha \beta} \right ) \; , % (1)\end{aligned}$$ in which $P^{}_{\alpha \beta}$ and $\bar{P}^{}_{\alpha \beta}$ stand respectively for the oscillation probabilities $P (\nu^{}_\alpha \rightarrow \nu^{}_\beta)$ and $P (\overline{\nu}^{}_\alpha \rightarrow \overline{\nu}^{}_\beta)$. As the Galactic distances far exceed the observed neutrino oscillation lengths, $P^{}_{\alpha \beta}$ and $\bar{P}^{}_{\alpha \beta}$ are actually averaged over many oscillations and take a very simple form: $$P^{}_{\alpha \beta} \; = \; \bar{P}^{}_{\alpha \beta} \; = \; \sum^3_{i=1} \|V^{}_{\alpha i}\|^2 \|V^{}_{\beta i}\|^2 \; , % (2)$$ where $V^{}_{\alpha i}$ and $V^{}_{\beta i}$ (for $\alpha, \beta = e, \mu, \tau$ and $i = 1, 2, 3$) are just the elements of the $3\times 3$ neutrino mixing matrix $V$. Eqs. (1) and (2) lead us to a straightforward relation between $\phi^{}_\alpha$ and $\phi^{\rm D}_\beta$: $$\phi^{\rm D}_\beta \; = \; \sum_\alpha \left ( \phi^{}_\alpha P^{}_{\alpha \beta} \right ) \; . ~ % (3)$$ This relation indicates that the observation of $\Phi^{\rm D}$ at a neutrino telescope can [at least]{} help [^3] - to determine or constrain the flavor composition of cosmic neutrino fluxes [@Quigg; @Beacom2], if three neutrino mixing angles and the Dirac CP-violating phase hidden in $P^{}_{\alpha \beta}$ have been measured to a good degree of accuracy (e.g., a precision of $10\%$ or smaller relative error bars [@Winter]); or - to determine or constrain one or two of three neutrino mixing angles and the Dirac CP-violating phase [@Gupta; @Serpico], provided the production mechanism of ultrahigh-energy neutrinos at an astrophysical source (e.g., the conventional source to be mentioned below) is really understood. Hence neutrino telescopes will serve as a very useful tool to probe both the high-energy astrophysical processes and the intrinsic properties of massive neutrinos. This paper aims at a determination of the flavor composition of cosmic neutrino fluxes at the source with the help of neutrino telescopes. Different from the previous works (see, e.g., Refs. [@Beacom; @Quigg; @Beacom2; @Gupta; @Serpico]), our present study starts from a generic parametrization of the initial neutrino fluxes: $$\left \{ \phi^{}_e ~ , ~\phi^{}_\mu ~ , ~\phi^{}_\tau \right \} \; = \; \left \{ \sin^2 \xi \cos^2 \zeta ~ , ~\cos^2 \xi \cos^2 \zeta ~ , ~\sin^2 \zeta \right \} \phi^{}_0 \; , % (4)$$ where $\xi \in [0, \pi/2]$ and $\zeta \in [0, \pi/2]$, and $\phi^{}_0$ denotes the total flux (i.e., the sum of three neutrino fluxes). Provided ultrahigh-energy neutrinos are produced by certain astrophysical sources (e.g., Active Galactic Nuclei or AGN) via the decay of pions created from $pp$ and $p\gamma$ collisions, for instance, their flavor content is expected to be $$\left \{\phi^{}_e : \phi^{}_\mu : \phi^{}_\tau \right \} \; = \; \left \{ \frac{1}{3} : \frac{2}{3} : 0 \right \} \; . % (5)$$ This “standard" neutrino flux ratio corresponds to $\zeta = 0$ and $\tan\xi = 1/\sqrt{2}$ (or equivalently $\xi \approx 35.3^\circ$) in our parametrization. It turns out that any small departure of $\zeta$ from zero will measure the existence of cosmic $\nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ neutrinos, which might come from the decays of $D^{}_s$ and $B\overline{B}$ mesons produced at the source [@Pakvasa]. On the other hand, any small deviation of $\tan^2\xi$ from $1/2$ will imply that the conventional mechanism for ultrahigh-energy neutrino production from the AGN has to be modified. Similar arguments can be put forward for the neutrino fluxes from some other astrophysical sources, such as the postulated neutron beam source [@Neutron] with $$\left \{\phi^{}_e : \phi^{}_\mu : \phi^{}_\tau \right \} \; = \; \left \{ 1 : 0 : 0 \right \} \; % (6)$$ (or equivalently $\{ \xi, \zeta \} = \{ \pi/2, 0 \}$) and the possible muon-damped source [@Muon] with $$\left \{\phi^{}_e : \phi^{}_\mu : \phi^{}_\tau \right \} \; = \; \left \{ 0 : 1 : 0 \right \} \; % (7)$$ (or equivalently $\{ \xi, \zeta \} = \{ 0, 0 \}$). Therefore, we are well motivated to investigate how the [true]{} values of $\xi$ and $\zeta$ for a specific astrophysical source can be determined or constrained by use of the second-generation neutrino telescopes and with the help of more precise data from the upcoming long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments. This goal is indeed reachable, as we shall explicitly demonstrate in the remaining part of this paper. The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. In section II, we derive the analytical relations between the neutrino flavor parameters ($\xi$ and $\zeta$) at an astrophysical source and the typical observables of neutrino fluxes at a terrestrial detector. Section III is devoted to a detailed numerical analysis of the dependence of those observables on $\xi$ and $\zeta$. A brief summary of our main results is given in section IV. Observables =========== Because of neutrino oscillations and the $\nu^{}_\tau$ “regeneration" in the Earth [@Halzen], it is especially important to detect all three flavors of the cosmic neutrinos at a neutrino telescope. The sum of $\phi^{\rm D}_e$, $\phi^{\rm D}_\mu$ and $\phi^{\rm D}_\tau$ is equal to that of $\phi^{}_e$, $\phi^{}_\mu$ and $\phi^{}_\tau$, $$\phi^{}_0 \; \equiv \; \phi^{}_e + \phi^{}_\mu + \phi^{}_\tau = \phi^{\rm D}_e + \phi^{\rm D}_\mu + \phi^{\rm D}_\tau \; , % (8)$$ as one may easily see from Eqs. (2) and (3). A measurement of $\phi^{}_0$ may involve large systematic uncertainties, but the latter can be largely cancelled out in the ratio of two neutrino fluxes. Therefore, let us follow Ref. [@Serpico] to define $$\left \{ R^{}_e ~ , ~ R^{}_\mu ~ , ~R^{}_\tau \right \} \; \equiv \; \left \{ \frac{\phi^{\rm D}_e}{\phi^{\rm D}_\mu + \phi^{\rm D}_\tau} ~ , ~\frac{\phi^{\rm D}_\mu}{\phi^{\rm D}_\tau + \phi^{\rm D}_e} ~ , ~\frac{\phi^{\rm D}_\tau}{\phi^{\rm D}_e + \phi^{\rm D}_\mu} \right \} \; % (9)$$ as our [working]{} observables. We remark that these ratios are largely free from the systematic uncertainties associated with the measurements of $\phi^{\rm D}_e$, $\phi^{\rm D}_\mu$ and $\phi^{\rm D}_\tau$. In particular, it is relatively easy to extract $R^{}_\mu$ from the ratio of muon tracks to showers at IceCube [@IC], even if those electron and tau events may not well be disentangled. Since $R^{}_e$, $R^{}_\mu$ and $R^{}_\tau$ satisfy $$\frac{R^{}_e}{1+R^{}_e} + \frac{R^{}_\mu}{1+R^{}_\mu} + \frac{R^{}_\tau}{1+R^{}_\tau} \; = \; 1 \; , % (10)$$ only two of them are independent. Note that Eqs. (6) and (7) represent two peculiar (non-standard) scenarios of cosmic neutrino production. In principle, one may also assume an exotic astrophysical source which only produces $\nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ neutrinos; i.e., $\{\phi^{}_e : \phi^{}_\mu : \phi^{}_\tau \} = \{ 0 : 0 : 1 \}$ or equivalently $\zeta = \pi/2$ with unspecified $\xi$ in our parametrization. The expression of $R^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) can then be simplified in such special cases: $$R^{}_\alpha \; =\; \left \{ \begin{array}{l} \displaystyle \frac{P^{}_{e\alpha}}{1 - P^{}_{e\alpha}} \; , ~~~~ {\rm for} ~ \{ \xi, \zeta \} = \{ \pi/2, 0 \} \; , \\ \displaystyle \frac{P^{}_{\mu\alpha}}{1 - P^{}_{\mu\alpha}} \; , ~~~~ {\rm for} ~ \{ \xi, \zeta \} = \{ 0, 0 \} \; , \\ \displaystyle \frac{P^{}_{\tau\alpha}}{1 - P^{}_{\tau\alpha}} \; , ~~~~ {\rm for} ~ \{ \xi, \zeta \} = \{ , \pi/2 \} \; . \end{array} \right . % (11)$$ Even if the third case is completely unrealistic, it could serve as an example to illustrate the salient feature of $R^{}_\alpha$ defined above. Without loss of generality, we choose $R^{}_e$ and $R^{}_\mu$ as two typical observables and derive their explicit relations with $\xi$ and $\zeta$. By using Eqs. (4), (8) and (9), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} R^{}_e & = & \frac{P^{}_{e e} \sin^2\xi + P^{}_{\mu e} \cos^2\xi + P^{}_{\tau e} \tan^2\zeta}{\sec^2\zeta - \left[ P^{}_{e e} \sin^2\xi + P^{}_{\mu e} \cos^2\xi + P^{}_{\tau e} \tan^2\zeta \right]} \; , \nonumber \\ R^{}_\mu & = & \frac{P^{}_{e \mu} \sin^2\xi + P^{}_{\mu \mu} \cos^2\xi + P^{}_{\tau \mu} \tan^2\zeta}{\sec^2\zeta - \left[ P^{}_{e \mu} \sin^2\xi + P^{}_{\mu \mu} \cos^2\xi + P^{}_{\tau \mu} \tan^2\zeta \right]} \; . % (12)\end{aligned}$$ The source flavor parameters $\xi$ and $\zeta$ can then be figured out in terms of $R^{}_e$ and $R^{}_\mu$: $$\begin{aligned} \sin^2\xi & = & \frac{r^{}_e \left ( P^{}_{\tau \mu} - P^{}_{\mu \mu} \right ) - r^{}_\mu \left ( P^{}_{\tau e} - P^{}_{\mu e} \right ) + \left ( P^{}_{\mu \mu} P^{}_{\tau e} - P^{}_{\mu e} P^{}_{\tau \mu} \right )}{\left ( r^{}_e - P^{}_{\tau e} \right ) \left ( P^{}_{e \mu} - P^{}_{\mu \mu} \right ) - \left ( r^{}_\mu - P^{}_{\tau \mu} \right ) \left ( P^{}_{e e} - P^{}_{\mu e} \right )} \; , \nonumber \\ \tan^2\zeta & = & \frac{r^{}_e \left ( P^{}_{\mu \mu} - P^{}_{e \mu} \right ) - r^{}_\mu \left ( P^{}_{\mu e} - P^{}_{e e} \right ) + \left ( P^{}_{e \mu} P^{}_{\mu e} - P^{}_{e e} P^{}_{\mu \mu} \right )} {\left ( r^{}_e - P^{}_{\tau e} \right ) \left ( P^{}_{e \mu} - P^{}_{\mu \mu} \right ) - \left ( r^{}_\mu - P^{}_{\tau \mu} \right ) \left ( P^{}_{e e} - P^{}_{\mu e} \right )} \; , % (13)\end{aligned}$$ where the notations $r^{}_e \equiv R^{}_e/(1 + R^{}_e)$ and $r^{}_\mu \equiv R^{}_\mu/(1 + R^{}_\mu)$ have been used to simplify the expressions. Indeed, $r^{}_e = \phi^{\rm D}_e/\phi^{}_0$ and $r^{}_\mu = \phi^{\rm D}_\mu/\phi^{}_0$ hold. One may in principle choose either $(R^{}_e, R^{}_\mu)$ or $(r^{}_e, r^{}_\mu)$ as a set of working observables to inversely determine $\xi$ and $\zeta$. The first set has been chosen by a few authors (see, e.g., Refs. [@Winter; @Serpico]) and will also be adopted in this paper. Note that the averaged neutrino oscillation probabilities $P^{}_{\alpha \beta}$ depend on three mixing angles $(\theta^{}_{12}, \theta^{}_{23}, \theta^{}_{13})$ and the Dirac CP-violating phase $(\delta)$ in the standard parametrization of the $3\times 3$ neutrino mixing matrix $V$ [@PDG]. Taking account of $\theta^{}_{13} < 10^\circ$ [@CHOOZ] but $\theta^{}_{12} \approx 34^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{23} \approx 45^\circ$ [@Vissani], we express $P^{}_{\alpha \beta}$ as the first-order expansion of the small parameter $\sin\theta^{}_{13}$: $$\begin{aligned} P^{}_{e e} &=& 1 - \frac{1}{2}\sin^2 2\theta^{}_{12} \; , \nonumber \\ P^{}_{e \mu} &=& \frac{1}{2} \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{12} \cos^2 \theta^{}_{23} + \frac{1}{4} \sin 4\theta^{}_{12} \sin 2\theta^{}_{23} \sin \theta^{}_{13} \cos \delta \; , \nonumber \\ P^{}_{e \tau} &=& \frac{1}{2} \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{12} \sin^2 \theta^{}_{23} - \frac{1}{4} \sin 4\theta^{}_{12} \sin 2\theta^{}_{23} \sin \theta^{}_{13} \cos \delta \; , \nonumber \\ P^{}_{\mu \mu} &=& 1 - \frac{1}{2} \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{23} -\frac{1}{2} \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{12} \cos^4 \theta^{}_{23} - \frac{1}{2} \sin 4 \theta^{}_{12} \sin 2\theta^{}_{23} \cos^2 \theta^{}_{23} \sin \theta^{}_{13} \cos \delta \; , \nonumber \\ P^{}_{\mu \tau} &=& \frac{1}{2} \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{23} - \frac{1}{8} \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{12} \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{23} + \frac{1}{8} \sin 4\theta^{}_{12} \sin 4\theta^{}_{23} \sin \theta^{}_{13} \cos \delta \; , \nonumber \\ P^{}_{\tau \tau} &=& 1 - \frac{1}{2} \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{23} -\frac{1}{2} \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{12} \sin^4 \theta^{}_{23} + \frac{1}{2} \sin 4 \theta^{}_{12} \sin 2\theta^{}_{23} \sin^2 \theta^{}_{23} \sin \theta^{}_{13} \cos \delta \; , % (14)\end{aligned}$$ in which the higher-order terms, such as ${\cal O}(\sin^2\theta^{}_{13}) < 3\%$, have been safely neglected. One can see that the sensitivity of $P^{}_{\alpha \beta}$ to $\delta$ is suppressed due to the smallness of $\sin\theta^{}_{13}$. Hence the dependence of $R^{}_{\alpha}$ on $\delta$ is expected to be insignificant. In addition, it is hard to distinguish between the cases of $\theta^{}_{13} = 0^\circ$ and $\delta^{} = 90^\circ$, because it is the product of $\sin\theta^{}_{13}$ and $\cos\delta$ that appears in the analytical approximations of $P^{}_{\alpha \beta}$. A global analysis of current neutrino oscillation data [@Vissani] yields $$\begin{aligned} 30^\circ < & \theta^{}_{12} & < \; 38^\circ \; , \nonumber \\ 36^\circ < & \theta^{}_{23} & < \; 54^\circ \; , \nonumber \\ 0^\circ \leq & \theta^{}_{13} & < \; 10^\circ \; , % (15)\end{aligned}$$ at the $99\%$ confidence level. The best-fit values of three neutrino mixing angles are $\theta^{}_{12} \approx 34^\circ$, $\theta^{}_{23} \approx 45^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{13} \approx 0^\circ$ [@Vissani], but the CP-violating phase $\delta$ is entirely unrestricted. Although the present experimental data remain unsatisfactory, they can be used to constrain the correlation between the parameters $(\xi, \zeta)$ and the observables $(R^{}_\alpha, R^{}_\beta)$. We shall illustrate our analytical results by taking a few typical numerical examples in the subsequent section. Illustration ============ First of all, let us follow a rather conservative strategy to scan the reasonable ranges of $(\theta^{}_{12}, \theta^{}_{23}, \theta^{}_{13}, \delta)$ and $(\xi, \zeta)$ so as to examine the sensitivities of $(R^{}_e, R^{}_\mu, R^{}_\tau)$ to these six parameters. We take $\delta \in [0^\circ, 180^\circ]$ in addition to the generous intervals of three mixing angles given in Eq. (15), and allow $\xi$ to vary in the region $\xi \in [0^\circ, 90^\circ]$. As the amount of $\nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ neutrinos produced at those realistic astrophysical sources is expected to be very small or even vanishing, we restrict the parameter $\zeta$ to a very narrow domain $\zeta \in [0^\circ, 18^\circ]$, which corresponds to $\sin^2 \zeta \lesssim 0.1$ [@Pakvasa]. It should be noted that we do the numerical computation by using the exact expressions of $P^{}_{\alpha\beta}$ instead of Eq. (14). Our results are shown in FIG. 1. Two comments are in order: 1. The source parameter $\xi$ is quite sensitive to the values of the neutrino flux ratios $R^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$). Even if three neutrino mixing angles involve a lot of uncertainties and the Dirac CP-violating phase is entirely unknown, a combined measurement of $(R^{}_e, R^{}_\mu)$ or $(R^{}_e, R^{}_\tau)$ can constrain the value of $\xi$ to an acceptable degree of accuracy. This encouraging observation assures that the second-generation neutrino telescopes can really be used to probe the initial flavor composition of ultrahigh neutrino fluxes. Note that the standard pion-decay source $\{\phi^{}_e : \phi^{}_\mu : \phi^{}_\tau \} = \{ 1/3 : 2/3 : 0 \}$ will produce $\{\phi^{\rm D}_e : \phi^{\rm D}_\mu : \phi^{\rm D}_\tau \} \simeq \{ 1/3 : 1/3 : 1/3 \}$ or equivalently $R^{}_e \approx R^{}_\mu \approx R^{}_\tau \approx 0.5$ at the detector, as shown in FIG. 1, if $\theta^{}_{23} \approx 45^\circ$ is fixed and $\theta^{}_{13} < 10^\circ$ is taken. Such an expectation cannot be true, however, when $\xi$ deviates from its given value $\xi = 35.3^\circ$ and (or) when $\theta^{}_{23}$ departs from its best-fit value $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$. More precise neutrino oscillation data will greatly help to narrow down the $(R^{}_\alpha, \xi)$ parameter space. 2. In contrast, the source parameter $\zeta$ seems to be insensitive to $R^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$). The reason for this insensitivity is two-fold: (a) the values of $\zeta$ have been restricted to a very narrow range ($0^\circ \leq \zeta \leq 18^\circ$); and (b) the numerical uncertainties of three neutrino mixing angles and the Dirac CP-violating phase are too large. Provided $\theta^{}_{12}$, $\theta^{}_{23}$, $\theta^{}_{13}$ and $\delta$ are all measured to a high degree of accuracy in the near future, it will be possible to find out the definite dependence of $R^{}_\alpha$ on $\zeta$ for a given value of $\xi$. To be more explicit, we are going to consider three typical scenarios of cosmic neutrino fluxes and illustrate the sensitivities of $R^{}_e$, $R^{}_\mu$ and $R^{}_\tau$ to the source parameters $(\xi, \zeta)$ and to the unknown neutrino mixing parameters $(\theta^{}_{13}, \delta)$. We argue that the simple flavor content of ultrahigh-energy neutrino fluxes from the standard pion-decay source could somehow be contaminated for certain reasons: e.g., a small amount of $\nu^{}_e$, $\nu^{}_\mu$ and $\nu^{}_\tau$ and their antiparticles might come from the decays of heavier hadrons produced by $pp$ and $p\gamma$ collisions [@Pakvasa]. Similar arguments can also be made for the postulated neutron beam source and the possible muon-damped source, as our present knowledge about the mechanism of cosmic neutrino production remains very poor. Following a phenomenological approach, we slightly modify the scenarios listed in Eqs. (5), (6) and (7) by allowing the relevant $\xi$ and $\zeta$ parameters to fluctuate around their given values. Namely, we consider - [Scenario A:]{} $30^\circ \leq \xi \leq 40^\circ$ and $0^\circ \leq \zeta \leq 18^\circ$, serving as a modified version of the standard pion-decay source (originally, $\xi = 35.3^\circ$ and $\zeta = 0^\circ$); - [Scenario B:]{} $80^\circ \leq \xi \leq 90^\circ$ and $0^\circ \leq \zeta \leq 18^\circ$, serving as a modified version of the postulated neutron beam source (originally, $\xi = 90^\circ$ and $\zeta = 0^\circ$); - [Scenario C:]{} $0^\circ \leq \xi \leq 10^\circ$ and $0^\circ \leq \zeta \leq 18^\circ$, serving as a modified version of the possible muon-damped source (originally, $\xi = 0^\circ$ and $\zeta = 0^\circ$). For simplicity, we fix $\theta^{}_{12} = 34^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$ in our numerical analysis. We take four typical inputs for the unknown parameters $\theta^{}_{13}$ and $\delta$: (a) $\theta^{}_{13} = 0^\circ$ (in this case, $\delta$ is not well-defined and has no physical significance); (b) $\theta^{}_{13} = 5^\circ$ and $\delta = 0^\circ$; (c) $\theta^{}_{13} = 5^\circ$ and $\delta = 90^\circ$; and (d) $\theta^{}_{13} = 5^\circ$ and $\delta = 180^\circ$. Our numerical results for the sensitivities of $R^{}_e$, $R^{}_\mu$ and $R^{}_\tau$ to $\xi$ and $\zeta$ in scenarios A, B and C are shown in FIGs. 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Some discussions are in order. 1. . The neutrino flux ratios $R^{}_e$, $R^{}_\mu$ and $R^{}_\tau$ are all sensitive to the small deviation of $\xi$ from its standard value $\xi = 35.3^\circ$. In contrast, the changes of three observables are very small when $\zeta$ varies from $0^\circ$ to $18^\circ$. This insensitivity is understandable: about half of the initial $\nu^{}_\mu$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu$ neutrinos oscillate into $\nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ neutrinos, whose amount dominates over the survival amount of initial $\nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ neutrinos at the detector. In other words, $\phi^{\rm D}_\tau \gg \phi^{}_\tau$ and $\phi^{\rm D}_e \sim \phi^{\rm D}_\mu \sim \phi^{\rm D}_\tau$ hold, implying that $R^{}_\alpha$ must be insensitive to small $\phi^{}_\tau$ or equivalently to small $\zeta$. It is therefore difficult to pin down the value of $\zeta$ from this kind of astrophysical sources. As pointed out in the last section, the result of $R^{}_\alpha$ in the $\theta^{}_{13} = 0^\circ$ case (solid curves) is almost indistinguishable from that in the $\delta = 90^\circ$ case (dotted curves). The sensitivity of $R^{}_\alpha$ to $\delta$ is insignificant but distinguishable, if the value of $\theta^{}_{13}$ is about $5^\circ$ or larger. 2. . The neutrino flux ratio $R^{}_e$ is sensitive to the small departures of $\xi$ and $\zeta$ from their given values $\xi = 90^\circ$ and $\zeta = 0^\circ$. This salient feature can be understood as follows. Since $\nu^{}_\mu$ (or $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu$) and $\nu^{}_\tau$ (or $\overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$) neutrinos at the detector mainly come from the initial $\nu^{}_e$ (or $\overline{\nu}^{}_e$) neutrinos via the oscillation, the sum of $\phi^{\rm D}_\mu$ and $\phi^{\rm D}_\tau$ is expected to be smaller than or comparable with the survival $\nu^{}_e$ (or $\overline{\nu}^{}_e$) flux $\phi^{\rm D}_e$. The roles of $\phi^{}_e$ and $\phi^{}_\tau$ are important in $\phi^{\rm D}_e$ and $\phi^{\rm D}_\mu + \phi^{\rm D}_\tau$, respectively. It turns out that $R^{}_e$ depends, in a relatively sensitive way, on $\xi$ through $\phi^{\rm D}_e$ in its numerator and on $\zeta$ through $\phi^{\rm D}_\mu + \phi^{\rm D}_\tau$ in its denominator. Note also that the nearly degenerate results of $R^{}_e$ for $\theta^{}_{13} = 5^\circ$ and $\delta = (0^\circ, 90^\circ, 180^\circ)$ are primarily attributed to the fact that $P^{}_{ee}$ in the numerator of $R^{}_e$ is actually independent of $\delta$. On the other hand, the discrepancy between $R^{}_e (\theta^{}_{13}=0^\circ)$ and $R^{}_e (\theta^{}_{13}=5^\circ)$ in FIG. 3 results from the ${\cal O}(\sin^2\theta^{}_{13})$ terms of $P^{}_{\alpha \beta}$, which have been neglected in Eq. (14). In comparison with $R^{}_e$, the neutrino flux ratios $R^{}_\mu$ and $R^{}_\tau$ are not so sensitive to the small changes of $\xi$ and $\zeta$. But the measurement of $R^{}_\mu$ and $R^{}_\tau$ is as important as that of $R^{}_e$, in order to determine the flavor composition of ultrahigh-energy neutrino fluxes at such an astrophysical source. 3. . In this case, in which $\phi^{\rm D}_e$ and $\phi^{\rm D}_\tau$ mainly come from the initial $\phi^{}_\mu$ via $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \nu^{}_e$ and $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau$ oscillations, one can similarly understand the numerical behaviors of $R^{}_e$, $R^{}_\mu$ and $R^{}_\tau$ changing with the small deviation of $\xi$ from its given value $\xi = 0^\circ$. To explain why three observables are almost independent of the fluctuation of $\zeta$, we take $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{13} \rightarrow 0^\circ$, which guarantee $P^{}_{\tau \alpha} = P^{}_{\mu \alpha}$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) to hold in the leading-order approximation. We can then simplify Eq. (12) in the $\xi \rightarrow 0^\circ$ limit and arrive at the following result: $$R^{}_\alpha \|^{}_{\xi \rightarrow 0^\circ} \; = \; \frac{P^{}_{\mu \alpha} + P^{}_{\tau \alpha} \tan^2 \zeta}{\sec^2 \zeta - \left(P^{}_{\mu \alpha} + P^{}_{\tau \alpha} \tan^2 \zeta\right)} \; = \; \frac{P^{}_{\mu \alpha}}{1 - P^{}_{\mu \alpha}} \; , % (16)$$ where $\zeta$ is completely cancelled out. Therefore, the tiny dependence of $R^{}_\alpha$ on $\zeta$ appearing in FIG. 4 is just a natural consequence of the ${\cal O}(\sin\theta^{}_{13})$ or ${\cal O}(\sin^2 \theta^{}_{13})$ corrections to Eq. (16). Although the numerical examples taken above can only serve for illustration, they [do]{} give us a ball-park feeling of the correlation between the source parameters $(\xi, \zeta)$ and the neutrino mixing parameters $(\theta^{}_{12}, \theta^{}_{23}, \theta^{}_{13}, \delta)$ via the working observables $(R^{}_e, R^{}_\mu, R^{}_\tau)$ at a neutrino telescope. This observation is certainly encouraging and remarkable. Summary ======= We have proposed a simple parametrization of the initial flavor composition of ultrahigh-energy neutrino fluxes generated from very distant astrophysical sources: $\phi^{}_e : \phi^{}_\mu : \phi^{}_\tau = \sin^2 \xi \cos^2 \zeta : \cos^2 \xi \cos^2 \zeta : \sin^2 \zeta$. The conventional mechanism and the postulated scenarios for cosmic neutrino production can all be reproduced by taking the special values of $(\xi, \zeta)$. Of course, such a parametrization is by no means unique. An alternative, $$\phi^{}_e : \phi^{}_\mu : \phi^{}_\tau \; = \; \frac{x}{1+t} : \frac{1-x}{1+t} : \frac{t}{1+t} \; % (17)$$ with $x \in [0, 1]$ and $t \in [0, \infty)$ in general, is also simple and useful. For a realistic astrophysical source, it should be more reasonable to take $0 \leq t \ll 1$. Comparing between Eqs. (4) and (17), one can immediately arrive at $x = \sin^2 \xi$ and $t = \tan^2 \zeta$. The $(x,t)$ and $(\xi, \zeta)$ languages are therefore equivalent to each other. After defining three neutrino flux ratios $R^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) as our working observables at a neutrino telescope, we have shown that the source parameters $\xi$ and $\zeta$ can in principle be determined by the measurement of two independent $R^{}_\alpha$ and with the help of accurate neutrino oscillation data. The standard pion-decay source, the postulated neutrino beam source and the possible muon-damped source have been slightly modified to illustrate the sensitivities of $R^{}_\alpha$ to small departures of $\xi$ and $\zeta$ from their given values. We have also examined the dependence of $R^{}_\alpha$ upon the smallest neutrino mixing angle $\theta^{}_{13}$ and upon the Dirac CP-violating phase $\delta$. Our numerical examples indicate that it is quite promising to determine or constrain the initial flavor content of ultrahigh-energy neutrino fluxes with the second-generation neutrino telescopes. How to measure $R^{}_\alpha$ to an acceptable degree of accuracy is certainly a big challenge to IceCube and other neutrino telescopes. A detailed analysis of the feasibility of our idea for a specific neutrino telescope is desirable, but it is beyond the scope of this paper. Here we remark that our present understanding of the production mechanism of cosmic neutrinos needs the observational and experimental support. We expect that neutrino telescopes may help us to attain this goal in the long run. [99]{} J.G. Learned and K. Mannheim, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [50]{}, 679 (2000); F. Halzen and D. Hooper, Rept. Prog. Phys. [65]{}, 1025 (2002); J.J. Aubert, talk given at the 3rd International Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations in Venice, February 2006. F. Halzen and D. Saltzberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [81]{}, 4305 (1998); F. Halzen, astro-ph/0602132; and references therein. SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [89]{}, 011301 (2002). For a review, see: C.K. Jung [et al.]{}, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [51]{}, 451 (2001). KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [90]{}, 021802 (2003). K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [90]{}, 041801 (2003). J.F. Beacom and N.F. Bell, Phys. Rev. D [65]{}, 113009 (2002); J.F. Beacom, N.F. Bell, D. Hooper, S. Pakvasa, and T.J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [90]{}, 181301 (2003); Phys. Rev. D [69]{}, 017303 (2004). G. Barenboim and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D [67]{}, 073024 (2003); C. Quigg, hep-ph/0603372. J.F. Beacom, N.F. Bell, D. Hooper, S. Pakvasa, and T.J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D [68]{}, 093005 (2003); Erratum-[ibid.]{} D [72]{}, 019901 (2005). W. Winter, hep-ph/0604191. P. Bhattacharjee and N. Gupta, hep-ph/0501191. P.D. Serpico and M. Kachelrie$\rm \ss$, Phys. Rev. Lett. [94]{}, 211102 (2005); P.D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D [73]{}, 047301 (2006). J.G. Learned and S. Pakvasa, Astropart. Phys. [3]{}, 267 (1995). L.A. Anchordoqui, H. Goldberg, F. Halzen, and T.J. Weiler, Phys. Lett. B [593]{}, 42 (2004); R.M. Crocker [et al.]{}, Astrophys. J. [622]{}, 892 (2005). Note that the neutron beam source is now controversial, as this scenario seems not to be really desirable if the cosmic rays from the Galactic center are isotropic (see, e.g., B. Revenu, talk given at the 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Pune, 2005). We thank R. McKeown for calling our attention to the recent observation by the Pierre Auger Collaboration. J.P. Rachen and P. Meszaros, Phys. Rev. D [58]{}, 123005 (1998); T. Kashti and E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [95]{}, 181101 (2005). J. Ahrens [et al.]{} (IceCube), Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) [118]{}, 388 (2003). Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman [et al.]{}, Phys. Lett. B [592]{}, 1 (2004); Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [19]{}, 1 (2004). CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio [et al.]{}, Phys. Lett. B [420]{}, 397 (1998); Palo Verde Collaboration, F. Boehm [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [84]{}, 3764 (2000). A. Strumia and F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B [726*]{}, 294 (2005). [^1]: E-mail: [email protected] [^2]: E-mail: [email protected] [^3]: One may also use neutrino telescopes to test the stability of neutrinos [@Beacom; @Quigg], possible violation of CPT symmetry [@Quigg] and other exotic scenarios of particle physics and cosmology.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Via a straightforward integration of the Einstein equations with cosmological constant, all static circularly symmetric perfect fluid 2+1 solutions are derived. The structural functions of the metric depend on the energy density, which remains in general arbitrary. Spacetimes for fluids fulfilling linear and polytropic state equations are explicitly derived; they describe, among others, stiff matter, monatomic and diatomic ideal gases, nonrelativistic degenerate fermions, incoherent and pure radiation. As a by–product, we demonstrate the uniqueness of the constant energy density perfect fluid within the studied class of metrics. A full similarity of the perfect fluid solutions with constant energy density of the 2+1 and 3+1 gravities is established.' author: - 'Alberto A. García' - Cuauhtemoc Campuzano title: All Static Circularly Symmetric Perfect Fluid Solutions of 2+1 Gravity --- Introduction ============ In the last two decades a number of researches has been developed in 2+1 gravity: the search of exact solutions, the quantization of fields coupled to gravity, topological aspects, black hole physics, and so on. The literature on this respect is extremely vast. In the framework of exact solutions, from the beginning till now, the interest has been focused in the search and the study of physically relevant solutions and models with sources, for instance: static ${\it N}$–body spaces [@sta; @djh1], static and stationary metrics coupled to electromagnetic fields [@dm; @ga; @cs2; @kk1; @ct; @cg], scalar—dilaton fields [@gak; @mz], cosmology [@bbl], perfect fluids [@pc; @cf; @cz], among others. The purpose of this paper is the determination of all static circularly symmetric spacetimes with cosmological constant coupled to perfect fluids with and without zero pressure surfaces. In this context, some progress has been previously achieved. Cornish and Frankel [@cf] derived all universes obeying a polytropic equation. Nevertheless, since Cornish’s solutions were derived for zero cosmological constant, there is no way to determine a zero pressure surface. Hence these solutions extend to the whole spacetime, and consequently they are cosmological solutions. On the other hand, Cruz and Zanelli [@cz] established some consequences arising from the hydrostatic equilibrium Oppenheimer–Volkov equation, and derived for this equation a single solution for constant energy density; it should be pointed out that the expression of their $g_{tt}$–metric component presents a misprint, which is corrected in this work. By the way, we demonstrate here that the perfect fluid solution with constant energy density is the only conformally flat—in the sense of the vanishing of the Cotton tensor [@c1899]—circularly symmetric solution. In Sec. II, by a straightforward integration of the Einstein equations, we derive the general solution for the static circularly symmetric 2+1 metric with a cosmological constant coupled to a perfect fluid solution with variable density $\rho$ and pressure $p$. Sec. III is devoted to represent all this class of spacetimes in a canonical coordinate system. For a given equation of state of the form $p=p(\rho)$, certain particular families of perfect fluid solutions are derived; as concrete examples, the subcases of fluids obeying the linear law $p=\gamma\,\rho$, and those fluids subjected to a polytropic law $p=C\,\rho^{\gamma}$ in details are derived. In Sec. IV, from the Oppenheimer–Volkov equation certain properties of the studied solutions are established, for instance, for positive pressure $p$ and positive density $\rho$, obeying a state equation $p=p(\rho)$, a microscopically stable fluid possesses a monotonically decreasing energy density, and conversely. In Sec. V, to facilitate the comparison of the interior Schwarzschild 3+1 solution with cosmological constant, the perfect fluid 2+1 solution with $\rho={\rm const.}$ is derived. With this aim in mind, we search for an adequate representation of the corresponding structural functions and related quantities of these 3+1 and 2+1 spacetimes. A comparison table is presented. Via a dimensional reduction of the interior Schwarzschild with $\lambda$ solution, the perfect fluid 2+1 solution with constant $\rho$ is obtained. Finally, we end with some concluding remarks. Einstein equations for 2+1 static circularly symmetric perfect fluid metric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As far as we know, in most of the publications dealing with the search of perfect fluid solutions in (2+1) gravity, see for instance [@pc; @cf; @cz], the energy–momentum conservation, i.e., the Oppenheimer–Volkov equation, has been used as a clue to obtain the desired results. On the contrary, we prefer to solve directly the corresponding Einstein equations; in such case the energy–momentum conservation equations trivially hold. The line element of static circularly symmetric 2+1 spacetimes, in coordinates $\{t,r,\theta\}$, is given by $$\begin{aligned} ds^2 = -N(r)^2 dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{G(r)^2}+r^2 d\theta^2. \label{met12}\end{aligned}$$ Note that we are using units such that the velocity of light $c=1$. The Einstein equations with cosmological constant for a perfect fluid energy–momentum tensor $T_{ab}$: $$\begin{aligned} G_{ab}&=& R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab}R = \kappa\,T_{ab}-\lambda \,g_{ab} ,\nonumber\\ T_{ab}&=&( p+\rho)u_a u_b + p\,g_{ab}, \,u_a =-{N}\delta^t_a,\nonumber\\ R &=&2\kappa\rho -4\kappa p+6\lambda, \label{ee}\end{aligned}$$ for the metric (\[met12\]) explicitly amount to $$\begin{aligned} G_{tt}&=& -\frac { N^2}{ 2r} \frac {dG^2}{dr} = N^2 (\kappa\rho + \lambda),{\nonumber}\\ G_{rr}&=& \frac{1}{r N} \frac {d{N}}{dr} = \frac{1}{G^2} (\kappa p - \lambda),{\nonumber}\\ G_{\theta \theta}&=& \frac{r^2}{N}\left[G^2 \frac {d^2N}{dr^2} +\frac{1}{2} \frac {d N}{dr}\frac {dG^2}{dr} \right]\nonumber\\ &=& r^2 (\kappa p-\lambda). \label{Ein222}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the combination of the Einstein equations $ r^2\,G^2 G_{rr} -G_{\theta \theta}=0$, for $N(r)\neq\ {\rm {const.}}$, gives rise to an important equation: $$\begin{aligned} &&G \frac {d^{2}N}{d{r}^{2}}+ \frac {dN}{dr} \left ( \frac {dG}{dr} - \frac{G}{r} \right )= 0, \nonumber \\ &&\longrightarrow \frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{G}{r}\frac{dN}{dr}\right)=0, \label{N15}\end{aligned}$$ which will be extensively used throughout this paper. 2+1 perfect fluid solution with variable $\rho(r)$ ================================================== In this section, we derive the most general static circularly symmetric solution via a straightforward integration of the Einstein equations with $\lambda$ for a perfect fluid. It is easy to establish that the structural functions $G(r)$ and $N(r)$ can be integrated in quadratures. Integrating the $G_{tt}$–Eq. (\[Ein222\]), one arrives at $$G(r)^2=- \lambda r^2 -2\kappa\int_0^r{r \rho(r)dr} \equiv\, C - \lambda r^2 -2\kappa\int^r{r \rho(r)dr}, \label{Gc}$$ where $C$ is an integration constant in which we have incorporated the constant value of the integral at the lower integration limit $r=0$, thus the remaining integral depends on the upper integration limit $r$; we use the $r$–notation for the upper integration limit as well as to denote the integration variable. This convention will be used hereafter. From the second relation of Eq. (\[N15\]), one obtains $$\frac{dN}{dr}=n_1\frac{r}{G(r)}, \label{der}$$ therefore $$N(r)=n_1\,\int_0^r{\frac{r}{G(r)}dr}\equiv\,n_0+n_1\int^r{\frac{r} {G(r)}dr}. \label{Ncr}$$ The evaluation of the pressure $p(r)$ yields $$\kappa p\,(r)=\frac{1}{N(r)}\left[n_1\,G(r)+\lambda\,N(r)\right]. \label{pr}$$ The metric (\[met12\]), with $G(r)$ from Eq. (\[Gc\]), and $N(r)$ from Eq. (\[Ncr\]), determines the general static circularly symmetric 2+1 solution of the Einstein equations (\[Ein222\]) with $\lambda $, positive or negative, for a perfect fluid, characterized by a pressure given by Eq. (\[pr\]), and an arbitrary density $\rho(r)$. The fluid–velocity is aligned along the time–like Killing direction $\partial_t$. In the derivation of the obtained solutions no positivity conditions were imposed, thus these fluids allow for negative $p$ and $\rho$. Nevertheless, to deal with realistic matter distributions one has to impose positivity conditions on the density, $\rho>0$, and the pressure, $p>0$, requiring additionally $\rho>p$. For a finite distributed fluid, the pressure $p$ becomes zero at the boundary, say $r=a$; this value of the radial coordinate $r$ is determined as solution of the equation $p(r)=0$. For non–vanishing cosmological constant, assuming that the values of the structural functions at the boundary $r=a$ are $N(a)$ and $G(a)$, the vanishing at $r=a$ of the pressure $p(r)$, given by Eq. (\[pr\]), requires $n_1=-\lambda N(a)/G(a)$, hence $$\kappa\,p\,(r)=\frac{\lambda}{N(r)\,G(a)}\left[N(r)\,G(a)-N(a)\,G(r) \right].$$ If one is interested in matching the obtained perfect fluid metric with a vacuum metric with cosmological constant $\lambda$, the plausible choice at hand is the anti- de Sitter metric, with $\lambda=-1/l^2$, see Sec. IV, for which $G(a)= N(a)= \sqrt {-M_{\infty} + a^2/l^2 }$ at the boundary $r=a$ . Incidentally, for a non–zero cosmological constant, there is no room for dust. The zero character of the pressure yields the vanishing of the density, and consequently the metric describes the (anti)–de Sitter spacetime. For vanishing cosmological constant, the expression of the pressure (\[pr\]) is $$\kappa \,p\,(r)=n_1\frac{G(r)}{N(r)}, \label{pr2}$$ from which it becomes apparent that the corresponding solution represents a cosmological spacetime; there is no surface of vanishing pressure. For vanishing $\lambda$ and zero pressure, the situation slightly changes: the function $N$ becomes a constant, and the corresponding metric can be written as $$ds^2 = - dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{C -2\kappa\int^r{r \rho\,(r)dr}}+r^2 d\theta^2,$$ for any density function $\rho$. Of course, the choice of $\rho$ is restricted by physically reasonable matter distributions. Canonical coordinate system $\{t,N,\theta \}$ ============================================= In this section we show that an alternative formulation of our general solution can be achieved in coordinates $\{t,N,\theta \}$. Indeed, from Eq. (\[der\]) for the derivative of the function $N$, in which we are including–without any loss of generality– the constant $n_1$, (${N}/{n_1}\longrightarrow N, {n_1}\, t\longrightarrow t$), one obtains $$\begin{aligned} \frac{dN}{r}&=&\frac{dr}{G(r)}, \label{der1}\end{aligned}$$ hence $$\begin{aligned} {r}^2&=&{C_0}+\,2\,\int^N{G \,dN}. \label{r2}\end{aligned}$$ To derive $G$ as a function of the new variable $N$, one uses the $G_{tt}$—Eq. (\[Ein222\]) in the form of $$G\,dG=-(\kappa \,\rho+\lambda)r\,dr=-(\kappa\,\rho+\lambda)GdN,$$ therefore, one gets $$G(N)=C_1-{\lambda}\,N-{\kappa}\,\int^N{\rho\,(N)\,dN}.$$ Substituting this function $G$ into the expression (\[r2\]) for $r$, one has $$\begin{aligned} H(N):=\,{r}^2&=&C_0+\,2\,C_1\,N-\lambda\,N^2\nonumber\\ &-&2\,\kappa\,\int^N {\int^N{\rho\,(N)\,dN}dN}. \label{hr4}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, our metric in the new coordinates $\{t,N,\theta\}$ amounts to $$ds^2 = -N^2 dt^2 + \frac{dN^2}{ H(N)}+H(N)\, d\theta^2, \label{met12N}$$ which is characterized by pressure $$\begin{aligned} p\,(N)=\frac{C_1}{\kappa}\frac{1}{N}-\frac{1}{N}\,\int^N{\rho\,(N)\,dN}, \label{r4}\end{aligned}$$ and an arbitrary energy density $\rho(N)$ depending on the variable $N$; for physically conceivable solutions, both functions $p$ and $\rho$ have to be positive. The metric (\[met12N\]) together with the function $H$ from (\[hr4\]) give an alternative representation of our general solution. This representation will be used to derive particular solutions for a given state equation of the form $p=p\,(\rho)$. In this approach the expression of the pressure (\[r4\]) plays a central role. For completeness and checking purposes we include the Einstein equations for perfect fluid and cosmological constant for metric (\[met12N\]), considering the function $H$ as an arbitrary one. There are only two equations governing the problem namely: $$\begin{aligned} G_{tt}&:& \frac{d^2 H}{dN^2}=-2\lambda-2\kappa \rho\,(N)\\ G_{NN}&:& \frac{d H}{dN}=-2\lambda N+2\kappa\,N\, p\,(N).\end{aligned}$$ It is well known that the vanishing of the Cotton tensor in three dimensions determines locally the class of conformally flat spaces, in the same fashion as the vanishing of the Weyl tensor singles out conformally flat spaces in higher dimensions. The evaluation of the Cotton tensor $$C_{\mu\nu\sigma}:=-L_{\mu[\nu;\sigma]},\,L_{\mu\nu;\sigma}:= R_{\mu\nu;\sigma}-\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu\nu}\,R_{;\sigma}, \label{pr6}$$ yields only two independent non–vanishing components $$\begin{aligned} C_{ttN}&=&-\frac{1}{4}\,\kappa\,N^2\,\frac{d\rho}{dN},\nonumber\\ C_{\phi\phi\,N}&=& -\frac{1}{4}\,\kappa\,g_{\phi\phi}\,\frac{d\rho}{dN}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, from the above relations, we conclude that the perfect fluid solution with $\rho={\rm const.}$ for static circularly symmetric spacetimes is unique. This result can be stated as a theorem: The perfect fluid solution with constant $\rho$ is the only conformally flat static circularly symmetric spacetime for a perfect fluid source with or without cosmological constant. It is noteworthy the similarity of this theorem with the corresponding one formulated for the interior Schwarzschild metric, see [@col; @agdc]. We shall return to this spacetime in Sec.V. 2+1 perfect fluid solutions for a linear law $p=\gamma\,\,\rho$ --------------------------------------------------------------- Although in the previous section we provided the general solution to the posed question of finding all solutions for circularly symmetric static metric in 2+1 gravity coupled to perfect fluid in the presence of the cosmological constant, from the physical point of view, even in this lower dimensional spacetime, it is of interest to analyze certain specific cases, for instance, the solution corresponding to a fluid obeying the law $p=\gamma \rho$, or the more complicated case of a polytropic law $p=C\,\rho^\gamma $. The starting point in the present study is the linear relation between pressure and energy density $$\begin{aligned} p\,(N)=\gamma\, \rho\,(N). \label{p00}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $p(N)$ from Eq. (\[r4\]) into this relation, one gets $$\begin{aligned} \frac{C_1}{\kappa}-\,\int^N{\rho\,(N)\,dN}=\gamma\,N\,\rho\,(N). \label{po1}\end{aligned}$$ Differentiating this equation with respect to the variable $N$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{dN}{(N\,\rho)}+\frac{1}{\gamma N}\,(N\,\rho)=0, \label{po12}\end{aligned}$$ which has as general integral $$\begin{aligned} \rho(N)=C_2\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma^2}{N}^{-\frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma }}, \label{po3}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_2$ is an integration constant. Since we arrived at $\rho(N)$, Eq. (\[po3\]), through differentiation, then one has to replace the obtained result into the relation (\[po1\]), or equivalently into Eq. (\[p00\]), to see if there arises any constraint from it: $$p\,(N)=\frac{C_1}{\kappa}\frac{1}{N}+\gamma\,\,\rho\,(N)=\gamma\, \,\rho\,(N)\longrightarrow C_1=0, \label{pr3}$$ In such manner, we have established that the constant $C_1$ vanishes. Replacing the function $\rho(N)$ from Eq. (\[po3\]) into the expression of $H(N)$, Eq. (\[hr4\]), and accomplishing the integration one arrives at $$\begin{aligned} H(N)=C_0-\lambda N^2+2\kappa\,C_2N^{(\gamma-1)/{\gamma}}=r^2. \label{bar}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the metric for a perfect fluid fulfilling a linear state equation in coordinates $\{t,N,\theta\}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} ds^2 =&-&N^2 dt^2 + \frac{dN^2}{C_0-\lambda N^2+2\kappa\,C_2 N^{(\gamma-1)/{\gamma}}}\nonumber\\ &+&(C_0-\lambda N^2+2\kappa\,C_2 N^{(\gamma-1)/{\gamma}}) d\theta^2. \label{met121}\end{aligned}$$ To express this solution in terms of the radial variable $r$, one has to be able to solve the algebraic equation Eq. (\[bar\]), in general a transcendent one, for $N=N(r)$. The evaluation of the Cotton tensor leads to two independent non–vanishing components: $$\begin{aligned} C_{ttN}&=&C_2 \frac{\kappa}{4}\frac{(\gamma^2-1)}{\gamma^3}\, N^{-\frac{1}{\gamma}},\nonumber\\ C_{\phi\phi\,N}&=&C_2\frac{\kappa}{4} \frac{(\gamma^2-1)}{\gamma^3} \,N^{-\frac{2\gamma+1}{\gamma}}\,g_{\phi\phi}.\end{aligned}$$ Some examples of physical interest are described by the treated state equation, for instance: dust, $\gamma=0$, stiff matter, $\gamma=1$, pure radiation, $\gamma=1/2$, and incoherent radiation, $\gamma=1/3$. Details the reader may encounter in [@zn]. 2+1 perfect fluid solutions for a polytropic law $p=C\rho^\gamma$ ----------------------------------------------------------------- This subsection is devoted to the derivation of all solutions obeying the polytropic law $$p=C\,\rho^\gamma. \label{pr41}$$ Using again the expression of $p\,(N)$ from Eq. (\[r4\]), the above polytropic relation can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{C_1}{\kappa}-\,\int^N{\rho(N)\,dN}=C\,N\,{\rho}^{\gamma}(N). \label{G43}\end{aligned}$$ Differentiating with respect to $N$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned} -\,\rho=C\,\frac{d}{d N}(N\,\rho^{\gamma}), \label{po15}\end{aligned}$$ which, by introducing the auxiliary function $Z=N^{1/\gamma}\,\rho$, can be written as $$\begin{aligned} {d}(Z^{\gamma-1})+\frac{1}{C}d(N^{(\gamma-1)/\gamma})=0, \label{po16}\end{aligned}$$ therefore $$\begin{aligned} {d}\left[\left(\rho^{\gamma-1}+\frac{1}{C}\right)\,N^{(\gamma-1)/ \gamma}\right]=0. \label{po16}\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the general integral of the studied equation becomes $$\rho= C^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}}\,N^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}}\,\left[B- C^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}}\,N^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right]^ {\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}, \label{G441}$$ where $B$ is an integration constant. Entering this $\rho$ into the equation (\[pr41\]), taking into account that the integral of the density $\rho$ amounts to $$\int^N{\rho\,(N)\,dN}=-\int^N{d\,\left[B- C^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}}\,N^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right]^ {\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}}, \label{int}$$ one arrives at $$p\,(N)=\frac{n_1}{\kappa}\frac{C_1}{N}+C\,\rho^{\gamma}=C\, \rho^{\gamma}\longrightarrow C_1=0.$$ Considering that the first integral of $\rho$ is given by (\[int\]), the expression of the structural function $H(N)$ becomes $$H=C_0-\lambda\,N^2+ 2\,\kappa\int^N\!\!\left[B-C^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}} \,N^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right]^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}dN=r^2. \label{G49}$$ Notice that the mentioned integral can be expressed in terms of hypergeometric functions, hence $$H(N)=C_0-\lambda\,N^2 + 2\,\kappa \, B^{{\gamma}/({ \gamma-1})}\,N\, {\it \large {F}} \left( [{\frac {\gamma}{\gamma-1}},-{\frac {\gamma}{ \gamma-1}}],[{\frac {\gamma}{\gamma-1}}+1],{N}^{(\gamma-1)/{\gamma}}{C}^{-1/{\gamma}} {{B}}^{-1 } \right). \label{G494}$$ Summarizing, in the case of a polytropic equation of state, the general solution is given by the metric (\[met12N\]) with $H(N)$ from (\[G49\]), and is characterized by energy density and pressure of the form: $$\begin{aligned} p&=& \frac{1}{N}\left[B- C^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}}\,N^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right]^ {\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}},\nonumber\\ \rho&=& C^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}}\,N^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}}\,\left[B- C^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}}\,N^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right]^ {\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}. \label{G441}\end{aligned}$$ Incidentally, for zero $\lambda$, the derivation and study of static circularly symmetric cosmological spacetimes, coupled to perfect fluids fulfilling the polytropic law was accomplished in [@cf], where also have been discussed Robertson—Walker cosmologies. The non—vanishing independent components of the Cotton tensor (\[pr6\]) are $$\begin{aligned} C_{ttN}&=&\frac{1}{4}\kappa \,N^2\,\frac{d^2}{dN^2}\left[C_1-C^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}} \,N^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right]^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}, \nonumber\\ C_{\phi\phi\,N}&=&\frac{1}{4}\kappa\,g_{\phi\phi}\,\frac{d^2}{dN^2} \left[C_1-C^{\frac{-1}{\gamma}} \,N^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right]^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ These polytropic fluids contain, amongst others, certain physically relevant samples: nonrelativistic degenerate fermions, $\gamma=2$, nonrelativistic matter, $\gamma=3/2$, monatomic and diatomic gases, $\gamma=7/5$ and $\gamma=5/3$ respectively. Oppenheimer–Volkov equation =========================== Although when Einstein equations have been fulfilled, the energy-momentum conservation law trivially holds, it is of interest to establish certain properties arising from the Oppenheimer–Volkov equation, see for instance [@cz] in 2+1 gravity. An alternative derivation of this equation consists in differentiating with respect to $r$ the Einstein $G_{rr}$–Eq. (\[Ein222\]), this yields $$\begin{aligned} \kappa\,\,\frac{dp}{dr}&=& \frac{1}{r N}\frac {d N}{dr}\left(\frac {dG^2}{dr}-\frac{ G^2}{ r}\right) \nonumber\\ &+& \frac{ G^2}{ r\,N}\left (\frac {d^{2}N}{d{r}^{2}} - \frac{1}{ N}(\frac {d N}{dr})^2 \right). \label{N151}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the second derivative ${d^{2}N}/{d{r}^{2}}$ from Eq. (\[N15\]), and the first derivative $ {dN}/{dr}$ from the $G_{rr}$–equation into Eq. (\[N151\]), one arrives at the Oppenheimer–Volkov equation: $$\begin{aligned} {\frac{dp}{dr}}= -\frac{r}{ G^2}(\kappa \,p-\lambda)(\rho+p). \label{N152}\end{aligned}$$ At the circle $r=a$ of vanishing pressure $p(a)=0$, the pressure gradient amounts to $$\begin{aligned} \frac{dp}{dr}{\Large \mid}_{r=a}= \frac{\lambda a}{ G(a)^2}\rho(a). \label{N153}\end{aligned}$$ Since inside the circle the pressure is positive, $p(r<a)>0$, hence at the circle $r=a$ the pressure gradient has to be non–positive, consequently the cosmological constant ought to be negative, $\lambda=-1/l^2<0$. We shall continue to use $\lambda$ instead of $-1/l^2$, keeping in mind that $\lambda$ is a negative constant. The definition of the mass contained in the circle of radius $a$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} M:=2\pi{\int_0}^a{\rho(r)\,r\,dr}, \label{N113}\end{aligned}$$ and since the metric components $g_{rr}=1/G(r)^2$ has to be positive in the domain of definition of the solution, then there exists an upper limit for the mass, namely $$\begin{aligned} M\leq\,\frac{\pi}{\kappa} (C-\lambda\,a^2).\label{N114}\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that a state equation $p=p(\rho)$ holds, the matter content is said to be microscopically stable if $dp/d\rho\geq 0$. Since Eq. (\[N152\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned} {\frac{dp}{d\rho}}= -\frac{r}{ G^2}(\kappa \,p-\lambda)(\rho+p)/\frac{d\rho}{dr}, \label{N158}\end{aligned}$$ one concludes that for a microscopically stable fluid with positive pressure $p$ and positive density $\rho$, this density occurs to be monotonically decreasing $d\rho/dr< 0$. Moreover, the physical requirement that the sound speed is less than the velocity of light imposes an upper limit on $dp/d\rho\leq 1$. For our general solution in coordinates $\{t,N,\theta\}$, metric (\[met12N\]), from the expression (\[r4\]) for the pressure, one establishes $$\begin{aligned} {\frac{dp}{d\rho}}= -\frac{1}{N}(\rho+p)/{\frac{d\rho}{dN}},\label{N159}\end{aligned}$$ therefore the density is monotonically decreasing $d\rho/dN< 0$ if the matter is microscopically stable $dp/d\rho\geq 0$, and conversely. Moreover, our fluids, fulfilling the state equation $p=\gamma\rho$, $\gamma>0$, as well as those ones obeying the polytropic law $p=C\rho^\gamma$, $C>0,\gamma>0$, are microscopically stable fluids. 2+1 perfect fluid solution with constant $\rho$ ================================================ As we demonstrated in Sec. II, for constant $ \rho$ the Cotton tensor vanishes, and consequently the corresponding conformally flat space occurs to be unique. In this section it is shown that one can achieve a full correspondence of the metrics and structural functions for constant energy density perfect fluids in 2+1 and 3+1 gravities. By an appropriate choice of the constant densities and cosmological constants, via a dimensional reduction (freezing of one of the spatial coordinates of the 3+1 spacetime), one obtains the 2+1 metric structure from the 3+1 solution. To achieve the mentioned purpose, the conformally flat static spherically symmetric perfect fluid 3+1 solution with cosmological constant is presented in a form which allows a comparison with the static circularly symmetric perfect fluid with $\lambda$–term and constant $\rho$ of the 2+1 gravity. In the canonical coordinate system $\{ t,N,\theta\}$, for $\rho= \rm{const.}$, the metric, the expression of the function $H$, which on its turn establishes the relation to the radial coordinate $r$, and the pressure are given by: $$\begin{aligned} ds^2&=&-N^2dt^2+\frac{dN^2}{H}+Hd\theta^2,\\ H&=&C_0+2 C_1 N- (\lambda+\kappa \rho_0)N^2=r^2,\\ p&=&-\rho_0+\frac{C_1}{\kappa}\frac{1}{N}.\end{aligned}$$ This unfamiliar looking solution can be given in terms of the radial variable $r$ by expressing $N$ as function of $r$, $ N=N(r)$. Having in mind the comparison of the 2+1 constant $\rho$ perfect fluid with its 3+1 relative–the Schwarszchild interior solution– we shall derive it from the very beginning by integrating the Einstein equations (\[Ein222\]) in coordinates $\{t,r,\theta\}$. For $\rho={\rm const.}$, the integral of (\[Gc\]) gives $$G(r)=\sqrt {C - (\kappa\rho + \lambda)r^2 }. \label{G12}$$ Substituting $G(r)$ from (\[G12\]) into (\[Ncr\]), one obtains $$N(r)=n_0-\frac{n_1}{\lambda+\kappa\rho}G(r), \label{N1r}$$ which can be written as $N(r) = C_1 + C_2 \,G(r)$. The evaluation of pressure $p(r)$ from Eq. (\[Ein222\]) yields $$\kappa p(r) = \frac{1}{(\kappa\rho+\lambda)N(r)} \left [ n_1 \kappa\rho\,G(r)+n_0\lambda(\kappa\rho +\lambda) \right ], \label{P12}$$ this pressure has to vanish at the boundary $r = a$, which imposes a relation on the constants: $n_0=-n_1\,{\kappa\rho}G(a)/[\lambda(\kappa\rho+\lambda)]$, where $G(a)$ is the value of the function $G(r)$ at the boundary, i.e., $G(a)$ is equal to the external value for the $G(r)$ corresponding to the vacuum solution plus $\lambda$. A similar comment applies to $N(a)$. Replacing $n_0$ in Eq. (\[N1r\]), the function $N(r)$ becomes $$\label{Nr2} N(r) = -\frac{n_1}{\lambda(\kappa\rho+\lambda)}\left [\kappa\rho G(a) +\lambda G(r)\right ].$$ Evaluating $N(r)$ at $r=a$, one comes to $ n_1=-\lambda \,N(a)/G(a)$. Consequently, $N(r)$ amounts to $$N(r) = \frac{N(a)}{ G(a) ( \kappa\rho +\lambda)}\left [ \kappa\rho\, G(a) + \lambda \,G(r) \right ]. \label{N32}$$ Substituting $n_0$, $n_1$, and $N(r)$ into (\[P12\]), one gets $$p(r) = \rho\,\lambda\,\frac{G(a) - G(r)}{\kappa\rho G(a) + \lambda G(r)}. \label{pch}$$ Summarizing, the studied perfect fluid for the metric (\[met12\]) is determined by structural functions $G(r)$ from Eq. (\[G12\]), and $N(r)$ from Eq. (\[N32\]), and characterized by a density $\rho={\rm const.}$, and pressure $p$ given by Eq. (\[pch\]). The $g_{tt}=-N^2$ metric component, with $N$ from $(\ref{N32})$, corrects the corresponding one, reported in [@cz]. 3+1 conformally flat static spherically symmetric perfect fluid solution ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In this subsection we review the main structure of the interior perfect fluid solution in the presence of the cosmological constant $\lambda$–the interior Schwarzschild metric with $\lambda$–for the $3+1$ static spherically symmetric metric of the form $$ds^2 = -{N(r)}^2dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{G(r)^2}+r^2 \left (d\theta^2 + {\rm sin^2}\theta d\phi^2 \right). \label{met1}$$ The Einstein equations for a perfect fluid energy–momentum tensor in four dimensions have the same form of the ones in three dimensions (\[ee\]), except for modifications due to the change of dimensionality, namely, the expression of $R$ now amounts to $R= -\kappa T +4\lambda =\kappa\rho -3\kappa p+4\lambda$. Because the corresponding equations can be found in text–books, we do not exhibit them here explicitly; we include them for reference in the Appendix. Since we are interested in conformally flat solutions, we require the vanishing of the conformal Weyl tensor, which for static spherically symmetric spacetime leads to the following equation $$\frac{d}{dr}\left( \frac{G^2-1}{r^2}\right)=0 \longrightarrow G(r)=\sqrt {1+c_0 r^2}. \label{G21}$$ On the other hand, from the $G_{tt}$–Eq., one arrives at $$G(r)=\sqrt{1 -\frac{1}{3}(\kappa\rho+\lambda)r^2}, \label{fc}$$ therefore, comparing with Eq. (\[G21\]), one has $c_0= -(\kappa\rho+\lambda)/3,\longrightarrow \rho ={\rm const.}$ Hence, the solution constructed under this condition would correspond to a perfect fluid with $\rho ={\rm const.}$, named incompressible fluid by Adler [et al.]{} [@adl]. Moreover, from the Eq. $(r^2G^2G_{rr}-G_{\theta\theta})=0$, taking into account the form of the function $G$ from (\[fc\]), the general expression of $N(r)$ is $$N(r)=C_1+C_2G(r). \label{Nc}$$ The evaluation of the pressure $p$, from $G_{rr}$–Eq., yields $$\label{p0} \kappa\, p\,(r) = \frac{1}{3 N(r)} \left [C_1\,( 2\lambda-\kappa\rho )-3C_2\,\kappa\,\rho\,G(r) ) \right ].$$ where $G(r)$ and $N(r)$ are determined in (\[fc\]), and (\[Nc\]) respectively.\ This result can be stated in the form of a generalization of the Gürses and Gürsey theorem [@gg] to the case of non–zero $\lambda$: the only conformally flat spherically symmetric static solution to the Einstein equations with cosmological constant for a perfect fluid is given by the metric (\[met1\]) with structural functions $G(r)$ and $N(r)$ defined respectively by (\[fc\]) and (\[Nc\]). Moreover, replacing in the metric (\[met1\]) $\rm{sin^2\theta}$ by $\rm{sinh^2\theta}$, and $\theta^2$, one obtains correspondingly the pseudospherical and flat branches of solutions. The constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ are determined through the values of structural functions at the boundary $r=a$, where the pressure vanishes, $p(r=a)=0$, they occur to be: $$C_1 = 3\,C_2 \kappa\rho \,\frac{G(a)}{2 \lambda - \kappa\rho},\,\, C_2 = \frac{N(a)}{2 G(a)}\frac{2\lambda - \kappa\rho}{\lambda + \kappa\rho},$$ where $G(a)$ is the value of the function $G(r)$ at the boundary $r=a$, i.e., $G(a)$ is equal to the external value of $G(r)$ corresponding to the vacuum plus $\lambda$ solution. A similar comment applies to $N(a)$. We shall return to this point at the end of this subsection. Substituting the expressions of $C_1$ and $C_2$ into Eq. (\[Nc\]), one has $$N(r) = \frac{N(a)}{2 G(a) ( \kappa\rho +\lambda)}\left [ 3\kappa\rho G(a) + (2\lambda - \kappa\rho)G(r) \right ]. \label{N3}$$ Replacing $C_1$, $C_2$ and the above expression of $N(r)$ into (\[p0\]), one gets $$p\,(r) = \rho (2 \lambda- \kappa\rho)\frac{G(a) - G(r)} {3 \kappa\rho G(a) + (2\lambda - \kappa\rho) G(r)}.$$ For the external Schwarzschild with $\lambda$ solution, known also the Kottler solution [@kot], the functions $N(r)$ and $G(r)$ are equal one to another, $N(r)=G(r)$, namely $$N(r) = G(r)=\sqrt{1 - \frac{2 m}{r} - \frac{\lambda}{3}r^2},\,\,\mbox{for $r\geq a$}.$$ Evaluating the mass contained in the sphere of radius $a$ for a constant density $\rho$, one obtains $2m =\kappa\rho a^3/3$, therefore $$N(r) = G(r)=\sqrt{1 - \frac{\kappa\rho}{3}\frac{a^3}{r} - \frac{\lambda}{3}r^2}, \mbox{for $r\geq a$},$$ consequently at $r=a$, one has $$N(a)=G(a)= \sqrt{1-\frac{\kappa\rho+ \lambda }{3} a^2}.$$ In the limit of vanishing cosmological constant, $\lambda = 0$, one arrives at the interior Schwarzschild solution. Comparison table ---------------- A comparison table of perfect fluid solutions with constant $\rho$ in 2+1 and 3+1 gravities is given as: Perfect fluid solutions with constant energy density\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ${3+1-{\rm solution}}$ ${2+1-{\rm solution}}$ ------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ${ds^2=-N^2dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{G^2}+r^2(d\theta^2+{\rm ${ds^2=-N^2dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{G^2} sin}^2\theta d\phi^2)}$ +r^2d\phi^2}$ ${{G^2}=1-\frac{1}{3}(\kappa\rho+\lambda)r^2}$ ${G^2=C-(\kappa\rho+\lambda)r^2}$ ${N=\frac{1}{2(\kappa\rho+\lambda)}\frac{N(a)}{G(a)}[3\kappa\rho ${N=\frac{1}{(\kappa\rho+\lambda)}\frac{N(a)}{G(a)}[\kappa\rho G(a) G(a)+(2\lambda-\kappa\rho)G(r)] }$ +\lambda G(r)]}$ ${p(r)=\rho(2\lambda-\kappa\rho)\frac{G(a)-G(r)}{3\kappa\rho ${p(r)=\rho\lambda\frac{G(a)-G(r)}{\kappa\rho G(a)+\lambda G(r)}}$ G(a)+(2\lambda-\kappa\rho)G(r)}}$ ${{\rm Kottler}:}$ [[anti–de Sitter]{}: $\lambda=-1/l^2$]{} $G(a)^2=1-\frac{2m}{r}-\frac{1}{3}\lambda r^2$; $G(a)^2=-M_{\infty}-\lambda a^2$; $2m=\kappa\rho a^3/3$ $C=\kappa\rho a^2-M_{\infty}>0$ ${N(a)=G(a)}$ ${N(a)=G(a)}$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ${2\lambda_4-\kappa_4\rho_4 \rightarrow 6\lambda_3},{\kappa_4\rho_4\rightarrow 2\kappa_3\rho_3}$ --------------------------------------------------------- ${G_4(r)\rightarrow G_3(r)},{N_4(r)\rightarrow N_3(r)}, {\kappa_4 p_4(r)\rightarrow2 \kappa_3 p_3(r)}$ --------------------------------------------------------- Comparing the structure corresponding to perfect fluid solutions with constant $\rho$ in 3+1 gravity with the structure of the 2+1 perfect fluid solution one arrives at the following correspondence : $2\lambda_4-\kappa_4\rho_4 \rightarrow 6\lambda_3$, $3\kappa_4\rho_4\rightarrow 6\kappa_3\rho_3$, which yields $G_4(r)\rightarrow G_3(r),N_4(r)\rightarrow N_3(r)$, $\kappa_4 p_4(r)\rightarrow2 \kappa_3 p_3(r)$. Remembering that in 2+1 gravity there is no Newtonian limit, the choice of $\kappa_3$ is free, thus by selecting $\kappa_3$ appropriately one can achieve that $p_4(r)\rightarrow p_3(r)$ and $\rho_4\rightarrow \rho_3$. From this comparison table one easily conclude that the 2+1 perfect fluid with constant $\rho$ can be derived from the Schwarzschild interior metric by a simple dimensional reduction: freezing one of the spatial coordinates, say $\theta=\pi/2$, in the 3+1 solution one obtains the corresponding 2+1 spacetime. Since we accomplished a scaling transformation of the $r$-coordinate, accompanied with the inverse scaling of the angular coordinate $\phi$, one may argue that a conical singularity could arise; one may overcome this trouble by saying that the angular coordinate should be fixed once one brings the 2+1 metric to the canonical form with $G_3(r) =\sqrt{1-(\kappa\rho+\lambda)r^2}$. Concluding Remarks ================== In this contribution we have derived all perfect fluid solutions for the static circularly symmetric spacetime. The general solution is presented in the standard coordinate system $\{t,r,\theta\}$, and alternatively, in a system–the canonical one– with coordinates $\{t,N,\theta\}$. From the physical point of view, particularly interesting are those fluids fulfilling the linear equation of state, $p=\gamma \rho$, as well as those ones subjected to the polytropic law $p=C\rho^{\gamma}$; both families are derived in details from our general metric referred to the coordinate system $\{t,N,\theta\}$. Therefore, the derived solutions describe, among others, stiff matter, pure radiation, incoherent radiation, nonrelativistic degenerate fermions, etc. The constant energy density perfect fluid solution with cosmological constant of the 2+1 gravity is singled out among all static circularly spacetimes as the only conformally flat space—its Cotton tensor vanishes—sharing the conformally flatness property with its 3+1 counterpart–the Schwarzschild interior perfect fluid solution with $\lambda$; a comparison table for these solutions with constant energy density is included. This work was partially supported by the CONACyT Grant 38495E and the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI). 3+1 Einstein equations with $\lambda$ for perfect fluid ======================================================== The Einstein equations with cosmological constant for perfect fluids for the metric (\[met1\]) explicitly amount to $$\begin{aligned} \label{Ein00} G_{tt}&=& -\frac { N^2}{ r^2}\left ( r \frac {dG^2}{dr}+G^{2}-1 \right )= N^2 (\kappa\rho + \lambda),{\nonumber}\\ G_{rr}&=& \frac{1}{G^2 N r^2} \left( 2 r G^2 \frac {dN }{dr} - N+ N G^2 \right) =\frac{1}{G^2} (\kappa p - \lambda),{\nonumber}\\ G_{\theta \theta}&=& \frac{r}{N}\left( G^2 \frac {dN}{dr}+\frac{1}{2} N \frac {d G^2}{dr} + r G^2 \frac {d^2N}{dr^2} +\frac{r}{2} \frac {d N}{dr}\frac {dG^2}{dr} \right)\nonumber \\ &=& r^2 (\kappa p-\Lambda),{\nonumber}\\ G_{\phi \phi}&=&{\rm sin}^2\theta \,\,\,G_{\theta \theta}.\end{aligned}$$ [99]{} A. Staruszkiewicz, [Acta. Phys. Pol.]{} [24]{}, 734 (1963). S. Deser, R. Jackiw and G. ’t Hooft [Annals of Physics]{} [152]{}, 220 (1984). J. R. Gott and M. Alpert [Gen. Rel. Grav.]{} [16]{}, 243 (1984). S. Deser and P. O. Mazur [Class. Quantum Grav.]{} [2]{}, L51 (1985). M. Kamata and T. Koikawa [Phys. Lett. B]{} [353]{}, 196 (1995). M. Cataldo and P. Salgado [Phys. Lett. B]{} [448]{}, 20 (1999). M. Cataldo and A. García [Phys. Rev. D]{} [61]{}, 084003 (2000). M. Cataldo [Phys. Lett. B]{} [529]{}, 143 (2002). S. Giddings, J. Abbott and K. Kuchař [Gen. Rel. Grav.]{} [16]{}, 751 (1984). C. Martínez and J. Zanelli [Phys. Rev. D]{} [54]{}, 3830 (1996). J. D. Barrow, A. B. Burd and D. Lancaster [Class. Quantum Grav.]{} [3]{}, 551 (1986). P. Collas [Am. J. Phys.]{} [45]{}, 833 (1977). N.J. Cornish and N.E. Frankel [Phys. Rev. D]{} [43]{}, 2555 (1991). N. Cruz and J. Zanelli, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{} [12]{}, 975 (1995). E. Cotton,[Ann. Fac. d. Sc. Toulouse (II)]{} [1]{}, 385 (1899). C.D. Collinson, [Gen. Rel. Grav.]{} [7]{}, 419 (1976). A.A. García, [Gen. Rel. Grav.]{} [20]{}, 589 (1988). Ya.B. Zel’dovich and I.D. Novikov, [Stars and Relativity]{}, Dover Publ.,Inc., 1996. R. Adler, M. Bazin and M. Schiffer, [Introduction to General Relativity]{}, McGraw–Hill, 1965. M. Gürses and Y. Gürsey, [Nuovo Cimento]{} [25 B]{}, 786 (1975). F. Kottler, [Annalen Physik]{} [56]{}, 410 (1918).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| Tensor impedance transmitarrays consist of layers of tensor impedance surfaces, separated by dielectric spacers. Because the surface impedance of each layer is a tensor, an arbitrarily polarized incident field is scattered into its constituent TE and TM components. This gives rise to transmitarrays capable of altering the polarization state of an incident field. Various tensor impedance transmitarray have been proposed in the literature to alter the polarization, however no comprehensive methodology has been proposed to design these structures. In this work we propose a procedure for designing tensor impedance transmitarrays using multi-conductor transmission-line (MTL) theory. We treat the transmitarray by modelling free-space and the dielectric spacers as an MTL supporting TE and TM modes with each tensor impedance surface as a shunt load along the MTL. By using simple MTL concepts we can design a transmitarray to be reflectionless while controlling the transmission through the layers and thus the transmitted polarization state. We demonstrate this procedure for two classes of tensor impedance transmitarrays while also validating the design using full-wave simulation. The first class are symmetric transmitarrays which can alter a given incident polarization state into a desired polarization state. The second class are asymmetric transmitarrays which can also implement chiral polarization effects such as a linear polarization rotation and a circular polarization selectivity. author: - 'Michael Selvanayagam and George. V. Eleftheriades' title: Design of Tensor Impedance Transmitarrays For Polarization Control --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Transmitarrays are a class of antenna arrays capable of providing high-gain apertures to generate directive radiation for communication links and imaging applications [@McGrath_1986; @Pozar_1996]. These arrays work to alter the incident wavefront by providing the desired phase-shift across the aperture itself. Transmitarrays can implement this phase-shifting behaviour using different architectures. One common architecture is to use back-to-back configurations of antennas to receive and retransmit the incident field [@Pozar_1996; @Popovic_1998]. Here, phase shifting circuitry is included between the antennas to control the phase shift imparted by the array [@MunozAcevedo_2009]. These designs can also be made reconfigurable [@Lau_2011; @Lau_Hum_2012; @Hum_2014]. Another common configuration are stacks of passive scatterers [@Ryan_etal_2010; @AlJoymayly2011; @Li_2013; @Gagnon_2013]. Each unit cell in the stack is individually tuned to provide a desired phase shift across the aperture with unity transmission and no reflection. These stacks of scatterers can be interpreted as frequency selective surfaces or impedance sheets [@AlJoymayly2011; @Gagnon_2013]. While all of these examples utilized the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the concept of a transmitarray has been recently extended to the terahertz and photonic portion of the spectrum. These include terahertz and optical versions of scatterer based transmitarrays [@Memarzadeh_2011; @Monticone_etal_2013] as well as single layer structures which have limited performance [@Yu_etal_2011; @Kildishev_etal_2013]. Another class of related devices that can control wavefronts are metasurfaces which use elementary dipole elements as scatterers on a surface[@Holloway_etal_2005; @Holloway_etal_2012; @Vehmas_2013]. One example of this is the Huygens surface which consists of a superposition of electric and magnetic dipoles. This design can maximize transmission through a single surface while providing wavefront control [@Pfeiffer_Grbic_2013; @Selvanayagam_Eleftheriades_2013]. While wavefront control has been successfully demonstrated using various transmitarray architectures, controlling other aspects of the electromagnetic field using a transmitarray is an active area of research. One of the main areas of investigation is the polarization of the electromagnetic field and how it can be controlled using transmitarrays. At microwave frequencies, various examples include transmitarrays that can provide phase control to incident TE and TM waves using a stack of scatterers [@Strassner_2004; @Joyal_2012]. Transmitarrays constructed from back-to-back antennas can also provide polarization control using antennas that have been rotated to alter the polarzation of the field radiated by each antenna [@Nakatani_1977; @Kaouach2011; @Phillion_2011]. At both microwave and optical frequencies various polarization controlling devices have been proposed using metasurfaces. This includes devices which can act like quarter-wave and half-wave plates [@Zhu_2013; @Pfeiffer_2013_2; @Farmahini_2013; @Yu_2012; @He_2013; @Pfeiffer_2013; @Grady2013; @Yang2014] and Huygens surfaces that can alter the polarization state for a specifically designed incident field [@Selvanayagam2014]. Another way of altering the polarization involves using surfaces of bianisotropic particles which includes chiral particles as a subset. Bianisotropic and chiral particles/surfaces that have been designed to alter the polarization of incident plane wave have been proposed in [@Papakostas2003; @Rogacheva2006; @Decker2007; @Soukoulis2011; @Niemi2013]. With regards to chiral behaviour, impedance surfaces have also been proposed as a way manifesting chirality [@Plum2009; @Zhao_etal_2011; @Zhao_2012; @Joyal2012]. For many of these polarization controlling metasurfaces, the surfaces can be described by tensor surface impedances. This is due to the presence of structures such as rotated dipoles and wires [@Zhao_2012; @Grady2013] , ‘V’-antennas [@Yu_2012] and silicon resonators [@Yang2014]. Also, many of these designs consist of stacks of metasurfaces separated by dielectric spacers for minimizing diffraction orders and/or unwanted reflections from the surface [@Zhao_2012; @Yang2014]. However no consistent methodology has been proposed which can exactly specify the appropriate tensor impedance of each layer to achieve a desired polarization function with a reflectionless transmitarray. This raises the question of how one can design a tensor impedance transmitarray with the appropriate impedances on each layer to achieve the desired reflection and transmission coefficients. In this work we tackle this problem by proposing a multi-conductor transmission-line (MTL) model of a general tensor impedance transmitarray to understand how waves are reflected and transmitted through such a structure. We will then look at how this model can be used to design two types of transmitarrays. The first kind are symmetric tensor impedance transmitarrays capable of implementing wave-plate type polarization control as well as inhomogeneous polarization control across the aperture of the transmitarray. The second kind are asymmetric tensor impedance transmitarrays which have the added capability of implementing chiral polarization behaviour such as polarization rotation and circular polarization selectivity. Throughout this process we will demonstrate our design procedure using various examples verified with full-wave simulations. Theory {#sec:Theory} ====== \ A tensor impedance transmitarray consists of multiple impedance surfaces stacked on top of each other and separated by a dielectric spacer. This is pictured in Fig. \[fig:TensorTransmitarraySchemWave\]. Our coordinate system is also defined in Fig. \[fig:TensorTransmitarraySchemWave\]. Here, each impedance surface sits on a plane parallel to the $yz$-plane starting at $x=0$ separated by a dielectric spacer with equal spacing $d$ and dielectric constant $\varepsilon_r$. We will assume that the spacers are identical between each surface, though this assumption can easily be relaxed as needed. To simplify the problem we look at plane-wave propagation in the $xy$-plane through this stack of impedance sheets, with propagation confined to the $x$-axis. In general, the incident and transmitted waves can enter at any angle as such a surface is also capable of beamshaping, however this is outside the scope of this work [@Monticone_etal_2013; @Pfeiffer_2013_2]. However as we will see it is easy to incorporate this functionality once we have a suitable reflection and transmission model for the transmitarray The normal plane-waves travelling through the transmitarray can be described by a linear combination of TE and TM waves. Here we define a TE wave to have an electric field transverse to the $xy$-plane of propagation and a TM wave defined to have a magnetic field transverse to the $xy$-plane of propagation (or an in-plane electric field) as shown in Fig. \[fig:TensorTransmitarrayFields\]. To succinctly describe the polarization state of the incident and transmitted field on either side of the transmitarray we introduce two variables, $\Psi$ and $\Phi$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:TensorTransmitarrayFields\], $\Psi$ describes the relative amplitude between the TE and TM fields while $\Phi$ describes the relative phase. We can see that these variables correspond to the definition of various polarization states on the unit Poincare sphere [@Born_Wolf]. The unique aspect of the transmitarray under discussion is that each impedance surface is described by a tensor impedance or admittance. This tensor impedance relates continuous electric field at the boundary to the discontinuity in the magnetic field as given by $$\label{eq:YtensorBoundary} \left[\begin{array}{c} E_y \\ E_z \end{array} \right]= \left[\begin{array}{cc} Y_{yy} & Y_{yz} \\ Y_{yz} & Y_{zz} \end{array} \right]^{-1}\left[\begin{array}{c} -(H_{z,2}-H_{z,1}) \\H_{y,2}-H_{y,1} \end{array} \right].$$ This is different from traditional transmitarray architectures where each surface is described by a scalar (or isotropic) impedance/admittance, which we will refer to as scalar impedance transmitarrays. From here on we write and refer to the quantity in as an admittance tensor (and admittance surface) for reasons that will become clear below. This admittance tensor is imaginary and anti-Hermitian to satisfy energy conservation and reciprocity [@Fong_etal_2010]. It can be seen then that this tensor has three degrees of freedom which can be most easily understood by diagonalizing the tensor [@Selvanayagam_Eleftheriades_2011_3; @Patel_2013_2; @Selvanayagam2014]. Doing this gives the following expression, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Ydiag} \mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{R}(\gamma) \left[\begin{array}{cc} Y_{y} & 0\\0 & Y_{z} \end{array} \right] \mathbf{R}^{-1}(\gamma),\end{aligned}$$ where the diagonalization matrix is a rotation matrix, characterized by an angle $\gamma$ and given by, $$\mathbf{R}(\gamma)= \left[\begin{array}{cc} \cos\gamma & -\sin\gamma \\ \sin\gamma & \cos\gamma \end{array} \right].$$ The simplest interpretation of this is to map to the geometry of a crossed dipole as shown in Fig. \[fig:CrossedDipoleEigenvalue\]. Here the eigenvalues map to the surface admittance of each arm of the crossed dipole, while $\gamma$ corresponds to the rotation angle of the entire crossed dipole. As we will see below, by varying these three degrees of freedom we can alter the surface admittance to design the transmitarray. We also note that there are many ways to implement a surface admittance besides a crossed dipole as we will discuss in Section \[sec:Conclusion\] and that this physical interpretation is just a convenient way to understand the admittance tensor. Given that each admittance surface in the transmitarray is described by a tensor admittance it is clear that a TE-polarized plane-wave can couple to a TM-polarized plane wave and vice versa. Thus it is conceivable that by properly tuning the admittance of each layer we can: 1. Eliminate (or control) reflections. 2. Control the relative phase between the transmitted TE and TM polarized fields ($\Phi_t$) 3. Control the relative amplitude between the transmitted TE and TM polarized fields ($\Psi_t$). 4. Control the absolute phase for beamshaping (which we ignore here for simplicity). To achieve this critera we need a model which allows us to specify the admittance of each layer of the transmitarray to achieve the stated goals. Multi-Conductor Transmission-Line Model --------------------------------------- The model that we will use to design a tensor impedance transmittary is based on multi-conductor transmission-line (MTL) theory. To understand why we choose this approach, we look at scalar impedance transmitarrays. For these kinds of transmitarrays, a simple two-wire transmission-line model is used, where each layer of the transmitarray is modelled as a shunt impedance loading the transmission-line. By using some form of transmission-line analysis such as filter theory [@AlJoymayly2011], S-parameters analysis [@Monticone_etal_2013; @Pfeiffer_2013_2] or Smith Chart design [@Lau_Hum_2012; @Joyal_2012], a suitable value for the scalar impedance of each layer can be found which minimizes reflections while varying the phase of the transmitted wave. With this in mind we can extend some of these concepts from scalar transmitarrays to tensor transmitarrays by defining an appropriate MTL model since we have two modes supported by our structure. We begin by looking at free-space surrounding the transmitarray. Because we are looking at one TE and one TM mode incident upon the transmitarray we can construct a simple $2+1$ wire MTL with one segment supporting a TE-polarized wave and the other supporting a TM-polarized wave. This is pictured in Fig. \[fig:FreeSpaceMTL\]. Note the numbering of the ports with the associated TE and TM waves on the MTL. Because the TE and TM modes are orthogonal in free-space, the MTL model is as simple as it could possibly be, with the characteristic impedance matrix and propagation constant matrix being given by diagonal matrices, $$\begin{aligned} \pmb{\beta}&= \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda} \mathbf{E}, \\ \label{eq:CharImpMtx} \mathbf{Y_o}&=\frac{1}{\eta}\mathbf{E},\end{aligned}$$ respectively where $\mathbf{E}$ is the identity matrix and $\eta$ is the impedance of free space. This can also be done for the dielectric spacers of length $d$ as given in Fig. \[fig:SpacerMTL\] between each admittance surface where we define the corresponding MTL quantities to be $$\begin{aligned} \pmb{\beta_S}&= \frac{2 \pi \sqrt{\varepsilon_r}}{\lambda} \mathbf{E}, \\ \mathbf{Y_{s}}&=\frac{\sqrt{\varepsilon_r}}{\eta}\mathbf{E}.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming the spacers are simple dielectrics we again have a basic MTL model. We note that these spacers should not be extremely subwavelength. Otherwise the coupling between each admittance surface dominates and the MTL model no longer holds since there are now multiple propagating and evanescent modes between each layer. However, as demonstrated experimentally, these spacer layers can still be made compact [@Pfeiffer_2013_2; @Zhao_2012] The last part of our model are the admittance surfaces between the spacers and these are described by and shown in Fig. \[fig:ShuntYMTL\]. We can see, like their scalar transmitarray counterpart, that these elements are in shunt with the MTL transmission-line, hence our description of them as admittances. By cascading these elements together we form an MTL model of a tensor impedance transmitarray made up of $N$ layers. With this model, we can define a few basic quantities to characterize the fields within the transmitarray. At any point on the MTL line we can define the reflection coefficient matrix, $\mathbf{\Gamma}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} \Gamma_{yy} & \Gamma_{yz} \\ \Gamma_{zy} & \Gamma_{zz} \end{array} \right]$ and input admittance matrix $\mathbf{Y_{in}}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} Y_{in,yy} & Y_{in,yz} \\ Y_{in,zy} & Y_{in,zz} \end{array} \right]$. These are related to each other by, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:YfromGamma} \mathbf{Y_{in}}=\mathbf{Y_o}(\mathbf{E}-\mathbf{\Gamma})(\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{\Gamma})^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:GammaFromY} \mathbf{\Gamma}=(\mathbf{Y_o}-\mathbf{Y_L})(\mathbf{Y_o}+\mathbf{Y_L})^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ With these two quantities defined, the design methodology for a transmitarray is achieved by forcing the transmitarray to be reflectionless (or to have a specific reflection coefficient matrix). This means that we must force the reflection coefficient at the input of the transmitarray to $\mathbf{0}$ (matrix of zeros) and the input admittance at the input of the transmitarray has to be the same as . Once we have a reflectionless design, the transmission coefficients will fall into place. To guarantee that the reflection coefficient and input admittance have the desired value at the input of the transmitarray we have at our disposal two basic MTL operations. These are 1. The addition of a shunt admittance tensor. 2. Translating an input admittance along an MTL. This is defined more concretely in Fig. \[fig:MTLOps\] where we take an arbitrary slice of an $N$ layer transmitarray. At point $1$ in this slice of the transmitarray as shown in Fig. \[fig:MTLOps\], the point closest to the output, we have the input admittance matrix $\mathbf{Y_{in,1}}$ and the reflection coefficient matrix $\mathbf{\Gamma_{in,1}}$. The two MTL operations given above are the effect of the dielectric and surface admittance sheets on the input admittance and the reflection coefficient. To see the effect of these two operations on the input admittance and the reflection coefficient matrices we can immediately look at the next point closest to the input of the transmitarray, point $2$, in Fig. \[fig:MTLOps\]. Here we see that the input admittance and reflection coefficient matricies change due to the shunt admittance tensor of the $i$’th surface. At this point the new input admittance is given by, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Yi} \mathbf{Y_{in,2}}=\mathbf{Y_{in,1}}-\mathbf{Y_i},\end{aligned}$$ and the new reflection coefficient by substituting into . This operation is capable of altering the imaginary part of the input admittance only. Moving to the next closest point to the input, point $3$, the input admittance and reflection coefficient matrices have been altered due to the dielectric spacer. In the MTL model this alters the reflection coefficient by [^1] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:GammaTL} \mathbf{\Gamma_{in,3}}=e^{-j2 \beta d} \mathbf{\Gamma_{in,2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=2\pi/\lambda$. Correspondingly the input admittance is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:YinTL} \mathbf{Y_{in,3}}=\frac{1}{\eta} \left( \mathbf{Y_{in,2}}+ j \mathbf{Yo} \tan{\beta d} \right) \left( \mathbf{Y_{o}}+ j \mathbf{Y_{in,2}} \tan{\beta d} \right) ^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ This admittance translation operation alters both the real and imaginary parts of the input admittance and is our only degree of freedom to alter the real part. As we continue to move through each layer of the transmitarray towards the input we keep on repeating these two operations for each of the $N$ surface admittance layers and the $N-1$ dielectric spacers of the transmitarray. With these two operations we have the tools we need to formulate a design procedure to construct reflectionless polariztaion controlling transmitarrays. In the rest of this paper we look at two classes of tensor impedance transmitarrays, symmetric and asymmetric transmitarrays. Symmetric transmitarrays are transmitarrays whose surface impedance is identical on the $1^{st}$ and $N^{th}$ layer, $2^{nd}$ and $(N-1)^{th}$, and so on. Similar to scalar impedance transmitarrays, to formulate a reflectionless transmitarray we only need $N=3$ layers [@Monticone_etal_2013]. In section \[sec:SymTxArray\] we will discuss how to design these transmitarrays using the MTL operations given above. Asymmetric transmitarrays have each layer different than the other and hence no symmetry around the center layer of the transmitarray. These will be used to design transmitarrays which can implement chiral behaviour such as polarization rotation. Because of the lack of symmetry in the structure we will need $N=4$ layers to design reflectionless polarization controlling transmitarrays. We will discuss the design of these structures in Section. \[sec:AsymTxArray\]. Whether dealing with symmetric or asymmetric transmitarrays we need to analyze the transmission through a set of reflectionless surface admittance layers to be able to satisfy the remaining design criteria given above. This is done by finding the S-parameters of the transmitarray using 4-port transfer matrices. This is described in Appendix A for completeness sake. Once we are able to find the transmission through the transmitarray we can look through all the reflectionless solutions to find one with the appropriate transmission phase and amplitude for the TE and TM modes for a specific solution. We end this section on a final note comparing our MTL model to the transmission-line model that was proposed in [@Zhao_etal_2011; @Zhao_2012] to analyze a stack of impedance surfaces. The key difference here is that in [@Zhao_etal_2011; @Zhao_2012] the transmission-line model was used to analyze how changing $\gamma$ in the surface admittance tensor affected the transmission through the structure. As we will see in the coming sections, by explicitly defining our model as an MTL and using related concepts such as the input admittance and reflection coefficient matrices, we will be able to use all variables of the surface admittance (eigenvalues and rotation angles) to construct designs that are reflectionless. Symmetric Tensor Impedance Transmitarrays {#sec:SymTxArray} ========================================= \ An $N=3$ symmetric tensor impedance transmitarray is pictured in Fig. \[fig:TensorTxArrayN=3\]. Using the two basic MTL operations described in the previous section we can formulate designs which have a reflection coefficient matrix of $\mathbf{0}$. Assuming that the dielectric constant and length $d$ of the dielectric spacers are fixed (usually due to fabrication constraints) we have two tensors to find with $\mathbf{Y_1}=\mathbf{Y_3}$ and $\mathbf{Y_2}$ each with three degrees of freedom. To find the possible solutions of $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_2}$ we assume a value for $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and find the corresponding value of $\mathbf{Y_2}$ which satisfies the reflectionless property. Looking at Fig. \[fig:TensorTxArrayModelGammaN=3\], we can see that at points $a$ and $f$ in the transmitarray, the reflection coefficient matrix is $\mathbf{0}$ and the input admittance matrix is given by . This is always true at $f$ since we are looking into a free-space MTL and true at $a$ as this is our desired result. From here we apply our two basic MTL operations to determine the input admittance at points $d$ and $c$ respectively. We do this by using the admittance of $\mathbf{Y_{1}}$ to find the input admittance matrix at points $b$ and $e$ using . We then translate this admittance along the MTL dielectric spacer to points $d$ and $c$ using . Once we have the admittance at $d$ and $c$ we can find the value of $\mathbf{Y_2}$ which is given to be $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{Y_2}=\mathbf{Y_d}-\mathbf{Y_c}.\end{aligned}$$ Once we have a solution of $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_2}$, we can find the complete S-parameter matrix which gives us the transmission through the transmitarray. This is done using the transfer matrices as shown in Appendix A. We can also formulate an analytical expression for the S-parameter matrix by enforcing the symmetric, reflectionless and lossless properties of the transmitarray on the S-parameter matrix itself [@Pozar; @Selvanayagam2014]. This gives the following S-parameter matrix $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Smatrix} \bm{S}=e^{-j\xi} \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & \cos\Psi e^{-j\zeta} & 0 & \sin\Psi e^{-j\Phi} \\ \cos\Psi e^{-j\zeta} & 0 & \sin\Psi e^{-j\Phi} & 0\\0 & \sin\Psi e^{-j\Phi} & 0 & \cos\Psi\\\sin\Psi e^{-j\Phi} & 0 & \cos\Psi & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi$ is an arbitrary phase shift through the transmitarray. To ensure that the S-parameter matrix is unitary, we must have $\cos^2\Psi+\sin^2\Psi=1$ and $\zeta=2\Phi-(\pi+2n\pi), n \in \mathbb{Z}$. This S-parameter matrix shows how a TE or TM polarization can be altered to any other polarization state. To summarize, the procedure to solve for the admittance tensors $\mathbf{Y_{1}}$ and $\mathbf{Y_{2}}$ is given to be 1. Choose a value for $\mathbf{Y_1}$ via its eigenvalues $Y_{y,1}$ and $Y_{z,1}$ and its rotation angle $\gamma_1$ 2. With this value, take the reflection coefficient and input admittances at points $a$ and $f$ and find their corresponding values at points $b$ and $e$ using the surface admittance of $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and . 3. The reflection coefficient and input admittances at $b$ and $e$ can be propagated along the transmission line interconnecting the transmitarray to points $c$ and $d$ using . 4. Using the values of the admittance at points $c$ and $d$, the value of $\mathbf{Y_2}$ can be found which, for the given value of $\mathbf{Y_1}$, gives a transmitarray with zero reflections. 5. With the transmitarray specified, including all three admittance sheets, and the dielectric spacer, we can now determine the transmission coefficients through the transmitarray by finding the S-parameters as given in Appendix A. If the desired transmission parameters are not achieved we simply repeat the previous steps until they are. Since we carry out this procedure as a function of $\mathbf{Y_1}$ we define a three dimensional space defined by the eigenvalues $Y_{y,1}$, $Y_{z,1}$ and rotation angle $\gamma_1$. We can then plot the calculated transmission parameters as a function of these variables in this three-dimensional space. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:SvsY1\] which maps out the entire solution space given by the S-parameter matrix in . Comments -------- We make a couple of notes here about the solutions found for this symmetric tensor impedance transmitarray. 1. First we note that since $\mathbf{Y_3}=\mathbf{Y_1}$ the rotation angle $\gamma_1$ is the same for all three surface admittance layers. Of the two MTL operations defined in Section \[sec:Theory\] only adding a shunt tensor admittance can change the rotation angle of the input admittance in the transmitarray. If $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_3}$ have the same rotation angle $\gamma_1$ then when translating the input admittance to points $d$ and $c$ we have the same rotation angle $\gamma_1$ and thus the rotation angle for $\mathbf{Y_2}$ is $\gamma_2=\gamma_1$. An intuitive physical interpretation then of the physical structure is of three layers of crossed-dipoles all rotated by the same angle. We will see in the next section how this assumption can be broken for asymmetric tensor impedance transmitarrays. 2. As stated above, the S-parameter matrix in shows how this symmetric transmitarray architecture can map a TE or TM polarization to any other desired state. This can be seen by the fact that the relative amplitude and phase of the transmitted field can be controlled based on the angles $\Psi$ and $\Phi$ which describe the polarization states on the Poincare sphere. Thus, this transmitarray can be designed then to alter the polarization state of a specific input polarization state to a desired output polarization state. For example, mapping a TE polarized field to an elliptical polarization state. This is a generalization of the transmitarrays discussed in [@Joyal_2012; @Pfeiffer_2013; @He_2013] which are designed only for a linear polarization slanted at $45^{\circ}$. A similar result is also possible using tensor Huygens surfaces [@Selvanayagam2014]. However as we will see in Section \[sec:AsymTxArray\], asymmetric transmitarrays can implement chiral effects which go beyond what is capable with a symmetric transmitarray. 3. Finally we note that because we have the ability to map a given input polarization state to any possible polarization state at the output we can design screens which implement an inhomogeneous spatial polarization variation such as orbital angular momentum. These inohomogeneous polarization states can be characterized by a higher order Poincare sphere [@Milione2011]. Metasurfaces such as [@Yu_etal_2011] implement these kind of inhomogeneous polarization states but suffer from large reflections and spurious diffraction orders. Here the symmetric tensor impedance transmitarray can generate any of the higher order states in [@Milione2011] for a specific input polarization state by locally designing the tensor admittances in the transmitarray without creating reflections or other diffraction orders. Example - A Radial Polarization Screen -------------------------------------- As an example of the design procedure given in the above section as well as the polarization mapping capabilities of the symmetric tensor impedance transmitarray, we will design an $N=3$ symmetric tensor impedance transmitarray which takes a TE-polarized field and maps it into a radially polarized beam described in [@Milione2011]. A radially polarized beam consists of a beam whose electric field points in a radial direction on a plane transverse to the direction of propagation as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:RadialPolSchem\]. We carry out this simulation using Ansys HFSS. Our simulation takes place at 10 GHz and our dielectric spacers are chosen to be $\lambda/7$ thick with a dielectric constant equal to free space. All of these choices are completely arbitrary and can be altered as necessary. The layers of the transmitarary sit parallel to the $yz$-plane at $x={0,\lambda/7,2\lambda/7}$. The domain is illuminated with a Gauussian beam due to the finite nature of the simulation with a waist of $2.5\lambda$ and electric field polarized along the $z$-axis (TE). Each unit cell of the screen is $\lambda/5\times\lambda/5$. To reduce the computational burden of the simulation we use symmetry boundaries to reduce the computational domain by half. All of this is pictured in Fig. \[fig:HFSSRadPolGeom\]. To find the required surface admittances for $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_2}$ we explore the solution space using the procedure given above and look for solutions which rotate a TE-polarized plane wave from $[0^{\circ},90^{\circ}]$ with the same absolute phase. This corresponds to an S-parameter matrix given by $$\begin{aligned} S=e^{-j\xi} \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & \cos\Psi & 0 & \sin\Psi \\ \cos\Psi & 0 & \sin\Psi & 0\\0 & \sin\Psi & 0 & \cos\Psi\\\sin\Psi & 0 & \cos\Psi & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi=\tan^{-1}(z/y)$ and $\Phi=0$ with $\xi$ some arbitrary but constant phase shift for the entire screen. Using our MTL model to determine the specific transmission properties we find $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_2}$ for each unit cell on the transmitarray. By using the anisotropic impedance boundary condition in HFSS we can create an ideal boundary for the surface admittance of each unit cell of each layer [@Quarfoth_2013]. Combining this all together and simulating, we get the field plot shown in Fig. \[fig:RadialPolPropagation\] and Fig. \[fig:RadialPolTransverse\]. Here we make some observations about our design. Looking at the fields behind the screen in Fig. \[fig:RadialPolPropagation\], we can see minimal reflections as the input Gaussian beam is relatively undisturbed. This validates the design procedure given above. When plotting the electric field on a plane transverse to the direction of propagation on the output side in Fig. \[fig:RadialPolTransverse\] we can see the radial polarization of the beam showing that this symmetric transmitarray does indeed provide the polarization control as intended. There is some fluctuation in the transmitted field amplitudes due to the coarse discretization of the screen. However this was unavoidable due to the computational size of the domain. Asymmetric Tensor Impedance Transmitarrays {#sec:AsymTxArray} ========================================== \ An $N=4$ asymmetric transmitarray is pictured in Fig. \[fig:TensorTxArrayN=4\]. Compared to the symmetric designs of the previous section, to design a reflectionless surface we need one more layer. This makes sense as by making $\mathbf{Y_1}\neq\mathbf{Y_3}$ we no longer have $\mathbf{\Gamma}=\mathbf{0}$. Thus we need at least another layer, $\mathbf{Y_4}$ to compensate for this. However, if we already can design reflectionless tensor impedance transmitarray’s using a symmetric design why do we need to investigate asymmetric designs? As mentioned in Section \[sec:intro\] in [@Zhao_etal_2011; @Zhao_2012] it was shown how a stack of identical impedance surfaces each successively rotated by the same angle can mimic chiral behaviour which in [@Zhao_2012] was used to demonstrate circular polarization selectivity. This successive rotation of each layer causes each layer to have a different surface admittance and is thus asymmetric. This demonstrated that chiral behaviour can be implemented and anlayzed by simply using surface admittance concepts only (However as stated above this approach only examined the effect of the rotation and not all the degrees of freedom of the admittance tensor ). Thus if we can analyze asymmetric tensor impedance transmitarrays and show how it can be designed to be reflectionless we can design these tensor impedance surfaces to implement chiral behaviour. To see how this can be done for an $N=4$ layer structure let us examine the transmitarray in Fig. \[fig:TensorTxArrayN=4\]. Here we have four surface admittances $\mathbf{Y_1}$,$\mathbf{Y_2}$,$\mathbf{Y_3}$ and $\mathbf{Y_4}$ along with three dielectric spacers which we assume to be identical with the same length $d$ and dielectric constant $\varepsilon$. We will follow a conceptually similar procedure used in Section \[sec:SymTxArray\] by charting the reflection coefficient and input admittance matrices through the transmitarray. This is annotated in Fig. \[fig:TensorTxArrayModelGammaN=4\] where the reflection coefficient and input admittance matrices are shown at 8 different points in the transmitarray Compared to the previous section however, we will require different analytical techniques to determine the surface admittance tensors of all the layers. To seek out a reflectionless design let us assume a value for $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_4}$ as long as $\mathbf{Y_1}\neq\mathbf{Y_4}$. We will see that this is a reasonable assumption with the examples that follow. We then have to find solutions for $\mathbf{Y_2}$ and $\mathbf{Y_{3}}$ so that the reflectionless property is maintained. Starting with the input admittance at points $h$ and $a$ we again know that $\mathbf{Y_a}$ and $\mathbf{Y_h}$ are equal to with a reflection coefficient of $\mathbf{0}$. We can then apply our two basic MTL operations to find the input admittance at points $c$ and $f$. For point $c$ this is done by adding the admittance of $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and translating the impedance along the MTL line representing the dielectric spacer to $c$. Likewise for point $f$. With the input admittance at points $c$ and $f$ the surface admittance of $\mathbf{Y_2}$ and $\mathbf{Y_3}$ and the middle dielectric spacer separate these two points. To find the value of $\mathbf{Y_2}$ and $\mathbf{Y_3}$ which will enforce a $\mathbf{0}$ reflection coefficient we can make a couple of helpful observations. First we note that at points $d$ and $e$ the real part of the input admittance is the same as points $c$ and $f$ respectively. This is because $\mathbf{Y_2}$ and $\mathbf{Y_3}$ only alter the imaginary part of the input admittance. We also note that translating the input admittance on the fixed dielectric spacer from point $e$ to $d$ must allow for the real part of the admittance at $e$ to translate to the real part of the admittance at $d$. Since translating an admittance along an MTL alters both the real and imaginary parts of the admittance, and since we are assuming that the dielectric spacer is fixed, this constraint gives us a way of evaluating the total input admittance at $e$. This is because for the real parts at points $e$ and $d$ to be consistent, the imaginary part of the admittance at $e$ must also take on a specific value when the input admittance is translated along the MTL. Enforcing this will allow for the imaginary part at point $e$ to be determined. Once we have that we can find $\mathbf{Y_3}$. We can then find the imaginary part of the admittance at $d$ and find $\mathbf{Y_2}$. To express this mathematically we can use . At point $e$ we have the input admittance given by $\mathbf{Y_e}=\mathbf{G_e}+j\mathbf{B_e}$. As stated we know $\mathbf{G_e}=\mathbf{G_f}$ but we would like to find $\mathbf{B_e}$. We can set up the relationship between points $d$ and $e$ which is given to be $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:YdTLYe} \mathbf{G_d}+j \mathbf{B_d}=\frac{1}{\eta}\left( \mathbf{G_e}+j\mathbf{B_e} +j\mathbf{Y_o}\tan{\beta d} \right) \\ \nonumber \left( \mathbf{Y_o} +j(\mathbf{G_e}+j\mathbf{B_e})\tan(\beta d) \right)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{Y_d}=\mathbf{G_d}+j \mathbf{B_d}$ and we know that $\mathbf{G_d}=\mathbf{G_c}$. Separating the above equation into real and imaginary parts and looking at the real part only we get the following equation as a function of $\mathbf{B_e}$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:MTLRiccati} -\frac{1}{\eta}\mathbf{G_e}^{-1}\mathbf{B_e} -\frac{1}{\eta}\mathbf{B_e}\mathbf{G_e}^{-1} + &\frac{1}{\tan(\beta d)} \mathbf{B_e} \mathbf{G_e}^{-1} \mathbf{B_e} + \\ \nonumber \frac{1}{\eta^2 \tan(\beta d)} \mathbf{G_e}^{-1}+\tan(\beta d)\mathbf{G_e} - \\ \nonumber \frac{1}{\eta}\mathbf{G_d}^{-1}\left( \frac{1}{\eta \tan(\beta d)}\mathbf{E}+ \frac{\tan(\beta d)}{\eta}\mathbf{E} \right) &= \mathbf{0}.\end{aligned}$$ This equation is in the form of $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{0}=\mathbf{A}^{T}\mathbf{B_e} + \mathbf{B_e}\mathbf{A}-\mathbf{B_e}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{B_e}+\mathbf{Q}\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{C}$ and $\mathbf{Q}$ are given to be $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{A}&=-\frac{1}{\eta}\mathbf{G_e}^{-1},\\ \mathbf{C}&=\frac{1}{\tan(\beta d)} \mathbf{G_e}^{-1},\\ \mathbf{Q}&= \frac{1}{\eta^2 \tan(\beta d)} \mathbf{G_e}^{-1}+\tan(\beta d)\mathbf{G_e} - \\ & \nonumber \frac{1}{\eta}\mathbf{G_d}^{-1}\left( \frac{1}{\eta \tan(\beta d)}\mathbf{E}+ \frac{\tan(\beta d)}{\eta}\mathbf{E} \right)\end{aligned}$$ This equation is known to be the algebraic Riccati equation which has applications in control theory as well as MTL theory [@Potter1966; @Assante2012]. Solutions to this equation can be constructed explicitly from the eigenvectors of a block matrix of the coefficients [@Potter1966] or through numerical tools [^2]. Doing this gives us $\mathbf{B_e}$ the susceptance at $e$. We know now $\mathbf{Y_e}=\mathbf{G_e}+j\mathbf{B_e}$ and can find $\mathbf{Y_3}$ to be $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Y3} \mathbf{Y_3}=\mathbf{Y_f}-\mathbf{Y_e}.\end{aligned}$$ Then using we can find $\mathbf{Y_d}$ and $\mathbf{Y_2}$ is then given to be $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Y2} \mathbf{Y_2}=\mathbf{Y_d}-\mathbf{Y_c}.\end{aligned}$$ This procedure gives us the four surface admittances which form an asymmetric transmitarray that is reflectionless. To find the transmission coefficients through this transmitarray we can use the same procedure in Appendix A which allows us to calculate the S-parameters using the transfer matrices of the four-layer transmitarray. To summarize this, we can follow the following procedure to design a reflectionless asymmetric four-layer tensor admittance transmitarray 1. We assume a value for $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_4}$ via the rotation angles and eignevalues of each tensor. 2. Knowing the input admittance at $a$ and $h$ we can calculate the input admittance at $b$ and $g$ and subsequently $c$ and $f$ using our two basic MTL operations 3. The real part of the input admittance at $d$ and $e$ is known from points $c$ and $f$. The admittance at points $d$ and $e$ is also constrained due to the dielectric spacer between them. This is given by the algebraic Riccati equation in which we solve to find the imaginary part of the admittance at $e$. 4. Finally with the admittance at $e$ known, we can use to find $\mathbf{Y_3}$. We can then use the admittance at $e$ to determine the admittance at $d$ so that can be used to find $\mathbf{Y_2}$. This gives us the admittance for all four layers. 5. We can evaluate the transmission through the structure using the methods in Appendix A. If the desired transmission values are not achieved we then repeat the previous steps until they are. The S-parameters in general for such a surface are characterized by the following lossless matrix, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SmatrixAsym} \bm{S}=e^{-j\xi} \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & \cos\Psi & 0 & \sin\Psi e^{-j\Phi} \\ \cos\Psi & 0 & -\sin\Psi e^{j\Phi} & 0\\0 & -\sin\Psi e^{j\Phi} & 0 & \cos\Psi\\\sin\Psi e^{-j\Phi} & 0 & \cos\Psi & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right],\end{aligned}$$ This looks similar to and in fact, using this asymmetric transmitarray can allow us to achieve many of the same polarization controlling properties as a symmetric transmitarray. Thus we can alter a specific input polarization state into another polarization state. However in we also note that the cross coupling transmission coefficients have a $\pi$ phase shift between them. This will allow for the implementation of chiral effects such as polarization rotator. (By relaxing the reflectionless requirement we can also implement a circular polarizer). The physical interpretation of this different cross coupling is due to the admittance of each layer having a different rotation angle $\gamma$. Examples -------- To demonstrate the design procedure given above for asymmetric tensor impedance transmitarrays. We will look at two examples which implement chiral behaviour. These examples are for achieving linear polarization rotation and circular polarization selectivity [@Niemi2013]. We will demonstrate both here. As in the last section, all of our examples will take place at 10 GHz and are simulated in Ansys HFSS. Because these examples are dealing with homogeneous screens we can simply simulate one unit cell surrounded by periodic boundary conditions as shown in Fig. \[fig:HFSSgeom\]. The domain is then excited by periodic ports (referred to as Floquet ports in HFSS). Each unit cell is $\lambda/5 \times \lambda/5$. Again for each layer of the transmitarray we will use anisotropic impedance boundary conditions in HFSS which represents an ideal surface impedance. ### A Polarization Rotator For a polarization rotator the S-parameters of the surface are given by $$\label{eq:SparamPolRot} S=e^{-j\xi} \left[ \begin{smallmatrix} 0 & \cos\Psi & 0 & \sin\Psi \\ \cos\Psi & 0 & -\sin\Psi & 0 \\ 0 & -\sin\Psi & 0 & \cos\Psi \\ \sin\Psi & 0 & \cos\Psi & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$$ As stated, we note the $\pi$ phase shift between the cross-polarized transmission of the TE and TM fields. We also note that this kind of transmitarray can take any linear polariztaion and rotate it by the same angle $\Psi$ whereas the example in Section \[sec:SymTxArray\] was designed for one specific input polarization. This is the added flexibility of implementing the chiral behaviour with the asymmetric transmitarray. To implement a design of a surface which realizes this S-parameter matrix we follow the procedure given above. Here we set the spacing between the admittance surfaces to be $d=\lambda/5$. Since we must assume a value for both $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_4}$ we make the simplest choice which breaks the symmetry of the transmitarray. We choose a value for $\mathbf{Y_1}$ based on its three degrees of freedom, its eigenvalues $Y_{1,y}$ and $Y_{1,z}$ and rotation angle $\gamma_1$. For $\mathbf{Y_4}$ we then choose the same eigenvalues $Y_{4,y}=Y_{1,y}$ and $Y_{4,z}=Y_{1,z}$ but $\gamma_4=-\gamma_1$. The consequence of this is that we find highly resonant designs which are inherently narrowband. While this is not very practical for actual designs it is sufficient for our purposes here to demonstrate the concept. Further work will involve exploring suitable choices for $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_4}$ that lead to more optimal designs. With this choice of $\mathbf{Y_1}$ and $\mathbf{Y_4}$ we can then find $\mathbf{Y_2}$ and $\mathbf{Y_3}$. The example we choose to simulate is one which rotates the linear polarization by $\Psi=\pi/2$. One possible solution is given by surface admittances $\mathbf{Y_1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} j5.16 \times 10^{-2} &-j6.44\times 10^{-2} \\ -j6.44\times 10^{-2} & j7.29\times 10^{-2} \end{array} \right]\mho$, $\mathbf{Y_2}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} -j1.04 \times 10^{-3} & j4.51\times 10^{-3} \\ j4.51\times 10^{-3} & -j1.16\times 10^{-3} \end{array} \right]\mho$, $\mathbf{Y_3}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} -j1.04 \times 10^{-3} & -j4.51\times 10^{-3} \\ -j4.51\times 10^{-3} & -j1.16\times 10^{-3} \end{array} \right]\mho$, and $\mathbf{Y_4}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} j5.16 \times 10^{-2} & j6.44\times 10^{-2} \\ j6.44\times 10^{-2} & j7.29\times 10^{-2} \end{array} \right]\mho$. We note that the rotation angle of each surface is given by $\gamma_1=-22.99^{\circ}$, $\gamma_2=41.13^{\circ}$, $\gamma_3=-41.13^{\circ}$ and $\gamma_4=22.98^{\circ}$. Going back to our crossed dipole interpretation of the surface admittance tensor we can imagine crossed dipoles successively rotated at each layer according to $\gamma$. This successive rotation of each admittance surface breaks the symmetry of the transmitarray and allows for chiral behaviour as first proposed in [@Zhao_2012]. Again we note that we are only using the concept of surface admittances and transmission-lines without ever explicitly invoking chirality. And, as shown here, by using the procedure described above, we can design our surface to be reflectionless by properly selecting the appropriate surface admittance eigenvalues and rotation angle $\gamma$. Simulating this unit cell in HFSS in the domain described above, we can plot the S-parameters from 9.8 GHz to 10.2 GHz as well as the fields in the unit cell. The S-parameters are shown in Fig. \[fig:SparamTwistPolRotMag\] where we can see good matching in the unit cell around 10 GHz. We can also see high transmission through the cross-polarized S-parameter terms as well as the $\pi$ phase shift between the TE and TM cross polarized terms. This shows good agreement with the S-parameters in . As stated above, optimizing the bandwidth of this design is an area of future work. Plotting the fields at 10 GHz we consider three scenarios. When the surface is excited by a TE polarization (vertical), when the surface is excited by a TM polarization (horizontal) and when the surface is excited by a $45^{\circ}$ slanted linear polarization. This is plotted in Fig. \[fig:PolRotEfieldTE\]-\[fig:PolRotEfield45\] where we can see in all three cases that the input linear polarization is rotated by $90^{\circ}$ demonstrating the ability to rotate any linear polarization. ### A Circular Polarizer Unlike the transmitarrays discussed so far, a circular polarizer, (also referred to a circular polarization selective surface), is not reflectionless but is in fact designed to reflect one hand of circular polarization while passing the other [@Roy1996; @Zhao_2012; @Niemi2013]. This was implemented in [@Zhao_2012] using a four-layer stack of rotated nanorods with each nanorod surface acting as an admittance surface. To contrast with [@Zhao_2012] again, the design shown here is a design that implements the exact S-parameters of a circular polarizer for a narrow-band of frequencies while in [@Zhao_2012] the goal was to maximize the bandwidth by maximizing the number of layers that could be fabricated. This is a common tradeoff in cascaded impedance structures between ripple in the transmission/reflection and bandwidth. Here, we are examining a solution at a specific frequency, trying to find the exact surface admittance of each layer to achieve such a circular polarizer. Because our circular polarizer has reflections we do not necessarily need a four-layer design (though we could design one if desired). Instead we can get away with a three-layer design which is what we choose to do here. For a circular polarizer which rejects a right-handed circular polarization (RHCP), the S-parameters in a linearly polarized TE and TM basis are given to be [@Roy1996] $$\label{eq:SparamCPSS} S=\frac{1}{2} e^{-j\xi}\left[\begin{smallmatrix} -1 & 1 & j & -j \\ 1 & -1 & j & -j \\ j & j & 1 & 1 \\ -j & -j & 1 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$$ Thus our desired reflection coefficient matrix looking into the transmitarray is given to be $$\label{eq:GammaCPSS} \mathbf{\Gamma_{in}}=\frac{1}{2} e^{-j\xi}\left[\begin{matrix} -1 & j \\ j & 1 \end{matrix}\right]$$ where the input admittance is given by inserting into . Modifying the procedure given above we can simply assume a value for $\mathbf{Y_3}$ and then proceed to find $\mathbf{Y_2}$ and $\mathbf{Y_1}$ using the algebraic Riccati equation in . Here we choose to set the spacing between each admittance surface to $d=\lambda/7$. Doing this we find an example solution where $\mathbf{Y_1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} -j9.63 \times 10^{-3} & -j4.14\times 10^{-3} \\ -j4.14\times 10^{-3} & j.24\times 10^{-3} \end{array} \right]\mho$, $\mathbf{Y_2}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} -j3.27 \times 10^{-1} & j5.69 \times 10^{-1} \\ j5.69 \times 10^{-1} & -j9.81 \times 10^{-1} \end{array} \right]\mho$ and $\mathbf{Y_3}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} -j4.78 \times 10^{-3} & -j7.03\times 10^{-3} \\ -j7.03\times 10^{-3} & -j3.30\times 10^{-3} \end{array} \right]\mho$. Again the value for the rotation angle of each surface is $\gamma_1=18.66^{\circ}$, $\gamma_2=30.06^{\circ}$ and $\gamma_3=42^{\circ}$, showing the progressive twist in the rotation angle through the transmitarray. We simulate this unit cell again in HFSS in the setup previously described and we find both the S-parameters and the fields in the structure as shown in Fig. \[fig:HFSSCPSS\]. The S-parameters are given in a circular polarization basis by transforming the S-parameter matrix [@Phillion_2011]. Here we can see in Fig. \[fig:SparamCPSSMagCPBasis\] a large reflection of a RHCP wave while a left-handed circularly polarized (LCHP) wave is easily transmitted by the surface. Plotting the fields in the structure in Fig. \[fig:CPSSEfieldRx\] and Fig. \[fig:CPSSEfieldTx\] we can see that when the transmitarray is excited by a LHCP wave, it is transmitted with minimal alteration of the circular polarization state. Correspondingly when the transmitarray is excited by a RHCP wave, the wave is reflected and very little is transmitted. Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:Conclusion} ========================== We have demonstrated here the analysis of symmetric and asymmetric tensor impedance transmitarray made up of a stack of tensor admittance surfaces. The use of these tensor admittance sheets allows for control of both the relative amplitude and phase of the TE and TM waves that are transmitted through the array allowing for polarization control to be realized. Using symmetric transmitarrays we have realized designs which can arbitrarily alter the polarization state for a given input polarization. This can be useful for waveplate designs as well as inhomogeneous polarization screens as shown above. For asymmetric designs we can create transmitarrays which can implement chiral behaviour such as polarization rotation and circular polarizers. We can see that this is due to the progressive twist in the rotation angles of each surface admittance tensor in the transmitarray. Both these symmetric and asymmetric designs were analyzed using a MTL model which treats each surface admittance as a shunt load on a $2+1$ wire MTL line. Doing this allows us to use concepts such as the input admittance and reflection coefficient to design the transmitarrays to be reflectionless. The design techniques laid out in this paper can be used to further explore possible solutions for controlling the polarization and wavefronts of an incident wave. This can include varying the dielectric spacers between the surface admittance, introducing loss (judiciously) and looking a surfaces with small reflections to create novel designs. With regards to their implementation, various designs of tensor admittances surfaces exist at both microwave and optical frequency beyond the crossed dipole. At microwaves, these designs include diagonal slots embedded in patches [@Fong_etal_2010], diagonal metallic patterns [@Patel_2013] and rotated or skewed dipoles [@Zhao_etal_2011; @Selvanayagam2014]. At optical frequencies, tensor impedance surfaces have been fabricated out of gold nanorods [@Zhao_2012; @Grady2013] and ‘V’ antennas [@Yu_2012]. The analytical techniques presented here can help to further optimize the single layer and stacked structures fabricated in [@Yu_2012; @Zhao_2012; @Grady2013] Thus, the analysis of a tensor impedance transmitarray presented here offers a way at both microwave and optical frequencies to implement planar reflectionless designs capable of polarization control. Appendix A - S-parameters Of A Tensor Impedance Transmitarray {#appendix-a---s-parameters-of-a-tensor-impedance-transmitarray .unnumbered} ============================================================= For a symmetric or asymmetric tensor impedance transmitarray we use the techniques given above to find a solution for the tensor surface admittances that yields a reflectionless design. With this solution we would like to evaluate the transmission through the layered admittance also. To do this we use $4\times4$ matrices to define the relationship between the network ports, with 2 ports for the input and 2 ports for the output (one for each polarization respectively). Each component of the transmitarray can be represented by a $4\times4$ network matrix. An example of a four-port network for a shunt surface admittance was shown in Fig. \[fig:ShuntYMTL\] with the corresponding port numberings. For a shunt admittance sheet on a transmission-line a $4\times4$ impedance matrix representation was defined in [@Selvanayagam2014] and is given by, $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{Z_{sh}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc} Z_{yy} & Z_{yy} & Z_{yz} & Z_{yz} \\ Z_{yy} & Z_{yy} & Z_{yz} & Z_{yz} \\ Z_{zy} & Z_{zy} & Z_{zz} & Z_{zz} \\ Z_{zy} & Z_{zy} & Z_{zz} & Z_{zz} \end{array}\right] \end{aligned}$$ where the elements of $\mathbf{Z_{sh}}$ are found from $\mathbf{Z_{\{1-4\}}}=\mathbf{Y^{-1}_{\{1-4\}}}$. This impedance matrix can be converted to an S-parameter matrix using $\mathbf{S}=(\mathbf{Z_{sh}}-\mathbf{Z_o})(\mathbf{Z_{sh}}+\mathbf{Z_o})^{-1}$, where $\mathbf{Z_o}$ is a diagonal matrix of the port impedance of each port [@Pozar]. In our case the port impedance at each port is simply $\eta$, the free space wave impedance. For the interconnecting transmission-lines of length $d$ and characteristic impedance $\eta_1$ and propagation constant $k_o$ which model free space, the TE and TM modes are decoupled as stated earlier. Thus the S-parameter matrix is simply given below by . $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:STL} \mathbf{S_{TL}}=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \frac{j\sin k_o d (\eta_1-\eta^2/\eta_1)}{2\eta\cos k_o d+j(\eta_1+\eta^2/\eta_1)\sin k_od} & \frac{2\eta}{2\eta\cos k_o d+j(\eta_1+\eta^2/\eta_1)\sin k_od} & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{2\eta}{2\eta\cos k_o d+j(\eta_1+\eta^2/\eta_1)\sin k_od} & \frac{j\sin k_o d (\eta_1-\eta^2/\eta_1)}{2\eta\cos k_o d+j(\eta_1+\eta^2/\eta_1)\sin k_od} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{j\sin k_o d (\eta_1-\eta^2/\eta_1)}{2\eta\cos k_o d+j(\eta_1+\eta^2/\eta_1)\sin k_od}& \frac{2\eta}{2\eta\cos k_o d+j(\eta_1+\eta^2/\eta_1)\sin k_od} \\ 0 & 0 &\frac{2\eta}{2\eta\cos k_o d+j(\eta_1+\eta^2/\eta_1)\sin k_od} &\frac{j\sin k_o d (\eta_1-\eta^2/\eta_1)}{2\eta\cos k_o d+j(\eta_1+\eta^2/\eta_1)\sin k_od} \end{smallmatrix}\right] \end{aligned}$$ To determine the S-matrix of the overall transmitarray we can convert all the S-matrices into $4\times4$ transfer matrices which can be multiplied together to model the stack of admittance sheets and dielectric layers as given by, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Tarray} \mathbf{T_{array}}=\mathbf{T_{Y,1}}\mathbf{T_{TL}}\mathbf{T_{Y,2}} ...\mathbf{T_{TL}}\mathbf{T_{Y,N-1}}\mathbf{T_{TL}}\mathbf{T_{Y,N}}.\end{aligned}$$ This overall transfer matrix can be converted back to an S-parameter matrix to find the transmission through the transmitarray. The procedure for converting between S-parameters and transfer matrices is given in [@Lau Appendix C]. Note that it is technically possible to solve for all the required admittances of the transmitarray by using the total transfer matrix in . However this would require rearranging the set of equations into a more useful form which would be very difficult due to the number of matrix inversions required to convert S and Z parameters to transfer matricies. Hence, our choice of using a semi-analytical method to find the surface admittances. [10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{} D. McGrath, “Planar three-dimensional constrained lenses,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 46–50, 1986. D. M. Pozar, “Flat lens antenna concept using aperture coupled microstrip patches,” Electronics Letters, vol. 32, no. 23, pp. 2109–2111, 1996. Z. Popovic and A. Mortazawi, “Quasi-optical transmit/receive front ends,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1964–1975, 1998. A. Munoz-Acevedo, P. Padilla, and M. Sierra-Castaner, “Ku band active transmitarray based on microwave phase shifters,” in EuCAP 2009. 3rd European Conference on Antennas and Propagation, 2009., 2009, pp. 1201–1205. J. Y. Lau and S. V. Hum, “Analysis and characterization of a multipole reconfigurable transmitarray element,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 70–79, 2011. J. Lau and S. Hum, “Reconfigurable transmitarray design approaches for beamforming applications,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 5679 –5689, dec. 2012. S. Hum and J. Perruisseau-Carrier, “Reconfigurable reflectarrays and array lenses for dynamic antenna beam control: A review,” Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 183–198, Jan 2014. C. G. M. Ryan, M. Chaharmir, J. Shaker, J. Bray, Y. M. M. Antar, and A. Ittipiboon, “A wideband transmitarray using dual-resonant double square rings,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1486–1493, 2010. M. Al-Joumayly and N. Behdad, “Wideband planar microwave lenses using sub-wavelength spatial phase shifters,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 4542–4552, 2011. M. Li, M. Al-Joumayly, and N. Behdad, “Broadband true-time delay microwave lenses based on miniaturized-element frequency selective surfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1166–1179, 2013. N. Gagnon, A. Petosa, and D. McNamara, “Research and development on phase-shifting surfaces (psss),” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 29–48, 2013. B. Memarzadeh and H. Mosallaei, “Array of planar plasmonic scatterers functioning as light concentrator,” Opt. Lett., vol. 36, no. 13, pp. 2569–2571, Jul 2011. F. Monticone, N. M. Estakhri, and A. Alù, “Full control of nanoscale optical transmission with a composite metascreen,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 110, no. 20, p. 203903, 2013. N. Yu, P. Genevet, M. A. Kats, F. Aieta, J.-P. Tetienne, F. Capasso, and Z. Gaburro, “Light propagation with phase discontinuities: Generalized laws of reflection and refraction,” Science, vol. 334, no. 6054, pp. 333–337, 2011. A. V. Kildishev, A. Boltasseva, and V. M. Shalaev, “Planar photonics with metasurfaces,” Science, vol. 339, no. 6125, 2013. C. L. Holloway, M. A. Mohamed, E. F. Kuester, and A. Dienstfrey, “Reflection and transmission properties of a metafilm: With an application to a controllable surface composed of resonant particles,” IEEE Trans. on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 853–865, 2005. C. Holloway, E. F. Kuester, J. Gordon, J. O’Hara, J. Booth, and D. Smith, “An overview of the theory and applications of metasurfaces: The two-dimensional equivalents of metamaterials,” Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 10–35, 2012. J. Vehmas, Y. Ra’di, A. O. Karilainen, and S. A. Tretyakov, “Eliminating electromagnetic scattering from small particles,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 3747–3756, 2013. C. Pfieffer and A. Grbic, “Metamaterial [H]{}uygens’ surfaces: Tailoring wave fronts with reflectionless sheets,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 110, no. 19, p. 197401, 2013. M. Selvanayagam and G. V. Eleftheriades, “Discontinuous electromagnetic fields using orthogonal electric and magnetic currents for wavefront manipulation,” Optics Express, vol. 21, pp. 14409–14429, 2013. B. Strassner, H. Chulmin, and K. Chang, “Circularly polarized reflectarray with microstrip ring elements having variable rotation angles,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 52, pp. 1122–1125, 2004. M. Joyal and J. Laurin, “Analysis and design of thin circular polarizers based on meander lines,” Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 3007–3011, 2012. D. Nakatani and J. Ajioka, “Lens designs using rotatable phasing elements,” in International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 15, 1977, pp. 357–360. H. Kaouach, L. Dussopt, J. Lant[é]{}ri, T. Koleck, and R. Sauleau, “Wideband low-loss linear and circular polarization transmit-arrays in v-band,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 2513–2523, 2011. R. Phillion and M. Okoniewski, “Lenses for circular polarization using planar arrays of rotated passive elements,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 59, pp. 1217–1227, 2011. H. Zhu, S. W. Cheung, K. L. Chung, and T. Yuk, “Linear-to-circular polarization conversion using metasurface,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, pp. 4615–4623, 2013. C. Pfeiffer and A. Grbic, “Millimeter-wave transmitarrays for wavefront and polarization control,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 4407–4417, 2013. M. Farmahini-Farahani and H. Mosallaei, “Birefringent reflectarray metasurface for beam engineering in infrared,” Opt. Lett., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 462–464, Feb 2013. N. Yu, F. Aieta, P. Genevet, M. A. Kats, Z. Gaburro, and F. Capasso, “A broadband, background-free quater-wave plate based on plasmonic metasurfaces,” Nano Letters, vol. 12, pp. 6328–6333, 2012. Y. He and G. V. Eleftheriades, “Design of thin infrared quarter-wave and half-wave plates using antenna-array sheets,” Optics Express, vol. 21, pp. 24468–24474, 2013. C. Pfieffer and A. Grbic, “Cascaded metasurfaces for complete phase and polarization control,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 102, p. 231116, 2013. N. K. Grady, J. E. Heyes, D. R. Chowdhury, Y. Zeng, M. T. Reiten, A. K. Azad, A. J. Taylor, D. A. R. Dalvit, and H.-T. Chen, “Terahertz metamaterials for linear polarization conversion and anomalous refraction,” Science, vol. 340, no. 6138, pp. 1304–1307, 2013. Y. Yang, W. Wang, P. Moitra, I. I. Kravchenko, D. P. Briggs, and J. Valentine, “Dielectric meta-reflectarray for broadband linear polarization conversion and optical vortex generation,” Nano Letters, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1394–1399, 2014. M. Selvanayagam and G. V. Eleftheriades, “Polarization control using tensor [H]{}uygens surfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. Submitted, 2014. A. Papakostas, A. Potts, D. M. Bagnall, S. L. Prosvirnin, H. J. Coles, and N. I. Zheludev, “Optical manifestations of planar chirality,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 90, p. 107404, Mar 2003. \[Online\]. Available: <http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.107404> A. V. Rogacheva, V. A. Fedotov, A. S. Schwanecke, and N. I. Zheludev, “Giant gyrotropy due to electromagnetic-field coupling in a bilayered chiral structure,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 97, p. 177401, Oct 2006. M. Decker, M. W. Klein, M. Wegener, and S. Linden, “Circular dichroism of planar chiral magnetic metamaterials,” Opt. Lett., vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 856–858, Apr 2007. C. M. Soukoulis and M. Wegener, “Past achievements and future challenges in the development of three-dimensional photonic metamaterials,” Nature Photonics, vol. 5, pp. 523–530, 2011. T. Niemi, A. Karilainen, and S. Tretyakov, “Synthesis of polarization transformers,” IEEE Trans. on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 3102–3111, June 2013. E. Plum, X.-X. Liu, V. A. Fedotov, Y. Chen, D. P. Tsai, and N. I. Zheludev, “Metamaterials: Optical activity without chirality,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 102, p. 113902, Mar 2009. Y. Zhao, N. Engheta, and A. Alù, “Homogenization of plasmonic metasurfaces modeled as transmission-line loads,” Metamaterials, vol. 5, no. 23, pp. 90 – 96, 2011. Y. Zhao, M. Belkin, and A. Alù, “Twisted optical metamaterials for planarized ultrathin broadband circular polarizers,” Nature Communications, vol. 3, p. 870, 2012. M. Joyal and J. Laurin, “Analysis and design of thin circular polarizers based on meander lines,” Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 3007–3011, June 2012. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principle of Optics, 7th ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge University, 1999. B. Fong, J. Colburn, J. Ottusch, J. Visher, and D. Sievenpiper, “Scalar and tensor holographic artificial impedance surfaces,” Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 3212–3221, 2010. M. Selvanayagam and G. V. Eleftheriades, “Transmission-line metamaterials on a skewed lattice for transformational electromagnetics,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 59, pp. 3272– 3282, Dec. 2011. A. Patel and A. Grbic, “Effective surface impedance of a printed-circuit tensor impedance surface ([PCTIS]{}),” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 61, pp. 1403–1413, 2013. Strictly speaking the reflection coefficient is given by $\protect \pmb {\Gamma }(d)=e^{-j\protect \pmb {\beta } d } \protect \pmb {\Gamma }(0) (e^{j\protect \pmb {\beta }d})^{-1}$ where the matrix exponential operation is defined to be $e^{j\protect \pmb {\beta } d}=\protect \mathbf {P^{-1}}\left [\begin {array}{cc} e^{j \beta _1 d} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{j \beta _2 d} \end {array} \right ]\protect \mathbf {P}$, and $\protect \mathbf {P}$ is the matrix that diagonalizes $e^{j\protect \pmb {\beta }d}$. However since the TE and TM modes of free space and the dielectric spacer are orthogonal and isotropic this reduces to simply a scalar multiplication of the reflection coefficient matrix by a complex exponential. A similar statement applies to the $\protect \qopname \relax o{tan}{\beta d}$ term in (12). D. Pozar, Microwave Engineering.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em John Wiley and Sons, 2005. G. Milione, H. I. Sztul, D. A. Nolan, and R. R. Alfano, “Higher-order poincare sphere, stokes parameters, and the angular momentum of light,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 107, p. 053601, 2011. R. Quarfoth and D. Sievenpiper, “Artificial tensor impedance surface waveguides,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 61, pp. 3597–3606, 2013. J. E. Potter, “Matrix quadratic solutions,” SIAM J. Appl. Math, vol. 14, pp. 496–501, 1966. D. Assante, A. Andreotti, and L. Verolino, “Considerations on the characteristic impedance of periodically grounded multiconductor transmission lines,” in Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC EUROPE), 2012 International Symposium on, Sept 2012, pp. 1–6. For example, in MATLAB this equation can be solved using the `care` command. J. Roy, L. Shafai, and L. Shafai, “Reciprocal circular-polarization-selective surface,” Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 18–33, Dec 1996. A. Patel and A. Grbic, “Modeling and analysis of printed-circuit tensor impedance surfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 61, pp. 211–220, 2013. J. Y. Lau, “Reconfigurable transmitarray antennas,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 2012. [^1]: Strictly speaking the reflection coefficient is given by $\pmb{\Gamma}(d)=e^{-j\pmb{\beta} d } \pmb{\Gamma}(0) (e^{j\pmb{\beta}d})^{-1}$ where the matrix exponential operation is defined to be $e^{j\pmb{\beta} d}=\mathbf{P^{-1}}\left[\begin{array}{cc} e^{j \beta_1 d} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{j \beta_2 d} \end{array} \right]\mathbf{P}$, and $\mathbf{P}$ is the matrix that diagonalizes $e^{j\pmb{\beta}d}$. However since the TE and TM modes of free space and the dielectric spacer are orthogonal and isotropic this reduces to simply a scalar multiplication of the reflection coefficient matrix by a complex exponential. A similar statement applies to the $\tan{\beta d}$ term in (12). [^2]: For example, in MATLAB this equation can be solved using the `care` command	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - Tathagata Biswas - Manish Jain bibliography: - 'supp.bib' title: 'Supporting Information for the Manuscript Titled: “Polarization discontinuity driven two dimensional electron gas at A$_2$Mo$_3$O$_8$/B$_2$Mo$_3$O$_8$ (A, B : Zn,Mg,Cd) interfaces”' --- Computational details ===================== The Berry phase approach allows one to calculate the difference in polarization between two states of a system, provided they can be connected through an adiabatic transformation which keeps the system insulating throughout the process [@king1993theory]. The difference in electronic polarization $\Delta P_e$ between two systems can then be calculated from the geometric quantum phase as [@king1993theory; @bernardini1997spontaneous]: $$\begin{aligned} \Delta P_e &=& P_e(\lambda_2) - P_e(\lambda_1) \\ P_e(\lambda) &=& - \frac {2 e} {(2 \pi )^3 } \int_{BZ} d{\bf k} \frac {\partial} {\partial {\bf k'} } \phi ^{(\lambda)}({\bf k,k'}) \|_{{\bf k=k'}} \end{aligned}$$ where the domain of integration is the reciprocal-lattice unit cell and $\lambda$ is a parameter which is changed continuously to transform a structure labeled by $\lambda_1$ adiabatically to one that is labeled by $\lambda_2$. The geometric phase, $\phi ^{(\lambda)}$ can be computed from the occupied Bloch states of the crystal ($u^{(\lambda)}_n({\bf k})$) using, $$\phi ^{(\lambda)}({\bf k,k'}) = Im ( ln [det \langle u^{(\lambda)}_m({\bf k}) \| u^{(\lambda)}_n({\bf k'})])$$ It is important to note that the geometric quantum phase is only defined modulo 2$\pi$. As a result the polarization is also only defined modulo $\frac {e{\bf R}} {\Omega}$, where $\bf R$ is the real-space lattice vector in the direction of polarization. The total macroscopic polarization ($\bf P$) of a solid is the sum of spontaneous polarization ($\bf P ^{eq}$) of its equilibrium structure and piezoelectric polarization ($\delta \bf P$) induced as a result of any applied strain ($\epsilon$). Within the Berry phase approach, the spontaneous polarization is calculated with respect to a structure that has zero polarization and is an insulator. In case of materials with wurtzite crystal structure, the zinc blend structure of the same material is a natural choice. The difference in polarization obtained using this reference structure has been found to be in very good agreement with the experimental values [@dal1994ab; @bernardini1997spontaneous]. However, for the materials that we are studying, no known inversion symmetric structure exists. As a result, we use a hypothetical crystal structure, obtained by moving the atoms of the original structure to restore inversion symmetry as a reference. We note that we are [assuming]{} that one can relate the two structures via a gap preserving adiabatic transformation just like in case of previous studies [@dal1994ab; @bernardini1997spontaneous]. The piezoelectric polarization ($\delta {\bf P}$) within linear response (using Voigt notation) can be written [@fast1995elastic] as, $$\delta {\bf P}_i = e_{ij} \epsilon_{j}$$ where is $e_{ij}$ is the piezoelectric tensor. As the A$_2$Mo$_3$O$_8$ materials have a hexagonal crystal structure and we are only interested in polarization along \[$0001$\] direction (${\bf P}^{eq} =P^{eq} {\bf \hat{z}}$), there are only two independent components of piezoelectric tensor, $e_{33}$ and $e_{31}$ [@bernardini1997spontaneous]. We are not considering any shear strain here, so $e_{51}=0$. Piezoelectric polarization in this case can be written as, $$\delta P_3 = e_{33} \epsilon_3 + e_{31} (\epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2)$$ where $\epsilon_3= (c-c_0)/c$ is the strain along $c$-axis and $\epsilon_1= \epsilon_2= (a-a_0)/a$ is the in-plane strain. The equilibrium lattice parameters of the systems are $a_0$ and $c_0$ along the in-plane and $c$-axis respectively. Using a Taylor expansion one can also write the $\delta P_3$ as, $$\delta P_3 = \frac {\partial P_3} {\partial a} \bigg{\|}_{a=a_0} (a-a_0) + \frac {\partial P_3} {\partial c} \bigg{\|}_{c=c_0} (c-c_0)$$ It is important to note that we do not consider internal structural parameters as independent variables in the above equation. This is because in our calculations, we calculate the polarization of the relaxed structure with the constrained lattice parameters [@ederer2005effect; @dal1994ab]. Using the above equations, one can compute the piezoelectric constants as, $$e_{33} = c_0 \frac {\partial P_3} {\partial c} \bigg{\|}_{c=c_0} ; \; \; e_{31} = \frac {a_0} {2} \frac {\partial P_3} {\partial a} \bigg{\|}_{a=a_0}$$ In practice, we apply a small strain ($\pm 1 \%$) along $c$-axis (to calculate $e_{33}$) or in $xy$-plane (to calculate $e_{31}$) and calculate the polarization of the relaxed structure at the strained lattice parameters. In the small strain limit, the polarization is linear with respect to the strain. The piezoelectric constants can thus be simply calculated from the slope of the polarization vs strain curve. Crystal structure of A$_2$Mo$_3$O$_8$ compounds and the inversion symmetric structure used for calculating spontaneous polarization =================================================================================================================================== (6,4.8) (1,2.7)[![image](fig_s1_a.png){height="4cm"}]{} (3,2.7)[![image](fig_s1_b.png){height="4cm"}]{} (1,0.2)[![image](fig_s1_c.png){height="4cm"}]{} (3,0.2)[![image](fig_s1_d.png){height="4cm"}]{} (2,2.5)[(a)]{} (4,2.5)[(b)]{} (2,0)[(c)]{} (4,0)[(d)]{} [\|m[3cm]{}\|m[3.5cm]{}\|m[3.5cm]{}\|m[3.5cm]{}\|]{} parameters & ZMO & MMO & CMO\ $a^{Theory}$ in Å& 5.707 & 5.701 & 5.764\ $a^{Expt.}$ in Å& 5.775 & 5.761 & 5.835\ $c^{Theory}$ in Å& 9.770 & 9.802 & 10.742\ $c^{Expt.}$ in Å& 9.915 & 9.893 & 10.815\ $A^1(2b)$ & (1/3, 2/3, 0.5179) & (1/3, 2/3, 0.5122) & (1/3, 2/3, 0.5148)\ $A^2(2b)$ & (1/3, 2/3, 0.9489) & (1/3, 2/3, 0.9479) & (1/3, 2/3, 0.9616)\ $Mo(6c)$ & (0.1461, 0.8539, 0.2505) & (0.1463, 0.8537, 0.2507) & (0.1458, 0.8542, 0.2514)\ $O^1(2a)$ & (0, 0, 0.8929) & (0, 0, 0.8933) & (0, 0, 0.8821)\ $O^2(2b)$ & (1/3, 2/3, 0.1448) & (1/3, 2/3, 0.1459) & (1/3, 2/3, 0.1566)\ $O^3(6c)$ & (0.4886, 0.5114, 0.3660) & (0.4873, 0.5127, 0.3669) & (0.4867, 0.5133, 0.3522)\ $O^4(6c)$ & (0.1667, 0.8333, 0.6318) & (0.1675, 0.8325, 0.6324) & (0.1613, 0.8387, 0.6411)\ Band gap in eV & 1.65 & 1.74 & 1.65\ Additional results from ZMO/MMO heterostructure calculations ============================================================ (6,3) (0,0)[![Layer resolved bandstucture, with the color used to denote which Mo($4d$) states are involved. The intensity of the blue (red) color decreases as the distance from $\sigma_1$ ($\sigma_2$) surface increases. To plot the band structure we chose only those directions in the Brillouin zone which corresponds to wavevectors parallel to the interface (K\[1/3,1/3,0\]–$\Gamma$\[0,0,0\]–M\[1/2,0,0\])[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig_s2.png "fig:"){height="6cm"}]{} (6,3) (0,0.1)[![(a) Calculated layer-resolved Mo(4d) DOS for ZMO/MMO heterostructure containing 1$\times$1$\times$4 supercell of both ZMO and MMO. (b) The same calculated using a heterostructure of 1$\times$1$\times$5 supercell of each material. Red and blue lines are indicating the Valence and Conduction band edge profile along \[$0001$\] direction.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig_s3_a.png "fig:"){height="6cm"}]{} (3,0.1)[![(a) Calculated layer-resolved Mo(4d) DOS for ZMO/MMO heterostructure containing 1$\times$1$\times$4 supercell of both ZMO and MMO. (b) The same calculated using a heterostructure of 1$\times$1$\times$5 supercell of each material. Red and blue lines are indicating the Valence and Conduction band edge profile along \[$0001$\] direction.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig_s3_b.png "fig:"){height="6cm"}]{} (0,0)[(a)]{} (3,0)[(b)]{} Results obtained from heterostructure calculation directly and electrostatic model assuming polarization discontinuity hypotheosis ================================================================================================================================== [\|m[4cm]{}\| m[2cm]{}\| m[2cm]{}\|]{} Quantity & DFT & Model\ $\Delta$P in C m$^{-2} $ & 0.028 & –\ $\epsilon_{\rm{ZMO}}$ & 4.894 & –\ $\epsilon_{\rm{MMO}}$ & 3.948 & –\ $\sigma_{1}$ in 10$^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ & 0.402 & 0.403\ $\sigma_{2}$ in 10$^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ & -0.401 & -0.403\ E$_{\rm{ZMO}}$ in 10$^{9}$ V m$^{-1}$ & -0.358 & -0.364\ E$_{\rm{MMO}}$ in 10$^{9}$ V m$^{-1}$ & 0.359 & 0.363\	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We present $K_{\rm s}$-band surface photometry of NGC 7690 (Hubble type Sab) and NGC 4593 (SBb). We find that, in both galaxies, a major part of the “bulge” is as flat as the disk and has approximately the same color as the inner disk. In other words, the “bulges” of these galaxies have disk-like properties. We conclude that these are examples of “pseudobulges” – that is, products of secular dynamical evolution. Nonaxisymmetries such as bars and oval disks transport disk gas toward the center. There, star formation builds dense stellar components that look like – and often are mistaken for – merger-built bulges but that were constructed slowly out of disk material. These pseudobulges can most easily be recognized when, as in the present galaxies, they retain disk-like properties. NGC 7690 and NGC 4593 therefore contribute to the growing evidence that secular processes help to shape galaxies. NGC 4593 contains a nuclear ring of dust that is morphologically similar to nuclear rings of star formation that are seen in many barred and oval galaxies. The nuclear dust ring is connected to nearly radial dust lanes in the galaxy’s bar. Such dust lanes are a signature of gas inflow. We suggest that gas is currently accumulating in the dust ring and hypothesize that the gas ring will starburst in the future. The observations of NGC 4593 therefore suggest that major starburst events that contribute to pseudobulge growth can be episodic. author: - 'John Kormendy, Mark E. Cornell, David L. Block, Johan H. Knapen, Emma L. Allard' title: Pseudobulges in the Disk Galaxies NGC 7690 and NGC 4593 --- =15000 =15000 Introduction ============ =15000 =15000 Internal secular evolution of galaxies is the dynamical redistribution of energy and angular momentum that causes galaxies to evolve slowly between rapid (collapse-timescale) transformation events that are caused by galaxy mergers. Driving agents include nonaxisymmetries in the gravitational potential such as bars, oval disks, and global spiral structure. Kormendy (1993) and Kormendy & Kennicutt (2004, hereafter KK) review the growing evidence that secular processes have shaped the structure of many galaxies. The fundamental way that self-gravitating disks evolve – provided that there is an efficient driving agent – is by spreading (Lynden-Bell & Kalnajs 1972; Lynden-Bell & Pringle 1974; Tremaine 1989; see Kormendy & Fisher 2005 for a review in the present context). In general, it is energetically favorable to shrink the inner parts by expanding the outer parts. In barred galaxies, one well known consequence is the production of “inner rings” around the end of the bar and “outer rings” at about 2.2 bar radii. The most general consequence of secular evolution, and the one that is of interest in this paper, is that some disk gas is driven to small radii where it reaches high densities, feeds starbursts, and builds “pseudobulges”. Because of their high stellar densities and steep density gradients, pseudobulges superficially resemble – and often are mistaken for – bulges. Following Sandage (1961) and Sandage & Bedke (1994), Renzini (1999) adopts this definition of a bulge: “It appears legitimate to look at bulges as ellipticals that happen to have a prominent disk around them \[and\] ellipticals as bulges that for some reason have missed the opportunity to acquire or maintain a prominent disk.” We adopt the same definition. Our paradigm of galaxy formation then is that bulges and ellipticals both formed via galaxy mergers (e.g., Toomre 1977; Steinmetz & Navarro 2002, 2003), a conclusion that is well supported by observations (see Schweizer 1990 for a review). Pseudobulges are therefore fundamentally different from bulges – they were built slowly out of the disk. Two well developed examples, one in the unbarred galaxy NGC 7690 and one in the barred galaxy NGC 4593, are the subjects of this paper. Hierarchical clustering and galaxy merging are well known. Secular evolution is less studied and less well known. We are therefore still in the “proof of concept” phase in which it is useful to illustrate clearcut examples of the results of secular evolution. This paper continues a series (see the above reviews and Kormendy & Cornell 2004) in which we illustrate the variety of disk-like features that define pseudobulges. Observations and Data Reductions ================================ AAT Infrared Imaging and Data Reduction --------------------------------------- NGC 7690 and NGC 4593 show dust absorption features near their centers. Also, if star formation were in progress, there would be a danger that the brightness distributions at visible wavelengths would be affected by strong variations in mass-to-light ratios. We therefore base our results on near-infrared photometry, and we check later that they are not greatly affected by stellar population gradients or by dust absorption. Near-infrared images of both galaxies were obtained with the InfraRed Imaging Spectrograph 2 (IRIS2; Tinney et al. 2004) at the $f/8$ Cassegrain focus of the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT). We used IRIS2 in its wide-field imaging mode; this provides a field of view of 77 $\times$ 77 sampled at a scale of 04486 pixel$^{-1}$. The bandpass was $K_{\rm s}$ for both galaxies. We imaged NGC 7690 for a total on-source exposure time of 56 m. These observations were taken on 2004 July 1. For NGC 4593, we obtained 52 m of on-source exposure piecewise during the nights of 2004 June 30, July 1, July 2, and July 4. Individual images from different nights were combined during the reduction process. Our observing techniques were similar to those described in Knapen et al. (2003) and in Block et al. (2004). Individual 8 s exposures were co-added into raw images of 56 s exposure time. In contrast to our earlier work and taking advantage of the large IRIS2 field of view compared to the size of the galaxies, we did not alternate telescope pointings between the target and a nearby, blank background field. Instead, we used a grid of four pointings, each of which imaged the galaxy in one quadrant of the detector array. This “quadrant-jitter” method has the advantage of high observing efficiency, because no separate background exposures are needed, but the disadvantage that the galaxy image must be removed from the raw exposures when constructing background sky images. The AAT $K_{\rm s}$-band images were reduced in [IRAF]{} (Tody 1986) using our own procedures. The NGC 7690 data reductions were relatively simple, because the images were obtained at low airmass on a single photometric night. The galaxy was observed in quadrant-jitter mode, so it was centered in a different quadrant of the detector in each frame of a consecutive series. We constructed a flat-field frame for each detector quadrant from the median of all images with no galaxy in that quadrant. The images were adjusted for any additive offset before computing the median. The NGC 7690 field had few stars, and none remained in the final flat field. Once the quadrants were flattened, the galaxy quadrants were registered and stacked using a median combine, again correcting for additive offsets. The final stacked frame was quite flat, so a single constant sky value was subtracted. In contrast, the NGC 4593 images were taken over 4 nights, at high airmass, and in more variable conditions. The background shape varied enough so that the simple assumptions used for NGC 7690 did not work for NGC 4593. We constructed a flat-field frame from all of the NGC 4593 images as before. After flat-fielding, we subtracted from each galaxy frame a sky frame constructed from the median of the 4 frames taken nearest in time to the galaxy frame but with the galaxy in a different quadrant. Stars in the field were masked before constructing the flat-field and sky frames. The reduced NGC 7690 image has PSF and the NGC 4593 image has FWHM = 16. Additional Archival Images -------------------------- The images used for surface photometry were archival [Hubble Space Telescope]{} ([HST]{}) WFPC2 F606W images, [HST]{} NICMOS F160W images, archival 2MASS images (extended source catalog tile for NGC 7690 and a Large Galaxy Atlas image for NGC 4593), and the AAT $K_{\rm s}$-band images obtained with IRIS2. To improve signal-to-noise, the 2MASS $J$, $H$, and $K_{\rm s}$ images were added together. The background was removed from the NGC 7690 2MASS tile by masking the stars and then fitting and subtracting a quadratic surface. The background in the 2MASS image of NGC 4593 was already sufficiently flat. Cosmic ray hits and bad pixels in the NICMOS data were removed using the [tvzap]{} command in Jon Holtzman’s ([http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/holtz/xvista]{}) implementation of [VISTA]{} (Lauer et al. 1983; Stover 1988). This replaces user-selected pixels with the median of the surrounding 5 $\times$ 5 pixels. Cosmic ray hits in the WFPC2 image of NGC 7690 were removed using the [STSDAS]{} task [CRREJ]{}. The central, bad 1 – 2 columns in the NICMOS data were fixed by linearly interpolating the neighboring pixel values line by line. Gaps in the mosaiced Wide Field Camera image were also filled via linear interpolation. The [HST]{} PC $V$-band image of NGC 4593 that is used in Figure 3 was cleaned of cosmic rays using the [IRAF]{} script [L.A.COSMIC]{} (van Dokkum 2001) and [VISTA tvzap]{}. Finally, any remaining sky background level was computed as the average of the modes of the pixel values in several sky boxes chosen to be free of galaxy light or interfering objects. The galaxies fill the [HST]{} Planetary Camera (PC) and NICMOS fields of view. For the PC, the sky flux was measured on the Wide Field Camera images and scaled to the PC pixels. For the NICMOS image, the sky was taken as zero for NGC 7690. For NGC 4593, the sky value for the NICMOS image was chosen to optimize the agreement between the major-axis cuts as measured on the NICMOS and AAT images in the radius range $3^{\prime\prime} \leq r \leq 13^{\prime\prime}$. Surface Photometry ------------------ Before fitting ellipses and calculating profile cuts, interfering foreground and background objects were identified using Source Extractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) and masked. Any remaining stars were identified visually and masked as well. Position angle and ellipticity profiles as a function of major-axis radius $r$ were derived from ellipse fits using the method of Bender & Möllenhoff (1987) and Bender et al. (1988) as implemented in [MIDAS]{} (Banse et al. 1988) by Bender and by Saglia (2003, private communication). Position angles are measured east of north. Some profiles were extended using ellipse fits made by [GASP]{} (Cawson 1983; Davis et al. 1985), which is slightly more robust at low $S/N$ or when isophotes are incomplete at the edge of the field of view. Surface brightness cuts along the major axis, the minor axis, and (for NGC 4593) the bar were produced using a program that averages pixel values in a 25$^\circ$-wide, pie-shaped wedge. Therefore, more pixels are included at large radii where the $S/N$ is low. Masked pixels are left out of the average. The cuts on opposite sides of the galaxy center were averaged. The various cut profiles were shifted in mag arcsec$^{-2}$ to match up as well as possible. The $K_{\rm s}$-band zeropoint for NGC 7690 was derived from 2MASS, 5$^{\prime\prime}$- and 7$^{\prime\prime}$-radius, circular-aperture photometry applied to the [HST]{} NICMOS F160W ($H$-band) image. The $K_{\rm s}$-band zeropoint for NGC 4593 was transferred from 2MASS by measuring the galaxy magnitude in the Large Galaxy Atlas image (Jarrett et al. 2003) and in our AAT image within the largest (radius = 95$^{\prime\prime}$) aperture that fits within our image. For NGC 7690, the $V$-band zeropoint was derived from aperture photometry by Wegner (1979). For NGC 4593, the WFPC2 image is saturated, making calibration via aperture photometry problematic. Instead we used the transformation from F606W to Johnson V given by Holtzman et al. (1995), assuming that $V - I = 1.25$ from the aperture photometry by McAlary et al. (1983) as tabulated by Prugniel & Héraudeau (1998). The cut profiles were smoothed by averaging values in bins of width 0.04 in $\log {r}$. Profiles were truncated where they were affected by seeing at small radii and low $S/N$ at large radii. The $V - K_{\rm s}$ cut profile was created from calibrated $V$ and $K_{\rm s}$ composite profiles. The $V$ composite profile was created from a cut from the Planetary Camera image inside a radius of 20$^{\prime\prime}$, and the cut from the Wide Field Camera beyond that. Similarly, the $K_{\rm s}$ composite profile was created from the NICMOS profile inside 10$^{\prime\prime}$ and the AAT profile outside that. The $V - K_{\rm s}$ images were created by taking the ratio of the sky-subtracted WFPC2 F606W $V$ and AAT $K_{\rm s}$ frames, after convolving the WFPC2 frames with gaussians to match the AAT PSFs. Figures 1 and 3 shows the logarithms of the ratio images. NGC 7690 ======== NGC 7690 is an unbarred, Sab galaxy illustrated in the Carnegie Atlas (Sandage & Bedke 1994). In Tully (1988) group 61 $-0$ $+16$; its group’s mean recession velocity of $1495 \pm 59$ km s$^{-1}$ together with a Hubble constant of 71 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (Spergel et al. 2003) imply a distance of 21 Mpc. For a Galactic absorption of $A_B \simeq 0.045$ (Schlegel et al. 1998) and a total $B$-band apparent magnitude of $B_{\rm T} = 13.0$ (de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991: RC3), the absolute magnitude is $M_B = -18.7$. NGC 7690 is therefore a reasonably normal, low-luminosity disk galaxy. Its relatively early Hubble type implies that it should have a substantial bulge (e.g., Simien & de Vaucouleurs 1986). In particular, NGC 7690 is earlier in Hubble type than the relatively sharp transition observed to occur at Sb/Sbc between early-type galaxies that mostly contain classical bulges and late-type galaxies that mostly contain pseudobulges (see KK for a review). NGC 7690 nevertheless proves to contain a well developed pseudobulge. The pseudobulge of NGC 7690 was discovered by Carollo et al. (1998); their $V$-band image is included in Figure 13 of KK. An [HST]{} F160W image from Carollo et al. (2002) is shown in the upper-right panel of our Figure 1. Qualitatively, the center of NGC 7690 looks disk-like, so much so that in the “Bulge?” column of Table 2 in Carollo et al. (1998), they do not even list NGC 7690 as having an “IB” = “irregular bulge”, which is essentially equivalent to what we call a pseudobulge. Instead, the entry is “No?”. NGC 7690 was chosen for this paper because we wanted to investigate the (pseudo)bulge quantitatively with near-infrared surface photometry. The results are shown in Figure 1. The blue and red $\mu(r)$ points are major- and minor-axis brightness cuts calculated as discussed in §2.3. Excellent agreement between the AAT and 2MASS profiles provides an important check of our reduction procedures. The $\epsilon(r)$ and PA$(r)$ points are isophote ellipticity and position angle profiles calculated by fitting elliptical isophotes to the images identified in the key. Calculations of the $V - K_{\rm s}$ color profile (top-left plot) and image (lower-right) are discussed in §2.3. The profiles are plotted against $\log {r}$ to illustrate the behavior at small and large radii and also against linear radius $r$ so that an exponential outer disk – and departures of the inner profile above it – can easily be recognized. Fig. 1 shows three quantitative signatures of a pseudobulge: First, the central component illustrated by Carollo and collaborators forms a clear shelf in the brightness distribution at major- and minor-axis radii of 6$^{\prime\prime}$ and 3$^{\prime\prime}$, respectively. That is, it has the morphology of a lens (Freeman 1975; Kormendy 1979, 1981; Buta & Combes 1996), not a bar. A bar would form a shelf in the major-axis profile only. In contrast, a lens[^1] is defined as a shelf of nearly constant surface brightness seen along both the major and minor axes. Lenses have intrinsic axial ratios $\sim 0.9 \pm 0.05$ in the equatorial plane (see the above papers), whereas bars in early-type galaxies have axial ratios of $\sim 0.1$ to 0.3 in the equatorial plane (see Sellwood & Wilkinson 1993 for a review). In other words, the shape distributions of lenses and bars do not overlap. Lenses and bars are physically different. In fact, barred galaxies often contain both components, with the bar filling the lens in one dimension (see the above papers). However, unbarred galaxies can also have strong lenses (e.g., NGC 1553: Freeman 1975; Kormendy 1984). Note further that lenses and “inner rings” (bright rings that generally encircle the end of the bar) are also different (e.g., Sellwood & Wilkinson 1993; Buta & Combes 1996): inner rings are relatively dark inside. Also, rings are narrow in the radial direction and therefore must have small radial velocity dispersions, whereas lenses are observed to have large radial velocity dispersions (e.g., Kormendy 1984). The main bars in early-type galactic disks have radii of $\sim$ 1.4 exponential scale lengths (Erwin 2005), and – as noted above – the radii of lenses and inner rings are closely similar to the sizes of their associated bars. Distinctly smaller versions of all of these phenomena – nuclear bars, nuclear lenses (often but not always associated with nuclear bars), and nuclear rings – also occur, usually but not always in galaxies that also contain larger, “main” bars or ovals. We belabor these points because lenses are less well known in the astronomical community than bars or inner rings. The 6$^{\prime\prime}$ $\times$ 3$^{\prime\prime}$ shelf in the brightness distribution of NGC 7690 is a nuclear lens without an associated nuclear or main bar. The nuclear lens is 1.5 to 2 $K_{\rm s}$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ higher in surface brightness than the inward extrapolation of the outer disk’s almost-exponential brightness profile. It therefore forms part of what would conventionally be identified as the bulge. We would like to classify a bulge as the E-like part of a galaxy. In practice, this is not straightforward for non-edge-on galaxies. Therefore, Carollo et al. (1999) adopt the surrogate definition that a bulge is the central part of the galaxy that is brighter than the inward extrapolation of the outer disk’s exponential brightness profile. By this definition, the nuclear lens in NGC 7690 is part of the galaxy’s bulge. But bulges and elliptical galaxies generally have simple brightness profiles consisting of a single Sérsic (1968) $\log {I} \propto r^{1/n}$ profile (possibly with a cuspy core) and not a shelf in the brightness profile such as the one in NGC 7690. The second pseudobulge indicator is that the nuclear lens – the shelf in the inner brightness profile – is clearly a disk. This was already evident from the images in Carollo et al. (1998, 2002), as shown here in Figure 1. The nuclear disk in the top-right panel has the same apparent flattening and position angle as the outer disk shown in the middle image panel. We see this result quantitatively in the $\epsilon$ and PA plots. The $r = 6^{\prime\prime}$ shelf in the brightness profile has precisely the same ellipticity and PA as the disk farther out. It is not plausible that this is due to internal absorption, because the $V$-band ellipticities and position angles (crosses in Figure 1) agree with the $K_{\rm s}$-band ones at all radii that are relevant to our conclusions. Since the $K_{\rm s}$-band extinction is about one-tenth as big as the $V$-band extinction (e.g., Cox 2000), this implies that extinction does not significantly affect the parameters at either wavelength, unless unrealistically gray extinction is postulated. From $r \simeq 6^{\prime\prime}$ outward, the ellipticity and PA change very little, consistent with a nearly circular main disk at nearly constant inclination. We conclude that the nuclear lens, i.e., the outer part of what would conventionally be identified as the bulge of NGC 7690, is as flat as the galaxy’s disk. This is the most clearcut signature of a pseudobulge in NGC 7690 (see KK for pseudobulge classification criteria). The surface brightness of the nuclear disk is nearly constant interior to its sharp outer edge. Not surprisingly, the ellipticity drops rapidly inward as the profile of this highly-inclined galaxy becomes dominated by a less flattened center. This feature may be but is not necessarily a classical bulge. It would be no surprise if the pseudobulge part of NGC 7690 were embedded in a classical bulge, because secular evolution can build a pseudobulge inside a pre-existing bulge (see KK). But several arguments suggest that a classical bulge is not the main feature near the center. First, the PA profile shows a clear twist centered at $r \simeq 3^{\prime\prime}$. The ellipticity starts to drop suddenly toward the center at the radius $r \simeq 6^{\prime\prime}$ where the twist starts, and it continues to drop throughout the radius range of the twist. This combination is a characteristic of a weak bar or weak spiral arms. Bars and spiral arms are disk features. Thus, even interior to its sharp outer edge, the signs are that the galaxy is dominated by a disk. The third pseudobulge indicator is the lack of a steep color gradient between a bluish disk and a red and much older bulge. The $V - K_{\rm s}$ color image (bottom-right in Figure 1) and profile both show that, apart from a few irregular dust features that are easily masked out in the photometry, there is no significant color difference between the inner part of the outer disk and the nuclear disk. Indeed, the $V - K_{\rm s}$ profile is completely continuous from the disk-dominated outer galaxy to the bulge-dominated inner galaxy. This is an example of a general phenomenon: (pseudo)bulge and disk colors correlate (Peletier & Balcells 1996; Gadotti & dos Anjos 2001). Bulges and disks both show large ranges in colors, but “bulges are more like their disk\[s\] than they are like each other” (Wyse et al. 1997). Courteau et al. (1996) and Courteau (1996) interpret such correlations as products of secular dynamical evolution. As noted above, there is no sign in NGC 7690 of a discontinuity in stellar population between an old, non-star-forming bulge and a younger disk, as one would expect for a classical bulge (Sandage & Bedke 1994). Note that the small color gradient from outer disk to nuclear lens implies, since $K_{\rm s}$ extinctions are so much smaller than $V$ extinctions, that the shelf in the brightness profile is a real feature in the stellar density and not an artifact of absorption. Several classification criteria agree, so it seems safe to conclude that NGC 7690 contains a pseudobulge. This may or may not coexist with a small classical bulge – we cannot be certain from the data at hand, although no observation points compellingly to a classical bulge component. We conclude that NGC 7690 is an example of secular evolution in action. This is particularly interesting because the Sab galaxy NGC 7690 is earlier in type than the galaxies[^2] that most commonly contain pseudobulges. Also, there is no obvious engine for secular evolution, such as a bar, oval distortion, or global spiral structure. NGC 7690 therefore contributes to the accumulating evidence that secular evolution occurs in a wide variety of galaxies. NGC 4593 ======== NGC 4593 is a structurally normal SBb galaxy (Sandage 1961; Sandage & Bedke 1994). We adopt a distance of 35 Mpc (Tully 1988 group 11 $-29$), then $B_{\rm T} = 11.67$ (RC3) implies that $M_B = -21.2$. NGC 4593 is therefore a high-luminosity disk galaxy. Moreover, it has a well developed engine for secular evolution in the form of a high-amplitude bar. Secular evolution is likely to be rapid. Our photometry of NGC 4593 proves to be consistent with this expectation (Figure 2). Near-Infrared Photometry: Evidence for a Pseudobulge ---------------------------------------------------- NGC 4593 is a well known Seyfert I galaxy (Lewis et al. 1978; MacAlpine et al. 1979). The nuclear point source is very bright ([HST]{} F606W mag $\sim 17.1$ at $r \leq 0\farcs09$); it completely swamps the central brightness distribution of the galaxy (MRK 1330 in Figure 1 of Malkan et al. 1998). Since this is not star light, it is important that we subtract it in our analysis of the brightness distribution. We did this for the [HST]{} NICMOS image by subtracting a PSF calculated with [Tiny Tim]{} (Krist & Hook 2004) and scaled in total intensity to remove the diffraction spikes and other small-scale PSF structure in the image as well as possible. The result is the image in the upper-right panel of Figure 2; it was used to calculate the NICMOS points in the profile plot panels. Of course, it is not possible to recover the stellar brightness distribution very close to the center. We were conservative and truncated the brightness profile at $r$ 1$^{\prime\prime}$. Uncertainties in the [HST]{} PSF subtraction do not affect our conclusions. It is important to note that this would not be true at ground-based resolution. The AAT $K_{\rm s}$ profile does not show the profile kink at $\log {r} = 0.5$ (see Figure 2 and discussion, below), because the central, fainter part of the profile is filled in by the seeing-convolved Seyfert nucleus. A comparison of the major-axis, bar, and minor-axis brightness cuts then shows that the “bulge” dominates the brightness distribution at major-axis radii $r < 20^{\prime\prime}$. Is this a classical bulge or is it a pseudobulge? The ellipticity profile shows that NGC 4593 contains a pseudobulge, with no sign of a classical bulge component. The apparent ellipticity of the outer disk is $\epsilon \simeq 0.25 \pm 0.05$. Remarkably, the ellipticity of the bulge is also $0.25 \pm 0.05$ over the whole radius in which we can measure it; i.e., interior to the bar and exterior to the region clobbered by the Seyfert nucleus. Note again that [HST]{} resolution is important: the extra smoothing caused by the ground-based PSF makes the isophotes as measured with the AAT significantly rounder than those measured with [HST]{} NICMOS. But the NICMOS data show that the pseudobulge of NGC 4593 is as flat as its disk. In the absence of PA information, it might be possible that the “bulge” of NGC 4593 is really a nuclear bar. Nuclear bars are common in barred galaxies, and since they have arbitrary position angles with respect to their associated main bars, an elongated “bulge” could be a vertically thick nuclear bar rather than a vertically thin disk. However, the PA is essentially the same at small radii as in the outer disk. For this to be caused by a nuclear bar would require the added accident that the nuclear bar is aligned with the major axis of the galaxy. This is not impossible, but the more likely explanation is that the bulge is nearly circular in its equatorial plane and as flat as the disk. In either case, the observations imply a pseudobulge. The cleanest signature of a well developed pseudobulge is that it is very flat. However, since bars are disk phenomena, the observation of a nuclear bar would also be evidence for a pseudobulge. Both classification criteria are reviewed in KK. A second feature of the profiles in Figure 2 is consistent with a pseudobulge but does not by itself prove that one is present. The (pseudo)bulge profile has a kink at $\log {r} \simeq 0.5$ ($r \simeq 3^{\prime\prime}$). Such features are not seen in classical bulges or ellipticals. The above radius is too large for the kink to be a cuspy core like those in ellipticals (see Lauer et al. 1995; Faber et al. 1997). Pseudobulges are a consequence of more complicated physics than the violent relaxation and dissipation that builds ellipticals. If they grow by star formation in gas that has been transported to the center, exactly how the star formation proceeds and what kind of density profile it produces are controlled by a complicated interplay between star formation (as described by a Schmidt 1959 – Kennicutt 1998a,b law) and the factors – e.g., resonances – that determine where the gas stalls. Nuclear star formation rings seen in many barred and oval galaxies are a hint that the stellar density that “rains out” of the gas distribution may have more complicated radial features than do elliptical galaxies, in which violent relaxation smooths the density in radius. So pseudobulges are likely to have a larger variety of profile shapes than do ellipticals. We see two examples of this variety in the present paper. Comparison of $V$ and $K_{\rm s}$ Images: The Inner Dust Ring as Evidence for Episodic Pseudobulge Growth --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dust is more important in NGC 4593 than in NGC 7690. Therefore we verify in this subsection that dust absorption does not compromise the above conclusions. Examination of the dust features also leads to a new result, namely a hint that the starbursts that contribute most to pseudobulge growth may be episodic. An inner dust spiral is faintly visible in the top-right panel of Figure 2. Its relationship with the rest of the galaxy is made clear in Figure 3, which shows $V$-band images that can be compared with $K_{\rm s}$ images in Figure 2. Figure 3 also shows a $V - K_{\rm s}$ color image; major-axis cuts through this image are shown in the $V - K_{\rm s}$ color profile in the top-left panel of Figure 2. We show separately the color profiles east and west of the center; the red “peaks” identify where narrow dust features cross the major axis. The $V$-band [HST]{} PC image (Figure 3) shows a strong dust ring with major-axis radius $\simeq$ 5$^{\prime\prime}$. It causes the red ring that is the most obvious feature of the $V - K_{\rm s}$ color image. It is also seen as the red peak in both the east and west color profiles at $\log {r} \simeq 0.7$ in Figure 2. Interior to the dust ring, the faint dust spiral seen in Figure 2 is, not surprisingly, much more obvious at $V$ band in Figure 3. Its crossings of the major axis are seen in the color profile in Figure 2 as $V - K_{\rm s}$ maxima at $\log {r} \simeq 0.6$ on the west side (open circles) and at $\log {r} \simeq 0.4$ on the east side (filled circles). Fortunately, the dust spiral proves to be very narrow. Over a substantial radius range interior to the dust ring, the colors of the pseudobulge on the west side of the center are closely similar to those in the outer disk. There is no sign of significant reddening or (by inference) absorption at these radii. The minor axis on the south side of the center is similarly free of absorption except in the dust spiral. We used one-sided brightness cuts in these two directions to measure $V$-band ellipticities at $2\farcs5 \leq r \leq 4^{\prime\prime}$. These are shown as the crosses in the $\epsilon$ profile in Figure 2. The $V$-band ellipticities, carefully measured to avoid the dust, agree with the $K_{\rm s}$ values. The same is true at radii outside the dust ring, where dust absorption is small enough so that $V$-band isophote fits are possible and both $\epsilon$ and PA can be measured. As in the case of NGC 7690, we conclude that the near-infrared measurements, which are much less affected by internal absorption, are reliable. This confirms our conclusions about the flattening of the pseudobulge. We emphasize again that, except in the very red but narrow dust ring and in the central arcsec, the pseudobulge in NGC 4593 is the same color, $V - K_{\rm s} \simeq 3.2 \pm 0.1$, as the outer disk at $r \simeq 100^{\prime\prime}$. Both are about 0.4 mag redder in $V - K_{\rm s}$ than is NGC 7690. These results again are consistent with Wyse et al. (1997): Bulges and disks both show large ranges in colors, but “bulges are more like their disk\[s\] than they are like each other.” The red color of NGC 4593 has been noted previously (Santos-Lleó et al. 1995; Shaw et al. 1995). The inner ring and the spiral arms between $r \simeq 30^{\prime\prime}$ and 80$^{\prime\prime}$ are slightly bluer than the rest of the disk. Inner ring formation is part of the canonical secular evolution picture, and spiral structure is a signature of outward angular momentum transport. But the dust-free parts of the pseudobulge interior to the dust ring are as blue as the outer sprial structure. So the color data are consistent with slow pseudobulge growth. That growth may be episodic. The $V - K_{\rm s}$ color image in Figure 3 is instructive. It and the $V$-band image both show a dust lane on the rotationally leading side of the bar that becomes curved and eventually – near the center – tangent to the nuclear dust ring. Simulations of gas response to a barred potential (see especially Athanassoula 1992; KK provide a review) suggest that such dust lanes occur at shocks where the gas and dust are compressed. Velocity discontinuities across dust lanes observed in HI (e.g., Lindblad et al. 1996; Regan et al. 1997) and HII (Zurita et al. 2004) provide compelling support. If shocks are present, it is inevitable that gas loses energy and falls toward the center. All this is central to the secular evolution picture. Intense starbursts, often in the form of nuclear rings, are commonly associated with the above phenomena (KK provide a detailed review) and are widely interpreted as the result of the gas inflow. This star formation is part of pseudobulge growth. Interestingly, in NGC 4593, we see a nuclear dust ring, not a starburst ring. This suggests that gas is accumulating as a result of bar-driven inflow but that it is not currently starbursting (see also Oliva et al. 1999). Since high gas densities favor high star formation rates (Schmidt 1959; Kennicutt 1998a, b), it is reasonably to assume that the dust and associated gas ring will turn into a star-forming ring some time in the future. Finally, we return to the one-armed, spiral dust lane that continues inward from the dust ring to the central region that is dominated by the Seyfert nucleus (Malkan et al. 1998; Figure 3 here). Spiral dust lanes interior to star formation rings are also seen in many galaxies (see KK). Elmegreen et al. (1998) suggest that they are a sign that some gas continues to sink toward the center even interior to the radius at which most gas stalls. Additional pseudobulge growth and feeding of the Seyfert nucleus are plausible consequences. In summary, the $V$-band [HST]{} image and the $V - K_{\rm s}$ color image in Fig. 3 further support our conclusion that bar-driven gas inflow continues to grow a pseudobulge in NGC 4593. They also emphasize a new aspect to the secular evolution picture: the strong starbursts that are seen in many galaxies and that are interpreted as an important part of pseudobulge growth may, at least in some galaxies, be episodic. Possible Effects of Galaxy Interactions and Mergers =================================================== Kannappan et al. (2004) suggest that accretions of small galaxies are an alternative way to build cold, disky subsystems in galaxies. They find a correlation between blue-centered, star-forming bulges and evidence of tidal encounters with galaxy neighbors. Such processes must happen; embedded counterrotating components provide the clearest examples (e.g., NGC 4826, Braun et al. 1994; Rubin 1994; Walterbos et al. 1994; Rix et al. 1995; García-Burillo et al. 2003). The observation that so many prominent pseudobulges occur in barred and oval galaxies – that is, ones that contain obvious engines for secular evolution – is one argument that galaxy interactions do not produce most pseudobulges (KK discuss others). These arguments are statistical; they do not much constrain individual galaxies. It is reasonable to ask (as the referee did): could accreted material account for our observations? The answer for NGC 7690 is “maybe, but there is no evidence for this”. The answer for NGC 4593 is “probably no”. First, we need to understand what kind of accretion is possible. Major mergers that happened recently in the history of both galaxies are, we believe, excluded. Tóth & Ostriker (1992) emphasized that disks are fragile; they are easily destroyed by dynamical stirring produced by even a low-mass projectile. Both galaxies have flat components near their centers. Accretion of a high-mass galaxy or one that already has a bulge would destroy such a subsystem and leave behind a big classical bulge that we do not see. This is especially relevant in NGC 4593, which remains flat all the way in to the Seyfert nucleus. What could most safely be accreted is a bulgeless, gas-rich dwarf galaxy; its fluffy stellar distribution would get torn apart by tidal effects at large radii, and its gas could dissipate its way into the central regions. NGC 7690 -------- The galaxy is isolated on the Digital Sky Survey. The closest galaxies listed by the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) that have measured recession velocities within 1000 km s$^{-1}$ of that of NGC 7690 are ESO 240-G12 (projected distance = 545 = 49 radii of NGC 7690) and ESO 240-G4 (projected distance = 590 = 53 radii of NGC 7690), where the radius of NGC 7690 at 25 $B$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ is 11 (RC3). In an HI survey to look for galaxy pairs (Chengalur [et al. ]{}1993), it was not listed as a pair. It has a normal, two-horned, single-dish HI velocity profile with almost no asymmetry (Davies et al. 1989; Chengalur et al. 1993); many isolated, late-type galaxies have more asymmetric velocity profiles. No asymmetry is seen in [The Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies]{} (Sandage & Bedke 1994), and we see none in our deep AAT images. No interaction appears to be in progress. We cannot exclude a past minor accretion event, but no smoking gun points to one. NGC 4593 -------- There are clear signs that NGC 4593 is interacting with PGC 42399. Any such interaction is fast – the velocity difference of 320 km s$^{-1}$ (NED) is large compared with plausible galaxy rotation velocities. This does not favor a strong interaction. Also, NGC 4593 is brighter than PGC 42399 by a factor of 7.7 (NED), so the perturber is not very massive. On the other hand, its projected distance from NGC 4593 is only about two disk radii. The spiral structure of NGC 4593 is slightly distorted toward PGC 42339. Some tidal stretching and possibly some tidal tickling of the wave patterns (spiral arms and bar) in the galaxy are plausible. Still, the structure of the galaxy is – apart from the above – completely normal (Sandage & Bedke 1994). The galaxy has an inner ring at the end of the bar, as do many other barred galaxies. Such rings are by now reasonably well understood as products of long-term, bar-driven secular evolution. Inner rings are signs that evolution has been going on for a long time. Simulations suggest that the SB(r) phase comes after the SB(s) phase, after outward angular momentum transport has slowed the pattern speed of the bar and after the bar has had time to rearrange disk gas into an inner ring (see KK for a review). This is relevant because simulations also suggest that tidal interactions can trigger bar formation (e.g., Noguchi 1987, 1988; Gerin et al. 1990; Barnes & Hernquist 1991; Elmegreen et al. 1991, although see also Sellwood 2000). Therefore, although it is tempting to wonder whether the present interaction has something to do with the barred structure of NGC 4593, the mature morphology of the SB(r) structure suggests that the galaxy has been barred and evolving secularly for a long time. The structure of the dust features – a nearly radial dust lane on the leading side of the bar becoming tangent to a nuclear dust ring – are a clear and clean sign of evolution in action (Athanassoula 1992). Finally, the spiral structure of NGC 4593 is not unusual or suggestive of the influence of the interaction. One arm starts on the inner ring at the end of the bar and the other starts “about 15 degrees downstream” from the end of the bar (Sandage & Bedke 1994). This behavior is similar to that of NGC 2523, another prototypical SB(r) galaxy (Sandage 1961). NGC 2523 is not asymmetric, and it is more isolated than NGC 4594 (the nearest substantial companion, NGC 2523B, is more than 7 NGC 2523 radii away in projection and has a recession velocity 365 km s$^{-1}$ larger than that of NGC 2523; RC3). Therefore we believe that the present weak and temporary interaction with PGC 42399 is not responsible for the main features of the structure of NGC 4593, including the pseudobulge. Conclusion ========== NGC 7690 (Sab) and NGC 4593 (SBb) provide clean examples of relatively early-type galaxies whose “bulges” are more disk-like than any elliptical galaxy. In particular, elliptical galaxies are never flatter than axial ratio $\simeq 0.4$ (Sandage et al. 1970; Binney & de Vaucouleurs 1981; Tremblay & Merritt 1995), whereas part (NGC 7690) or essentially all (NGC 4593) of the bulges of the present galaxies are as flat as their outer disks. We conclude that both galaxies contain pseudobulges – that is, high-density, central components that were made out of disk gas by secular evolution. In NGC 7690, blue colors imply that star formation and hence pseudobulge growth are still in progress. In NGC 4593, gas appears currently to be accumulating in a ring that plausibly will form stars in the future. Our results are examples of the general conclusion (see KK for a review) that secular dynamical evolution occurs naturally and often in disk galaxies, whether (NGC 4593) or not (NGC 7690) an engine for the evolution is readily recognized. To further investigate secular evolution, a desirable next step would be to quantify bar strengths by measuring bar torques, the ratio of the bar-induced, tangential force to the mean radial force as a function of radius (Buta & Block 2001; Laurikainen & Salo 2002; Block et al. 2001, 2004; Laurikainen et al. 2004). This ratio can be as high as 0.6 in strong bars, emphasizing how efficient bars can be in redistributing angular momentum. It would particularly be worthwhile to look for correlations between maximum bar torques and quantifiable consequences of secular evolution (e.g., ring-to-disk and pseudobulge-to-disk mass ratios) in a statistically representative sample of galaxies. JK is sincerely grateful to Mrs. M. Keeton and the Board of Trustees of the Anglo American Chairman’s Fund for the financial support that made possible his visit to South Africa during which this paper was written. He also thanks the Cosmic Dust Laboratory and the School of Computational and Applied Mathematics of the University of the Witwatersrand for their hospitality. JHK acknowledges support from the Leverhulme Trust in the form of a Leverhulme Research Fellowship. We thank the referee for a careful reading that led to substantial improvements to this paper. JHK and EA wish to thank the staff of the AAT, and in particular Dr. Stuart Ryder, for their excellent support during his observing run with IRIS2. The authors are grateful to Ron Buta, to Bruce and Debra Elmegreen, and to Ivanio Puerari for making data from their programs with DLB and JHK available for the present work. We also thank Roberto Saglia for his version of the Bender photometry pipeline. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA. This research also used the HyperLeda electronic database at [http://www-obs.univ-lyon1.fr/hypercat]{} and the image display tool [SAOImage DS9]{} developed by Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345 Banse, K., Ponz, D., Ounnas, C., Grosbøl, P., & Warmels, R. 1988, in Instrumentation for Ground-Based Optical Astronomy: Present and Future, ed. L. B. Robinson (New York: Springer), 431 Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. E. 1991, ApJ, 370, L65 Bender, R., Döbereiner, S., & Möllenhoff, C. 1988, A&AS, 74, 385 Bender, R., & Möllenhoff, C. 1987, A&A, 177, 71 Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393 Binney, J., & de Vaucouleurs, G. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 679 Block, D. L., Buta, R., Knapen, J. H., Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., & Puerari, I. 2004, AJ, 128, 183 Block, D. L., Puerari, I., Knapen, J. H., Elmegreen, B. G., Buta, R., Stedman, S., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2001, A&A, 375, 761 Braun, R., Walterbos, R. A. M., Kennicutt, R. C., & Tacconi, L. J. 1994, ApJ, 420, 558 Buta, R., & Block, D. L. 2001, ApJ, 550, 243 Buta, R., & Combes, F. 1996, Fund. Cosmic Phys., 17, 95 Carollo, C. M., Ferguson, H. C., & Wyse, R. F. G., ed. 1999, The Formation of Galactic Bulges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Carollo, C. M., Stiavelli, M., & Mack, J. 1998, AJ, 116, 68 Carollo, C. M., Stiavelli, M., Seigar, M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Dejonghe, H. 2002, AJ, 123, 159 Cawson, M. G. M. 1983, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Cambridge Chengalur, J. N., Salpeter, E. E., & Terzian, Y. 1993, ApJ, 419, 30 Courteau, S. 1996, in New Extragalactic Perspectives in the New South Africa, ed. D. L. Block & J. M. Greenberg (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 255 Courteau, S., de Jong, R. S., & Broeils, A. H. 1996, ApJ, 457, L73 Cox, A. N., ed. 2000, Allen’s Astrophysical Quantitites, Fourth Edition (New York: Springer) Davies, R. D., Staveley-Smith, L., & Murray, J. D. 1989, MNRAS, 236, 171 Davis, L. E., Cawson, M., Davies, R. L., & Illingworth, G. 1985, AJ, 90, 169 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H. G., Buta, R. J., Paturel, G., & Fouqué, P. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (New York: Springer) (RC3) Elmegreen, B. G., et al. 1998, ApJ, 503, L119 Elmegreen, D. M., Sundin, M., Elmegreen, B., & Sundelius, B. 1991, A&A, 244, 52 Erwin, P. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 283 Faber, S. M., et al. 1997, AJ, 114, 1771 Freeman, K. C. 1975, in IAU Symposium 69, Dynamics of Stellar Systems, ed. A. Hayli (Dordrecht: Reidel), 367 Gadotti, D. A., & dos Anjos, S. 2001, AJ, 122, 1298 García-Burillo, S., et al. 2003, A&A, 407, 485 Gerin, M., Combes, F., & Athanassoula, E. 1990, A&A, 230, 37 Holtzman, J. A., Burrows, C. J., Casertano, S., Hester, J. J., Trauger, J. T., Watson, A. M., & Worthey, G. 1995, PASP, 107, 1065 Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., Schneider, S. E., & Huchra, J. P. 2003, AJ, 125, 525 Kannappan, S. J., Jansen, R. A., & Barton, E. J. 2004, AJ, 127, 1371 Kennicutt, R. C. 1998a, ApJ, 498, 541 Kennicutt, R. C. 1998b, ARA&A, 36, 189 Knapen, J. H., de Jong, R. S., Stedman, S., & Bramich, D. M. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 527 Kormendy, J. 1979, ApJ, 227, 714 Kormendy, J. 1981, in The Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed. S. M. Fall & D. Lynden-Bell (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 85 Kormendy, J. 1984, ApJ, 286, 116 Kormendy, J. 1993, in IAU Symposium 153, Galactic Bulges, ed. H. Dejonghe & H. J. Habing (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 209 Kormendy, J., & Cornell, M. E. 2004, in Penetrating Bars Through Masks of Cosmic Dust: The Hubble Tuning Fork Strikes a New Note, ed. D. L. Block, I. Puerari, K. C. Freeman, R. Groess, & E. K. Block (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 261 Kormendy, J., & Fisher, D. B. 2005, in The Ninth Texas-Mexico Conference on Astrophysics, RevMexA&A, (Serie de Conferencias), 23, 101 Kormendy, J., & Kennicutt, R. C. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603 Krist, J., & Hook, R. 2004, The Tiny Tim User’s Guide ( Baltimore: Space Telescope Science Institute) Lauer, T. R., et al. 1995, AJ, 110, 2622 Lauer, T. R., Stover, R. J., & Terndrup, D. 1983, The VISTA Users Guide, Lick Observatory Technical Report 34 Laurikainen, E., & Salo, H. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1118 Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., Buta, R., & Vasylyev, S. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1251 Lewis, D. W., MacAlpine, G. M., & Koski, A. T. 1978, BAAS, 10, 388 Lindblad, P. A. B., Lindblad, P. O., & Athanassoula, E. 1996, A&A, 313, 65 Lynden-Bell, D., & Kalnajs, A. J. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 1 Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603 Malkan, M. A., Gorjian, V., & Tam, R. 1998, ApJS, 117, 25 MacAlpine, G. M., Williams, G. A., & Lewis, D. W. 1979, PASP, 91, 746 McAlary, C. W., McLaren, R. A., McGonegal, R. J., & Maza, J. 1983, ApJS, 52, 341 Noguchi, M. 1987, MNRAS, 228, 635 Noguchi, M. 1988, A&A, 203, 259 Oliva, E., Origlia, L., Maiolino, R., & Moorwood, A. F. M. 1999, A&A, 350, 9 Peletier, R. F., & Balcells, M. 1996, AJ, 111, 2238 Prugniel, Ph., & Héraudeau, Ph. 1998, A&AS, 128, 299 Renzini, A. 1999, in The Formation of Galactic Bulges, ed. C. M. Carollo, H. C. Ferguson, & R. F. G. Wyse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 9 Regan, M. W., Vogel, S. N., & Teuben, P. J. 1997, ApJ, 482, L143 Rix, H-W. R., Kennicutt, R. C., Braun, R., & Walterbos, R. A. M. 1995, ApJ, 438, 155 Rubin, V. C. 1994, AJ, 107, 173 Sandage, A. 1961, The Hubble Atlas of Galaxies, (Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington) Sandage, A., & Bedke, J. 1994, The Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies (Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington) Sandage, A., Freeman, K. C., & Stokes, N. R. 1970, ApJ, 160, 831 Santos-Lleó, M., Clavel, J., Barr, P., Glass, I. S., Pelat, D., Peterson, B. M., & Reichert, G. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 1 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525 Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243 Schweizer, F. 1990, in Dynamics and Interactions of Galaxies, ed. R. Wielen (New York: Springer-Verlag), 60 Sellwood, J. A. 2000, in Dynamics of Galaxies: From the Early Universe to the Present, ed. F. Combes, G. A. Mamon, & V. Charmandaris (San Francisco: ASP), 3 Sellwood, J. A., & Wilkinson, A. 1993, Rep. Prog. Phys., 56, 173 Sérsic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (Cordoba: Observatorio Astronomico, Universidad de Cordoba) Shaw, M., Axon, D., Probst, R., & Gatley, I. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 369 Simien, F., & de Vaucouleurs, G. 1986, ApJ, 302, 564 Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 Steinmetz, M., & Navarro, J. F. 2002, NewA, 7, 155 Steinmetz, M., & Navarro, J. F: 2003, NewA, 8, 557 Stover, R. J. 1988, in Instrumentation for Ground-Based Optical Astronomy: Present and Future, ed. L. B. Robinson (New York: Springer), 443 Tinney, C. G., et al. 2004, , 5492, 998 Tody, D. 1986, Proc. SPIE, 627, 733 Toomre A.: 1977, in The Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed. B.M. Tinsley & R. B. Larson (New Haven: Yale University Observatory), 401 Tóth, G., & Ostriker, J. P. 1992, ApJ, 389, 5 Tremaine S. 1989, in Dynamics of Astrophysical Discs, ed. J. A. Sellwood (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 231 Tremblay, B., & Merritt, D. 1995, AJ, 110, 1039 Tully, R. B. 1988, Nearby Galaxies Catalog (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420 Walterbos, R. A. M., Braun, R., & Kennicutt, R. C. 1994, AJ, 107, 184 Wegner, G. 1979, Ap&SS, 60, 15 Wyse, R. F. G., Gilmore, G., & Franx, M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 637 Zurita, A., Relaño, M., Beckman, J. E., & Knapen, J. H. 2004, A&A, 413, 73 [^1]: Lens components should not be confused with lenticular galaxies, i.e., with the name for S0 galaxies (Sandage 1961) that is adopted by de Vaucouleurs and collaborators (e.g., RC3). Many S0 galaxies do not contain lenses, and many Sa and later-type galaxies do contain lenses. This confusion is unfortunate, but it is thoroughly embedded in the literature. [^2]: We note, however, that even S0s can contain pseudobulges (KK).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The dissipative dynamics of a pointlike Josephson junction in binary Bose-condensed mixtures is analyzed within the framework of the model of a tunneling Hamiltonian. The transmission of unlike particles across a junction is described by the different transmission amplitudes. The effective action that describes the dynamics of the phase differences across the junction for each of two condensed components is derived employing the functional integration method. In the low-frequency limit the dynamics of a Josephson junction can be described by two coupled equations in terms of the potential energy and dissipative Rayleigh function using a mechanical analogy. The interplay between mass currents of each mixture component appears in the second-order term in the tunneling amplitudes due to interspecies hybridizing interaction. The asymmetric case of the binary mixtures with the different concentration and order parameters is considered as well.' author: - 'S. N. Burmistrov' title: 'Dissipative dynamics of the Josephson effect in the binary Bose-condensed mixtures' --- INTRODUCTION ============ Recently, experimental study of multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates has made a substantial progress. The study of multiple atomic condensates is intriguing since they can produce a laboratory mixture of distinguishable boson superfluids at sufficiently low temperatures. A considerable amount of theoretical work has been devoted to binary Bose-condensed mixtures, focusing, mainly, on the mean-field description of trapped binary mixtures [@Es], stability and phase separation [@Lar; @Ti; @Ao], collective excitations [@Bus; @Gra; @Pu], condensate depletions [@Eck], and quantum merging of two different condensates [@Zap; @Yi; @Meb]. In this connection we will consider here the dissipative and interference aspects of the Josephson effect in the binary Bose-condensed mixtures. The Josephson effect, first predicted and discovered for two superconductors separated with a thin insulator layer, is a macroscopic quantum phenomenon in a condensed medium. The dynamics of the effect is described in terms of the difference between the phases of the superconductors, playing the role of a macroscopic quantum variable. In spite of wide application of the effect in devices for extremely high-sensitivity measurements of currents, voltages, and magnetic fields the Josephson effect is still of interest in the fundamental modern physics. Like superconductors and Fermi superfluids, the Josephson effect is also inherent in Bose superfluids [@Su; @Ho; @Na]. The effect has been observed by the mass flow of superfluid $^4$He through nanoscale apertures coupling two bulk superfluid reservoirs. The Josephson tunneling junction in ultracold dilute atomic gases is formed with a laser separating two Bose-Einstein condensates [@Al; @Le]. In general, the Josephson effect can include both the so-called internal effect for the atoms in different hyperfine states much as NMR phenomena in $^3$He [@Leg] and the conventional case of two Bose condensates separated with a potential barrier which acts as a tunneling junction. A lot of work [@Mi; @Sm; @Za; @St; @Ra; @Vi; @Sme; @Chi; @Wi; @Mei; @Ba; @Xi; @Tru; @Ni; @Bon] has been done in the latter case as a direct analogy with conventional superconductors. Those studies dealt with the one-component Bose-Einstein condensates alone. Multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates are also a very interesting subject for studying various macroscopic tunneling phenomena [@Xu; @Sa; @Jul; @Ma; @Nad]. One may expect novel and richer manifestations of the Josephson effect. For the system of two Bose-condensed mixtures connected with a weakly coupled junction, the dynamics of the Josephson effect should be governed by the difference between the phases for each Bose-condensed component of a mixture. In other words, two relative phases $\varphi _1$ and $\varphi _2$ must be involved into consideration. In addition, we must take into account the different tunneling transition amplitudes $I_1$ and $I_ 2$ across the junction for various bosonic atoms of masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ composing the mixture. This results in two Josephson currents associated with the mass flow of each component of a mixture across the junction. From the general point of view one may expect interference and coupling between the Josephson currents. The dynamics of the Josephson effect in the vicinity of the phase separation of a mixture is an additional motivation for studying binary condensates. Furthermore, the dissipative aspects of the Josephson dynamics in binary condensed mixtures have not yet received a proper and wide investigation. The dissipative effects and dephasing of the Josephson oscillations come from the coupling between the macroscopic relative phase variable and the infinite number of the microscopic degrees of freedom. The successive method of eliminating microscopic degrees of freedom from the Hamiltonian was developed first for the superconducting Josephson systems [@Am; @La; @Ec]. Later that functional integration approach [@Mei; @Ba] and the Keldysh Green function method [@Tru] were extended and applied to studying dissipative and nonequilibrium Josephson dynamics in the one-component Bose-condensed systems. In this paper, we will generalize the energy dissipation effects in the Josephson dynamics to the case of the binary Bose-condensed systems, employing functional integration approach of Ref. [@Ba]. We will derive the expression for the effective action depending on two relative phases $\varphi _1$ and $\varphi _2$ between two condensed mixtures connected by a pointlike tunneling junction. The response functions in the effective action give the full information on the dynamics of the junction. The low-frequency expansion of the response functions allows us to determine two coupled Josephson equations for the relative phases $\varphi _1$ and $\varphi _2$, Josephson energy $U(\varphi _1,\,\varphi _2)$ and dissipative Rayleigh function $R(\dot{\varphi} _1,\,\dot{\varphi} _2)$. Of course, we consider the region of the parameters in which the homogeneous state of the both mixtures in the left-hand and right-hand bulks is stable and the mixtures are not phase-separated. EFFECTIVE ACTION ================ We keep in mind the case of a pointlike and weakly coupled junction between two macroscopic infinite reservoirs containing binary condensed mixtures. In addition, we neglect the feedback effect of the junction on the mixtures and assume that both the mixtures are always in the thermal equilibrium state. The image of the system is two bulks with one common point through which the transmission of particles is possible with the different tunneling amplitudes $I_1$ and $I_2$ depending on the type of particles. So, our starting point is the so-called tunneling Hamiltonian ($\hbar =1$, volume $V=1$) $$\label{f01} H=H_{l}+H_{r}+H_{U}+H_{t}\, ,$$ where $H_{l, \, r}$ describes the bulk binary Bose-condensed mixture on the left-hand and right-hand sides, respectively, $$\begin{gathered} H_{l}= \sum\limits_{i =1,\, 2}\int\!\! d^{3}r\,\Psi _{i ,\, l}^{\dagger}\!\left( -\frac{\nabla ^2}{2m_{i}}-\mu _{i} \right)\!\Psi _{i ,\, l} \\ +\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i,\, k =1,\, 2}u_{ik ,\, l }\int\!\! d^{3}r\,\Psi _{i ,\, l}^{\dagger}\Psi _{k ,\, l}^{\dagger}\Psi _{k ,\, l}\Psi _{i ,\, l} .\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ Here $i$ and $k$ take 1 or 2 and denote one of the components of a mixture composed with particles of mass $m_1$ and $m_2$. The coupling between particles is specified by the constants $u_{ik,\, l }=u_{ki,\, l }$ which can be expressed by means of the $s$-scattering length $a_{ik,\, l}$ according to $u_{ik,\, l}=2\pi a_{ik,\, l}(m_{i}^{-1}+m_{k}^{-1})$. The same expressions with the substitution $l\rightarrow r$ refer to the mixture on the right-hand side. The energy, associated with varying the number of particles on the left-hand and right-hand sides, $$H_U=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i,\, k =1,\, 2}\frac{N_{i,\, l}-N_{i,\, r}}{2}\, U_{ik}\frac{N_{k,\, l}-N_{k,\, r}}{2}\, ,$$ is analogous to the capacity energy of a junction in the case of superconductors. The constants $U_{ik}$ can be connected with the second derivatives of the total energy $$\begin{gathered} E=E[(N_{1,\, l},\, N_{2,\, l}),\, (N_{1,\, r},\, N_{2,\, r})] \\ =E_l(N_{1,\, l},\, N_{2,\, l})+E_r(N_{1,\, r},\, N_{2,\, r})\end{gathered}$$ with respect to the relative change in the number of the particles across the junction, $$\begin{gathered} U_{ik}= \frac{\partial ^2E}{\partial N_{i, \, l}\partial N_{k, \, l}}+\frac{\partial ^2E}{\partial N_{i, \, r}\partial N_{k, \, r}} \\ =\frac{\partial ^2E_l}{\partial N_{i, \, l}\partial N_{k, \, l}}+\frac{\partial ^2E_r}{\partial N_{i, \, r}\partial N_{k, \, r}}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ with the obvious symmetrical relation $U_{ik}=U_{ki}$. The constants $U_{ik}$ can usually be estimated also as $$U_{ik}=\frac{\partial\mu _{i,\, l}}{\partial N_{k, \, l}}+\frac{\partial\mu _{i,\, r}}{\partial N_{k, \, r}}\, .$$ The term $H_U$ describes the point that the energy of the system on the whole may depend on the relative numbers of particles from the left-hand and right-hand bulks. In order to avoid an instability of the total system against an infinite growth of the number of particles on the left-hand or right-hand sides, it is necessary to suppose that $H_U>0$ for any variations $N_{1,\, l}-N_{1,\, r}$ and $N_{2,\, l}-N_{2,\, r}$. In other words, the matrix of coefficients $U_{ik}$ should be positively determined, i.e., $\\|U_{ik}\\|>0$. The total number of the particles of the type labelled by $i$ in each bulk $l$ or $r$ is given by $$N_{i,\, l}=\int\!\! d^{3}r\,\Psi _{i,\, l}^{\dagger}\Psi _{i,\, l}\,\,\,\text{and}\,\, (l\rightarrow r)\, .$$ The last term, $$\begin{gathered} H_t=-\!\!\int _{\bm{r}\in l,\, \bm{r}'\in r}\!\!\! d^3r\, d^3r'\,\bigl[\Psi _{1,\, l}^{\dagger}(\bm{r})I_1(\bm{r},\,\bm{r}')\Psi _{1,\, r}(\bm{r}') \\ +\Psi _{2,\, l}^{\dagger}(\bm{r})I_2(\bm{r},\,\bm{r}')\Psi _{2,\, r}(\bm{r}')+ \text{H.c.}\bigr],\end{gathered}$$ is responsible for the transitions of particles from the right-hand to the left-hand bulk and vice versa. In general, the transition amplitudes $I_1$ and $I_2$ are different for the various species of the particles composing the mixture. We consider here the simplest case of a pointlike junction, i.e., $$I_{i}(\bm{r},\,\bm{r}')=I_{i}\delta (\bm{r})\delta (\bm{r}'), \;\;\; i =1,\, 2.$$ To study the properties of the system described by Eq. (\[f01\]), we calculate the partition function $Z$ using the analogy of the superconducting junction [@Am; @La; @Ec] and the approaches employed for the Bose junction [@Mei; @Ba], $$Z=\int\mathcal{D}^2\Psi _{1,\, l}\mathcal{D}^2\Psi _{2,\, l}\mathcal{D}^2\Psi _{1,\, r}\mathcal{D}^2\Psi _{2,\, r}\exp [-S_E],$$ where the action $S_E$, defined on the imaginary (Matsubara) time $\tau$, reads $$\begin{gathered} S_E=\int _{-\beta /2}^{\beta /2}d\tau\, L_E , \\ L_E = \int d^3r\!\!\sum\limits_{i,\, k =1,\, 2}\left(\Psi ^{\dagger}_{i,\, l}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\Psi _{i,\, l}+\Psi ^{\dagger}_{i,\, r}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\Psi _{i,\, r}\right) +H\end{gathered}$$ and, as usual, $\beta=1/T$ is an inverse temperature. To eliminate the quartic terms in the action, which come from the energy $H_U$, we employ the Hubbard-Stratonovich procedure by introducing additional gauge fields $V_1(\tau )$ and $V_2(\tau )$ in analogy with the so-called plasmon gauge field in metals, $$\begin{gathered} \exp\Big(-\!\int d\tau\, H_U\Big) =\int\!\mathcal{D}V_1(\tau )\,\mathcal{D}V_2(\tau ) \\ \exp\Big[-\!\!\int d\tau\Big(\sum\limits _{i,k=1,2}\frac{ V_{i}\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}V_{k}}{2}+i\sum\limits _{i=1,2}\frac{N_{i,\, l}-N_{i,\, r}}{2}\, V_{i}\Big)\Big] ; \\ \int\!\mathcal{D}V_1(\tau )\,\mathcal{D}V_2(\tau )\exp\Big[-\int d\tau\sum\limits _{i,k=1,2}\frac{V_i\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}V_k}{2}\Big]=1 .\end{gathered}$$ Here $\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}$ is an inverse matrix for the $2\times 2$ matrix $U_{ik}$ $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}=\frac{1}{U_{11}U_{22}-U_{12}U_{21}}\left( \begin{array}{cc} U_{22} & -U_{12} \\ -U_{21} & U_{11} \end{array} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ After the introduction of the fields $V_1(\tau)$ and $V_2(\tau)$ the partition function $Z$ takes the form $$Z=\int\!\mathcal{D}V_1\,\mathcal{D}V_2\prod _{i=1,\, 2}\mathcal{D}^2\Psi _{i,\,l}\mathcal{D}^2\Psi _{i,\, r}\exp [-\tilde{S}_E],$$ where $$\tilde{S}_E=\tilde{S}_l+\tilde{S}_r+\int d\tau\, H_t +\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits _{i,k=1,2}\int d\tau\, V_{i}\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}V_{k} .$$ Here $\tilde{S}_l$ and $\tilde{S}_r$ denote $$\begin{gathered} \tilde{S}_l=S_l+\frac{i}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1,\, 2}\int d\tau\, d^3r\,\Psi _{i,\, l}^{\dagger}V_{i}(\tau ) \Psi _{i,\, l} , \\ \tilde{S}_r=S_r-\frac{i}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1,\, 2}\int d\tau\, d^3r\,\Psi _{i,\, r}^{\dagger}V_{i}(\tau ) \Psi _{i,\, r} .\end{gathered}$$ In essence, this replacement looks like the renormalization of the chemical potentials for each component of a mixture on the left and right-hand sides of the junction, $$\begin{gathered} \mu _{i,\, l}\rightarrow \mu _{i,\, l}-iV_i (\tau)/2\, , \\ \mu _{i,\, r}\rightarrow \mu _{i,\, r}+iV_i(\tau)/2\, .\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ At this point it is advantageous to perform a gauge transformation of the field operators $\Psi ^{\dagger}$ and $\Psi$, which makes the future Green functions real. This is achieved by introducing the phases $\varphi _{i,\, l}$ and $\varphi _{i,\, r}$ according to $$\begin{gathered} \Psi _{i,\, l\, (i,\, r)}\rightarrow \exp\bigl[i\varphi _{i,\, l\, (i,\, r)}(\tau)\bigr]\Psi _{i,\, l\, (i,\, r)} , \\ \Psi ^{\dagger}_{i,\, l\, (i,\, r)}\rightarrow \exp\bigl[-i\varphi _{i,\, l\, (i,\, r)}(\tau)\bigr]\Psi ^{\dagger}_{i,\, l\, (i,\, r)} ,\end{gathered}$$ and by imposing the conditions $\dot{\varphi} _{i,\, l}=-V_{i}(\tau )/2$ and $\dot{\varphi} _{i,\, r}=V_{i}(\tau )/2$. Thus, we arrive at the first Josephson relations for the relative phases $\varphi _1(\tau )$ and $\varphi _2(\tau )$: $$\label{f16} \dot{\varphi} _{i}(\tau )=V_{i}(\tau ) \;\;\;\text{and} \;\;\; \varphi _{i}=\varphi _{i,\, r }-\varphi _{i,\, l}\;\;\; (i=1,\, 2).$$ That we have achieved is only a formal elimination of the explicit dependence of the chemical potentials $\mu _{i,\, l}$ and $\mu _{i,\, r}$ upon the time $\tau$. On the other hand, the tunneling amplitudes $I_1$ and $I_2$ acquire additional factors depending on the phase differences $\varphi _1(\tau )$ and $\varphi _2(\tau )$ across the junction, $$I_1\rightarrow \tilde{I}_1=I_1\text{e}^{i\varphi _1(\tau)}\,\,\, \text{and}\;\;\; I_2\rightarrow \tilde{I}_2=I_2\text{e}^{i\varphi _2(\tau)} .$$ Hence we arrive at $$\begin{gathered} Z=\int\!\mathcal{D}V_1\,\mathcal{D}V_2\prod _{i=1,\, 2}\mathcal{D}^2\Psi _{i,\, l}\mathcal{D}^2\Psi _{i,\, r}\, e^{-S}, \\ S=S_0+\!\int d\tau\,\tilde{H}_t +\int d\tau\sum\limits_{i,\, k =1,\, 2} V_{i}\frac{\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}}{2}V_{k},\end{gathered}$$ where $S_0=S_l+S_r$. The tunneling term $\tilde{H}_t$ is given by $$\tilde{H}_t=- \!\!\!\!\int\limits_{\bm{r}\in l,\, \bm{r}'\in r}\!\!\! d^3r\, d^3r'\sum\limits _{i=1,\, 2} \bigl[\Psi _{i,\, l}^{\dagger}\tilde{I}_{i}(\bm{r},\bm{r}';\,\tau)\Psi _{i,\, r}+ \text{H.c.}\bigr] .$$ Next, one must integrate over fields $\Psi ^{\dagger}$ and $\Psi $ in order to obtain the effective action $S_{\text{eff}}$ depending on $V_{1}(\tau )$ and $V_{2}(\tau )$ alone. In calculations we treat $\tilde{H}_t$ as a perturbation and restrict ourselves by second-order perturbation in the tunneling amplitudes $I_1$ and $I_2$. Omitting the term independent of $V_{i}(\tau )$ and employing the Josephson relations $V_{i}(\tau )=\dot{\varphi}_i(\tau )$, we find the effective action as $$S_{\text{eff}}[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]= \int\! d\tau\!\Bigl[\sum\limits_{i,k=1,2}\! \dot{\varphi}_{i}\frac{\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}}{2}\dot{\varphi}_{k}+\langle\tilde{H}_t\rangle _0 -\frac{\langle\langle\tilde{H}_t^2\rangle\rangle _0 }{2}\Bigr] .$$ Here $\langle A\rangle _0$ means the averaging over decoupled action $S_0=S_l+S_r$ corresponding to $H_0=H_l+H_r$, i.e., $$\langle\tilde{H}_t\rangle =\frac{\langle\tilde{H}_t\, e^{-S_0}\rangle}{\langle e^{-S_0}\rangle}\;\;\text{and}\;\;\langle\langle\tilde{H}_t^2\rangle\rangle _0 =\langle\tilde{H}_t^2\rangle _0 -\langle\tilde{H}_t\rangle _0^2\, .$$ It is obvious that $$\begin{gathered} \langle\tilde{H}_t\rangle _0=\langle\tilde{H}_{1t}\rangle _0+\langle\tilde{H}_{2t}\rangle _0\, \\ \langle\langle\tilde{H}_t^2\rangle\rangle _0 =\langle\langle\tilde{H}_{1t}^2\rangle\rangle _0+2\langle\langle\tilde{H}_{1t}\tilde{H}_{2t}\rangle\rangle _0 +\langle\langle\tilde{H}_{2t}^2\rangle\rangle _0\, .\end{gathered}$$ The first-order terms in the tunneling transparency are obviously decoupled. Since $\tilde{H}_{1t}\tilde{H}_{2t}\sim I_1I_2$, second-order terms will result in the coupling and interference between the mass currents of atom species 1 and 2. Averaging over the $l$ and $r$ variables is independent of each other. In the course of calculation we follow the Bogoliubov method of separating the field operators into the condensate $C$ and noncondensate $\Phi$ fractions, i.e., $$\Psi _{i,\, l(i,\, r)}=C_{i,\, l(i,\, r)}+\Phi _{i,\, l(i,\, r)},$$ with the conventional relation $C_{i,\, l(i,\, r)}=\sqrt{\, n_{i,\, l(i,\, r)}}$ where ${n_{i,\, l(i,\, r)}}$ is the density of particles labelled with $i=1$, $2$ in the condensate fraction in the left-hand and right-hand bulks, respectively. In a binary Bose-condensed mixture the Green function $\widehat{G}(\omega _n,\bm{p})$ represents a block $4\times 4$ matrix. The Green function can readily be found from the inverse matrix whose Fourier representation in the approximation of a weakly interacting two-component Bose-condensed gas mixture is given by $$\widehat{G}^{-1}(\omega _n,\bm{p})\!\!=\!\!\left( \begin{array}{cc} \!\!\widehat{G}_{11}^{-1} & \hat{\Delta}_{12}\!\! \\ \!\!\hat{\Delta}_{12} & \widehat{G}_{22}^{-1}\!\! \end{array} \right)\!\!=\!\!\left( \begin{array}{cccc} \!\! -i\omega _n+\eta _1 +\Delta _{11}\!\! & \Delta _{11} & \Delta _{12} & \Delta _{12} \\ \Delta _{11} & \!\! i\omega _n+\eta _1 +\Delta _{11}\!\! & \Delta _{12} & \Delta _{12} \\ \Delta _{12} & \Delta _{12} & \!\! -i\omega _n+\eta _2 +\Delta _{22}\!\! & \Delta _{22} \\ \Delta _{12} & \Delta _{12} & \Delta _{22} & \!\! i\omega _n+\eta _2 +\Delta _{22}\!\! \end{array} \right)\! .$$ Here $\omega _n=2\pi nT$ is the Matsubara frequency and $\bm{p}$ is the momentum. Also we have introduced the following notations for the free-particle energies $$\eta _1=\eta _1(\bm{p})=\bm{p}^2/2m_1\, ,\;\;\;\eta_2=\eta _2(\bm{p})=\bm{p}^2/2m_2\, ; \\$$ and for the order parameters $$\Delta _{11}=u_{11}n_{1}\, ,\;\; \Delta _{22}=u_{22}n_{2}\, ,\;\;\Delta _{12}=u_{12}\sqrt{n_{1}n_{2}}\, .$$ Accordingly, for the direct matrix Green function $$\widehat{G}(\omega _n,\,\bm{p})=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \widehat{G}_{11} & \widehat{G}_{12} \\ \widehat{G}_{21} & \widehat{G}_{22} \end{array} \right) =\left( \begin{array}{cccc} G_{11} & F _{11} & G_{12} & F_{12} \\ F_{11}^{\dagger} & \overline{G}_{11} & F_{12}^{\dagger} & \overline{G}_{12} \\ G_{21} & F _{21} & G_{22} & F_{22} \\ F_{21}^{\dagger} & \overline{G}_{21} & F_{22}^{\dagger} & \overline{G}_{22} \end{array} \right) ,$$ we arrive at the following components of the matrix: $$\begin{gathered} G_{11}(\omega _n,\,\bm{p})=\overline{G}_{11}(-\omega _n,\,\bm{p})=\frac{(i\omega _n +\eta _1+\Delta _{11})(\omega _n^2+\varepsilon _2^2)-2\Delta _{12}^2\eta _2}{(\omega _n^2+\omega _1^2)(\omega _n^2+\omega _2^2)} \\ F_{11}(\omega _n,\,\bm{p})=F_{11}^{\dagger}(-\omega _n,\,\bm{p})=\frac{-\Delta _{11}(\omega _n^2+\varepsilon _2^2)+2\Delta _{12}^2\eta _2}{(\omega _n^2+\omega _1^2)(\omega _n^2+\omega _2^2)} \\ G_{12}(\omega _n,\,\bm{p})=\overline{G}_{12}(-\omega _n,\,\bm{p})=-\,\frac{\Delta _{12}(i\omega _n+\eta _1)(i\omega _n+\eta _2)}{(\omega _n^2+\omega _1^2)(\omega _n ^2+\omega _2^2)} \\ F_{12}(\omega _n,\,\bm{p})=F_{12}^{\dagger}(-\omega _n,\,\bm{p})=-\,\frac{\Delta _{12}(i\omega _n+\eta _1)(-i\omega _n+\eta _2)}{(\omega _n^2+\omega _1^2)(\omega _n ^2+\omega _2^2)}\end{gathered}$$ The lower part of the Green function matrix is determined by permutation $1\leftrightarrows 2$ and $\Delta _{21}=\Delta _{12}$. We have introduced above the similar abbreviations for either of two mixtures, using the Bogoliubov nomenclature $$\varepsilon _1^2=\eta _1^2+2\Delta _{11}\eta _1\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;\varepsilon _2^2=\eta _2^2+2\Delta _{22}\eta _2$$ where $\eta _{1,\, 2}=\bm{p}^2/2m_{1,\, 2}$ is the free-particle energy. The energies $\varepsilon _1$ and $\varepsilon _2$ are the Bogoliubov energies of each component of a mixture taken separately. In the mixture the interspecies interaction $u_{12}$ hybridizes these two modes, resulting in two familiar branches of elementary excitation spectrum, e.g., [@Ti; @Eck] $$\omega _{1, 2}^2(p)=\frac{1}{2}\Bigl(\varepsilon _1^2+\varepsilon _2^2\pm\sqrt{(\varepsilon _1^2-\varepsilon _2^2)^2+16\Delta _{12}^2\eta _1\eta _2}\,\,\Bigr)$$ with the crossover to the sound-like dispersion $\omega _{1, 2}=p\, c_{1, 2}$ at small $ p\rightarrow 0$ momentum. The sound velocities $c_{1,2}$ in a mixture are determined by the well-known relations as well [@Ti; @Eck] $$c _{1, 2}^2=\frac{1}{2}\Bigl[\frac{\Delta _{11}}{m_1}+\frac{\Delta _{22}}{m_2}\pm\sqrt{\Bigl(\frac{\Delta _{11}}{m_1}-\frac{\Delta _{22}}{m_2}\Bigr)^2+4\frac{\Delta _{12}^2}{m _1m _2}}\,\,\Bigr] .$$ The inequalities $u_{11}u_{22}>u_{12}^2$ and $c_{1,2}^2>0$ are certainly supposed to guarantee the stability of a mixture against its demixing. Taking into account (\[f16\]), we arrive finally at the following generalization of the effective action compared with that in the one-component condensed system [@Ba] $$\begin{gathered} S_{\text{eff}}[\varphi _1(\tau ), \varphi _2(\tau )]=\int d\tau\,\Bigl[\sum\limits_{i,k=1,2}\dot{\varphi} _i(\tau)\frac{\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}}{2}\dot{\varphi}_k(\tau)\nonumber \\ -2I_1\sqrt{n_{1\, l}n_{1\, r}}\,\cos\varphi _1(\tau) -2I_2\sqrt{n_{2\, l}n_{2\, r}}\,\cos\varphi _2(\tau)\Bigr] \nonumber \\ -\!\!\sum _{i,k=1,2}\!\! I_iI_k\int d\tau\, d\tau '\,\Bigl[\alpha _{ik}(\tau -\tau ')\cos\Bigl(\varphi _i(\tau)-\varphi _k(\tau ')\Bigr) \nonumber \\ +\beta _{ik}(\tau -\tau ')\cos\Bigl(\varphi _i(\tau)+\varphi _k(\tau ')\Bigr)\Bigr] . \label{f18}\end{gathered}$$ Here $\alpha _{ik}$ and $\beta _{ik}$ are the so-called response functions which can be written using the Green functions: $$\begin{gathered} \alpha _{ik}(\tau)=\sqrt{n_{i\, l}n_{k\, l}}\, g_{ik,\, r}^+(\tau ) + \sqrt{n_{i\, r}n_{k\, r}}\, g_{ik,\, l}^+(\tau ) +\mathcal{G}_{ik}(\tau ) , \\ \beta _{ik}(\tau)=\sqrt{n_{i\, l}n_{k\, l}}\, f_{ik,\, r}^+(\tau ) + \sqrt{n_{i\, r}n_{k\, r}}\, f_{ik,\, l}^+(\tau ) +\mathcal{F}_{ik}(\tau ).\end{gathered}$$ The Green functions are calculated at the junction point, i.e., at $\bm{r}=0$ and $\bm{r}'=0$, $$\begin{gathered} g_{ik,\, l(r)}^+(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}[g_{ik,\, l(r)}(\tau )+\bar{g}_{ik,\, l(r)}(\tau )] \\ =\int\frac{d^3p}{2(2\pi )^3}\,\bigl[G_{ik,\, l(r)}(\bm{p},\, \tau )+\overline{G}_{ik,\, l(r)}(\bm{p},\, \tau )\bigr] , \\ f_{ik,\, l(r)}^+(\tau )=\int\frac{d^3p}{2(2\pi )^3}\,\bigl[ F_{ik,\, l(r)}(\bm{p},\, \tau )+F_{ik,\, l(r)}^{\dagger}(\bm{p},\, \tau )\bigr] ; \\ \mathcal{G}_{ik}(\tau )=g_{ik,\, l}(\tau )\bar{g}_{ik,\, r}(\tau )+\bar{g}_{ik,\, l}(\tau ) g_{ik,\, r}(\tau ) , \\ \mathcal{F}_{ik}(\tau )=f_{ik,\, l}(\tau )f_{ik,\, r}^{\dagger}(\tau )+f_{ik,\, l}^{\dagger}(\tau ) f_{ik,\, r}(\tau ) .\end{gathered}$$ In order to comprehend the dynamics of the relative phase differences $\varphi _1$ and $\varphi _2$ across the junction, we should analyze the behavior of the response functions $\alpha _{ik}(\tau )$ and $\beta _{ik}(\tau)$ as a function of time. Note that the contribution of the terms $\mathcal{G}_{ik}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{ik}$ to the response functions $\alpha _{ik}$ and $\beta _{ik}$ is much smaller than that of the first two others [@Ba]. The order-of-magnitude smallness is about a ratio of the noncondensate density to the condensate density or about gas parameter $(na^3)^{1/2}\ll 1$. Below, analyzing $\alpha _{ik}$ and $\beta _{ik}$, we will concentrate our attention on the first two terms which can be attributed to the condensate-noncondensate tunneling processes. THE RESPONSE FUNCTIONS ====================== The calculation of the response functions in the general form in a mixture is a complicated problem. Keeping in mind the study of the low-frequency dynamics of a junction, we will restrict our calculation by analyzing the behavior of the response functions on the long-time scale. This means that we should find the low-frequency decomposition of the response functions in the Matsubara frequencies $\omega _n$. In fact, we imply the inequality $\|\omega _n\|\ll\omega _1$, $\omega _2$. Next, we will employ the procedure of analytical continuation in order to derive the dynamic Josephson equations which the relative phases $\varphi _1$ and $\varphi _2$ obey. To obtain the dissipative terms, it is sufficient to expand the response functions $\alpha _{ik}$ and $\beta _{ik}$ up to linear terms in frequency $\omega _n$. So, we look for the following first coefficients in the low-frequency decomposition $$\begin{gathered} \alpha _{ik}(\omega _n)=-\alpha _{ik}^{(0)}-\alpha _{ik}^{(1)}\|\omega _n\|+\cdots \\ \beta _{ik}(\omega _n)=-\beta _{ik}^{(0)}+\beta _{ik}^{(1)}\|\omega _n\|+\cdots\end{gathered}$$ Accordingly, the expressions for the response functions in the imaginary-time representation read as $$\begin{gathered} \alpha _{ik}(\tau)=-\alpha _{ik}^{(0)}\delta (\tau )+\alpha _{ik}^{(1)}\frac{1}{\pi}\Bigl(\frac{\pi T}{\sin (\pi T\tau )}\Bigr)^2 +\cdots \\ \beta _{ik}(\tau )=-\beta _{ik}^{(0)}\delta (\tau )-\beta _{ik}^{(1)}\frac{1}{\pi}\Bigl(\frac{\pi T}{\sin (\pi T\tau )}\Bigr)^2 +\cdots\end{gathered}$$ First of all, we should note that zero harmonic $\omega _n=0$ in the $\alpha _{ik}$ response is unimportant if $i=k$, and thus we can deal with the difference $\tilde{\alpha}_{ii}(\omega _n)=\alpha _{ii}(\omega _n)-\alpha _{ii}(\omega _n=0)$. In fact, this corresponds to the substitution $\alpha _{ii}(\tau)=\tilde{\alpha} _{ii}(\tau)+\alpha _{ii}(0)\delta (\tau )$ into effective action (\[f18\]). The second term $\alpha _{ii}(0)\delta (\tau )$ yields a physically unimportant time- and phase-independent contribution to the action, meaning a shift of the ground-state energy of a junction. For $i\neq k$, this does not hold for. As we will see below, $\alpha _{i\neq k}^{(0)}$ and $\beta _{ik}^{(0)}$ are connected with the Josephson potential energy and $\alpha _{ik}^{(1)}$, $\beta _{ik}^{(1)}$ determine the dissipative properties of the junction. Let us start from $\beta _{ik}^{(0)}\!$. For the sake of brevity, we present here the expressions for $\alpha _{ik}$ and $\beta _{ik}$ in the case of a symmetric junction with the identical mixtures on the both left-hand and right-hand sides of the junction when $\Delta _{ik,\, l}=\Delta _{ik,\, r}=\Delta _{ik}$ and $n_{i\, l}=n_{i\, r}=n_i$. The general case $l\neq r$ will be given in the Appendix. The simple calculation yields $$\begin{gathered} \beta _{11}^{(0)}=-2 n_1 f_{11}^+(\omega _n=0)= \nonumber \\ \frac{n_1}{\pi}\,\frac{m_1^2\, (\Delta _{11}+m_2c_1c_2)}{(m_1\Delta _{11}+2m_1m_2c_1c_2+m_2\Delta _{22})^{1/2}}\, , \nonumber \\ \beta _{12}^{(0)}=\alpha _{12}^{(0)}=-2\sqrt{n_1n_2}\, f_{12}^+(\omega =0)= \nonumber \\ \frac{\sqrt{n_1n_2}}{\pi}\,\frac{m_1m_2\Delta _{12}}{(m_1\Delta _{11}+2m_1m_2c_1c_2+m_2\Delta _{22})^{1/2}}\, , \label{f22}\end{gathered}$$ and the other quantities can be obtained with $1\leftrightarrows 2$. The calculation of $\beta _{ik}^{(1)}$ and $\alpha _{ik}^{(1)}$ is more complicated: $$\begin{gathered} \alpha _{11}^{(1)}=\beta _{11}^{(1)}=2n_1\,\frac{m_1}{4\pi c_1c_2}\,\frac{c_1c_2+\Delta _{22}/m_2}{c_1+c_2}\, , \nonumber \\ \alpha _{12}^{(1)}=\beta _{12}^{(1)}=2\sqrt{n_1n_2}\,\frac{1}{4\pi c_1c_2}\,\frac{\Delta _{12}}{c_1+c_2}\, .\label{f23}\end{gathered}$$ Again all the remaining quantities are given by $1\leftrightarrows 2$. Note only that all $\beta _{ik}^{(0)}$ and $\alpha _{i\neq k}^{(0)}$ remain finite and nonsingular at the demixing point $\Delta _{11}\Delta _{22}=\Delta _{12}^2$ or when one of the sound velocities vanishes $c_2=0$. On the contrary, both $\alpha _{ik}^{(1)}$ and $\beta _{ik}^{(1)}$ diverge with approaching at demixing point as $c_2\rightarrow 0$. JOSEPHSON EQUATIONS =================== To obtain the dynamics of the relative phases $\varphi _1$ and $\varphi _2$ in real time, we now follow the standard procedure of analytical continuation. Accordingly, the substitution of Matsubara frequencies $\|\omega _n\|\rightarrow -i\omega$ in the Fourier transform of the Euler-Lagrange equations $\partial S_{eff}/\partial\varphi _i(\tau)=0$, $$\begin{gathered} -\sum _{k=1,2}\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}\ddot{\varphi}_{k}(\tau) +2I_in_i\sin\varphi _i(\tau ) \\ + 2I_i\sum _{k=1,2}I_k\int d\tau '\,\Bigl[\alpha _{ik}(\tau -\tau ')\sin\Bigl(\varphi _i(\tau)-\varphi _k(\tau ')\Bigr) \\ + \beta _{ik}(\tau -\tau ')\sin\Bigl(\varphi _i(\tau)+\varphi _k(\tau ')\Bigr)\Bigr] =0 ,\end{gathered}$$ will yield the real-time equation for the phase $\varphi _i$ dynamics. As we have found in the limit of the slowly varying phases $\varphi _{1,\, 2}$, the response functions in the real-time representations go over to the following decomposition $$\begin{gathered} \alpha _{ik}(t)=-\alpha _{ik}^{(0)}\delta (t)+\alpha _{ik}^{(1)}\delta '(t)+\cdots \\ \beta _{ik}(t)=-\beta _{ik}^{(0)}\delta (t)-\beta _{ik}^{(1)}\delta '(t) +\cdots\end{gathered}$$ Then, we can derive a couple of the Josephson equations which every relative phase $\varphi _i(t)$ obeys in the real time $t$: $$\begin{gathered} \sum _{k=1,2}\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}\ddot{\varphi}_{k}(t) +2I_in_i\sin\varphi _i(t) +\sum _{k=1,2} 2I_iI_k\times \\ \Bigl[\alpha _{ik}^{(0)}\sin\Bigr(\varphi _i(t)-\varphi _k(t)\Bigl) +\beta _{ik}^{(0)}\sin\Bigr(\varphi _i(t)+\varphi _k(t)\Bigl)\Bigr] \\ +\sum _{k=1,2} 2I_iI_k\dot{\varphi} _k (t)\times \\ \Bigl[\alpha _{ik}^{(1)}\cos\Bigl(\varphi _i(t)-\varphi _k(t)\Bigr) +\beta _{ik}^{(1)}\cos \Bigl(\varphi _i(t)+\varphi _k(t)\Bigr)\Bigr] =0 .\end{gathered}$$ Using relations from (\[f22\]) and (\[f23\]), we finally arrive at the desired Josephson equations for two phases $\varphi _1(t)$ and $\varphi _2(t)$: $$\begin{gathered} \sum _{k=1,2}\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}\ddot{\varphi}_k +\sum _{k=1,2}4I_iI_k\alpha _{ik}^{(1)}\dot{\varphi}_k\cos\varphi _i\cos\varphi _k \\ +2I_in_i\sin\varphi _i +\!\!\sum _{k=1,2}\! 4I_iI_k\beta ^{(0)}_{ik}\sin\varphi _i\cos\varphi _k =0 , \;\; i=1, 2.\end{gathered}$$ We can interpret these Josephson equations using a mechanical analogy. First, we introduce the potential energy $U(\varphi _1,\,\varphi _2)$ of a junction according to $$U(\varphi _1,\,\varphi _2)=-\!\!\sum\limits _{i=1,\, 2}E_i\cos\varphi _i +\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits _{i,k=1,2}\!\varepsilon _{ik}\cos\varphi _i\cos\varphi _k$$ with the energy coefficients determined by $$\begin{gathered} E_i=2I_in_i \;\;\text{and}\;\; \varepsilon _{ik}=4I_iI_k\beta _{ik}^{(0)} ,\;\; (i,\, k=1,\, 2) .\end{gathered}$$ Then we can introduce the Lagrangian $L=K-U$ as a difference between the kinetic $K$ and potential $U$ energies $$L=K-U=\sum\limits _{i, k= 1, 2}\frac{\widehat{U}_{ik}^{-1}}{2} \dot{\varphi}_i\dot{\varphi}_k -U(\varphi _1,\,\varphi _2) .$$ The dissipation energy effect can be described by introducing the dissipative Rayleigh function according to $$\begin{gathered} R(\dot{\varphi}_1,\,\dot{\varphi}_2)=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits _{i,k=1,2} r_{ik}(\varphi _1,\,\varphi _2)\,\dot{\varphi}_i\dot{\varphi}_k \\ =\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits _{i,k=1,2}r_{ik}\cos\varphi _i\cos\varphi _k\,\dot{\varphi}_i\dot{\varphi}_k ,\;\text{and}\;\; r_{ik}=4I_iI_k\alpha _{ik}^{(1)}.\end{gathered}$$ Finally, the Josephson equations can be written in the general form as $$\frac{d}{dt}\,\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\varphi} _i}-\,\frac{\partial L}{\partial\varphi _i}=-\,\frac{\partial R}{\partial\dot{\varphi}_i}\, , \;\;\; i=1, 2,$$ where in accordance with Eq. (\[f16\]), $$\dot{\varphi}_i(t)=-\delta\mu _i(t)=\mu _{i,\, l}-\mu _{i,\, r} .$$ The dissipative function $R$ has a sense of the energy dissipation power in the system. This is obvious from the following equation, $$\frac{dH}{dt}=\frac{d}{dt}\Bigl(\sum\limits _i\dot{\varphi}_i\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\varphi}_i}-L\Bigr)=-\sum _i\dot{\varphi}_i\frac{\partial R}{\partial\dot{\varphi}_i}=-2R ,$$ which means that the energy dissipation power equals the double dissipative function. Since the energy dissipation must result in decreasing the total energy $H=K+U$ of the system, the dissipative function $R$ must be a positively determined matrix $R>0$, i.e., $$r_{11}>0 \;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\; r_{11}r_{22}>r_{12}r_{21} .$$ We are persuaded that this is true from $$\frac{r_{11}r_{22}}{r_{12}r_{21}}-1=\frac{\alpha _{11}^{(1)}\alpha _{22}^{(1)}}{\alpha _{12}^{(1)}\alpha _{21}^{(1)}}-1=\frac{m_1m_2c_1c_2(c_1+c_2)^2}{\Delta _{12}^2}>0 .$$ Note that the condition $R>0$ gets broken simultaneously with the condition $c_{1,2}>0$ necessary for the stability of a mixture against its demixing. In addition, we also disclose a symmetry of kinetic dissipative coefficients $r_{ik}=r_{ki}$ in accordance with the Onsager principle. It is interesting that the point of demixing instability $c_1c_2=0$ is not singular for the potential energy coefficients $\varepsilon _{ik}$. On the contrary, the dissipative coefficients $r_{ik}$ become infinite. The latter means that the Josephson dynamics should slow down and demonstrate an enhancement of decoherence and damping of the Josephson oscillations in the vicinity of the phase demixing. From the mechanical point of view the low-frequency dynamics of a Josephson junction in a Bose-condensed mixture can be described as a system of two coupled particles or pendula moving or oscillating in a viscous medium in a periodic potential relief. In the lack of hybridization between the different atom species, i.e., when $\Delta _{12}=0$, the crossed terms in the response functions $\alpha _{i\neq k}$ and $\beta _{i\neq k}$ vanish as well. As both $\alpha _{i\neq k}=0$ and $\beta _{i\neq k}=0$, the Josephson equations split into two decoupled equations for each component of a mixture. In this case no interference in the mass currents appears and the response functions together with nonzero diagonal coefficients $\alpha _{ii}$, $\beta _{ii}$ go over to the quantities corresponding to the case of a single-component Bose-condensed gas [@Mei; @Ba]. CONCLUSION ========== To summarize, in this paper we have used a functional integration method for the model of a tunneling Hamiltonian in order to analyze the energy dissipation effects in the dynamics of a pointlike Josephson junction between two weakly nonideal Bose-condensed gas mixtures in the thermal equilibrium. The transmission of particles of each component of a mixture across the junction is described by two different tunneling amplitudes. The effective action and response functions that describe the dynamics of two relative phases $\varphi _1$ and $\varphi _2$ corresponding to each condensed component of a mixture are found. The quasiclassical Josephson equations for the relative phases are derived from the low-frequency decomposition of the response functions. The dynamics of a pointlike junction in a mixture displays a dissipative Ohmic nature. The energy dissipation effects result from the noncondensate excitations and appear in second order in the tunneling amplitudes. The latter fact favors low damping rates of the Josephson oscillations in the pointlike junctions. A growth of the temperature leads to decreasing the Josephson energy and to increasing the energy dissipation power. The closeness to the phase separation of a mixture enhances the Ohmic character of the phase dynamics. The dissipative Rayleigh function is determined. On the whole, the Josephson phase dynamics in binary mixtures is described by two coupled equations. This means, in particular, an existence of two Josephson frequencies for small oscillations of the phases around $\varphi _1=0$ and $\varphi _2=0$. Since $r_{ik}\neq 0$, the oscillations are weakly damped. Emphasize that the interference between the Josephson and dissipative Ohmic components of a mass current for each type of particles starts only from the second-order terms in the tunneling amplitudes and, eventually, due to the presence of the noncondensate fractions. The interference entails, in particular, that the maximum amplitude of the Josephson current of one species atoms depends on the relative phase difference of the second component of a mixture. In addition, it becomes possible that the imbalance in the chemical potential of one component of a mixture can induce also the Ohmic contribution into the mass current of the other component. We believe these aspects deserve a further study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== This study is supported in part by the RFBR grant No. 10-02.00047a. APPENDIX {#appendix .unnumbered} ======== Here we present the general asymmetric case of a junction if $n_{i\, l}\neq n_{i\, r}$ and $ \Delta _{ik,\, l}\neq\Delta _{ik,\, r}$. For the Josephson potential energy $$U(\varphi _1,\,\varphi _2)=-\!\sum\limits _{i=1,\, 2}E_i\cos\varphi _i +\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits _{i,\, k=1,\, 2}\!\varepsilon _{ik}\cos\varphi _i\cos\varphi _k ,$$ we find $$E_i=2I_i\sqrt{n_{i\, l}n_{i\, r}}\;\;\; (i=1,\, 2)$$ and the next terms $$\begin{gathered} \varepsilon _{11}=\frac{2I_1^2m_1^2}{\pi}\Bigl[\frac{n_{1l}(\Delta _{11,r} +m_2c_{1r}c_{2r})}{(m_1\Delta _{11,r} +2m_1m_2c_{1r}c_{2r}+m_2\Delta _{22,r})^{1/2}} \\ + \frac{n_{1r}(\Delta _{11,l}+m_2c_{1l}c_{2l})}{(m_1\Delta _{11,l}+2m_1m_2c_{1l}c_{2l}+m_2\Delta _{22,l})^{1/2}}\Bigr] , \\ \varepsilon _{22}=\frac{2I_2^2m_2^2}{\pi}\Bigl[\frac{n_{2l}(\Delta _{22,r}+m_1c_{1r}c_{2r})}{(m_1\Delta _{11,r}+2m_1m_2c_{1r}c_{2r}+m_2\Delta _{22,r})^{1/2}} \\ +\frac{n_{2r}(\Delta _{22,l}+m_1c_{1l}c_{2l})}{(m_1\Delta _{11,l}+2m_1m_2c_{1l}c_{2l}+m_2\Delta _{22,l})^{1/2}}\Bigr] .\end{gathered}$$ The other two nondiagonal coefficients $\varepsilon _{12}=\varepsilon _{21}$ are given by the expression $$\begin{gathered} \varepsilon _{12}= \frac{2I_1I_2}{\pi}\Bigl[\frac{\sqrt{n_{1l}n_{2l}}}{c_{1r}c_{2r}}\frac{\Delta _{12,r}}{c_{1r}+c_{2r}}+\frac{\sqrt{n_{1r}n_{2r}}}{ c_{1l}c_{2l}}\frac{\Delta _{12,l}}{c_{1l}+c_{2l}}\Bigr] .\end{gathered}$$ For the kinetic coefficients in the dissipative Rayleigh function $$R(\dot{\varphi}_1,\,\dot{\varphi}_2)=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits _{i=1,\, 2}r_{ik}\cos\varphi _i\cos\varphi _k\,\dot{\varphi}_1\dot{\varphi}_2\, ,$$ we have $$\begin{gathered} r_{11}=\frac{I_1^2m_1}{\pi}\Bigl[\frac{n_{1l}}{c_{1r}c_{2r}}\,\frac{c_{1r}c_{2r} +\Delta_{22,r}/m_2}{c_{1r}+c_{2r}} \\ +\frac{n_{1r}}{c_{1l}c_{2l}}\,\frac{c_{1l}c_{2l} +\Delta_{22,l}/m_2}{c_{1l}+c_{2l}}\Bigr], \\ r_{22}=\frac{I_2^2m_2}{\pi}\Bigl[\frac{n_{2l}}{c_{1r}c_{2r}}\,\frac{c_{1r}c_{2r} +\Delta_{11,r}/m_1}{c_{1r}+c_{2r}} \\ +\frac{n_{2r}}{c_{1l}c_{2l}}\,\frac{c_{1l}c_{2l} +\Delta_{11,l}/m_1}{c_{1l}+c_{2l}}\Bigr].\end{gathered}$$ The other two nondiagonal coefficients $r _{12}=r _{21}$ can be found from the expression $$\begin{gathered} r_{12}=\frac{I_1I_2}{\pi}\Bigl[\frac{n_{1l}n_{2l}}{c_{1r}c_{2r}}\,\frac{\Delta _{12,r}}{c_{1r}+c_{2r}}+\frac{n_{1r}n_{2r}}{c_{1l}c_{2l}}\,\frac{\Delta _{12,l}}{c_{1l}+c_{2l}}\Bigr] .\end{gathered}$$ The expressions derived above for the dynamical coefficients in the Josephson equations governing the phase differences $\varphi _1(t)$ and $\varphi _2(t)$ across a pointlike junction allow us to describe the low-frequency dynamics in the asymmetric case of Bose-condensed gas mixtures with the different densities of the atom species and with the different order parameters. The stability of mixtures against phase separation and the positive definiteness of the dissipative Rayleigh function imply the fulfillment of conditions $c_{1l}$, $c_{2l}>0$ and $c_{1r}$, $c_{2r}>0$. [99]{} B.D. Esry, C.H. Greene, J.P. Burke, Jr., and J.L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3594 (1997). D.M. Larsen, Ann. Phys. 24, 89 (1963). E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5718 (1998). P. Ao and S.T. Chui, Phys. Rev. A 58, 4836 (1998). Th. Busch, J.I. Cirac, V.M. Peréz-García, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 56, 2978 (1997). R. Graham and D. Walls, Phys. Rev. A 57, 484 (1998). H. Pu and N.P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1130 (1998). A. Eckardt, Ch. Weiss, and M. Holthaus, Phys. Rev. A 70, 043615 (2004). I. Zapata, F. Sols, and A.J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. A 67, 021603(R) (2003). W. Yi and L.M. Duan, Phys. Rev. A 71, 043607 (2005). A. Mebrahtu, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A 73, 033601 (2006). K. Sukhatme, Y. Mukharsky, T. Chui, and D. Pearson, Nature 411, 280 (2001). E. Hoskingson, R.E. Packard, and T. Haard, Nature 433, 376 (2005). S. Narayana and Y. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 055302 (2011). M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. Fölling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani, and M.K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010402 (2005). S. Levy, E. Lahoud, I. Shomroni, J. Steinhauer, Nature 449, 579 (2007). A.J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 307 (2001). G.J. Milburn, J.Corney, E.M. Wright, and D.F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4318 (1997). A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S.R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4950 (1997). M.J. Steel and M.J. Collett, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2920 (1998). I. Zapata, F. Sols, and A.J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. A 57, R28 (1998). S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S.R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. A 59, 620 (1999). P. Villain and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A 59, 2250 (1999). A. Smerzi and S. Raghavan, Phys. Rev. A 61, 063601 (2000). Chi-Yong Lin, E.J.V. de Passos, and Da-shin Lee, Phys. Rev. A 62, 055603 (2000). J.E. Williams, Phys. Rev. A 64, 013610 (2001). F. Meier and W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. A 64, 033610 (2001). R.A. Barankov and S.N. Burmistrov, Phys. Rev. A 67, 013611 (2003). H. Xiong, S. Liu, and M. Zhan, Phys. Rev. B 73, 224505 (2006). M. Trujillo-Martinez, A. Posazhennikova, and J. Kroha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 105302 (2009). F. Nissen and J. Keeling, Phys. Rev. A 81, 063628 (2010). E. Boukobza, M.G. Moore, D. Cohen, and A. Vardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 240402 (2010). X.-Q. Xu, L.-H. Lu, and Y.-Q. Li, Phys. Rev A 78, 043609 (2008). I.I. Satija, R. Balakrishnan, P. Naudus, J. Heward, M. Edwards, and C.W. Clark, Phys. Rev A 79, 033616 (2009). B. Julía-Díaz, M. Guilleumas, M. Lewenstein, A. Polls, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev A 80, 023616 (2009). G. Mazzarella, M. Moratti, L. Salasnich, M. Salerno, and F. Toigo, J. Phys. B 42, 125301 (2009). A. Naddeo and R. Citro, J. Phys. B 43, 135302 (2010). V. Ambegaokar, U. Eckern, and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1745 (1982). A.I. Larkin and Yu.N. Ovchinnikov, Phys. Rev. B 28, 6281 (1983). U. Eckern, G. Schön, and V. Ambegaokar, Phys. Rev. B 30, 6419 (1984).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We present extensive optical ($UBVRI$), near-infrared ($JK$) light curves and optical spectroscopy of the Type Ia supernova (SN) 2006X in the nearby galaxy NGC 4321 (M100). Our observations suggest that either SN 2006X has an intrinsically peculiar color evolution, or it is highly reddened \[$E(B - V)_{host} = 1.42 \pm 0.04$ mag\] with $R_V = 1.48 \pm 0.06$, much lower than the canonical value of 3.1 for the average Galactic dust. SN 2006X also has one of the highest expansion velocities ever published for a SN Ia. Compared with the other SNe Ia we analyzed, SN 2006X has a broader light curve in the $U$ band, a more prominent bump/shoulder feature in the $V$ and $R$ bands, a more pronounced secondary maximum in the $I$ and near-infrared bands, and a remarkably smaller late-time decline rate in the $B$ band. The $B-V$ color evolution shows an obvious deviation from the Lira-Phillips relation at 1 to 3 months after maximum brightness. At early times, optical spectra of SN 2006X displayed strong, high-velocity features of both intermediate-mass elements (Si, Ca, and S) and iron-peak elements, while at late times they showed a relatively blue continuum, consistent with the blue $U-B$ and $B-V$ colors at similar epochs. A light echo and/or the interaction of the SN ejecta and its circumstellar material may provide a plausible explanation for its late-time photometric and spectroscopic behavior. Using the Cepheid distance of M100, we derive a Hubble constant of $72.8 \pm 8.2$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (statistical) from the normalized dereddened luminosity of SN 2006X. We briefly discuss whether abnormal dust is a universal signature for all SNe Ia, and whether the most rapidly expanding objects form a subclass with distinct photometric and spectroscopic properties. author: - \| Xiaofeng Wang, Weidong Li, Alexei V. Filippenko, Kevin Krisciunas, Nicholas B. Suntzeff,\ Junzheng Li, Tianmeng Zhang, Jingsong Deng, Ryan J. Foley, Mohan Ganeshalingam,\ Tipei Li, YuQing Lou, Yulei Qiu, Rencheng Shang, Jeffrey M. Silverman,\ Shuangnan Zhang, and Youhong Zhang title: \| Optical and Near-Infrared Observations of the Highly Reddened,\ Rapidly Expanding Type Ia Supernova 2006X in M100 --- Introduction ============ Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) are arguably the most accurate tools available for probing the expansion history of the Universe, as their luminosities at maximum light can be calibrated to an uncertainty of $\sim$15% via several empirical relations between their luminosity and light/color curves (Wang et al. 2006, and references therein). Based on studies of SN Ia apparent brightness as a function of redshift, Riess et al. (1998) and Perlmutter et al. (1999) were the first to propose that the expansion of the Universe is currently accelerating (for a review see, e.g., Filippenko 2005). This remarkable result, which suggests that the Universe is primarily composed of mysterious dark energy, was subsequently confirmed by more studies using SNe Ia (Barris et al. 2003; Tonry et al. 2003; Knop et al. 2003; Riess et al. 2004, 2007; Astier et al. 2006; Wood-Vasey et al. 2007), and by independent methods such as the power spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation (e.g., Spergel et al. 2003, 2007) and baryon acoustic oscillations (Eisenstein et al. 2005). Despite the success of using SNe Ia as cosmological probes, a disconcerting fact is that details of the properties of SN Ia progenitors and their environments remain poorly understood. It is generally believed that a SN Ia is produced by a carbon-oxygen (C$-$O) white dwarf (WD) accreting matter from a companion star in a binary system. However, the nature of the companion star in the binary system is still unclear: it could be a main-sequence star, a subgiant, or an evolved red giant (Nomoto, Iwamoto, Koshimoto 1997), or even another degenerate C$-$O WD (Iben & Tutukov 1984; Webbink 1985). Studying the absorption by dust toward SNe Ia may provide a unique way to peer into their local environments and hence set constraints on the properties of their progenitor system. If the dust enveloping the SNe is totally or partially produced by the progenitor evolution, the ratio of the total to selective absorption \[$R_V = A_V/E(B-V)$\] may differ from that of normal interstellar dust (e.g., Wang L 2005). Moreover, accurate determination of the absorption toward a SN Ia helps establish the accurate luminosity required for precision cosmology. Several studies of global color fits to SNe Ia have suggested that the dust obscuring SNe Ia in their host galaxies may differ from the dust observed in the Milky Way Galaxy (Riess et al. 1996; Phillips et al. 1999; Altavilla et al. 2004; Reindl et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2006): the measured value of $R_{V}$ is often found to be smaller than the canonical Galactic value of 3.1. We measure an average $R_{V} = 2.4 \pm 0.2$ from a compilation of published $R_{V}$ values[^1]. The sample of well-observed, highly extinguished SNe Ia is small but growing, offering the opportunity to study variations of the extinction law on an object-by-object basis. In almost all cases, $R_{V}$ is found to be smaller than 3.1 (Krisciunas et al. 2006a; Elias-Rosa et al. 2006, hereafter ER06). It is interesting to investigate whether $R_{V}$ smaller than 3.1 is universal to all SNe Ia, or just applies to a few or highly reddened events. SN 2006X is a bright, nearby, highly reddened SN Ia, and is favorable for a detailed study of reddening and dust properties. The recent report of variable, interstellar absorption Na I D lines the in high-resolution spectra of SN 2006X indicates of the presence of circumstellar material (CSM) around SN 2006X, which may be related to the stellar wind blown from the companion star (Patat et al. 2007). Here, we present extensive photometric and spectroscopic observations of SN 2006X, enabling us to study its intervening dust and other characteristics. The paper is organized as follows. The observations and data reduction are described in §2, while §3 presents the $UBVRIJK$ light curves, the color curves, and the extinction estimate. The spectral evolution is given in §4. We determine the distance and luminosity of the SN in §5. Our discussion and conclusions are given in §6. Observations and Data Reduction =============================== SN 2006X was discovered independently on 7.10 February 2006 (UT dates are used throughout this paper) by S. Suzuki and M. Migliardi (IAUC 8667), with J2000 coordinates $\alpha$ = 12$^{h}$22$^{m}$53$^{s}$.90 and $\delta$ = 15$^{\circ}$48$^{'}$32$^{''}$.90. It is $12''$ W and $48''$ S of the center of the nearby galaxy NGC 4321 (M100), a grand-design Sbc galaxy in the Virgo cluster having a Cepheid distance of $30.91 \pm 0.14$ mag (Freedman et al. 2001). A spectrum of SN 2006X taken shortly after its discovery shows it to be an early SN Ia (Quimby et al. 2006), similar to that of SN 2002bo 1–2 weeks before maximum light (Benetti et al. 2004) but with a redder continuum. Photometry ---------- Our photometric observations of SN 2006X began on 2006 February 8.15, $\sim$11 days before $B$-band maximum. Data were obtained with three telescopes: the 0.80 m THCA-NAOC Telescope (TNT) at Beijing Xinglong Observatory (BAO) in China, the 0.76 m Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope (KAIT; Filippenko et al. 2001) at Lick Observatory in the U.S., and the 1.3 m telescope at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) in Chile. The TNT observations were obtained using a $1340 \times 1300$ pixel back-illuminated charge-coupled device (CCD) with a field of view (FOV) of $11.5' \times 11.2'$ ($0.52''$ pixel$^{-1}$), the KAIT observations were performed using an Apogee AP7 camera with a FOV of $6.6' \times 6.6'$ ($0.79''$ pixel$^{-1}$), and the CTIO 1.3 m observations were obtained using the dual-channel optical/near-infrared (IR) camera ANDICAM having an optical FOV of $6.3 \times 6.3'$ ($0.37''$ pixel$^{-1}$) and an IR FOV of $2.3' \times 2.3'$ ($0.27''$ pixel$^{-1}$). Broad-band $BVRI$ images were taken with all three telescopes, while the TNT also followed SN 2006X in the $U$ band and the CTIO 1.3 m telescope sampled the $J$ and $K$ bands. As shown in Figure 1, SN 2006X is located between a relatively bright foreground star and the inner edge of one spiral arm of NGC 4321; thus, light contamination needs to be taken into account when measuring the SN flux. One way to do this is to apply galaxy subtraction. Template images of NGC 4321 in various bands were taken with KAIT and TNT on 2007 March 14 and 16 (respectively), roughly one year after the discovery of SN 2006X. For the CTIO 1.3 m observations, we used pre-explosion $B$ and $V$ images of NGC 4321 obtained on 24 April 2000 with the Apache Point Observatory 3.5 m telescope in New Mexico. To perform image subtraction, the image containing SN 2006X is first geometrically registered to the corresponding template image. Next, the total fluxes of corresponding foreground stars in the SN and template images are compared, and an appropriate scale factor is applied to the SN image in order to match the template image. Also, the point-spread functions (PSFs) of the two images are convolved to match. The template is then subtracted from the SN image, leaving the SN with a background that is free from host-galaxy contamination. The final step is to perform standard PSF-fitting (or aperture) photometry to measure the instrumental magnitudes for the SN and the local standard stars with the IRAF[^2] DAOPHOT package (Stetson 1987). From the late-time $Hubble Space Telescope$ (HST) Advanced Camera for Survey (ACS) archival images (Proposal 10991 by Arlin Crotts 2006), we speculate that SN 2006X was $\sim$22.0 mag in $B$ and $\sim$21.5 mag in $V$ about one year after maximum. This lingering light barely affects the early-time photometry but it probably results in underestimating the luminosity of SN 2006X by 3-6% when the SN becomes as faint as 18 $-$ 19 mag. The transformation from the instrumental magnitudes to the standard Johnson $UBV$ (1966) and Kron-Cousins $RI$ (1981) systems is established by observing, during a photometric night, a series of Landolt (1992) standards covering a large range of airmasses and colors. The color terms obtained on different photometric nights show some differences, and their average values are listed in Table 1 for the filters used in the TNT, KAIT, and CTIO 1.3 m observations of SN 2006X. A total of 10 photometric nights (2 for TNT, 3 for KAIT, and 5 for the CTIO 1.3 m) were used to calibrate 10 local standard stars in the field of SN 2006X. Table 2 lists the final calibrated $UBVRI$ magnitudes and their uncertainties, while Table 3 presents the near-IR $J$-band and $K$-band magnitudes. Only one photometric night was used to do the $U$-band calibration, so the calibrated magnitudes may have larger errors. The near-IR magnitudes of Star 10 were measured on 14 nights with respect to the Persson et al. (1998) standards P9144 and LHS2397a. The measured $J$ and $K$ magnitudes are 0.07 mag brighter than the values from the 2MASS survey, which obtained $J$ = 14.793(0.025) mag and $K$ = 13.995(0.040) mag. These local standard stars are then used to transform the instrumental magnitudes of SN 2006X to the standard $UBVRIJK$ system, and the final results of the photometry are listed in Table 3 and Table 4. Note that the $BVJK$-band data shown for CTIO 1.3 m telescope include the S-corrections (see details in §3.1) which are listed in Table 5. The estimated error shown in parentheses is a quadrature sum of uncertainties in the photometry and the calibrations. The main source of error comes from the photometry, caused by photon noise and uncertainties in the image subtraction. Spectroscopy ------------ Spectra of SN 2006X were primarily obtained with the 2.16 m telescope at BAO using the Cassegrain spectrograph and BAO Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera (BFOSC), and with the 3.0 m Shane telescope at Lick Observatory using the Kast double spectrograph (Miller & Stone 1993). Two very late-time spectra were also obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory: one with the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (LRIS; Oke et al. 1995) mounted on the 10 m Keck I telescope, and the other with the Deep Extragalactic Imaging Multi-Object Spectrograph (DEIMOS) mounted on the 10 m Keck II telescope. A journal of spectroscopic observations is given in Table 6. All spectra were reduced using standard IRAF routines (e.g.,Foley et al. 2003). Extraction of the SN spectra was carefully performed to avoid contamination from the nearby star and the spiral arms of the galaxy. For the Kast observations, flatfields for the red-side spectra were taken at the position of the object to reduce near-IR fringing effects. Flux calibration of the spectra was performed by means of spectrophotometric standard stars observed at similar airmass on the same night as the SN. The spectra were corrected for continuum atmospheric extinction using mean extinction curves for BAO and Lick observatory; also telluric lines were removed from the Lick (but not BAO) data. For spectra observed at Lick and Keck, the slit was always aligned along the parallactic angle to avoid chromatic effects in the data (Filippenko 1982). This procedure was not adopted at BAO, however, and it may not significantly affect the continuum shape as the airmass was usually low ($\sim$1.1) when getting these spectra for SN 2006X. In general, the relative spectrophotometry is quite good, consistent with the broadband photometry within about 5%. Light Curves and Spectra ======================== Optical and Near-IR Light Curves -------------------------------- The $UBVRIJK$ light curves of SN 2006X are presented in Figure 2. No K-corrections have been applied to any of the magnitudes due to the small redshift of SN 2006X ($z = 0.0053$). For all the bands we have excellent temporal coverage, especially around maximum light. In general the optical measurements obtained with TNT, KAIT, and the CTIO 1.3 m telescope are consistent with each other within $\pm$0.05 mag, except in the $I$ band where differences are more noticeable. We find that the TNT $I$-band magnitudes are systematically brighter than those of KAIT by $0.08 \pm 0.02$ mag and also brighter than those of the CTIO 1.3 m telescope, especially around the dip immediately after maximum where the discrepancy reaches $\sim$0.2 mag. This larger difference is likely caused by the different instrument response function in the $I$ band for the different systems. Besides the usual color-term corrections, additional magnitude corrections between instrumental and standard bandpasses (S-corrections; Stritzinger et al. 2002) are sometimes required for the filters that are different from those defined by Bessell (1990). The filters amounted on TNT are standard Johnson-Cousins $UBVRI$ system, however, the filter transmission curves are unavailable. We obtained the S-corrections for observations of the CTIO 1.3 m telescope (see Table 5), except in $R$ and $I$ bands where the corrections were found to actually increase the systematic differences of the photometry obtained with different telescopes (e.g., Kriscusnias et al. 2003). We thus have chosen to let the ANDICAM $R$ and $I$ photometry stay as they are. The S-corrections for the filters closer to Bessell’s recipe are generally small in $BVR$ (e.g., $\lesssim$ 0.05 mag) but probably significantly larger in $U$ and $I$ (e.g., Pastorello et al. 2007). This is demonstrated by the consistency of the raw magnitudes of TNT and KAIT with the S-corrected magnitudes of the CTIO 1.3 m in $B$ and $V$ bands within their errors (see Fig.2). To account for the $I$-band magnitude difference between the TNT, KAIT, and the CTIO 1 m telescope, we assign a systematic error of 0.10 mag for all the $I$-band magnitudes in the following analysis. A polynomial fit to the $B-$band light curve around maximum yields $B_{max} = 15.40 \pm 0.03$ mag on JD 2,453,786.17 $\pm$ 0.35 (2006 February 19.93). This means that our observations started from $-$11.27 d and extended to +116.32 d with respect to the time of $B$ maximum. Likewise, the $V$ light curve reached a peak magnitude of $14.04 \pm 0.02$ on JD 2,453,789.11 $\pm$ 0.29, about 2.9 d after $B$ maximum. The fitting parameters for the maxima in the other bands are presented in Table 7, together with the late time decline rates (see below). From the $B$ and $V$ light curves we derived an observed $\Delta m_{15} (B) = 1.17 \pm 0.05$ mag[^3] and $B_{max}-V_{max} = 1.36 \pm 0.04$ mag. We also measured the $B - V$ color at 12 d after $B$ maximum to be $1.83 \pm 0.05$ mag. These colors are much redder than the intrinsic values shown by other SNe Ia with similar $\Delta m_{15} (B)$ (see more discussion in §3.3), suggesting that SN 2006X suffered significant line-of-sight reddening. In Figures 3$-$8 we compare the $UBVRIJK$ light curves of SN 2006X with those of other well-observed, nearby SNe Ia having similar $\Delta m_{15}$ values, including SNe 1994D ($\Delta m_{15} = 1.27$; Richmond et al. 1995; Patat et al. 1996), 1998bu ($\Delta m_{15}$ = 1.04; Jha et al. 1999), 2002bo ($\Delta m_{15}$ = 1.15; Benetti et al. 2004; Krisciunas et al. 2004), 2002er ($\Delta m_{15}$ = 1.32; Pignata et al. 2004), 2003cg ($\Delta m_{15}$ = 1.25; ER06), and 2005cf ($\Delta m_{15}$ = 1.12; Pastorello et al. 2007). The light curves of SN 1984A ($\Delta m_{15}$ = 1.20; Barbon et al. 1989), though not as well observed as those of the other SNe in the comparison, are also included because SN 1984A shares many similar properties with SN 2006X, especially in the spectroscopy and late-time photometry. All the light curves have been normalized to the epoch of their $B$-band maximum and shifted in peak magnitude to match those of SN 2006X. Figure 3 shows that the observed $U$-band light curve of SN 2006X is slightly broader than those of the other SNe Ia around maximum light, but is comparable to that of SN 2003cg which also suffered significant reddening. Two effects, both associated with large amounts of reddening, might explain why SNe 2003cg and 2006X are broader than other SNe in comparison. As demonstrated by Phillips et al. (1999) and Jha et al. (2007), the total-to-selective absorption ratio, $R_{\lambda}$, may vary with the supernova phase. For instance the true value of $R_{U}$ at 15 d past maximum is found to be smaller than that near maximum by about 0.15 (Jha et al. 2007). This would subsequently broaden the light curves of the reddened SNe by $\sim0.15 E(B-V)$. On the other hand, the change of the overall spectral shape due to the high reddening may shift the effective bandpass at the shorter wavelengths to the longer wavelengths that are characteristic of broader light-curve peaks (see ER06 for a similar argument for SN 2003cg). This may also contribute to the broader peak in $U$. Another possible feature of SN 2006X in the $U$ band is the late-time light curve, which despite the large error bar for each measurement, seems to be brighter and possibly declines more slowly than the other SNe. Figure 4 shows the comparison in the $B$ band. While the light curves near maximum are similar to each other, they diverge at late times. Compared to other SNe Ia, SNe 2006X, 1984A, and 2002bo have relatively higher (by 0.3$-$0.5 mag) luminosity after $t = 40$ d, and their light curves decline more slowly. We measured a late-time decline rate of $\beta = 0.92 \pm 0.05$ mag (100 d)$^{-1}$ for SN 2006X at $t = 40 - 117$ d, which is comparable to the radioactive decay rate of 0.98 mag (100 d)$^{-1}$ for the Co$\rightarrow$Fe decay. The decline rates for SNe 1984A and 2002bo are slightly higher, $\beta = 1.14 \pm 0.06$ mag (100 d)$^{-1}$ and $1.17 \pm 0.10$ mag (100 d)$^{-1}$, respectively. All these decline rates are significantly smaller than the typical value of a normal SN Ia, $\beta = 1.40 \pm 0.10$ mag (100 d)$^{-1}$, as exhibited by the other SNe Ia in the comparison. The $V$-band light curve comparison is shown in Figure 5. At around maximum, SN 2006X is slightly broader, and shows a more prominent “shoulder” feature at $t \approx 3$ weeks than other SNe Ia. Part of the reason for this may be that compared to other SNe Ia, SN 2006X has higher reddening, and the effective $V$ bandpass is shifted more toward the $R$ band, which is broader than $V$ and has a prominent shoulder feature. It is also possible that there is an intrinsic scatter in the strength of the shoulder feature in the $V$-band light curves of SNe Ia. In the same manner as the definition of $\Delta m_{15} (B)$, we computed $\Delta m_{15}(V) = 0.63 \pm 0.03$ mag for SN 2006X. This is similar to that of SNe 2003cg, 1998aq, and 2005cf \[$\Delta m_{15}(V) = 0.63 \pm 0.05$ mag, $0.67 \pm 0.05$, and $0.69 \pm 0.03$ mag, respectively\], but smaller than that of SNe 1994D and 2002er \[$\Delta m_{15}(V) = 0.85 \pm 0.06$ mag and $0.78 \pm 0.04$ mag, respectively\]. At late times, SN 2006X has a similar evolution as SN 2002bo, and both are brighter than other comparison SNe Ia. There are no obvious differences in the late-time decline rates among the SNe. As shown in Figures 6 and 7, SN 2006X exhibits a more prominent “plateau” feature in the $R$ band and a stronger secondary maximum in the $I$ band than other SNe Ia. The $R$ and $I$ light curves of SNe Ia are similar to each other before $t = 10$ d, but diverge after that. There are considerable differences in $D_{plateau}$, the duration of the plateau phase in the $R$ band[^4] and the time when the $I$ band reaches the second maximum \[$t(I_{max})$\]: SN 2006X has $D_{plateau} \approx 13$ d, and $t(I_{max}) = 28$ d, while SN 1994D has $D_{plateau} \approx 9$ d and $t(I_{max}) = 20$ d. At late times, SN 2006X has an evolution similar to that of SN 2002bo in the $R$ band, and they are brighter than other SNe Ia. The two SNe, however, have different decline rates in the $I$ band, and SN 2006X is the brightest object in the comparison. In Figure 8, the $J$-band and $K$-band light curves of SN 2006X are compared with those of SNe 1998bu, 2002bo, 2003cg, and 2005cf. The light curves of the well-observed SN 2001el ($\Delta m_{15} = 1.10 \pm 0.03$ mag; Krisciunas et al. 2003) are also overplotted (see the dotted curves). As in the optical bands, the overall light curves of SN 2006X in $J$ and $K$ resemble closely those of SN 2002bo. After the initial peak, both of these SNe show a stronger secondary maximum feature in the $JK$ bands than other SNe Ia in the comparison. In SN 2001el, the $J$ second-peak feature is somewhat less pronounced; the light curve remains relatively flat from day +11 to +31. Note that there is marginal evidence for a third maximum (or shoulder) in the near-IR light curves of SN 2006X at $\sim$70 d after $B$ maximum. Kasen (2006) has come up with an explanation for the secondary maximum and has predicted that some SNe Ia might show a third maximum at $\sim$80 d. The variation of the secondary maximum of the near-IR light curves can be related to the abundance stratification in SNe Ia, the concentration of iron-group elements, and the progenitor metallicity (Kasen 2006). Optical and Near-IR Color Curves -------------------------------- The optical color curves of SN 2006X ($U-B$, $B-V$, $V-R$, and $V-I$) are presented in Figure 9. The colors of SN 2006X are much redder than those of the normal Ia SN 2005cf (the triangles) with negligible reddening, suggesting a significant amount of reddening toward SN 2006X. Also overplotted in these panels are the color curves of SNe 1994D, 1998bu, 2002bo, 2002er, 2003cg, all arbitrarily shifted to match the observed colors of SN 2006X at $B$ maximum. The $U - B$ color (Fig. 9a) of SN 2006X does not become progressively redder in a linear fashion after $B$ maximum as the other SNe Ia do, but has a shoulder or plateau phase for about two weeks. A similar feature is observed in the heavily extinguished SN 2003cg. It is unclear whether this feature is caused by the high reddening of these two objects. After $t \approx 4$ weeks, the $U - B$ colors of SN 2006X seem to be bluer than those of the comparison SNe Ia, but the error bars of the measurements are relatively large due to the poor $U$-band data quality at late times. The $B - V$ colors of all SNe in the plot (Fig. 9b) have a similar evolution before $t \approx 29$ d, although SN 2006X reached the bluest color a bit earlier, e.g. at $\sim-$8.0 days rather than $\sim-$5 days for the other comparison SNe. All the SNe Ia reach the reddest color at $t \approx 29$ d, although there are some differences in the time to reach the reddest color. The peak $B - V$ colors of the SNe Ia with smaller decline rates (or $\Delta m_{15}$) might occur later than those of the faster decliners (see also Figure 1 in Wang et al. 2005). We note that the $B - V$ color of SN 2003cg is redder than that of other SNe Ia by about 0.2 mag at the reddest peak according to the data from ER06. However, the photometric data based on the unpublished KAIT data of SN 2003cg do not have such a discrepancy. Compared with other SNe Ia, the most notable difference in the $B - V$ color evolution of SN 2006X is after $t \approx 29$ d: SN 2006X became bluer in a much faster pace, and showed an apparent difference from the Lira-Phillips relation (the dash-dotted line in the figure; see Lira 1995 and Phillips et al. 1999). Note also that the $B - V$ color of SN 1994D, although not well observed during this phase, suggests a faster evolution than the Lira-Phillips relation. Thus, as discussed in the more extreme case of the peculiar SN Ia 2000cx (Li et al. 2001), although the Lira-Phillips relation provides a method to estimate the extinction toward SNe Ia and may work in a statistical dataset, it should be used with caution for any individual SN Ia. Given the relatively large differences seen in the $U - B$ and $B - V$ color evolution between SN 2006X and other SNe Ia in the comparison, it is surprising that all SNe Ia have similar $V - R$ color evolution except at very early times (Fig. 9c). The $V - R$ color of different SNe Ia reaches the bluest point at $\sim$12 d after $B$ maximum, then become progressively redder and reaches the maximum around day +31. After the peak the $V - R$ color curve moves gradually toward bluer colors. The similar evolution in the $V - R$ color is related to the closer match of the $V$ and $R$ photometry and also a smaller reddening effect. The $V - I$ color curve of SN 2006X (Fig. 9d) exhibits a behavior which is very similar to those of the comparison SNe. All these SNe reached a minimum color at about 9 d after $B$ maximum. The following red peak occurred at around day +31. The only exception is SN 1994D, which showed a rapid increase in $V - I$ after the minima and then reached the peak value 4 d earlier than other SNe Ia. Figure 10 shows the observed $V - J$ and $V - K$ colors of SN 2006X, along with those of SNe 1998bu, 2001el, 2002bo, 2003cg, and 2005cf (without color shift). All SNe Ia exhibit a deep minimum at $t \approx 8$–11 d, followed by a maximum at around day +32. Nevertheless the $V$ minus near-$IR$ color of the comparison SNe Ia shows noticeable scatter, especially in $V - J$ where the magnitude contrast between the valley and peak can differ by more than 0.6 mag. The dashed curves in Fig. 10 represent the average loci of the $V-J$ and $V-K$ colors for normal SNe Ia (Krisciunas et al. 2000) that were reddened (shifted upward in Fig.10) by 1.72 mag and 1.95 mag, respectively. With respect to the average color curve, the $V - J$ and $V - K$ colors of SN 2002bo seem to better match those of SN 2006X. In general, the overall color evolution of SN 2006X resembles most closely those of SN 2002bo and SN 2002er. Other comparison SNe Ia may match well with SN 2006X in $V - R$ and $V - I$, but they show larger differences than SN 2006X in $B - V$, $V - NIR$. Both SN 2006X and SN 2003cg exhibited an atypical “shoulder" feature in $U - B$ for about two weeks immediately after $B$ maximum. The Reddening Toward SN 2006X ----------------------------- The Galactic extinction toward NGC 4321/SN 2006X is $A^{\rm{gal}}_{V}=0.087$ mag (Schlegel et al. 1998), corresponding to a color excess of $E(B - V)$ = 0.026 mag \[adopting the standard reddening law of Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis (1989)\]. As suggested by the observed color curves of SN 2006X shown in Figures 9 and 10, SN 2006X may suffer a large amount of extinction within its host galaxy. In this section, we use two methods, global color-curve fitting and the $\Delta m_{15}$ method, to derive the host-galaxy reddening for SN 2006X. Both methods assume SN 2006X has colors similar to those of the other SNe Ia with either similar evolution in some colors, or comparable $\Delta m_{15}$ values. Given the somewhat unusual evolution in the $U - B$ (a plateau phase) and $B - V$ (an apparent deviation from the Lira-Phillips relation) colors, however, we caution that SN 2006X may have peculiar intrinsic colors, in which case it would be difficult to estimate the host-galaxy reddening toward SN 2006X. From the comparison of color curves discussed in §3.2, we find that SN 2006X has a color evolution similar to that of SN 2002bo in $B-V$ and $V - R,I,J,K$, and to that of SN 2002er in $B - V$ and $V - R,I$. The host-galaxy reddenings of SNe 2002bo and 2002er have been determined by different groups (Reindl et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2006; Jha et al. 2007) to be $E(B - V)_{host} = 0.40 \pm 0.04$ mag and $0.16 \pm 0.03$ mag, respectively. We remove both the Galactic and the host-galaxy reddening from SNe 2002bo and 2002er and create their intrinsic color curves, and then apply different amounts of color excesses to the colors of SN 2006X and find the best global fit to these intrinsic color curves. We limit the fit to data with $t \lesssim +40$ d since the $B - V$ color of SN 2006X shows an apparently distinct evolution at late times. This procedure yields the average color excesses $E(B - V) = 1.41 \pm 0.07$ mag, $E(V - R) = 0.61 \pm 0.05$ mag, $E(V - I) = 1.26 \pm 0.05$ mag, $E(V - J) = 1.76 \pm 0.09$ mag, and $E(V - K) = 1.95 \pm 0.09$ mag. Phillips et al. (1999) and Wang et al. (2005, 2006) proposed correlations between the light-curve width parameter $\Delta m_{15}$ and the intrinsic $B_{max} - V_{max}$ value (or $C_{max}$) or the $B - V$ color at 12 d after $B$ maximum \[$(B - V)_{12}$; or $\Delta C_{12}$\], which can extend to other optical colors and even to the $V$ minus near-$IR$ color (e.g., see Fig. 13 in Krisciunas et al. 2004). We use these two correlations to estimate the host-galaxy reddening of SN 2006X. Phillips et al. (1999) found that large reddening changes the observed $\Delta m_{15}$, with $\Delta m_{15}(B)_{true} \approx \Delta m_{15}(B)_{obs} + 0.1 E(B - V)_{true}$, where $\Delta m_{15}(B)_{true}$ and $\Delta m_{15}(B)_{obs}$ are the intrinsic and observed $\Delta m_{15}(B)$ values, respectively, and $E(B - V)_{true}$ is the total reddening toward the SN. Elias-Rosa et al. (2006) suggest that this relation works well for the high-reddening case of SN 2003cg. As we use $\Delta m_{15}(B)_{true}$ to infer the intrinsic $C_{max}$ and $\Delta C_{12}$, and derive the reddening toward SN 2006X, this is a loop process; we set $E(B - V)$ as a free parameter, and iterate the fitting process until a convergence is achieved. The color excesses derived from these two methods are consistent with each other within the uncertainties, and they are summarized in Table 8. The weighted average value of $E(B - V)$ is $1.42 \pm 0.04$ mag, indicating that SN 2006X suffers heavy host-galaxy reddening. Another independent way to estimate the reddening toward SN 2006X is to measure the equivalent width (EW) of the interstellar Na I D doublet, which is proposed to correlate with the amount of line-of-sight dust (Barbon 1990; Munari & Zwitter 1997). Due to the line blending and the low resolution, we only use the spectra at days +13, +68, and +75 to estimate the EW of Na I D. This yields an average EW $\approx$ 1.7 Å for SN 2006X (but see Patat et al. 2007 for measurements of high-resolution spectra and the possible variation of the Na I D EW). Using the prescription of Barbon (1990), $E(B - V) = 0.25 \times$ EW (Na I D), we derive a reddening of $E(B-V) \approx 0.43$ mag toward SN 2006X. However, the prescription by Munari & Zwitter (1997), with $E(B - V) = 0.36 \times$ EW (Na I D), suggests a larger reddening of $E(B - V) \approx 0.61$ mag. Both determinations are significantly smaller than that derived from the photometric method. Due to the large uncertainty in the correlation between the EW of the Na I D interstellar absorption and the reddening, we adopt the reddening derived from the photometric method in the following analysis. The Extinction Coefficient $R_{V}$ ---------------------------------- Assuming that the dust surrounding SN 2006X conforms with the extinction law proposed by Cardelli et al. (1989), we can set constraints on the value of $R_{V}$. Cardelli et al. provide an analytic expression for the average extinction law, $A_{\lambda}/A_{V} = a_{\lambda} + b_{\lambda}/R_{V}$ (where $a_{\lambda}$ and $b_{\lambda}$ are wavelength-dependent parameters), which well reproduce the average extinction curve of the Galaxy with $R_{V} = 3.1$. The value of $R_{V}$ for SN 2006X can be obtained by simultaneously matching different color excesses derived in §3.3 using our adopted $E(B - V)$ of $1.42 \pm 0.04$ mag. Figure 11 shows that the best fit to the mean color excesses ($UBVRIJK$ minus $V$) is achieved with $R_{V} = 1.48 \pm 0.06$, which is much smaller than the standard value of 3.1. This gives a host-galaxy visual extinction $A_{V}$(host) = 2.10 mag for SN 2006X. Excluding the color excesses derived from the near-IR bands in the fit yields the optimal $R_{V}$ = 1.58$\pm$0.15 and $A_{V}$(host) = 2.24 mag. Allowing the best fit $E(B - V)_{host}$ to vary marginally alters these results. Fitting the color excesses of SN 2006X using the standard extinction law ($R_{V} = 3.1$) yields a reduced $\chi^{2}$ of 284.9 and 21.4 for the $UBVRIJK$ and the $UBVRI$ colors, respectively. This indicates that the dust surrounding SN 2006X is quite different from that observed in the Galaxy, probably of a much smaller grain size than that of typical interstellar dust. Note that the derived $R_{V}$ value is just the average value; the true value may actually show small variance with supernova phase. For comparison, we also determined the host-galaxy reddening of SN 2006X using the MLCS2k2 method (Jha et al. 2007), which gives $A_{V}$(host) = 2.21 mag and $R_{V} = 1.58$, quite consistent with our determinations with the optical colors. Besides SN 2006X, we note that other heavily extinguished SNe Ia also tend to suffer reddening by abnormal dust. In Table 9 we list the color excesses and $R_{V}$ derived for several SNe Ia with $E(B - V)_{host} \gtrsim 0.50$ mag published in the literature. While the $R_{V}$ values of SNe 1995E and 2000ce are within $2\sigma$ of 3.1 given their relatively large error bars, the $R_{V}$ values of the other SNe are considerably smaller than 3.1. It is interesting to investigate whether the low $R_{V}$ derived for these highly extinguished SNe Ia is universal for all SNe Ia or an exception for a few events. Wang et al. (2006) derived an average $R_{V} = 2.32 \pm 0.12$ for Hubble-flow SNe Ia. In the MLCS2k2 method, an $R_{V}$ value lower than 3.1 is often required to fit heavily reddened SNe Ia. More SNe Ia with well-observed multicolor light curves will help diagnose the properties of the dust surrounding SNe Ia. We note that although the infrared light curves themselves suffer little from the dust absorption, their color differences depend more sensitively on the ratio $R_{\lambda}$ than the optical colors (as indicated by the difference between the two curves with different $R_{V}$ in Fig. 11), so they are particularly suitable for studying the $R_{V}$ of SNe Ia. Optical Spectra =============== Twelve optical spectra of SN 2006X obtained at BAO and Lick Observatory, spanning $t = -0.9$ to +97.8 d, are displayed in Figure 12. Two late-epoch Keck spectra, taken at days +277.0 and +307.0, are also shown in the plot. The spectral evolution generally follows that of a typical SN Ia near maximum brightness, but with more pronounced absorption features at 3700 Å due to Ca II H&K, 6020 Å due to Si II $\lambda$6355, and 8100 Å due to the Ca II near-IR triplet. Other features at early times include the S II lines near 5400 Å and the blended lines of Fe II and Si II near 4500 Å. Unlike a normal SN Ia, however, the overall continuum of SN 2006X appears quite flat within the first 2 weeks after $B$ maximum because of its high reddening. We discuss the detailed spectral evolution of SN 2006X in the following sections. Spectroscopic Evolution at Early Times -------------------------------------- In Figures 13–15, we compare the spectra of SN 2006X with those of SNe 1984A (Barbon et al. 1989), 1994D (Filippenko 1997), 2002bo (Benetti et al. 2004), 2002er, and 2003cg (ER06) at several epochs ($t \approx 0$ d, one week, and one month past $B$ maximum). The spectra of SN 2002er are taken from our unpublished spectral library. All of the spectra have been corrected for reddening and redshift. For SN 2006X, $E(B - V)_{host} = 1.42$ mag and $R_{V} = 1.48$ are used, while $E(B - V)_{host} = 1.33$ mag and $R_{V} = 1.8$ are used for SN 2003cg (ER06). For the other SNe, the host galaxy reddening is taken from the literature (e.g., Reindl et al 2005, Wang et al. 2006, and Jha et al. 2007) and extinctions are corrected using the standard extinction law with $R_{V} = 3.1$. The line identifications adopted here are taken from Branch et al. (2005, 2006). At $t \approx 0$ d, the spectra of SN 2006X are characterized by lines of the singly ionized intermediate-mass elements (IMEs): Ca II, Si II, and Mg II (Fig. 13). The width and strength of these lines are comparable to those seen in SNe 1984A and 2002bo, but significantly stronger than those of SNe 1994D, 2002er, and 2003cg. The absorption minima due to Si II $\lambda$6355 is highly blueshifted to $\sim$ 6020 Å around maximum light, suggesting a high photospheric expansion velocity for SN 2006X. The strong Ca II H&K feature, blended with Si II $\lambda$3858, is more similar to that of SNe 2002bo and 2002er than to the double-dipped feature seen in SNe 1994D and 2003cg. The presence or absence of such a double-dipped feature is probably related to the relative strength of Ca II and Si II as suggested by Lentz et al. (2000). In the 4000$-$4500 Å wavelength range, SNe 2006X, 1984A, and 2002bo share a similar feature with a strong absorption at around 4300 Å, probably owing to a blend of Mg II $\lambda$4481 and Fe III $\lambda$4404. The weak feature at $\sim$4400 Å as seen in SNe 1994D, 2002er, and 2003cg is probably due to the Si III $\lambda\lambda$4553, 4568 blend, which is more sensitive to the temperature in the photosphere. Its absence in the spectra of SNe 2006X, 2002bo, and 1984A suggests a cool temperature. The double S II lines at 5400 Å and 5600 Å (the “W”-shaped feature) in SN 2006X are similar to those in the comparison SNe, but are less pronounced. The Si II $\lambda$5972 absorption feature in SN 2006X is very weak, and its strength is difficult to measure. Nevertheless, we measured the potential luminosity indicator parameter R(Si II) (defined as the line strength ratio of Si II $\lambda$5972 to Si II $\lambda$6355; Nugent et al. 1995) as $0.12 \pm 0.06$ for SN 2006X, which is much lower than in the other SNe Ia having similar values of $\Delta m_{15}$ (Fig.3 of Benetti et al 2005). At $t \approx 1$ week (Fig. 14), the spectra of all the SNe Ia are still dominated by the Si II, Ca II, and S II lines with increasing contribution from the iron-group elements. The W-shaped S II lines have almost vanished in SNe 2006X and 1984A, and appears as an asymmetric absorption trough in SN 2002bo. The absorption at around 4400 Å is probably due to a blend of Fe III $\lambda$4404, Fe II $\lambda$4555, and Mg II $\lambda$4481, and appears at a higher expansion velocity (shorter wavelength) in SNe 2002bo, 1984A, and 2006X than in the other SNe Ia. The Fe II and Si II features in the range 4700–5000 Å show less substructure in SNe 2006X, 2002bo, and 1984A, while their Si II $\lambda$5051 line becomes apparently weaker than that of the other comparison SNe Ia. This probably relates to the high expansion velocity which may smear out the weaker features, or it suggests faster evolution of the S and Si in the high-velocity SNe Ia. By $t \approx 1$ week the O I $\lambda$7773 line strengthens in other SNe Ia but is still rather weak in SN 2006X. At $t \approx 1$ month (Fig. 15), numerous Fe II lines appear in the spectra of SNe Ia. The Na I D and Si II $\lambda$5972 blend is progressively stronger. The Si II $\lambda$6355 trough becomes severely affected by the Fe II $\lambda\lambda$6238, 6248 and Fe II $\lambda\lambda$6456, 6518 lines, and is barely visible in SN 2006X and SN 1984A, but is still present in the spectra of the other comparison SNe (see the small dip around 6150Å in Fig.15 ). The Ca II near-IR triplet feature is stronger, and appears at a higher expansion velocity in SNe 2002bo and 2006X than in the other SNe Ia. The O I line is comparable to that seen in other SNe Ia. It is impressive that the overall appearance and evolution of the spectra of SN 2006X are extremely similar to those of SN 1984A and SN 2002bo at all three epochs (although the spectra of SN 1984A have a limited spectral range). Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that by $t \approx 1$ month the spectral flux at $\lambda$ $<$ 4000 Åappears relatively higher than that of the comparison SNe Ia, although the spectrum at this region had a poorer signal-to-noise ratio. The higher spectral flux below $\lambda$ $\sim$ 4000Åseems to be also consistent with the bluer $U - B$ color inferred from the photometry at similar phase. The spectrum near maximum light does not show such a near-UV energy excess. It is unclear when this variation started to occur in SN 2006X, as our spectra taken during the first month past maximum light did not cover the near-UV wavelengths. Expansion Velocity of the Ejecta -------------------------------- As the photosphere recedes into deeper and more slowly moving ejecta, the P-Cygni absorption minima of the spectral features in a SN Ia spectrum gradually shifts redward with time (see also Fig.12). Thus the location of the blueshifted minima can in principle trace the photospheric velocity. Indeed, the photospheric velocity ($v_{exp}$) is best measured by the weakest lines, e.g. S II $\lambda$ 5640 (Jeffery & Branch 1990, Mazzali et al. 1993, Patat et al. 1996), although it is usually difficult to measure these weak lines due to blending. The velocities inferred from the strong lines (e.g., Si II $\lambda$6355) represent approximately the $v_{exp}$ at early phase when the amount of the material above the photosphere is small, but they may not properly indicate of the real $v_{exp}$ as the photosphere falls in the regions where the strong lines could form over a large velocity range due to a flatter density gradient. On account of rather weak S II lines after maximum in SN 2006X, we only examined the velocity evolution of Si II $\lambda$6355 and the Fe II/Fe III lines. The derived $v_{exp}$ values from Si II $\lambda$6355 of SN 2006X as a function of time are shown in Figure 16, together with those of the comparison SNe Ia. The $v_{exp}$ reported for an early-epoch spectrum, taken on 8.35 February (corresponding to $t \approx -11.3$ d) by Quimby, Brown, & Gerardy (2006), is also included in the plot (shown as the open star). All velocities have been corrected for the redshifts of their respective host galaxies. As can be seen, SN 2006X shows the highest expansion velocities among all SNe in the comparison, with $v_{exp}$ = 20,700 km s$^{-1}$ at $t= -11.3$ d and $v_{exp}$ = 15,700 km s$^{-1}$ at $t= -1.2$ d, while the typical value for most SNe Ia is around 11,000 km s$^{-1}$ at maximum brightness (Filippenko 1997; see also Figure 1 in Benetti et al. 2005). The $v_{exp}$ measured from Ca II H&K and S II $\lambda$5640 near maximum are about 20,500 km s$^{-1}$ and 11,800 km s$^{-1}$, respectively, which are also significantly higher than those measured for the other SNe Ia. SN 1984A and SN 2002bo showed similar, but less pronounced, high-velocity features of the IMEs (Si II, S II, and Ca II). Following Benetti et al. (2005), we calculate the velocity gradient $\dot{v}$ of Si II $\lambda$6355 for SN 2006X during the period from $t \approx 0$ to $t \approx 30$ d as $123 \pm 10$ km s$^{-1}$ d$^{-1}$, which puts SN 2006X in the group of normal SNe Ia with high velocity gradients (HVGs). Other SNe Ia in the HVG group include SNe 1984A and 2002bo discussed in this paper, SNe 1983G, 1989A, 1997bp, and 2002dj (Benetti et al. 2005), and 2004dt (Wang L et al. 2006b). The Fe II and Fe III lines are sometimes used to measure the expansion velocities of the inner ejecta of Fe, providing additional clues to the nature of SN Ia explosions (e.g., Li et al. 2001). The values of $v_{exp}$ determined from Fe II $\lambda$4555 and/or Fe III $\lambda$4404 lines of different SNe Ia are plotted in Figure 17. At early phases the high-excitation Fe III $\lambda$4404 line is possibly contaminated by Mg II $\lambda$4481 and hence may not give a reliable measurement of the $v_{exp}$. By $t \approx$ 2–3 weeks, the Fe II $\lambda$4555 line becomes stronger and gradually dominates the absorption feature near 4300–4400 Å. This absorption feature yields $v_{exp} \approx$ 10,000 km s$^{-1}$ for SN 2006X at $t \approx 1$ month, which is about 3000 km s$^{-1}$ higher than that for SNe 1989B and 1994D and comparable to that for SN 2000cx (Li et al. 2001). Likewise, the Fe II lines of SNe 1984A and 2002bo display high-velocity behavior. As with Si II $\lambda$6355, the Fe II feature in these high-velocity events shows more rapid evolution, with larger velocity gradients than in other comparison SNe Ia. The values of $v_{exp}$ become much closer to each other when SNe Ia start entering the nebular phase. The origin of the high-velocity features seen in these SNe Ia is hotly debated. Lentz et al. (2000) find that the strength, profile, and velocity of Si II $\lambda$6355 is a function of metallicity. The blueward shift of the Si II feature is found to increase with higher metallicity. However, Benetti et al. (2004) found that increasing the normal metallicity in the C+O layer by a factor of 10 in the canonical deflagration model W7 is not adequate for explaining the large $v_{exp}$ seen in SN 2002bo. It was also proposed that the high $v_{exp}$ in these SNe Ia may result from delayed-detonation explosions with the transition density from a deflagration to a detonation as the controlling parameter for the internal dispersion of $v_{exp}$ (Lentz et al. 2001; Benetti et al. 2004). With detailed non-LTE calculations, Lentz et al. (2001) find that some delayed-detonation models provide reasonable approximations to the very high-velocity feature of SN 1984A. The increase in density of IMEs at higher velocities is thus responsible for the larger blueshifts of the line minimum in the spectra and hence the higher measured expansion velocities. Spectra in the Nebular Phase ---------------------------- Since the $B$-band and probably $V$-band light curves of SN 2006X declined more slowly at late times than those of the other comparison SNe Ia, it is necessary to examine its late-time spectral behavior in detail. Our collection of nebular-phase spectra of SN 2006X is presented in Figures 18 and 19, together with the spectra of some comparison SNe Ia at similar epochs. Proper corrections for the reddening and redshift have been applied to all the spectra. In the early nebular phase, at $t \approx 3$ months, the spectra in Figure 18 are quite similar to each other but have subtle differences. The spectra are dominated by various iron lines and have similar relative strengths. The Ca II near-IR triplet is still the strongest feature in the earlier nebular spectra. Although the late-time spectra of SN 2006X are rather noisy, they do show a relatively higher flux at $\lambda < 5000$ Å, and an overall bluer continuum than the comparison SNe. The most contrast is with SN 2002bo, in which the relative luminosity in $U$ seems to be fainter than that of SN 2006X by about 1.0 mag. The near-UV excess of SN 2006X might have also occurred in the spectrum at $t \approx 30$ d since $B$ maximum (see Fig. 15). This is consistent with the bluer $U - B$ and $B - V$ colors of SN 2006X compared with the other SNe (Fig. 9). Two very late-phase nebular spectra, obtained with the Keck 10 m telescopes at days +277.0 and +307.0, are shown in Fig. 19. The comparison spectra of SNe 1996X and 1998bu are from the Suspect online supernova spectrum archive (contributed by Salvo et al. 2001 and Jha et al. 1999; see http://bruford.nhn.ou.edu/$\sim$suspect), and the spectra of SN 2003du are from Stanishev et al. (2007). The spectra at this time are dominated by forbidden lines of singly and doubly ionized Fe and Co. The overall shape of the spectrum of SN 2006X looks similar to that of SN 1998bu, but the profiles and intensities of some features do show significant differences. The most pronounced one is the absorption feature at about 6100 Å, which is stronger in SN 2006X than in the other SNe Ia in our comparison. Other discrepancies include the absorption features near 4200 Å and 4500 Å, which are prominent in SNe 1996X, 1998bu, and 2003du but are marginally visible in SN 2006X. We note that both SN 2006X and SN 1998bu show relatively higher flux below 4500 Åat this phase. The extra flux for SN 1998bu could be caused by a light echo (Cappellaro et al. 2001; Spyromilio et al. 2004), which primarily contributes to the spectrum in the blue. A possible explanation for the abnormal behavior of the nebular-phase spectra and light curves of SN 2006X in the blue is the presence of a light echo. As this supernova is found to suffer significant extinction, it may have occurred in an environment that is abundant with dust, so the occurrence of a light echo is potentially expected. Some of the observable effects of a light echo around a SN Ia include a bluer late-time color, broader spectral lines, and a brighter tail luminosity (Patat 2006), all of which agree with the observations of SN 2006X. The unidentified, prominent feature at $\sim$6100 Å seen in the spectrum at day +307 could be reminiscent of the earlier-epoch Si II $\lambda$6355, reflected by the surrounding dust. Analysis of the light echo in SN 2006X is given in a separate paper (Wang et al. 2007), in which evidence from the late-time $HST$ image and spectrum is presented. In particular, the PSF-subtracted HST image distinctly reveals prominent echo structure at $\sim 0.05''- 0.13''$ away from the SN. The echo emission might exist at $<$ 0.05” from the SN site (at $\sim$ 2-$\sigma$ level), as suggested by that the echo inferred from the spectrum is brighter than that resolved in the HST images. However, the exact location of the possible local echo is unknown due to the limitation of the image resolution. With the Cepheid distance to M100 $\sim$15.2 Mpc, the materials illuminated by the resolved LE are found to lie at $\sim$ 27 pc $-$ 170 pc from the SN, and it is not clear whether they were produced from a distinct dust component, e.g. the local circumstellar dust, or from a continuous dust distribution as with the outer echo component. The Distance and Luminosity of SN 2006X ======================================= The host galaxy of SN 2006X, NGC 4321 (M100), is a well-studied LINER/H II galaxy (e.g., Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent 1997). As one of the largest spiral galaxies in the Virgo cluster, it produced SNe 1901B, 1914A, 1959E, 1979C, and 2006X in roughly the last century. Ferarrese et al. (1997) reported a Cepheid distance to NGC 4321 of $m-M = 31.04 \pm 0.17$ mag. A distance of $m-M = 30.91 \pm 0.14$ mag was published by the [HST]{} Key Project (Freedman et al. 2001), which we adopt here in our analysis. Absolute Magnitudes and $H_{0}$ ------------------------------- With the Cepheid distance and the reddening derived in the previous sections, it is straightforward to calculate the absolute magnitudes of SN 2006X. After correcting for the Galactic reddening of $E(B - V)_{Gal} = 0.026$ mag with $R_{V} = 3.1$ and the host-galaxy reddening of $E(B - V)_{host} = 1.42 \pm 0.04$ mag with $R_{V} = 1.48 \pm 0.06$, we derive the $B$-band and $V$-band absolute magnitudes to be $-19.10 \pm 0.20$ and $-19.06 \pm 0.17$ mag, respectively. The magnitudes in other bands are listed in Table 10. To compare with other SNe Ia, we need to normalize the derived absolute magnitudes of SN 2006X to a nominal light-curve shape, or $\Delta m_{15}$ value. Phillips et al. (1993) proposed a relation between $\Delta m_{15}$ and the peak luminosity of SNe Ia, and there are now several different versions available in the literature (e.g., Hamuy et al. 1996; Phillips et al. 1999; Altavilla et al. 2004). Based on a large sample of SNe Ia, Prieto et al. (2006) updated the $M_{max} - \Delta m_{15}$ relation (see their Table 3), which we adopt to normalize the luminosity of SN 2006X. An alternative luminosity correction method was proposed by Wang et al. (2005), who introduced a post-maximum color parameter $\Delta C_{12}$ which correlates well with the maximum luminosity of SNe Ia. The relevant correction coefficients are taken from Table 3 in Wang et al. (2006). The normalized luminosities (to $\Delta m_{15} = 1.1$ mag) of SN 2006X from the two methods are consistent with each other, and are listed in Table 10. The normalized luminosity of SN 2006X is consistent with those of the fiducial SN Ia in the $U$, $B$, $V$, and $R$ bands, while it is fainter by $\sim$0.2–0.3 mag in the $I$, $J$, and $K$ bands. This may be partly due to the more pronounced spectral features in the red, such as the broader and deeper absorption trough of the Ca II near-IR triplet in SN 2006X than in other SNe Ia, as discussed in §4.1. The measured luminosities for SN 2006X from the Cepheid distance to its host galaxy allow us to determine the Hubble constant via the formula $H_{0} = 10^{0.2(M+25-\alpha)}$, where $M$ is the absolute magnitude of SN 2006X and $\alpha$ is the zero point defined by Hubble-flow SNe Ia. Using the normalized luminosities calibrated from the $\Delta C_{12}$ method and the zero point determined by Wang et al. (2006) from 73 Hubble-flow SNe Ia, we derive a Hubble constant (in units of km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$) of 71.1, 73.5, 73.8, 83.9 from the $U$, $B$, $V$, and $I$ bands, respectively. Excluding the large value obtained with the peculiar $I$-band data, the average value of $H_{0}$ derived from SN 2006X is $72.8 \pm 8.2$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (statistical), which is consistent with the estimates from other Cepheid-calibrated SNe Ia (Jha et al. 1999; Riess et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2006). The statistical error quoted here consists of the uncertainty in the extinction correction and the intrinsic luminosity dispersion of SNe Ia. An analysis of the uncertainty associated with the Cepheid distances is important but is beyond the scope of this paper. Bolometric Light Curve and Nickel Mass -------------------------------------- To better understand the overall properties of SN 2006X, we constructed its quasi-bolometric light curve using our $UBVRIJK$ photometry. For this calculation, we used the normalized passband transmission curves given by Bessell (1990). The integrated flux in each band was approximated by the mean flux multiplied by the effective width of the passband. As we did not get any ultraviolet (below 3200Å) data in SN 2006X, we corrected for the contribution of $UV$ flux in our calculation using the recipe given by Suntzeff (1996). Following the procedure in Contardo et al. (2000), we inferred the corrections for the passbands missing between $U$ and $I$ from those SNe Ia which have good observations in all the filters. For the flux beyond $I$ band, we used our own $JK$ data[^5] up to $\sim$ 80 days and then applied the Suntzeff $IR$ correction. The resulting quasi-bolometric light curve of SN 2006X is shown in Figure 20, together with those of the comparison SNe Ia. The reddening-corrected quasi-bolometric luminosity of SN 2006X is ($1.02 \pm 0.10) \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at maximum brightness, comparable to that of most comparison SNe Ia but slightly fainter than SN 1998bu. Differences in the peak luminosity are often considered to be caused by variations in the amount of $^{56}$Ni synthesized during the explosion. The “bump” feature at $t = 20$–32 d is more prominent in SN 2006X than in other comparison SNe. This is caused by the more pronounced shoulder and “second maximum” seen in the $R$, $I$, and near-IR bands in SN 2006X. We also note that the contrast between the peak and tail luminosities of SN 2006X is the smallest among the SNe in the comparison: it has a peak luminosity in the middle of the group, but the highest tail luminosity. Efficiency of the trapping of the gamma rays and the positrons from $^{56}$Co decay (Milne et al. 2001), and small-scale light echoes or ejecta-CSM interaction, may account for this difference. The radioactive $^{56}$Ni synthesized during a SN Ia explosion is the primary physical parameter determining the peak luminosity, the light curve width, and the spectrosocpic/color evolution of the event (e.g., Kasen et al. 2006). One method to estimate the synthesized $^{56}$Ni mass is by assuming that the luminosity at maximum equals the instantaneous energy deposition rate from the radioactive decay, the so-called “Arnett law” (Arnett 1982; Arnett et al. 1985; Branch 1992). Following Stritzinger & Leibundgut (2005), the maximum luminosity produced by the radioactive $^{56}$Ni can be written as $$L_{\rm max} = (6.45e^{\frac{-t_{r}}{8.8}} + 1.45e^{\frac{-t_{r}}{111.3}})(\frac{M_{\rm Ni}}{M_{\odot}})\times 10^{43} \,\rm{erg\ s^{-1}}.$$ where $t_{r}$ is the rise time of the light curve (e.g., the time spent by the SN from the explosion to the $B$-band maximum), and $M_{Ni}$ is the $^{56}$Ni mass (in unit of the solar mass $M_{\odot}$). Assuming that the luminosity of a SN Ia evolves as an expanding fireball at very early phase (Goldhaber 1998), the rise time $t_{r}$ can be derived from the relation (Riess et al. 1999) : $$L(t) = \varepsilon (t + t_{r})^{2}.$$ where $t$ is the elapsed time since maximum and $\varepsilon$ is the parameter describing the rising rate of the luminosity. Using very early photometric data in the $R$ band (including the earliest unfiltered data from IAU Circ. 8667), we derive the rise time to the $B$ maximum as 18.2$\pm$0.9 d. This is slightly shorter than the average rise time of 19.5$\pm$0.2 d for a normal SN Ia with $\Delta m_{15}$ = 1.1 mag (Riess et al. 1999, but see Strovink 2007 for the study of a possible dichotomy of the rise time in SNe Ia), but is consistent with that derived for SN 2002bo ($t_{r}$ = 17.9$\pm$0.5 d; Benetti et al. 2004) and SN 2005cf ($t_{r}$ = 18.6$\pm$0.4 d; Pastorello et al. 2007). With the peak quasi-bolometric luminosity and the rise time derived for SN 2006X, we derive a $^{56}$Ni mass of $0.50 \pm 0.05$ M$_{\odot}$. This is within the reasonable range of $^{56}$Ni masses of normal SNe Ia. The quoted error bar includes uncertainties in the rise time and bolometric luminosity. Table 11 lists all the important parameters derived for SN 2006X in the previous sections as well as the parameters relevant to its host galaxy M100. Discussion and Conclusions ========================== In this paper we present extensive optical and near-IR photometry, as well as optical spectroscopy, of the nearby SN Ia 2006X in NGC 4321 (M100). Our observations indicate that SN 2006X is a highly reddened object with an $R_V$ value much smaller than the canonical 3.1 for average Galactic dust, and has the highest expansion velocity ever published for a SN Ia. Compared with other SNe Ia included in this paper, SN 2006X has a broader light curve in the $U$ band, a more prominent “bump” feature in the $V$ band, a more pronounced shoulder in the $R$ band, and a brighter second maximum in the $IJK$ bands. Relative to the peak brightness, SN 2006X has a higher luminosity in the $UBVRIJK$ light curves during the nebular phase than other comparison SNe Ia. The $B$-band decline rate at late times, $\beta = 0.92 \pm 0.05$ mag (100 d)$^{-1}$, is much smaller than that of most normal SNe Ia. We note that other SNe Ia with high expansion velocities, such as SNe 1984A and 2002bo, also exhibit relatively small late-time decline rates. Thus, slow late-time decline in the blue bands may be common for rapidly expanding SNe Ia. The most notable features in the color curves of SN 2006X are a plateau in the $U - B$ color after $B$ maximum, and an obvious deviation from the Lira-Phillips relation at $t = 30$ to 90 d. After SN 2006X reached its reddest color in $B - V$ at $t \approx 30$ d, it became progressively bluer at a much faster pace than expected from the Lira-Phillips relation. We thus suggest that the Lira-Phillips relation should be applied with caution to any individual SN Ia. We use a global color curve fitting method and the empirical relations between $\Delta m_{15}$, the peak colors $C_{max}$, and the post-maximum color $\Delta C_{12}$ to determine the reddening and extinction of SN 2006X. This yields an average estimate of the host-galaxy reddening for SN 2006X, $E(B - V)_{host} = 1.42 \pm 0.04$ mag. Assuming the absorption by dust follows the analytical model proposed by Cardelli et al. (1989), we obtain $R_{V} = 1.48 \pm 0.06$. The low $R_{V}$ value suggests that the dust around SN 2006X is quite different from that observed in the Milky Way Galaxy, perhaps of a different origin than normal ISM dust. This is also demonstrated by the relatively smaller EW of the interstellar Na I D absorption in the spectra. Further evidence against conventional interstellar dust for SN 2006X is that the polarized spectrum of SN 2006X is significantly different from that of extinguished Galactic stars (Wang L et al. 2006c). It is worth pointing out that most highly reddened known SNe Ia, with $E(B - V)_{host} > 0.5$ mag, tend to have $R_{V}$ values smaller than 3.1. This suggests that the dust affecting some SNe Ia may be quite different from that observed in the Galaxy. We caution, however, that SN 2006X may have a peculiar (unknown) intrinsic color evolution, as suggested by the deviation from the Lira-Phillips relation in the $B - V$ color. If so, it would be difficult to estimate the host-galaxy reddening toward SN 2006X and to study its photometric properties. Spectra of SN 2006X reveal high expansion velocities, based on the IMEs and the iron-group elements. SN 2006X evolves in a manner similar to that of other rapidly expanding events such as SNe 1984A and 2002bo. At early times, these high-$v_{exp}$ objects have much stronger Si II $\lambda$6355, Ca II H&K, and Ca II near-IR triplet lines than other SNe Ia. At late times, spectra of SN 2006X show a relatively bluer overall continuum, especially at $\lambda < 4500$ Å, than the comparison SNe. This is consistent with the bluer $U - B$ and $B - V$ colors of SN 2006X than the other SNe Ia at similar epochs, and suggests an additional input of energy, probably a light echo. To explain the high-velocity features of some SNe Ia, Benetti et al. (2004) proposed a scenario in which the burning to IMEs extends farther out into the outermost layers than in normal SNe Ia. This model produces the IMEs at higher velocities, but with no additional $^{56}$Ni production, which provides a plausible explanation for most of the spectral features seen in SN 2006X. The above scenario should account not only for the high-velocity feature of the IMEs, but also for that of the iron-group elements at earlier phases of SN evolution. On the other hand, we propose that SN 2006X may be produced in a progenitor environment having abundant CSM. In this scenario, the high-velocity features shown in the spectra are formed due to the density increase caused by interaction between the supernova ejecta and the surrounding material of the progenitor system, which could be an accretion disk, a filled Roche lobe, or a common envelope (Gerardy et al. 2004). The CSM dust, quite possibly associated with the CSM produced by the progenitor system (Patat et al. 2007), may be the source of a local light echo that could account for the late-time extra energy (beyond radioactive decay) seen at short wavelengths. SN 2006X-like events may actually represent a subclass of SNe Ia with distinct features of spectroscopy, photometry, polarization and even extinction, and the presence of significant CSM dust may be one of the possible explanations (Wang et al. 2007 in preparations). There is also possibility that the detection of CSM in SN 2006X is just tied to the particular viewing angle. Obviously, much further research, both observational and theoretical, is needed on this problem. Some of the data presented here were obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation. We thank the BAO, Keck, and Lick Observatory staffs for their assistance with the observations. This research was supported by NSF grant AST–0607485, the TABASGO Foundation, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC grant 10673007) and the Basic Research Funding at Tsinghua University (JCqn2005036). KAIT was made possible by generous donations from Sun Microsystems, Inc., the Hewlett-Packard Company, AutoScope Corporation, Lick Observatory, the University of California, and the Sylvia & Jim Katzman Foundation. The CTIO 1.3 m telescope is operated by the Smart and Moderate Aperture Research Telescope System (SMARTS) Consortium. We are particularly grateful for the scheduling flexibility of SMARTS. A.V.F. thanks the Aspen Center for Physics, where he participated in the workshop on “Supernovae as Cosmological Distance Indicators” while this paper was nearing completion. We made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA. Altavilla, G., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1344 Arnett, W. D., 1982, , 253, 785 Arnett, W. D., Branch D., & Wheeler J. C., 1985, Nature, 314, 337 Astier, P., et al. 2006, , 447, 31 Barbon, B., Rosino L., & Iijima, T. 1989, , 220, 83 Barbon, B., Benetti, S., Cappellaro, E., Rosino, L., Turrato, M. 1990, , 237, 79 Benetti, S., et al. 2005, , 623, 1011 Bessell, M. S. 1990, , 102, 1181 Branch D., et al. 2005, , 117, 545 Branch D., et al. 2006, , 118, 560 Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, , 345, 245 Cappellaro, E., et al. 2001, , 549, L215 Cousin, A. W. J. 1981, South African Astron. Obs. Circ. 6, 4 Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2005, , 633, 560 Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2006, , 369, 1880 Elmhamdi, A., Chugai, N. N., & Danziger, I. J. 2003, , 404, 1077 Ferarrese, L., et al. 1997, , 475, 853 Filippenko, A. V. 1982, , 94, 715 Filippenko, A. V. 1997, , 35, 309 Filippenko, A. V. 2005, in White Dwarfs: Cosmological and Galactic Probes, ed. E. M. Sion, S. Vennes, & H. L. Shipman (Dordrecht: Springer), 97 Filippenko, A. V., Li, W., Treffers, R. R., & Modjaz, M. 2001, in Small Telescope Astronomy on Global Scales, ed. B. Paczyński, W.-P. Chen, & C. Lemme (San Francisco: ASP), p. 121 Foley, R. J., et al. 2003, , 115, 1220 Freedman, W. L., et al. 2001, , 553, 47 Gerardy, C., et al. 2004, , 607, 391 Goldhaber, G. 1998, BAAS, 193, 47.13 Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N.B., Schommer, R.A., Maza, J., & Aviles, R. 1996, , 112, 2398 Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJS, 112, 315 Iben I. Jr., & Tutukov A. 1984, , 55, 335 Jeffery, D. J., & Branch, D. 1990 in Supernovae, Jerusalem Winter School for Theoretical Physics, ed. Wheeler J. C., Piran T., & Weinberg, S. (Singapore: World Scientific), p149 Jha, S., et al. 1999, , 125, 73 Jha, S., Riess A. G., & Kirshner, R. P. 2007, , 659, 122 Johnson, H. L., Iriarte, B., Mitchell, R. I., Wisniewskj, W. Z. 1966, Commun. Lunar Planet. Lab., 4, 99 Kasen, D. 2006, , 649, 939 Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2007, , 656, 661 Knop, R. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, 102 Krisciunas, K., Prieto, J. L., Garnavich, P. M., Riley, Jessica-Lynn, G., Rest, A., Stubbs, C., & McMillan, R. 2006, , 131, 1639 Krisciunas, K., et al. 2000, , 539, 658 Krisciunas, K., et al. 2003, , 125, 166 Krisciunas, K., et al. 2007, , 133, 58 Lentz, E. J., Baron, E., Branch, D., Hauschildt, P. H., & Nugent, P. E. 2000, , 530, 966 Lira, P. 1995, Masters thesis, University of Chile Li, W., et al. 2001, , 113, 1178 Mazzali, P. A., Lucy, L. B., Danziger, I. J., Couiffes C., Cappellaro, E., Turatto, M., 1993, , 269, 423 Milne, P. A., The, L. S., & Leising, M. D. 2001, , 559, 1019 Miller, J. S., & Stone, R. P. S. 1993, Lick Obs. Tech. Rep. No. 66 Nomoto, K.,Iwamoto, K., & Kishimoto, N. 1997, Science, 276, 1378 Nugent, P., et al. 1995, , 455, L147 Oke, J. B., et al. 1995, , 107, 375 Parodi, B. R., et al. 2000, , 540, 634 Pastorello, A., et al. 2007, , 376,1301 Patat, F., Benetti, S., Cappellaro, E., Danziger, I. J., Della Valle, M., Mazzali, P. A., & Turatto, M. 1996, , 278, 111 Patat, F. 2006, , 369, 1949 Patat F. 2007, Science, 317, 924 (P07) Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, , 517, 565 Persson, S. E., Murphy, D. C., Krzeminski, W., Roth, M., & Rieke, M. J. 1998, , 116, 2475 Phillips, M. M. 1993, , 413, L105 Phillips, M. M., et al. 1999, , 118, 1766 (P99) Pignata, G., et al. 2004, , 355, 178 Prieto, J. L., Rest, A., & Suntzeff, N. B. 2006, , 647, 501 Quimby, R., Brown, P., & Gerardy, C. 2006, CBET, 393 Reindl, B., Tammann, G. A., Sandage, A., & Saha, A. 2005, , 624, 532 Richmond, M. W., et al. 1995, , 109, 2121 Riess, A. G., Press, W. H., & Kirshner, R. P. 1996, , 473, 588 Riess, A. G., et al. 1998, , 116, 1009 Riess, A. G., et al. 2005, , 627, 579 Riess, A. G., et al. 2007, , 659, 98 Salvo M. E., et al. 2001, , 321, 254 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525 Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, , 148, 175 Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007, , 170, 377 Spyromilio, J., Gilmozzi, R., Sollerman, J., Leibundgut, B., Fransson, C., & Cuby, J. G. 2004, , 426,547 Stetson, P. B. 1987, , 99, 191 Stritzinger, M., et al. 2002, , 124, 2100 Stritzinger, M., & Leibundgut, B., 2005, , 431, 423 Srovink, M. 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/07050726) Suntzeff, N. B. 1996, in Supernova and Supernova Remnants, ed. R. McCray & Z. R. Wang (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), p. 41 Suzuki S., & Migliardi M. 2006, IAU Circ. 8667 Tripp, R. 1997, , 325, 871 Tonry, J. L., et al. 2003, , 594, 1 Wang, L. 2005, , 635, L33 Wang, L., et al. 2006a, , 641, 50 Wang, L., et al. 2006b, , 653, 490 Wang, L., Baade, D., Patat, F., & Wheeler, J. C. 2006c, CBET, 396 Wang, X., Wang, L., Zhou, X., Lou, Y., & Li, Z. 2005, , 620, L87 Wang, X., et al. 2006, , 645, 488 Wang, X., et al. 2007, , submitted. Webbink, R. F. 1984, , 277, 355 Wood-Vasey, W. M., et al. 2007, , in press (astro-ph/0701041) [lccccc]{} Telescopes& $U$ & $B$ & $V$ & $R$ & $I$\ TNT & 0.125$\pm$0.016 & $-$0.163$\pm$0.016 & 0.078$\pm$0.007 & 0.098$\pm$0.011 & $-$0.038$\pm$0.003\ KAIT & &$-$0.053$\pm$0.013 & 0.036$\pm$0.007 & 0.069$\pm$0.009 & $-$0.001$\pm$0.007\ CTIO 1.3 m& & 0.050$\pm$0.002 & $-$0.046$\pm$0.002 & $-$0.019$\pm$0.004 &$-$0.088$\pm$0.001\ [lccccccccc]{} Star & $\alpha$(J2000) & $\delta$(J2000) & $U$ & $B$ & $V$ & $R$ & $I$ & $J$ & $K$\ 1 &12$^h$23$^m$03.77$^s$&15$^\circ$47$'$31.6$''$&14.91(02)&14.758(007) & 14.123(003)& 13.759(005) & 13.393(006) & &\ 2 &12:23:10.68&15:44:39.3&17.20(15)&17.069(036) & 16.809(019) & 16.549(027) & 16.177(024) & &\ 3 &12:23:05.93&15:43:51.4&16.36(08)&16.613(022) & 16.082(010) & 15.746(014) & 15.385(012) & &\ 4 &12:22:48.29&15:43:24.9&&15.413(013)& 14.763(013) & 14.411(004) & 14.083(004) & &\ 5 &12:22:42.60&15:49:03.4&14.94(02)&14.753(011) & 14.100(013) & 13.746(014) & 13.404(010)& &\ 6 &12:22:50.09&15:50:47.9&16.51(09) & 16.323(014)&15.675(026)& 15.305(028) & 14.941(023)& &\ 7 &12:22:51.46&15:51:04.5&16.75(09)& 16.340(020) &15.458(021) & 14.945(008)&14.445(008) & &\ 8 &12:22:53.40&15:52:18.7&17.92(23) &16.380(010)&15.224(022) &14.425(018) &13.715(033)& &\ 9 &12:22:41.05&15:51:57.8&16.67(09) &16.665(008) &16.131(010)& 15.775(013) &15.430(005)& &\ 10 &12:22:53.98&15:48:40.9&&18.233(017) &17.053(012) &16.309(006) &15.613(014)&14.721(006)&13.925(009)\ [lccccccccl]{}\ 02/08/2006 & 3774.90 & $-$11.27 & & 17.111(0.023) & 15.679(0.019) & 14.832(0.019) & 14.745(0.020) &PSF & KAIT\ 02/08/2006 & 3775.33 & $-$10.84 & 17.576(0.048) & 17.005(0.018) & 15.566(0.014) & 14.721(0.013) & 14.489(0.017) &PSF &TNT\ 02/09/2006 & 3775.85 & $-$10.32 & & 16.701(0.020) & 15.421(0.019) & 14.574(0.015) & 14.416(0.021) &PSF & KAIT\ 02/09/2006 & 3776.19 & $-$9.98 & 17.449(0.153) & 16.626(0.019) & 15.320(0.014) & 14.476(0.013) & 14.318(0.017) &PSF & TNT\ 02/10/2006 & 3776.86 & $-$9.31 & & 16.484(0.021) & 15.146(0.020)& & &APER & CTI0 1.3m\ 02/10/2006 & 3776.96 & $-$9.21 & & 16.386(0.054) & 15.154(0.018)& 14.327(0.021) & 14.150(0.024) &PSF& KAIT\ 02/10/2006 & 3777.38 & $-$8.79 & 17.485(0.159) & 16.297(0.015) & 15.012(0.014)& 14.207(0.012) & 13.925(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 02/11/2006 & 3778.38 & $-$7.79 & 16.644(0.106) & 16.060(0.018) & 14.797(0.015)& 14.032(0.013) & 13.731(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 02/12/2006 & 3778.75 & $-$7.42 & & 15.994(0.019) & 14.813(0.018)& 14.043(0.014) & 13.781(0.022) &PSF& KAIT\ 02/13/2006 & 3779.80 & $-$6.37 & & 15.778(0.020) & 14.545(0.020)& & &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 02/13/2006 & 3780.39 & $-$5.78 & & 15.741(0.017) & 14.469(0.015)& 13.786(0.013) & 13.443(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 02/15/2006 & 3782.40 & $-$3.77 & & 15.633(0.041) & 14.343(0.017)& 13.660(0.013) & 13.300(0.019) &PSF& TNT\ 02/16/2006 & 3783.80 & $-$2.37 & & 15.389(0.020) & 14.166(0.020)& 13.619(0.015) & 13.298(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 02/17/2006 & 3784.27 & $-$1.90 & & 15.441(0.014) & 14.146(0.014)& 13.552(0.013) & &PSF & TNT\ 02/18/2006 & 3784.76 & $-$1.51 & & 15.406(0.020) & 14.178(0.020)& 13.586(0.015) & 13.297(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 02/18/2006 & 3785.25 & $-$0.92 & 16.256(0.034) & 15.431(0.015) & 14.094(0.014)& 13.521(0.013) & 13.283(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 02/19/2006 & 3786.19 & 0.02 & 16.143(0.029) & 15.407(0.014) & 14.059(0.014) &13.499(0.012) & 13.290(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 02/21/2006 & 3787.78 & 1.61 & & 15.418(0.028) & 14.070(0.023) &13.518(0.015) & 13.354(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 02/21/2006 & 3787.84 & 1.67 & & 15.466(0.015) & 14.068(0.017) &13.524(0.013) & 13.409(0.018) &PSF& KAIT\ 02/21/2006 & 3788.27 & 2.10 & 16.273(0.022) & 15.441(0.014) & 14.024(0.014) &13.477(0.012) & 13.323(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 02/22/2006 & 3788.82 & 2.65 & & 15.494(0.015) & 14.054(0.020) &13.513(0.014) & 13.412(0.022) &PSF& KAIT\ 02/22/2006 & 3789.25 & 3.08 & 16.333(0.024) & 15.499(0.014) & 14.013(0.014) &13.476(0.013) & 13.338(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 02/23/2006 & 3789.85 & 3.68 & & 15.553(0.015) & 14.063(0.017) &13.526(0.015) & 13.444(0.018) &PSF & KAIT\ 02/23/2006 & 3790.23 & 4.06 & 16.401(0.040) & 15.542(0.014) & 14.025(0.014) &13.507(0.012) & 13.376(0.016) &PSF & TNT\ 02/24/2006 & 3790.78 & 4.61 & & 15.585(0.032) & 14.111(0.020) &13.570(0.015) & 13.468(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 02/24/2006 & 3790.83 & 4.66 & & 15.618(0.015) & 14.062(0.014) &13.543(0.041) & 13.496(0.030) &PSF& KAIT\ 02/25/2006 & 3792.23 & 6.06 & 16.545(0.034) & 15.685(0.014) & 14.063(0.014) &13.579(0.012) & 13.461(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 02/26/2006 & 3793.23 & 7.06 & 16.594(0.083) & 15.771(0.016) & 14.085(0.014) &13.620(0.013) & 13.508(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 02/27/2006 & 3793.83 & 7.66 & & 15.805(0.020) & 14.126(0.018) &13.712(0.015) & 13.645(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 02/28/2006 & 3795.34 & 9.17 & 16.794(0.036) & 15.943(0.015) & 14.186(0.014) &13.784(0.012) & 13.643(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 03/02/2006 & 3797.39 & 11.22 & 17.003(0.049) & 16.136(0.015) & 14.335(0.014) &13.949(0.013) & 13.749(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 03/04/2006 & 3799.39 & 13.22 & 17.246(0.047) & 16.338(0.015) & 14.428(0.014) &14.040(0.013) & 13.757(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 03/05/2006 & 3799.74 & 13.57 & & 16.473(0.031) & 14.488(0.041) &14.048(0.015) & 13.938(0.023) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 03/05/2006 & 3800.32 & 14.15 & 17.379(0.079) & 16.462(0.016) & 14.516(0.014) &14.078(0.012) & 13.742(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 03/06/2006 & 3801.22 & 15.05 & 17.583(0.117) & 16.562(0.016) & 14.562(0.014) &14.083(0.012) & 13.729(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 03/07/2006 & 3802.23 & 16.06 & & 16.654(0.019) & 14.610(0.015) &14.082(0.013) & &PSF& TNT\ 03/08/2006 & 2802.73 & 16.56 & & 16.790(0.020) & 14.682(0.017) &14.103(0.015) & 13.864(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 03/09/2006 & 3803.22 & 17.05 & & 16.760(0.018) & 14.631(0.014) &14.084(0.013) & 13.661(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 03/11/2006 & 3806.16 & 19.99 & & 17.240(0.045) & 14.777(0.016) &14.096(0.013) & 13.603(0.017) &PSF & TNT\ 03/12/2006 & 3806.74 & 20.57 & & 17.303(0.030) & 14.899(0.020) &14.138(0.015) & 13.740(0.015) &APER & CTIO 1.3m\ 03/13/2006 & 3808.25 & 22.08 & & 17.243(0.095) & 14.821(0.017) & & 13.575(0.018) &PSF& TNT\ 03/15/2006 & 3810.31 & 24.14 & & 17.506(0.104) & 14.930(0.020) &14.135(0.015) & &PSF& TNT\ 03/16/2006 & 3810.70 & 24.53 & & 17.743(0.108) & 15.045(0.018) &14.200(0.015) & 13.650(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 03/18/2006 & 3813.23 & 27.06 & 18.959(0.343) & 17.697(0.024) & 15.120(0.014) &14.214(0.012) & 13.518(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 03/19/2006 & 3813.82 & 27.65 & & 17.729(0.042) & 15.221(0.017) &14.313(0.014) & 13.603(0.018) &PSF& KAIT\ 03/20/2006 & 3814.71 & 28.54 & & 17.945(0.054) & 15.388(0.015) &14.433(0.015) & 13.709(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 03/21/2006 & 3815.24 & 29.07 & & 17.884(0.022) & 15.245(0.014) &14.350(0.013) & 13.566(0.018) &PSF& TNT\ 03/22/2006 & 3816.80 & 30.63 & & 17.878(0.039) & 15.454(0.016) &14.538(0.015) & 13.792(0.025) &PSF& KAIT\ 03/22/2006 & 3817.19 & 31.02 & 19.017(0.212) & 17.948(0.018) & 15.432(0.014) &14.510(0.012) & 13.741(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 03/23/2006 & 3818.15 & 31.98 & & 18.030(0.023) & 15.509(0.014) &14.588(0.013) & 13.818(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 03/24/2006 & 3818.72 & 32.55 & & 18.091(0.033) & 15.607(0.033) &14.722(0.015) & 13.976(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 03/25/2006 & 3820.17 & 34.00 & 19.087(0.226) & 18.166(0.020) & 15.631(0.014) &14.735(0.012) & 13.976(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 03/27/2006 & 3821.77 & 35.60 & & & 15.749(0.017) &14.871(0.030) & 14.170(0.043) &PSF& KAIT\ 03/28/2006 & 3823.20 & 37.00 & 19.055(0.373) & 18.132(0.035) & 15.769(0.015) &14.884(0.013) & 14.156(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 03/29/2006 & 3824.16 & 37.99 & 19.334(0.326) & 18.188(0.029) & 15.814(0.015) &14.949(0.013) & 14.215(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 03/30/2006 & 3824.77 & 38.60 & & 18.206(0.030) & 15.923(0.042) &15.116(0.015) & 14.371(0.011) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 03/30/2006 & 3825.10 & 38.93 & & 18.278(0.052) & 15.839(0.017) &14.987(0.013) & 14.265(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 04/01/2006 & 3827.18 & 41.01 & & 18.306(0.043) & 15.885(0.016) &15.091(0.013) & 14.377(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 04/02/2006 & 3828.20 & 42.02 & 19.368(0.344) & 18.261(0.028) & 15.922(0.015) &15.088(0.013) & 14.429(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 04/03/2006 & 3829.25 & 43.08 & & 18.210(0.110) & 15.984(0.034) &15.153(0.014) & 14.475(0.018) &PSF& TNT\ 04/04/2006 & 3830.15 & 43.98 & & 18.287(0.027) & 15.997(0.015) &15.171(0.013) & 14.516(0.016) &PSF& TNT\ 04/07/2006 & 3833.24 & 47.07 & & 18.315(0.043) & 16.080(0.017) &15.285(0.013) & 14.651(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 04/11/2006 & 3836.60 & 50.43 & & 18.471(0.086) & 16.288(0.025) &15.445(0.022) & 14.913(0.053) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 04/12/2006 & 3838.14 & 51.97 & & & &15.382(0.037) & 14.824(0.027) &PSF& TNT\ 04/16/2006 & 3841.65 & 55.48 & & 18.523(0.053) & 16.440(0.014) &15.689(0.013) & 15.176(0.010) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 04/18/2006 & 3843.72 & 57.55 & & 18.443(0.054) & 16.386(0.019) &15.670(0.015) & 15.173(0.028) &PSF& KAIT\ 04/19/2006 & 3845.13 & 58.86 & & 18.487(0.023) & 16.440(0.015) &15.695(0.013) & 15.171(0.017) &PSF& TNT\ 04/21/2006 & 3846.63 & 60.46 & & 18.444(0.032) & 16.541(0.014) &15.771(0.013) & 15.299(0.015) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 04/24/2006 & 3850.19 & 64.02 & & 18.492(0.062) & 16.538(0.023) &15.826(0.015) & 15.300(0.022) &PSF& TNT\ 04/27/2006 & 3852.65 & 66.48 & & 18.519(0.041) & 16.699(0.019) &15.947(0.015) & 15.576(0.018) &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 04/27/2006 & 3852.68 & 66.51 & & 18.506(0.070) & 16.645(0.018) &15.949(0.013) & 15.514(0.021) &PSF& KAIT\ 04/28/2006 & 3854.08 & 67.91 & & 18.555(0.038) & 16.670(0.018) &16.015(0.014) & 15.561(0.018) &PSF& TNT\ 05/03/2006 & 3858.62 & 72.45 & & 18.599(0.040) & 16.868(0.033) & & &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 05/03/2006 & 3859.04 & 72.87 & & 18.598(0.064) & 16.780(0.025) & 16.139(0.016) & 15.748(0.020) &PSF& TNT\ 05/05/2006 & 3864.66 & 78.49 & & 18.818(0.105) & 16.962(0.054) & & &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 05/10/2006 & 3866.07 & 79.90 & & 18.589(0.229) & 16.931(0.053) & 16.368(0.023) & 15.978(0.024) &PSF& TNT\ 05/14/2006 & 3870.07 & 83.90 & & 18.622(0.061) & 17.091(0.024) & 16.488(0.016) & 16.096(0.020) &PSF& TNT\ 05/18/2006 & 3873.58 & 87.41 & & 18.662(0.023) & 17.249(0.011) & & &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 05/23/2006 & 3879.16 & 92.99 & & 18.719(0.147) & 17.314(0.043) & 16.721(0.026) & 16.494(0.040) &PSF& TNT\ 05/26/2006 & 3881.60 & 95.43 & & 18.773(0.020) & 17.419(0.010) & & &APER& CTIO 1.3m\ 05/28/2006 & 3884.16 & 97.99 & & 18.795(0.031) & 17.467(0.020) &16.982(0.016) & 16.652(0.020) &PSF& TNT\ 06/07/2006 & 3894.08 & 107.91 & & 19.025(0.179) & 17.643(0.032) & 17.279(0.023) & 16.878(0.041) &PSF& TNT\ 06/14/2006 & 3901.08 & 114.91 & & 18.886(0.054) & 17.789(0.029) & 17.462(0.023) & 17.064(0.045) &PSF& TNT\ 06/16/2006 & 3903.03 & 116.86 & & 19.033(0.199) & 17.969(0.028) & 17.527(0.016) & 17.383(0.021) &PSF& TNT\ [cccccl]{} UT Date & JD$-$2,450,000 &Phase & $J$ & $K$\ 02/10/2006 &3776.86 & $-$9.31 & 13.353(0.013) &13.178(0.038)\ 02/13/2006 &3779.80 & $-$6.37 & 12.969(0.015) &12.885(0.034)\ 02/17/2006 &3783.80 & $-$2.37 & 12.921(0.015) &12.881(0.030)\ 02/18/2006 &3784.76 & $-$1.41 & 12.957(0.015) &12.854(0.030)\ 02/21/2006 &3787.78 & 1.61 & 13.129(0.013) &12.912(0.045)\ 02/24/2006 &3790.78 & 4.61 & 13.360(0.013) &13.061(0.043)\ 02/27/2006 &3793.83 & 7.66 & 13.802(0.018) &13.229(0.058)\ 03/02/2006 &3796.75 & 10.58 & 14.433(0.019) &13.239(0.040)\ 03/05/2006 &3799.74 & 13.57 & 14.785(0.029) &\ 03/08/2006 &3802.73 & 16.56 & 14.526(0.017) &13.120(0.026)\ 03/12/2006 &3806.74 & 20.57 & 14.328(0.017) &12.945(0.039)\ 03/16/2006 &3810.70 & 24.53 & 14.071(0.016) &12.854(0.034)\ 03/20/2006 &3814.71 & 28.54 & 13.780(0.016) &12.899(0.051)\ 03/24/2006 &3818.72 & 32.55 & 13.909(0.018) &12.933(0.043)\ 03/30/2006 &3824.77 & 38.60 & 14.480(0.019) &13.648(0.028)\ 04/11/2006 &3836.60 & 50.43 & 15.282(0.027) &14.103(0.073)\ 04/16/2006 &3841.65 & 55.48 & 15.727(0.034) &14.350(0.043)\ 04/21/2006 &3846.63 & 60.46 & 15.943(0.036) &14.569(0.043)\ 04/27/2006 &3852.65 & 66.48 & 16.302(0.047) &14.601(0.058)\ 05/03/2006 &3858.62 & 72.45 & 16.521(0.128) &\ 05/09/2006 &3864.66 & 78.49 & 17.121(0.096) &15.124(0.072)\ [ccrrrrr]{} UT Date & JD$-$2,450,000 & Phase & B & V & J & K\ 02/10/2006 & 3776.86 & $-$9.31 & $-$0.046 & $-$0.004 & 0.038 & $-$0.003\ 02/13/2006 & 3779.80 & $-$6.37 & $-$0.043 & 0.001 & 0.046 & 0.005\ 02/17/2006 & 3783.80 & $-$2.37 & $-$0.043 & 0.010 & 0.059 & 0.019\ 02/18/2006 & 3784.76 & $-$1.41 & $-$0.044 & 0.012 & 0.062 & 0.022\ 02/21/2006 & 3787.78 & 1.61 & $-$0.044 & 0.017 & 0.067 & 0.034\ 02/24/2006 & 3790.78 & 4.61 & $-$0.043 & 0.021 & 0.036 & 0.057\ 02/27/2006 & 3793.83 & 7.66 & $-$0.039 & 0.023 & 0.007 & 0.054\ 03/02/2006 & 3796.75 & 10.58 & & & $-$0.018 & 0.043\ 03/05/2006 & 3799.74 & 13.57 & $-$0.024 & 0.026 & $-$0.043 &\ 03/08/2006 & 3802.73 & 16.56 & $-$0.014 & 0.027 & $-$0.066 & 0.018\ 03/12/2006 & 3806.74 & 20.57 & $-$0.003 & 0.029 & $-$0.091 & 0.004\ 03/16/2006 & 3810.70 & 24.53 & $-$0.019 & 0.032 & $-$0.076 & $-$0.010\ 03/20/2006 & 3814.71 & 28.54 & $-$0.066 & 0.036 & $-$0.057 & $-$0.016\ 03/24/2006 & 3818.72 & 32.55 & $-$0.069 & 0.039 & $-$0.09 & $-$0.007\ 03/30/2006 & 3824.77 & 38.60 & $-$0.066 & 0.041 & $-$0.119 & $-$0.005\ 04/11/2006 & 3836.60 & 50.43 & $-$0.056 & 0.030 & $-$0.131 & 0\ 04/16/2006 & 3841.65 & 55.48 & $-$0.049 & 0.025 & $-$0.131 & 0\ 04/21/2006 & 3846.63 & 60.46 & $-$0.041 & 0.026 & $-$0.131 & 0\ 04/27/2006 & 3852.65 & 66.48 & $-$0.032 & 0.026 & $-$0.131 & 0\ 05/03/2006 & 3858.62 & 72.45 & $-$0.032 & 0.025 & $-$0.131 & 0\ 05/09/2006 & 3864.66 & 78.49 & $-$0.032 & 0.025 & $-$0.131 & 0\ 05/18/2006 & 3873.58 & 87.41 & $-$0.032 & 0.025 &&\ 05/26/2006 & 3881.60 & 95.43 & $-$0.032 & 0.025 &&\ [cccccl]{} UT Date& JD &Phase&Range&Resolution&Instrument\ &$-$2,450,000&(days)&Å& Å&\ 18/02/06&3785.3&$-$0.9&3700-8500&4&BAO 2.16m Cassegrain\ 21/02/06&3787.7&+1.5&3300-11000 &5-12&Lick Shane 3.0m Kast\ 21/02/06&3788.3&+2.1&4000-9000 &3&BAO 2.16m BFOSC\ 25/02/06&3792.3&+6.1&3700-8200 &4&BAO 2.16m Cassegrain\ 04/03/06&3799.2&+13.1&3700-8200&4&BAO 2.16m Cassegrain\ 21/03/06&3816.2&+30.1&4000-9000 &3&BAO 2.16m BFOSC\ 22/03/06&3816.7&+30.6&3300-11000&5-12&Lick Shane 3.0m Kast\ 01/04/06&3827.2&+41.0&4500-6200 &4&BAO 2.16m Cassegrain\ 07/04/06&3833.3&+47.1&4500-9000 &3&BAO 2.16m BFOSC\ 28/04/06&3853.9&+67.7&3900-10500&5-12&Lick Shane 3.0m Kast\ 05/05/06&3860.9&+74.7&3900-10500&6-12&Lick Shane 3.0m Kast\ 28/05/06&3884.0&+97.8&3300-11000&5-11&Lick Shane 3.0m Kast\ 11/23/06&4063.2&+277.0&3100-9200&6&Keck I 10m LRIS\ 12/23/06&4093.2&+307.0&4500-7200&0.35&Keck II 10m DEIMOS\ [lccc]{} Band& $t_{max}$ & $m_{peak}$ & $\beta$\ U &2453785.13$\pm$0.96 &16.20$\pm$0.06& ...\ B &2453786.17$\pm$0.35 &15.40$\pm$0.03&0.92$\pm$0.05\ V &2453789.11$\pm$0.29 &14.04$\pm$0.03&2.71$\pm$0.04\ R &2453789.09$\pm$0.32 &13.50$\pm$0.03&3.30$\pm$0.04\ I &2453784.73$\pm$0.40 &13.29$\pm$0.10&3.60$\pm$0.02\ J &2453782.09$\pm$0.38 &12.88$\pm$0.02&6.29$\pm$0.24\ K &2453782.97$\pm$0.46 &12.82$\pm$0.04&3.78$\pm$0.15\ [lcccccc]{} Method& $E(U - B)$ & $E(B - V)$ & $E(V - R)$ & $E(V - I)$ & $E(V - J)$ & $E(V - K)$\ Global color fit&...&1.41$\pm$0.06&0.61$\pm$0.05&1.27$\pm$0.12&1.76$\pm$0.09&1.95$\pm$0.09\ $C_{max}$ &1.23$\pm$0.13&1.38$\pm$0.07&0.54$\pm$0.07&1.02$\pm$0.13 &1.71$\pm$0.10 & 2.04$\pm$0.09\ $C_{12}$ &... &1.45$\pm$0.06&0.66$\pm$0.06&1.33$\pm$0.12 &1.73$\pm$0.11 & 1.85$\pm$0.11\ Mean &1.23$\pm$0.13&1.42$\pm$0.04&0.61$\pm$0.03&1.22$\pm$0.07 &1.74$\pm$0.06 &1.96$\pm$0.06\ [lccclc]{} SN&Host Galaxy & $E(B - V)_{host}$ & $R_{V}$ & Colors & Source\ 1995E &NGC 4419&0.74$\pm$0.05&2.62$\pm$0.28&$BVI$ &1,2\ 1996ai&NGC 5005&1.69$\pm$0.10&2.03$\pm$0.12&$BVI$ &1,2\ 1999cl&NGC 4501&1.24$\pm$0.07&1.55$\pm$0.08&$BVRIJHK$&3\ 2000ce&UGC 4195&0.60$\pm$0.06&2.70$\pm$0.30&$UBVRI$&1,2\ 2003cg&NGC 3169&1.33$\pm$0.11&1.80$\pm$0.19&$UBVRIJHK$&4\ 2006X &NGC 4321&1.42$\pm$0.06&1.50$\pm$0.15&$UBVRIJK$& This paper\ [lccccccc]{} Method& $M_{U}$ & $M_{B}$ & $M_{V}$ & $M_{R}$ & $M_{I}$ & $M_{J}$ & $M_{K}$\ Cepheid distance &$-$19.63$\pm$0.25&$-$19.10$\pm$0.20&$-$19.06$\pm$0.17&$-$19.02$\pm$0.15&$-$18.52$\pm$0.18 &$-$18.37$\pm$0.14 &$-$18.23$\pm$0.14\ Normalized to $\Delta m_{15}=1.10$& &$-$19.23$\pm$0.26&$-$19.18$\pm$0.22&$-$19.13$\pm$0.21&$-$18.62$\pm$0.23& &\ Normalized to $\Delta C_{12}=0.31$ &$-$19.92$\pm$0.30&$-$19.31$\pm$0.23&$-$19.22$\pm$0.21&&$-$18.63$\pm$0.21 & &\ [lcc]{} & SN 2006X photometric parameters&\ UT discovery date& 7.15 February 2006 & 1\ Epoch of $B$ maximum & 2,453,786.17$\pm$0.35 & 2\ $B_{max}$ & 15.40$\pm$0.03 & 2\ $B_{max} - V_{max}$ & 1.36$\pm$0.04 & 2\ $E(B - V)_{host}$ & 1.42$\pm$0.04 & 2\ $R_{V}$ & 1.48$\pm$0.06 & 2\ $M^{B}_{max}$ & $-$19.10$\pm$0.20 & 2\ $\Delta m_{15}$(observed)&1.17$\pm$0.05 & 2\ $\Delta m_{15}$(true) & 1.31$\pm$0.05 & 2\ $\Delta C_{12}$(observed) & 1.83$\pm$0.05 & 2\ $\Delta C_{12}$(true) &0.42$\pm$0.06 & 2\ Late-time $B$ decline rate & 0.92$\pm$0.05 mag (100 d)$^{-1}$ & 2\ $H_{0}$ & 72.8$\pm$8.2 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ & 2\ L$^{max}_{bol}$ & 1.02$\pm$0.10 $\times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ & 2\ $t_{r}$ & 18.2$\pm$0.9 day & 2\ M($^{56}$Ni) & 0.50$\pm$0.05 M$_{\odot}$ & 2\ & SN 2006X spectroscopic parameters &\ $v_{max}$(Si II $\lambda$6355) & $\sim$15500 km s$^{-1}$ & 2\ $v_{max}$(Ca II H&K) & $\sim$20500km s$^{-1}$ & 2\ $v_{max}$ (S II $\lambda$5460) & $\sim$11800 km s$^{-1}$ &2\ $v_{30}$ (Fe II $\lambda$4555) &$\sim$10300 km s$^{-1}$ & 2\ $\dot{v}$ (Si II $\lambda$6355)& 123$\pm$10 km s$^{-1}$ &2\ R(Si II) & 0.12$\pm$0.06 & 2\ & Parameters for NGC 4321 &\ Galaxy type & Sbc, LINER/ H II & 3\ $E(B - V)_{Gal}$ & 0.026& 3\ $(m-M)_{Cepheid}$ & 30.91$\pm$0.14 & 4\ $v_{hel}$ & 1557 km s$^{-1}$ & 3\ ![SN 2006X in NGC 4321 (M100). This is a $V$-band image taken by the 0.8 m TNT on 19.69 Feb. 2006. The supernova and 10 local reference stars (Table 2) are marked by numbers.[]{data-label="fig-1"}](f1.eps){width="160mm"} ![$U - B$, $B - V$, $V - R$, and $V - I$ color curves of SN 2006X compared with those of SNe 1994D, 1998bu, 2002bo, 2002er, 2003cg, and 2005cf. To show variations in the color evolution between different SNe Ia, the peak colors of all comparison SNe (except for SN 2005cf) have been artificially shifted redwards to match the observed values of SN 2006X at $B$ maximum. The dash-dotted line shows the Lira-Phillips relation plus a reddening of $E(B-V) = 1.42$ mag. The data sources are cited in the text.[]{data-label="fig-9"}](f9.eps){width="200mm"} [^1]: Methods that do not separate the intrinsic color variation and the host-galaxy reddening from the observed color would give even lower $R$ values (Tripp 1997; Astier et al. 2006; Wang L et al. 2006a). [^2]: IRAF, the Image Reduction and Analysis Facility, is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF). [^3]: The true $\Delta m_{15}(B)$ for SN 2006X is $1.31 \pm 0.05$, taking into account the reddening effect on the light-curve shape (Phillips et al. 1999). [^4]: D$_{plateau}$ measures the interval of the two inflection times, $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$, of the post-maximum $R$-band light curves. The inflection time is defined as the moment when the first derivative at the transition phase S = $\|dm/dt\|$ is minimal (e.g., Elmhamdi et al. 2003). [^5]: The missing $H$-band data may not impact significantly to the construction of the quasi-bolometric light curve, as the flux contribution in $H$ inferred from the SNe Ia with good observations in near $IR$ bands (e.g. SN 2001el, Kricisunas et al. 2003) is generally found to be smaller than 3% of the total flux before 80 days after $B$ maximum.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In this paper we present a framework for combining deep learning-based road detection, particle filters, and Model Predictive Control (MPC) to drive aggressively using only a monocular camera, IMU, and wheel speed sensors. This framework uses deep convolutional neural networks combined with LSTMs to learn a local cost map representation of the track in front of the vehicle. A particle filter uses this dynamic observation model to localize in a schematic map, and MPC is used to drive aggressively using this particle filter based state estimate. We show extensive real world testing results, and demonstrate reliable operation of the vehicle at the friction limits on a complex dirt track. We reach speeds above 27 mph (12 m/s) on a dirt track with a 105 foot (32m) long straight using our 1:5 scale test vehicle.' author: - 'Paul Drews, Grady Williams, Brian Goldfain, Evangelos A. Theodorou, and James M. Rehg [^1]' bibliography: - 'path\_integral\_bib.bib' - 'deepnet.bib' title: 'Vision-Based High Speed Driving with a Deep Dynamic Observer ' --- @topnum0 @botnum0 Introduction ============ ![AutoRally vehicle navigating a bump on the track at high speed during testing[]{data-label="fig:aggressive_hop"}](images/JumpSmall_crop.JPG){width="0.95\columnwidth"} -0.2in [ ![image](images/SystemDiagramCCRF.png){width="2\columnwidth"} ]{} -0.2in ![Failure case for single frame network. From left to right: input image, single frame network output, lstm output, ground truth cost map[]{data-label="fig:lstmsequence"}](images/LSTMSingleSequence.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"} We address the challenging task of aggressive driving— autonomous control of a ground vehicle operating close to the limits of handling, often with high sideslip angles, as is required in rally racing (and possibly for collision avoidance). We build on our recent work on aggressive driving [@williams2017information; @williams2016], using the open source 1:5 scale AutoRally platform described in [@goldfain2018autorally]. Much of our prior work relies on high-quality GPS for global position estimation and localization relative to a known map, which limits its applicability by requiring expensive sensors and excluding GPS-denied areas. An exception is [@drews17aggressive], which presents a vision-based (i.e. non-GPS) driving solution based on regressing a local cost map from monocular camera images which is then used directly for MPC-based control. However, treating each input frame separately leads to a very challenging learning problem. This stems from the limited field of view and low vantage point of a camera mounted on a ground vehicle, which makes it difficult to generate cost maps that extend sufficiently far in front of the vehicle, given the high speed of travel. Our solution to the limitations of single frame cost map prediction is to incorporate recurrence in the form of an LSTM model, making it possible to exploit the temporal continuity of the track via the structure of the on-board camera video. Fig. \[fig:lstmsequence\] illustrates both the difficulty of predicting a high quality cost map from a single image under challenging conditions, and the significant improvement that arises from incorporating recurrence into the model. The single-frame cost map predictions shown in the second column are significantly less accurate than the cost maps produced by the LSTM model (third column), which is described in Section \[sec:cnn\]. Our second innovation is the development of a particle filter estimator for the vehicle state which treats the generated cost maps as a sequence of measurements. This is in contrast to directly controlling the vehicle from the local cost maps, as was done in [@drews17aggressive]. Instead, our architecture incorporates two dynamic measurement processes: an LSTM that processes on-board video to estimate the evolving cost map, and a particle filter state estimator which drives the model predictive control algorithm. A benefit of this approach is that the vision-derived cost maps can be combined in a principled way with other sensors, such as an IMU and wheel speed encoders. This approach also naturally decouples the state estimator and controller, which can leverage mature, well-understood technologies such as particle filters and MPC, from the video-based deep neural network model (i.e. LSTM) which provides “black box” estimates of the cost map. Thus the vehicle state provides an interpretable and useful latent representation which is helpful in diagnosing issues with the cost map predictor. This is in contrast to standard end-to-end approaches to learning control [@Pan-RSS-18], which typically lack such informative intermediate latent representations. In summary, this paper introduces an alternative approach to autonomous high-speed driving in which a local cost map generator in the form of a video-based LSTM is used as the measurement process for a particle filter state estimator. This allows us to obtain a global position estimate against a schematic map without the use of GPS. Moreover, the recurrent visual models are able to take advantage of the temporal structure of on-board video, improving the accuracy of cost map prediction. We make the following contributions: - A novel encoder-decoder deep learning architecture utilizing an LSTM which improves performance over single frame networks by incorporating temporal information. - A GPU-based particle filter state estimator which can take the output of this dynamic observation model and smooth it using IMU and wheel speeds. This allows localization in real time against a schematic track map. - Repeatable performance at the limits of the system’s capability using only monocular cameras for localization. We are able to repeatably beat the best single lap performed by an experienced human test driver who provided all of the system identification data. Related Work ============ Several approaches have been taken to the problem of aggressive autonomous driving. In [@funke2012limits], an analytic approach is explored. The performance limits of a vehicle are pushed using a simple model-based feedback controller and extensive pre-planning to follow a racing line around a track. More recently, [@keivan2013realtime] showed the benefits of model predictive control on a 1:10 scale vehicle following waypoints through a challenging obstacle course. However, these approaches all rely on highly accurate position from an external source such as GPS or motion capture. Portions of the solution that we propose have been studied in isolation. There is a great deal of literature about localizing from camera images. One successful approach is found in the Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM) literature. Methods such [@engel2014lsd; @mur2015orb] use whole image matching and keypoints while infering and leveraging the 3d structure of the scene. These systems typically provide position relative to a generated map and could be suitable for our use case. However, these methods fall short in close to the ground, monocular, high dynamic and vibration video such as we have. Another approach that doesn’t require explicit estimation of 3d scene geometry is to directly regress the position from camera images. Works such as [@hays2008im2gps] and more recently [@kendall2015modelling] show promise. However, they do not have the fine-grained accuracy that we require in order to drive aggressively in a tightly constrained track. Semantic segmentation methods such as [@arbelaez2012semantic] and [@long2015fully] may be used to obtain drivability regions in the image as our method does. However, these tend to be computationally heavy and require a planar projection or depth data to transform to the cost map representation we use. Autonomous driving and control as an end-to-end learning problem is an active area of research. Prior work on deep learning and model predictive control includes end-to-end methods [@bojarski2016end; @Pan-RSS-18; @Zhang2016] and encoder-decoder architectures [@Lenz2015DeepMPCLD; @WAHLSTROM20151059] to perform predictive control using raw observations. In [@Pan-RSS-18] an MPC controller is used as a teacher to train a Convolutional Neural Network that maps raw observations such as wheel speed, acceleration, and images directly to throttle and steering. While it elegantly encompasses the our entire system as a single learning problem, it has severe drawbacks. When errors occur, there is very little ability to probe the reasons for the failure. Because this solution is not modular, it must be re-learned if any part of the system changes. Because of the modularity of our system, if for example the vehicle changes we can simply swap out the dynamics model. End-to-end immitation learning methods are also inherently limited by their teacher. However, our system is able handily outperform the best lap from the training set. Some of the most related work comes in direct affordance based control. In [@schenck2017visual], a recurrent learning system is used to estimate liquid volumes as an affordance from video. However, they learn most of the required dynamics, including state propagation, and control with a simple PID controller. Our system has much more stringent control requirements, necessitating more accurate state estimate. In [@chen2015deepdriving], lane affordances are directly learned and fed to a simple lane tracking controller. However, this work does not address the aggressive driving regime. Additional closely related work shows the integration of particle filtering and vision based observations in [@miller2008particle]. More recent work such as [@rose2014integrated] show more modern results other filter methods. They show good performance with the addition of lane markings, but do not utilize learning to help with the vision portion of the problem and do not address the particular problems of the aggressive driving regime. Deep Neural Networks for Localization ===================================== At the highest level, planning often takes place on a schematic map. We define a schematic map as a map containing only drivable surface information, such as a street map or in our case a race track layout. This is a very different representation than the sparse descriptor maps or 3-D reconstructions used for SLAM based localization. In this work, we utilize a metric map generated by surveying the centerline of our race track. A distance transform of this centerline results in the schematic map shown at the top of Fig. \[fig:pf-diagram\]. Instead of using an existing whole image or key point based SLAM system, the monocular camera images are used as the input to a convolutional neural network in order to directly regress the free space in front of the vehicle. Key point based localization on the AutoRally system is difficult due to the low vantage point, short stereo camera baseline, and many self-similar textures in the environment. Our track surface is dirt and the track barriers are black, resulting in very few useful features within range of our stereo cameras suitable for key point SLAM. Additionally, the on board cameras are subject to high amplitude vibrations during fast, aggressive driving, this breaks many SLAM algorithms that assume a low acceleration motion model. We use a particle filter to combine the proprioceptive IMU and wheel speed sensors with the deep neural network cost map sensor. This allows us to fully utilize all available information to drive aggressively without the aid of external localization. In addition, we create a new neural network architecture that can be trained recurrently and utilizes temporal information to resolve difficult difficult or ambiguous visual situations. This improves the accuracy of the cost map prediction network over the single frame case, and greatly improves performance on difficult and ambiguous cases. The full aggressive driving system (see Fig. \[fig:systemDiagram\]) has three main components. First, a CNN is used to predict local cost maps from monocular input images. Second is the particle filter. It takes as input IMU measurements (linear accelerations and angular velocities), vehicle wheel speed measurements, and local cost map estimates from the cost map neural network. The IMU measurements are used to propagate the state forward, and particles are weighted using wheel speed and difference between cost map predictions and our surveyed cost map. Third is the AutoRally vehicle. This vehicle has all of the onboard computation and sensing needed to implement this approach and is capable of high speed, aggressive driving. CNN track detection module {#sec:cnn} -------------------------- [ ![Network architectures with input and training targets. Left: Fully convolutional neural network architecture. Dilated convolutions are used to increase receptive field. Center: Encoder decoder neural network architecture. Right: Encoder decoder architecture trained recurrently, with an LSTM replacing the bottleneck fully connected layer.[]{data-label="fig:netArchitecture"}](images/Convolutional.png "fig:"){height="0.37\columnwidth"} ![Network architectures with input and training targets. Left: Fully convolutional neural network architecture. Dilated convolutions are used to increase receptive field. Center: Encoder decoder neural network architecture. Right: Encoder decoder architecture trained recurrently, with an LSTM replacing the bottleneck fully connected layer.[]{data-label="fig:netArchitecture"}](images/bottleneck.png "fig:"){height="0.37\columnwidth"} ![Network architectures with input and training targets. Left: Fully convolutional neural network architecture. Dilated convolutions are used to increase receptive field. Center: Encoder decoder neural network architecture. Right: Encoder decoder architecture trained recurrently, with an LSTM replacing the bottleneck fully connected layer.[]{data-label="fig:netArchitecture"}](images/LSTM.png "fig:"){height="0.37\columnwidth"} ]{} We use a CNN to generate a cost map style overhead projection of the track in front of the vehicle from a monocular image stream. Our CNN architecture is constrained to run in real time on the low power Nvidia GTX1050 GPU available on our platform, along with the model predictive controller and particle filter. The CNN directly produces a dense cost map in the egocentric frame, with the current vehicle position at the bottom center of the image. We compare three different neural network architectures as shown in Fig. \[fig:netArchitecture\]. This work is an extension of our prior work in [@drews17aggressive]. In that work, we used a fully convolutional neural network composed entirely of convolutions and dilated convolutions, refered to hereafter as the flat network. In this work, we utilize an encoder-decoder architecture which improves over that network in several ways. First, since the input image is reduced to a small hidden state, we can easily add recurrence to the network to take advantage of temporal information and resolve some cases which are ambiguous in the single frame case. We compare the the encoder-decoder and recurrently trained encoder-decoder cases to highlight this performance improvement. Second, because the network output is the result of deconvolution [@Noh2015learning], or reverse strided convolution, the resulting cost map is much cleaner than the output of fully convolutional network. Third, the fully convolutional network constrains the output cost map size to match the input image size or an integer multiple of it. However, the encoder-decoder architecture can have arbitrarily shaped output cost maps. We use this ability to further optimize the output of the network to the particle filter. Previously, the output of the network was set to an area of 10.6m wide by 8.5m high (160x128 at 15 pixels per meter). However, this size is optimized for direct planning and control on the output cost map. The particle filter uses a 5m wide by 7m high crop of this output to achieve optimal performance. By using the ability of the encoder-decoder to output arbitrarily shaped cost maps, we can directly output a 5m x 7m image (40x56 pixels) at 8 pixels per meter. This size was empirically determined to be optimal for the particle filter. We find that this significantly increases the performance of the particle filter as shown in Tables \[tab:dataset\_results\_full\] and \[tab:dataset\_results\_generalization\]. Using these two network architectures, we are able to maintain low latency and a frame rate of 60 Hz(full camera frame rate). Input images come directly from a PointGrey Flea3 color camera opearting at 1280x1024 resolution. These images are downsampled to 160x128 and the images are mean subtracted and divided by the standard deviation from the training dataset. During training, the cost map output is trained to minimize the L1 distance to the pre-computed ground truth cost maps obtained from GPS data $$MAE(\theta,U_t) = \sum_{(u,v)} \|I_{u,v} - \hat{I}_{u,v}(\theta,U_{t},S_{t-1})\|$$ where the L1 error $MAE$ at input image $U_t$ is a function of the CNN parameterized by $\theta$. This CNN is also a function of the previous hidden state $S_{t-1}$. The error is the difference between the estimated cost map $\hat{I}$ and true cost map $I$ summed over all pixels $u,v$ in the image. L1 loss is utilized over L2 loss due to its outlier rejection. Because it is minimizing posterior expectation of the median instead of the mean, it is less sensitive to outliers in our dataset. However, the L1 loss is less stable during training and tends to fall into a local minima where the dataset median is predicted regardless of the input, making hyper-parameter tuning more difficult. During training, recurrent networks often required weight initialization from single-frame trained networks in order to converge. All networks were trained using the Adam [@kingma14adam] optimization algorithm in Tensorflow [@tensorflow2015]. A mini-batch size of 16 images was used during training, and a small random perturbation to the white balance of each image (multiplying each channel by a normally distributed random variable between 0.9 and 1.1) was also applied. For all networks, training was stopped after the testing error plateaued. Each image is recorded with its ground truth position and orientation using high accuracy RTK GPS position combined with IMU data. This centimeter accurate position allows us to generate a ground truth cost map to use as a training target for each image. These images are split into a train and test set. Training accuracy is reported for the train set, and test set accuracy is used to determine when to stop training. Validation accuracy is reported using the held-out data from the on-policy particle filter runs. The networks were trained using the Adam [@kingma14adam] optimization algorithm in Tensorflow [@tensorflow2015]. A mini-batch size of 16 images was used during trainingFor all networks, training was stopped after the testing error plateaued. ![During training, recurrent neural networks only begin accumulating loss after seeing part of the sequence of input images.[]{data-label="fig:burnInTraining"}](images/BurnInTraining.png){width="0.7\columnwidth"} In order to train the recurrent networks, the hidden state needs to be initialized. We initialize the hidden state to zero and allow the network to burn in for some number of frames without penalizing its output as shown in Fig. \[fig:burnInTraining\]. We find that allowing the network to run for 8 frames without penalizing its output, and then accumulate training error for the next 8 frames produced the best results, for a total of 16 input images seen per training sample. We found that training over longer sequences did not significantly improve testing accuracy or final particle filter performance, and made training more time consuming and more prone to getting stuck in local minima. The network was also fairly invariant to the length of time given to burn-in. Particle filter --------------- Particle filters are a class of recursive Bayesian filters which attempt to approximate the state distribution with a set of samples (particles). They have the advantage of being able to handle non-linear dynamics and non-linear measurement models. However, in order to get good performance a large number of particles (numbering in the thousands) is often required. There are many variants of the particle filtering algorithm, in this work we use the sequential importance re-sampling (SIR) particle filter. The state-space for the particle filter consists of the following 5 variables: position in the map coordinate frame $(p_x, p_y)$, heading $(\psi)$, and body frame forward and lateral velocity $(v_x, v_y)$. The model predictive controller additionally uses roll information and heading derivative information, however these are passed directly from the IMU to the controller without an intermediate filtering step. The basic building blocks to the particle filtering implementation are a measurement model and a motion model: ### Measurement Model In this work, the two sensors that the AutoRally vehicle has in order to navigate are wheel speed sensors and a video stream from a monocular camera. The wheel speed sensors output a velocity estimate based on the rotation rate and diameter of the wheel, let $W$ denote the averaged velocity estimate of the two front wheels[^2], then the wheel speed measurement model is: $$p(W\|\vx_j) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}}\exp(-\frac{1}{2\sigma} \left(\|v_x^j\| - W \right)^2, ~~ \sigma = 2.5$$ Where $\vx_j$ denotes the state of the $j_{th}$ particle and $v_x^j$ is the forward velocity. Note that the wheel speed measurements are always positive, hence the absolute value around the forward velocity. ![Each particle maintains a position and heading with respect to the map coordinate frame (top), this is used to extract a top-down image of the expected local track geometry (middle), and this is compared to the output of the neural network’s prediction in order to compute a measurement probability.[]{data-label="fig:pf-diagram"}](images/ParticleFilterFig-cropped){width="0.75\columnwidth"} The other sensor that the AutoRally has is a monocular camera, which provides input images to a convolutional neural network, which then outputs a prediction of the local track. This prediction can be used by the particle filter to localize the vehicle in a global schematic map via the following two-step procedure: 1. Each particle uses its current position and heading to select the local slice of the global map corresponding to the area the neural network would be making a prediction for if the vehicle were actually in that location. 2. The local slice of the global map is compared to the actual output of the neural network, and the output of the comparison is fed into a probability distribution. The output of this distribution acts as the measurement model. This procedure is visualized in Fig. \[fig:pf-diagram\]. In this work, we use mean absolute error in order to compare the images, and feed the error into an exponential distribution. The measurement model for the neural network predictions is then: $$p(I_{NN}\|\vx_j) = \lambda \exp\left(-\frac{\lambda}{N}\sum_{(u,v)} \left\| M_{\text{local}}^j(u,v) - I_{NN}(u,v) \right\| \right)$$ where $\vx_j$ denotes the state of the $j_{th}$ particle, $M_{\text{local}}^j$ is the associated local slice of the global map, and $I_{NN}$ is the output from the neural network. Note that $I_{NN}$ is a function of the current image and the LSTM recurrent state, which in turn is a function of all past images. The combined measurement model is then: $$p(o_t \| \vx_t^j) = p(I_{NN}\|\vx_t^j)p(W\|\vx_t^j)$$ ### Motion Model The motion model for the AutoRally is equipped with an Inertial-Measurement-Unit (IMU) which outputs accelerations $(a_x, a_y, a_z)$ and angular velocities $(\alpha_x, \alpha_y, \alpha_z)$. These are combined with standard equations for the motion of a rigid body in order to create the following noisy motion model: $$\begin{aligned} \rd p_x &= \left(v_x\cos(\psi) - v_y\sin(\psi)\right) \rd t \\ \rd p_y &= \left(v_x\sin(\psi) + v_y\cos(\psi)\right) \rd t \\ \rd \psi &= \alpha_z\rd t + \sigma_\psi \rd w \\ \rd v_x &= a_x\rd t + \sigma_{v_x} \rd w, ~ \rd v_y = a_y\rd t + \sigma_{v_y} \rd w\end{aligned}$$ Where $\sigma_\psi = 0.275$ and $\sigma_{v_x} = \sigma_{v_y} = 0.75$. Note that this model is different than the motion model that the model predictive controller uses to control the vehicle. Future IMU measurements are obviously not available for the MPC predictions, so this model cannot be used for MPC. The model that the MPC controller uses could be used by the particle filter in place of this rigid body dynamics model, and could potentially lead to improved performance by introducing more constraints on the dynamics. However, this model provides adequate performance and is very cheap to compute. In our particle filter implementation, the stochastic motion model propagates forward at 200 Hz with standard Euler–Maruyama integration, measurements are processed at 20 Hz, and particle re-sampling occurs at 5 Hz. All of the motion and measurement models are implemented as CUDA Kernels on the GPU, which is necessary since every measurement update requires computing the difference between two images (the local image patches are 35x25 pixels). It is possible to run both the measurement and re-sampling loop at faster rates, however doing so did not lead to improved performance and other processes (the controller and neural network) also require GPU resources. We used 6400 particles, and computed the final state estimate as the mean of the particles. AutoRally Platform and MPPI Controller ====================================== AutoRally --------- In order to test the performance of these algorithms in a real racing scenario, we utilize the AutoRally [@goldfain2018autorally] platform. This robot is based on a 1:5 scale RC chassis capable of speeds of nearly 60mph. It has a desktop-class Intel i7 processor and NVidia Gtx 1050 GPU for processing. IMU, GPS, and wheel speed sensors are used, as well as images captured from an on-board Point Grey camera. This allows all computation to be performed in real time on-board the vehicle. All software runs under the Robot Operating System (ROS). Particle filter and MPPI code is written in CUDA, and CNN forward inference is done using a custom ROS wrapper around TensorFlow [@tensorflow2015]. MPPI ---- Model Predictive Path Integral Control (MPPI) is a stochastic model predictive control (MPC) method designed to work with non-linear dynamics, and non-convex cost objectives. It has been shown to work well in practice applied to AutoRally platform up to and beyond the friction limits of the vehicle [@williams2017information]. MPPI works by quickly sampling and evaluating thousands of control sequences, and then computes the control input as a cost weighted average over the sampled controls. In order to evaluate a control sequences, a dynamics model is propagated forward in state space using the system dynamics, and each trajectory is evaluated according to a cost function. As in [@williams2017information], we use a neural network model to learn the dynamics. Real time execution of MPPI on AutoRally is enabled by the onboard Nvidia GPU. We only use a running cost function in this paper (no terminal cost). The running cost that we use for generating driving behaviors from MPPI has the form: $$q(x) = w \cdot \left(C_M(p_x, p_y), h(v_x, v_x^d), 0.9^t I, \left(\frac{v_y}{v_x}\right)^2 \right), \label{equ:costFunction}$$ In these equations $w$ is a vector of weights. The first cost term, $C_M(p_x, p_y)$, is the positional cost of being at the position $(p_x, p_y)$. This positional cost is obtained from the cost map when the map is in use, and directly from the output of the neural network in the case of mapless driving. The second term is a cost for achieving a desired speed $v_x^d$, the function $h$ denotes the metric used in the cost computation. There are two different modes of driving that we use in our experiments. The first is slow/medium speed driving where the speed target actually describes the speed we want the vehicle to achieve, in this case $h$ is the squared difference. The second mode is high speed driving, where the speed target is set to a value above what is physically possible for the vehicle to obtain (25 m/s in our case). In the second mode we use the absolute value instead of the squared difference. This was done because the absolute value has a constant gradient magnitude (wherever it exists), which enables the target speed to be set arbitrarily high without creating an exploding gradient problem. Note that even though MPPI is a gradient free algorithm, it is still sensitive to gradient magnitudes since trajectories are weighted relative to one another. The third term in the cost is a time-decaying indicator variable which is turned on if the track-cost, roll angle, or heading velocity are too high. The final term in the cost is a penalty on the slip angle of the vehicle. Experimental results ==================== All experimental results are collected using our 1:5 scale AutoRally vehicle at the Georgia Tech Autonomous Racing Facility track 2, shown in Fig. \[fig:gtarf\]. This challenging track includes turns of varying radius including a 180 degree hairpin and S curve, and a long straight section. All results presented in this paper are the vehicle driving autonomously using the camera for localization. The monocular color camera, IMU, and wheel speed sensors are the only sensors used except for the direct CNN map usage case, where vehicle velocities are derived from GPS. ![Test track for physical vehicle experiments. This track includes a variety of turns, and is very challenging for the visual navigation system.[]{data-label="fig:gtarf"}](images/gtarfTrack2.jpg){width="0.85\columnwidth"} CNN training ------------ [\|l\|l\|l\|l\|l\|l\|]{} & Flat & ED & ED-R & ED-S & ED-R-S\ Train & 94.66 & 93.66 & 96.48 & 92.69 & 96.09\ Val & 92.29 & 91.64 & 92.54 & 88.13 & 89.64\ \ \[tab:l1-results\] We compare our recurrent encoder decoder architecture to two different single frame networks using the training objective (L1 pixel error), dataset particle filter recovered position error, and on-policy driving performance using the MPPI controller. We compare the performance for both the fully trained and leave-one-direction-out case. Because the recurrent architecture was trained over sequences of data, the network was able to learn several interesting temporal patterns in the input data. It learned to smooth the cost map prediction from frame to frame, so output does not jitter as much as the single frame network. It also learns to integrate information over multiple frames in areas where it is difficult to see where the track goes, such as Fig. \[fig:lstmsequence\]. This allows the LSTM to produce much better results in difficult or ambiguous areas that cannot be easily interpreted in a single image. Training data was gathered during the course of normal vehicle testing at the Georgia Tech Autonomous Racing Facility over the course of approximately one year, shown in Fig. \[fig:gtarf\]. Because this system has the ability to learn from any data, on or off policy, we utilize data collected from various experiments. In total, we collect approximately 90k samples. These samples are broken into about 75k training samples and 15k testing samples. The testing samples are taken as full held-out contiguous runs to allow recurrent network testing. In addition to the testing samples, we report validation error on a corpus of data that includes 5 test runs performed during experimentation for this paper and not used in either the training or testing sets. All samples are labeled with ground truth position and orientation from our RTK-GPS and IMU state estimation, which is typically accurate to several centimeters. Because the GPS is not completely reliable, part of the process of collecting training and testing samples is ensuring GPS based pose is sufficiently accurate during a run for use as ground truth. This ground truth pose is used to automatically label the images with local cost maps from a pre-surveyed track map. For training, testing, and validation accuracy, we report the average per-pixel frame accuracy as $$A_t = 1 - \sum_{(u,v)} \frac{\|I_{u,v} - \widehat{I}_{u,v}\|}{N}$$ where $N$ is the number of pixels per image and $I_{u,v}$ is a normalized pixel value in the range $0-1$. For accuracy over sequences, each neural network computes an output per frame (with the hidden state propagated through the entire sequence for recurrent networks), and final accuracy reported as the mean per-frame accuracy. Average training and validation accuracy for the networks is shown in Table \[tab:l1-results\]. Since there is no straightforward way to normalize these results for map scale and the number of pixels available, the accuracy is not directly comparable between three large networks and the small (40x56 output) networks. The LSTM networks achieve significantly better validation error due to learning to integrate information temporally before producing a result. It is apparent from Fig. \[fig:lstmsequence\] that this is at least partially due to the networks ability to integrate information over time and correctly identify visually challenging frames. Single frame networks are not able to identify the track in these challenging cases. Particle Filter --------------- Localization performance of the particle filter, as well as real-world performance of the full system, was measured by driving the vehicle at a 6 m/s target speed for 3 laps using each of 5 neural networks (approximately 100s of driving for each condition). These 5 networks are trained in 2 different ways. First, using all available data. This includes clockwise and counterclockwise training data from 7 days of testing. Second, we perform leave-one-direction-out (lodo) testing by training neural networks on only the subset of data where the vehicle is traveling clockwise. All testing and validation is performed with the vehicle traveling counterclockwise. Average position error is reported for both the on-policy case where the vehicle is driven using the pose estimate and the off policy case where the filter is run off-line on recorded data and the error is calculated. ### Full Dataset Training ![image](images/realWorldTests/Filter_error_vs_track_position_for_flat.png){height="0.5\columnwidth"} ![image](images/realWorldTests/Filter_error_vs_track_position_for_Recurrent_ED_40x56.png){height="0.5\columnwidth"} ![image](images/realWorldTests/Filter_error_vs_track_position_for_Recurrent_ED_40x56_lodo.png){height="0.5\columnwidth"} -0.2in Dataset$\downarrow$ ED ED-S Flat ED-R ED-R-S --------------------- ------ ------- ------- ------- -------- ED 1.21 1.12 1.01 1.19 1.0 ED-S 1.27 1.19 1.02 1.11 1.07 Flat 1.04 0.937 0.918 0.979 0.894 ED-R 1.08 0.985 1.05 1.01 1.05 ED-R-S 1.17 1.01 0.879 1.09 1.09 ED-lodo 1.22 0.91 1.45 1.06 1.05 ED-S-lodo 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.84 ED-R-S-lodo 0.93 0.96 0.81 1.06 0.80 Average 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.05 0.97 : Particle Filter Position Error for Full Dataset Trained Neural Networks \[tab:dataset\_results\_full\] In the full training case, all network architectures were able to successfully drive the vehicle in the on-policy condition. The network errors are summarized in Table \[tab:dataset\_results\_full\]. The small recurrent encoder-decoder achieved the best average position error when tested against recorded data for all 8 3-lap on policy runs. It significantly out-performs the non-recurrent encoder-decoder, demonstrating the benefits of recurrence. Figure \[fig:accuracy\_position\_plots\] shows the position error as a function of ground truth track position. We can see that the error for the recurrent network tends to be concentrated in shorter sections of the track, and that there are some track sections that are difficult for all networks. ### Leave One Direction Out [l\|ccccc]{} Dataset$\downarrow$ & ED & ED-S & Flat & ED-R & ED-R-S\ ED & 1.18 & 1.03 & 1.06 & 0.954 & 1.04\ ED-S & 1.15 & 1.03 & NA & 0.779 & 0.99\ Flat & 0.981 & 0.904 & 0.812 & NA & 0.854\ ED-R & 1.11 & 1.12 & 0.91 & 0.823 & 0.986\ ED-R-S & NA & NA & NA & 1.08 & 1.19\ ED-lodo & 1.05 & 1.02 & 1.23 & 1.46 & 1.04\ ED-S-lodo & 0.96 & 0.90 & 1.11 & 0.61 & 0.84\ ED-R-S-lodo & 0.93 & 0.91 & 0.97 & 0.62 & 0.85\ Average & 1.05 & 0.99 & 1.02 & 0.90 & 0.97\ \ & &\ \[tab:dataset\_results\_generalization\] We find, in the leave-one-direction-out case, that the encoder-decoder and recurrent encoder-decoder networks are better able to generalize to this new environment and maintain a sufficiently accurate pose than the flat network, as demonstrated in Table \[tab:dataset\_results\_generalization\]. In the on-policy case, the flat network and the large recurrent encoder-decoder were unable to maintain an accurate pose, and caused the vehicle to crash into a barrier before completing 3 laps. Both small output networks and the large non-recurrent encoder-decoder were able to successfully drive the vehicle at a 6m/s target speed for 3 laps. In the off-policy case, the particle filter using the flat network failed to initially converge in 2 of 5 cases. The small recurrent encoder-decoder successfully initialized the particle filter and tracked pose through all datasets, with the encoder decoder networks achieving lower overall error than the flat network. Direct Driving -------------- [\|l\|l\|l\|l\|l\|l\|]{} Method & Flat & ED & ED-R & ED-S & ED-R-S\ Direct & 37.3 & 37.8 & 39.1 & NA & NA\ Particle Filter & 35.6 & 34.8 & 35.9 & 34.5 & 35.3\ \ \[tab:dd\_times\] In order to test these methods against previous work, we allow MPPI to plan directly on the output of each image as described in [@drews17aggressive]. Both small networks, that output 5m x 7m regions, were unstable using this method and crashed almost immediately. This is due to the output image size being too skinny for the network to plan a reasonable path on. The summary of lap times for the other methods are show in Table \[tab:dd\_times\]. However, due to being able to plan for a longer time horizon, the particle filter method achieved shorter lap times over all tested architectures. Performance limits ------------------ ![Vehicle speed and slip angle and speed as it traverses 5 laps at the limits of performance. The vehicle needs to be able to drive from 2 m/s to 12 m/s, at slip angles up to 32 degrees, in order to maximize lap times.](images/FastSpeed.png "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"} ![Vehicle speed and slip angle and speed as it traverses 5 laps at the limits of performance. The vehicle needs to be able to drive from 2 m/s to 12 m/s, at slip angles up to 32 degrees, in order to maximize lap times.](images/FastSlip.png "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"} \[fig:fastRun\] In order to test the limits of our localization system, we tasked MPPI with traversing the track as quickly as possible. Using this method, we set a lap time of 27.9s at 12.2 m/s (27.3 mph) top speed. Figure \[fig:fastRun\] shows that the algorithm is able to reliably perform 5 laps while sustaining high speeds and high slip angles. For comparison, our previous best published lap time at this track is 32s at 8.5 m/s maximum speed, and the best lap in all training data is 29.4s at 10.4 m/s. This method is able to consistently push the limits of the vehicle and execute aggressive maneuvers using only a monocular camera, IMU, and wheel speed sensors. Conclusion ========== In this work, we demonstrate a system capable of repeatable aggressive driving on a complex dirt test track using only monocular vision, IMU, and wheel speed measurements. It combines neural network cost map regression from a monocular camera, particle filter based state estimation, and model predictive control running in real time on a rugged, high speed autonomous system. We demonstrate CNN system performance improvement using LSTMs to learn to integrate temporal information. We demonstrate the ability of a particle filter to integrate this information with IMU and wheel speed sensors and produce a high-rate, high accuracy state estimate. We demonstrate the ability of our encoder-decoder network to generalize to traversing the track in a direction it has not seen before by performing leave on direction out experiments on both datasets and on the physical system. Finally, we demonstrate the full system performing at the limits of handling of our platform by executing high speed laps at our test track using only monocular vision for position information. This work demonstrates the advantages of combining model predictive control with state estimation and learned perception. Where states are well understood, in the case of vehicle pose estimation, we use traditional pose estimation and model predictive control solutions (with the difficult estimation problem, vehicle dynamics prediction from control inputs, still being learned). The perception system still contains useful state information, but the exact structure of this state is less well understood. Therefore, an LSTM neural network model is the correct tool to model these video input images. As with any real-world system, we find that details significantly improve the performance of the system. Reducing system lag by A) propagating state forward at 200 Hz using the IMU measurements, B) threading software systems where possible to reduce latency and C) forward propagating the model predictive control outputs using state feedback gains all help to push the system to its limit. When training our neural network, careful curation of the dataset, model architecture tuning, and hyper-parameter tuning all improve final system performance. Careful system identification dataset collection improves the accuracy and predictive power of the vehicle dynamics model. Finally, having a system that is robust and able to be repeatedly pushed to the limits of handling (and beyond) is crucial to iterative design process needed to push the system to the limits of handling and grip. [^1]: The authors are with Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Machines (IRIM) at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. Email: [email protected] [^2]: We do not use the back wheels since they slip significantly when accelerating.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Many extrasolar planetary systems containing multiple super-Earths have been discovered. N-body simulations taking into account standard type-I planetary migration suggest that protoplanets are captured into mean-motion resonant orbits near the inner disk edge at which the migration is halted. Previous N-body simulations suggested that orbital stability of the resonant systems depends on number of the captured planets. In the unstable case, through close scattering and merging between planets, non-resonant multiple systems are finally formed. In this paper, we investigate the critical number of the resonantly trapped planets beyond which orbital instability occurs after disk gas depletion. We find that when the total number of planets ($N$) is larger than the critical number ($N_{\rm crit}$), crossing time that is a timescale of initiation of the orbital instability is similar to non-resonant cases, while the orbital instability never occurs within the orbital calculation time ($10^8$ Kepler time) for $N\leq N_{\rm crit}$. Thus, the transition of crossing time across the critical number is drastic. When all the planets are trapped in 7:6 resonance of adjacent pairs, $N_{\rm crit} = 4$. We examine the dependence of the critical number of 4:3, 6:5 and 8:7 resonance by changing the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii and planetary mass. The critical number increases with increasing the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii with fixed planetary mass and increases with increasing planetary mass with fixed the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii. We also calculate the case of a system which is not composed of the same resonance. The sharp transition of the stability can be responsible for the diversity of multiple super-Earths (non-resonant or resonant), that is being revealed by $Kepler$ mission.' author: - 'Yuji Matsumoto,' - Makiko Nagasawa - Shigeru Ida title: 'The Orbital Stability of Planets Trapped in the First-Order Mean-Motion Resonances' --- Introduction ============ Seventeen years searchers of extrasolar planets have found more than 100 super-Earths and hot Neptunes ($\leq 30M_{\oplus}$). Some of them form multiple planet systems. $Kepler$ Mission reports 885 of those multiples in 361 systems (Batalha $et\ al$. 2012; Borucki $et\ al$. 2011a, 2011b). Period ratios of pairs of planets show some peaks at commensurable ratios (Lissauer $et\ al$. 2011; Fabrycky $et\ al$. 2012). Since orbital angles such as an argument of pericenter are unknown in many of the systems, it is not clear that the planets are actually in the mean-motion resonances. In data of first four months of $Kepler$ Mission, Among 158 multi-super Earth candidates and multi-Neptune candidates, about 25% planets have orbital periods which are almost commensurable with neighboring planets within 3% period ratio. Veras and Ford (2012) identified 70 non-resonant KOI ($Kepler$ Objects of Interest) near resonant pairs which are not in a mean-motion resonance. Terquem and Papaloizou (2007) proposed a mechanism to form resonant planets near the disk inner edge. Possible mechanisms for small derivations from the resonance were also raised by Papaloizou and Terquem (2010). When planets are in the mean-motion resonance, the conjunction periods of the planets are expressed as the integer ratio of periods of each planet. That means, conjunctions of the planets always occur the same relative positions. Planets in a resonance can become stable depending on the configuration of conjunctions. For example, Neptune-Pluto are in 3:2 mean-motion resonance. Although the orbits of them cross, they always avoid close approach. Neptune-Pluto system are long-term stable (Cohen and Hubbard 1965). In a gas disk, growing protoplanets migrate toward their central stars due to type-I migration. The migration is stopped when a protoplanet arrives at the inner edge of the gas disk, often assumed to be at the corotation point of the star ($\sim 0.05-0.1$ AU), if it exists. N-body simulations (Terquem and Papaloizou 2007; Ogihara and Ida 2009) showed that in the case of standard type-I migration (e.g., Tanaka $et\ al$. 2002) subsequently migrating protoplanets are usually not trapped in a mean-motion resonance at a first encounter with the protoplanet at the disk edge. After some close scatterings and collisions, they are eventually trapped in resonances because they are subject to relatively slow type-I migrations near the edge and eccentricity damping after relaxation. Through merging of many planets that have migrated to the inner edge, only several merged bodies finally remain in mean-motion resonant orbits. Although several inner planets are pushed inside of gas disk edge ($\lesssim0.05$ AU) and others are in the gas disk ($\gtrsim0.05$ AU), they keep the relation of mean-motion resonances. These planets are spaced by $5-9$ Hill radius with each other and stay stable even after gas depletion in which eccentricity damping no more operates. However, Ogihara and Ida (2009) have found that in the case of migration that is slow compared to the rates predicted for standard type-I migration, orbital evolution is totally different and final orbital configuration is non-resonant. In this case, subsequently migrating protoplanets are trapped in mean-motion resonances. As a result, about $40$ small protoplanets queue in low order mean-motion resonances having closer separations in the gas disk at $\gtrsim0.05$ AU. Few of inner planets are pushed into the inner cavity, because of “eccentricity trapping” caused by torque balance between migration torque and edge torque (Ogihara $et\ al$., 2010). In contrast to the fast migration case, the planets become orbitally unstable after the gas depletion, i.e., their eccentricities are excited and their orbits start crossing. Through collisions and merges of planets, they are kicked out of the resonances and finally several planets are formed in non-resonant orbits with the large orbital separation ($\sim15-20$ Hill radius). Although resonant systems are generally more stable than non-resonant systems, results of Ogihara and Ida (2009) showed that multi-planet systems whose planets are initially in overpopulated resonant orbits become unstable in relatively short timescale after gas depletion and end up with dynamically relaxed non-resonant systems. Although the crossing time at which multi-planet systems have been extensively studied in gas free environment by N-body simulations (e.g., Chambers $et\ al$., 1996; Yoshinaga $et\ al$., 1999; Zhou $et\ al$., 2007), they only investigated non-resonant systems. Because of type-I migration and eccentricity damping, the systems that we consider are deep in resonances, so that the crossing time can be very different from that found by the previous studies. Although the previous studies on crossing times were concentrated on non-resonant systems, the observed resonant multi-super Earths’ systems near stars and N-body simulations suggest the occurrence of resonance trapping as a consequence of planetary migrations. In this paper, we mainly consider high-integer resonance e.g., 6:5 or 7:6. This is because previous N-body simulations suggest that proto-super-Earths are once in a close resonances with separations of $\sim 5 - 9$ Hill radius and cause instability due to overpopulation later on. We calculate the crossing time of systems in first-order mean-motion resonances, by changing the total number of plants, the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii, and planetary masses. In §\[previous\], we summarize previous studies of N-body simulations to evaluate the crossing time, $t_{\rm cross}$. In §\[num\_model\], we explain numerical models of our simulations. As commensurability of orbital periods does not necessarily mean mean-motion resonance, in §\[results\], we study both cases that resonant and non-resonant systems having the same orbital commensurability. We discuss the results in §\[conclusions\]. Previous Studies on Crossing Time of Multi-Planet Systems {#previous} ========================================================= Here we summarize previous studies of N-body simulations to evaluate $t_{\rm cross}$ for non-resonant systems in order to make clear the purpose of our simulations. Chambers $et\ al$. (1996) first investigated the crossing time of multi-planet systems, at which the first close encounter occurs. They performed orbital calculations of equal mass protoplanets with various mass from $10^{-9}M_{\odot}$ to $10^{-5}M_{\odot}$. They put planets on initially circular and coplanar orbits with mutual separations $a_j - a_i = Kr_{{\rm H}i,j}$, where $r_{{\rm H}i,j}$ is the mutual Hill radius of planets $i$ and $j$, setting the innermost planet at $a_1 = 1$ AU. They repeated orbital simulations 3 times for the same Hill separation $K$ changing planetary longitudes. The calculations were continued until the first encounter, which is defined by the time when distance between two planets becomes smaller than one mutual Hill radius occurs. They found that $t_{\rm cross}$ is given approximately by an empirical relation, $$\begin{aligned} \log{t_{\rm cross} } = b K + c, \label{eq:Chambers+}\end{aligned}$$ where $b$ and $c$ are constants. When systems are composed of 3 planets whose mass are $10^{-7}M_{\odot}$, $b=1.176$ and $c=1.663$ for example. The values of these constants depend on planetary mass ($M_{\rm p}$) and the number of planets ($N$). But when a system has more than 5 planets, adding further planets does not make significant difference to the stability of the system. The crossing time of protoplanets also depends on initial eccentricities and inclinations of protoplanets (Yoshinaga $et\ al$. 1999; Zhou $et\ al$. 2007). Yoshinaga $et\ al$. (1999) found that the two constants $b$ and $c$ decrease proportional to root mean square of eccentricities and inclinations. The dependence of constants $b$ and $c$ on planetary mass, $M_{\rm p}$, was studied by Duncan and Lissauer (1997) and Zhou $et\ al$. (2007). Duncan and Lissauer (1997) studied the crossing time of Uranian satellite system with multiplied satellite mass and Zhou $et\ al$. (2007) investigated the crossing time of protoplanetary systems whose settings are similar to Chambers $et\ al$. (1996). From numerical calculations of the crossing time with different masses, they concluded $\log{t_{\rm cross}}\propto \log{M_{\rm p}}$. They also empirically expressed dependence on eccentricity. The crossing time of systems containing retrograde planets were studied by Smith and Lissauer (2009). They have found that systems with mixture of planets in retrograde and prograde orbits are more stable than the system which has only prograde planets provided that the total number of planets and their orbital separations in mutual Hill radii are the same. When planets embedded in protoplanetary gas disk, drag force which damps eccentricities also affects crossing time (Iwasaki $et\ al$., 2001, 2002; Iwasaki and Ohtsuki 2006). When the crossing time without drag force is shorter than eccentricity damping timescale, the drag force hardly changes the crossing time. Otherwise, the orbital crossing time is at least 200-times longer than that without the drag. This result implies that multiple planet systems do not start orbital instability until disk gas is sufficiently depleted. If the effects of type-I migration and disk inner edge are taken into account, the systems can become resonant. We will show that the resonant configuration stabilizes the systems even after disk gas is completely depleted, if the number of planets is smaller than a critical value. Numerical Model {#num_model} =============== We consider a situation that planets are brought to current locations near their host star by type-I migration, which leads the systems to resonant configuration in the protoplanetary disk. Planetary growth simulations including type-I migration and disk inner edge by Ogihara and Ida (2009) suggest that similar-sized planets are trapped in the resonances. We consider that planets have equal masses ($M_{\rm p}=3M_{\oplus}-30M_{\oplus}$) and coplanar orbits around the central star with $M_=1M_{\odot}$ in all cases (non-zero inclination cases are studied in Yoshinaga $et\ al$. 1999). Using 4th-order Hermite scheme, we continue calculations until a distance between planets becomes smaller than their mutual Hill radius for at least one pair or until we reach to an upper limit of orbital evolution time. We set the upper limit of our calculation at $10^8$ Kepler time of the innermost planet ($a_1 = 0.1$ AU for all cases). Planetary mass ($M_{\rm p}$), orbital separation normalized by mutual Hill radius ($K$), and the total number of bodies ($N$) are treated as parameters. In this paper, we target on the first-order mean-motion resonances, i.e., planets have $p+1$:$p$ period relation, according to the results by Ogihara and Ida (2009). Planets which are in a mean-motion resonance have a relation between their pericenters and a point of conjunction. Even if whether planets have a periods ratio of $p+q$:$p$, it does not guarantee that they are in a mean-motion resonance. Thus, for the same Hill separations and planetary mass, we can set up both resonant and non-resonant systems. In the non-resonant cases, planets have the $p+1$:$p$ period ratio, but their initial longitudes are given randomly. In the resonant cases, we put planets in the mean-motion resonance using orbital migration. The orbital migration automatically leads the planets to the mean-motion resonance with appropriate resonant angles. To extract the effect of a mean-motion resonance on the orbital stability, we compare the crossing time for the resonant cases with that for the non-resonant cases. Configuration of System {#conf_system} ----------------------- Here, we explain how we control separations of neighboring planets in the same resonance using only one parameter $K$. Mutual Hill radius of the $i$-th planet and the $(i+1)$-th planet is given by $$\begin{aligned} r_{{\rm H}i, i+1} = \left( \frac{M_i + M_{ i+1} }{3 M_} \right)^{1/3} \left( \frac{M_i a_i + M_{ i+1} a_{ i+1} }{M_i + M_{ i+1}} \right), \label{eq:mutual_Hill}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_i$ is $i$-th planetary semi-major axis, $M_i$ is $i$-th planetary mass, and $M_$ is stellar mass. Using a factor $K$, the orbital separation of neighboring planets is expressed as $$\begin{aligned} a_{ i+1} - a_i = K r_{{\rm H}i, i+1}. \label{eq:equal_Hill}\end{aligned}$$ In our simulations, all planets have an equal mass $M_i = M_{i+1} = M_{\rm p}$ and neighboring plantes have period ratio of $p+q$:$p$, i.e., $a_{i+1}/a_i = (p/p+q)^{-2/3}$. Using these relations, $K$ is expressed as $$\begin{aligned} K = \frac{2\{(p+q)^{2/3} - p^{2/3} \}}{(p+q)^{2/3} + p^{2/3} } \left( \frac{3 M_}{2M_{\rm p}} \right)^{1/3}. \label{eq:K_resonance}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $K$ in the same for all the adjacent pairs for given $p$ and $q$. The values of $K$ we use are shown in Table \[table:cases\]. Semi-major axis of the $i$-th planet ($i\geq2$) in the first-order mean-motion resonance is expressed as $$\begin{aligned} a_{i} &=& \left( \frac{ 2{\bar M} + K } { 2{\bar M}- K } \right)^{i} a_1, \label{eq:ith_semi-major}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bar M} = \left( 2M_{\rm p} /3 M_* \right)^{-1/3} $. We use $a_1=0.1$ AU in all cases. Non-Resonant Cases ------------------ For non-resonant cases, we set planets according to Eq. \[eq:ith\_semi-major\] without any special treatment like resonant case (§\[sec:r\_case\]). We integrate the equations of motion, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d^2 \textrm{\boldmath $r$}_{ i}}{dt^2} = -{\rm G}M_{ }\frac{\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_{ i}}{r_i^3} - \sum_{ j \neq i}^{ N} {\rm G}M_{\rm p} \frac{\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_{ ij} }{r_{ ij}^3} - \sum_{ j}^{ N} {\rm G}M_{\rm p}\frac{\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_{ j}}{r_{ j}^3}, \label{eq:basic_commensurable}\end{aligned}$$ where $i$ refers to the $i$-th protoplanet ($i=1, 2, \cdots, N$), G is the gravitational constant, and $\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_{ ij} $ is relative distance of the planet $i$ and $j$. We perform 100 runs for each value of $N$. Resonant Cases {#sec:r_case} -------------- We form exact resonance situations by orbital migration simulations in a gaseous disk. After all planets are locked in a resonance, we gradually deplete the gas. We calculate crossing times of 5 resonances. Choices of the resonance and planetary mass are in Table 1. By the choice, the Hill separation $K$ is automatically adjusted as we explained in §\[conf\_system\]. In case1 and case2, we use typical values of resonant planets obtained in simulations by Terquem and Papaloizou (2007) and Ogihara and Ida (2009). The other sets are chosen to study how crossing time changes by these parameters. We calculate 10 runs in 6:5 and 7:6 mean-motion resonance, and 3 runs in other cases slightly changing initial longitude. We follow Ogihara and Ida (2009)’s settings. The basic equations to form initial conditions are $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d^2 \textrm{\boldmath $r$}_i}{dt^2} = -{\rm G}M_{}\frac{\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_i}{r_i^3} - \sum_{ j \neq i} {\rm G} M_{\rm p} \frac{\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_{ ij} }{r_{ ij}^3} - \sum_j {\rm G} M_{\rm p} \frac{\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_j}{r_j^3} + \textrm{\boldmath $F$}_{\rm damp} + \textrm{\boldmath $F$}_{\rm mig}, \label{eq:typeI}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \textrm{\boldmath $F$}_{\rm damp}\ {\rm and}\ \textrm{\boldmath $F$}_{\rm mig}$ are the specific forces owing to eccentricity damping due to tides from the gas disk as a drag force (e.g., Tanaka and Ward 2004) and type-I migration, respectively. These force are given by Ogihara and Ida (2009) as $$\begin{aligned} \textrm{\boldmath $F$}_{\rm damp} &=& \left( \frac{M_p}{M_} \right) \left( \frac{v_{\rm K}}{c_s} \right)^4 \left( \frac{\Sigma_g r^2}{M_} \right) \Omega \left[ \left\{ 0.114 (v_{\theta} - r\Omega ) + 0.176 v_r \right\} \textrm{\boldmath $e$}_{r} \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. + \{ -1.736 (v_{\theta} - r\Omega) + 0.325 v_r\} \textrm{\boldmath $e$}_{\theta} +\{-1.088 v_z -0.871 z \Omega\} \textrm{\boldmath $e$}_{z} \right], \\ \textrm{\boldmath $F$}_{\rm mig} &=& -2.17 f_{\rm m}\frac{M_p}{M_} \left( \frac{v_{\rm K}}{c_s} \right)^2 \frac{\Sigma_g r^2}{M_} \Omega v_{\rm K} \textrm{\boldmath $e$}_{\theta}, \end{aligned}$$ where $f_{\rm m}$ is a scale parameter corresponding to an uncertainty in type-I migration. These additional forces arise from interaction with the gas disk. For the disk model, we use $$\begin{aligned} \Sigma_{\rm g} &=& 2400 f_{\rm g} \left( \frac{r}{1{\rm AU}} \right)^{-3/2} {\rm g\ cm}^{-2}, \label{eq:Disk_SDensity}\\ c_{\rm s} &=& 1.0 \times 10^5 \left( \frac{r}{1{\rm AU}} \right)^{-1/4} \left( \frac{L_}{L_{\odot}} \right)^{1/8} {\rm cm\ s}^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma_{\rm g}$ is a surface density of the gas disk and $c_{\rm s}$ is the sound velocity. During migration simulations, the surface density is 1.4 times larger than that of the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula model, i.e., $f_{\rm g}=1$. The sound velocity is that for an optically thin disk. We assume that the disk surface density smoothly vanishes with a hyperbolic tangent function at inner edge as $$\begin{aligned} \tanh{\left( \frac{r - r_{\rm edge}}{\Delta r} \right)},\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{\rm edge}$ is a heliocentric distance of the inner edge of the gas disk, and $\Delta r$ represents typical width of the inner edge. We choose $r_{\rm edge} =0.1$ AU and $\Delta r = 0.001$ AU. In our calculations, we put all planets slightly outside of $p+1$:$p$ resonance. Planets slowly migrate inward and are trapped at $p+1$:$p$ resonance automatically. After planets are captured in mean-motion resonances, we perform orbital integration for crossing time, decreasing gas density. For adiabatic gas depletion, we decrease $f_{\rm g}$ as $$\begin{aligned} f_{\rm g} = \exp{\left(- \frac{t}{\tau_{\rm dep}} \right)}, \label{eq:depletion}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_{\rm dep}$ means depletion timescale. The timing $t=0$ is the starting time of gas depletion. For adiabatic gas depletion, we normally take $\tau_{\rm dep}=10^4$ yr following Ogihara and Ida (2009). We check the dependence of $\tau_{\rm dep}$ on the crossing time by changing it to $\tau_{\rm dep} = 10^4\ {\rm yr},\ 10^3\ {\rm yr},\ 10^2$ yr in §\[sec\_result\_r\]. The system is stable over $t_{\rm drag}$ (defined in Appendix \[sec:g\_dep\]) due to eccentricity damping. To distinguish the resonant effect from the stabilization effect due to eccentricity damping, we choose these timescales as $\tau_{\rm dep}$. The timescale of eccentricity damping obtained by linear calculation of tides from the gas disk (Tanaka and Ward 2004) is $$\begin{aligned} t_{\rm damp} &\simeq& 0.96 f_{\rm g}^{-1} \left( \frac{M_{\rm p}}{10^{-5}M_{\odot}} \right)^{-1} \left( \frac{a}{0.1{\rm AU}} \right)^{2} \left( \frac{M_}{M_{\odot} }\right)^{-1/2} \left( \frac{L_}{L_{\odot}} \right)^{1/2} {\rm yr}, \label{eq:e_damp}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{\odot}$ and $L_{\odot}$ are solar mass and luminosity. The timescale of semi-major damping by standard type-I migration (Tanaka $et\ al$. 2002) is $$\begin{aligned} t_{\rm mig} &\simeq& 4.8 \times 10^2 f_{\rm g}^{-1} f_{\rm m} \left( \frac{M_{\rm p}}{10^{-5}M_{\odot}} \right)^{-1} \left( \frac{a}{0.1{\rm AU}} \right)^{3/2} \left( \frac{M_}{M_{\odot} }\right)^{1/2} \left( \frac{L_}{L_{\odot}} \right)^{1/4} {\rm yr}. \end{aligned}$$ To stop the innermost planet at the disk edge of $a_1=0.1$ AU and to trap following planets in a resonances, we adopt slow enough migration, $f_{\rm m} \geq 50$ (Ogihara $et\ al$. 2010). When a planet is in the first-order resonance, the timescale of resonant libration is $$\begin{aligned} t_{\rm lib} &=& 11.7 \left(\frac{p}{5}\right)^{-1} \left(\frac{\alpha F_{\rm D} }{-3.94613}\right)^{-1/2} \left( \frac{e}{10^{-3}} \right)^{-1/2} \left(\frac{a}{0.1{\rm AU}}\right)^{3/2} \left( \frac{M_{\rm p}}{10^{-5}M_{\odot}} \right)^{-1/2} \nonumber \\ &&\times E(\sqrt{\sin^2{\left(\varphi_0/2\right) }} ) \ {\rm yr}, \\ \label{eq:lib_timescale} F_{\rm D} &=& \frac{1}{2} \left[ -2p-\alpha \frac{d}{d\alpha} \right] b_{1/2}^{(p)}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is the ratio of semi-major axis of the inner planet of the resonant pair divided by semi-major axis of the outer planet, $b_{s}^{(p)}$ is Laplace coefficient, $E$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, and $\varphi_0$ is the maximum width of resonant libration (Murray and Dermott 1999). For adiabatic gas depletion, gas depletion timescale $\tau_{\rm dep}$ should be much longer than $t_{\rm lib}$. The gas depletion in this work is always adiabatic. Results ======= Dependance of Crossing Time on Number of Planets {#Num} ------------------------------------------------ ### typical orbital evolution In resonant cases, we make initial conditions by damping of $e$ and $a$, as explained in §\[sec:r\_case\]. Fig. \[fig:semima\_example\] shows evolution of the semi-major axes of planets. The planets migrate inward due to type-I migration and are trapped in $7$:$6$ mean-motion resonances at $t\simeq-4500$ yr. Although planets are still subject to type-I migration, the innermost planet is caught in the disk edge at 0.1 AU and the other planets do not migrate furthermore. After gas depletion, planets start instability at $t\simeq 73000$ yr. We confirmed the mean-motion resonance from plain commensurability by resonant angle. When a planet is in $7$:$6$ mean-motion resonance, the resonant angle of outer planet is written as $\varphi^{\prime}_i = 7\lambda_{ i+1} - 6 \lambda_i - \varpi_{i+1}$, where $\lambda$ is the mean longitude and $\varpi$ is the longitude of pericenter and the resonant angle of inner planet is written as $\varphi_i = 7\lambda_{ i+1} - 6 \lambda_i - \varpi_{i}$. In the case of systems that are formed by migration (Fig. \[fig:phiout\_dep\_t1\_76\_5-4\]), resonant angles of inner planet librate around $\varphi=0$ and resonant angles of outer planet librate around $\varphi^{\prime}=\pi$. Since $\varphi=0$ and $\varphi^{\prime}=\pi$, all conjunctions occur when inner planet is at its pericenter and outer planet is at its apocenter. This means that only one configuration is possible when $\varphi=0$ and $\varphi^{\prime}=\pi$. The resonant angles start circulation at about 70000 yr, just before the occurrence of instability. On the other hand, if we just put planets at semi-major axes of 7:6 resonance without such special treatment migration, resonant angles circulate and do not take a particular value (Fig. \[fig:phiout\_5\_5\_7-6\]). That is, this initial condition is non-resonant. ### non-resonant case In the non-resonant case, we put planets ($M_{\rm p}=10^{-5}M_{\odot}$) on the orbital separation of $\Delta a= a_{i+1} -a_{i} =6.450r_{{\rm H}i,i+1}\ (K=6.450)$. We calculate $N=3,\ 5,\ 8,\ 9,\ 10,\ 11,\ 20,\ 30,\ {\rm and}\ 50$ cases. Changing initial longitude randomly, we repeat the simulation 100 times for each $N$. Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\] shows crossing time of 6:5 case (case1) having the different number of planets. The crossing time is normalized by Kepler time of the innermost body at $a_1 = 0.1$ AU. The circles are the crossing time of non-resonant system. The solid curve is a least square exponential fit for the results of non-resonant system. Although there is some fluctuation, the crossing time decreases with $N$. However, in the region of $N\gtrsim10$, crossing time is almost constant, $t_{\rm cross} \sim10^4\ T_{\rm Kep}$. This tendency is consistent with the result of Chambers $et\ al$. (1996) using $10^{-7}M_{\odot}$ planets. We formulate the crossing time as a function of the total number of planets such as $$\begin{aligned} \log{t_{\rm cross}} = g\exp{\left(-\log{N}\right)} +h = \frac{g}{N} +h, \label{eq:number_dependence}\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ and $h$ are constants. From a least square fit for the data in Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\], $g=6.21$ and $ h=3.39$ (the solid curve of Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\]). We show in §\[KandM\] how these constants depend on the Hill separation and planetary mass. ### resonant case {#sec_result_r} The results in resonant case (case1) are summarized in Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\]. Triangles, squares, and crosses are the crossing time with $\tau_{\rm dep} = 10^4\ {\rm yr}$, $10^3\ {\rm yr}$, and $10^2\ {\rm yr}$, respectively. Three dotted curves are gas stabilization timescale ($t_{\rm drag}$) which is defined in Eq. \[eq:t\_gas\] for $\tau_{\rm dep} = 10^4,\ 10^3,\ {\rm and}\ 10^2$ yr from the top. Symbols shown on the top horizontal axis indicate lower limits of crossing time, since crossing has not been detected within $10^8\ T_{\rm Kep}$. In Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\], the crossing time of the resonant case is longer than that of the non-resonant case. Since the resonant cases are stabilized by resonant effect and eccentricity damping by gas, we have to estimate the timescale of the stabilization by gas to understand resonant effect. Gas drag is needed to form resonant systems, but its removal is required for the evaluation of the crossing time. Since rapid gas depletion makes system unstable, adiabatic gas depletion is needed. Due to the adiabatic depletion, planets are stabilized by gas on timescales $\sim t_{\rm drag}$ (defined in Appendix \[sec:g\_dep\]). In Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\], $t_{\rm cross} \sim t_{\rm drag}$ for $N\gtrsim 10$. The gas drag effect is that $t_{\rm cross}$ cannot be shorter than $t_{\rm drag}$ suggested by Iwasaki $et\ al$. (2002). The crossing time in large $N$ is dependent on $\tau_{\rm dep}$. As $\tau_{\rm dep}$ becomes shorter, we can diminish the gas drag effect and $t_{\rm cross}$ approaches that in the non-resonant case for $N \gtrsim 10$. Then, we find that $t_{\rm cross}$ jumps up by several orders of magnitude at $N \sim 8$. This jump-up is due to resonant effect. In the following, we examine the critical total number of planets at which $t_{\rm cross}$ increase abruptly with decreasing $N$. Note that $N_{\rm crit}$ is almost independent of $\tau_{\rm dep}$. Since resonant libration timescale is about $20$ yr in case1, small $\tau_{\rm dep}$ is not long enough to guarantee adiabatic gas depletion in these cases. Therefore, we choose $\tau_{\rm dep} = 10^4$ yr in the following, although an off-set of $\sim t_{\rm drag}$ for $\tau_{\rm dep}=10^4$ yr is added in the results. Orbital Separation and Mass Dependence {#KandM} -------------------------------------- In this subsection, we show dependence of crossing time on the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii and the planetary mass. First, we change the orbital separation factor $K$ fixing planetary mass. It corresponds to a change of $p$ of the resonance. The results for 6:5 resonance ($K=6.450$), 7:6 resonance ($K=5.456$), and 8:7 ($K=4.727$) are shown in Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\], \[fig:5-76\], and \[fig:5-87\], respectively. In non-resonant cases, $g$ and $h$ of Eq. \[eq:number\_dependence\] increase with increasing $K$. This tendency is consistent with Chambers $et\ al$. (1996). The crossing time of resonant planets shows discontinuity at a certain value of $N$ as explained in §\[Num\] for 6:5 resonance case. The critical number of holding planet is $N_{\rm crit}=4$ for 7:6 resonances and $N_{\rm crit}=3$ for 8:7 resonances. We find a tendency that $N_{\rm crit}$ decreases with increasing $p$ value of $p+1$:$p$ resonance, i.e., decreasing the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii, as we show it in Fig. \[fig:K\_Ncrit\]. Next, we change planetary mass with fixed the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii. Since mutual Hill radius depends on planetary mass, we can choose some resonances having similar $K$ by changing planetary mass. We choose planets of mass $10^{-4}M_{\odot}$ for 4:3 resonances in case4. In this case, the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii is equal to $K=4.715$ which is nearly equal to the case3 (8:7 resonance with $M_{\rm p} = 10^{-5}M_{\odot}$). These results are plotted in Fig. \[fig:4-43\]. In non-resonant cases, crossing time is longer for larger masses. According to Chambers $et\ al$. (1996) and Zhou $et\ al$. (2007), the crossing time of non-resonant systems increases with increasing planetary mass for $K>4$ as long as planetary eccentricities are small enough. This tendency is also found in our resonant results. In resonant cases, $N_{\rm crit}$ is $7$ in case4. Since $N_{\rm crit}=3$ in case3, $N_{\rm crit}$ decreases with increasing $p$ value of $p+1$:$p$ or decreasing planetary mass. Quillen (2011) suggests that three-body resonance overlap affects crossing times of non-resonant systems. It would also be the case in our resonant systems. Our results show that $N_{\rm crit}$ increases with decreasing $p$ value. It is consistent with the fact that the resonance overlap less occurs with small $p$ value. We find that a pair which causes instability is always the nearest neighbors in outer region for resonant cases. It is related to our exponential depletion of gas density expressed in Eq. \[eq:depletion\]. Outer planets can cause instability while inner plants are still stabilized by gas. Planetary pair which causes instability depends on gas profile and the way of gas depletion. Chain of Resonance {#sec:chain} ------------------ We have been studying crossing time of planets which are in the same $p+1$:$p$ resonance for all the adjacent pairs. But there is not the cases for resonant planets that are observed and formed by N-body simulations of Ogihara and Ida (2009). For example, 4 planets observed in KOI-730 have periods of 7.38469, 9.84978, 14.7845, and 19.72175 days, respectively (Lissauer $et\ al$. 2011). Lissauer $et\ al$. (2011) suggests that these planets are in a chain of resonance of 8:6:4:3. In this system, planets are in the first-order mean-motion resonant orbits with neighboring planets and with every other planet. To check orbital stability of such systems, we calculate the crossing time of systems whose planets are in $8$:$7$:$6$ chain resonance, repeatedly (case5). For example, in $N=4$ case, a 2nd innermost planet and a 3rd one are in $8$:$7$ resonance, and mean-motion ratios of planets are 28:24:21:18. When planets are in $8$:$7$:$6$ chain resonance, the pairs of every other planets are in 4:3 resonance. Fig. \[fig:5-876\] shows that $N_{\rm crit}\sim6$. This is larger than $N_{\rm crit}=4$ of $7$:$6$ single resonance and $N_{\rm crit}=3$ of $8$:$7$ single resonance. Although chain resonance effect is unclear, there is possible that planets would be stabilized by 4:3 every other resonance ($N_{\rm crit}>7$ in $10^{-5}M_{\odot}$ planets) or that it would reduce crossing time dependence on $N$ like the case of mixture of planets in retrograde and prograde orbits (Smith and Lissauer 2009). Conclusions =========== We have investigated the crossing time ($t_{\rm cross}$) of resonant systems by numerical simulations for 4:3, 6:5, 7:6 and 8:7 resonances. The crossing time of non-resonant plants decreases continuously with increasing the total number of planets $N$. In the case of resonant systems, however, while $t_{\rm cross}$ is comparable to that in non-resonant systems for large $N$, it abruptly changes for $N\leq N_{\rm crit}$. In that case, the resonant systems are stable during the simulation time ($10^8$ Kepler time). We examine 4 cases of different resonances with changing the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii $K$ and planetary mass $M_{\rm p}$, and 1 case of chain resonances. When $K$ or $M_{\rm p}$ is fixed, $N_{\rm crit}$ increases as $p$ value of $p+1$:$p$ decreases. When planets of mass $10^{-5}M_{\odot}$ are in 6:5 resonances, $N_{\rm crit}=8$, when planets of mass $10^{-5}M_{\odot}$ are in 7:6 resonances, $N_{\rm crit}=4$, when planets of mass $10^{-5}M_{\odot}$ are in 8:7 resonances, $N_{\rm crit}=3$, and when planets of mass $10^{-4}M_{\odot}$ are in 4:3 resonances, $N_{\rm crit}=7$. Observed planets are not always in a chain of the same resonance. We calculate 8:7:6 chain resonant case. We find that $N_{\rm crit}=6$ of 8:7:6 resonance case is larger than either of 8:7 and 7:6 single cases. In this paper, we set the innermost planet at 0.1AU, which is usually too far for tidal effect to be particularly important. However, many detected planets reside quite a bit closer to their host stars. As can be seen in the numerical simulations of Terquem and Papaloizou (2007), Papaloizou and Terquem (2010), and Papaloizou (2011), tidal dissipation affects the stability of resonant systems due to two effects. One is eccentricity damping. Another is change of amplitudes of resonant libration. According to Papaloizou and Terquem (2010), the timescale of eccentricity damping due to the tidal dissipation is $$\begin{aligned} t^{\rm s}_{\rm e} &=&1.818 \times 10^8 \left( \frac{M_{\oplus}}{M_{\rm p}} \right)^{2/3} \left( \frac{20a}{\rm 1AU} \right)^{5} \left( \frac{Q^{\prime}}{50} \right) T_{\rm Kep}. \end{aligned}$$ The parameter $Q^{\prime}=3Q/2k_{\rm 2}$, where $Q$ is the tidal dissipation function and $k_{\rm 2}$ is the Love number. Since planets are stabilized when $e$-damping timescale is shorter than the crossing time in gas free conditions, tidal dissipation stabilizes planets $a \lesssim 0.02$AU for our closely spaced systems. Tidal dissipation often increases amplitude of resonant libration in association with an increasing period ratio, $P_{i+1}/P_i$ (Terquem and Papaloizou 2007; Papaloizou 2011). Although tides help eccentricity damping in most cases, planets having large resonant amplitudes would easily move away from resonant configurations due to tides and cause instability. Many planets in observed multi-super Earths systems are orbiting near the central star. It is suggested that close-in super-Earths are formed through orbital migration of protoplanets and stopped near the disk inner edge due to resonant trapping (Terquem and Papaloizou 2007; Ogihara and Ida 2009). Even in 6:5 resonance, our simulation (§\[KandM\]) shows the system can hold 8 planets stably. If a planet is in $2$:$1$ mean-motion resonance, the orbital separation is larger than 10 Hill radius for a planet $M_{\rm p} <1.4 \times 10^{-4}M_{\odot}$. Observed systems composed of a few planets in 2:1 resonance are stable over $10^8$ Kepler time since these system can hold over 8 planets stably. The same goes for satellite systems such as Galilean satellites. On the other hand, observations find many systems that are not in a mean-motion resonance (Fabrycky $et\ al$. 2012). The systems of super-Earths far from the resonances could be formed by the scenario by Ogihara and Ida (2009) that planets more than the critical number are once trapped in resonance in gaseous stage and cause orbital instability after gas depletion. Timescale of Gas Depletion {#sec:g_dep} ========================== When there is eccentricity damping force, a planetary system is stable (Iwasaki $et\ al.$ 2001, 2002), provided that $e$-damping timescale ($t_{\rm damp}$) is shorter than the crossing time in gas free case ($t_{\rm cross}^{}$). Since we adopt the exponential decay of gas, $t_{\rm damp}$ exponentially increases and eventually exceeds $t_{\rm cross}^{}$. We define $t_{\rm drag}$ as the timescale for $t_{\rm damp}$ to become longer than $t_{\rm cross}^{}$. Using the formula by Iwasaki $et\ al$. (2002), we find $$\begin{aligned} t_{\rm drag} &\simeq& 2.30 b \left( K - K_{\rm drag}(t=0) \right) \tau_{\rm dep}, \label{eq:t_gas}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} K_{\rm drag} &\simeq& \frac{1}{b} \log{\left( \frac{t_{\rm damp} }{T_{\rm Kep}} \right)} - \frac{c}{b}, \label{eq:Iwasaki_crit}\end{aligned}$$ $b$ and $c$ are defined in Eq. \[eq:Chambers+\]. We thank Masahiro Ogihara for useful comments. We also thank Konstantin Batygin and an anonymous referee for helpful comments to improve the paper. This research was supported by a grant for the Global COE Program, ”From the Earth to ”Earths””, MEXT, Japan. M. N. was supported by MEXT-KAKENHI (21740324) Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B). Batalha, N. M., et al. 2012. Planetary Candidates Observed by Kepler, III: Analysis of the First 16 Months of Data. Astrophys. J. Suppl., submitted for publication. Borucki, W. J., et al., 2011. Characteristics of Kepler Planetary Candidates Based on the First Data Set. Astrophys. J. 728, 117. Borucki, W. J., et al. 2011. Characteristics of Planetary Candidates Observed by Kepler. II. Analysis of the First Four Months of Data. Astrophys. J. 736, 19. Chambers, J. E., Wetherill, G. W., Boss, A. P. 1996. The Stability of Multi-Planet Systems. Icarus 119, 261-268. Cohen, C. J., Hubbard, E. C. 1965. Libration of the close approaches of Pluto to Neptune. Astron. J. 70, 10-13. Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2012. Architecture of Kepler’s Multi-transiting Systems: II. New investigations with twice as many candidates. Astrophys. J., submitted for publication. Iwasaki, K., Emori, H., Nakazawa, K., Tanaka, H. 2002. Orbital Stability of a Protoplanet System under a Drag Force Proportional to the Random Velocity. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 54, 471-479. Iwasaki, K., Ohtsuki, K. 2006. Orbital Stability of Protoplanetary Systems in Nebular Gas and Implications for Terrestrial Planet Formation. Astrophys. J. 131, 3093-3099. Iwasaki, K., Tanaka, H., Nakazawa, K., Hiroyuki, E. 2001. The Gas-Drag Effect on the Orbital Instability of a Protoplanet System. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 53, 321-329. Lissauer, J. J., et al. 2011. Architecture and Dynamics of Kepler’s Candidate Multiple Transiting Planet Systems. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 197, 8. Murray, C. D., Dermott, S. F. 1999. Solar system dynamics. Solar system dynamics by Murray, C. D., 1999. Ogihara, M., Ida, S. 2009. N-Body Simulations of Planetary Accretion Around M Dwarf Stars. Astrophys. J. 699, 824-838. Ogihara, M., Duncan, M. J., Ida, S. 2010. Eccentricity Trap: Trapping of Resonantly Interacting Planets Near the Disk Inner Edge. Astrophys. J. 721, 1184-1192. Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2011. Tidal interactions in multi-planet systems. Celest. Mech. Dynam. Astron. 111, 83-103. Papaloizou, J. C. B., Terquem, C. 2010. On the dynamics of multiple systems of hot super-Earths and Neptunes: tidal circularization, resonance and the HD 40307 system. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 405, 573-592. Quillen, A. C. 2011. Three-body resonance overlap in closely spaced multiple-planet systems. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 418, 1043-1054. Smith, A. W., Lissauer, J. J. 2009. Orbital stability of systems of closely-spaced planets. Icarus 201, 381-394. Tanaka, H., Takeuchi, T., Ward, W. R. 2002. Three-Dimensional Interaction between a Planet and an Isothermal Gaseous Disk. I. Corotation and Lindblad Torques and Planet Migration. Astrophys. J. 565, 1257-1274. Tanaka, H., Ward, W. R. 2004. Three-dimensional Interaction between a Planet and an Isothermal Gaseous Disk. II. Eccentricity Waves and Bending Waves. Astrophys. J. 602, 388-395. Terquem, C., Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2007. Migration and the Formation of Systems of Hot Super-Earths and Neptunes. Astrophys. J. 654, 1110-1120. Veras, D., Ford, E. B. 2012. Identifying non-resonant Kepler planetary systems. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 420, L23-L27. Yoshinaga, K., Kokubo, E., Makino, J. 1999. The Stability of Protoplanet Systems. Icarus 139, 328-335. Zhou, J.-L., Lin, D. N. C., Sun, Y.-S. 2007. Post-oligarchic Evolution of Protoplanetary Embryos and the Stability of Planetary Systems. Astrophys. J. 666, 423-435. [ccccc]{} & $p+1$:$p$ resonance & planetary mass $M_{\rm p}$ & Hill separation $K$ & critical number $N_{\rm crit}$\ case1 & 6:5 & $10^{-5}M_{\odot}$ & 6.450 & 8\ case2 & 7:6 & $10^{-5}M_{\odot}$ & 5.456 & 4\ case3 & 8:7 & $10^{-5}M_{\odot}$ & 4.727 & 3\ case4 & 4:3 & $10^{-4}M_{\odot}$ & 4.715 & 7\ case5 & 7:6 and 8:7 & $10^{-5}M_{\odot}$ & 4.727 and 5.456 & 6\ Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered} =============== Fig. \[fig:semima\_example\]. - An example of resonant trapping is shown. Time evolutions of semi-major axes. The total number $N$ is equal to 5. We form exact resonance situations by 5000 yr simulation of orbital migration before the reduction of the gas density at $t=0$. Planets migrate inward and are trapped at 7:6 resonance orbits. At $t=0$, we start gas depletion with depletion timescale $\tau_{\rm dep}=10^4$ yr. The crossing time is about 73000 yr ($\simeq 2.3\times 10^6\ T_{\rm Kep}$). Fig. \[fig:phiout\_dep\_t1\_76\_5-4\]. - Time evolutions of resonant angle of 5 planets in 7:6 resonances. In this case, the orbital instability causes at about 73000 yr. Planets are labeled from the innermost. The upper figure shows resonant angle $\varphi_1$ (cross), $\varphi_2$ (square), $\varphi_3$ (circle), and $\varphi_4$ (triangle). The lower figure shows resonant angle $\varphi_1^{\prime}$ (cross), $\varphi_2^{\prime}$ (square), $\varphi_3^{\prime}$ (circle), and $\varphi_4^{\prime}$ (triangle). Fig. \[fig:phiout\_5\_5\_7-6\]. - Time evolutions of resonant angles of non-resonant planets. This figure is the case of $N=5$ and $K=5.456$. The orbital instability causes at about 4200 yr. The upper figure shows resonant angle $\varphi_1$ (cross), $\varphi_2$ (square), $\varphi_3$ (circle), and $\varphi_4$ (triangle). The lower figure shows resonant angle $\varphi_1^{\prime}$ (cross), $\varphi_2^{\prime}$ (square), $\varphi_3^{\prime}$ (circle), and $\varphi_4^{\prime}$ (triangle). Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\]. - Crossing times $t_{\rm cross}$ normalized by Kepler time of the innermost body versus the number of planets $N$. The circles represent the crossing time of 6:5 orbits whose initial longitudes are chosen randomly (100 cases for each $N$). The solid curve is a least square exponential fit to the circles, $\log{t_{\rm cross}} = 6.21/N +3.39 $. The triangles are the crossing time of 6:5 orbits (10 cases for each $N$) whose initial conditions are generated by orbital integrations including migration ($\tau_{\rm dep} = 10^4$ yr). The square symbols are $\tau_{\rm dep}=10^3$ yr and cross symbols are $\tau_{\rm dep}=10^2$ yr. Three dotted lines represent $t_{\rm drag}$ (Eq. \[eq:t\_gas\]) of the outermost planet for $\tau_{\rm dep} = 10^4,\ 10^3,\ {\rm and}\ 10^2$ yr from the top. In the case1, $N_{\rm crit}$ is equal to $8$. Fig. \[fig:5-76\]. - Same as Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\], 7:6 resonances (case2). The circles represent the crossing time of 7:6 orbits whose initial longitudes are chosen randomly (100 cases for each $N$). The solid curve is a least square exponential fit to the circles, $\log{t_{\rm cross}} = 5.65/N +2.76 $. The triangles are the crossing time of 7:6 orbits (10 cases for each $N$) whose initial conditions are generated by orbital integrations including migration ($\tau_{\rm dep} = 10^4$ yr). In the case2, $N_{\rm crit}$ is equal to $4$. The dotted line shows $t_{\rm drag}$ (Eq. \[eq:t\_gas\]) of the outermost planet. Fig. \[fig:5-87\]. - Same as Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\], 8:7 resonances (case3). The circles represent the crossing time of non-resonant orbits. The triangles are the crossing time of resonant orbits (3 runs for each). The dotted line shows $t_{\rm drag}$ of the outermost planet. The solid curve is $\log{t_{\rm cross}} = 4.91/N +2.19 $. Here, $N_{\rm crit}$ is equal to $3$. Fig. \[fig:K\_Ncrit\]. - $N_{\rm crit}$ versus the orbital separation in mutual Hill radii $K$ in the case of $M_{\rm p} = 10^{-5}M_{\odot}$. Fig. \[fig:4-43\]. - Same as Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\], 4:3 resonances (case4). The circles represent the crossing time of non-resonant orbits and the solid curve is a least square exponential fit to the circles, $\log{t_{\rm cross}} = 7.37/N +2.05 $. The triangles are the crossing time of resonant orbits (3 runs for each). The dotted line shows $t_{\rm drag}$ of the outermost planet. In case4, $N_{\rm crit}$ is equal to $7$. Fig. \[fig:5-876\]. - Same as Fig. \[fig:5-65\_dep\], but for 8:7:6 resonances (case5). The circles represent the crossing time of non-resonant orbits and the solid curve is a least square exponential fit to the circles, $\log{t_{\rm cross}} = 11.85/N + 1.81$. The triangles are the crossing time of resonant chain orbits (3 runs for each). In case5, $N_{\rm crit}$ is equal to $6$. ![[]{data-label="fig:semima_example"}](Fig1.eps){width="170mm"}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The hadronic phase space distributions calculated with the transport model RQMD for central S(200 AGeV) on S and Pb(160AGeV) on Pb collisions are analyzed to study the deviations from ideal hydrodynamical evolution. After the preequilibrium stage, which lasts for approximately 4 (2) fm/c in Pb+Pb (S+S) the source stays in approximate kinetic equilibrium for about 2 fm/c at a temperature close to 140 MeV. The interactions of mesons last until around 14 (5) fm/c during which time strong transverse flow is generated. The interactions in the hadronic resonance gas are not sufficiently strong to maintain ideal fluid expansion. While pions acquire average transverse fluid velocities around 0.47-0.58 c, heavier particles like protons and kaons cannot keep up with the pionic fluid, since their average velocities are smaller by about 20 to 30 %. Although kinetic equilibrium breaks down in the final dilute stage of $AA$ collisions, the system resembles a thermal system at a temperature of 130 MeV, if the free streaming of hadrons after freeze-out is suppressed. This freeze-out temperature is consistent with estimates based on mean free paths and expansion rates in a thermal fireball but lower than values derived from fits to measured particle ratios and transverse momentum spectra. The processes in RQMD to which the differences can be attributed to are the non-ideal expansion of the hadronic matter and the absence of chemical equilibrium at freeze-out.' --- 21.5cm -1.5cm [Temperatures and Non-ideal Expansion in\ Ultrarelativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions ]{} \ H. Sorge [^1] \ Physics Department, \ State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY 11794-3390 The dynamical evolution in ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions proceeds in three stages. The initial phase is characterized by mutual interpenetration of the two nuclei which destroys the coherence of ingoing nuclear wave functions and leads to production of secondary quanta. In the second stage, entropy generation slows down, because the system evolves hydrodynamically, i.e. in or near to local kinetic equilibrium. The system may be characterized as a hadronic gas or as a quark-gluon plasma which later undergoes a phase transition back into the hadronic world. Which state is realized, depends on the initial conditions, most importantly the energy and baryon density. Hydrodynamic expansion cools and dilutes the system up to densities at which the hadrons cease to interact (freeze-out). Afterwards they stream out freely and reach the detectors. The extraction of the phase diagram and other bulk properties using penetrating probes like photons or hadronic final-state observables becomes much easier if the system evolves dominantly according to hydrodynamical equations of motions. There is probably no doubt that the conditions of hydrodynamical evolution can be met during a part of the evolution, if the energies of the colliding nuclei are sufficiently high. However, it is worthwile to study whether hydrodynamical behaviour is exhibited in $AA$ collisions at presently available energies (up to 200 AGeV at CERN-SPS). The hydrodynamical model [@CLA86] has been widely used to describe nucleus-nucleus collisions in this energy domain [@GER86]-[@SCH93]. In particular, it was suggested that the final hadron momentum spectra could be understood as a convolution of hydrodynamic motion (collective flow) and a stochastic component determined by the freeze-out temperature [@LEE89]. Subsequently, available experimental data from $AA$ collisions at AGS (energy 10-15AGeV) and at CERN have been interpreted based on these assumptions (see e.g. [@VEN90],[@SCH92],[@BMS95]). However, for a satisfactory understanding of the experimental results it is important to assess how large the corrections to the hydrodynamical picture are. How non-ideal is the hydrodynamics of expanding hadronic matter which is created in nuclear collisions at CERN energy? The role of transport coefficients in a thermal hadron gas which describe the ‘restoring forces’ in case of infinitesimal deviations from equilibrium has already been discussed [@LEV91],[@PRA93]. Here, I use a semi-classical transport theoretical approach (Relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics) to study the deviations from hadronic fluid dynamics. The advantage of a transport calculation is that it is not restricted to situations close to equilibrium. In addition to assuming a common flow velocity, ‘model-independent’ analysis of collective and stochastic component by an analysis of experimental momentum spectra or correlation functions have relied on the concept of a thermal state at freeze-out. However, the assumption of an abrupt transition from a system which maintains local equilibrium into a gas of free hadrons is a drastic idealization. In a hydrodynamic description, corrections associated with heat conduction and viscosity would start to play a significant role before freeze-out. Is an analysis of the hydrodynamic flow effect on the hadron momentum spectra jeopardized by the break-down of hydrodynamics in the dilute stage of matter evolution? In order to address this question hadron distributions in seven-dimensional phase space calculated using the RQMD model were carefully studied. The results of the analysis to be presented will be restricted to two systems, central Pb(160AGeV) on Pb and S(200AGeV) on S collisions. Comparisons between the two will allow us to estimate the influence of finite mass number and size on the hydrodynamical behaviour. Here, the focus will be on an analysis of the transverse degrees of freedom, because the expansion in the longitudinal direction is dominated by transparency effects as in the Bjorken scenario [@BJO83]. The processes which occur in the initial stages before hadronization are outside the scope of this Letter. In the present context, these processes merely serve to set appropriate initial conditions for the evolution of the hadronic matter. Therefore, I give only a short resume of the physics at this stage which is incorporated in the transport approach RQMD (see Ref. [@SOR95] for an extensive description). The soft – nonperturbative – regime of strong interactions has been modeled in RQMD as the excitation and decay of longitudinally stretched color strings, which can be viewed as an idealization of chromoelectric flux tubes. Flux tubes generated in central high energetic nucleus-nucleus collisions can be in higher dimensional charge representations of color $SU_3$, because the effective color charge per unit transverse area may exceed unity, the so-called color rope formation or string fusion. I note that the transverse momentum generated from rope fragmentation is not much larger than in independent string fragmentation, its difference being clearly smaller than the additional transverse momentum which is generated after hadronization in the evolution of the hadronic resonance matter. Furthermore, the initially produced transverse momenta of particles in the central region are oriented randomly. The collective flow in transverse directions starts at velocity zero, in contrast to flow in the beam direction. The hadronization time is aproximately given by 1 fm/c in S+S and 2 fm/c in Pb+Pb (the latter being larger due to the nonnegligible finite size effects related to the Lorentz contraction of the ingoing nuclei). After hadronization, the hadrons formed are propagated on classical trajectories and may interact with each other via binary collisions. Mean field effects, although built into the RQMD model as an option for baryon propagation, are neglected throughout this paper. Most of their effects in a dilute meson fluid tend to cancel, because their contribution has a different sign above and below the energy of a resonance pole as noted in Ref. [@SHU90]. The most striking feature of hadron-hadron interactions at low and intermediate energies, which are relevant after hadronization, is the formation of resonances. These processes are described by adding Breit-Wigner type transition rates (see Ref. [@SOR95] for details). Great care has been exercised to respect detailed balance constraints arising from time-reversal invariance, in particular with resonances ingoing into collisions. Only then equilibration studies like the one presented here become meaningful. Let us turn now to an analysis of the space-time evolution of the hadronic source as generated by the RQMD model. Fig. \[aatempev\] displays the calculated average ‘temperature’ $T$ in central Pb(160AGeV) on Pb and S(200AGeV) on S collisions as a function of the boost invariant parameter $\tau$=$\sqrt{t^2-z^2}$, with $z$ the coordinate along the beam axis and ($t$,$z$)=(0,0) defined as the touching point of the two impinging nuclei. $T$ is defined here locally by the ratio between the average of the two transverse diagonal components of the hadronic energy-momentum tensor and the density of all hadrons, both quantities taken in the rest system of the fluid. The stress tensor has the standard form given from kinetic theory $$\label{tmunu} \Theta^{\mu \nu} = \sum _{h} \int \frac{d^3p }{p^0} p^\mu p^\nu f_h(x,p) \quad ,$$ with $f_h(x,p)$ denoting the one-particle phase space distribution. The sum in eq. (\[tmunu\]) runs over all hadron species $h$. The spatial average of $T$ in a hypersurface of constant volume (chosen as $\pi$ $R_A^2$$\cdot$1 fm) with largest local energy density is calculated at fixed $\tau$. Of course, in equilibrium, $T$ just gives the temperature of the system. The initial strong increase of $T$ with $\tau$ up to 4 (2) fm/c in Pb+Pb (S+S) reflects the preequilibrium stage which is a relic of the flux tube dynamics. It does not imply that a relevant amount of transverse momentum per hadron is created in this stage. The reason for the initially depleted transverse $T$ values is that the longitudinal hadron momenta which enter into the energy denominator of eq. (\[tmunu\]) start out with an extremely hard distribution. The values of $T_z$ defined by employing the longitudinal component of the stress tensor $\Theta ^{zz}$ show a spike as a function of $\tau$ with maxima on the order of 1 GeV (cf. fig. \[aatempev\]). Ingoing nucleons which have not collided yet are excluded in calculating the stress tensor and hadron densities. In terms of an effective equation of state the transverse pressure $P$ is ‘ultra-soft’ as a function of energy density $\epsilon$, the effective ‘bag constant’ defined by ($\epsilon$–3$P$)/4 well in excess of (200 MeV$)^4$ at this stage. The maxima of the function $T$($\tau$) close to 4 (2) fm/c are reached at a time when the longitudinal $T$ values approach the corresponding transverse values, and the local momentum distributions become isotropic. Only after this has happened can local equilibrium be achieved, and a hydrodynamic concept will give equivalent results. Both in Pb+Pb and in S+S, the system stays at a temperature near 140-130 MeV for about 2 fm/c. The temperature range found from the calculations can be considered as an a posteriori justification of the approach taken in RQMD which combines 1+1 dimensional prehadronic (flux tube) dynamics with the resonance gas picture for the hadronic stage. It is expected that a system with temperatures of this order can be reasonably well described in terms of hadronic degrees of freedom [@BEB92]. After some time, $T$ starts to drop continuously in Pb+Pb (S+S) reactions, far below values usually assumed for the freeze-out temperature in hydrodynamical calculations which are based on mean free path arguments [@BEB92]. Indeed, the strong drop seen in the RQMD calculation is related to the onset of hadronic freeze-out. In fig. \[aadndt\] the calculated spectrum of times in the C.M. frame at which hadron of different species (protons, pions and kaons) have their last interaction (collision, decay) is displayed. The maxima of these freeze-out time distributions are around 14 (5) fm/c for mesons, but the distributions are rather wide. A considerable width of the freeze-out hypersurface in the time-like direction is also found in other transport calculations (see e.g. Ref. [@BRA95] for a discussion of $AA$ collisions at AGS energies) and may eventually be included in hydrodynamic calculations [@GRA95]. Continuous decoupling of hadrons influences the cooling process in the high energy density region as early as after 6 (4) fm/c. The calculation of the hadronic stress tensor has been repeated, artificially suppressing the free streaming after freeze-out by ‘glueing’ the hadrons to the position of their last interaction. This modified analysis can be employed to estimate the additional cooling effect due to the freely streaming component in the gas. The result for the modified $T$ evolution is also presented in fig. \[aatempev\] (shown by dots). It demonstrates that the drop of the $T$ values with time is caused by free hadron streaming after freeze-out. By construction, $T$ calculated in the modified analysis has to approach a constant value after all strong interactions have ceased. One can see that $T$ approaches 130 MeV in both reactions, if free streaming is suppressed. It is reasonable to compare this asymptotic $T$ value to the freeze-out temperature in hydrodynamical calculations with instantaneous conversion of local fluid elements into free hadrons [@COO71]. A freeze-out value of 130 MeV for a fireball of a few fermi size is consistent with the criterion that the collision rate should be smaller than the expansion rate in order that hydrodynamics be applicable. Applying this criterion to a baryon-free fireball the authors of Ref. [@BEB92] find a freeze-out temperature around 140 MeV and correspondingly smaller values if a positive chemical potential for pions is built up. Some remarks are in order with respect to recent interpretations of experimental data for central S on A collisions at 200 AGeV. The temperatures which have been fitted to final particle ratios either in a hadronic gas [@DAV91; @CLE93] or in a deconfined plasma breakup scenario [@RAF91] (however, without the contribution from gluon fragmentation) are considerably larger (in the range 160 to 230 MeV) than the freeze-out ‘temperature’ value found here. This may not be really surprising, because chemical equilibrium is expected to be lost much earlier than kinetic equilibrium [@BEB92]. The RQMD calculations support this scenario. In particular, the strong strangeness enhancement in the (anti-) baryon sector experimentally observed by the NA35 and WA85 groups [@QM93] which calls for temperatures in excess of 160 MeV in chemical equilibrium approaches is well reproduced by RQMD [@SOR92]. From the RQMD calculations, I therefore conclude that chemical and kinetic equilibrium are not simultaneously attained in a sizable fraction of the source. The final hadron transverse mass spectra measured for S induced reactions exhibit an approximately exponential behaviour with rather similar inverse slope parameters (‘apparent temperature’) around 200 MeV in central S+S reactions and 230 MeV for heavy targets. Pion spectra for which concave shapes have been observed are the only exception. The Boltzmann-type spectra make it difficult to disentangle flow and temperature effects unambiguously [@VEN90; @SCH92]. Smaller freeze-out temperatures can be traded against larger transverse flow velocities and vice versa. It was suggested in Ref. [@SCH92] that the measured spectra allow average flow velocities of at most 0.4 c in S+S collisions. ‘Circumstantial evidence’ for a freeze-out scenario with $\langle \beta _t \rangle $=0.25 c and $T$=150 MeV was presented. However, RQMD calculations whose results agree rather well with the experimental data yield even larger collective velocities. Averaged over the freeze-out hypersurface, $\beta_{t}$ of pions in the central rapidity region ($y_{CMS}$$\pm$1), amounts to 0.47 for S+S and 0.58 c for Pb+Pb. On the other hand, particles heavier than pions exhibit less flow: e.g. for protons $\beta _t$=0.41 (0.46) and for kaons $\beta _t$=0.34 (0.45) in S+S and Pb+Pb collisions respectively. The observed effect is in line with the findings in Ref. [@PRA93] that more massive hadrons than pions equilibrate slower at relevant temperatures around 150 MeV, in particular have much larger energy relaxation times. Therefore these hadrons cannot be ‘dragged’ by a fluid composed mostly of pions. As a result, particles with larger rest mass experience smaller flow velocities, but their momenta are more sensitive to the boost from flow. An analysis of the resulting momentum spectra based erreonously on the assumption of a common flow velocity will tend to overestimate the freeze-out temperature. This effect is demonstrated in fig. \[pbpbtrdflm\] in which the transverse mass spectra of pions, protons and kaons at central rapidity are shown together with the average transverse velocities and densities at freeze-out as a function of transverse distance (for Pb(160AGeV) on Pb). Fitting the spectra by exponentials, the pion slope parameter has a value of 230 MeV at large transverse masses $>$$m_0$+1 GeV/c$^2$, very similar to proton and kaon slopes. Fig. \[pbpbtrdflm\] also contains modified spectra for protons and kaons in which these particles get an additional transverse boost with $\Delta$$\beta _t$=min($\beta_{max}$, ($r_t$/ 3fm) $\cdot \beta_{max}$) to mimic the larger flow velocity of pions ($\beta_{max}$=0.2/0.15 c for $p$/$K$). It is obvious that an interpretation of the inverse slope as a common temperature would become impossible, if proton and kaon distributions had the same velocity profile as the pion fluid. Transverse mass distributions of nuclear clusters like deuterons may clarify the role of collective flow in the forthcoming Pb on Pb experiments at CERN-SPS. RQMD predicts a pronounced shoulder-arm shape of the spectrum which is characteristic of collective flow [@MAT95] and is missing in S induced collisions in case of truely heavy ion reactions [@SOR95B]. In summary, the hadronic phase space distributions calculated with the transport model RQMD for $AA$ collisions at 160-200 AGeV have been analyzed. After a preequilibrium stage, the hadronic matter starts to expand into the transverse directions, with a temperature of around 140 MeV. While the pions acquire average transverse fluid velocities of up to 0.6 c, heavier particles like protons and kaons cannot keep up with the pionic fluid, having average velocities lower by about 20 to 30 %. Although kinetic equilibrium breaks down in the final dilute stage of $AA$ collisions, the system locally resembles a thermal system at temperature 130 MeV if the free streaming of final-state hadrons is suppressed. This freeze-out temperature is consistent with estimates based on mean free paths and expansion rates in a thermal fireball but lower than values suggested in the literature which were derived from fits to measured particle ratios and transverse momentum spectra. The processes in RQMD to which the differences can be attributed to are the non-ideal expansion of the hadronic matter and the absence of chemical equilibrium at freeze-out. [ Acknowledgements ]{} The author would like to thank the theory group of the Gesellschaft f. Schwerionenforschung (Darmstadt) for kind hospitality during his visit from July until September. He thanks M. Prakash for a careful reading of the manuscript. [999]{} R.B. Clare, and D. Strottman: [Phys. Rep.]{} [141]{} (1986) 177. H. v.Gerstorff, L. McLerran, M. Kataja, and P.V. Ruuskanen: [Phys. Rev.]{} [D34]{} (1986) 794; M. Kataja, P.V. Ruuskanen, L. McLerran, and H. v.Gerstorff: [Phys. Rev.]{} [D34]{} (1986) 2755. J.-P. Blaizot, and J.-Y. Ollitraut: [Nucl. Phys.]{} [A407]{} (1986) 745. U. Ornik, F.W. Pottag, and R.M. Weiner: [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [63]{} (1989) 2641; J. Bolz, U. Ornik, and R.M. Weiner: [Phys. Rev.]{} [C46]{} (1992) 2047. R. Venugopalan, and M. Prakash: [Phys. Rev.]{} [C41]{} (1990) 221; R. Venugopalan, M. Prakash, M. Kataja, and P.V. Ruuskanen: [Nucl. Phys.]{} [A566]{} (1995) 473c. B. Waldhauser, D.H. Rischke, U. Katscher, J.A. Maruhn, H. Stöcker, and W. Greiner: [Z. Phys.]{} [C 48]{} (1992) 459. E. Schnedermann, and U. Heinz: [Phys. Rev.]{} [C47]{} (1993) 1738. K.S. Lee, U. Heinz: [Z. f. Phys.]{} [C43]{} (1989) 629; K.S. Lee, U. Heinz, and E. Schnedermann: [Z. f. Phys.]{} [C48]{} (1990) 525; E. Schnedermann, and U. Heinz: [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [69]{} (1992) 2908. P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J.P. Wessels, and N. Xu: [Phys. Lett.]{} [B344]{} (1995) 43; SUNY-RHI-95-8, [Phys. Lett.]{} [B]{} in print. P. Levai, and B. Mueller: [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [67]{} (1991) 1519. M. Prakash, M. Prakash, R. Venugopalan, and G.M. Welke: [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [70]{} (1993) 1228; [Phys. Rep.]{} [227]{} (1993) 321. J.D. Bjorken: [Phys. Rev.]{} [D27]{} (1983) 140. H. Sorge: preprint GSI 95-50 (nucl-th 9509007), [Phys. Rev.]{} [C]{} (1995) in print. E. Shuryak: [Phys. Rev.]{} [D42]{} (1990) 1764; [Nucl. Phys.]{} [A533]{} (1991) 761; [Nucl. Phys.]{} [A536]{} (1992) 739. H. Bebie, P. Gerber, J.L. Goity, and H. Leutwyler: [Nucl. Phys.]{} [B378]{} (1992) 95. L.V. Bravina, I.N. Mishustin, N.S. Amelin, J.P. Bondorf, and L.P. Csernai: [Phys. Lett.]{} [B354]{} (1995) 196. F. Grassi, Y. Hama, and T. Kodama: [Phys. Lett.]{} [B355]{} (1995) 9. F. Cooper, and G. Frye: [Phys. Rev.]{} [D10]{} (1974) 186; F. Cooper, G. Frye, and E. Schoenberg: [Phys. Rev.]{} [D11]{} (1975) 192; N. Davidson, H. Miller, R. Quick, and J. Cleymans: [Phys. Lett.]{} [B255]{} (1991) 105. J. Cleymans, K. Redlich, H. Satz, and E. Suhonen: [Z. f. Phys.]{} [C58]{} (1993) 347. J. Rafelski: [Phys. Lett.]{} [B262]{} (1991) 333; J. Letessier, A. Tounsi, U. Heinz, J. Sollfrank, and J. Rafelski: [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [70]{} (1993) 3530. For reviews on this subject see the Proceedings of the Quark Matter conferences, the last ones being: E. Stenlund, et al., eds.: [Nucl. Phys.]{} [A566]{} (1994); A.M. Poskanzer, et al., eds.: [Nucl. Phys.]{} [A590]{} (1995). H. Sorge, M. Berenguer, H. Stöcker, and W. Greiner: [Phys. Lett.]{} [B289]{} (1992) 6; M. Berenguer, H. Sorge, and W. Greiner: [ibid.]{} [B332]{} (1994) 15; H. Sorge: [ibid.]{} [B344 ]{} (1995) 35; H. Sorge: [Z. f. Phys.]{} [C67]{} (1995) 479. R. Mattiello, A. Jahns, H. Stöcker, W. Greiner, and H. Sorge: [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [74]{} (1995) 2180. H. Sorge: [Phys. Lett.]{} [B355]{} (1995) 27. [Figure Captions:]{} [Figure 1: ]{} [Evolution of $T$ as a function of $\tau$: $T$ is defined by the ratio of one of the spatial diagonal components of the hadronic stress tensor $\Theta ^{ii}$ and the hadron density, both quantities evaluated in the local rest system of the hadronic matter. $T$ is equal to the temperature for a classical ideal gas in equilibrium. The upper (lower) part of the figure displays the evolution of $T$ employing the longitudinal (average of the transverse) component(s) of $\Theta ^{ii}$. Stress tensor components and hadron density are averaged over the region of highest local energy density with total volume $\pi$ $R_A^2$$\cdot$1 fm in the CM frame. The RQMD (version 2.1) results for the system Pb(160AGeV) on Pb are shown on the left, for S(200 AGeV) on S on the right hand side. Both reactions have been calculated for impact parameters less than 1 fm. The results of the default calculation are represented by histograms. Also shown is the result (dots) which has been obtained by freezing the 3-vector positions of hadrons after they have suffered their last interaction. ]{} [Figure 2: ]{} [ The distribution of freeze-out times evaluated in the CM frame for different hadron species: protons (straight lines), pions (dashed lines) and neutral (anti-) kaons (dotted lines). Only particles with CM rapidity less than one are included. The RQMD results for the system Pb(160AGeV) on Pb are shown on the left, for S(200 AGeV) on S on the right hand side. (The distributions have been renormalized to give the same integral as for the protons in Pb+Pb.) ]{} [Figure 3: ]{} [ Transverse mass spectra 1/2$\pi$ d$N$/$m_t$d$m_t$ as a function of $\Delta$$m_t$=$m_t$-$m_0$ (top), average transverse velocity $\beta _t$ (middle) and density distribution d$N$/d$r_t$ (bottom) which are integrals over the freeze-out hypersurface but keeping the transverse freeze-out distance $r_t$ fixed. The results are for protons, neutral kaons and pions ($\pi^+ $+$\pi ^-$/2) in a central rapidity window ($y_{CMS}$$\pm$1). The calculations have been done with RQMD for the system Pb(160AGeV) on Pb with $b<$1 fm. (The freeze-out density distributions of kaons and pions have been renormalized to give the same integral as for the protons.) ]{} [^1]: E-mail: [email protected]	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We consider general subordination and obtain the formula of the subordinated predictable compensator. An example of application is given.' author: - 'Henry Chiu[^1]' bibliography: - 'subordination\_revised.bib' date: 'August 9, 2015' title: Subordination of Predictable Compensators --- {#section .unnumbered} The idea of subordination (i.e. obtaining a new stochastic process by a random time change) was first introduced by Salomon Bochner in 1949 and is widely applied in the modelling of random phenomena such as stock price movements (e.g. the old Wall Street adage that “it takes volume $Z$ to move prices $X_Z$”). In many applications, the subordinated process $X_Z$ is discontinuous. A central tool in the study of discontinuous process is the predictable compensator that arose from the general theory of stochastic processes \[1\]. The predictable compensator, which can be seen as a generalisation of the Lévy measure, gives a tractable description of the jump structure of a general stochastic process. It is an indispensable tool in many applications, for example, when performing an equivalent change of measure, an important operation in financial mathematics. For a general time changed Markov process, the formula of the associated predicable compensator is not known. The purpose of this paper is to obtain such a formula. Results It is widely known that when the time of a Lévy process $X$ is changed by an increasing Lévy process $Z$ independent of $X$, the subordinated process $X_Z$ is a Lévy process and the subordinated predictable compensator $(\mu^{X_{Z}})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ of the random jump measure of $X_Z$ can be obtained by \[2,Thm 30.1\]: $$\begin{aligned} (\mu^{X_{Z}})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(dt,dy)=\gamma(\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(dt,dy)+\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}P^{X}_z(dy)(\mu^{Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(dt,dz),\end{aligned}$$where $P^{X}_t(dy)$ is the distribution of $X_t$ and $\gamma t=Z_t-\sum_{s\leq t}{\Delta{Z_s}}$. Extension of (1) to the case where $Z$ is an additive subordinator has been considered in \[5,Prop.1\]. When $X$ is replaced by, for example, more general diffusion process, (1) will no longer be applicable (the subordinated predictable compensator shall no longer be deterministic). We extend (1) to the case where $X$ is a quasi left-continuous \[1,Def.I.2.25\] Markov process and $Z$ is an increasing process and give an example of application. Definitions and Framework Let $X$ and $Z$ be two independent real-valued càdlàg processes defined on a complete probability space $(\Omega,\mathbb{F},{\mathbb{P}})$ and $Z$ be increasing (i.e. non-decreasing). Denote $X_Z$ for the process obtained by a time-change of $X$ by $Z$. Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be a right-continuous filtration in $\mathbb{F}$ such that $X_Z$ is ${\mathcal{F}}$-adapted, a non-negative random measure $(\mu^{X_Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ on $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R})$ is called the ${\mathcal{F}}$-predictable compensator of the random jump measure of $X_Z$ \[1,Thm.II.1.8.(i)\] & \[1,Thm.I.2.2.(i)\] if for all ${\mathcal{F}}$-stopping times $T$ and $B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}\backslash\{0\})$$$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{E}}\sum_{t\leq T}{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{B}(\Delta{(X_Z)}_t)={\mathbb{E}}\int_0^{T}\int_{B}(\mu^{X_Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dy)\end{aligned}$$and that the integral process $\int_0^{t\wedge T}\int_{B}(\mu^{X_Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,ds,dy)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}$-predictable.\ Denote (and respectively for $Z$ and $X_Z$) ${\mathcal{F}}^{X}:=({\mathcal{F}}^{X}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ for the right-continuous and completed canonical filtration of $X$, ${\mathcal{F}}^{X}_{t-}:=\bigvee_{s<t}{\mathcal{F}}^{X}_s$, $\mathcal{P}^{X}$ for the ${\mathcal{F}}^{X}$-predictable $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ generated by all left-continuous and ${\mathcal{F}}^{X}$-adapted processes and ${\mathbb{P}}^{X}$ for the probability measure ${\mathbb{P}}$ reduced to ${\mathcal{F}}^{X}_{\infty}$. Denote (and respectively for $Z$) $(\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ for the ${\mathcal{F}}^{X}$-predictable compensator of random jump measure of $X$. For a $\mathcal{P}^{X}\otimes\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$-measurable function $W$, we write $W\ast(\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ for the integral process $W\ast(\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}_t:=\int_0^{t}\int_{\mathbb{R}}W(\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dy)$\ Let $\mathbb{D}$ denote the space of real-valued càdlàg functions $t\mapsto u(t)$ on $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\mathcal{D}_t$ denote the right-continuous smallest $\sigma$-algebra on $\mathbb{D}_t$ generated by the collection of maps $\left\{u\mapsto u(s)\right\}_{s\leq t}$, $\mathcal{D}_{t-}:=\bigvee_{s<t}\mathcal{D}_s$ and $\mathcal{D}:=\bigvee_{t\geq 0}\mathcal{D}_t$. The product space $(\mathbb{D}\times\mathbb{D},\mathcal{D}\otimes\mathcal{D})$ shall be denoted by $(\mathbb{D}^{\times 2},\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2})$. For $u,v\in\mathbb{D}$, the map $(u,v)\mapsto(u\circ v)$ is $(\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2},\mathcal{D})$-measurable. We shall write $(u\circ v)(t)$ for $u(v(t))$ and $(u\circ v)(t-)=u(v(t-)-)$ for $\lim_{s\uparrow t}(u\circ v)(s)$ with monotonic increasing $v$ and write$$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{E}}^{X}F\left(X_{\cdot},Z_{\cdot}\right):=\int_\Omega F\left(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega})\right){\mathbb{P}}^{X}(d\omega)\end{aligned}$$for all $(\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2},\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{+}))$-measurable function $F$, where $\widetilde{\omega}$ is any element in $\Omega$ that is being held fixed. We define the time-changed process $X_Z$ by $$\begin{aligned} (X_Z)_t(\omega):=X_{Z_t(\omega)}(\omega)\end{aligned}$$and the filtration ${\mathcal{F}}$ by $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{F}}_t:=({\mathcal{F}}^{X_Z}_{t}\bigvee{\mathcal{F}}^{Z}_t)^{{\mathbb{P}}}\end{aligned}$$ and ${\mathcal{H}}$ by ${\mathcal{H}}_t:=({\mathcal{F}}^{X}_{\infty}\bigvee{\mathcal{F}}^{Z}_t)^{{\mathbb{P}}}$. Denote $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ for the ${\mathcal{F}}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{H}}$)-predictable $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_+$. We observe $\mathcal{P}\subset\mathcal{Q}$. We shall also denote $\mathcal{P}^{X}_{Z(\widetilde{\omega})}$ for the predictable $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_{+}$ taken with respect to the filtration $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{F}}^{X}_{Z(\widetilde{\omega})}:=({\mathcal{F}}^{X}_{Z_t(\widetilde{\omega})})_{t\geq 0}\end{aligned}$$ for every $\widetilde{\omega}\in\Omega$ held fixed and call a set $N\in\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_{+}$ ${\mathbb{P}}$-evanescent if $\{\omega\in\Omega: \exists t\in\mathbb{R}_+,(\omega,t)\in N\}$ is ${\mathbb{P}}$-null. If $X$ is a Markov process, we write $$\begin{aligned} P^{X}_{t}(x,s,dy):={\mathbb{P}}(X_{s+t}\in dy\|X_s=x).\end{aligned}$$ [Proposition 1]{} $\;$\ Let $A(\omega)\geq 0$ be ${\mathcal{H}}_{t}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{H}}_{t-}$)-measurable, then there exists a $\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2}$-measurable $H(u,v)\geq 0$ such that $A(\omega)=H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\omega))$ ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. and $$\begin{aligned} \omega\longmapsto H(X_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}),Z_{\cdot}(\omega))\end{aligned}$$ is ${\mathcal{F}}^{Z}_{t}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{F}}^{Z}_{t-}$)-measurable for ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. $\widetilde{\omega}\in\Omega$ held fixed. If in addition, $A$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{t}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{F}}_{t-}$)-measurable, then $$\begin{aligned} \omega\longmapsto H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}))\end{aligned}$$ is ${\mathcal{F}}^{X}_{Z_{t}(\widetilde{\omega})}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{F}}^{X}_{Z_{t-}(\widetilde{\omega})-}$)-measurable for ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. $\widetilde{\omega}\in\Omega$ held fixed.\ $\Pi^{1}_t(\omega):=(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot\wedge t}(\omega))$, then $\Pi^{1}_t$ is a random variable defined on $(\Omega,{\mathcal{H}}_t,{\mathbb{P}})$ taking values in $(\mathbb{D}^{\times 2},\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2})$ and one sees ${\mathcal{H}}_t=((\Pi^{1}_t)^{-1}\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ by the construction of ${\mathcal{H}}_t$. If we denote $Z_{\cdot\wedge t-}$ for the map $(s\mapsto Z_{s\wedge t-})\in\mathbb{D}$, then ${\mathcal{H}}_{t-}=((\Pi^{1}_{t-})^{-1}\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ and hence if $A(\omega)=\sum a_i{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{A_i}(\omega)$ for $A_i\in{\mathcal{H}}_{t}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{H}}_{t-}$) then $A(\omega)=\sum a_i{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{B_i}(\Pi^{1}_t(\omega))$ (resp. ${1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{B_i}(\Pi^{1}_{t-}(\omega))$) ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. for some $B_i\in\mathcal{D}^2$. The first claim holds on simple $A$. If in addition, $A_i\in{\mathcal{F}}_{t}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{F}}_{t-}$), we define a $\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2}$-measurable map $\Pi^{2}_t(u,v):=(u\circ v, v)(\cdot\wedge t)$ and $\Pi(\omega)_t:=(\Pi^{2}_t\circ\Pi^{1}_t)(\omega)=(X_{Z_{\cdot\wedge t}(\omega)}(\omega),Z_{\cdot\wedge t}(\omega))$. Observe also $(s\mapsto (u\circ v)(s\wedge t-))\in\mathbb{D}$, one sees ${\mathcal{F}}_{t}=(\Pi_t^{-1}\mathcal{D})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}_{t-}=(\Pi_{t-}^{-1}\mathcal{D})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ hence, $A(\omega)=\sum a_i{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{B_i}(\Pi_t(\omega))$ (resp. ${1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{B_i}(\Pi_{t-}(\omega))$) ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. for some $B_i\in\mathcal{D}^2$. Since ${1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{B_i}(X_{Z_{\cdot\wedge t}(\omega)}(\omega),Z_{\cdot\wedge t}(\omega))={1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{B_i}(\Pi^{2}_t(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot\wedge t}(\omega)))$ and that the path $s\mapsto X_{Z_{s\wedge t-}(\omega)}(\omega)\equiv X_{Z_{t-}(\omega)-}(\omega)$ for $s\geq t$, we see that the second claim also holds on simple $A$. If $(H_n)_{n\geq 1}$ and $H$ are $\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2}$-measurable, then $H_n\circ\Pi_t^{1}\rightarrow H\circ\Pi_t^{1}$ ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. on $\Omega$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $H_n\rightarrow H\quad{\mathbb{P}}\circ(\Pi_t^{1})^{-1}$-a.s. on $\mathbb{D}^{\times 2}$. By a monotone class argument, the claims follow. [Proposition 2**]{} $\;$\ Let $A(\omega,t)\geq 0$ be $\mathcal{Q}$-measurable, then there exists a $\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2}\otimes\mathbb{R}_{+}$-measurable $H((u,v),t)\geq 0$ such that $A(\omega,t)=H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\omega),t)$ up to a ${\mathbb{P}}$-evanescent set and $$\begin{aligned} (\omega,t)\longmapsto H(X_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}),Z_{\cdot}(\omega),t)\end{aligned}$$ is $\mathcal{P}^{Z}$-measurable for ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. $\widetilde{\omega}\in\Omega$ held fixed. If in addition, $A$ is $\mathcal{P}$-measurable, then $$\begin{aligned} (\omega,t)\longmapsto H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}),t)\end{aligned}$$ is $\mathcal{P}^{X}_{Z(\widetilde{\omega})}$-measurable for ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. $\widetilde{\omega}\in\Omega$ held fixed. The claims clearly holds for all $\mathcal{Q}$-measurable (resp. $\mathcal{P}$-measurable) $A$ of the form $A_t=A_0{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{\{0\}}(t)+\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}} A_{t_i}{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{(t_i,t_{t+1}]}(t)$ for ${\mathcal{H}}_{t_i-}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{F}}_{t_i-}$)-measurable $A_{t_i}$ as a direct consequence of Proposition 1. Observe also if $(H_n)_{n\geq 1}$ and $H$ are $\mathcal{D}^{\otimes 2}\otimes\mathbb{R}_+$-measurable then $H_n(\Pi_t^{1}(\omega),t))\rightarrow H(\Pi_t^{1}(\omega),t))$ on $\Omega\times\mathbb{R}_+$ up to a ${\mathbb{P}}$-evanescent set $\Leftrightarrow$ $H_n((u,v),t)\rightarrow H((u,v),t)$ on $\mathbb{D}^{\times 2}\times\mathbb{R}_{+}$ up to a ${\mathbb{P}}\circ(\Pi_t^{1})^{-1}$-evanescent set. By a monotone class argument, the claims follow. [Theorem***]{} $\;$\ Let $X$ be a quasi left-continuous Markov process with transition kernel $P^{X}_{t}(x,s,dy)$ and $Z$ be an increasing process independent of $X$. Denote $X_Z$ the process obtained by a time-change of $X$ by $Z$ and $Z^{c}_{t}:=Z_{t}-\sum_{s\leq t}{\Delta{Z_s}}$ then $(\mu^{X_{Z}})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dy)$ is changed as follows:\ $$\begin{aligned} (\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dZ^{c}_t,dy)+\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}P^{X}_z(X_{Z_{t-}},Z_{t-},\{X_{Z_{t-}}\}+dy)(\mu^{Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dz).\end{aligned}$$ Let $A\times B\in\mathcal{P}\otimes\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}\backslash\{0\})$, $W:={1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{A\times B}$, $I:=\{t\geq 0\|\Delta{Z}_t=0\}$. Observe $\Delta{(X_Z)}_t=\Delta{(X)}_{Z_{t}}$ on $I$ and $\Delta{(X_Z)}_t=X_{Z_{t-}+\Delta{Z}_t}-X_{Z_{t-}-}$ on $I^c$ and by (2), we can write $$\begin{aligned} F(X_{\cdot},Z_{\cdot})=(W\ast\mu^{X_Z})_{\infty}=\sum_{t\in I}{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_A{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(\Delta{(X)}_{Z_{t}})+\sum_{t\in I^c}{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_A{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(X_{Z_{t-}+\Delta{Z}_t}-X_{Z_{t-}-}) .\end{aligned}$$Let $Z^{-1}$ denote the left-continuous generalized inverse of $Z$, by (4) & (9) put ${1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{A}=H(X_{\cdot},Z_{\cdot},t)$ then $(\omega,t)\mapsto H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}),Z^{-1}_t(\widetilde{\omega}))$ is $\mathcal{P}^{X}$-measurable for ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. $\widetilde{\omega}\in\Omega$ held fixed \[1,Prop.I.2.4\]. Together with the quasi left-continuity of $X$, \[1,Thm.II.1.8\] & \[Cor.II.1.19\], it follows ${\mathbb{E}}\sum_{t\in I}{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_A{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(\Delta{(X)}_{Z_{t}})$ (see also (2) for notation) $$\begin{aligned} &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{Z}{\mathbb{E}}^{X}\sum_{t\in Z(I)}H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}),Z^{-1}_t(\widetilde{\omega})){1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(\Delta{X}_{t})\\ &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{Z}{\mathbb{E}}^{X}\int_{Z(I)}\int_{\mathbb{R}}H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}),Z^{-1}_t(\widetilde{\omega})){1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(y)(\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dy)\\ &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{Z}{\mathbb{E}}^{X}\int_{I}\int_{\mathbb{R}}H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}),t){1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(y)(\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dZ_t(\widetilde{\omega}),dy)\\ &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{Z}{\mathbb{E}}^{X}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}),t){1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(y)(\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dZ^{c}_t(\widetilde{\omega}),dy)\\ &=&{\mathbb{E}}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}}W(\omega,t,y)(\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dZ^{c}_t(\omega),dy) .\end{aligned}$$Since $X$ has no fixed times of discontinuity and that $I^{c}$ is countable and by (8), it follows ${\mathbb{E}}\sum_{t\in I^c}{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_A{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(X_{Z_{t-}+\Delta{Z}_t}-X_{Z_{t-}-})$ $$\begin{aligned} &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{X}{\mathbb{E}}^{Z}\sum_{t\in I^{c}}H{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(X_{Z_{t-}+\Delta{Z}_t}-X_{Z_{t-}})\\ &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{X}{\mathbb{E}}^{Z}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}H{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(X_{Z_{t-}+z}-X_{Z_{t-}})(\mu^{Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dz)\\ &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{Z}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}{\mathbb{E}}^{X}[H{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(X_{Z_{t-}+z}-X_{Z_{t-}})](\mu^{Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\widetilde{\omega},dt,dz).\\\end{aligned}$$ By (4), (9) and \[1,Prop.I.2.4\], we see that for ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. $\widetilde{\omega}\in\Omega$ held fixed, the map $\omega\mapsto H(X_{\cdot}(\omega),Z_{\cdot}(\widetilde{\omega}),t)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}^{X}_{Z_{t-}(\widetilde{\omega})}$-measurable for all $t\geq 0$. Together with the Markov property of $X$ we have ${\mathbb{E}}^{X}[H{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(X_{Z_{t-}+z}-X_{Z_{t-}})]$ $$\begin{aligned} &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{X}\left[H{\mathbb{E}}^{X}[{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(X_{Z_{t-}(\widetilde{\omega})+z}-X_{Z_{t-}(\widetilde{\omega})})\|{\mathcal{F}}^{X}_{Z_{t-}(\widetilde{\omega})}]\right]\\ &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{X}[HP^{X}_{z}(X_{Z_{t-}(\widetilde{\omega})},Z_{t-}(\widetilde{\omega}),\{X_{Z_{t-}(\widetilde{\omega})}\}+B)]\end{aligned}$$ hence ${\mathbb{E}}\sum_{t\in I^c}{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_A{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_B(X_{Z_{t-}+\Delta{Z}_t}-X_{Z_{t-}-})$ $$\begin{aligned} &=&{\mathbb{E}}^{Z}{\mathbb{E}}^{X}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}_{+}}H\int_{B}P^{X}_{z}(X_{Z_{t-}},Z_{t-},\{X_{Z_{t-}}\}+dy)(\mu^{Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dz)\\ &=&{\mathbb{E}}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}}W\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}P^{X}_{z}(X_{Z_{t-}},Z_{t-},\{X_{Z_{t-}}\}+dy)(\mu^{Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dz).\end{aligned}$$Define $v(\omega,dt,dy):=$ $$\begin{aligned} (\mu^{X})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dZ^{c}_{t},dy)+\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}P^{X}_{z}(X_{Z_{t-}},Z_{t-},\{X_{Z_{t-}}\}+dy)(\mu^{Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dz)\end{aligned}$$ then ${\mathbb{E}}(W\ast\mu^{X_Z})_{\infty}={\mathbb{E}}(W\ast v)_{\infty}$. It is clear that $v(\omega,dt,dy)$ defines a non-negative random measure on $\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}$ and that $(W\ast v)_t$ is ${\mathcal{F}}$-predictable (3). If $T$ is a ${\mathcal{F}}$-stopping time, put $A:=\{(\omega,t):0\leq t\leq T(\omega)\}\in\mathcal{P}$, (10) follows. [Example ***]{} $\;$ We calculate the compensator $(\mu^{X_Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ of the random jump measure of $X_Z$ with $X$ and $Z$ taken to be, respectively, a skew Brownian motion (diffusion process) and a tempered stable subordinator independent of $X$. The compensator of the random jump measure of $Z$ is $$\begin{aligned} (\mu^{Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(dt,dz)=dt\frac{c}{z^{1+\alpha}}e^{-\lambda z}{1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I}}_{\{z>0\}}(dz)\end{aligned}$$for $c, \lambda>0$ and $\alpha\in[0,1)$. The case $\alpha=0$ corresponds to a Gamma subordinator. By \[3,(17)\], the transition function of a skew Brownian motion $X$ can be written as$$\begin{aligned} P^{X}_t(x,dy)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}\left(e^{-\frac{(\|y-x\|)^2}{2t}}+\frac{\beta}{\text{sgn}(y)}e^{-\frac{(\|y\|+\|x\|)^2}{2t}}\right)dy\end{aligned}$$for $\beta\in[-1,1]$. The case $\beta=0$ corresponds to the standard Brownian motion. Using the modified Bessel function $K_{v}(x)$ for the integral representation $$\begin{aligned} \int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{z^{1+v}}e^{-\frac{a^2 z}{2}-\frac{b^2}{2z}}dz=2(\frac{a}{b})^{v}K_{v}(ab) ,\end{aligned}$$the compensator formula (10) and $\phi(X_{Z_{t-}}(\omega),y):=\|X_{Z_{t-}}(\omega)\|+\|X_{Z_{t-}}(\omega)+y\|$, we obtain$$\begin{aligned} (\mu^{X_Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dy)&=&\frac{2c}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \left(\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda}}{\|y\|}\right)^{1/2+\alpha}K_{1/2+\alpha}\left(\sqrt{2\lambda}\|y\|\right)dtdy\\ &+&\frac{\beta 2c}{\sqrt{2\pi}\text{sgn}(X_{Z_{t-}}+y)}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda}}{\phi (X_{Z_{t-}},y)}\right)^{1/2+\alpha}\\ &\times&K_{1/2+\alpha}\left(\sqrt{2\lambda}\phi (X_{Z_{t-}},y)\right)dtdy\end{aligned}$$and for the Gamma case $\alpha=0$,\ $$\begin{aligned} (\mu^{X_Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dy)=\left(\frac{ce^{-\sqrt{2\lambda}\|y\|}}{\|y\|}+\frac{ \beta}{\text{sgn}(X_{Z_{t-}}+y)}\frac{ce^{-\sqrt{2\lambda}\phi(X_{Z_{t-}},y)}}{\phi(X_{Z_{t-}},y)}\right)dtdy.\quad\end{aligned}$$\ We see that $(\mu^{X_Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}$ is deterministic and time-independent if and only if $\beta=0$, in this case $X_Z$ is a time-changed Brownian motion. If in addition, $Z$ is a Gamma process (i.e. $\alpha=\beta=0$) then $X_Z$ is a Variance Gamma process \[4\] with Lévy measure $v(dy)=\frac{ce^{-\sqrt{2\lambda}\|y\|}}{\|y\|}dy$ and (14) reduces to\ $$\begin{aligned} (\mu^{X_Z})^{{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega,dt,dy)=dtv(dy).\end{aligned}$$ [^1]: [email protected]; Institut für Mathematik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
[Interior capacities of condensers with infinitely many plates in a locally compact space]{}\ \ The study deals with the theory of interior capacities of condensers in a locally compact space, a condenser being treated here as a countable, locally finite collection of arbitrary sets with the sign $+1$ or $-1$ prescribed such that the closures of opposite-signed sets are mutually disjoint. We are motivated by the known fact that, in the noncompact case, the main minimum-problem of the theory is in general unsolvable, and this occurs even under very natural assumptions (e.g., for the Newtonian, Green, or Riesz kernels in $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant2$, and closed condensers of finitely many plates). Therefore it was particularly interesting to find statements of variational problems dual to the main minimum-problem (and hence providing some new equivalent definitions of the capacity), but now always solvable (e.g., even for nonclosed, unbounded condensers of infinitely many plates). For all positive definite kernels satisfying B. Fuglede’s condition of consistency between the strong and the vague ($={}$weak$$) topologies, problems with the desired properties are posed and solved. Their solutions provide a natural generalization of the well-known notion of interior capacitary distributions associated with a set. We give a description of those solutions, establish statements on their uniqueness and continuity, and point out their characteristic properties. [Mathematics Subject Classification (2000):]{} 31C15. [Key words]{}: Minimal energy problems, interior capacities of condensers, interior capacitary distributions associated with a condenser, consistent kernels, completeness theorem for signed Radon measures. [1. Introduction]{} The present work is devoted to further development of the theory of interior capacities of condensers in a locally compact space. A condenser will be treated here as a countable, locally finite collection of arbitrary (noncompact or even nonclosed) sets with the sign $+1$ or $-1$ prescribed such that the closures of opposite-signed sets are mutually disjoint. For a background of the theory for condensers of finitely many plates we refer the reader to [@Z2]–[@Z7]; see also [@O], where the condensers were additionally assumed to be compact. The reader is expected to be familiar with the principal notions and results of the theory of measures and integration on a locally compact space; its exposition can be found in [@B2; @E2] (see also [@F1; @Z3] for a brief survey). The theory of interior capacities of condensers provides a natural extension of the well-known theory of interior capacities of sets, developed by H. Cartan [@Car] and Vallée-Poussin [@VP] for classical kernels in $\mathbb R^n$ and later on generalized by B. Fuglede [@F1] for general kernels in a locally compact space $\mathbf X$. However, those two theories — for sets and, on the other hand, condensers — are drastically different. To illustrate this, it is enough to note that, in the noncompact case, the main minimum-problem of the theory of interior capacities of condensers is in general [unsolvable]{}, and this phenomenon occurs even under very natural assumptions (e.g., for the Newtonian, Green, or Riesz kernels in $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant2$, and closed condensers of finitely many plates); compare with [@Car; @F1]. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the problem to be solvable have been given in [@Z4; @Z6]; see Sec. 5.1 below for a brief survey. Therefore it was particularly interesting to find statements of variational problems [dual]{} to the main minimum-problem of the theory of interior capacities of condensers, but in contrast to the last one, now [always solvable]{} — e.g., even for nonclosed, unbounded condensers of infinitely many plates. (When speaking on duality of variational problems, we mean their extremal values to be equal.) In all that follows, $\mathbf X$ denotes a locally compact Hausdorff space, and $\mathfrak M=\mathfrak M(\mathbf X)$ the linear space of all real-valued Radon measures $\nu$ on $\mathbf X$ equipped with the [vague]{} ($={}$[weak]{}$$) topology, i.e., the topology of pointwise convergence on the class $\mathbf C_0(\mathbf X)$ of all real-valued continuous functions on $\mathbf X$ with compact support. A [kernel]{} $\kappa$ on $\mathbf X$ is meant to be a lower semicontinuous function $\kappa:\mathbf X\times\mathbf X\to(-\infty,\infty]$. In order to avoid certain difficulties, we follow [@F1] in assuming that $\kappa\geqslant0$ unless the space $\mathbf X$ is compact. The [energy]{} and the [potential]{} of a measure $\nu\in\mathfrak M$ with respect to a kernel $\kappa$ are defined by $$\kappa(\nu,\nu):=\int\kappa(x,y)\,d(\nu\otimes\nu)(x,y)$$ and $$\kappa(x,\nu):=\int\kappa(x,y)\,d\nu(y),\quad x\in\mathbf X,$$ respectively, provided the corresponding integral above is well defined (as a finite number or $\pm\infty$). Let $\mathcal E$ denote the set of all $\nu\in\mathfrak M$ with $-\infty<\kappa(\nu,\nu)<\infty$. In the present study we shall be concerned with minimal energy problems over certain subclasses of $\mathcal E$, properly chosen. For all positive definite kernels satisfying B. Fuglede’s condition of consistency between the strong and the vague topologies on $\mathcal E$ (see Sec. 2 below), those variational problems are shown to be [dual]{} to the main minimum-problem of the theory of interior capacities of condensers (and hence providing some new [equivalent]{} definitions of the capacity), but now [always solvable]{}. See Theorems 2–4 and Corollaries 10, 12. Their solutions provide a natural generalization of the well-known notion of interior capacitary distributions associated with a set (see [@F1]). We give a description of those solutions, establish statements on their uniqueness and continuity, and point out their characteristic properties; see Sec. 7–10. The results obtained hold true, e.g., for the Newtonian, Green or Riesz kernels in $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant2$, as well as for the restriction of the logarithmic kernel in $\mathbb R^2$ to an open unit ball. [2. Preliminaries: topologies, consistent and perfect kernels]{} Recall that a measure $\nu\geqslant0$ is said to be [concentrated]{} on $E$, where $E$ is a subset of $\mathbf X$, if the complement $\complement E:=\mathbf X\setminus E$ is locally $\nu$-negligible; or, equivalently, if $E$ is $\nu$-measurable and $\nu=\nu_E$, where $\nu_E$ denotes the trace of $\nu$ upon $E$. Let $\mathfrak M^+(E)$ be the convex cone of all nonnegative measures concentrated on $E$, and $\mathcal E^+(E):=\mathfrak M^+(E)\cap\mathcal E$. We also write $\mathfrak M^+:=\mathfrak M^+(\mathbf X)$ and $\mathcal E^+:=\mathcal E^+(\mathbf X)$. From now on, the kernel under consideration is always assumed to be [positive definite]{}, which means that it is symmetric (i.e., $\kappa(x,y)=\kappa(y,x)$ for all $x,\,y\in\mathbf X$) and the energy $\kappa(\nu,\nu)$, $\nu\in\mathfrak M$, is nonnegative whenever defined. Then $\mathcal E$ is known to be a pre-Hilbert space with the scalar product $$\kappa(\nu_1,\nu_2):=\int\kappa(x,y)\,d(\nu_1\otimes\nu_2)(x,y)$$ and the seminorm $\\|\nu\\|:=\sqrt{\kappa(\nu,\nu)}$; see [@F1]. A (positive definite) kernel is called [strictly positive definite]{} if the seminorm $\\|\cdot\\|$ is a norm. A measure $\nu\in\mathcal E$ is said to be [equivalent in]{} $\mathcal E$ to a given $\nu_0\in\mathcal E$ if $\\|\nu-\nu_0\\|=0$; the equivalence class, consisting of all those $\nu$, will be denoted by $\left[\nu_0\right]_\mathcal E$. In addition to the [strong]{} topology on $\mathcal E$, determined by the above seminorm $\\|\cdot\\|$, it is often useful to consider the [weak]{} topology on $\mathcal E$, defined by means of the seminorms $\nu\mapsto\|\kappa(\nu,\mu)\|$, $\mu\in\mathcal E$ (see [@F1]). The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $$\|\kappa(\nu,\mu)\|\leqslant\\|\nu\\|\,\\|\mu\\|,\quad\nu,\,\mu\in\mathcal E,$$ implies immediately that the strong topology on $\mathcal E$ is finer than the weak one. In [@F1], B. Fuglede introduced the following two properties of [consistency]{} between the induced strong, weak, and vague topologies on $\mathcal E^+$: ($C$) [Every strong Cauchy net in $\mathcal E^+$ converges strongly to every its vague cluster point;]{} ($CW$) [Every strongly bounded and vaguely convergent net in $\mathcal E^+$ converges weakly to the vague limit;]{} in [@F2], the properties ($C$) and ($CW$) were shown to be [equivalent]{}. [Definition 1.]{} Following B. Fuglede, we call a kernel $\kappa$ [consistent]{} if it satisfies either of the properties ($C$) and ($CW$), and [perfect]{} if, in addition, it is strictly positive definite. [Remark 1.]{} One has to consider [nets]{} or [filters]{} in $\mathfrak M^+$ instead of sequences, for the vague topology in general does not satisfy the first axiom of countability. We follow Moore’s and Smith’s theory of convergence, based on the concept of nets (see [@MS]; cf. also [@E2 Chap. 0] and [@K Chap. 2]). However, if a locally compact space $\mathbf X$ is metrizable and countable at infinity, then $\mathfrak M^+$ satisfies the first axiom of countability (see [@F1 Lemma 1.2.1]) and the use of nets may be avoided. [Theorem 1]{} [@F1]. [A kernel $\kappa$ is perfect if and only if $\mathcal E^+$ is strongly complete and the strong topology on $\mathcal E^+$ is finer than the vague one.]{} [Examples.]{} In $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant 3$, the Newtonian kernel $\|x-y\|^{2-n}$ is perfect [@Car]. So are the Riesz kernel $\|x-y\|^{\alpha-n}$, $0<\alpha<n$, in $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant2$ (see [@D1; @D2]), and the logarithmic kernel $-\log\,\|x-y\|$ in $\mathbb R^2$, restricted to an open unit ball [@L]. Furthermore, if $D$ is an open set in $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant 2$, and its generalized Green function $g_D$ exists (see, e.g., [@HK Th. 5.24]), then the Green kernel $g_D$ is perfect as well [@E1]. [Remark 2.]{} As is seen from Theorem 1, the concept of consistent or perfect kernels is an efficient tool in minimal energy problems over classes of [nonnegative]{} measures with finite energy. Indeed, the theory of capacities of [sets]{} has been developed in [@F1] exactly for those kernels. We shall show below that this concept is still efficient in minimal energy problems over classes of [signed]{} measures associated with a [condenser]{}. This is guaranteed by a theorem on the strong completeness of proper subspaces of $\mathcal E$, to be stated in Sec. 11 below. [3. Condensers of countably many plates. Measures associated with a condenser; their energies and potentials]{} [3.1.]{} Let $I^+$ and $I^-$ be countable (finite or infinite) disjoint sets of indices $i\in\mathbb N$, the latter being allowed to be empty, and let $I$ denote their union. Assume that to every $i\in I$ there corresponds a nonempty set $A_i\subset\mathbf X$. [Definition 2.]{} A collection $\mathcal A=(A_i)_{i\in I}$ is called an $(I^+,I^-)$-[condenser]{} (or simply a [condenser]{}) in $\mathbf X$ if every compact subset of $\mathbf X$ might have points in common with only a finite number of $A_i$ and, moreover, $$\overline{A_i}\cap\overline{A_j}=\varnothing\quad\mbox{for all \ } i\in I^+, \ j\in I^-. \label{non}$$ The sets $A_i$, $i\in I^+$, and $A_j$, $j\in I^-$, are said to be the [positive]{} and, respectively, the [negative plates]{} of an $(I^+,I^-)$-condenser $\mathcal A=(A_i)_{i\in I}$. Note that any two equal-signed plates of a condenser might intersect each other (or even coincide). Given $I^+$ and $I^-$, let $\mathfrak C=\mathfrak C(I^+,I^-)$ be the class of all $(I^+,I^-)$-condensers in $\mathbf X$. A condenser $\mathcal A\in\mathfrak C$ is called [closed]{} or [compact]{} if all $A_i$, $i\in I$, are closed or, respectively, compact. Similarly, we call it [universally measurable]{} if all the plates are universally measurable — that is, measurable with respect to every $\nu\in\mathfrak M^+$. Next, $\mathcal A=(A_i)_{i\in I}$ is said to be [finite]{} if so is $I$. Given $\mathcal A=(A_i)_{i\in I}$, write $\overline{\mathcal A}:=(\,\overline{A_i}\,)_{i\in I}$. Then, due to (\[non\]), $\overline{\mathcal A}$ is a (closed) $(I^+,I^-)$-condenser. In the sequel, also the following notation will be required: $$A:=\bigcup_{i\in I}\,A_i,\qquad A^+:=\bigcup_{i\in I^+}\,A_i,\qquad A^-:=\bigcup_{i\in I^-}\,A_i.$$ Note that both $A^+$ and $A^-$ might be noncompact even for a compact $\mathcal A$. [3.2.]{} With the preceding notation, write $$\alpha_i:=\left\{ \begin{array}{rll} +1 & \mbox{if} & i\in I^+,\\ -1 & \mbox{if} & i\in I^-.\\ \end{array} \right.$$ Given $\mathcal A\in\mathfrak C$, let $\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ consist of all (finite or infinite) [linear combinations]{} $$\mu:=\sum_{i\in I}\,\alpha_i\mu^i,\quad\mbox{where \ }\mu^i\in\mathfrak M^+(A_i).$$ Any two $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ in $\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$, $$\mu_1=\sum_{i\in I}\,\alpha_i\mu_1^i\quad\mbox{and}\quad\mu_2=\sum_{i\in I}\,\alpha_i\mu_2^i,$$ are regarded to be [identical]{} ($\mu_1\equiv\mu_2$) if and only if $\mu_1^i=\mu_2^i$ for all $i\in I$. Observe that, under the relation of identity thus defined, the following correspondence between $\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ and the Cartesian product $\prod_{i\in I}\mathfrak M^+(A_i)$ is one-to-one: $$\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)\ni\mu\mapsto(\mu^i)_{i\in I}\in \prod_{i\in I}\mathfrak M^+(A_i).$$ We call $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ a [measure associated with]{} $\mathcal A$, and $\mu^i$, $i\in I$, its $i$-[coordinate]{}. For measures associated with a condenser, it is therefore natural to introduce the following concept of convergence, actually corresponding to the vague convergence by coordinates. Let $S$ denote a directed set of indices, and let $\mu_s$, $s\in S$, and $\mu_0$ be given elements of the class $\mathfrak M(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$. [Definition 3.]{} A net $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ is said to converge to $\mu_0$ $\mathcal A$-[vaguely]{} if $$\mu^i_s\to\mu_0^i\quad\mbox{vaguely for all \ } i\in I.$$ Then $\mathfrak M(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$, equipped with the topology of $\mathcal A$-vague convergence, and the product space $\prod_{i\in I}\mathfrak M^+(\,\overline{A_i}\,)$ become homeomorphic. Since the space $\mathfrak M(\mathbf X)$ is Hausdorff, so are both $\mathfrak M(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ and $\prod_{i\in I}\mathfrak M^+(\,\overline{A_i}\,)$ (see, e.g., [@K Chap. 3, Th. 5]). Similarly, a set $\mathfrak F\subset\mathfrak M(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ is called $\mathcal A$-[vaguely bounded]{} if all its $i$-projections are vaguely bounded — that is, if for all $\varphi\in\mathbf C_0(\mathbf X)$ and $i\in I$, $$\sup_{\mu\in\mathfrak F}\,\|\mu^i(\varphi)\|<\infty.$$ [Lemma 1.]{} [If $\mathfrak F\subset\mathfrak M(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ is bounded and closed in the $\mathcal A$-vague topology, then it is $\mathcal A$-vaguely compact.]{} [Proof.]{} Since by [@B2 Chap. III, § 2, Prop. 9] any vaguely bounded and closed part of $\mathfrak M$ is vaguely compact, the lemma follows immediately from Tychonoff’s theorem on the product of compact spaces (see, e.g., [@K Chap. 5, Th. 13]).$\Box$ [3.3.]{} Fix a linear combination $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$. Since each compact subset of $\mathbf X$ might intersect with only finite number of $A_i$, $i\in I$, for every $\varphi\in\mathbf C_0(\mathbf X)$ only finite number of $\mu^i(\varphi)$, $i\in I$, are nonzero. This yields that to every $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ there corresponds a unique Radon measure $R\mu$ such that $$R\mu(\varphi)=\sum_{i\in I}\,\alpha_i\mu^i(\varphi)\quad\mbox{for all \ }\varphi\in\mathbf C_0(\mathbf X);$$ its positive and negative parts in Jordan’s decomposition, $R\mu^+$ and $R\mu^-$, can be written in the form $$R\mu^+=\sum_{i\in I^+}\,\mu^i,\qquad R\mu^-=\sum_{i\in I^-}\,\mu^i.$$ Of course, the mapping $R:\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)\to\mathfrak M$ thus defined is in general non-injective, i.e., one may choose $\mu'\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ so that $\mu'\not\equiv\mu$, while $R\mu'=R\mu$. (It would be injective if all $A_i$, $i\in I$, were mutually disjoint.) We shall call $\mu,\,\mu'\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ [equivalent in]{} $\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$, and write $\mu\cong\mu'$, whenever their $R$-images coincide. [Lemma 2.]{} [The $\mathcal A$-vague convergence of $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ to $\mu_0$ implies the vague convergence of $(R\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ to $R\mu_0$.]{} [Proof.]{} This is obvious in view of the fact that the support of any $\varphi\in\mathbf C_0(\mathbf X)$ may have points in common with only a finite number of $\overline{A_i}$, $i\in I$.$\Box$ [Remark 3.]{} The statement of Lemma 2 in general can not be inverted. However, if all $\overline{A_i}$, $i\in I$, are mutually disjoint, then the vague convergence of $(R\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ to $R\mu_0$ implies the $\mathcal A$-vague convergence of $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ to $\mu_0$. This can be seen by using the Tietze-Urysohn extension theorem (see, e.g., [@E2 Th. 0.2.13]). [3.4.]{} We next proceed to define energies and potentials of $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$. A proper definition is based on the mapping $R:\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)\to\mathfrak M$ and the following assertion. [Lemma 3.]{} [Fix $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ and a lower semicontinuous function $\psi$ on $\mathbf X$ such that $\psi\geqslant0$ unless $\mathbf X$ is compact. If the integral $\int\psi\,d R\mu$ is well defined, then $$\int\psi\,dR\mu=\sum_{i\in I}\,\alpha_i\int\psi\,d\mu^i,\label{lemma11}$$ and it is finite if and only if the series on the right is absolutely convergent.]{} [Proof.]{} We can certainly assume $\psi$ to be nonnegative, for if not, we replace $\psi$ by a function $\psi'$ obtained by adding to $\psi$ a suitable constant $c>0$: $$\psi'(x):=\psi(x)+c\geqslant0,$$ which is always possible since a lower semicontinuous function is bounded from below on a compact space. Hence, for every $N\in\mathbb N$, $$\int\psi\,d R\mu^+\geqslant\sum_{i\in I^+, \ i\leqslant N}\,\int\psi\,d\mu^i.$$ On the other hand, the sum of $\mu^i$ over all $i\in I^+$ that do not exceed $N$ approaches $R\mu^+$ vaguely as $N\to\infty$; consequently (see, e.g., [@F1]) $$\int\psi\,d R\mu^+\leqslant\lim_{N\to\infty}\,\sum_{i\in I^+, \ i\leqslant N}\,\int\psi\,d\mu^i.$$ Combining the last two inequalities and then letting $N$ tend to $\infty$ yields $$\int\psi\,d R\mu^+=\sum_{i\in I^+}\,\int\psi\,d\mu^i.$$ Since the same holds true for $R\mu^-$ and $I^-$ instead of $R\mu^+$ and $I^+$, respectively, the lemma follows.$\Box$ [Corollary 1.]{} [Given $\mu,\,\mu_1\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ and $x\in\mathbf X$, then $$\begin{aligned} \kappa(x,R\mu)&=\sum_{i\in I}\,\alpha_i\kappa(x,\mu^i),\label{poten}\\[4pt] \kappa(R\mu,R\mu_1)&=\sum_{i,j\in I}\,\alpha_i\alpha_j\kappa(\mu^i,\mu_1^j),\label{mutual}\end{aligned}$$ each of the identities being understood in the sense that its right-hand side is well defined whenever so is the left-hand one and then they coincide. Furthermore, the left-hand side in]{} (\[poten\]) [or in]{} (\[mutual\]) [is finite if and only if the corresponding series on the right absolutely converges.]{} [Proof.]{} Relation (\[poten\]) is a direct consequence of (\[lemma11\]), while (\[mutual\]) follows from Fubini’s theorem and Lemma 3 on account of the fact that $\kappa(x,\nu)$, where $\nu\in\mathfrak M^+$ is given, is lower semicontinuous on $\mathbf X$ (see, e.g., [@F1]).$\Box$ [Definition 4.]{} Given $\mu,\,\mu_1\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$, then $$\kappa(x,\mu):=\kappa(x,R\mu)$$ is called the value of the [potential]{} of $\mu$ at a point $x\in\mathbf X$, and $$\kappa(\mu,\mu_1):=\kappa(R\mu,R\mu_1)$$ the [mutual energy]{} of $\mu$ and $\mu_1$ — of course, provided the right-hand side of the corresponding relation is well defined. For $\mu\equiv\mu_1$ we get the [energy]{} $\kappa(\mu,\mu)$ of $\mu$; i.e., if $\kappa(R\mu,R\mu)$ is well defined, then $$\kappa(\mu,\mu):=\kappa(R\mu,R\mu)=\sum_{i,j\in I}\,\alpha_i\alpha_j\kappa(\mu^i,\mu^j).\label{ener}$$ [Corollary 2.]{} [For $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ to be of finite energy, it is necessary and sufficient that so be all $\mu^i$, $i\in I$, and]{} $$\sum_{i\in I}\,\\|\mu^i\\|^2<\infty.$$ [Proof.]{} This follows immediately from (\[ener\]) and Corollary 1 due to the inequality $$2\kappa(\nu_1,\nu_2)\leqslant\\|\nu_1\\|^2+\\|\nu_2\\|^2,\quad \nu_1,\,\nu_2\in\mathcal E\vspace{-8mm}.$$ $\Box$ [Remark 4.]{} Given $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$, then the series in (\[ener\]) actually defines the energy of the vector measure $(\mu^i)_{i\in I}$ relative to the infinite interaction matrix of the form $(\alpha_i\alpha_j)_{i,j\in I}$; compare with [@GR], [@NS Chap. 5, § 4]. Our approach, however, is based on the fact that, due to the specific interaction matrix, this value can also be obtained as the energy of the corresponding Radon measure $R\mu$. [Remark 5.]{} Since we make no difference between $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ and $R\mu$ when dealing with their energies or potentials, we shall sometimes call a measure associated with a condenser simply a [measure]{} — certainly, if this causes no confusion. [3.5.]{} Let $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$ consist of all $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ of finite energy $\kappa(\mu,\mu)=:\\|\mu\\|^2$. Since $\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ forms a convex cone, it is seen from Corollary 2 that so does $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$. Let us treat $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$ as a [semimetric space]{} with the semimetric $$\\|\mu_1-\mu_2\\|:=\\|R\mu_1-R\mu_2\\|,\quad\mu_1,\,\mu_2\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A);\label{seminorm}$$ then $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$ and its $R$-image become isometric. The topology on $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$ defined by means of the semimetric (\[seminorm\]) will be called [strong]{}. Two elements of $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$, $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, are called [equivalent in]{} $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$ if $\\|\mu_1-\mu_2\\|=0$. If, in addition, the kernel $\kappa$ is assumed to be strictly positive definite, then the equivalence in $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$ implies that in $\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$, namely then $\mu_1\cong\mu_2$. [4. Interior capacities of condensers; elementary properties]{} [4.1.]{} Let $\mathcal H$ be a set in the pre-Hilbert space $\mathcal E$ or in the semimetric space $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$, an $(I^+,I^-)$-condenser $\mathcal A$ being given. In either case, let us introduce the quantity $$\\|\mathcal H\\|^2:=\inf_{\nu\in\mathcal H}\,\\|\nu\\|^2,$$ interpreted as $+\infty$ if $\mathcal H$ is empty. If $\\|\mathcal H\\|^2<\infty$, one can consider the variational problem on the existence of $\lambda=\lambda(\mathcal H)\in\mathcal H$ with minimal energy $$\\|\lambda\\|^2=\\|\mathcal H\\|^2;$$ such a problem will be referred to as the $\mathcal H$-[problem]{}. The $\mathcal H$-problem is called [solvable]{} if a minimizing measure $\lambda(\mathcal H)$ exists. The following elementary lemma is a slight generalization of [@F1 Lemma 4.1.1]. [Lemma 4.]{} [Suppose $\mathcal H$ is convex and $\lambda=\lambda(\mathcal H)$ exists. Then for any $\nu\in\mathcal H$,]{} $$\\|\nu-\lambda\\|^2\leqslant\\|\nu\\|^2-\\|\lambda\\|^2.\label{lemma1}$$ [Proof.]{} Assume $\mathcal H\subset\mathcal E$. For every $t\in[0,\,1]$, the measure $\mu:=(1-t)\lambda+t\nu$ belongs to $\mathcal H$, and therefore $\\|\mu\\|^2\geqslant\\|\lambda\\|^2$. Evaluating $\\|\mu\\|^2$ and then letting $t$ tend to zero, we get $\kappa(\nu,\lambda)\geqslant\\|\lambda\\|^2$, and (\[lemma1\]) follows (see [@F1]). Suppose now $\mathcal H\subset\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$. Then $R\mathcal H:=\{R\nu:\ \nu\in\mathcal H\}$ is a convex subset of $\mathcal E$, while $R\lambda$ is a minimizer in the $R\mathcal H$-problem. What has just been shown therefore yields $$\\|R\nu-R\lambda\\|^2\leqslant\\|R\nu\\|^2-\\|R\lambda\\|^2,$$ which gives (\[lemma1\]) when combined with (\[seminorm\]).$\Box$ We shall be concerned with the $\mathcal H$-problem for various specific $\mathcal H$ related to the notion of [interior capacity]{} of an $(I^+,I^-)$-condenser (in particular, of a set); see Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 7 below for the definitions. [4.2.]{} Fix a continuous function $g:\mathbf X\to(0,\infty)$ and a numerical vector $a=(a_i)_{i\in I}$ with $a_i>0$, $i\in I$. Given an $(I^+,I^-)$-condenser $\mathcal A$ in $\mathbf X$, write $$\mathfrak M^+(A_i,a_i,g):=\Bigl\{\nu\in\mathfrak M^+(A_i): \ \int g\,d\nu=a_i\Bigr\},$$ and let $\mathfrak M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ consist of all $\mu\in\mathfrak M(\mathcal A)$ with $\mu^i\in\mathfrak M^+(A_i,a_i,g)$ for all $i\in I$. Given a kernel $\kappa$, also write $$\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g):=\mathfrak M^+(A_i,a_i,g)\cap\mathcal E,\quad\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g):=\mathfrak M(\mathcal A,a,g)\cap\mathcal E(\mathcal A).$$ [Definition 5.]{} We shall call the value $${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A:={\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g):=\frac{1}{\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2} \label{def}$$ the ([interior]{}) [capacity]{} of an $(I^+,I^-)$-condenser $\mathcal A$ (with respect to $\kappa$, $a$, and $g$). Here and in the sequel, we adopt the convention that $1/0=+\infty$. It follows immediately from the positive definiteness of the kernel that $$0\leqslant{\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)\leqslant\infty.$$ [Remark 6.]{} If $I$ is a singleton, then any $(I^+,I^-)$-condenser consists of just one set, say $A_1$. If moreover $g=1$ and $a_1=1$, then the notion of interior capacity of a condenser, defined above, certainly reduces to the notion of interior capacity of a set (see [@F1]). We denote it by $C(\,\cdot\,)$ as well, i.e., $C(A_1):=\\|\mathcal E^+(A_1,1,1)\\|^{-2}$. [Remark 7.]{} In the case of the Newtonian kernel $\|x-y\|^{-1}$ in $\mathbb R^3$, the notion of capacity of a condenser $\mathcal A$ has an evident electrostatic interpretation. In the framework of the corresponding electrostatics problem, the function $g$ serves as a characteristic of nonhomogeneity of the conductors $A_i$, $i\in I$. [4.3.]{} On $\mathfrak C=\mathfrak C(I^+,I^-)$, it is natural to introduce an ordering relation $\prec$ by declaring $\mathcal A'\prec\mathcal A$ to mean that $A_i'\subset A_i$ for all $i\in I$. Here, $\mathcal A'=(A_i')_{i\in I}$. Then ${\rm cap}\,(\,\cdot\,,a,g)$ is a nondecreasing function of a condenser, namely $${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A',a,g)\leqslant{\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)\quad\mbox{whenever \ }\mathcal A'\prec\mathcal A. \label{increas'}$$ Given $\mathcal A\in\mathfrak C$, denote by $\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A$ the increasing ordered family of all compact condensers $\mathcal K=(K_i)_{i\in I}\in\mathfrak C$ such that $\mathcal K\prec\mathcal A$. [Lemma 5.]{} [If $\mathcal K$ ranges over $\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A$, then]{} $${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)=\lim_{\mathcal K\uparrow\mathcal A}\, {\rm cap}\,(\mathcal K,a,g).\label{cont}$$ [Proof.]{} We can certainly assume ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)$ to be nonzero, since otherwise (\[cont\]) follows at once from (\[increas’\]). Then the set $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$ must be nonempty; fix $\mu$, one of its elements. Given $\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A$ and $i\in I$, let $\mu^i_\mathcal K$ denote the trace of $\mu^i$ upon $K_i$, i.e., $\mu^i_\mathcal K:=\mu_{K_i}^i$. Applying Lemma 1.2.2 from [@F1], we conclude that $$\begin{aligned} \int g\,d\mu^i&=\lim_{\mathcal K\uparrow\mathcal A}\,\int g\,d\mu_{\mathcal K}^i,\hspace{-3cm} &i&\in I,\label{w}\\ \kappa(\mu^i,\mu^j)&=\lim_{\mathcal K\uparrow\mathcal A}\,\kappa(\mu_{\mathcal K}^i,\mu_{\mathcal K}^j),\hspace{-3cm} &i,\,j&\in I.\label{ww}\end{aligned}$$ Fix $\varepsilon>0$. It follows from (\[w\]) and (\[ww\]) that for every $i\in I$ one can choose a compact set $K_i^0\subset A_i$ so that $$\frac{a_i}{\int g\,d\mu^i_{K_i^0}}<1+\varepsilon\,i^{-2},\label{unif2}$$ $$\bigl\|\\|\mu^i\\|^2-\\|\mu^i_{K_i^0}\\|^2\bigr\|<\varepsilon^2i^{-4}.\label{unif1}$$ Having denoted $\mathcal K^0:=(K_i^0)_{i\in I}$, for every $\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A$ that follows $\mathcal K^0$ we therefore have $\int g\,d\mu_\mathcal K^i\ne0$ and $$\hat{\mu}_\mathcal K:=\sum_{i\in I}\,\frac{\alpha_ia_i}{\int g\,d\mu_\mathcal K^i}\,\mu_\mathcal K^i\in\mathcal E(\mathcal K,a,g),$$ the finiteness of the energy being obtained from (\[unif1\]) and Corollary 2. This yields $$\\|\hat{\mu}_\mathcal K\\|^2\geqslant\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal K,a,g)\\|^2.\label{www}$$ We next proceed to show that $$\\|\mu\\|^2=\lim_{\mathcal K\uparrow\mathcal A}\,\\|\hat{\mu}_\mathcal K\\|^2.\label{4w}$$ To this end, it can be assumed that $\kappa\geqslant0$; for if not, then $\mathcal A$ must be finite since $\mathbf X$ is compact, and (\[4w\]) follows from (\[w\]) and (\[ww\]) when substituted into (\[ener\]). Therefore, for every $\mathcal K$ that follows $\mathcal K_0$ and every $i\in I$ we get $$\\|\mu^i_\mathcal K\\|\leqslant\\|\mu^i\\|\leqslant\\|R\mu^++R\mu^-\\|, \label{unif3}$$ $$\\|\mu^i-\mu^i_{\mathcal K}\\|<\varepsilon\,i^{-2},\label{uniff}$$ the latter being clear from (\[unif1\]) because of $\kappa(\mu^i_{\mathcal K},\mu^i-\mu^i_{\mathcal K})\geqslant0$. Also observe that, by (\[ener\]), $$\begin{split} \bigl\|&\\|\mu\\|^2-\\|\hat{\mu}_\mathcal K\\|^2\bigr\|\leqslant\sum_{i,j\in I}\,\biggl\|\kappa(\mu^i,\mu^j)-\frac{a_i}{\int g\,d\mu^i_\mathcal K}\frac{a_j}{\int g\,d\mu^j_\mathcal K}\,\kappa(\mu_\mathcal K^i,\mu_\mathcal K^j)\biggr\|\\[7pt] &{}\leqslant\sum_{i,j\in I}\,\biggl[\kappa(\mu^i-\mu^i_\mathcal K,\mu^j)+\kappa(\mu^i_\mathcal K,\mu^j-\mu^j_\mathcal K)+\biggl(\frac{a_i}{\int g\,d\mu^i_\mathcal K}\frac{a_j}{\int g\,d\mu^j_\mathcal K}-1\biggr)\kappa(\mu^i_\mathcal K,\mu^j_\mathcal K)\biggr]. \end{split}$$ When combined with (\[unif2\]), (\[unif3\]), and (\[uniff\]), this yields $$\bigl\|\\|\mu\\|^2-\\|\hat{\mu}_\mathcal K\\|^2\bigr\|\leqslant M\varepsilon\quad\mbox{for all \ }\mathcal K\succ\mathcal K_0,$$ where $M$ is finite and independent of $\mathcal K$, and the required relation (\[4w\]) follows. Substituting (\[www\]) into (\[4w\]), in view of the arbitrary choice of $\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$ we get $$\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2\geqslant\lim_{\mathcal K\uparrow\mathcal A}\,\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal K,a,g)\\|^2.$$ Since the converse inequality is obvious from (\[increas’\]), the proof is complete.$\Box$ Let $\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g)$ denote the class of all $\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$ such that, for every $i\in I$, the support $S(\mu^i)$ of $\mu^i$ is compact and contained in $A_i$. [Corollary 3.]{} [The capacity ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)$ remains unchanged if the class $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$ in its definition is replaced by $\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g)$. In other words,]{} $$\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2=\\|\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2.$$ [Proof.]{} We can certainly assume $\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2$ to be finite, since otherwise the corollary follows immediately from $\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g)\subset\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$. Then, by (\[increas’\]) and (\[cont\]), for every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a compact condenser $\mathcal K\prec\mathcal A$ such that $$\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal K,a,g)\\|^2\leqslant\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2+\varepsilon.$$ This leads to the claimed assertion when combined with the relation $$\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal K,a,g)\\|^2\geqslant\\|\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2\geqslant\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2\vspace{-8mm}.$$$\Box$ [4.4.]{} Unless explicitly stated otherwise, in all that follows it is assumed that $${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)>0;\label{nonzero1}$$ see below for necessary and sufficient conditions for this to occur. [Lemma 6.]{} [For]{} (\[nonzero1\]) [to hold, it is necessary and sufficient that either of the following three equivalent conditions be satisfied]{}:\ (i)$\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$ [is nonempty]{};\ (ii) $\sum_{i\in I}\,\\|\nu_i\\|^2<\infty$;\ (iii)$\sum_{i\in I}\,\\|\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g)\\|^2<\infty$. [Proof.]{} Indeed, the equivalency of (\[nonzero1\]) and (i) is obvious, while that of (i) and (ii) can be obtained directly from Corollary 2. If (iii) holds, then one can choose $\nu_i\in\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g)$, $i\in I$, so that $\\|\nu_i\\|^2<\\|\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g)\\|^2+i^{-2}$, and (ii) follows. Since (ii) obviously results (iii), the proof is complete.$\Box$ [Corollary 4.]{} [For]{} (\[nonzero1\]) [to be satisfied, it is necessary that $$C(A_i)>0\quad\mbox{for all \ } i\in I. \label{cap2}$$ If $\mathcal A$ is finite, then]{} (\[nonzero1\]) [and]{} (\[cap2\]) [are actually equivalent.]{} [Proof.]{} For Lemma 6, (ii) to hold, it is necessary that, for every $i\in I$, there exists a nonzero nonnegative measure of finite energy concentrated on $A_i$, which in turn is equivalent to (\[cap2\]) by [@F1 Lemma 2.3.1]. Since the former implication can obviously be inverted whenever $\mathcal A$ is finite, the proof is complete.$\Box$ Let $g_{\inf}$ and $g_{\sup}$ denote respectively the infimum and the supremum of $g$ over $A$. [Corollary 5.]{} [Assume $0<g_{\inf}\leqslant g_{\sup}<\infty$. Then]{} (\[nonzero1\]) [holds if and only if]{} $$\sum_{i\in I}\,\frac{a_i^2}{C(A_i)}<\infty.$$ [Proof.]{} Lemma 6, (iii) implies the corollary when combined with the inequalities $$\frac{a^2_i}{g_{\sup}^2\,C(A_i)}\leqslant\\|\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g)\\|^2\leqslant\frac{a^2_i}{g_{\inf}^2\,C(A_i)}\,,\quad i\in I,\label{5w}$$ to be proved below by reasons of homogeneity. To verify (\[5w\]), fix $i\in I$. One can certainly assume $C(A_i)$ to be nonzero, for otherwise Corollary 4 with $I=\{i\}$ shows that each of the three parts in (\[5w\]) equals $+\infty$. Therefore, there exists $\theta\in\mathcal E^+(A_i,1,1)$. Since $$\theta':=\frac{a_i\theta}{\int g\,d\theta}\in\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g),$$ we get $$a_i^2\,\\|\theta\\|^2\geqslant g_{\inf}^2\,\\|\theta'\\|^2\geqslant g_{\inf}^2\,\\|\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g)\\|^2,$$ and the right-hand side of (\[5w\]) is obtained by letting $\theta$ range over $\mathcal E^+(A_i,1,1)$. To verify the left-hand side, fix $\omega\in\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g)$. Then $$0<a_i\,g_{\sup}^{-1}\leqslant\omega(\mathbf X)\leqslant a_i\,g_{\inf}^{-1}<\infty.$$ Hence, $\omega(\mathbf X)^{-1}\omega\in\mathcal E^+(A_i,1,1)$ and $$\\|\omega\\|^2\geqslant\frac{a_i^2}{g_{\sup}^2}\,\\|\mathcal E^+(A_i,1,1)\\|^2.$$ In view of the arbitrary choice of $\omega\in\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g)$, this completes the proof.$\Box$ [4.5.]{} In the following assertion, providing necessary and sufficient conditions for ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)$ to be finite, we assume that $g_{\inf}>0$. [Lemma 7.]{} [For ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)$ to be finite, it is necessary that $$C(A_j)<\infty\quad\mbox{for some \ } j\in I.\label{j}$$ This condition is also sufficient if it is additionally assumed that $\sum_{i\in I}\,a_i<\infty$, $g_{\sup}<\infty$, $\mathcal A$ is closed, while $\kappa$ is bounded from above on $A^+\times A^-$ and perfect.]{} [Proof.]{} Let ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A<\infty$ and assume, on the contrary, that $$C(A_i)=\infty\quad\mbox{for all \ } i\in I.\label{lemma6}$$ Given $\varepsilon>0$, then for every $i$ one can choose $\nu_i\in\mathcal E^+(A_i,1,1)$ with compact support so that $$\\|\nu_i\\|\leqslant\varepsilon a_i^{-1}i^{-2}\,g_{\inf}.$$ Since then $$\nu:=\sum_{i\in I}\,\frac{\alpha_i a_i\nu_i}{\int g\,d\nu_i}\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$$ and $$\\|\nu\\|\leqslant\varepsilon\sum_{i\in I}\,i^{-2},$$ we arrive at a contradiction by letting $\varepsilon$ tend to $0$. Assume now all the conditions of the remaining part of the lemma to be satisfied, and let (\[j\]) be true — say, for $j\in I^+$. Consider the (finite) condenser $\mathcal B$ with the positive plates $B_1$ and $B_2$ and the negative one $B_3$, where $$B_1:=A_j,\quad B_2:=\bigcup_{i\in I^+\setminus\{j\}}\,A_i,\quad B_3:=A^-.$$ Also write $b:=(b_1,b_2,b_3)$, where $$b_1:=a_j,\quad b_2:=\sum_{i\in I^+\setminus\{j\}}\,a_i,\quad b_3:=\sum_{i\in I^-}\,a_i.$$ (If either of the sets $B_2$ and $B_3$ is empty, it should just be dropped, as well as the corresponding coordinate of $b$.) Then for every $\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$ there exists $\nu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal B,b,g)$ such that $R\mu=R\nu$, and therefore $$\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal B,b,g)\\|^2\leqslant\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2.$$ Furthemore, Lemma 13 from [@Z5] shows that, under the stated assumptions, there exists $\zeta\in\mathcal E(\mathcal B)$ such that $\int g\,d\zeta^1=b_1$ (hence, $\zeta\not\equiv0$) and $$\\|\zeta\\|^2=\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal B,b,g)\\|^2.$$ Since $\kappa$ is strictly positive definite, this implies that $\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal B,b,g)\\|^2$ is nonzero. Hence, so is $\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2$, as was to be proved.$\Box$ [5. On the solvability of the main minimum-problem]{} [5.1.]{} Because of (\[nonzero1\]), we are naturally led to the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$-[problem]{} (cf. Sec. 4.1), i.e., the problem on the existence of $\lambda\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$ with minimal energy $$\\|\lambda\\|^2=\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2;$$ the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$-problem might certainly be regarded as the main minimum-problem of the theory of interior capacities of condensers. The collection (possibly empty) of all minimizing measures $\lambda$ in this problem will be denoted by $\mathcal S(\mathcal A,a,g)$. If moreover ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)<\infty$, let us look, as well, at the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$-[problem]{}. By reasons of homogeneity, both the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$- and the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$-problems are simultaneously either solvable or unsolvable, and their extremal values are related to each other by the following law: $$\frac{1}{\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2}=\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)\\|^2. \label{iden}$$ Assume for a moment that $\mathcal A$ is compact. Since the mapping $$\nu\mapsto\int g\,d\nu,\quad \nu\in\mathfrak M^+(K),$$ where $K\subset\mathbf X$ is a compact set, is vaguely continuous, $\mathfrak M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is compact in the $\mathcal A$-vague topology. Therefore, if $\mathcal A$ is additionally assumed to be finite, while $\kappa$ is continuous on $A^+\times A^-$ (which, due to (\[non\]), is always the case for either of the classical kernels), then $\\|\mu\\|^2$ is $\mathcal A$-vaguely lower semicontinuous on $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$, and the solvability of both the problems immediately follows (cf. [@O Th. 2.30]). But if $\mathcal A$ is [noncompact]{}, then the class $\mathfrak M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is no longer $\mathcal A$-vaguely compact and the problems become quite nontrivial. Moreover, it has recently been shown by the author that, in the noncompact case, the problems are in general [unsolvable]{} and this occurs even under very natural assumptions (e.g., for the Newtonian, Green, or Riesz kernels in $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant 2$, and finite, closed condensers). In particular, it was proved in [@Z4] that, if $\mathcal A$ is finite and closed, $\kappa$ is perfect, and bounded and continuous on $A^+\times A^-$, and satisfies the generalized maximum principle (see, e.g., [@L Chap. VI]), while $0<g_{\inf}\leqslant g_{\sup}<\infty$, then for either of the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$- and the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$-problems to be solvable for any vector $a$, it is necessary and sufficient that $$C(A_i)<\infty\quad\mbox{for all \ } i\in I.$$ If moreover there exists $i_0\in I$ such that $$C(A_{i_0})=\infty,$$ then both the problems are unsolvable for all $a=(a_i)_{i\in I}$ with $a_{i_0}$ large enough. In [@Z6 Th. 1], the last statement was sharpened. It was shown that if, in addition to all the preceding assumptions, for all $i\neq i_0$, $$C(A_i)<\infty\quad\mbox{and}\quad A_i\cap A_{i_0}=\varnothing,$$ while $\kappa(\cdot,y)\to0$ (as $y\to\infty$) uniformly on compact sets, then there exists a number $\Lambda_{i_0}\in[0,\infty)$ such that the problems are unsolvable if and only if $$a_{i_0}>\Lambda_{i_0}.$$ [Remark 8.]{} It was actually shown in [@Z6] that $$\Lambda_{i_0}=\int g\,d\tilde{\lambda}^{i_0},$$ where $\tilde{\lambda}$ is a minimizer (it exists) in the auxiliary $\mathcal H$-problem for $$\mathcal H:=\left\{\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A):\quad\mu^i\in\mathcal E^+(A_i,a_i,g)\quad\mbox{for all \ } i\neq i_0\right\}.$$ [Remark 9.]{} The mentioned results were actually obtained in [@Z4; @Z6] for the energy evaluated in the presence of an external field. [5.2.]{} In view of the results reviewed in Sec. 5.1, it was particularly interesting to find statements of variational problems [dual]{} to the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$-problem (and hence providing new [equivalent]{} definitions of ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$), but now [solvable]{} for any $(I^+,I^-)$-condenser $\mathcal A$ (e.g., even nonclosed or infinite) and any vector $a$. We have succeeded in this under the following conditions, which will always be tacitly assumed. From now on, in addition to (\[nonzero1\]), the following [standing assumptions]{} will be always required. The kernel $\kappa$ is assumed to be consistent, and either $$I^-=\varnothing,$$ or the following three conditions are satisfied: $$g_{\inf}>0,\label{g}$$ $$\sup_{x\in A^+,\ y\in A^-}\,\kappa(x,y)<\infty,\label{bou}$$ $$\|a\|:=\sum_{i\in I}\,a_i<\infty.\label{abou}$$ [Remark 10.]{} These assumptions on a kernel are not too restrictive. In particular, they all are satisfied by the Newtonian, Riesz, or Green kernels in $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant2$, provided the Euclidean distance between $A^+$ and $A^-$ is nonzero, as well as by the restriction of the logarithmic kernel in $\mathbb R^2$ to an open unit ball. [6. $\mathcal A$-vague and strong cluster sets of minimizing nets]{} To formulate the results obtained, we shall need the following notation. [6.1.]{} Denote by $\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ the class of all $(\mu_t)_{t\in T}\subset\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g)$ such that $$\lim_{t\in T}\,\\|\mu_t\\|^2=\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2. \label{min}$$ This class is not empty, which is clear from (\[nonzero1\]) in view of Corollary 3. Let $\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ (respectively, $\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$) consist of all limit points of the nets $(\mu_t)_{t\in T}\in\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ in the $\mathcal A$-vague topology of the space $\mathfrak M(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ (respectively, in the strong topology of the semimetric space $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$). Also write $$\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g):=\Bigl\{\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A):\quad\int g\,d\mu^i\leqslant a_i\mbox{ \ for all \ } i\in I\Bigr\}.$$ With the preceding notation and under our standing assumptions (see Sec. 5.2), there holds the following lemma, to be proved in Sec. 12 below. [Lemma 8.]{} [Given $(\mu_t)_{t\in T}\in\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$, there exist its $\mathcal A$-vague cluster points; hence, $\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is nonempty. Moreover, $$\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a,g)\subset\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)\cap\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A},\leqslant\!a,g).\label{MMprime}$$ Furthermore, for every $\chi\in\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$, $$\lim_{t\in T}\,\\|\mu_t-\chi\\|^2=0,\label{strongly}$$ and hence $\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$ forms an equivalence class in $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$.]{} It follows from (\[min\])–(\[strongly\]) that $$\\|\zeta\\|^2=\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2\quad\mbox{for all \ }\zeta\in\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a,g).$$ Also observe that, if $\mathcal A=\mathcal K$ is compact, then moreover $\mathcal M(\mathcal K,a,g)\subset\mathfrak M(\mathcal K,a,g)$, which together with the preceding relation proves the following assertion. [Corollary 6.]{} [If $\mathcal A=\mathcal K$ is compact, then the $\mathcal E(\mathcal K,a,g)$-problem is solvable. Actually,]{} $$\mathcal S(\mathcal K,a,g)=\mathcal M(\mathcal K,a,g).\label{S}$$ [6.2.]{} When approaching $\mathcal A$ by the increasing family $\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A$ of the compact condensers $\mathcal K\prec\mathcal A$, we shall always suppose all those $\mathcal K$ to be of capacity nonzero. This involves no loss of generality, which is clear from (\[nonzero1\]) and Lemma 5. Then Corollary 6 enables us to introduce the (nonempty) class $\mathbb M_0(\mathcal A,a,g)$ of all nets $(\lambda_\mathcal K)_{\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A}$, where $\lambda_\mathcal K\in\mathcal S(\mathcal K,a,g)$ is arbitrarily chosen. Let $\mathcal M_0(\mathcal A,a,g)$ consist of all $\mathcal A$-vague cluster points of those nets. Since, by Lemma 5, $$\mathbb M_0(\mathcal A,a,g)\subset\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g),$$ application of Lemma 8 yields the following assertion. [Corollary 7.]{} [The class $\mathcal M_0(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is nonempty, and]{} $$\mathcal M_0(\mathcal A,a,g)\subset\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a,g)\subset\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g).$$ [Remark 11.]{} Each of the cluster sets, $\mathcal M_0(\mathcal A,a,g)$, $\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and $\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$, plays an important role in our study. However, if $\kappa$ is additionally assumed to be strictly positive definite (hence, perfect), while $\overline{A_i}$, $i\in I$, are mutually disjoint, then all these three classes coincide and consist of just one element. [6.3.]{} Also the following notation will be required. Given $\chi\in\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$, write $$\mathcal M'_\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g):=\bigl[R\chi\bigr]_\mathcal E\,.$$ This equivalence class does not depend on the choice of $\chi$, which is clear from Lemma 8. Lemma 8 also yields that, for any $(\mu_t)_{t\in T}\in\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and any $\nu\in\mathcal M'_\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$, $R\mu_t\to\nu$ in the strong topology of the pre-Hilbert space $\mathcal E$. [7. Extremal problems dual to the main minimum-problem]{} Throughout Sec. 7, as usual, we are keeping all our standing assumptions, stated in Sec. 5.2. [7.1.]{} A proposition $R(x)$ involving a variable point $x\in\mathbf X$ is said to subsist [nearly everywhere]{} (n.e.) in $E$, where $E$ is a given subset of $\mathbf X$, if the set of all $x\in E$ for which $R(x)$ fails to hold is of interior capacity zero. See, e.g., [@F1]. If $C(E)>0$ and $f$ is a universally measurable function bounded from below nearly everywhere in $E$, write $$"\!\inf_{x\in E}\!"\,f(x):=\sup\,\bigl\{q: \ f(x)\geqslant q\quad\mbox{n.\,e.~in \ } E\bigr\}.$$ Then $$f(x)\geqslant"\!\inf_{x\in E}\!"\,f(x)\quad\mbox{n.\,e.~in \ } E.$$ This follows immediately from the fact, to be often used in what follows, that the union of a sequence of sets $U_n\cap E$ with $C(U_n\cap E)=0$ is of interior capacity zero as well, provided $U_n$, $n\in\mathbb N$, are universally measurable whereas $E$ is arbitrary (see the corollary to Lemma 2.3.5 in [@F1] and the remark attached to it). [7.2.]{} Let $\hat{\Gamma}=\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ denote the class of all Radon measures $\nu\in\mathcal E$ such that there exist real numbers $c_i(\nu)$, $i\in I$, satisfying the relations $$\alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\nu)\geqslant c_i(\nu)g(x)\quad\mbox{n.\,e. in \ } A_i,\quad i\in I, \label{adm1}$$ $$\sum_{i\in I}\,c_i(\nu)\geqslant1. \label{adm2}$$ [Remark 12.]{} Given $\nu\in\hat{\Gamma}$, then the series in (\[adm2\]) must be [absolutely convergent]{}. Indeed, due to (\[nonzero1\]) and Corollary 3, there exists $\mu\in\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g)$; then, by [@F1 Lemma 2.3.1], the inequality in (\[adm1\]) holds $\mu^i$-almost everywhere. In view of $\int g\,d\mu^i=a_i$, this gives $$\kappa(\alpha_i\mu^i,\nu)\geqslant c_i(\nu),\quad i\in I.$$ Since, by Fubini’s theorem and Lemma 3, $\sum_{i\in I}\,\kappa(\alpha_i\mu^i,\nu)$ absolutely converges, the required conclusion follows. We also observe that the class $\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is [convex]{}, which can easily be seen from the property of sets of interior capacity zero mentioned just above. The following assertion, to be proved in Sec. 15 below, holds true. [Theorem 2.]{} [Under the standing assumptions,]{} $$\\|\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2={\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g). \label{id}$$ If $\\|\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2<\infty$, we are interested in the $\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$-[problem]{} (cf. Sec. 4.1), i.e., the problem on the existence of $\hat{\omega}\in\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ with minimal energy $$\\|\hat{\omega}\\|^2=\\|\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2;$$ the collection of all those $\hat\omega$ will be denoted by $\hat{\mathcal G}=\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$. A minimizing measure $\hat{\omega}$ can be shown to be [unique]{} up to a summand of seminorm zero (and, hence, it is unique whenever the kernel under consideration is strictly positive definite). Actually, the following stronger result holds true. [Lemma 9.]{} [If $\hat\omega$ exists, $\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ forms an equivalence class in $\mathcal E$.]{} [Proof.]{} Since $\hat{\Gamma}$ is convex, Lemma 4 yields that $\hat{\mathcal G}$ is contained in an equivalence class in $\mathcal E$. To prove that $\hat{\mathcal G}$ actually coincides with that equivalence class, it suffices to show that, if $\nu$ belongs to $\hat{\Gamma}$, then so do all measures equivalent to $\nu$ in $\mathcal E$. But this follows at once from the property of sets of interior capacity zero mentioned in Sec. 7.1 and the fact that the potentials of any two equivalent in $\mathcal E$ measures coincide nearly everywhere in $\mathbf X$ [@F1 Lemma 3.2.1].$\Box$ [7.3.]{} Assume for a moment that ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is finite. When combined with (\[def\]) and (\[iden\]), Theorem 2 shows that the $\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$-problem and, on the other hand, the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$-problem have the same infimum, equal to the capacity ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$, and so these two variational problems are [dual]{}. But what is surprising is that their infimum, ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$, turns out to be always an actual minimum in the former extremal problem, while this is not the case for the latter one (see Sec. 5.1). In fact, the following statement on the solvability of the $\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$-problem, to be proved in Sec. 15 below, holds true. [Theorem 3.]{} [Under the standing assumptions, if moreover ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A<\infty$, then the class $\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is nonempty and can be given by the formula $$\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)=\mathcal M'_\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g).\label{desc}$$ The numbers $c_i(\hat{\omega})$, $i\in I$, satisfying both]{} (\[adm1\]) [and]{} (\[adm2\]) [for $\hat{\omega}\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$, are determined uniquely, do not depend on the choice of $\hat{\omega}$, and can be written in either of the forms $$\begin{aligned} c_i(\hat{\omega})&=\alpha_i\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A^{-1}\kappa(\zeta^i,\zeta),\label{snt1}\\[4pt] c_i(\hat{\omega})&=\alpha_i\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A^{-1}\lim_{s\in S}\,\kappa(\mu_s^i,\mu_s),\label{cnt}\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta\in\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$ and $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}\in\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$ are arbitrarily given.]{} The following two assertions, providing additional information about $c_i(\hat{\omega})$, $i\in I$, can be obtained directly from the preceding theorem. [Corollary 8.]{} [Given $\hat{\omega}\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$, it follows that]{} $$c_i(\hat{\omega})="\!\inf_{x\in A_i}\!"\,\,\frac{\alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\hat{\omega})}{g(x)},\quad i\in I\smallskip.\label{ess''}$$ [Corollary 9.]{} [The inequality]{} (\[adm2\]) [for $\hat{\omega}\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is actually an equality; i.e.,]{} $$\sum_{i\in I}\,c_i(\hat\omega)=1.\label{1''}$$ [Remark 13.]{} Assume for a moment that $C(A_j)=0$ for some $j\in I$. Then ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A=0$ according to Corollary 4. On the other hand, the measure $\nu_0=0$ belongs to $\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ since it satisfies both (\[adm1\]) and (\[adm2\]) with $c_i(\nu_0)$, $i\in I$, where $$c_j(\nu_0)\geqslant1\quad\mbox{and}\quad c_i(\nu_0)=0,\quad i\ne j.$$ This implies that the identity (\[id\]) actually holds true in the degenerate case $C(A_j)=0$ as well, and then $\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ consists of all $\nu\in\mathcal E$ of seminorm zero. What then, however, fails to hold is the statement on the uniqueness of $c_i(\hat{\omega})$. [7.4.]{} Let $\hat{\Gamma}_(\mathcal A,a,g)$ consist of all $\nu\in\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ for which the inequality (\[adm2\]) is actually an equality. By arguments similar to those that have been applied above, one can see that $\hat{\Gamma}_(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is convex, and hence all the solutions to the minimal energy problem over this class form an equivalence class in $\mathcal E$. Combining this with Theorems 2, 3 and Corollary 9 leads to the following assertion. [Corollary 10.]{} [Under the standing assumptions, $$\\|\hat{\Gamma}_(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2={\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g).$$ If moreover ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)<\infty$, then the $\hat{\Gamma}_(\mathcal A,a,g)$-problem is solvable and the class $\hat{\mathcal G}_(\mathcal A,a,g)$ of all its solutions is given by the formula]{} $$\hat{\mathcal G}_(\mathcal A,a,g)= \mathcal M'_\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g).$$ [Remark 14.]{} Theorem 2 and Corollary 10 (cf. also Theorem 4 and Corollary 12 below) provide new equivalent definitions of the capacity ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)$. Note that, in contrast to the initial definition (cf. Sec. 4.2), no restrictions on the supports and total masses of measures from the classes $\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ or $\hat{\Gamma}_(\mathcal A,a,g)$ have been imposed; the only restriction involves their potentials. These definitions of the capacity are actually new even in the simplest case of a finite, compact condenser; compare with [@O]. They are not only of obvious academic interest, but seem also to be important for numerical computations. [7.5.]{} Our next purpose is to formulate an $\mathcal H$-problem such that it is still dual to the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$-problem and solvable, but now with $\mathcal H$ consisting of measures associated with a condenser. Let $\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)$ consist of all $\mu\in\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ for which both the relations (\[adm1\]) and (\[adm2\]) hold (with $\mu$ in place of $\nu$). In other words, $$\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g):=\left\{\mu\in\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,):\quad R\mu\in\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)\right\}.$$ Observe that the class $\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is [convex]{} and $$\\|\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2\geqslant\\|\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2. \label{GammahatGamma}$$ We proceed to show that the inequality (\[GammahatGamma\]) is actually an equality, and that the minimal energy problem, if considered over the class $\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)$, is still solvable. [Theorem 4.]{} [Under the standing assumptions, $$\\|\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2={\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g). \label{id2}$$ If moreover ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)<\infty$, then the $\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)$-problem is solvable and the class $\mathcal G(\mathcal A,a,g)$ of all its solutions $\omega$ is given by the formula]{} $$\mathcal G(\mathcal A,a,g)=\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g).\label{desc2}$$ [Proof.]{} We can certainly assume ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$ to be finite, for if not, (\[id2\]) is obtained directly from (\[id\]) and (\[GammahatGamma\]). Then, according to Lemma 8 with $a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$ instead of $a$, the class $\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$ is nonempty; fix $\chi$, one of its elements. It is clear from its definition and the identity (\[desc\]) that $\chi\in\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ and $R\chi\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$. Hence, $\chi\in\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)$, and therefore $$\\|\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2=\\|\chi\\|^2\geqslant\\|\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2.$$ In view of (\[id\]) and (\[GammahatGamma\]), this proves (\[id2\]) and, as well, the inclusion $$\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)\subset\mathcal G(\mathcal A,a,g).$$ But the right-hand side of this inclusion is an equivalence class in $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$, which follows from the convexity of $\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and Lemma 4 in the same manner as in the proof of Lemma 9. Since, by Lemma 8, also the left-hand side is an equivalence class in $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$, the two sets must actually be equal.$\Box$ [Corollary 11.]{} [If $\mathcal A=\mathcal K$ is compact and ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal K,a,g)<\infty$, then any solution to the $\mathcal E(\mathcal K,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K,g)$-problem gives, as well, a solution to the $\Gamma(\mathcal K,a,g)$-problem.]{} [Proof.]{} This follows from (\[desc2\]), when combined with (\[MMprime\]) and (\[S\]) for $a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K$ in place of $a$.$\Box$ [Remark 15.]{} Assume ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A<\infty$, and fix $\omega\in\mathcal G(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and $\hat{\omega}\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$. Since, by (\[desc\]) and (\[desc2\]), $\kappa(x,\omega)=\kappa(x,\hat\omega)$ nearly everywhere in $\mathbf X$, the numbers $c_i(\omega)$, $i\in I$, satisfying (\[adm1\]) and (\[adm2\]) for $\nu=\omega$, are actually equal to $c_i(\hat\omega)$. This implies that relations do hold, as well, for $\omega$ in place of $\hat\omega$. [Remark 16.]{} Observe that, in all the preceding assertions, we have not imposed any restrictions on the topology of $A_i$, $i\in I$. So, all the $\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$-, $\hat{\Gamma}_(\mathcal A,a,g)$-, and $\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)$-problems are solvable even for a nonclosed, infinite condenser $\mathcal A$. [Remark 17.]{} If $I=\{1\}$ and $g=1$, Theorems 2–4 and Corollary 10 can be derived from [@F1]. Moreover, then one can choose $\gamma\in\mathcal G(\mathcal A,a,g)$ so that $$\gamma(\mathbf X)=a_1\,C(A_1),$$ and exactly this kind of measures was called by B. Fuglede [interior capacitary distributions associated with the set]{} $A_1$. However, this fact in general can not be extended to a condenser $\mathcal A$ consisting more than one plate; that is, then $$\mathcal G(\mathcal A,a,g)\cap\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A},a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)=\varnothing,$$ which is seen from the unsolvability of the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$-problem. [8. Interior capacitary constants associated with a condenser]{} [8.1.]{} Throughout Sec. 8, it is always required that ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)<\infty$. Due to the uniqueness statement in Theorem 3, the following notion naturally arises. [Definition 6.]{} The numbers $$C_i:=C_i(\mathcal A,a,g):=c_i(\hat\omega),\quad i\in I,$$ satisfying both the relations (\[adm1\]) and (\[adm2\]) for $\hat{\omega}\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$, are said to be the ([interior]{}) [capacitary constants]{} associated with an $(I^+,I^-)$-condenser $\mathcal A$. [Corollary 12.]{} [The interior capacity ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)$ equals the infimum of $\kappa(\nu,\nu)$, where $\nu$ ranges over the class of all $\nu\in\mathcal E$]{} ([similarly,]{} $\nu\in\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$) [such that $$\alpha_ia_i\kappa(x,\nu)\geqslant C_i(\mathcal A,a,g)\,g(x)\quad\mbox{n.\,e.~in \ } A_i,\quad i\in I.$$ The infimum is attained at any]{} $\hat\omega\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ ([respectively,]{} $\omega\in\mathcal G(\mathcal A,a,g)$), [and hence it is an actual minimum.]{} [Proof.]{} This follows immediately from Theorems 2–4 and Remark 15.$\Box$ [8.2.]{} Some properties of the interior capacitary constants $C_i(\mathcal A,a,g)$, $i\in I$, have already been provided by Theorem 3 and Corollaries 8, 9. Also observe that, if $I=\{1\}$, then certainly $C_1(\mathcal A,a,g)=1$ (cf. [@F1 Th. 4.1]). [Corollary 13.]{} [$C_i(\,\cdot\,,a,g)$, $i\in I$, are continuous under exhaustion of $\mathcal A$ by the increasing family of all compact condensers $\mathcal K\prec\mathcal A$. Namely,]{} $$C_i(\mathcal A,a,g)=\lim_{\mathcal K\uparrow\mathcal A}\,C_i(\mathcal K,a,g).$$ [Proof.]{} Under our assumptions, $0<{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K<\infty$ for every $\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A$, and hence there exists $\lambda_\mathcal K\in\mathcal S(\mathcal K,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K,g)$. Substituting $\lambda_\mathcal K$ into (\[snt1\]) yields $$C_i(\mathcal K,a,g)=\alpha_i\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K^{-1}\,\kappa(\lambda^i_\mathcal K,\lambda_\mathcal K),\quad i\in I.\label{cntt}$$ On the other hand, it follows from Lemma 5 that the net $${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K^{-1}\,\lambda_\mathcal K,\quad\mbox{where \ } \mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A,$$ belongs to the class $\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$. Substituting it into (\[cnt\]) and then combining the relation obtained with (\[cntt\]), we get the corollary.$\Box$ [Corollary 14.]{} [Assume $C(A_j)=\infty$ for some $j\in I$. If moreover $g_{\inf}>0$, then]{} $$C_j(\mathcal A,a,g)\leqslant0.$$ [Proof.]{} Assume, on the contrary, that $C_j>0$. Given $\hat{\omega}\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$, then $$\alpha_j a_j\kappa(x,\hat{\omega})\geqslant C_j\,g_{\inf}>0\quad\mbox{n.\,e. in \ } A_j,$$ and therefore, by [@F1 Lemma 3.2.2], $$C(A_j)\leqslant a_j^2\,\\|\hat{\omega}\\|^2\,C_j^{-2}\,g_{\inf}^{-2}<\infty,$$ which is a contradiction.$\Box$ [Remark 18.]{} Observe that the necessity part of Lemma 7, which has been proved above with elementary arguments, can also be obtained as a consequence of Corollary 14. Indeed, if (\[lemma6\]) were true, then by Corollary 14 the sum of $C_i$, where $i$ ranges over $I$, would be not greater than $0$, which is impossible. [9. Interior capacitary distributions associated with a condenser]{} As always, we are keeping all our standing assumptions, stated in Sec. 5.2. Throughout Sec. 9, it is also required that ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A<\infty$. Our next purpose is to introduce a notion of interior capacitary distributions $\gamma_\mathcal A$ associated with a condenser $\mathcal A$ such that the distributions obtained possess properties similar to those of interior capacitary distributions associated with a set. Fuglede’s theory of interior capacities of sets [@F1] serves here as a model case. [9.1.]{} If $\mathcal A=\mathcal K$ is compact, then, as follows from Theorem 4, Corollary 11 and Remark 15, any minimizer $\lambda_\mathcal K$ in the $\mathcal E(\mathcal K,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K,g)$-problem has the desired properties, and so $\gamma_\mathcal K$ might be defined as $$\gamma_\mathcal K:=\lambda_\mathcal K,\quad\mbox{where}\quad\lambda_\mathcal K\in\mathcal S(\mathcal K,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K,g).$$ However, as is seen from Remark 17, in the noncompact case the desired notion can not be obtained as just a direct generalization of the corresponding one from the theory of interior capacities of sets. Having in mind that, similar to our model case, the required distributions should give a solution to the $\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)$-problem and be strongly and $\mathcal A$-vaguely continuous under exhaustion of $\mathcal A$ by compact condensers, we arrive at the following definition. [Definition 7.]{} We shall call $\gamma_\mathcal A\in\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ an ([interior]{}) [capacitary distribution]{} associated with $\mathcal A$ if there exists a subnet $(\mathcal K_s)_{s\in S}$ of $(\mathcal K)_{\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A}$ and $$\lambda_{\mathcal K_s}\in\mathcal S(\mathcal K_s,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K_s,g),\quad s\in S,$$ such that $(\lambda_{\mathcal K_s})_{s\in S}$ converges to $\gamma_\mathcal A$ in both the $\mathcal A$-vague and the strong topologies. Let $\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$ denote the collection of all those $\gamma_\mathcal A$. Application of Lemmas 5 and 8 enables us to rewrite the above definition in the following, apparently weaker, form: $$\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)=\mathcal M_0(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g).\label{D}$$ [Theorem 5.]{} [$\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is nonempty, contained in an equivalence class in $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$, and compact in the induced $\mathcal A$-vague topology. Furthermore, $$\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)\subset\mathcal G(\mathcal A,a,g)\cap\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A},\leqslant\!a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g).\label{gammain}$$ Given $\gamma:=\gamma_\mathcal A\in\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$, then $$\\|\gamma\\|^2={\rm cap}\,\mathcal A, \label{5.1}$$ $$\alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\gamma)\geqslant C_i\,g(x)\quad\mbox{n.\,e. in \ } A_i,\quad i\in I,\label{5.3}$$ where $C_i=C_i(\mathcal A,a,g)$, $i\in I$, are the interior capacitary constants. Actually, $$C_i=\frac{\alpha_i\kappa(\gamma^i,\gamma)}{{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A}="\!\inf_{x\in A_i}\!"\,\,\frac{\alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\gamma)}{g(x)}\,,\quad i\in I.\label{5.2}$$ If $I^-\ne\varnothing$, assume moreover that the kernel $\kappa(x,y)$ is continuous on $\overline{A^+}\times\overline{A^-}$, while]{} $\kappa(\cdot,y)\to0$ ([as]{} $y\to\infty$) [uniformly on compact sets. Then, for every $i\in I$,]{} $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\gamma)&\leqslant C_i\,g(x)&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\text{\it for all \ } x\in S(\gamma^i),\label{5.4}\\ \intertext{\it and hence} \alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\gamma)&=C_i\,g(x)&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\text{\it n.\,e. in \ } A_i\cap S(\gamma^i).\notag\end{aligned}$$ Also note that $\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is contained in an equivalence class in $\mathfrak M(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ provided the kernel $\kappa$ is strictly positive definite, and it consists of a [unique]{} element $\gamma_\mathcal A$ if, moreover, all $\overline{A_i}$, $i\in I$, are mutually disjoint. [Remark 19.]{} As is seen from the preceding theorem, the properties of interior capacitary distributions associated with a condenser are quite similar to those of interior capacitary distributions associated with a set (cf. [@F1 Th. 4.1]). The only important difference is that the sign $\leqslant$ in the inclusion (\[gammain\]) in general can not be omitted — even for a finite, closed, noncompact condenser. Cf. Remark 17. [Remark 20.]{} Like as in the theory of interior capacities of sets, in general none of the $i$-coordinates of $\gamma_\mathcal A$ is concentrated on $A_i$ (unless $A_i$ is closed). Indeed, let $\mathbf X=\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant3$, $\kappa(x,y)=\|x-y\|^{2-n}$, $g=1$, $I^+=\{1\}$, $I^-=\{2\}$, $a_1=a_2=1$, and let $A_1=\{x: \|x\|<r\}$ and $A_2=\{x: \|x\|>R\}$, where $0<r<R<\infty$. Then it can be shown that $$\gamma_\mathcal A=\gamma_{\overline{\mathcal A}}=\bigl[\theta^+-\theta^-\bigr]\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,$$ where $\theta^+$ and $\theta^-$ are obtained by the uniform distribution of unit mass over the spheres $S(0,r)$ and $S(0,R)$, respectively. Hence, $\|\gamma_\mathcal A\|(A)=0$. [9.2.]{} The purpose of this section is to point out characteristic properties of the interior capacitary distributions and the interior capacitary constants. [Proposition 1.]{} [Assume $\mu\in\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ has the properties $$\\|\mu\\|^2={\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g),$$ $$\alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\mu)\geqslant\frac{\alpha_i\kappa(\mu^i,\mu)}{{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A}\,g(x)\quad\mbox{\it n.\,e. in \ } A_i,\quad i\in I.$$ Then $\mu$ is equivalent in $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ to every $\gamma_\mathcal A\in\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and, for all $i\in I$,]{} $$C_i(\mathcal A,a,g)=\frac{\alpha_i\kappa(\mu^i,\mu)}{{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A}="\!\inf_{x\in A_i}\!"\,\,\frac{\alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\mu)}{g(x)}\,.$$ Actually, there holds the following stronger result, to be proved in Sec. 17 below. [Proposition 2.]{} [Let $\nu\in\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ and $\tau_i\in\mathbb R$, $i\in I$, satisfy the relations $$\alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\nu)\geqslant\tau_i\,g(x)\quad\mbox{\it n.\,e. in \ } A_i,\quad i\in I,\label{desc3'}$$ $$\sum_{i\in I}\,\tau_i=\frac{{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A+\\|\nu\\|^2}{2\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A}\,.\label{adm2''}$$ Then $\nu$ is equivalent in $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ to every $\gamma_\mathcal A\in\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and, for all $i\in I$,]{} $$\tau_i=C_i(\mathcal A,a,g)="\!\inf_{x\in A_i}\!"\,\,\frac{\alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\nu)}{g(x)}\,.\label{un}$$ Thus, under the conditions of Proposition 1 or 2, if moreover $\kappa$ is strictly positive definite and all $\overline{A_i}$, $i\in I$, are mutually disjoint, then the measure under consideration is actually the (unique) interior capacitary distribution $\gamma_\mathcal A$. [10. On continuity of the interior capacities, capacitary distributions, and capacitary constants]{} [10.1.]{} Given $\mathcal A_n=(A_i^n)_{i\in I}$, $n\in\mathbb N$, and $\mathcal A$ in $\mathfrak C=\mathfrak C(I^+,I^-)$, we write $\mathcal A_n\uparrow\mathcal A$ if $\mathcal A_n\prec\mathcal A_{n+1}$ for all $n$ and $$A_i=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}\,A_i^n,\quad i\in I.$$ Following [@B1 Chap. 1, §9], we call a locally compact space [countable at infinity]{} if it can be written as a countable union of compact sets. [Theorem 6.]{} [Suppose that either $g_{\inf}>0$ or the space $\mathbf X$ is countable at infinity. If $\mathcal A_n$, $n\in\mathbb N$, are universally measurable and $\mathcal A_n\uparrow\mathcal A$, then $${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)=\lim_{n\in\mathbb N}\,{\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A_n,a,g). \label{6.1}$$ Assume moreover ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)$ to be finite, and let $\gamma_n:=\gamma_{\mathcal A_n}$, $n\in\mathbb N$, denote an interior capacitary distribution associated with $\mathcal A_n$. If $\gamma$ is an $\mathcal A$-vague limit point of]{} $(\gamma_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ ([such a $\gamma$ exists]{}), [then $\gamma$ is actually an interior capacitary distribution associated with the condenser $\mathcal A$, and $$\lim_{n\in\mathbb N}\,\\|\gamma_n-\gamma\\|^2=0.$$ Furthermore,]{} $$C_i(\mathcal A,a,g)=\lim_{n\in\mathbb N}\,C_i(\mathcal A_n,a,g),\quad i\in I\smallskip.\label{6.3}$$ Thus, if $\kappa$ is additionally assumed to be strictly positive definite (hence, perfect) and all $\overline{A_i}$, $i\in I$, are mutually disjoint, then the (unique) interior capacitary distribution associated with $\mathcal A_n$ converges both $\mathcal A$-vaguely and strongly to the (unique) interior capacitary distribution associated with $\mathcal A$. [Remark 21.]{} Theorem 6 remains true if $(\mathcal A_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is replaced by the increasing ordered family of all compact condensers $\mathcal K$ such that $\mathcal K\prec\mathcal A$. Moreover, then the assumption that either $g_{\inf}>0$ or $\mathbf X$ is countable at infinity can be omitted. Cf., e.g., Lemma 5 and Corollary 13. [Remark 22.]{} If $I=\{1\}$ and $g=1$, Theorem 6 has been proved in [@F1 Th. 4.2]. [10.2.]{} The remainder of the article is devoted to proving the results formulated in Sec. and is organized as follows. Theorems 2, 3, 5, and 6 are proved in Sec. 15, 16, and 18. Their proofs utilize a description of the potentials of measures from the classes $\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and $\mathcal M_0(\mathcal A,a,g)$, to be given in Sec. 13 and 14 by Lemmas 12 and 13. In turn, Lemmas 12 and 13 use a theorem on the strong completeness of proper subspaces of $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$, which is a subject of Sec. 11. [11. On the strong completeness]{} [11.1.]{} Keeping all our standing assumptions on $\kappa$, $g$, $a$, and $\mathcal A$, stated in Sec. 5.2, we consider $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A},\leqslant\!a,g)$ to be a topological subspace of the semimetric space $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$; the induced topology is likewise called the [strong]{} topology. [Theorem 7.]{} [Suppose $\mathcal A$ is closed. Then the semimetric space $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$ is complete. In more detail, if $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}\subset\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$ is a strong Cauchy net and $\mu$ is its $\mathcal A$-vague cluster point]{} ([such a $\mu$ exists]{}), [then $\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$ and $$\lim_{s\in S}\,\\|\mu_s-\mu\\|^2=0.\label{str}$$ Assume, in addition, that the kernel is strictly positive definite and all $A_i$, $i\in I$, are mutually disjoint. If moreover $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}\subset\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$ converges strongly to $\mu_0\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$, then actually $\mu_0\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$ and $\mu_s\to\mu_0$ $\mathcal A$-vaguely]{}. [Remark 23.]{} This theorem is certainly of independent interest since, according to the well-known counterexample by H. Cartan [@Car], the pre-Hilbert space $\mathcal E$ is strongly incomplete even for the Newtonian kernel $\|x-y\|^{2-n}$ in $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant3$. [Remark 24.]{} Assume the kernel is strictly positive definite (hence, perfect). If moreover $I^-=\varnothing$, then Theorem 7 remains valid for $\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$ in place of $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$ (cf. Theorem 1). A question still unanswered is [whether this is the case if $I^+$ and $I^-$ are both nonempty]{}. We can however show that this is really so for the Riesz kernels $\|x-y\|^{\alpha-n}$, $0<\alpha<n$, in $\mathbb R^n$, $n\geqslant2$ (cf. [@Z2 Th. 1]). The proof utilizes Deny’s theorem [@D1] stating that, for the Riesz kernels, $\mathcal E$ can be completed with making use of distributions of finite energy. [11.2.]{} We start by auxiliary assertions to be used in the proof of Theorem 7. [Lemma 10.]{} [$\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$ is $\mathcal A$-vaguely bounded.]{} [Proof.]{} Fix $i\in I$, and let a compact set $K\subset A_i$ be given. Since $g$ is positive and continuous, the inequalities $$a_i\geqslant\int g\,d\mu^i\geqslant\mu^i(K)\,\min_{x\in K}\ g(x),\quad\mbox{where \ }\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g),$$ yield $$\sup_{\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant a,g)}\,\mu^i(K)<\infty,$$ and the lemma follows.$\Box$ [Lemma 11.]{} [Suppose $\mathcal A$ is closed. If a net $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}\subset\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$ is strongly bounded, then its $\mathcal A$-vague cluster set is nonempty and contained in $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$.]{} [Proof.]{} We begin by showing that the nets $(R\mu_s^+)_{s\in S}$ and $(R\mu_s^-)_{s\in S}$ are strongly bounded as well, i.e., $$\sup_{s\in S}\,\\|R\mu_s^\pm\\|^2<\infty,\quad i\in I. \label{7.1}$$ Of course, this needs to be proved only when $I^-\ne\varnothing$; then, in accordance with the standing assumptions, all the relations (\[g\]), (\[bou\]), and (\[abou\]) hold. Since $$\int g\,d\mu_s^i\leqslant a_i,\quad i\in I, \label{oh}$$ (\[g\]) implies $$\sup_{s\in S}\,\mu_s^i(\mathbf X)\leqslant a_i\,g_{\inf}^{-1}<\infty,\quad i\in I. \label{7.3}$$ Hence, by (\[abou\]), $$\sup_{s\in S}\,R\mu_s^\pm(\mathbf X)\leqslant \|a\|\,g_{\inf}^{-1}<\infty.$$ When combined with (\[bou\]), this shows that $\kappa(R\mu^+_s,R\mu^-_s)$ is bounded from above on $S$, and hence so do $\\|R\mu^+_s\\|^2$ and $\\|R\mu^-_s\\|^2$. Moreover, according to Lemmas 1 and 10, there exists an $\mathcal A$-vague cluster point $\mu$ of the net $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$. Denoting by $(\mu_d)_{d\in D}$ a subnet of $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ such that $$\mu_d^i\to\mu^i\quad\mbox{vaguely for all \ } i\in I,\label{vagi}$$ we get from Lemma 2 $$R\mu_d^\pm\to R\mu^\pm\quad\mbox{vaguely}.\label{vagpm}$$ It remains to show that $R\mu^+$ and $R\mu^-$ are both of finite energy and that (\[oh\]) holds true for $\mu^i$ in place of $\mu_s^i$. To this end, recall that, if $\mathbf Y$ is a locally compact Hausdorff space and $\psi$ is a lower semicontinuous function on $\mathbf Y$ such that $\psi\geqslant0$ unless its support is compact, then the map $$\nu\mapsto\int\psi\,d\nu,\quad\nu\in\mathfrak M^+(\mathbf Y),$$ is lower semicontinuous in the induced vague topology (see, e.g., [@F1]). Applying this to $\mathbf Y=\mathbf X\times\mathbf X$, $\psi=\kappa$ and, subsequently, $\mathbf Y=A_i$, $\psi=g\|_{A_i}$ and using (\[7.1\]), (\[vagpm\]) and, respectively, (\[oh\]) and (\[vagi\]), we arrive at the required assertions.$\Box$ [Corollary 15.]{} [Assume a net $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}\subset\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$ is strongly bounded. Then for every $i\in I$, $\\|\mu^i_s\\|^2$ and $\kappa(\mu^i_s,\mu_s)$ are bounded on $S$.]{} [Proof.]{} In view of (\[7.1\]), the required relation $$\sup_{s\in S}\,\\|\mu_s^i\\|^2<\infty\quad\mbox{for all \ } i\in I, \label{7.1i}$$ will be proved once we show that $$\sum_{i,j\in I^\pm}\,\kappa(\mu_s^i,\mu_s^j)\geqslant C>-\infty,\label{bdbl}$$ where $C$ is independent of $s$. Since (\[bdbl\]) is obvious when $\kappa\geqslant0$, one can assume $\mathbf X$ to be compact. Then $\kappa$, being lower semicontinuous, is bounded from below on $\mathbf X$ (say by $-c$, where $c>0$), while $\mathcal A$ and, hence, $\|a\|$ are finite. Furthermore, then $g_{\inf}>0$; therefore, (\[7.3\]) holds true. This implies that $$\kappa(\mu_s^i,\mu_s^j)\geqslant-a_ia_jg_{\inf}^{-2}\,c\quad\mbox{for all \ }i,\,j\in I,$$ and (\[bdbl\]) follows. The above arguments also show that $\kappa(\mu_s^i,R\mu_s^+)$ and $\kappa(\mu_s^i,R\mu_s^-)$, where $i\in I$ is given, are both bounded from below on $S$. Since these functions of $s$ are bounded from above as well, which is clear from (\[7.1\]) and (\[7.1i\]) by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the required boundedness of $\kappa(\mu_s^i,\mu_s)$ on $S$ follows.$\Box$ [11.3. Proof of Theorem 7.]{} Suppose $\mathcal A$ is closed, and let $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ be a strong Cauchy net in $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$. Since such a net converges strongly to every its strong cluster point, $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ can certainly be assumed to be strongly bounded. Then, by Lemma 11, there exists an $\mathcal A$-vague cluster point $\mu$ of $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$, and $$\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g). \label{leqslant}$$ We next proceed to verify (\[str\]). Of course, there is no loss of generality in assuming $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ to converge $\mathcal A$-vaguely to $\mu$. Then, by Lemma 2, $(R\mu^+_s)_{s\in S}$ and $(R\mu^-_s)_{s\in S}$ converge vaguely to $R\mu^+$ and $R\mu^-$, respectively. Since, by (\[7.1\]), these nets are strongly bounded in $\mathcal E^+$, the property $(CW)$ (see Sec. 2) shows that they approach $R\mu^+$ and $R\mu^-$, respectively, in the weak topology as well, and so $$R\mu_s\to R\mu\quad\mbox{weakly}.$$ This gives $$\\|\mu_s-\mu\\|^2=\\|R\mu_s-R\mu\\|^2=\lim_{l\in S}\,\kappa(R\mu_s-R\mu,R\mu_s-R\mu_l),$$ and hence, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $$\\|\mu_s-\mu\\|^2\leqslant \\|\mu_s-\mu\\|\,\liminf_{l\in S}\,\\|\mu_s-\mu_l\\|,$$ which proves (\[str\]) as required, because $\\|\mu_s-\mu_l\\|$ becomes arbitrarily small when $s,\,l\in S$ are both large enough. Suppose now that $\kappa$ is strictly positive definite, while all $A_i$, $i\in I$, are mutually disjoint, and let the net $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ converge strongly to some $\mu_0\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A)$. Given an $\mathcal A$-vague limit point $\mu$ of $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$, then we conclude from (\[str\]) that $\\|\mu_0-\mu\\|=0$, hence $\mu_0\cong\mu$ since $\kappa$ is strictly positive definite, and finally $\mu_0\equiv\mu$ because $A_i$, $i\in I$, are mutually disjoint. In view of (\[leqslant\]), this means that $\mu_0\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,\leqslant\!a,g)$, which is a part of the desired conclusion. Moreover, $\mu_0$ has thus been shown to be identical to any $\mathcal A$-vague cluster point of $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$. Since the $\mathcal A$-vague topology is Hausdorff, this implies that $\mu_0$ is actually the $\mathcal A$-vague limit of $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ (cf. [@B1 Chap. I, § 9, n$^\circ$1, cor.]), which completes the proof.$\Box$ [12. Proof of Lemma 8]{} Fix any $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ and $(\nu_t)_{t\in T}$ in $\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$. It follows by standard arguments that $$\lim_{(s,t)\in S\times T}\,\\|\mu_s-\nu_t\\|^2=0, \label{fund}$$ where $S\times T$ is the directed product of the directed sets $S$ and $T$ (see, e.g., [@K Chap. 2, § 3]). Indeed, by the convexity of the class $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$, $$2\,\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\| \leqslant{\\|\mu_s+\nu_t\\|}\leqslant\\|\mu_s\\|+\\|\nu_t\\|,$$ and hence, by (\[min\]), $$\lim_{(s,t)\in S\times T}\,\\|\mu_s+\nu_t\\|^2=4\,\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2.$$ Then the parallelogram identity gives (\[fund\]) as claimed. Relation (\[fund\]) implies that $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ is strongly fundamental. Therefore Theorem 7 shows that there exists an $\mathcal A$-vague cluster point $\mu_0$ of $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$, and moreover $\mu_0\in\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A},\leqslant\!a,g)$ and $\mu_s\to\mu_0$ strongly. This means that $\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and $\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$ are both nonempty and satisfy the inclusion (\[MMprime\]). What is left is to prove that $\mu_s\to\chi$ strongly, where $\chi\in\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is given. But then one can choose a net in $\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$, say $(\nu_t)_{t\in T}$, convergent to $\chi$ strongly, and repeated application of (\[fund\]) gives immediately the desired conclusion.$\Box$ [13. Potentials of strong cluster points of minimizing nets]{} [13.1.]{} The aim of this section is to provide a description of the potentials of measures from the class $\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$. As usual, we are keeping all our standing assumptions, stated in Sec. 5.2. [Lemma 12.]{} [There exist $\eta_i\in\mathbb R$, $i\in I$, such that, for every $\chi\in\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$, $$\alpha_ia_i\kappa(x,\chi) \geqslant\alpha_i\eta_i g(x)\quad\mbox{n.\,e. in \ } A_i,\quad i\in I, \label{1.1}$$ $$\sum_{i\in I}\,\alpha_i\eta_i=\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2. \label{1.2}$$ These $\eta_i$, $i\in I$, are determined uniquely and given by either of the formulas $$\begin{aligned} \eta_i&=\kappa(\zeta^i,\zeta),\label{1.3'}\\[2pt] \eta_i&=\lim_{s\in S}\,\kappa(\mu_s^i,\mu_s),\label{1.3''}\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta\in\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}\in\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ are arbitrarily chosen.]{} [Proof.]{} Throughout the proof, we shall assume every net of the class $\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ to be strongly bounded, which certainly involves no loss of generality. Fix $\zeta\in\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and choose $(\mu_t)_{t\in T}\in\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ that converges $\mathcal A$-vaguely to $\zeta$. We begin by showing that $$\kappa(\zeta^i,\zeta)=\lim_{t\in T}\,\kappa(\mu_t^i,\mu_t),\quad i\in I.\label{proof}$$ Since, by Corollary 15, $\\|\mu_t^i\\|$ is bounded from above on $T$ (say by $M_1$), while $\mu_t^i\to\zeta^i$ vaguely, the property $(CW)$ yields that $\mu_t^i$ approaches $\zeta^i$ also weakly. Hence, for every $\varepsilon>0$, $$\|\kappa(\zeta^i-\mu_t^i,\zeta)\|<\varepsilon$$ whenever $t\in T$ is large enough. Furthermore, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $$\|\kappa(\mu_t^i,\zeta)-\kappa(\mu_t^i,\mu_t)\|=\|\kappa(\mu_t^i,R\zeta-R\mu_t)\|\leqslant M_1\\|\zeta-\mu_t\\|,\quad t\in T.$$ Since, by Lemma 8, $\mu_t\to\zeta$ strongly, the last two relations combined give (\[proof\]). We next proceed to show that $\eta_i$, $i\in I$, defined by (\[1.3’\]), satisfy both (\[1.1\]) and (\[1.2\]), where $\chi\in\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is given. Since (\[1.2\]) is obtained directly from $$\sum_{i\in I}\,\alpha_i\kappa(\zeta^i,\zeta)=\\|\zeta\\|^2=\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2,$$ suppose, contrary to (\[1.1\]), that there exist $j\in I$ and a set $E_j\subset A_j$ of interior capacity nonzero such that $$\alpha_ja_j\kappa(x,\chi)<\alpha_j\eta_jg(x)\quad\mbox{for all \ } x\in E_j. \label{3.2}$$ Then one can choose $\nu\in\mathcal E^+$ with compact support so that $S(\nu)\subset E_j$ and $$\int g\,d\nu=a_j.$$ Integrating the inequality in (\[3.2\]) with respect to $\nu$ gives $$\alpha_j\,\bigl[\kappa(\chi,\nu)-\eta_j\bigr]<0. \label{3.3}$$ To get a contradiction, for every $\tau\in(0,1]$ write $$\tilde{\mu}^i_t:=\left\{ \begin{array}{cl} \mu^j_t-\tau\bigl(\mu_t^j-\nu\bigr) & \mbox{if \ } i=j,\\[4pt] \mu^i_t & \mbox{otherwise}.\\ \end{array} \right.$$ Clearly, $$\tilde{\mu}_t:=\sum_{i\in I}\,\alpha_i\tilde{\mu}^i_t\in\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g),\quad t\in T,$$ and consequently $$\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2\leqslant \\|\tilde{\mu}_t\\|^2=\\|\mu_t\\|^2 -2\alpha_j\tau\,\kappa(\mu_t,\mu_t^j-\nu)+\tau^2\\|\mu_t^j-\nu\\|^2. \label{3.4}$$ The coefficient of $\tau^2$ is bounded from above on $T$ (say by $M_0$), while by Lemma 8 $$\lim_{t\in T}\,\\|\mu_t-\chi\\|^2=0.$$ Combining (\[1.3’\]), (\[proof\]) and substituting the result obtained into (\[3.4\]) therefore gives $$0\leqslant M_0\tau^2+2\alpha_j\tau\,\bigl[\kappa(\chi,\nu)-\eta_j\bigr].$$ By letting here $\tau$ tend to $0$, we arrive at a contradiction to (\[3.3\]), which proves (\[1.1\]). To prove the statement on uniqueness, consider some other $\eta'_i$, $i\in I$, satisfying both (\[1.1\]) and (\[1.2\]). Then they are necessarily finite, and for every $i$, $$\alpha_ia_i\kappa(x,\chi)\geqslant\max\bigl\{\alpha_i\eta_i,\, \alpha_i\eta'_i\bigr\}\,g(x)\quad\mbox{n.\,e. in \ } A_i,\label{4.1}$$ which follows from the property of sets of interior capacity zero mentioned in Sec. 7.1. Since $\mu_t^i$ is concentrated on $A_i$ and has finite energy and compact support, application of [@F1 Lemma 2.3.1] shows that the inequality in (\[4.1\]) holds $\mu_t^i$-almost everywhere in $\mathbf X$. Integrating it with respect to $\mu_t^i$ and then summing up over all $i\in I$, in view of $\int g\,d\mu_t^i=a_i$ we have $$\kappa(\mu_t,\chi)\geqslant\sum_{i\in I}\, \max\bigl\{\alpha_i\eta_i,\,\alpha_i\eta'_i\bigr\},\quad t\in T.$$ Passing here to the limit as $t$ ranges over $T$, we get $$\\|\chi\\|^2=\lim_{t\in T}\kappa(\mu_t,\chi)\geqslant \sum_{i\in I}\max\bigl\{\alpha_i\eta_i,\,\alpha_i\eta'_i\bigr\}\geqslant\sum_{i\in I}\alpha_i\eta_i=\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2,$$ and hence $$\max\bigl\{\alpha_i\eta_i,\,\alpha_i\eta'_i\bigr\} =\alpha_i\eta_i,\quad i\in I,$$ for the extreme left and right parts of the above chain of inequalities are equal. Applying the same arguments again, but with the roles of $\eta_i$ and $\eta'_i$ reversed, we conclude that $\eta_i=\eta'_i$ for all $i\in I$, as claimed. It remains to show that $\eta_i$ can be written in the form (\[1.3”\]), where $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}\in\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is given. By Corollary 15, for every $i\in I$, $\kappa(\mu_s^i,\mu_s)$ is bounded on $S$. Fix $j\in I$ and choose a cluster point $\eta_j^0$ of $\bigl\{\kappa(\mu_s^j,\mu_s):\ s\in S\bigr\}$; then, in view of Lemmas 1 and 10, one can select an $\mathcal A$-vaguely convergent subnet $(\mu_d)_{d\in D}$ of $(\mu_s)_{s\in S}$ such that $$\eta_j^0=\lim_{d\in D}\,\kappa(\mu_d^j,\mu_d).$$ But what has been proved just above implies immediately that $\eta_j^0=\eta_j$. Since this means that any cluster point of the net $\kappa(\mu_s^j,\mu_s)$, $s\in S$, coincides with $\eta_j$, (\[1.3”\]) follows.$\Box$ [13.2.]{} In what follows, $\eta_i=:\eta_i(\mathcal A,a,g)$, $i\in I$, will always denote the numbers appeared in Lemma 12. They are uniquely determined by relation (\[1.1\]), where $\chi\in\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is arbitrarily chosen, taken together with (\[1.2\]). This statement on uniqueness can actually be strengthened as follows. [Lemma 12$'$.]{} [Given $\chi\in\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a,g)$, choose $\eta'_i\in\mathbb R$, $i\in I$, so that $$\sum_{i\in I}\alpha_i\eta'_i\geqslant\\|\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2.$$ If there holds]{} (\[1.1\]) [for $\eta'_i$ in place of $\eta_i$, then $\eta'_i=\eta_i$ for all $i\in I$.]{} [Proof.]{} This follows in the same manner as the uniqueness statement in Lemma 12.$\Box$ [13.3.]{} The following assertion is specifying Lemma 12 for a compact condenser $\mathcal K$. [Corollary 16.]{} [Let $\mathcal A=\mathcal K$ be compact. Given $\lambda_\mathcal K\in\mathcal S(\mathcal K,a,g)$, then for every $i$,]{} $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_ia_i\kappa(x,\lambda_\mathcal K)&\geqslant\alpha_i\kappa(\lambda^i_\mathcal K,\lambda_\mathcal K)\,g(x)&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\text{\it n.\,e. in \ } K_i,\label{hh}\\ \intertext{\it and hence} a_i\kappa(x,\lambda_\mathcal K)& =\kappa(\lambda^i_\mathcal K,\lambda_\mathcal K)\,g(x)&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\text{\it $\lambda^i_\mathcal K$-almost everywhere.}\label{1.1''}\end{aligned}$$ [Proof.]{} In view of (\[S\]) and (\[1.3’\]), $\eta_i(\mathcal K,a,g)$, $i\in I$, can be written in the form $$\eta_i(\mathcal K,a,g)=\kappa(\lambda^i_\mathcal K,\lambda_\mathcal K),$$ which leads to (\[hh\]) when substituted into (\[1.1\]). Since $\lambda^i_\mathcal K$ has finite energy and is supported by $K_i$, the inequality in (\[hh\]) holds $\lambda^i_\mathcal K$-almost everywhere in $\mathbf X$. Hence, (\[1.1”\]) must be true, for if not, we would arrive at a contradiction by integrating the inequality in (\[hh\]) with respect to $\lambda^i_\mathcal K$.$\Box$ [14. Potentials of $\mathcal A$-vague cluster points of minimizing nets]{} In this section we shall restrict ourselves to measures $\xi$ of the class $\mathcal M_0(\mathcal A,a,g)$. It is clear from Corollary 7 that their potentials have all the properties described in Lemmas 12 and 12$'$. Our purpose is to show that, under proper additional restrictions on the kernel, that description can be sharpened as follows. [Lemma 13.]{} [In the case where $I^-\ne\varnothing$, assume moreover that $\kappa(x,y)$ is continuous on $\overline{A^+}\times\overline{A^-}$, while]{} $\kappa(\cdot,y)\to0$ ([as]{} $y\to\infty$) [uniformly on compact sets. Given $\xi\in\mathcal M_0(\mathcal A,a,g)$, then for all $i\in I$,]{} $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_ia_i\kappa(x,\xi)& \geqslant\alpha_i\kappa(\xi^i,\xi)\,g(x)&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\text{\it n.\,e. in \ } A_i,\label{1.11}\\[4pt] \alpha_i a_i\kappa(x,\xi)&\leqslant \alpha_i\kappa(\xi^i,\xi)\,g(x)&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\text{\it for all \ } x\in S(\xi^i),\label{desc4'}\\ \intertext{\it and hence} a_i\kappa(x,\xi)&=\kappa(\xi^i,\xi)\,g(x)&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\text{\it n.\,e. in \ } A_i\cap S(\xi^i).\notag\end{aligned}$$ [Proof.]{} Choose $\lambda_\mathcal K\in\mathcal S(\mathcal K,a,g)$ such that $\xi$ is an $\mathcal A$-vague cluster point of the net $(\lambda_\mathcal K)_{\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A}$. Since this net belongs to $\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a,g)$, from (\[1.3’\]) and (\[1.3”\]) we get $$\eta_i=\kappa(\xi^i,\xi)=\lim_{\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A}\,\kappa(\lambda^i_\mathcal K,\lambda_\mathcal K),\quad i\in I.$$ Substituting this into (\[1.1\]) with $\xi$ in place of $\chi$ gives (\[1.11\]) as required. We next proceed to prove (\[desc4’\]). To this end, fix $i$ (say $i\in I^+$) and $x_0\in S(\xi^i)$. Without loss of generality it can certainly be assumed that $$\lambda_\mathcal K\to\xi\quad\mbox{$\mathcal A$-vaguely}, \label{l11}$$ since otherwise we shall pass to a subnet and change the notation. Then, due to (\[1.1”\]) and (\[l11\]), one can choose $x_\mathcal K\in S(\lambda^i_\mathcal K)$ so that $$x_\mathcal K\to x_0\quad\mbox{as \ } \mathcal K\uparrow\mathcal A,\label{l112}$$ $$a_i\kappa(x_\mathcal K,\lambda_\mathcal K)=\kappa(\lambda^i_\mathcal K,\lambda_\mathcal K)\,g(x_\mathcal K).$$ Taking into account that, by [@F1 Lemma 2.2.1], the map $(x,\nu)\mapsto\kappa(x,\nu)$ is lower semicontinuous on the product space $\mathbf X\times\mathfrak M^+$ (where $\mathfrak M^+$ is equipped with the vague topology), we conclude from what has already been shown that the desired relation (\[desc4’\]) will follow once we prove $$\kappa(x_0,R\xi^-)=\lim_{\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A}\,\kappa(x_\mathcal K,R\lambda^-_\mathcal K).\label{hr}$$ The case we are thus left with is $I^-\ne\varnothing$. Then, according to our standing assumptions, $g_{\inf}>0$ and $\|a\|<\infty$, and therefore there is $q\in(0,\infty)$ such that $$R\lambda^-_\mathcal K(\mathbf X)\leqslant q\quad\mbox{for all \ } \mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A.\label{qq}$$ Since, by (\[l11\]) and Lemma 2, $R\lambda^-_\mathcal K\to R\xi^-$ vaguely, we thus get $$R\xi^-(\mathbf X)\leqslant q.\label{xi}$$ Fix $\varepsilon>0$. Under the assumptions of the lemma, one can choose a compact neighborhood $W_{x_0}$ of the point $x_0$ in $\overline{A^+}$ and a compact neighborhood $F$ of $W_{x_0}$ in $\mathbf X$ so that $$F_:=F\cap\overline{A^-}\ne\varnothing$$ and $$\bigl\|\kappa(x,y)\bigr\|<q^{-1}\varepsilon\quad\mbox{for all \ } (x,y)\in W_{x_0}\times\complement F.\label{115}$$ In the remainder, $\tilde{\complement}$ and $\tilde{\partial}$ denote respectively the complement and the boundary of a set relative to $\overline{A^-}$ (where $\overline{A^-}$ is regarded to be a topological subspace of $\mathbf X$). Having observed that $\kappa\|_{W_{x_0}\times\overline{A^-}}$ is continuous, we proceed to construct a function $$\varphi\in\mathbf C_0(W_{x_0}\times\overline{A^-}\,)$$ with the following properties: $$\varphi\|_{W_{x_0}\times F_}=\kappa\|_{W_{x_0}\times F_},\label{rest}$$ $$\bigl\|\varphi(x,y)\bigr\|\leqslant q^{-1}\varepsilon\quad\mbox{for all \ } (x,y)\in W_{x_0}\times\tilde{\complement}F_.\label{118}$$ To this end, consider a compact neighborhood $V_$ of $F_$ in $\overline{A^-}$ and write $$f:=\left\{ \begin{array}{cl} \kappa & \mbox{on \ } W_{x_0}\times\tilde{\partial}F_,\\[2pt] 0 & \mbox{on \ } W_{x_0}\times\tilde{\partial}V_.\\ \end{array} \right.$$ Note that $E:=(W_{x_0}\times\tilde{\partial}F_)\cup (W_{x_0}\times\tilde{\partial}V_)$ is a compact subset of the Hausdorff and compact, hence normal, space $W_{x_0}\times V_$ and $f$ is continuous on $E$. By using the Tietze-Urysohn extension theorem (see, e.g., [@E2 Th. 0.2.13]), we deduce from (\[115\]) that there exists a continuous function $\hat{f}: \ W_{x_0}\times V_\to[-\varepsilon q^{-1},\varepsilon q^{-1}]$ such that $\hat{f}\|_E=f\|_E$. Thus, the function in question can be defined as follows: $$\varphi:=\left\{ \begin{array}{cl} \kappa & \mbox{on \ } W_{x_0}\times F_,\\[2pt] \hat{f} & \mbox{on \ } W_{x_0}\times(V_\setminus F_),\\[2pt] 0 & \mbox{on \ } W_{x_0}\times\tilde{\complement}V_. \end{array} \right.$$ Furthermore, since the function $\varphi$ is continuous on $W_{x_0}\times\overline{A^-}$ and has compact support, one can choose a compact neighborhood $U_{x_0}$ of $x_0$ in $W_{x_0}$ so that $$\bigl\|\varphi(x,y)-\varphi(x_0,y)\bigr\|<q^{-1}\varepsilon\quad\mbox{for all \ } (x,y)\in U_{x_0}\times\overline{A^-}.\label{119}$$ Given an arbitrary measure $\nu\in\mathfrak M^+(\,\overline{A^-}\,)$ with the property that $\nu(\mathbf X)\leqslant q$, we conclude from that, for all $x\in U_{x_0}$, $$\bigl\|\kappa\bigl(x,\nu\|_{\complement F}\bigr)\bigr\|\leqslant\varepsilon,\label{121}$$ $$\kappa\bigl(x,\nu\|_{F}\bigr)=\int\varphi(x,y)\,d\bigl(\nu-\nu\|_{\complement F}\bigr)(y),\label{122}$$ $$\Bigl\|\int\varphi(x,y)\,d\nu\|_{\complement F}(y)\Bigr\|\leqslant\varepsilon,\label{123}$$ $$\Bigl\|\int \bigl[\varphi(x,y)-\varphi(x_0,y)\bigr]\,d\nu(y)\Bigr\|\leqslant \varepsilon.\label{124}$$ Finally, choose $\mathcal K_0\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A$ so that for all $\mathcal K\succ\mathcal K_0$ there hold $x_\mathcal K\in U_{x_0}$ and $$\Bigl\|\int\varphi(x_0,y)\,d(R\lambda^-_\mathcal K-R\xi^-)(y)\Bigr\|<\varepsilon;$$ such a $\mathcal K_0$ exists because of (\[l11\]) and (\[l112\]). Applying now relations to each of the measures $R\lambda^-_\mathcal K$ and $R\xi^-$, which is possible due to (\[qq\]) and (\[xi\]), for all $\mathcal K\succ\mathcal K_0$ we therefore get $$\begin{split} \bigl\|\kappa(x_\mathcal K&,R\lambda^-_\mathcal K)-\kappa(x_0,R\xi^-)\bigr\|\leqslant\bigl\|\kappa\bigl(x_\mathcal K,R\lambda^-_{\mathcal K}\bigl\|_{F}\bigr)-\kappa\bigl(x_0,R\xi^-\bigl\|_{F}\bigr)\bigr\|+2\varepsilon\\[7pt] &{}\leqslant\Bigl\|\int\varphi(x_\mathcal K,y)\,dR\lambda^-_\mathcal K(y)-\int\varphi(x_0,y)\,dR\xi^-(y)\Bigr\|+4\varepsilon\\[7pt] &{}\leqslant\Bigl\|\int\bigl[\varphi(x_\mathcal K,y)-\varphi(x_0,y)\bigr]\,dR\lambda^-_\mathcal K(y)\Bigr\|+\Bigl\|\int \varphi(x_0,y)\,d(R\lambda^-_\mathcal K-R\xi^-)(y)\Bigr\|+4\varepsilon\\[7pt] &{}\leqslant\varepsilon+\varepsilon+4\varepsilon=6\varepsilon, \end{split}$$ and (\[hr\]) follows by letting $\varepsilon$ tend to $0$. The proof is complete.$\Box$ [15. Proof of Theorems 2 and 3]{} We begin by showing that $${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)\leqslant\\|\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2. \label{1}$$ To this end, $\\|\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2$ can certainly be assumed to be finite. Then there are $\nu\in\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and $\mu\in\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g)$, the existence of $\mu$ being clear from (\[nonzero1\]) and Corollary 3. By [@F1 Lemma 2.3.1], the inequality in (\[adm1\]) holds $\mu^i$-almost everywhere. Integrating it with respect to $\mu^i$ and then summing up over all $i\in I$, in view of $\int g\,d\mu^i=a_i$ we get $$\kappa(\nu,\mu)\geqslant\sum_{i\in I}\,c_i(\nu),$$ hence $\kappa(\nu,\mu)\geqslant1$ by (\[adm2\]), and finally $$\\|\nu\\|^2\\|\mu\\|^2\geqslant1$$ by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. The last relation, being valid for arbitrary $\nu\in\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and $\mu\in\mathcal E^0(\mathcal A,a,g)$, implies (\[1\]), which in turn yields Theorem 2 provided ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A=\infty$. We are thus left with proving both Theorems 2 and 3 in the case where ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$ is finite. Then the $\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$-problem can be considered as well. Taking (\[def\]) and (\[iden\]) into account, we deduce from Lemmas 8 and 12 with $a$ replaced by $a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$ that, for every $\chi\in\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$, $$\\|\chi\\|^2={\rm cap}\,\mathcal A \label{2}$$ and there exist unique $\tilde{\eta}_i\in\mathbb R$, $i\in I$, such that $$\alpha_ia_i\kappa(x,\chi)\geqslant\tilde{\eta_i}\,g(x)\quad\mbox{n.\,e.~in \ } A_i,\quad i\in I,\label{tilde1}$$ $$\sum_{i\in I}\,\tilde{\eta_i}=1.\label{tilde2}$$ Actually, $$\tilde{\eta_i}=\alpha_i\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A^{-1}\,\eta_i(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g),\quad i\in I,\label{tilde3}$$ where $\eta_i(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$, $i\in I$, are the numbers uniquely determined in Sec. 13. Using the property of sets of interior capacity zero mentioned in Sec. 7.1 and the fact that the potentials of equivalent in $\mathcal E$ measures coincide nearly everywhere in $\mathbf X$, we conclude from (\[tilde1\]) and (\[tilde2\]) that $$\mathcal M'_\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)\subset\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g).$$ Together with (\[1\]) and (\[2\]), this implies that, for every $\sigma\in\mathcal M'_\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$, $${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A=\\|\sigma\\|^2\geqslant\\|\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A,a,g)\\|^2\geqslant{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,$$ which completes the proof of Theorem 2. The last two relations also yield $$\mathcal M'_\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)\subset\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g).$$ As both the sides of this inclusion are equivalence classes in $\mathcal E$ (see Lemma 9), they must actually be equal, and (\[desc\]) follows. Applying Lemma 12$'$ for $a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$ in place of $a$, we deduce from (\[desc\]) that $c_i(\hat{\omega})$, $i\in I$, satisfying (\[adm1\]) and (\[adm2\]) for $\nu=\hat{\omega}\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g)$, are determined uniquely, do not depend on the choice of $\hat{\omega}$, and are actually equal to $\tilde{\eta_i}$. Therefore, substituting (\[1.3’\]) and, subsequently, (\[1.3”\]) for $a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$ in place of $a$ into (\[tilde3\]), we get (\[snt1\]) and (\[cnt\]). This proves Theorem 3.$\Box$ [16. Proof of Theorem 5]{} We start by observing that $\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is nonempty, contained in an equivalence class in $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$, and satisfies the inclusions $$\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)\subset\mathcal M(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)\subset\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)\cap\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A},\leqslant\!a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g). \label{DD}$$ Indeed, this follows from (\[D\]), Corollary 7, and Lemma 8, the last two being taken for $a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$ in place of $a$. Substituting (\[desc2\]) into (\[DD\]) gives (\[gammain\]) as required. Since, by (\[gammain\]), every $\gamma\in\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is a minimizer in the $\Gamma(\mathcal A,a,g)$-problem, the claimed relations (\[5.1\]) and (\[5.3\]) are obtained directly from Theorem 3 and 4 in view of Definition 6. To show that $C_i(\mathcal A,a,g)$, $i\in I$, can actually be given by means of (\[5.2\]), one only needs to substitute $\gamma$ instead of $\zeta$ into (\[snt1\]) — which is possible due to (\[DD\]) — and use Corollary 8. Assume for a moment that, if $I^-\ne\varnothing$, then the kernel $\kappa(x,y)$ is continuous on $\overline{A^+}\times\overline{A^-}$, while $\kappa(\,\cdot\,,y)\to0$ (as $y\to\infty$) uniformly on compact sets. In order to establish (\[5.4\]), it suffices to apply Lemma 13 (with $a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$ in place of $a$) to $\gamma$, which can be done because of (\[D\]), and then substitute (\[5.2\]) into the result obtained. To prove that $\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is $\mathcal A$-vaguely compact, fix $(\gamma_s)_{s\in S}\subset\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$. Then the inclusion (\[gammain\]) and Lemma 10 yield that this net is $\mathcal A$-vaguely bounded and hence, by Lemma 1, $\mathcal A$-vaguely relatively compact. Let $\gamma_0$ denote one of its $\mathcal A$-vague cluster points, and let $(\gamma_t)_{t\in T}$ be a subnet of $(\gamma_s)_{s\in S}$ that converges $\mathcal A$-vaguely to $\gamma_0$. In view of (\[D\]), the proof will be completed once we show that $$\gamma_0\in\mathcal M_0(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g).\label{GG}$$ By (\[D\]), for every $t\in T$ there exist a subnet $(\mathcal K_{s_t})_{s_t\in S_t}$ of the net $(\mathcal K)_{\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A}$ and $$\lambda_{s_t}\in\mathcal S(\mathcal K_{s_t},a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g),\quad s_t\in S_t,$$ such that $\lambda_{s_t}$ approaches $\gamma_t$ $\mathcal A$-vaguely as $s_t$ ranges over $S_t$. Consider the Cartesian product $\prod\,\{S_t: t\in T\}$ — that is, the collection of all functions $\psi$ on $T$ with $\psi(t)\in S_t$, and let $D$ denote the directed product $T\times\prod\,\{S_t: t\in T\}$ (see, e.g., [@K Chap. 2, § 3]). Given $(t,\psi)\in D$, write $$\mathcal K_{(t,\psi)}:=\mathcal K_{\psi(t)}\quad\mbox{and}\quad \lambda_{(t,\psi)}:=\lambda_{\psi(t)}.$$ Then the theorem on iterated limits from [@K Chap. 2, § 4] yields that $(\lambda_{(t,\psi)})_{(t,\psi)\in D}$ converges $\mathcal A$-vaguely to $\gamma_0$. Since, as can be seen from the above construction, $(\mathcal K_{(t,\psi)})_{(t,\psi)\in D}$ forms a subnet of $(\mathcal K)_{\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A}$, this proves (\[GG\]) as required.$\Box$ [17. Proof of Proposition 2]{} Consider $\nu\in\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$ and $\tau_i\in\mathbb R$, $i\in I$, satisfying both the assumptions (\[desc3’\]) and (\[adm2”\]), and fix arbitrarily $\gamma_\mathcal A\in\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g)$ and $(\mu_t)_{t\in T}\in\mathbb M(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$. Since $\mu^i_t$ is concentrated on $A_i$ and has finite energy and compact support, the inequality in (\[desc3’\]) holds $\mu^i_t$-almost everywhere. Integrating it with respect to $\mu^i_t$ and then summing up over all $i\in I$, in view of (\[5.1\]) and (\[adm2”\]) we obtain $$2\,\kappa(\mu_t,\nu)\geqslant\\|\gamma_\mathcal A\\|^2+\\|\nu\\|^2,\quad t\in T.$$ But $(\mu_t)_t\in T$ converges to $\gamma_\mathcal A$ in the strong topology of the semimetric space $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$, which is clear from (\[DD\]) and Lemma 8 with $a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$ instead of $a$. Therefore, passing in the preceding relation to the limit as $t$ ranges over $T$, we get $$\\|\nu-\gamma_\mathcal A\\|^2=0,$$ which is a part of the conclusion of the proposition. In turn, the preceding relation implies that, actually, the right-hand side in (\[adm2”\]) is equal to $1$, and that $\nu\in\mathcal M'(\mathcal A,a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g)$. Since, in view of Theorem 3, the latter means that $$R\nu\in\hat{\mathcal G}(\mathcal A,a,g),$$ the claimed relation (\[un\]) follows.$\Box$ [18. Proof of Theorem 6]{} To establish (\[6.1\]), fix $\mu\in\mathcal E(\mathcal A,a,g)$. Under the assumptions of the theorem, either $g_{\inf}>0$, and consequently $\mu^i(\mathbf X)<\infty$ for all $i\in I$, or $\mathbf X$ is countable at infinity; in any case, every $A_i$, $i\in I$, is contained in a countable union of $\mu^i$-integrable sets. Therefore, by [@B2; @E2] (cf. also the appendix below), $$\begin{aligned} \int g\,d\mu^i&=\lim_{n\in\mathbb N}\,\int g\,d\mu^{i}_{\mathcal A_n},&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!i\in I,\\ \kappa(\mu^i,\mu^j)&=\lim_{n\in\mathbb N}\,\kappa(\mu^{i}_{\mathcal A_n},\mu^{j}_{\mathcal A_n}),&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!i,\,j\in I,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu^{i}_{\mathcal A_n}$ denotes the trace of $\mu^{i}$ upon $A^i_n$. Applying the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma 5, but now based on the preceding two relations instead of (\[w\]) and (\[ww\]), we arrive at (\[6.1\]) as required. By (\[nonzero1\]) and (\[6.1\]), for every $n\in\mathbb N$, ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A_n,a,g)$ can certainly be assumed to be nonzero. Suppose moreover that ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A,a,g)$ is finite; then, by (\[increas’\]), so is ${\rm cap}\,(\mathcal A_n,a,g)$. Hence, according to Theorem 5, there exists $$\gamma_n:=\gamma_{\mathcal A_n}\in\mathcal D(\mathcal A_n,a,g).\label{17.1}$$ Observe that $R\gamma_n$ is a minimizer in the $\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A_n,a,g)$-problem, which is clear from (\[desc\]), (\[desc2\]), and (\[gammain\]). Since, furthemore, $$\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A_{n+1},a,g)\subset\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A_n,a,g),$$ application of Lemma 4 to $\mathcal H=\hat{\Gamma}(\mathcal A_n,a,g)$, $\nu=R\gamma_{n+1}$, and $\lambda=R\gamma_n$ gives $$\\|\gamma_{n+1}-\gamma_n\\|^2\leqslant\\|\gamma_{n+1}\\|^2-\\|\gamma_n\\|^2.$$ Also note that $\\|\gamma_n\\|^2$, $n\in\mathbb N$, is a Cauchy sequence in $\mathbb R$, because, by (\[6.1\]), its limit exists and, being equal to ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$, is finite. The preceding inequality therefore yields that $(\gamma_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is a strong Cauchy sequence in the semimetric space $\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,)$. Besides, since ${\rm cap}\,\mathcal A_n\leqslant{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A$, we derive from (\[gammain\]) that $$(\gamma_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}\subset\mathcal E(\,\overline{\mathcal A}\,,\leqslant\!a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal A,g).$$ Hence, by Theorem 7, there exists an $\mathcal A$-vague cluster point $\gamma$ of $(\gamma_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$, and $$\lim_{n\in\mathbb N}\,\\|\gamma_n-\gamma\\|^2=0.$$ Let $(\gamma_t)_{t\in T}$ denote a subnet of the sequence $(\gamma_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ that converges $\mathcal A$-vaguely and strongly to $\gamma$. We next proceed to show that $$\gamma\in\mathcal D(\mathcal A,a,g). \label{theta}$$ For every $t\in T$, consider the ordered family $\{\mathcal K_t\}_{\mathcal A_t}$ of all compact condensers $\mathcal K_t\prec\mathcal A_t$. By (\[17.1\]), there exist a subnet $(\mathcal K_{s_t})_{s_t\in S_t}$ of $(\mathcal K_t)_{\mathcal K_t\in\{\mathcal K_t\}_{\mathcal A_t}}$ and $$\lambda_{s_t}\in\mathcal S(\mathcal K_{s_t},a\,{\rm cap}\,\mathcal K_{s_t},g)$$ such that $(\lambda_{s_t})_{s_t\in S_t}$ converges both strongly and $\mathcal A$-vaguely to $\gamma_t$. Consider the Cartesian product $\prod\,\{S_t: t\in T\}$, that is, the collection of all functions $\psi$ on $T$ with $\psi(t)\in S_t$, and let $D$ denote the directed product $T\times\prod\,\{S_t: t\in T\}$. Given $(t,\psi)\in D$, write $$\mathcal K_{(t,\psi)}:=\mathcal K_{\psi(t)}\quad\mbox{and}\quad \lambda_{(t,\psi)}:=\lambda_{\psi(t)}.$$ Then the theorem on iterated limits from [@K Chap. 2, § 4] yields that $(\lambda_{(t,\psi)})_{(t,\psi)\in D}$ converges both strongly and $\mathcal A$-vaguely to $\gamma$. Since $(\mathcal K_{(t,\psi)})_{(t,\psi)\in D}$ forms a subnet of $(\mathcal K)_{\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A}$, this proves (\[theta\]) as required. What is finally left is to prove (\[6.3\]). By Corollary 13, for every $n\in\mathbb N$ one can choose a compact condenser $\mathcal K^0_n\prec\mathcal A_n$ so that $$\bigl\|C_i(\mathcal A_n,a,g)-C_i(\mathcal K^0_n,a,g)\bigr\|<n^{-1},\quad i\in I.$$ This $\mathcal K^0_n$ can certainly be chosen so large that the sequence obtained, $(\mathcal K^0_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$, forms a subnet of $(\mathcal K)_{\mathcal K\in\{\mathcal K\}_\mathcal A}$; therefore, repeated application of Corollary 13 yields $$\lim_{n\in\mathbb N}\,C_i(\mathcal K^0_n,a,g)=C_i(\mathcal A,a,g).$$ This leads to (\[6.3\]) when combined with the preceding relation.$\Box$ [19. Acknowledgments]{} The author is greatly indebted to P. Dragnev, D. Hardin, and E. B. Saff for several valuable comments concerning this study. [20. Appendix]{} Let $\nu\in\mathfrak M^+(\mathbf X)$ be given. As in [@E2 Chap. 4, § 4.7], a set $E\subset\mathbf X$ is called -[finite]{} if it can be written as a countable union of $\nu$-integrable sets. The following assertion, related to the theory of measures and integration, has been used in Sec. 18. Although it is not difficult to deduce it from [@B2; @E2], we could not find there a proper reference. [Lemma 14.]{} [Consider a lower semicontinuous function $\psi$ on $\mathbf X$ such that $\psi\geqslant0$ unless the space $\mathbf X$ is compact, and let $E$ be the union of an increasing sequence of $\nu$-measurable sets $E_n$, $n\in\mathbb N$. If moreover $E$ is -finite, then]{} $$\int\psi\,d\nu_E=\lim_{n\in\mathbb N}\,\int\psi\,d\nu_{E_n}.$$ [Proof.]{} Without loss of generality, we can certainly assume $\psi$ to be nonnegative. Then for every -finite set $Q$, $$\int\psi\,d\nu_Q=\int\psi\varphi_Q\,d\nu, \label{Q}$$ where $\varphi_Q(x)$ equals $1$ if $x\in Q$, and $0$ otherwise. Indeed, this can be concluded from [@E2 Chap. 4, § 4.14] (see Propositions 4.14.1 and 4.14.6). On the other hand, since $\psi\varphi_{E_n}$, $n\in\mathbb N$, are nonnegative and form an increasing sequence with the upper envelope $\psi\varphi_E$, [@E2 Prop. 4.5.1] gives $$\int\psi\varphi_E\,d\nu=\lim_{n\in\mathbb N}\,\int\psi\varphi_{E_n}\,d\nu.$$ Applying (\[Q\]) to both the sides of this equality, we obtain the lemma.$\Box$ [XX]{} N. Bourbaki, [Topologie générale, Chap. I–II]{}, Actualités Sci. Ind., 1142, Paris (1951). N. Bourbaki, [Intégration, Chap. I–IV]{}, Actualités Sci. Ind., 1175, Paris (1952). H. Cartan, [Théorie du potentiel newtonien: énergie, capacité, suites de potentiels]{}, Bull. Soc. Math. France [73]{} (1945), 74–106. J. Deny, [Les potentiels d’énergie finite]{}, Acta Math. [82]{} (1950), 107–183. J. Deny, [Sur la définition de l’énergie en théorie du potential]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier Grenoble [2]{} (1950), 83–99. R. Edwards, [Cartan’s balayage theory for hyperbolic Riemann surfaces]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier [8]{} (1958), 263–272. R. Edwards, [Functional analysis. Theory and applications]{}, Holt. Rinehart and Winston, New York (1965). B. Fuglede, [On the theory of potentials in locally compact spaces]{}, Acta Math. [103]{} (1960), 139–215. B. Fuglede, [Caractérisation des noyaux consistants en théorie du potentiel]{}, Comptes Rendus [255]{} (1962), 241–243. A. A. Gonchar, E. A. Rakhmanov, [On the equilibrium problem for vector potentials]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk [40]{}:4 (1985), 155–156; English transl. in: Russian Math. Surveys [40]{}:4 (1985), 183–184. W. K. Hayman, P. B. Kennedy, [Subharmonic functions]{}, Academic Press, London (1976). J. L. Kelley, [General topology]{}, Princeton, New York (1957). N. S. Landkof, [Foundations of modern potential theory]{}, Nauka, Fizmatlit, Moscow (1966); English trans., Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1972). E. H. Moore, H. L. Smith, [A general theory of limits]{}, Amer. J. Math. [44]{} (1922), 102–121. E. M. Nikishin, V. N. Sorokin, [Rational approximations and orthogonality]{}, Nauka, Fizmatlit, Moscow (1988); English trans., Translations of Mathematical Monographs [44]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI 1991. M. Ohtsuka, [On potentials in locally compact spaces]{}, J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ. Ser. A-1 [25]{} (1961), 135–352. Ch. de la Valée-Poussin, [Le potentiel logarithmique, balayage et répresentation conforme,]{} Louvain–Paris (1949). N. Zorii, [A noncompact variational problem in the Riesz potential theory. I; II]{}, Ukrain. Math. Zh. [47]{} (1995), 1350–1360; [48]{} (1996), 603–613 (in Russian); English transl. in: Ukrain. Math. J. [47]{} (1995); [48]{} (1996). N. Zorii, [Extremal problems in the theory of potentials in locally compact spaces. I; II; III]{}, Bull. Soc. Sci. Lettr. Łódź [50]{} Sér. Rech. Déform. [31]{} (2000), 23–54; 55–80; 81–106. N. Zorii, [On the solvability of the Gauss variational problem]{}, Comput. Meth. Funct. Theory [2]{} (2002), 427–448. N. Zorii, [Equilibrium problems for potentials with external fields]{}, Ukrain. Math. Zh. [55]{} (2003), 1315–1339 (in Russian); English transl. in: Ukrain. Math. J. [55]{} (2003). N. Zorii, [Necessary and sufficient conditions for the solvability of the Gauss variational problem]{}, Ukrain. Math. Zh. [57]{} (2005), 60–83 (in Russian); English transl. in: Ukrain. Math. J. [57]{} (2005). N. Zorii, [On capacities of condensers in locally compact spaces]{}, Bull. Soc. Sci. Lettr. Łódź [56]{} Sér. Rech. Déform. [50]{} (2006), 125–142. [Institute of Mathematics\ National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine\ 3 Tereshchenkivska Str.\ 01601, Kyiv-4, Ukraine\ e-mail: [email protected]]{}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In this letter we examine the production channels for the scalar or pseudoscalar Higgs plus two jets at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). We identify possible signals for distinguishing between a scalar and a pseudoscalar Higgs boson.' author: - 'B. Field' date: 'August 29, 2002' title: Distinguishing scalar from pseudoscalar Higgs production at the LHC --- Introduction ============ The Higgs mechanism is responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking in the Standard Model (SM). The experimental lower limit on the Higgs mass is approximately 114 GeV[@lep]. There are many models that contain more than one Higgs boson in various numbers of doublets. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) there are two Higgs doublets that give five physical Higgs bosons: two neutral $(H^0_1, H^0_2)$, two charged $H^\pm$, and one neutral pseudoscalar $A$ (for review see [@ghkd]). In the MSSM the mass limits change slightly with the lightest of the two neutral scalars $H^0_1$ (afterwards reffered to as simply H) having a mass greater that about $91$ GeV and the pseudoscalar being more massive than roughly $92$ GeV[@mssm]. Finding one or more Higgs bosons is the top priority of high energy physics programs around the world. A subset of Higgs bosons in some doublet models may be experimentally difficult to distinguish. The characteristics of the scalar $H$ and pseudoscalar $A$ Higgs boson within the MSSM are of particular interest. We study the production of both a scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs in association with two jets in hadron collisions. At the LHC the primary processes that produce a Higgs plus two jets are $gg \rightarrow ggH$ and $qg \rightarrow qgH$, accounting for approximately 60%(40%) of the total cross-section respectively. The same is true for the production of the pseudoscalar. Other channels that contribute to the total cross-section include $qq \rightarrow ggH$ and $qq \rightarrow qqH$, although these channels have been shown to add very little to the total cross-section. In the following calculations, only the two dominant channels were considered as the other channels are negligible. Total cross-sections of the scalar and pseudoscalar plus two jets exist[@russel; @russel2; @higgscross] at the lowest order. Total cross-sections for the inclusive production have been calculated at NLO for the scalar [@sally; @spira1] and for the pseudoscalar [@schaffer] and at NNLO for the scalar [@harkil2; @harkil3; @catani1; @catani2; @anast2] and for the pseudoscalar [@harkil1; @anast1]. If we define the K-factor to be the ratio of the higher order cross-section to the lowest order, the rate increase at the LHC at NNLO for the scalar inclusive processes[@harkil2] was reported to be $\mathrm{K}^\mathrm{NNLO}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow \mathrm{H+X}) = 2-2.2$ and for pseudoscalar the K-factor[@harkil3] can be determined to be $\mathrm{K}^\mathrm{NNLO}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow \mathrm{A+X}) = 2-2.3$ in the mass range $M_{H,A}=100 - 200$ GeV. The total cross-section and the differential cross-section for a scalar Higgs plus one jet has been calculated by [@catani1; @catani2; @jack; @higgscross; @florian] and the total rate was also shown to increase substantially. The NLO corrections to pseudoscalar plus one jet have not yet been computed. In all of the processes cited above the rates increased by comparable amounts. We expect our estimates of the Higgs plus two jets rates to be conservative, however, since our proposed observable is normalized to the cross-section, we do not expect major changes to occur in our analysis at higher orders. In this letter, we propose a technique for distinguishing between a scalar and a pseudoscalar Higgs when produced in association with two jets by means of a splitting that occurs in a specific integrated operator moment. This distinction is important both experimentally and theoretically in order to separate the two kinds of events and understand the properties of these particles which would otherwise be very difficult due to the similarity in their physical observables. Effective Lagrangian ==================== We work in the limit that the top quark is much heavier that the Higgs boson[@vain; @sally; @spira1; @spira2; @schaffer; @spira3], integrating out the top quark and neglecting all the other quarks that would normally appear in the loop diagrams. This has been shown to be an excellent approximation and remains very good even when the Higgs mass is heavier that the mass of the top quark. In general this approximation is considered to be a good one when $M_{H,A} < 2m_t$. We consider Higgs bosons lighter than $200$ GeV. The effective Lagrangian used in the scalar case is defined as $${\cal L}^H_{\mathrm{eff}} = - \frac{1}{4}g_H H G^a_{\mu \nu} G^{a, \mu \nu}$$ where $g_H = \alpha_s/3 \pi v$. $G^a_{\mu \nu}$ is the field-strength tensor for the gluons. The vacuum expectation value (vev) of the Higgs field is determined in the usual way as $v^2 = (\sqrt{2}G_F)^{-1}$ and is numerically equal to approximately $246$ GeV. For the pseudoscalar case we let the Higgs couple to the quarks with a $\gamma_5$ and the effective Lagrangian[@footnote]can be written as $${\cal L}^A_{\mathrm{eff}} = \frac{1}{4}g_A A G^a_{\mu \nu} \tilde{G}^{a, \mu \nu}$$ where $g_A = \alpha_s/2 \pi v$. Here $\tilde{G}^a_{\mu \nu} = 1/2 \epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}G^a_{\rho \sigma}$ is the dual of the gluon field-strength tensor. This effective Lagrangian generates a scalar Higgs coupling to two, three, and four gluons or a pseudoscalar coupling to two or three gluons. The four gluon coupling to a pseudoscalar vertex vanishes via the Jacobi identity as it is proportional to a completely antisymmetric combination of structure constants. The Feynman rules for these effective theories can be found in [@russel] (for the scalar) and [@russel2] (for the pseudoscalar). Observables and Moments ======================= We present our results for the LHC with $\sqrt{S}=14$ TeV. We have used the CTEQ6L parton distribution functions[@cteq] with $\Lambda_5^\mathrm{LO}=226$ MeV with a one-loop running of $\alpha_s$ for consistency with a value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.137$. The transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{t}$) was constrained to be more than $25$ GeV for the Higgs and each of the two jets. Also the rapidity was constrained to be $\|y\| < 2.5$ for all the outgoing particles. The separation of the jets was restricted to be $\Delta R \equiv \sqrt{\Delta \phi^2 + \Delta \eta^2} \ge 0.7$. The total cross-section of these two channels are shown in Fig. \[cross\]. These cross-sections agree exactly with those in the literature[@russel; @russel2] once the problems with the effective coupling constants are remedied. When plotted in this linear fashion it is interesting to note the differences in the dependence of the cross-sections on the mass of the Higgs boson. Both total cross-sections loose more than two-thirds of their value from $100 - 200$ GeV and appear in the approximate ratio of $(g_H/g_A)^2 = 4/9$ due to the similarity in their matrix elements. ![Total cross-sections for scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs plus two jets. These curves are for the LHC with the cuts described in the text.\[cross\]](cross.eps) Fig. \[pt\_spectrum\] shows the normalized transverse momentum spectrum of both the production channels. The pseudoscalar Higgs $p_\mathrm{t}$ spectrum was displaced down by $10$% to allow the two curves to be distinguished. If this had not been done, the curves would lie virtually on top of one another. Fig. \[angle\] shows the center-of-momentum angle between the Higgs and the highest $p_\mathrm{t}$ jet for the two reactions. This shows what would be expected naïvely, that the Higgs prefers to come out back-to-back with the highest $p_\mathrm{t}$ jet. Once again, the pseudoscalar curve has been scaled down by $20$% to allow both curves to be seen clearly. No significant differences between these curves were found. ![Normalized transverse momentum spectrum of the scalar or pseudoscalar Higgs production channels plus two jets. The Higgs mass for both the scalar and pseudoscalar is $120$ GeV. Note that the pseudoscalar Higgs has been displaced down by $10$% to allow the two curved to be distinguished. These curves are for the LHC with the cuts described in the text.\[pt\_spectrum\]](pt_spectrum.eps) ![Normalized opening angle in the center-of-momentum frame between the Higgs and the highest $p_\mathrm{t}$ jet for the scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs production channels plus two jets. The Higgs mass for both the scalar and pseudoscalar is $120$ GeV. Note that the pseudoscalar Higgs has been displaced down by $20$% to allow the two curved to be distinguished. These curves are for the LHC with the cuts described in the text.\[angle\]](angle.eps) The authors of [@gunion] presented a technique for determining the $CP$ nature of the Higgs boson in $t\bar{t}H$ production based on certain weighted moments of the cross-section. The cross-section integral was weighted by operators ${\cal O}_{CP}$. The six operators presented in [@gunion] are scalar and cross products of the momentum of the outgoing particles (in this case the massive top quarks). We propose using the same test for the massless quarks and gluons that make up the jets. All of these weighted moments were examined as well as some novel ones and the only operator from these sets that produced a significant difference between the scalar and the pseudoscalar signals was the operator[@gunion] $$a_1 = \frac{ (\vec{p_1} \times \widehat{z}) \cdot (\vec{p_2} \times \widehat{z}) } {\|(\vec{p_1} \times \widehat{z}) \cdot (\vec{p_2} \times \widehat{z})\|}$$ when it was integrated and normalized as prescribed below $$\alpha[{\cal O}_{CP}] \equiv \frac{1}{\sigma} \int {\cal O}_{CP} \, d\sigma \, dPS$$ where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the momentum of the two jets and $\widehat{z}$ is the axis of the beam. The $a_1$ operator is sensitive to the cosine of the angle between the transverse momentum vectors of the two jets. Distinguishing between the two jets is not important as this moment is invariant under $1 \leftrightarrow 2$. Another combination of momentum in the above equations that was considered was to use the moment operators presented in [@gunion] with $p_1 = p_\mathrm{Higgs}$ and $p_2$ the momentum of the highest $p_\mathrm{t}$ jet. However, this yielded no differences in the integrated moments making this definition of little use for these channels. ![Normalized integrated moment $\alpha [a_{1}]$ for the scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs plus two jets. The center curve shows what the observable would look like if both of the processes were to be measured at the same time with degenerate masses. The splitting between the two different production channels is clear at all mass scales with a statistical uncertainty of about $5$%. These curves are for the LHC with the cuts described in the text.\[cp\_a1\]](cp_a1.eps) Fig. \[cp\_a1\] shows the results of this integration as a function of the Higgs mass. If we consider a conservative estimate of $100$ fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity at the LHC and take a branching ratio of approximately $10^{-3}$ as an order of magnitude for the decay of the Higgs to a pair of photons, then the $\alpha [a_{1}]$ observable will have a statistical uncertainty of about $5$%, making these two signals distinguishable at all mass scales. With this conservative estimate on the integrated luminosity we would expect to see about $600$ scalar events and $1000$ pseudoscalar events for a Higgs mass of $120$ GeV in this channel for this Higgs decay. These numbers are supported by a more detailed analysis using the actual branching ratios calculated using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hdecay</span>[@hdecay] in the $\tan\beta=1$ limit for the pseudoscalar. This integrated moment showed a modest ($30$%) splitting at all Higgs mass scales from $100 - 200$ GeV. The pseudoscalar does not show much mass dependence. However, the scalar integrated moment rises slightly with increasing Higgs mass. This effect might also be useful as another method for constraining the mass of the scalar Higgs boson. The splitting in Fig. \[cp\_a1\] helps to remove the problems created by the degeneracy in the physical observable of the scalar and the pseudoscalar. If the two signals could not be separated, the doublet structure of the model would not be easily measured. In the case of the MSSM this would mean that part of the supersymmetric signal might be lost or the mass of the scalar Higgs may be determined incorrectly if the pseudoscalar events were wrongly identified as scalar events. Separating the two signals is theoretically intriguing because it appears to be one of the only ways to predict a difference between the scalar and pseudoscalar events of this nature at the LHC by means other than the magnitude of their cross-section. This is also interesting experimentally as it leads to the possibility of separating the two kinds of Higgs events with the added bonus that the $z$ momentum is not needed in this analysis. Conclusions =========== The production channels of the scalar or pseudoscalar Higgs plus two jets were found to have many similarities in their physical observables and one important difference in the integrated moment $\alpha[a_1]$. This may help to reduce the difficulty in distinguishing between the two types of events at the LHC. The most important aspect of separating the two signals is to make sure that the doublet structure (the supersymmetric signal in the case of the MSSM) is not lost because of its small cross-section and its similarity to the scalar Higgs with respect to its physical observables or wrongly determining the mass of the scalar Higgs by misidentifying pseudoscalar events as scalar events. The proposed technique presented in this letter may enable these two signals to be separated after a full detector simulation is preformed. Differences in the Amplitudes ============================= It turns out that the differences in the scalar (or pseudoscalar) plus two jets amplitudes squared were very small. The differences will be presented using the helicity basis presented in [@russel; @russel2] to make for the most compact matrix elements squared. These matrix elements have been found to be in exact analytic agreement with the four dimensional matrix elements presented in [@jack]. We identify the momentum as follows (where $X$ should be considered the Higgs for the process in question, playing the part of either the scalar or the pseudoscalar). All the momenta are outgoing. $$\begin{aligned} q(p_1) + \bar{q}(p_2) &\rightarrow g(-p_3) + g(-p_4) + X(-p_5) \\ g(p_1) + g(p_2) &\rightarrow g(-p_3) + g(-p_4) + X(-p_5) \\ q(p_1) + \bar{q}(p_2) &\rightarrow q(-p_3) + \bar{q}(-p_4) + X(-p_5).\end{aligned}$$ In the following we define $S_\mathrm{ab} = (p_\mathrm{a} + p_\mathrm{b})^2 = 2p_\mathrm{a}\cdot p_\mathrm{b}$. Color factors have been included in the expression for the $qqggH(A)$ and $qqqqH(A)$ channels as they affect the terms differently but not in the expression for the $ggggH(A)$ channel as there is one overall color factor for all the matrix elements squared. Here $N$ is the number of colors. Color and spin averages have not been included nor have any coupling constants. For the $qqggH(A)$ channel the difference in the scalar minus the pseudoscalar amplitude squared was $15$ terms out of $626$. Setting the color factors to match those presented in [@jack], $C_O = (N^2-1)/N$ and $C_K = (N^2-1)N$ the difference was found to be $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \|{\cal M}\|^2_{qq \rightarrow ggH} - \|{\cal M}\|^2_{qq \rightarrow ggA} &= 2C_K - 6C_O \\ \nonumber + \biggr( \biggl\{ \frac{4C_O}{S_{12}^2S_{34}^2} &\biggl[ S_{13}S_{14}S_{23}S_{24} - S_{13}^2S_{24}^2 \biggl] + 4C_O\frac{S_{13}S_{24}}{S_{12}S_{34}} \\ \frac{1}{S_{13}S_{24}} &\biggl[ C_O(S_{12}S_{34} - S_{14}S_{23}) + C_K(S_{14}S_{23} - S_{12}S_{34}) \biggr] \biggr\} + \{ 3 \leftrightarrow 4 \} \biggr).\end{aligned}$$ For the $ggggH(A)$ channel the difference in the scalar minus the pseudoscalar was $16$ terms out of $2761$. The overall color factor is $N^2(N^2-1)$. The difference was $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \|{\cal M}\|^2_{gg \rightarrow ggH} - \|{\cal M}\|^2_{gg \rightarrow ggA} = 48 + \biggl( 8 \biggl\{ \frac{1}{2} &\frac{1}{S_{12}^2S_{34}^2}\biggl[S_{13}S_{24} - S_{14}S_{23}\biggr]^2 - \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{S_{12} S_{34} }\biggl[S_{13}S_{24} + S_{14}S_{23}\biggr]^2 \\ +&\frac{1}{S_{13}^2S_{24}^2} \biggl[ S_{12}S_{34} - S_{14}S_{23} \biggr]^2 - \frac{1}{S_{13} S_{24} } \biggl[ S_{12}S_{34} + S_{14}S_{23} \biggr] \biggr\} + \{ 3 \leftrightarrow 4 \} \biggr).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, there are two cases for the $qqqqH(A)$ amplitude squared. If there are identical quarks allowed in the scattering process ($q\bar{q}q\bar{q}H(A))$ then there are two diagrams that contribute. The color factors here are $C_A=N$ and $C_F = (N^2-1)/2N$. The difference in the amplitudes squared is $19$ out of $39$ terms and is equal to $$\begin{aligned} \|{\cal M}\|^2_{qq \rightarrow qqH} - \|{\cal M}\|^2_{qq \rightarrow qqA} &= 4C_AC_F \biggl(2 - \frac{4}{C_A} + \frac{(S_{13}S_{24} - S_{14}S_{23})^2} {S_{12}^2S_{34}^2} + \frac{(S_{14}S_{23}-S_{12}S_{34})^2}{S_{13}^2S_{24}^2} \\ &- 2\frac{S_{13}S_{24}}{S_{12}S_{34}} - 2\frac{S_{12}S_{34}}{S_{13}S_{24}} +\frac{2}{C_A}\biggl( \frac{S_{12}S_{32}-S_{14}S_{23}}{S_{13}S_{24}} \biggl) + \{ 3 \leftrightarrow 4 \} \biggr).\end{aligned}$$ If a different quark pair is created ($q\bar{q}q'\bar{q}'H(A))$, then the difference is smaller as only one diagram is needed for the amplitude. Here $6$ out of $10$ terms survive and are equal to $$\|{\cal M}\|^2_{qq \rightarrow qqH} - \|{\cal M}\|^2_{qq \rightarrow qqA} = 4C_F\biggl(1 + \biggl\{ \frac{(S_{13}S_{24}-S_{13}S_{24})^2}{S_{12}^2S_{34}^2} - \frac{S_{13}S_{24} + S_{14}S_{23}}{S_{12}S_{34}} \biggr\} + \{ 3 \leftrightarrow 4 \} \biggr).$$ It should also be noted that all these differences are invariant under $1 \leftrightarrow 2$. The author would like to thank J. Smith, S. Dawson, R.P. Kauffman, S.V. Desai, W. Kilgore, F. Paige, and J. Laiho for their help and comments on this paper at all stages of its development. The author was partially supported by the National Science Foundation grant PHY-0098527 and the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886. [2002]{} R. Barate et al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [B495]{} 1 (2000)\ M. Acciarri et al. (L3 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [B495]{} 18 (2000)\ P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [B499]{} 23 (2001)\ G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [B499]{} 38 (2001). J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane, and S. Dawson, “The Higgs Hunter’s Guide”, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990), Erratum ibid. hep-ph/9302272. ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration, L3 Collaboration, OPAL Collaboration, LEP Higgs Working Group, hep-ex/0107030. R.P. Kauffman, S.V. Desai, and D. Risal, Phys. Rev. D [55]{} 4005 (1997), hep-ph/9610541, Erratum ibid. Phys. Rev. D [58]{} 119901 (1998). Further typos were found and corrected in Ref. [@jack]. R.P. Kauffman and S.V. Desai, Phys. Rev. D [59]{} 057504 (1999), hep-ph/9808286. V. Del Duca, W. Kilgore, C. Oleari, C. Schmidt, and D. Zeppenfeld, Nucl. Phys. [B616]{} 367 (2001), hep-ph/0108030 and references therein. S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. [B359]{} 283 (1991). A. Djouadi, M. Spira, and P.M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. [B264]{} 440 (1991). R.P. Kauffman and W. Schaffer, Phys. Rev. D [49]{} 551 (1994), hep-ph/9305279. S. Catani, D. de Florian, and M. Grazzini, JHEP [0105]{} 025 (2001), hep-ph/0102227. S. Catani, D. de Florian, and M. Grazzini, JHEP [0201]{} 015 (2002), hep-ph/0111164. R.V. Harlander and W.B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D [64]{} 013015 (2001), hep-ph/0102241. R.V. Harlander and W.B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. Lett. [88]{} 201801 (2002), hep-ph/0201206. C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, hep-ph/0207004. R.V. Harlander and W.B. Kilgore, JHEP [0210]{} 017 (2002), hep-ph/0208096. C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, hep-ph/0208115. V. Ravindran, J. Smith, and W.L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. [B634]{} 247 (2002), hep-ph/0201114. D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and Z. Kunszt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [82]{} 5209 (1999), hep-ph/9902483. A. Vainshtein, M. Voloshin, V. Zakharov, and M. Shifman, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [30]{} 711 (1979). B.A. Kniehl and M. Spira, Z. Phys. [C69]{} 77 (1994), hep-ph/9505225. A. Djouadi, M. Spira, P.M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. [B311]{} 255-260 (1993), hep-ph/9305335. There is some confusion over the coupling constant for the pseudoscalar case in the literature. The correct coupling is found in Ref. [@schaffer]. There is an extra factor of $1/4$ in Ref. [@russel2] leading to a cross-section $16$ times too small for the pseudoscalar case. It seems that the $1/4$ from the effective Lagrangian was incorporated into the coupling constant by mistake. The Feynman rules in both papers are correct if the coupling constant from Ref. [@schaffer] paper is used. J. Pumplin, D.R. Stump, J. Huston, H.L. Lai, P. Nadolsky, and W.K. Tung, JHEP [0207]{} 012 (2002), hep-ph/0201195. J.F. Gunion and X.-G. He, Phys. Rev. Lett. [76]{} 4468 (1996), hep-ph/9602226. A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira, Comp. Phys. Comm. [108]{} 56 (1998), hep-ph/9704448.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: '$\mathbf{Abstract:}$ The ultrafast changes of material properties induced by short laser pulses can lead to frequency shift of reflected and transmitted radiation. Recent reports highlight how such a frequency shift is enhanced in the spectral regions where the material features a near-zero real part of the permittivity. Here we investigate the frequency shift for fields generated by four-wave mixing with a nonlinear polarisation oscillating at twice the pump frequency. In our experiment we observe a frequency shift of more than $60$ nm (compared to the pulse width of $\sim$40 nm) for the phase conjugated radiation generated by a $500$ nm Aluminium-doped Zinc Oxide (AZO) film pumped close to the epsilon-near-zero wavelength. Our results indicate applications of time-varying media for nonlinear optics and frequency conversion.' author: - 'Vincenzo Bruno $^{1}$, Stefano Vezzoli $^{2}$, Clayton DeVault$^{3,4}$, Enrico Carnemolla$^{5}$, Marcello Ferrera$^{5}$, Alexandra Boltasseva$^{3,4}$, Vladimir M. Shalaev$^{3,4}$, Daniele Faccio $^{1, \dagger}$ and Matteo Clerici$^{6, \dagger}$' title: 'Broad frequency shift of parametric processes in Epsilon-Near-Zero time-varying media' --- $\mathbf{Keyword}$ Epsilon-near-zero media; four-wave mixing; Frequency shift; Transparent conductive oxides; Optical Kerr nonlinearities; time-varying media. Introduction ============ Controlling the phase of an optical signal with a temporal resolution below one picosecond could prove essential for ultrafast signal processing. Such short time-scales can be achieved exploiting nonlinear light-matter interaction in second order nonlinear crystals (electro-optical effect) or Kerr effects in centrosymmetric media. In these processes, the instantaneous frequency is temporally modulated, and if the temporal phase change is uniform over the pulse duration, the optical spectrum can be rigidly shifted. This effect can be interpreted as time-refraction [@mendoncca2000theory; @auyeung1983PCtemporal], a phenomenon that attracted the attention of the research community owing to its link with the dynamical Casimir effect and Hawking radiation, and its implication in the formation of temporal band-gap structures and non reciprocal devices [@mendonca2008vacuum; @Faccio2014quantumcosmology; @faccio2011dynamical; @shaltout2015time; @martinez2016temporal; @PRLprain]. Strong enhancement of light-matter interaction has been observed in the spectral region where the real part of the dielectric permittivity ($\Re[\varepsilon_r]$) of a medium approaches zero (ENZ) [@engheta2013pursuingENZ; @luk2015ENZmodes; @liberal2017ENZreview]. In the case of sub-wavelength thin films of transparent conductive oxide (TCOs), such enhancement combined with an ultrafast response of the medium [@capretti2015TGHITOENZ; @kinsey2015ENZlinear; @alam2016ENZnonlinear; @PRLCaspani; @clericiNC; @yang2017femtosecond; @carnemolla2018degenerate; @niu2018; @wood2018; @boyd2019NatRev; @amr2019] results in the generation of phase conjugation (${\text{PC}}$) and negative refraction (${\text{NR}}$) with near unity conversion efficiency [@VezzoliTime]. One of the intriguing effects associated with the enhanced ultrafast material response is the observation of spectral shifts of the order of the pulse bandwidth ($10-15$ nm) for the transmitted and the reflected radiation in pump-and-probe experiments [@PRLCaspani; @clericiNC]. This phenomenon has been interpreted as originating from the adiabatic shift of the material refractive index enhanced, at the ENZ wavelength, by the associated slow-light condition [@khurgin2019]. In this work, we investigate the spectral shift of PC and NR in a time-varying TCO film (Aluminium-Doped Zinc-Oxide (AZO) [@kinsey2015ENZlinear]) at the ENZ wavelength. We report the efficient generation of a $>60$ nm wavelength red-shifted PC and of a both red and blue-shifted NR (covering nearly the same bandwidth, $\simeq60$ nm) from a $500$ nm thick AZO film pumped at the ENZ wavelength. Results ======= Phase conjugation and negative refraction result from a four-wave mixing interaction mediated by a Kerr-type nonlinearity and satisfy a parametric amplification energy matching condition: $\omega_{\text{PC, NR}}=2\omega_{\text{P}}-\omega_{\text{S}}$, where $\omega_{\text{p}}$ and $\omega_{\text{s}}$ are the pump ($\text{P}$) and seed ($\text{S}$) frequencies, respectively [@pendry2008time; @PhysRevAPendry; @palomba2012optical; @rao2015geometries]. The PC and NR are the processes satisfying the additional condition $\omega_{\text{S}}=\omega_{\text{P}}=\omega_0$, leading to $\omega_{\text{PC, NR}}=\omega_0$. We remind that for each photon of NR and PC generated as idler of the parametric amplification process, a seed photon is also amplified (amplified seed - $\text{AS}$). In the case of a deeply sub-wavelength nonlinear medium, the component of momentum in the direction of the film thickness ($k_z$) does not need to be conserved, and the only relevant phase matching condition involves the in-plane wavevector components $\vec{k}_r$, according to: $$\vec{k}_{r}^{(\text{NR,PC})}+\vec{k}_{r}^{(\text{AS})}=2\,\vec{k}_{r}^{(\text{P})}.$$ Since the pump beam is orthogonal to the nonlinear film, it has a null in-plane wavevector component ($k_r^{(\text{P})}=0$), and the above constraint simplifies to $\vec{k}_{r}^{(\text{NR,PC})}=-\vec{k}_{r}^{(\text{AS})}$. The amplification process is coherent and the amplified seed retains the phase of the input seed. Due to the sub-wavelength nature of the nonlinear medium, the longitudinal component of the amplified seed wavevector is undetermined, and the only spatial requirement is that $\vec{k}_{r}^{(\text{AS})}=\vec{k}_{r}^{(\text{S})}$, which has a forward and a backward solution, as shown in Figs. \[fig:scheme\] (a) and (b). In summary, for a seed photon injected into the nonlinear medium, one photon will emerge either as the phase conjugation (${\text{PC}}$) or negative refraction (${\text{NR}}$) of the input seed. At the same time another photon (amplified seed) will be generated, either in the backward ($\text{AS}_{\text{b}}$) or in the forward ($\text{AS}_{\text{f}}$) direction. These last two signals are overlapped to the reflected ($\text{RS}$) and the transmitted ($\text{TS}$) seed, respectively. We assume that pump and seed are co-polarized. In the ideal case described here, the amplified seed can emerge either in the backward or in the forward direction, irrespective from the generation of negative refraction or phase conjugation. We shall see below how the frequency shift of the $\text{PC}$ and $\text{NR}$ are linked to those of the $\text{RS}$ and $\text{TS}$ fields. In previous experiments we showed that PC and NR generated by a sub-wavelength AZO film can achieve larger than unitary internal efficiency, meaning that the PC and NR have, inside the sample, an amplitude larger than the seed [@VezzoliTime]. Here we investigate the spectral dynamics of PC, NR, and of the amplified seed, in similar experimental conditions. We performed the degenerate FWM experiment using a pump and probe set-up schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:scheme\] (c). The output of a mode-locked Ti:sapphire laser with a pulse duration of $\simeq 105$ fs pumped an optical parametric amplifier (OPA), which generated a pulse train with wavelength tuneable in the near-IR spectral region. The OPA output was split in two arms. The pump, with high intensity, was injected at normal incidence onto the ENZ film. The seed, with a lower intensity and smaller beam spot size, was overlapped with the pump coming at a small ($\simeq 6^{\circ}$) angle to the sample normal. The $500$ nm AZO film was deposited on a glass substrate by laser pulse deposition and exhibits a real part of the relative dielectric permittivity $\Re[\varepsilon_{\text{r}}]$ crossing zero at $\lambda_{\text{ENZ}} \simeq 1350$ nm. We choose to excite the AZO film above the crossing point ($\lambda_{\text{p}}=\lambda_{\text{s}}=1400$ nm). This choice was motivated by recent findings showing that the frequency degenerate FWM is more efficient at wavelengths longer than the $\lambda_{ENZ}$ [@VezzoliTime; @carnemolla2018degenerate]. For the wavelength of choice, the real and imaginary part of the refractive index of the AZO sample measured by ellipsometry were $n_{\text{r}}\simeq 0.3$ and $n_\text{i}\simeq\, 0.89$, respectively. The pump intensity was set to $769$ GW/cm$^{2}$. We recorded the power spectra of PC (Fig. \[fig:fig2\] (a)), NR (b), reflection (c), and transmission (d) as a function of the delay between the pump and the seed ($\tau$, where $\tau<0$ for the seed impinging on the sample before the pump pulse). The spectra of the nonlinear signals were collected using the same spectrometer. The normalized spectrograms show that at the delay corresponding to maximum generation efficiency, both the PC and NR are red-shifted with respect to the input seed, yet with different spectral shifts. The transmission and reflection spectrograms have a more complex structure that we interpret as the overlap of the signal reflection and transmission with the amplified seed field ($\text{AS}_{\text{b}}$ and $\text{AS}_{\text{f}}$ respectively). To better understand the spectral evolution, we plot the carrier wavelength shift (blue line) as a function of the pump-probe delay for both the PC and NR signals in Figs. \[fig:fig3\] (a) and (b), respectively. We overlap the wavelength shift with the normalized energy (red) of the fields. One can see that the PC is shifted by more than $60$ nm with respect to the input seed wavelength, with a maximum shift occurring for the seed overlapped with the leading edge of the pump pulse. Conversely, the NR wavelength shift is larger when the seed is overlapped with either the leading or the trailing edge of the pump pulse, yet with the opposite sign. The reflected seed is expected to drop and slowly regain the original unperturbed wavelength as a function of the pump-probe delay $\Delta\tau$, as shown for an intraband excitation in Ref. [@PRLCaspani]. This explains, for instance, why the reflection at $-200$ fs is stronger than that at $400$ fs. Unlike Ref. [@PRLCaspani], after an initial drop the reflected signal suddenly increases at a wavelength $\simeq 60$ nm red-shifted with respect to the input seed, as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](c). We interpret this as the combination of the reflection dynamics already reported in [@PRLCaspani] with the signal generated by the parametric process in conjunction to PC and NR. We note that this shift is larger than the probe spectral bandwidth of the input seed ($\simeq40$ nm). A similar situation can be qualitatively observed along the transmission direction. However, since the frequency shift for NR switches from positive to negative it is impossible to completely separate the two contributions in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](d). Discussion ========== The broad frequency shift observed for four-wave mixing around the epsilon-near-zero region only partially arises from the same physical mechanism responsible for the frequency shift of reflected and transmitted beams from a time-varying surface [@khurgin2019]. The fields generated by the nonlinear polarization experience an adiabatic shift of the refractive index. However a simple application of that model to our experiment would predict shifts comparable to those reported in [@khurgin2019], which are nearly three times smaller than what is reported here. Another contribution to the frequency shift of all beams originates from the time-varying Fresnel coefficients at the two interfaces air/AZO and AZO/glass. A complex refractive index that varies in time at a faster-than-picosecond time scale, as in our case, lead to significant changes in the wavelength of the impinging fields. We have estimated the magnitude of the effect that such a change would provide assuming a large change of refractive index ($\Delta n=2$), delivered in a short, $50$ fs time period. Furthermore, even for this extreme case the time dependence of the complex Fresnel coefficients would only account for $12$ nm of shift in NR and $35$ nm in PC. Furthermore, even combining the two effects we could only account for about 35 $\%$ of the observed shift for the forward PC. We therefore speculate that the experimental results indicate possibly non-trivial underlying physical effects that might require a full microscopic model of this experimental study. Finally, we note that the simple model of an infinitely thin time-varying medium presented in Fig. \[fig:scheme\](a) and (b) would imply a symmetric effect in the forward and backward directions. In contrast, we observe that PC and NR have different spectral dynamics, and each of them matches that of the amplified seed along the reflection (PC) and transmission (NR). Overall, the forward signals generated by the four-wave mixing process show a spectral blue shift with respect to those generated in the backward direction, as seen in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](d). This figure shows the dependence of the wavelength shift for PC (blue) and NR (red) for increasing pump intensities. The two curves follow a qualitatively similar trend, yet with a rigid blue shift of the NR that is $30$ nm larger. The asymmetry between forward and backward directions may be assigned to the difference between the Fresnel coefficients experienced by the forward and backward propagating beams. Absorption, which induces an exponential decay of all beams (the attenuation coefficient is $\alpha=4\pi n_{i}/\lambda=0.0079~\text{nm}^{-1}$), may also contribute to the observed asymmetries, as well as the cross phase modulation between the pump and the generated radiation, which mainly affects the forward propagating beam. Once again, the simple models outlined above can explain some of the difference between backward and forward, but intriguingly cannot fully account for the observed frequency shift. Conclusions =========== In conclusion, we have experimentally investigated the frequency shift for PC, NR, and for the amplified signals generated by a four-wave mixing process in a thin-film of AZO in the ENZ wavelength region. We observed extremely large wavelength shifts, exceeding $60$ nm in the backward propagating radiation. We also recorded a different wavelength shift for the forward and backward scattered waves. Attempts to explain the observations with recently proposed models are not fully satisfactory, implying that the dynamics of nonlinear time-varying media still requires further theoretical investigation. Our results raise new questions about the fundamental physics of time-varying media in the ENZ regime and pave the way to a new range of applications in integrated nonlinear optics, e.g. for frequency conversion and optical switch. All the data supporting this manuscript are available at the DOI: xx/xxx/xx. $\mathbf{Authorcontributions}$ V.B., S.V., E.C. acquired the data, C.D. fabricated the sample. All authors contributed to the conceptualization of the work; V.B., S.V., D.F., and M.C. contributed to the formal analysis; M.F., A.B., V. S., D.F. and M.C. provided the required resources; V.B., S.V., D.F. and M.C. contributed to the original draft preparation; all the authors contributed to writing, review and editing of the manuscript. $\mathbf{Funding}$ M.C. acknowledges the funding from UK Research and Innovation, In-Tempo, Innovation Fellowship EP/S001573/1. DF acknowledges financial support from EPSRC (UK Grants EP/M009122/1 and EP/P006078/2). Purdue team acknowledges support by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering under Award DE-SC0017717 (sample preparation), Air Force Office of Scientic Research (AFOSR) award FA9550-18-1-0002 and Office of Naval Research (optical characterization). [28]{} ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{} ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ““\#1”” @noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{} sanitize@url \[0\][‘\ 12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{} @startlink\[1\] @endlink\[0\] @bib@innerbibempty @noop []{} (, ) @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} [, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.133904) @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} [ ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.233901) @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} [ (), 10.1126/science.aat3100](\doibase 10.1126/science.aat3100), [, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.043902) @noop [ ()]{} @noop [, ()]{} [, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.033822) @noop [, ()]{} @noop [**, ()]{}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This article extends the literature on copulas with discrete or continuous marginals to the case where some of the marginals are a mixture of discrete and continuous components. We do so by carefully defining the likelihood as the density of the observations with respect to a mixed measure. The treatment is quite general, although we focus focus on mixtures of Gaussian and Archimedean copulas. The inference is Bayesian with the estimation carried out by Markov chain Monte Carlo. We illustrate the methodology and algorithms by applying them to estimate a multivariate income dynamics model.' author: - David Gunawan - 'Mohamad A. Khaled' - Robert Kohn bibliography: - 'references\_v1.bib' title: - Mixed Marginal Copula Modeling - Supplement to Mixed marginal Coupula Modeling --- Introduction {#S: introduction} ============ Copulas are a versatile and useful tool for modeling multivariate distributions. See, for example, [@fan2014copulas], [@patton2009copula], [@durante2015principles] and [@trivedi2007copula]. Modeling non-continuous marginal random variables is a challenging task due to computational problems, interpretation difficulties and various other pitfalls and paradoxes; see [@Smith2012], for example. The literature on modeling non-continuous random marginal problems has mostly focused on cases where all the marginals are discrete, and less extensively, on cases where some marginals are discrete and some are continuous. See, for example, [@genest2007primer], [@Smith2012], [@de2013analysis], and [@panagiotelis2012pair]. Furthermore, a lot of the literature has focused on approaches restricted to certain classes to copulas. For example, this is the case for Gaussian copulas (See for instance [@shen2006copula], [@hoff2007extending], [@song2009joint], [@de2011copula], [@he2012gaussian] and [@jiryaie2016gaussian]) or pair-copula constructions (see [@stober2015comorbidity]). Relatively little attention has been paid to the case where some variables are a mixture of discrete and continuous components. In contrast, our approach, presents methodology for an arbitrary copula and can be applied quite generally as long as it is possible to compute certain marginal and conditional copulas either in closed-form or numerically. Our article extends the Bayesian methodology used for estimating continuous marginals to the case where each marginal can be a mixture of an absolutely continuous random variable and a discrete random variable. In particular, we are interested in applying the new methodology to copulas that are mixtures of Gaussian and Archimedean copulas. To illustrate the methodology and sampling algorithm we apply them to estimate a multivariate income dynamics model. In this application, we use the copula framework to model the dependence structure of random variables that are mixtures of discrete and continuous components, and apply the model to empirical economic data. We note that there are many other real world economic applications that involve such mixtures of random variables as marginals, and these are briefly discussed in Section \[S: conclusion\]. Our proposed methodology extends that introduced in [@Pitt2006] and [@Smith2012]. [@Smith2012] allow the joint modeling of distributions of random variables such that each component can be either discrete or continuous. However, neither paper covers the case where some random variables can be a mixture of an absolutely continuous random variable and a discrete random variable. In a financial econometrics application, [@brechmann2014] consider the case where the marginal distributions are mixtures of continuous and . In contrast, our paper derives the likelihood equations in a much more general setting that allows for the margins to be arbitrarily classified into three groups: absolutely continuous, discrete and mixtures of absolutely continuous and discrete random variables. Furthermore, there is no restriction on the number or location of the point masses present in each margin. This can occur in many economic data, for instance in cases where earnings are top-coded and have individuals with zero earnings. Equally, our setting covers the case of dependent interval-censored data. The paper is organized as follows. Section \[S: likelihood definition\] outlines the copula model and defines the likelihood as a density with respect to a mixed measure. Section \[S: estimation and algorithms\] presents the simulation algorithms used for inference. Section \[S: application to individual income dynamics\] applies the methods and algorithms to model multivariate income dynamics. This section describes the data and presents the estimation results. Section \[S: conclusion\] concludes. . Appendix \[app\_diference\_operator\] defines the Appendix \[app\_integration\] presents and proves the results required to define the likelihood as a density with respect to a mixed measure. The paper also has an online supplement whose sections are denoted as Sections S1, etc. Section \[app\_sampling\_schemes\] describes the Gaussian and Archimedean copulas used in the article, as well as the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling scheme. . Section \[app: extra empirical results\] presents some additional empirical results. Defining the Likelihood of a general copula\[S: likelihood definition\] ======================================================================= This section discusses the proposed model and shows how to write the likelihood of an i.i.d. sample from it. Each random vector is modeled using a marginal distribution-copula decomposition and each marginal is allowed to be a mixture of an absolutely continuous component and . The MCMC sampling scheme in the next section is based on this definition of the likelihood. Let $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}= (X_1, \ldots, X_m)$ be Let $\mathcal{M}= \{ 1, \ldots, m \}$ be the index set, and $2^{\mathcal{M}}$ its power-set (or the set of all of its subsets). Let the random variable $X_j$ have cumulative distribution function $F_j$ for $j = 1, \ldots, m$. By the Lebesgue decomposition theorem , the distribution of each $X_j$ can be written as a mixture of an absolutely continuous random variable and a discrete random variable. This means that $F_j$ is allowed to have jumps at a countable number of points. In order to exploit this result, we would like to be able to decide at each point of , which indices have jumps in their corresponding CDFs. We need a mapping $\mathcal{C}: {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^m \rightarrow 2^{\mathcal{M}}$ that, for each $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}} \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^m$, picks out the subset of the indices of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$ where $F_j$ is continuous at $x_j$ for each $j \in \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$. $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{C} : {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^m & \longrightarrow 2^{\mathcal{M}} \quad \text{with} \quad \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}} \longrightarrow \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we define the set $\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) = \mathcal{M} - \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ (the complement of $\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ in $\mathcal{M}$, that is the set of indices $j$ for which $F_j$ presents jumps at $x_j$). This means that for all $ \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}} \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^m$, $\{ \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}), \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \}$ partitions the index set so that $\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \cap \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) = \varnothing$ and $\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \cup \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) =\mathcal{M}$. As a first example, consider $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}= (X_1, X_2)$, where $X_1 \sim \mathcal{N} (0, 1)$ and $X_2$ is a mixture of an exponential distribution with parameter $\lambda$ and a point mass at $0$ with probability $p$, i.e., $X_2 \sim p \delta_0 + (1 - p) \mathcal{E} (\lambda)$). Then, $\mathcal{C} (x_1, 0) = \{ 1 \}$ for all $ x_1 \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}$ and $\mathcal{C} (x_1, x_2) = \{ 1, 2 \}$ for all $x_1 \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}, x_2 > 0$. Similarly $\mathcal{D} (x_1, 0) = \{ 2 \}$ for all $x_1 \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}$ and $\mathcal{D} (x_1, x_2) = \varnothing$. As a second example, let $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}= (X_1, X_2)$, where $X_1$ is Bernoulli and $X_2 \sim \mathcal{N} (0, 1)$. Then $\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) = \{ 2 \}$ for all $ \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}} \in \{ 0, 1 \} \times {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}$. Similarly $\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) = \{ 1 \}$ for all $ \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$. Let $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}= (U_1, \ldots, U_m)$ be a vector of uniform random variables whose distribution is given by some copula $C$. We assume that $F_j^{- 1}$ is the quantile function corresponding to $F_j$ (since $F_j$ is not invertible when , this corresponds to picking one possible generalized inverse function). The variables $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}$ are selected to satisfy the following criteria. If, at coordinate $x_j$, $j \in \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$, then $u_j = F_j (x_j)$, resulting in a deterministic one-to-one relationship when conditioning on either $U_j$ or $X_j$. Otherwise, $j \in \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$, and we require $x_j = F_j^{- 1} (u_j)$, resulting in an infinity of $U_j$ corresponding to one $X_j$ and spanning the interval $(F_j (X_j^-), F_j (X_j))$. This interval corresponds to gaps in the range of $F_j$. If $\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) =\mathcal{M}$ for every $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$, then $C$ will be the copula of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$. Otherwise, the copula structure will still create dependence between . Mathematically, the above description leads to the joint density $$\label{JointDensity} f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}) := c (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}) \prod_{j \in \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \mathcal{I} (u_j = F_j (x_j)) \prod_{j' \in \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \mathcal{I} (F_{j'} (x_{j'}^-) \leqslant u_{j'} < F_{j'} (x_{j'})),$$ where $c$ is the copula density corresponding to $C$ and $\mathcal{I}$ is an indicator variable. See Lemma \[L: mixed density in x and u\], part (i), of Appendix \[app\_integration\] for a derivation of and the corresponding measure. Notice that in , products over the indices $j$ and $ j'$ correspond to different partitions for each $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$. With a small abuse of notation, we call $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}$ the vector of latent variables, even though $U_j$ is a deterministic function of $X_j$ if $F_j$ is invertible. To derive the likelihood function, that is the marginal density of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$, from the joint density $f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}})$, we introduce some notation. Let $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}$ be two vectors in ${\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^k$ such that $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}} \leqslant \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}$ componentwise and let $g$ be an arbitrary function from ${\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^k$ into ${\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}$. of $2^k$ terms that are obtained by repeatedly subtracting $g (., a_j, .)$ from $g (., b_j, .)$ for each $j = 1, \ldots, k$. Appendix \[app\_diference\_operator\] contains more details on using this notation. For each $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}} \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^m$, denote by $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}= (F_1 (x_1), \ldots, F_m (x_m))$ the vector of upper bounds and similarly denote by $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}= (F_1 (x_1^-), \ldots, F_m (x_m^-))$ the vector of lower bounds. For each $j \in \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$, $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}} (j) =\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}} (j)$, otherwise we have the strict inequality $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}} (j) >\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}} (j)$. Denote the partitions of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}$ and $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}$ by $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}$, $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}$, $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}$ and $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}$. For some sets $A, B \subset \mathcal{M}$, denote by $c_A$ and $c_{A\|B}$, the marginal copula density over the indices of $A$, the conditional copula density where the variables in $A$ are conditioned on the variables with index set $B$. It is possible to do the same for If $(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}})$ has the joint density given by , then the marginal density of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$ is $$\label{likelihood} f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) = c_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}) \prod_{j \in \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} f _j(x_j) \bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}} C_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} (\cdot\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}),$$ which corresponds to writing the formula for the density of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$ as the product of the (marginal) density of continuous components at $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$ $$f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}) = c_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}) \prod_{j \in \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} f _j(x_j),$$ and the (conditional) density of the non-continuous components conditional on the continuous ones $$f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}) = \bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}} C_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} (\cdot\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}).$$ See Lemma \[L: mixed density in x and u\], part (ii), of Appendix \[app\_integration\] for a derivation of and the corresponding measure. \[ex: example 1\] Let $X_1$ have a density that is a mixture of point of probability mass at zero and a normal distribution $f_1 (x_1) \sim \pi \delta_{x_1} (0) + (1 - \pi) \phi (x_1)$ where $\phi (.)$ is the density of a standard normal. This implies that the cumulative distribution function of $X_1$ is $$F_1 (x_1) = (1 - \pi) \Phi (x_1) + \pi \mathcal{I} (x_1 \geqslant 0),$$ and thus there a discontinuity in $F_1$ at the point 0. Let $X_2$ be a binary random variable with $\Pr \{ X_2 = 0 \} = \gamma$. Let $C (\cdot)$ and $c (\cdot)$ be respectively the Clayton copula and Clayton copula density with parameter $\theta = 1$, so that $$C (u_1, u_2) = \left( \frac{1}{u_1} + \frac{1}{u_2} - 1 \right)^{- 1} , \quad c (u_1, u_2) = \frac{2}{u_1^2 u_2^2} \left( \frac{1}{u_1} + \frac{1}{u_2} - 1 \right)^{- 3}$$ and the conditional copula is given by $$C_{2\|1} (u_2 \|u_1) = \frac{1}{u_1^2} \left( \frac{1}{u_1} + \frac{1}{u_2} - 1 \right)^{- 2},$$ which has the conditional quantile function $C^{- 1} (\tau \|u_1) = \frac{\sqrt{\tau} u_1}{1 + \sqrt{\tau} (u_1 - 1)}$ and the conditional density $c_{2\|1} (u_2 \|u_1) = c (u_1, u_2)$ (because the marginal of $u_1$ is uniform). The following details are necessary construct the example. $\mathcal{C} ({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}) = \{ 2 \}$ for $x_1 \neq 0$, for all $ x_2$ and $\mathcal{C} ({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}) = \{ 1, 2 \}$ for $x_1 = 0$, for all $ x_2$ ( Eq. ) There are two cases. Case 1: $x_1 \neq 0$ $f (x_1, x_2, u_1, u_2) = c (u_1, u_2) \mathcal{I} (u_1 = F_1 (x_1)) \mathcal{I} (F_2 (x_2 -) \leqslant u_2 < F_2 (x_2))$ Case 2: $x_1 = 0$ $f (x_1, x_2, u_1, u_2) = c (u_1, u_2) \mathcal{I} (F_1 (0 -) \leqslant u_1 < F_1 (0)) \mathcal{I} (F_2 (x_2 -) \leqslant u_2 < F_2 (x_2))$ (Eq. \[likelihood\] ) If $x_1 \neq 0$, then $$\begin{aligned} f (x_1, x_2) & = & f (x_1) \bigtriangleup_{F_2 (x_2 -)}^{F_2 (x_2)} C_{2\|1} (\cdot \|F (x_1))\\ & = & f_1 (x_1) \{ C_{2\|1} (F_2 (x_2) \|F_1 (x_1)) - C_{2\|1} (F_2 (x_2 -) \|F_1 (x_1)) \}\end{aligned}$$ because $c (u_1) = 1$ as one-dimensional margins of a copula are all uniform. If $x_1 = 0$, then $$\begin{aligned} f (0, x_2) & = & \bigtriangleup_{F_1 (0 -)}^{F_1 (0)} \bigtriangleup_{F_2 (x_2 -)}^{F_2 (x_2)} C (\cdot)\\ & = & \bigtriangleup_{F_1 (0 -)}^{F_1 (0)} \{ C (\cdot, F_2 (x_2)) - C (\cdot, F_2 (x_2 -)) \}\\ & = & C (F_1 (0), F_2 (x_2)) - C (F_1 (0), F_2 (x_2 -)) - C (F_1 (0 -), F_2 (x_2)) + C (F_1 (0 -), F_2 (x_2 -)).\end{aligned}$$ The difficult part of implementing a simulation algorithm based on equations and is that the size of the vectors $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}$ and $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}$ changes with $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$. A secondary difficulty is that the second term is a sum of $2^{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|}$ terms for each $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$, where $\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|$ is the cardinality of the set $\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$. Estimation and Algorithms\[S: estimation and algorithms\] ========================================================= Conditional distribution of the latent variables\[SS: conditional distn of latent variables\] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In any simulation scheme (such as MCMC or simulated EM) where the latent variables $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}$ are used to carry out inference, it is necessary to know the distribution of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$. This distribution is singular due to the deterministic relationship over $\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ for each $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}} \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^m$. For this reason, it is useful to work only with $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$. A second issue is the need to work with different sizes of vectors $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}$ for each $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$ in our sample (say $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_1, \ldots, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_n$), so we will be working with $n$ distributions over different spaces. Recursively using Bayes formula and similar integration arguments to the ones described during the derivation of the $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$ density, we obtain the density for $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$ as $$\label{LatentConditionalDistribution} f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) = \frac{c_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}) \prod_{j \in \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \mathcal{I} (a_j \leqslant u_j < b_j)}{\bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}} C_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} (\cdot\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})})},$$ where the denominator is a constant of integration. As seen from the above conditional density, one of the complexities arising is that the distribution $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}=\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$ depends on the whole vector $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$ and not just on $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}$. See Lemma \[L: mixed density in x and u\], part (iii), of Appendix \[app\_integration\] for a derivation of and the corresponding measure. We can now proceed in two ways. We can either draw each $U_j$ in $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{D}(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}$ separately conditionally on everything else. This is reminiscent of a single move Gibbs sampler. Alternatively, it turns out that in spite of the difficulties, the above distribution can also be sampled recursively without having to compute any of the above normalizing constants. By writing $\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ as $\{ j_1, \ldots, j_{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|} \}$, we can use the following scheme - $U_{j_1} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$ - $U_{j_2} \|U_{j_1}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$ - $\vdots$ - $U_{j_{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|}} \|U_{j_1}, \ldots, U_{j_{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \| - 1}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$ The above sampling scheme requires knowing the marginal distribution of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{J}} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$ for $\mathcal{J} \subset \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ and the conditional decomposition $U_j \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{K}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$ where $ (\{ j \}, \mathcal{K})$ is a partition of $\mathcal{J}$ (meaning $\{ j \} =\mathcal{J} \backslash \mathcal{K}$, the complement of $\mathcal{K}$ in $\mathcal{J}$). This distribution can be derived as $$\begin{aligned} f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{J}} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) & = & \frac{c (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}) \prod_{j \in \mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} f (x_j)}{f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} c (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{J}} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})})\\ & \times & \left[ \bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}_{\mathcal{J}^c}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{J}^c}} C_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{J}^c} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{J}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}} (\cdot \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{J}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}) \right] \prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \mathcal{I} (a_j \leqslant u_j < b_j)\end{aligned}$$ with $\mathcal{J}^c =\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \backslash \mathcal{J}$ and $$\begin{aligned} f (u_j \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{K}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) & = & c (u_j \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{K}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}) \mathcal{I} (a_j \leqslant u_j < b_j)\\ & \times & \frac{\bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}_{\mathcal{J}^c}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{J}^c}} C_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{J}^c} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{J}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{C}}} (\cdot \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{J}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})})}{\bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}_{\mathcal{K}^c}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{K}^c}} C_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{K}^c} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{K}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{U}}_{\mathcal{C}}} (\cdot \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{K}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})})},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{K}^c =\mathcal{J}^c \cup \{ j \}$. If $x_1 \neq 0$, then $$f (u_2 \|{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}) = \frac{c_{2\|1} (u_2 \|F_1 (x_1)) \mathcal{I} (F_2 (x_2 -) \leqslant u_2 < F_2 (x_2))}{C_{2\|1} (F_2 (x_2) \|F_1 (x_1)) - C_{2\|1} (F_2 (x_2 -) \|F_1 (x_1))}$$ ($u_1$ is deterministically equal to $F_1 (x_1)$, so we only need to sample $u_2$). If $x_1 = 0$ $$f (u_1, u_2 \|{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}) = \frac{c (u_1, u_2) \mathcal{I} (F_1 (0 -) \leqslant u_1 < F_1 (0)) \mathcal{I} (F_2 (x_2 -) \leqslant u_2 < F_2 (x_2))}{C (F_1 (0), F_2 (x_2)) - C (F_1 (0), F_2 (x_2 -)) - C (F_1 (0 -), F_2 (x_2)) + C (F_1 (0 -), F_2 (x_2 -))}$$ Metropolis-Hastings sampling ---------------------------- It is clear from the formulas for $f (u_j \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{K}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ that they are quite intricate. They correspond to a product of a simple term $c (u_j \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{K}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}) \mathcal{I} (a_j \leqslant u_j < b_j)$ (a truncated conditional copula density) and a complicated term that depends on ratios of normalizing constants for $f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{J}} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ and $f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}_{\mathcal{K}} \|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$. One of the most useful aspects of the Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithm is that it does not require knowledge of normalizing constants. The trick here is that those normalizing constants are obtained recursively. Assume that we sample - $U_{j_1}$ from $c (u_{j_1}) \mathcal{I} (a_{j_1} \leqslant u_{j_1} < b_{j_1})$ - $U_{j_2}$ from $c (u_{j_2} \|u_{j_1}) \mathcal{I} (a_{j_2} \leqslant u_{j_2} < b_{j_2})$ - $\vdots$ - $U_{j_{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|}}$ from $c (u_{j_{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|}} \|u_{j_1}, \ldots, u_{j_{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \| - 1}}) \mathcal{I} (a_{j_{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|}} \leqslant u_{j_{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|}} < b_{j_{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|}})$ that is, if we use as proposal a truncated form of the copula marginal density over $\mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$, then computing the MH accept/reject ratio results in the computationally simple formula $$\alpha (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_i) = \prod_{k = 1}^{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|} \frac{C (F_{j_k} (x_{i, j_k}) \|u^N_{i, j_1}, \ldots, u^N_{i, j_{k - 1}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_i), i}) - C (F_{j_k} (x_{i, j_k}^-) \|u^N_{i, j_1}, \ldots, u^N_{i, j_{k - 1}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_i), i})}{C (F_{j_k} (x_{i, j_k}) \|u^O_{i, j_1}, \ldots, u^O_{i, j_{k - 1}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_i), i}) - C (F_{j_k} (x_{i, j_k}^-) \|u^O_{i, j_1}, \ldots, u^O_{i, j_{k - 1}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}_{\mathcal{C} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}_i), i})}$$ where $i$ represents the observation index. The complexity of this formula is much smaller than $2^{\| \mathcal{D} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) \|}$. If $x_1 \neq 0$, then the ratio is $ \alpha (x_2) = 1 $ and if $x_1 = 0$ (first draw $u_1^N$ from a uniform on $(F_1 (0^-), F_1 (0))$ and compare to the previous draw $u_1^O$) $$\alpha (0, x_2) = \frac{C_{2\|1} (F_2 (x_2) \|u_1^N) - C_{2\|1} (F_2 (x_2^-) \|u_1^N)}{C_{2\|1} (F_2 (x_2) \|u_1^O) - C_{2\|1} (F_2 (x_2^-) \|u_1^O)}$$ Note that here the ordering does not matter, as we could have computed the other ratio (if we draw instead first $u_2^N$ from a uniform on $(F_2 (x_2^-), F_2 (x_2))$ $$\alpha (0, x_2) = \frac{C_{1\|2} (F_1 (0) \|u_2^N) - C_{1\|2} (F_1 (0^-) \|u_2^N)}{C_{1\|2} (F_1 (0) \|u_2^O) - C_{1\|2} (F_1 (0^-) \|u_2^O)}$$ Even though the ratio are different, both procedures will result in a draw from $f (u_1, u_2 \|{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}})$. Mixtures of Archimedean and Gaussian copulas\[SS: mixtures of archimedean and gaussian copulas\] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This section applies the previous results to the family of mixtures of Archimedean and Gaussian copulas. Working with mixtures of copulas provides a simple and yet rich and flexible modeling framework because mixtures of copulas are copulas themselves, We are particularly interested in having a mixture of three components, two Archimedean copulas, the Clayton copula $\left(C_{Cl}\right)$ and the Gumbel copula $\left(c_{Gu}\right)$ and a Gaussian copula $\left(c_{G}\right)$ component. We will later apply this mixture to model the dependence between individual income distributions over 13 years. The copula density of this 3-component mixture is $$c_{mix}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\Gamma,\theta_{Cl},\theta_{Gu},w_{1},w_{2}\right)=w_{1}c_{G}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\Gamma\right)+w_{2}c_{Cl}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\theta_{Cl}\right) +w_{3}c_{Gu}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\theta_{Gu}\right), \label{eq:mixture copula model}$$ where $w_{1}$, $w_{2}$, and $w_{3}=1-w_{1}-w_{2}$ are the mixture weights, and $\Gamma$, $\theta_{Cl}$, and $\theta_{Gu}$ are respectively the dependence parameters of the Gaussian, Clayton, and Gumbel copulas. Such a mixture of copula models has the additional flexibility of being to capture lower and upper tail dependence. We will use a Bayesian approach to estimate the copula parameters and, for simplicity and without loss of generality, we follow [@joe2014dependence] and use empirical CDF’s to model the marginal distributions. Let the parameter $w_{k}$ denote the probability that the $i$-th observation comes from the $k$-th component in the mixture. Let $\boldsymbol{d}_{i}=\left(d_{i1},d_{i2},d_{i3}\right)^{'}$ be indicator (latent) variables such that $d_{ik}=1$ when the $i$-th observation comes from the $k$-th component in the mixture. These indicator variables identify the component of the copula model defined in equation to which the observation $\boldsymbol{y}_{i}$ belongs. Then, $$p\left(d_{ik}=1\|\boldsymbol{w}\right)=w{}_{k},$$ with $w_{k}>0$ and $\sum_{k=1}^{3}w_{k}=1$. Given the information on the $n$ independent sample observations $\boldsymbol{y}=\left(\boldsymbol{y}_{1},...,\boldsymbol{y}_{n}\right)^{'}$ and $\boldsymbol{y}_{i}=\left(y_{i1},...,y_{iT}\right)$, and by using Bayes rule, the joint posterior density is obtained as $$p\left(\boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{d},\Gamma,\theta_{Cl},\theta_{Gu}\|\boldsymbol{y}\right)\propto p\left(\boldsymbol{y}\|\boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{d},\Gamma,\theta_{Cl},\theta_{Gu}\right) p\left(\boldsymbol{d}\|\boldsymbol{w},\Gamma,\theta_{Cl},\theta_{Gu}\right)p\left(\boldsymbol{w}\right)p\left(\Gamma\right)p\left(\theta_{Cl}\right) p\left(\theta_{Gu}\right)\label{eq:posterior mixture copula}$$ with $$p\left(\boldsymbol{y}\|\boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{d},\Gamma,\theta_{Cl},\theta_{Gu}\right)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}\left[c_{G}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\Gamma\right)\right]^{d_{i1}} \left[c_{Cl}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\theta_{Cl}\right)\right]^{d_{i2}}\left[c_{Gu}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\theta_{Gu}\right)\right]^{d_{i3}},$$ and $$p\left(\boldsymbol{d}\|\boldsymbol{w},\Gamma,\theta_{Cl},\theta_{Gu}\right)=p\left(\mathbf{d}\|\boldsymbol{w}\right)= \prod_{i=1}^{n}\prod_{k=1}^{K}w_{k}^{d_{ik}}=\prod_{k=1}^{K}w_{k}^{n_{k}},$$ where $n_{k}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}I\left(d_{ik}=1\right)$ and $I\left(d_{ik}=1\right)$ is an indicator variable which is equal 1 if observation $i$ belongs to the $k$-th component of the copula mixture model, and is $0$ otherwise. We use a Dirichlet prior for $\boldsymbol{w}$, $p\left(\boldsymbol{w}\right)=Dirichlet\left(\boldsymbol{\phi}\right)$, which is defined as $$p\left(\boldsymbol{w}\right)\propto w_{1}^{\phi_{1}-1}...w_{3}^{\phi_{3}-1}. \label{eq:weight prior}$$ The Dirichlet distribution is the common choice in Bayesian mixture modeling since it is a conjugate of the multinomial distribution [@Diebold1994] . We use the gamma density $G(\alpha,\beta)$ as the prior distribution for $\theta_{Cl}$ and $\theta_{Gu}$. The hyperparameters in the prior PDFs are chosen so that the priors are uninformative. We use a Metropolis within Gibbs sampling algorithm to draw observations from the joint posterior PDF defined in equation and use the resulting MCMC draws to estimate the quantities required for inference. The relevant conditional posterior PDFs are now specified. The conditional posterior probability that the $i$th observation comes from the $k$th component in the copula mixture model is $$p\left(d_{ik}\|\boldsymbol{w},\Gamma,\theta_{Cl},\theta_{Gu},\boldsymbol{y}\right)=\frac{p_{ik}}{p_{i1}+...+p_{i3}}, \label{eq:eq 17}$$ where $p_{i1}=w_{1}c_{G}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\Gamma\right)$, $p_{i2}=w_{2}c_{Cl}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\theta_{Cl}\right)$, and $p_{i3}=w_{3}c_{Gu}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\theta_{Gu}\right)$ for $k=1,2,3$. The conditional posterior PDF for the mixture weights $\boldsymbol{w}$ is the Dirichlet PDF $$p(\boldsymbol{w}\|\mathbf{d},\Gamma,\theta_{Cl},\theta_{Gu},\boldsymbol{y})=D(\boldsymbol{\phi}+\boldsymbol{n}), \label{eq:eq 28}$$ where $\mathbf{n}=(n_{1},...,n_{k})'$ and $\boldsymbol{\phi}=(\phi_{1},...,\phi_{K})'$. The conditional posterior PDF for the Gaussian copula parameter matrix $\Gamma$ is $$p\left(\Gamma\|\boldsymbol{y},\mathbf{d},\theta_{Cl},\theta_{Gu},\boldsymbol{w}\right)=\prod_{i\in d_{i1}=1}c_{G}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\Gamma\right)p\left(\Gamma\right). \label{eq:gaussian conditiona}$$ The conditional posterior PDF for the Clayton copula parameter $\theta_{Cl}$ is $$p\left(\theta_{Cl}\|\boldsymbol{y},\mathbf{d},\Gamma,\theta_{Gu},\boldsymbol{w}\right)=\prod_{i\in d_{i1}=2}c_{Cl}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\theta_{Cl}\right)p\left(\theta_{Cl}\right). \label{eq:clayton conditional}$$ The conditional posterior PDF for the Gumbel copula parameter $\theta_{Gu}$ is $$p\left(\theta_{Gu}\|\boldsymbol{y},\mathbf{d},\Gamma,\theta_{Cl},\boldsymbol{w}\right)=\prod_{i\in d_{i1}=3}c_{Gu}\left(\boldsymbol{u};\theta_{Gu}\right)p\left(\theta_{Gu}\right). \label{eq:gumbel conditional}$$ Generating the conditional posterior density for $\theta_{Cl}$ and $\theta_{Gu}$ is not straightforward since the conditional posterior densities for both $\theta_{Cl}$ and $\theta_{Gu}$ are not in a recognizable form. We use a random walk Metropolis algorithm to draw from the conditional posterior densities of both $\theta_{Cl}$ and $\theta_{Gu}$. The generation of the Gaussian copula matrix parameter $\Gamma$ is more complicated and is explained in the next section. The full MCMC sampling scheme is 1. Set the starting values for $\boldsymbol{w}^{\left(0\right)}$, $\Gamma^{\left(0\right)}$, $\theta_{Cl}^{\left(0\right)}$, and $\theta_{Gu}^{\left(0\right)}$ 2. Generate $(\boldsymbol{w}^{\left(t+1\right)}\|\mathbf{d}^{\left(t\right)},\Gamma^{\left(t\right)},\theta_{Cl}^{\left(t\right)},\theta_{Gu}^{\left(t\right)},\boldsymbol{y})$ from equation 3. Generate $\left(\Gamma^{\left(t+1\right)}\|\boldsymbol{y},\mathbf{d}^{\left(t+1\right)},\theta_{Cl}^{\left(t\right)},\theta_{Gu}^{\left(t\right)},\boldsymbol{w}^{\left(t+1\right)}\right)$ from equation 4. Generate $\left(\theta_{Cl}^{\left(t+1\right)}\|\boldsymbol{y},\mathbf{d}^{\left(t+1\right)},\Gamma^{\left(t+1\right)},\theta_{Gu}^{\left(t\right)},\boldsymbol{w}^{\left(t+1\right)}\right)$ from equation 5. Generate $\left(\theta_{Gu}^{\left(t+1\right)}\|\boldsymbol{y},\mathbf{d}^{\left(t+1\right)},\Gamma^{\left(t+1\right)},\theta_{Cl}^{\left(t+1\right)},\boldsymbol{w}^{\left(t+1\right)}\right)$ from equation 6. Set $t=t+1$ and return to step 2. Appendix \[app\_sampling\_schemes\] gives further details on the particulars of the sampling scheme. In particular, it describes how to write the distributions and densities of the Gaussian, Gumbel and Clayton copulas respectively and how to sample from them. It also details how to sample the correlation parameters of the Gaussian copula and summarizes how the one-margin at a time latent variable simulation works. Application to Individual Income Dynamics\[S: application to individual income dynamics\] ========================================================================================= Longitudinal or panel datasets, such as the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), and the Household Income and Labour Dynamics Survey in Australia (HILDA) are increasingly used for assessing income inequality, mobility, and poverty over time. The income data from these surveys for different years are correlated due to the nature of panel studies. For such correlated samples, the standard approach of fitting univariate models to income distributions for different years may give rise to misleading results. The univariate approach treats the income distribution over different years as independent and ignores the dependence structure between incomes for different years. It does not take into account that those who earned a high income in one year are more likely to earn a high income in subsequent years and vice versa. A common way to address this problem is to use a multivariate income distribution model that takes into account the dependence between incomes for different years. The presence of dependence in a sample of incomes from panel datasets has rarely been addressed in the past. Only recently, [@Vinh2010] proposed using bivariate copulas to model income distributions for two different years, using maximum likelihood estimation. However, in their applications, they do not take into account the point mass occurring at zero income. Our methodology is more general than [@Vinh2010]. We estimate a panel of incomes from the HILDA survey from 2001 to 2013 using a finite mixture of Gaussian, Clayton, and Gumbel copulas while taking into account the point mass occurring at zero incomes. Once the parameters for the multivariate income distribution have been estimated, values for various measures of inequality, mobility, and poverty can be obtained. Our methodology is Bayesian which enables us to estimate the posterior densities of the parameters of the copula models and the inequality, mobility, and poverty measures. In this example, we consider the [@Shorrocks1978a] and [@Foster2009] indices for illustration purposes. Other inequality, mobility, and poverty indices can be estimated similarly. For other recent studies on income mobility dynamics, see also [@Bonhomme2009]. Although a number of income related variables are available, we use the imputed income series \_WSCEI in this example. This variable contains the average individual weekly wage and salary incomes from all paid employment over the period considered. It is reported before taxation and governmental transfers. The income data were also adjusted to account for the effects of inflation using the Consumer Price Index data obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which is based in 2010 dollars. From these data, a dependence sample was constructed by establishing whether a particular individual had recorded an income in all the years. Individuals who only recorded incomes in some of the years being considered were removed. In addition, we also focus our attention on individuals who are in the labor force (both employed and unemployed). We found that 1745 individuals recorded an income for all 13 years. Table \[tab:Descriptive-statistics-for\] summarizes the distributions of real individual disposable income in Australia for the years 2001 - 2013 and shows that all income distributions exhibit positive skewness and fat long right tails typical of income distributions. If the ordering of the distributions is judged on the basis of the means or the medians, the population becomes better off as it moves from 2001 to 2013, except between the period 2006 and 2007. These effects are also confirmed by Figures \[fig:Histogram-of-real\] to \[fig:Histogram-of-real-2\] in appendix \[app: extra empirical results\] 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ----------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Mean 684 734 766 819 874 923 783 1067 1105 1128 1188 1215 1245 Median 616 673 712 753 803 852 702 969 1003 1048 1051 1101 1100 Std. dev. 551 591 568 645 674 668 694 788 825 869 990 916 950 skewness 2.1 3.0 2.1 3.7 2.9 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.0 3.7 1.9 1.5 kurtosis 15.7 26.6 16.0 40.2 27.1 8.7 11.1 12.7 11.7 15.7 37.5 13.0 7.4 Foster’s (2009) Chronic Poverty Measures ---------------------------------------- The measurement of chronic income poverty is important because it focuses on those whose lack of income stops them from obtaining the “minimum necessities of life” for much of their life course. Let $z\in \mathbb{R^{+}}$ be the poverty line. It is the level of income/wages which is just sufficient for someone to be able to afford the minimum necessities of life. For every $i=1,...,n$ and $t=1,...,T$, the row vector $\mathbf{y}_{i}=\left(y_{i1},...,y_{iT}\right)$ contains individual $i$’s incomes across time and the column vector $\mathbf{y}_{t}=\left(y_{1t},...,y_{nt}\right)^{'}$ contains the income distribution at period $t$. The measurement of chronic poverty is split into two steps: an “identification” step and an aggregation step. The identification function $\rho\left(\mathbf{y}_{i};z\right)$ indicates that individual $i$ is in chronic poverty when $\rho\left(\mathbf{y}_{i};z\right)=1$, while $\rho\left(\mathbf{y}_{i};z\right)=0$ otherwise. [@Foster2009] proposed an identification method that counts the number of periods of poverty experienced by a particular individual, $y_{it}<z$, and then expressed it as a fraction $d_{i}$ of the $T$ periods. The identification function $\rho_{\tau}\left(\mathbf{y}_{i};z\right)=1$ if $d_{i}\geq\tau$ and $\rho_{\tau}\left(\mathbf{y}_{i};z\right)=0$ if $d_{i}<\tau$. The aggregation step combines the information on the chronically poor people to obtain an overall level of chronic poverty in a given society. We use the extension of univariate Foster, Greer and Thorbecke (FGT) poverty indices of @Foster:1984. These are given by $$FGT^{\alpha}\left(z\right)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}g_{i}^{\alpha}\ ,$$ where $g_{i}^{\alpha}=0$ if $y_{i}>z$ and $g_{i}^{\alpha}\left(z\right)=\left(\frac{z-y_{i}}{z}\right)^{\alpha}$ if $y_{i}\leq z$, and $\alpha$ measures inequality aversion. The FGT measure when $\alpha=0$ is called the headcount ratio, when $\alpha=1$ it is called the poverty gap index and when $\alpha=2$ it is called the poverty severity index. [@Foster2009] proposed duration adjusted FGT poverty indices: duration adjusted headcount ratio and duration adjusted poverty gap. Following [@Foster2009], we define the normalized gap matrix as $G^{\alpha}\left(z\right):=\left[g_{it}^{\alpha}\left(z\right)\right]$, where $g_{it}^{\alpha}\left(z\right)=0$ if $y_{it}>z$ and $g_{it}^{\alpha}\left(z\right)=\left(\frac{z-y_{it}}{z}\right)^{\alpha}$ if $y_{it}\leq z$. Then, identification is incorporated into the censored matrix $G^{\alpha}\left(z,\tau\right)=\left[g_{it}^{\alpha}\left(z,\tau\right)\right]$, where $g_{it}^{\alpha}\left(z,\tau\right)=g_{it}^{\alpha}\left(z\right)\rho_{\tau}\left(\mathbf{y}_{i};z\right)$. The entries for the non-chronically poor are censored to zero, while the entries for the chronically poor are left unchanged. When $\alpha=0$, the measure becomes the duration adjusted headcount ratio and is the mean of $G^{0}\left(z,\tau\right)$, and when $\alpha=1$, the measure becomes the duration adjusted poverty gap, and is given by the mean of $G^{1}\left(z,\tau\right)$. Shorrocks (1978a) Income Mobility Measures\[SS: income mobility measures\] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The measurement of income mobility focuses on how individuals’ income changes over time. Many mobility measures have been developed and applied to empirical data to describe income dynamics; see [@Shorrocks1978a], [@Shorrocks1978b], [@Formby2004], [@Dardanoni1993], [@Fields1996], [@Maasoumi1986], and references therein. However, statistical inference on income mobility has been largely neglected in the literature. Only recently, some researchers have developed statistical inference procedures for the measurement of income mobility [@Biewen2002; @Maasoumi2001; @Formby2004]. Here, we show that our approach can be used to obtain the posterior densities of mobility measures which can then be used for making inference on income mobility. [@Shorrocks1978a] proposed a measure of income mobility that is based on transition matrices. Following [@Formby2004], we consider the joint distribution of two income variables $y_{1}$ and $y_{2}$ with a continuous CDF $F\left(y_{1},y_{2}\right)$. This distribution function captures all the transitions between $y_{1}$ and $y_{2}$. In this application, we consider the mobility between two points in time. The movement between $y_{1}$ and $y_{2}$ is described by a transition matrix. To form the the transition matrix from $F\left(y_{1},y_{2}\right)$, we need to determine the number of, and boundaries between, income classes. Suppose there are $m$ classes in each of the income variables and the boundaries of these classes are $0<\tau_{1}^{y_{1}}<...<\tau_{m-1}^{y_{1}}<\infty$ and $0<\tau_{1}^{y_{2}}<...<\tau_{m-1}^{y_{2}}<\infty$. The resulting transition matrix is denoted $P=\left[p_{ij}\right]$. Each element $p_{ij}$ is a conditional probability that an individual moves to class $j$ of income $y_{2}$ given that they are initially in class $i$ with income $y_{1}$. It is defined as $$p_{ij}:=\frac{\Pr\left(\tau_{i-1}^{y_{1}}\leq y_{1}<\tau_{i}^{y_{1}}\;and\;\tau_{j-1}^{y_{2}}\leq y_{2}<\tau_{j}^{y_{2}}\right)}{\Pr\left(\tau_{i-1}^{y_{1}}\leq y_{1}<\tau_{i}^{y_{1}}\right)}\ ,$$ where $\Pr\left(\tau_{i-1}^{y_{1}}\leq y_{1}<\tau_{i}^{y_{1}}\right)$ is the probability that an individual falls into income class $i$ of $y_{1}$. A Mobility measure $M\left(P\right)$ can be defined as a function of the transition matrix $P$. We say that a society with transition matrix $P_{1}$ is more mobile than one with transition matrix $P_{2}$, according to mobility measure $M\left(P\right)$, if and only if $M\left(P_{1}\right)>M\left(P_{2}\right)$. We consider a mobility measure developed by [@Shorrocks1978a] and defined as $$M_{1}\left(P\right):=\frac{m-\sum_{i=1}^{m}p_{ii}}{m-1};$$ $M_{1}$ measures the average probability across all classes that an individual will leave his initial class in the next period. Empirical Analysis\[SS: empirical analysis\] -------------------------------------------- This section discusses the results from the analysis of the real individual wages data after estimating the proposed multivariate income distribution model using a Bayesian approach. The univariate income distribution is usually modeled using Dagum or Singh-Maddala distributions [@Kleiber1996]. In this example, the marginal income distribution is modeled using empirical distribution function, for simplicity. It is straightforward to extend the MCMC sampling scheme in Section \[S: estimation and algorithms\] to estimate both marginal and joint parameters as in [@Pitt2006] and [@Smith2012]. First, we present the model selection results and the estimated parameters of the copula models. To select the best copula model, we use the $DIC_{3}$ criterion of [@Celeux:2006] and the cross-validated log predictive score (LPDS) [@Good:1952; @Geisser1980]. The $DIC_{3}$ criterion is defined as $$DIC_{3}:=-4\E_{\theta}\left(\log p\left(\boldsymbol{y}\|\theta\right)\|\boldsymbol{y}\right)+2\log\widehat{p}\left(\boldsymbol{y}\right),$$ where $\widehat{p}\left(\boldsymbol{y}\right)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}\widehat{p}\left(y_{i}\right)$. We next define the $B$-fold cross-validated LPDS. Suppose that the dataset $\D$ is split into roughly $B$ equal parts $\D_{1},...,\D_{B}$. Then, the $B-$fold cross validated LPDS is defined as $$LPDS\left(\widehat{p}\right):=\sum_{j=1}^{B}\sum_{y_{j}\in\D_{j}}\log\widehat{p}\left(\mathbf{y}_{j}\|\D\setminus\D_{j}\right)$$ In our work we take $B = 5 $. Table \[tab:Model-Selection-\] shows that the best model, according to both criteria, is the mixture of Gaussian, Clayton, and Gumbel copulas. We estimate the best model with an initial burnin period of 10000 sweeps and a Monte Carlo sample of 10000 iterates. Next, we use the iterates from the best model to estimate transition probabilities from 0 to positive wages and from positive wages to zero, Spearman’s correlation coefficient, and the mobility and poverty measures, by averaging over the posterior distribution of the parameters. Table \[tab:Some-Estimated-Parameters copula\] shows some of the estimated parameters and corresponding 95% credible intervals for the chosen copula mixture model. The parameters and their 95% credible intervals are quite tight, indicating that the parameters are well estimated. It is clear that there are significant differences in the estimated parameters by taking into account the point mass at zero wages compared to the parameters estimated by not taking into account this point mass. The estimated mixture weight parameters show that the Gaussian copula has the highest weight, followed by the Clayton and Gumbel copulas. As the weight of the Clayton copula is higher than of the Gumbel copula, it implies that there are more people with lower tail dependence than upper tail dependence. This may coincide with a relatively higher degree of income mobility amongst high income earners. Model $DIC_{3}$ LPDS-CV ------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- Clayton $-1.21\times10^{4}$ $6.03\times10^{3}$ Gumbel $-1.75\times10^{4}$ $4.95\times10^{3}$ Gaussian $-2.13\times10^{4}$ $4.29\times10^{4}$ Mixture (Gaussian, Clayton) $-2.86\times10^{4}$ $5.63\times10^{4}$ Mixture (Gaussian, Gumbel) $-2.83\times10^{4}$ $5.54\times10^{4}$ Mixture (Clayton, Gumbel) $-1.68\times10^{4}$ $3.31\times10^{4}$ Mixture (Gaussian, Clayton, Gumbel) $-2.89\times10^{4\star}$ $5.68\times10^{4\star}$ : Model Selection of the copula to model 13 years of income distribution with point mass at zero incomes \[tab:Model-Selection-\] Parameters --------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- $\theta_{Cl}$ $\underset{\left(0.12,0.18\right)}{0.15}$ $\underset{\left(0.29,0.37\right)}{0.33}$ $\theta_{Gu}$ $\underset{\left(1.84,2.06\right)}{1.94}$ $\underset{\left(2.23,2.45\right)}{2.33}$ $w_{1}$ $\underset{\left(0.64,0.69\right)}{0.66}$ $\underset{\left(0.60,0.65\right)}{0.62}$ $w_{2}$ $\underset{\left(0.19,0.24\right)}{0.21}$ $\underset{\left(0.21,0.26\right)}{0.23}$ : Some of the estimated parameters of the mixture of the Gaussian, Gumbel and Clayton copulas to model 13 years of income distributions. The 95% credible intervals are in brackets \[tab:Some-Estimated-Parameters copula\] Tables \[tab:Transition-Probability aug-2\] and \[tab:Transition-Probability aug-1-1\] in Appendix \[app: extra empirical results\] present the estimates of the transition probabilities from 0 to positive wages and from positive to 0 wages. The estimates of the transition probabilities seem to be close to their sample (non-parametric) counterparts. The estimates of transition probabilities from 0 to positive wages are similar (0.39-0.49) in the period from 2001-2006. Similarly, the estimates are similar in the period 2008-2013 (0.34-0.38). However, there are higher estimates for the period 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 (0.83 and 0.87, respectively). Similar results are observed for the transition probabilities from positive to zero wages. The estimates of the transition probabilities are roughly the same between the periods 2001-2006 and 2008-2013. There are higher estimates for the period 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. This phenomenon may indicate that there is very high income mobility between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Note that the model that does not take into account the point masses at zero cannot give us the estimate of transition probabilities. Tables \[tab:Spearman-Rho-Dependence\] and \[tab:Shorrocks-(1978a)-Mobility-1\] show the estimate of Spearman’s rho dependence and [@Shorrocks1978a] mobility measure. We can see from these two measures that there are very high values of the mobility measure and very low values of Spearman’s rho dependence measure between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. This confirms our previous analysis that in the period 2006-2008 there is very high mobility between income earners. Table \[tab:Foster’s-Chronic-Poverty\] shows the estimates of Foster’s chronic poverty measures: duration adjusted headcount ratio and duration adjusted poverty gap. The two measures indicate that the chronic poverty is significantly lower in the 2007-2013 period compared to the 2001-2006 period. The standard of living in Australia is higher in the period 2007-2013 compared to the period 2001-2006. Furthermore, we can see that the estimates of Spearman’s rho dependence, mobility, and chronic measures are different between the estimates that take into account the point masses and the estimates that do not take into account the point masses at zero wages. Figure \[fig:Headcount-Posterior-Density\] shows the posterior densities of duration adjusted headcount ratio for the years 2007-2013 for the two estimates. The figure shows that the posterior densities almost do not overlap, indicating that the two estimates are significantly different. Therefore, whenever the point masses are present, it is strongly recommended to incorporate them into the model to guard against biased estimates. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Period ----------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- 2001-2002 $\underset{\left(0.684,0.722\right)}{0.703}$ $\underset{\left(0.723,0.757\right)}{0.740} $ 2002-2003 $\underset{\left(0.700,0.737\right)}{0.719}$ $\underset{\left(0.726,0.759\right)}{0.743 }$ 2003-2004 $\underset{\left(0.702,0.739\right)}{0.721}$ $\underset{\left(0.727,0.759\right)}{0.743} $ 2004-2005 $\underset{\left(0.7040,0.741\right)}{0.723}$ $\underset{\left(0.730,0.763\right)}{0.747} $ 2005-2006 $\underset{\left(0.708,0.745\right)}{0.727}$ $\underset{\left(0.733,0.766\right)}{0.750} $ 2006-2007 $\underset{\left(-0.028,0.068\right)}{0.020}$ $\underset{\left(-0.020,0.086\right)}{0.030}$ 2007-2008 $\underset{\left(-0.023,0.073\right)}{0.025}$ $\underset{\left(-0.013,0.093\right)}{0.037}$ 2008-2009 $\underset{\left(0.706,0.744\right)}{0.725}$ $\underset{\left(0.733,0.766\right)}{0.7500}$ 2009-2010 $\underset{\left(0.716,0.753\right)}{0.735}$ $\underset{\left(0.741,0.775\right)}{0.758} $ 2010-2011 $\underset{\left(0.720,0.758\right)}{0.740}$ $\underset{\left(0.747,0.781\right)}{0.764} $ 2011-2012 $\underset{\left(0.718,0.755\right)}{0.737}$ $\underset{\left(0.745,0.778\right)}{0.762} $ 2012-2013 $\underset{\left(0.714,0.752\right)}{0.733}$ $\underset{\left(0.742,0.776\right)}{0.759} $ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Estimates of the Spearman rho dependence measure of the mixture of the Gaussian, Gumbel and Clayton copulas and 95% credible intervals (in brackets) \[tab:Spearman-Rho-Dependence\] Period Non-Parametric ----------- ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 2001-2002 $\underset{\left(0.367,0.466\right)}{0.414}$ $\underset{\left(0.549,0.588\right)}{0.569}$ $\underset{\left(0.501,0.534\right)}{0.518}$ 2002-2003 $\underset{\left(0.361,0.461\right)}{0.411}$ $\underset{\left(0.508,0.543\right)}{0.526}$ $\underset{\left(0.484,0.516\right)}{0.499}$ 2003-2004 $\underset{\left(0.324,0.409\right)}{0.366}$ $\underset{\left(0.483,0.516\right)}{0.500}$ $\underset{\left(0.463,0.495\right)}{0.479}$ 2004-2005 $\underset{\left(0.341,0.418\right)}{0.380}$ $\underset{\left(0.473,0.506\right)}{0.489}$ $\underset{\left(0.450,0.480\right)}{0.465}$ 2005-2006 $\underset{\left(0.352,0.427\right)}{0.392}$ $\underset{\left(0.468,0.5000\right)}{0.484}$ $\underset{\left(0.444,0.475\right)}{0.459}$ 2006-2007 $\underset{\left(0.974,1.019\right)}{0.996}$ $\underset{\left(0.957,0.980\right)}{0.969}$ $\underset{\left(0.878,0.938\right)}{0.918}$ 2007-2008 $\underset{\left(0.959,1.015\right)}{0.987}$ $\underset{\left(0.921,0.945\right)}{0.933}$ $\underset{\left(0.843,0.906\right)}{0.885}$ 2008-2009 $\underset{\left(0.384,0.441\right)}{0.411}$ $\underset{\left(0.493,0.526\right)}{0.510}$ $\underset{\left(0.465,0.495\right)}{0.480}$ 2009-2010 $\underset{\left(0.350,0.409\right)}{0.380}$ $\underset{\left(0.482,0.516\right)}{0.500}$ $\underset{\left(0.449,0.481\right)}{0.465}$ 2010-2011 $\underset{\left(0.351,0.411\right)}{0.381}$ $\underset{\left(0.463,0.500\right)}{0.481}$ $\underset{\left(0.424,0.456\right)}{0.440}$ 2011-2012 $\underset{\left(0.353,0.405\right)}{0.380}$ $\underset{\left(0.475,0.510\right)}{0.492}$ $\underset{\left(0.437,0.469\right)}{0.453}$ 2012-2013 $\underset{\left(0.339,0.395\right)}{0.365}$ $\underset{\left(0.499,0.536\right)}{0.517}$ $\underset{\left(0.458,0.493\right)}{0.475}$ : Estimates of Shorrocks (1978a) Mobility Measure ($m=5$) of the mixture of the Gaussian, Gumbel and Clayton copulas \[tab:Shorrocks-(1978a)-Mobility-1\] Measure Period Non-Parametric ------------------ ----------- ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- adj. headcount 2001-2006 $\underset{\left(0.193,0.229\right)}{0.211}$ $\underset{\left(0.187,0.197\right)}{0.192}$ $\underset{\left(0.197,0.205\right)}{0.201}$ adj. headcount 2007-2013 $\underset{\left(0.120,0.149\right)}{0.135}$ $\underset{\left(0.123,0.130\right)}{0.126}$ $\underset{\left(0.131,0.138\right)}{0.135}$ adj. poverty gap 2001-2006 $\underset{\left(0.123,0.150\right)}{0.137}$ $\underset{\left(0.130,0.137\right)}{0.134}$ $\underset{\left(0.137,0.144\right)}{0.141}$ adj. poverty gap 2007-2013 $\underset{\left(0.095,0.119\right)}{0.108}$ $\underset{\left(0.101,0.107\right)}{0.104}$ $\underset{\left(0.108,0.114\right)}{0.111}$ ![Estimated headcount posterior densities based on including (left density-blue line) and not including point masses (right density-orange line) at 0 (2007-2013)\[fig:Headcount-Posterior-Density\]](headcount.png){width="15cm" height="10cm"} Conclusion and discussion \[S: conclusion\] =========================================== Our article illustrates the methodology and algorithms by applying them to estimate a multivariate income dynamics model. Examples of further possible applications arise from any setup where one or more of the following variables are present: wages (where there are points of probability mass at the minimum wage) individual sales figures, where there is a at 0 (many individuals deciding not to purchase) and a smooth distribution above that point (corresponding to a continuum of price figures). Another interesting potential application is to extend the general truncated/censored variable models in econometrics to a copula framework, e.g., for multivariate tobit and sample selection models. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== We would like to thank two anonymous referees and the associate editor for suggestions that helped improve the clarity of the paper. The research of David Gunawan and Robert Kohn was partially supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant DP150104630. Difference operator notation\[app\_diference\_operator\] ======================================================== Since the difference operator notation can be easily confusing, it is useful to adopt the convention below. The notation has two components: 1. Whenever the $\bigtriangleup$ operators are applied to a function, an indexing is used to make the domain of the function clear. 2. A dot marks the position of the variables that are being differenced. Here are some examples to illustrate the use of that notation. - Consider a function $g (x)$ where $x$ is a scalar. Then $\bigtriangleup_a^b g_x (\cdot)$ defines $$\bigtriangleup_a^b g_x (\cdot) := g (b) - g (a)$$ - Consider a function $g (x, y)$ where both $x$ and $y$ are scalars. By $\bigtriangleup_a^b g_{x, y} (\cdot, z)$ we mean that the differencing is only applied to $x$ while the second argument is fixed at $y = z$, that is $$\bigtriangleup_a^b g_{x, y} (\cdot, z) := g (b, z) - g (a, z)$$ - Consider a function $g (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ where $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$ is two-dimensional. By $\bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}} g_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}} (\cdot)$, we mean $$\begin{aligned} \bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}} g_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}} (\cdot) & = & \bigtriangleup_{a_1}^{b_1} \bigtriangleup_{a_2}^{b_2} g_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}} (\cdot)\\ & = & \bigtriangleup_{a_1}^{b_1} (g_{x_1, x_2} (\cdot, b_2) - g_{x_1, x_2} (\cdot, a_2))\\ & = & g (b_1, b_2) - g (b_1, a_2) - g (a_1, b_{2 }) + g (a_1, a_2) \end{aligned}$$ - Consider a function $g (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})$. If the differencing is applied to $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}$ and not $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$, and if $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}$ is two-dimensional, then $\bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}} g_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \cdot)$ means $$\begin{aligned} \bigtriangleup_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}} g_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \cdot) & := & \bigtriangleup_{a_1}^{b_1} \bigtriangleup_{a_2}^{b_2} g_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \cdot)\\ & = & \bigtriangleup_{a_1}^{b_1} (g_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, y_1, y_2} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \cdot, b_2) - g_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, y_1, y_2} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \cdot, b_2))\\ & = & g (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, b_1, b_2) - g (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, a_1, b_2) - g (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, a_2, b_1) + g (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, a_1, a_2) \end{aligned}$$ Deriving the likelihood and the conditional density\[app\_integration\] ======================================================================= This appendix deals with densities defined with respect to mixed measures. Such densities are formally defined by Radon-Nikodym derivatives. In particular, we obtain the joint density of $\bsX$ and $\bsU$ and the corresponding mixed measure. We then show how to obtain the closed-form formulas for the densities and , and their corresponding mixed measures, from the density . We need the following three elementary lemmas to obtain the results. They are likely to be known in the literature, but we include their proofs for completeness. \[L: deriv F\] Let $F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})$ be the distribution function of an absolutely continuous random vector $(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}', \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{Y}}')'$ where $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}} \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^k$ and $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}} \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^p$. Then, $$\frac{\partial^k F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})}{\partial x_1 \cdots \partial x_k} = F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}),$$ where $F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ and $f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ are respectively the distribution function of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{Y}}$ conditional on $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}=\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$ and the density of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$. Similarly, in an obvious notation, $$\frac{\partial^p F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})}{\partial y_1 \cdots \partial y_p} = F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}) f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}).$$ The identity comes from $$\frac{\partial^p}{\partial y_1 \cdots \partial y_p} F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) = f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}) = \frac{f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})}{f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} = \frac{\frac{\partial^{p + k} F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})^{}}{\partial y_1 \cdots \partial y_p \partial x_1 \cdots \partial x_k}}{f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} = \frac{\partial^p}{\partial y_1 \cdots \partial y_p} \left( \frac{\frac{\partial^k F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})^{}}{\partial x_1 \cdots \partial x_k}}{f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})} \right) .$$ The next lemma is an immediate consequence of the previous lemma. \[L: lemma F 2 \] Let $f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})$ be the density of an absolutely continuous random vector $(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}', \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{Y}}')'$ where $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}} \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^k$ and $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}} \in {\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}R}}^p$ then $$\int_{a_1}^{b_1} \cdots \int_{a_k}^{b_k} f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}) \mathrm{d} x_1 \ldots \mathrm{d} x_k = \bigtriangleup_{a_1}^{b_1} \cdots \bigtriangleup_{a_k}^{b_k} F_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{Y}}\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}} (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}\|.) f_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}} (.)$$ where $F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ and $f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}})$ are respectively the conditional distribution function of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{Y}}$ on $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}=\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}$ and the density of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{X}}$. Write the density function $$\begin{aligned} f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}) & = & \frac{\partial^{p + k} F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})^{}}{\partial y_1 \cdots \partial y_p \partial x_1 \cdots \partial x_k}\\ & = & \frac{\partial^k}{\partial x_1 \cdots \partial x_k} \left( \frac{\partial^p F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})^{}}{\partial y_1 \cdots \partial y_p} \right)\\ & = & \frac{\partial^k}{\partial x_1 \cdots \partial x_k} (F (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}\|\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}) f (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}})) \end{aligned}$$ where the last line follows from the previous lemma. The desired result follows by an application of the fundamental theorem of calculus. \[L: elementary\] Suppose that $U$ is uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$. 1. Suppose that $X$ is a univariate random variable with CDF $F(x)$ that has an inverse and a density $f(x)$. Then, $\mrd u \delta_{F^{-1}(u)} (\mrd x) = \delta_{F(x)}(\mrd u) f(x) \mrd x $, where $\mrd u, \mrd x$ are Lebesgue measures. 2. Suppose that $X$ is a discrete univariate random variable with support on the discrete set $I=\{x\}$. Then, $\mrd u \delta_{\{F(x^-) \leq u < F(x)\} }(\mrd x) = {\cal{I}} \{u: F(x^-) \leq u < F(x)\} \mrd u \delta_I(\mrd x)$ The proofs of parts (i) and (ii) are in Section \[proof: proof of lemma 3\]. Suppose that the indices $\M_\C$ correspond to the continuous random variables, the indices $\M_\D $ to the discrete random variables and the indices $\M_\J $ to a mixture of discrete and continuous random variables. We define the joint density of $\bsX$ and $\bsU$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: full density x and u} f({\bm{x}},{\bm{u}}) & := c({\bm{u}}) \prod_{j \in \M_\C } {\cal{I}}(u_j = F_j(x_j))\prod_{j \in \M_\D }{\cal{I}}( F_j(x_j^-) \leq u_j < F_j(x_j) )\times \nonumber\\ & \prod_{j \in \M_\J} \big ( {\cal{I}}(u_j = F_j(x_j)) + {\cal{I}}( F_j(x_j^-) \leq u_j < F_j(x_j) ) \big)\end{aligned}$$ with respect to the measure $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: full measure x and u} & \mrd {\bm{u}}\prod_{j \in \M_\C } \delta_{F_j^{-1}(u_j)}(\mrd x_j) \prod_{j \in \M_\D} \delta_{F_j(x_j^-) \leq u_j < F_j(x_j)}(\mrd x_j) \times \nonumber \\ & \prod_{j \in \M_\J} \big ( {\cal I }(u_j = F_j(x_j)) \mrd x_j + {\cal{I}}( F_j(x_j^-) \leq u_j < F_j(x_j) )\delta_{F_j(x_j^-) \leq u_j < F_j(x_j)}(\mrd x_j) \big ) \end{aligned}$$ \[L: mixed density in x and u\] 1. Equation gives the joint density of $\bsX$ and $\bsU$ at a given value $\bsX = \bsx$ and $\bsU = \bsu$. 2. Equation is the marginal density of $\bsX$ at $\bsX = \bsx$. 3. Equation is the conditional density of $\bsU_{\D(\bsx)}$ given $\bsX = \bsx$. Part (i) follows directly from and . Part (ii) follows by integrating out $\bsu$ using Lemma \[L: lemma F 2 \]. Part (iii) follows from Lemma \[L: elementary\]. Density, Conditional Distribution Function, and MCMC Sampling Methods for the Gaussian, Gumbel, and Clayton Copulas \[app\_sampling\_schemes\] ============================================================================================================================================== Gaussian copula --------------- The Gaussian copula distribution and density function are given by [@Song2000] as $ C\left(u_{1},u_{2},...,u_{m};\Gamma\right)=\Phi_{m}\left(y_{1}^{},y_{2}^{},...,y_{m}^{};\Gamma\right) $ and $$\begin{aligned} c\left(u_{1},u_{2},...,u_{m};\Gamma\right) & = \|\Gamma\|^{-1/2}\exp\left\{ -\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{y}^{'}\left(\Gamma^{-1}-I\right)\mathbf{y}^{}\right\}, \label{eq:gaussian copula density}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{y}^{}=\left(y_{1}^{},y_{2}^{},...,y_{m}^{}\right)^{'}$ and $y_{j}^{}=\Phi^{-1}\left(F_{j}\left(y_{j};\boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}\right)\right)$ is the transformed Gaussian copula data; $\Phi_{m}\left(\right)$ is the distribution function of the standard $m$- dimensional multivariate Gaussian distribution $N\left(\mathbf{0},\Gamma\right)$ and $\Gamma$ is a correlation matrix. The correlation matrix $\Gamma$ captures the dependence among random variables $\mathbf{y}^{}=\left(y_{1}^{},y_{2}^{},...,y_{m}^{}\right)^{'}$. There are $m\left(m-1\right)/2$ unknown parameters in the correlation matrix $\Gamma$. We can generate a random sample from the Gaussian copula as follows, - Generate $z_{1},...,z_{m}$ from $N\left(0,\Gamma\right)$ - Compute a vector $\mathbf{u}=\left(\Phi\left(z_{1}\right),...,\Phi\left(z_{m}\right)\right)^{'}$ - Compute $\mathbf{x}=\left(F_{1}^{-1}\left(u_{1}\right),...,F_{T}^{-1}\left(u_{m}\right)\right)^{'}$ Clayton and Gumbel copulas {#SS: Clayton and Gumbel copulas} -------------------------- The material in this section is covered in more detail in [@Hofert2012] and [@Cherubini2004]. We consider a strict generator function $$\psi\left(u\right):\left[0,1\right]\rightarrow\left[0,\infty\right]$$ which is continuous and strictly decreasing, with $\psi^{-1}$ completely monotonic on $\left[0,\infty\right]$. Then, the class of Archimedean copulas consists of copulas of the form [@Cherubini2004] $$C\left(\mathbf{u}\right)=C\left(u_{1},...,u_{m}\right)=\psi^{-1}\left(\psi\left(u_{1}\right)+...+\psi\left(u_{m}\right)\right).$$ A function $\psi$ on $\left[0,\infty\right]$ is the Laplace transform of a CDF $F$ if and only if $\psi$ is a completely monotonic and $\psi\left(0\right)=1$ and $\psi\left(\infty\right)=0$. Applying Bayesian methodology requires an efficient strategy to evaluate the density or the log-density of the parametric Archimedean copula family to be estimated. Although the density of an Archimedean copula has an explicit form in theory, it is often difficult to compute since computing the required derivatives is known to be extremely challenging, especially in high dimensional applications. [@Hofert2012] gives explicit formulae for the generator derivatives of the Archimedean family in any dimension. They also give an explicit formula for the density of some well-known Archimedean copulas, such as Ali-Mikhail-Haq, Clayton, Frank, Gumbel, and Joe copulas. The generator for the Clayton copula is $\psi\left(u\right)=u^{-\theta}-1$ with $\psi^{-1}\left(t\right)=\left(1+t\right)^{-\frac{1}{\theta}}$. The CDF of the Clayton $m$-copula is $$C\left(\mathbf{u}\right)=\left[\sum_{i=1}^{m}u_{i}^{-\theta}-m+1\right]^{-\frac{1}{\theta}},\theta>0 .$$ The dependence parameter $\theta$ is defined on the interval $\left(0,\infty\right)$. The Clayton copula favors data which exhibits strong lower tail dependence and weak upper tail dependence and thus is an appropriate choice of model if the data exhibits strong correlation at lower values and weak correlation at higher values. The density of the Clayton $m$-copula is $$c\left(\mathbf{u}\right)=\prod_{k=0}^{m-1}\left(\theta k+1\right)\left(\prod_{j=1}^{m}u_{j}\right)^{-\left(1+\theta\right)}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}u_{i}^{-\theta}-m+1\right)^{-\left(m+\frac{1}{\theta}\right)}.$$ The generator of the Gumbel copula is $\psi\left(u\right)=\left(-\log\left(u\right)\right)^{\theta}$ with $\psi^{-1}\left(t\right)=\exp\left(-t^{\frac{1}{\theta}}\right)$. The Gumbel $m$-copula CDF is $$C\left(\mathbf{u}\right)=\exp\left\{ -\left[\sum_{i=1}^{m}\left(-\log\left(u_{i}\right)\right)^{\theta}\right]^{\frac{1}{\theta}}\right\}.$$ The dependence parameter $\theta$ is defined on the $\left[1,\infty\right)$ interval, where a value 1 represents the independence case. The Gumbel copula is an appropriate choice of model if the data exhibit weak correlation at lower values and strong correlation at the higher values. The density of the Gumbel $m$-copula is $$\begin{aligned} c \left( \mathbf{u} \right) = \theta^m \exp \left\{ - \left[ \sum_{i = 1}^m (- \log (u_i))^{\theta} \right]^{\frac{1}{\theta}} \right\} \times & \frac{\prod_{j = 1}^m (- \log u_j)^{\theta - 1}}{\left( \sum_{j = 1}^m (- \log (u_j))^{\theta} \right)^m \prod_{j = 1}^m u_j} \\ & \times P_{d, \theta}^G \left( \left[ \sum_{j = 1}^m (- \log (u_j))^{\theta} \right]^{\frac{1}{\theta}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where, $$P_{m,\theta}^{G}\left(x\right)=\sum_{k=1}^{m}a_{mk}^{G}\left(\theta\right)x^{k},$$ and $$a_{mk}^{G}\left(\theta\right)=\frac{m!}{k!}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\left(\begin{array}{c} k\\ j \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c} j/\theta\\ m \end{array}\right)\left(-1\right)^{m-j}.$$ [@Marshall1988] proposed the following algorithm for sampling a $m$-dimensional exchangeable Archimedean copula with generator $\psi$. - Sample $V\sim F=LS^{-1}\left(\psi^{-1}\right)$, where $LS^{-1}$ denotes the inverse Laplace-Stieljes transform of $\psi^{-1}$. - For the Clayton copula, $F=\varGamma\left(1/\theta,1\right)$, where $\varGamma\left(c,d\right)$ denotes the Gamma distribution with shape parameter $c\in\left(0,\infty\right)$, scale parameter $d\in\left(0,\infty\right)$ - - Sample iid $X_{j}\sim U\left[0,1\right]$ for $j=1,...,m$ - Set $U_{j}=\psi\left(\frac{-\log\left(X_{j}\right)}{V}\right)$, for $t=1,...,T$ Conditional posterior of the Gaussian Copula Parameters ------------------------------------------------------- At each iteration of the MCMC sampling scheme, the correlation matrix $\Gamma$ of the Gaussian copula is generated conditional on the transformed Gaussian copula variables $\mathbf{y}^{}=\left\{ y_{ij}^{};i=1,...,n;\;j=1,...,m\right\} $. [@Danaher2011] proposed the following representation of $\Gamma$, $$\Gamma:={\rm diag}\left(\Sigma\right)^{-1/2}\;\Sigma\;\rm{diag}\left(\Sigma\right)^{-1/2},$$ where $\Sigma$ is a non-unique positive definite matrix and ${\rm diag}(\Sigma)$ is a diagonal matrix comprising the leading diagonal of $\Sigma$. The matrix $\Sigma$ is further decomposed into $\Sigma=R^{'}R$, with $R$ an upper triangular Cholesky factor. If we set the leading diagonal of $R$ to ones, this leaves $m\left(m-1\right)/2$ unknown elements of $R$, matching the number of unknown elements of $\Gamma$, thus identifying the representation. The upper triangular elements of $R$ are unconstrained. The transformation described above ensures that the correlation matrix $\Gamma$ remains a positive definite matrix, regardless of the values of $R$. The following steps generate each element of $R$: 1. Generate the $r_{j^{}j}$ element of the matrix $R$ using a random-walk Metropolis step for $j^{}=1,...,m$ and $j=2,...,m$ with $j^{}<j$. 2. Compute $\Sigma=R^{'}R$ 3. Compute the correlation matrix $\Gamma= {\rm diag} \left(\Sigma\right)^{-1/2}\Sigma {\rm diag} \left(\Sigma\right)^{-1/2}$ To explain step 1 in more detail, the conditional posterior $r_{j^{}j}\|\left\{ R\setminus r_{j^{}j}\right\} ,\mathrm{\mathbf{y}}^{},\mathbf{y}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} p\left(r_{j^{}j}\|\left\{ R\setminus r_{j^{}j}\right\} ,\mathrm{\mathbf{y}}^{},\mathbf{y}\right) & \propto & p\left(\mathrm{\mathbf{y}}\|\mathbf{y}^{}\right)p\left(\mathbf{y}^{}\|R\right)p\left(r_{j^{}j}\right)\\ & \propto & \prod_{i=1}^{n}\|\Gamma\|^{-\frac{n}{2}}\exp\left\{ -\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{y}_{i}^{'}\left(\Gamma^{-1}-I\right)\mathbf{y}_{i}^{}\right\} p\left(r_{j^{}j}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $p\left(r_{j^{}j}\right)\propto1$ for all elements of $R$. Here, $\left\{ A\setminus B\right\} $ means $A$ with the parameters $B$ omitted. First, we generate a new proposal value, $r_{j^{}j}^{}$, from a candidate density $N\left(r_{j^{}j},\sigma\right)$, where $r_{j^{}j}$ is the previous iterate value and $\sigma$ is the pre-specified standard deviation of a normal distribution specified to obtain a reasonable acceptance rate of 0.3-0.4. The new value $r_{j^{}j}^{}$ is accepted with probability $$\alpha=\min\left\{ 1,\frac{p\left(r_{j^{}j}^{}\|\left\{ R\setminus r_{j^{}j}\right\} ,\mathrm{\mathbf{y}}^{},\mathbf{y}\right)}{p\left(r_{j^{}j}\|\left\{ R\setminus r_{j^{}j}\right\} ,\mathrm{\mathbf{y}}^{},\mathbf{y}\right)}\right\}.$$ We draw a random variable $u$ from $U\left(0,1\right)$; if $u<\alpha$, then the new value of $r_{j^{}j}$ is accepted, otherwise the old value of $r_{j^{}j}$ is retained. This algorithm is used to generate all of the upper triangular elements of $R$, one at a time. Generation of the latent variables {#SS: latent marginals} ---------------------------------- The following algorithm can be used to generate the latent variables one margin at a time. - In the income application, the point mass occurs at zero wages. - For $j=1,...,m$ - for $i=1,...,n$ - if $y_{ij}=0$ - Compute $A_{ij}=C_{j\|\left\{ 1,...,m\right\} \setminus j a}\left(b_{i,j}\|\left\{ u_{i1},...,u_{ij}\right\} \setminus u_{ij},\phi\right)$, then generate $w_{ij}\sim Uniform\left(0,A_{ij}\right)$ - Compute $u_{ij}=C_{j\|\left\{ 1,...,m\right\} \setminus j}^{-1}\left(w_{ij}\|\left\{ u_{i1},...,u_{im}\right\} \setminus u_{ij},\phi\right)$ A trivariate example\[S: trivariate example\] ============================================= This appendix uses a three dimensional example to illustrate the methods as some of the more complicated aspects of the methods may not be apparent in the two dimensional Example \[ex: example 1\] discussed in Section \[S: likelihood definition\]. For brevity, the derivation is less detailed than that for Example \[ex: example 1\]. Let $X_1$ have a distribution that is a mixture of two points of probability mass at zero and one and a normal distribution, that is let $X_1$ has the distribution function $$F_1 (x_1) = (1 - \pi_1 - \pi_2) \Phi (x_1) + \pi_1 \mathcal{I} (x_1 \geqslant 0) + \pi_2 \mathcal{I} (x_1 \geqslant 1),$$ where $\Phi$ is the distribution function of a standard normal random variable. Let $X_2$ be a standard normal with a point of probability mass at $0$ and with distribution function $$F_2 (x_2) = (1 - \pi) \Phi (x) + \pi \mathcal{I} (x_2 \geqslant 0) .$$ Finally, let $X_3$ be a binary random variable. This results in the following $$\mathcal{C} (x_1, x_2, x_3) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \{ 1, 2 \} & \mathrm{if} & x_1 \not\in \{ 0, 1 \} \quad \mathrm{ and }\quad x_2 \not\in \{ 0 \}\\ \{ 1 \} & & x_1 \not\in \{ 0, 1 \} \quad \mathrm{ and }\quad x_2 \in \{ 0 \}\\ \{ 2 \} & & x_1 \in \{ 0, 1 \} \quad \mathrm{ and }\quad x_2 \not\in \{ 0 \}\\ \varnothing & & x_1 \in \{ 0, 1 \} \quad \mathrm{ and } \quad x_2 \in \{ 0 \} \end{array} \right.$$ and $\mathcal{D} (x_1, x_2, x_3) = \{ 1, 2, 3 \} \backslash \mathcal{C} (x_1, x_2, x_3)$. Notice that $\{ 3 \} \subset \mathcal{D} (x_1, x_2, x_3)$ always holds in this example. The marginal density of $\mathbf{X}$ (Eq. \[likelihood\] in the paper) is 1. Case 1: $\mathcal{C} (x_1, x_2, x_3) = \{ 1, 2 \}$. $$\begin{aligned} f (\mathbf{x}) & = & c_{\{ 1, 2 \}} (\mathbf{b}_{\{ 1, 2 \}}) f_1 (x_1) f_2 (x_2) \bigtriangleup_{a_3}^{b_3} C_{3\|1, 2} (\cdot\|\mathbf{b}_{\{ 1, 2 \}})\\ & = & c_{\{ 1, 2 \}} (\mathbf{b}_{\{ 1, 2 \}}) f_1 (x_1) f_2 (x_2) (C_{3\|1, 2} (b_3 \|\mathbf{b}_{\{ 1, 2 \}}) - C_{3\|1, 2} (a_3 \|\mathbf{b}_{\{ 1, 2 \}})) \end{aligned}$$ 2. Case 2: $\mathcal{C} (x_1, x_2, x_3) = \{ 1 \}$ $$\begin{aligned} f (\mathbf{x}) & = & c_1 (b_1) f_1 (x_1) \bigtriangleup^{\mathbf{b}_{\{ 2, 3 \}}}_{\mathbf{a}_{\{ 2, 3 \}}} C_{2, 3\|1} (\cdot\|b_1)\\ & = & f_1 (x_1) \times\\ & & [C_{2, 3\|1} (b_2, b_3 \|b_1) - C_{2, 3\|1} (b_2, a_3 \|b_1) - C_{2, 3\|1} (a_2, b_3 \|b_1) + C_{2, 3\|1} (a_2, a_3 \|b_1)] \end{aligned}$$ where the second line follows from $c_1 (b_1) = 1$ (as all one-dimensional marginals are uniform). 3. Case 3: $\mathcal{C} (x_1, x_2, x_3) = \{ 2 \}$ $$\begin{aligned} f (\mathbf{x}) & = & c_2 (b_2) f_2 (x_2) \bigtriangleup^{\mathbf{b}_{\{ 1, 3 \}}}_{\mathbf{a}_{\{ 1, 3 \}}} C_{1, 3\|2} (\cdot\|b_2)\\ & = & f_2 (x_2) \times\\ & & [C_{1, 3\|2} (b_1, b_3 \|b_2) - C_{1, 3\|2} (b_1, a_3 \|b_2) - C_{1, 3\|2} (a_1, b_3 \|b_2) + C_{1, 3\|2} (a_1, a_3 \|b_2)] \end{aligned}$$ 4. Case 4: $\mathcal{C} (x_1, x_2, x_3) = \varnothing$. $$\begin{aligned} f (\mathbf{x}) & = C (b_1, b_2, b_3) - C (a_1, b_2, b_3) - C (b_1, a_2, b_3) - C (b_1, b_2, a_3)\\ & + C (a_1, a_2, b_3) + C (a_1, b_2, a_3) + C (b_1, a_2, a_3) - C (a_1, a_2, a_3) \end{aligned}$$ In all the above, $b_j = F_j (x_j)$ and $a_j = F_j (x_j^-)$. Proof of Lemma 3\[proof: proof of lemma 3\] =========================================== - Suppose that $X$ is a univariate absolutely continuous random variable. Then the cumulative distribution function of $X$ is a strictly increasing $F$ and $U = F (X)$ will be uniformly distributed on the unit interval. The measure induced by $(X, U)$ is denoted by $\delta_{F (x)} ({\mathrm{d}}u) f (x) {\mathrm{d}}x$ Let $h(x,u)$ be an integrable function of $x$ and $u$. Then, it is straightforward to check that $$\begin{aligned} \int \int h(x,u) f(x)\delta_{F (x)} ({\mathrm{d}}u) {\mathrm{d}}x & = \int h(x, F(x) ) {\mathrm{d}}x = \int \int h(x,u) {\mathrm{d}}u \delta_{F^{-1} (u)} ({\mathrm{d}}x) \end{aligned}$$ - The proof follows from the basic properties of a double integral because we can swap the order of integration. More formally, the proof follows from Theorem 3.1 (4) p.111 of [@shorack2000probability]. Some extra empirical results {#app: extra empirical results} ============================ This appendix includes additional plots for the analysis of the income dynamics data. Transition ------------ ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Non-Parametric Copula Non-Parametric Copula 2001-2002 $\underset{\left(0.388,0.531\right)}{0.465}$ $\underset{\left(0.477,0.507\right)}{0.492}$ $\underset{\left(0.031,0.050\right)}{0.040}$ $\underset{\left(0.042,0.046\right)}{0.044}$ 2002-2003 $\underset{\left(0.290,0.434\right)}{0.361}$ $\underset{\left(0.391,0.423\right)}{0.407}$ $\underset{\left(0.035,0.055\right)}{0.045}$ $\underset{\left(0.048,0.052\right)}{0.050}$ 2003-2004 $\underset{\left(0.234,0.379\right)}{0.313}$ $\underset{\left(0.383,0.414\right)}{0.398}$ $\underset{\left(0.032,0.053\right)}{0.043}$ $\underset{\left(0.051,0.054\right)}{0.053}$ 2004-2005 $\underset{\left(0.245,0.391\right)}{0.316}$ $\underset{\left(0.389,0.419\right)}{0.404}$ $\underset{\left(0.031,0.049\right)}{0.041}$ $\underset{\left(0.049,0.053\right)}{0.051}$ 2005-2006 $\underset{\left(0.216,0.341\right)}{0.280}$ $\underset{\left(0.372,0.402\right)}{0.387}$ $\underset{\left(0.030,0.051\right)}{0.040}$ $\underset{\left(0.052,0.055\right)}{0.053}$ 2006-2007 $\underset{\left(0.842,0.930\right)}{0.886}$ $\underset{\left(0.811,0.845\right)}{0.828}$ $\underset{\left(0.130,0.163\right)}{0.148}$ $\underset{\left(0.138,0.142\right)}{0.140}$ 2007-2008 $\underset{\left(0.866,0.936\right)}{0.900}$ $\underset{\left(0.854,0.880\right)}{0.868}$ $\underset{\left(0.094,0.126\right)}{0.111}$ $\underset{\left(0.103,0.107\right)}{0.106}$ 2008-2009 $\underset{\left(0.220,0.346\right)}{0.283}$ $\underset{\left(0.340,0.372\right)}{0.356}$ $\underset{\left(0.043,0.065\right)}{0.054}$ $\underset{\left(0.061,0.065\right)}{0.063}$ 2009-2010 $\underset{\left(0.210,0.322\right)}{0.267}$ $\underset{\left(0.329,0.360\right)}{0.344}$ $\underset{\left(0.040,0.062\right)}{0.051}$ $\underset{\left(0.060,0.065\right)}{0.062}$ 2010-2011 $\underset{\left(0.262,0.380\right)}{0.321}$ $\underset{\left(0.361,0.390\right)}{0.375}$ $\underset{\left(0.032,0.053\right)}{0.043}$ $\underset{\left(0.050,0.054\right)}{0.052}$ 2011-2012 $\underset{\left(0.230,0.356\right)}{0.294}$ $\underset{\left(0.367,0.3967\right)}{0.381}$ $\underset{\left(0.028,0.048\right)}{0.038}$ $\underset{\left(0.049,0.054\right)}{0.051}$ 2012-2013 $\underset{\left(0.187,0.307\right)}{0.247}$ $\underset{\left(0.338,0.370\right)}{0.354}$ $\underset{\left(0.034,0.055\right)}{0.045}$ $\underset{\left(0.058,0.063\right)}{0.061}$ : Estimates of transition probabilities estimates of the mixture of the Gaussian, Gumbel and Clayton copulas taking into account the point masses at zero incomes and 95% credible intervals (in brackets) \[tab:Transition-Probability aug-2\] Transition ------------ ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Non-Parametric Copula Non-Parametric Copula 2001-2002 $\underset{\left(0.469,0.612\right)}{0.535}$ $\underset{\left(0.493,0.523\right)}{0.508}$ $\underset{\left(0.950,0.970\right)}{0.960}$ $\underset{\left(0.955,0.958\right)}{0.956}$ 2002-2003 $\underset{\left(0.566,0.710\right)}{0.639}$ $\underset{\left(0.577,0.608\right)}{0.593}$ $\underset{\left(0.945,0.965\right)}{0.955}$ $\underset{\left(0.948,0.952\right)}{0.950}$ 2003-2004 $\underset{\left(0.623,0.766\right)}{0.687}$ $\underset{\left(0.587,0.617\right)}{0.602}$ $\underset{\left(0.948,0.968\right)}{0.957}$ $\underset{\left(0.946,0.949\right)}{0.948}$ 2004-2005 $\underset{\left(0.610,0.755\right)}{0.684}$ $\underset{\left(0.581,0.612\right)}{0.597}$ $\underset{\left(0.951,0.970\right)}{0.960}$ $\underset{\left(0.947,0.951\right)}{0.949}$ 2005-2006 $\underset{\left(0.659,0.784\right)}{0.720}$ $\underset{\left(0.598,0.628\right)}{0.613}$ $\underset{\left(0.950,0.970\right)}{0.960}$ $\underset{\left(0.945,0.949\right)}{0.947}$ 2006-2007 $\underset{\left(0.070,0.158\right)}{0.114}$ $\underset{\left(0.155,0.189\right)}{0.172}$ $\underset{\left(0.837,0.871\right)}{0.852}$ $\underset{\left(0.857,0.862\right)}{0.860}$ 2007-2008 $\underset{\left(0.064,0.134\right)}{0.010}$ $\underset{\left(0.120,0.146\right)}{0.133}$ $\underset{\left(0.874,0.906\right)}{0.889}$ $\underset{\left(0.892,0.897\right)}{0.894}$ 2008-2009 $\underset{\left(0.654,0.780\right)}{0.717}$ $\underset{\left(0.628,0.660\right)}{0.644}$ $\underset{\left(0.935,0.957\right)}{0.946}$ $\underset{\left(0.935,0.939\right)}{0.937}$ 2009-2010 $\underset{\left(0.678,0.791\right)}{0.733}$ $\underset{\left(0.640,0.671\right)}{0.656}$ $\underset{\left(0.938,0.960\right)}{0.949}$ $\underset{\left(0.935,0.940\right)}{0.938}$ 2010-2011 $\underset{\left(0.620,0.738\right)}{0.679}$ $\underset{\left(0.610,0.639\right)}{0.625}$ $\underset{\left(0.947,0.968\right)}{0.957}$ $\underset{\left(0.946,0.950\right)}{0.948}$ 2011-2012 $\underset{\left(0.644,0.770\right)}{0.706}$ $\underset{\left(0.604,0.633\right)}{0.619}$ $\underset{\left(0.952,0.972\right)}{0.962}$ $\underset{\left(0.946,0.951\right)}{0.949}$ 2012-2013 $\underset{\left(0.693,0.813\right)}{0.753}$ $\underset{\left(0.631,0.662\right)}{0.646}$ $\underset{\left(0.945,0.966\right)}{0.955}$ $\underset{\left(0.937,0.942\right)}{0.939}$ : Estimates of transition probabilities estimates of the mixture of the Gaussian, Gumbel and Clayton copulas taking into account the point masses at zero incomes and 95% credible intervals (in brackets) \[tab:Transition-Probability aug-1-1\] ![Histogram of real individual wages (\$) for Australia in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 respectively from left to right\[fig:Histogram-of-real\]](incomehist1.png){width="15cm" height="8cm"} ![Histogram of real individual wages (\$) for Australia in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 respectively from left to right \[fig:Histogram-of-real-1\]](incomehist2.png){width="15cm" height="8cm"} ![Histogram of real individual disposable wages (\$) for Australia in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 respectively from left to right\[fig:Histogram-of-real-2\]](incomehist3.png){width="15cm" height="8cm"}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'The implementation of a high-fidelity two-qubit quantum logic gate remains an outstanding challenge for isolated solid-state qubits such as Nitrogen-Vacancy (NV) centers in diamond. In this work, we show that by driving pairs of NV centers to undergo photon scattering processes that flip their qubit state simultaneously, we can achieve a unitary two-qubit gate conditioned upon a single photon detection event. Further, by exploiting quantum interference between the optical transitions of the NV centers electronic states, we realize the existence of two special drive frequencies: a “magic” point where the spin-preserving elastic scattering rates are suppressed, and a “balanced” point where the state-flipping scattering rates are equal. We analyzed four different gate operation schemes that utilize these two special drive frequencies, and various combinations of polarization in the drive and collection paths. Our theoretical and numerical calculations show that the gate fidelity can be as high as 97%. The proposed unitary gate, combined with available single qubit unitary operations, forms a universal gate set for quantum computing.' author: - Chenxu Liu - 'M. V. Gurudev Dutt' - David Pekker bibliography: - 'NV\_Entanglement.bib' title: 'Measurement based 2-qubit unitary gates for pairs of Nitrogen-Vacancy centers in diamond' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Quantum computers are expected to achieve considerable speedup as compared to classical computers [@Grover1996; @Shor1994; @Shor1997; @Simon1997]. A specific set of examples of this speedup ranges from polynomial for Grover’s search algorithm, to sub-exponential for Shor’s factorization algorithm, to exponential for Simon’s algorithm. There has been significant progress on understanding complexity classes of quantum computation and their relation to the complexity classes of classical computation, see Ref. [@Montanaro2016; @QAZ] for a review of this progress. The key resource that enables quantum speedup is quantum entanglement. In order to generate and harness this resource, it is essential to build high fidelity multi-qubit quantum gates. The electronic spin associated with the nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond is a promising qubit candidate for solid-state quantum computing. The spin states are well defined, have long spin relaxation and coherence times, and can be optically addressed for qubit initialization and readout for quantum operations. The qubits can be manipulated using either optical or microwave drive fields. However, a key missing ingredient for NV center quantum computing is an experimental demonstration of a high-fidelity 2-qubit unitary gate between NV centers at remote locations in the diamond lattice. There are two main directions that have been investigated for coupling pairs of NV centers. The first direction, which has been proposed theoretically [@Yao2011], relies on collective dynamics of spin-chains to deterministically generate couplings between two remote NV centers. The second direction, which has been investigated both theoretically and experimentally, generates entanglement between two NV centers using a measurement based method. Cabrillo et al. showed that measurement can be used to project two-qubit quantum state of atoms into an entangled state in Ref. [@Cabrillo1999]. The idea of measurement-based entanglement generation was also theoretically proposed and studied in Refs. [@Bose1999; @Duan2001; @Feng2003; @Barrett2005; @Zou2005; @Lim2005]. The quantum entanglement of two NV centers using measurement based method has also been explored experimentally. Bernien et al. observed quantum entanglement of spins of two NV centers [@Bernien2013]. In a related work, Lee et al. demonstrated the entanglement of vibrational modes of two macroscopic diamonds (but not NV centers) [@Lee2011]. Pfaff et al. experimentally entangled spin states of two NV-centers, which they used for quantum teleportation [@Pfaff2014]. Hensen et al. experimentally performed the Bell inequality test via entangling two separated NV-center spin states [@Hensen2015]. It is important to point out that the measurement of the photon in Refs. [@Bernien2013; @Pfaff2014; @Hensen2015] is effectively a parity projector that projects the NV centers into a maximally entangled state. The limitation of this approach is that while it can be used to generate entanglement, it cannot be used to construct a 2-qubit unitary gate. Inspiration for our work comes from a previous theoretical proposal for constructing a measurement-based 2-qubit unitary gate using generic atoms [@Protsenko2002]. Specifically, Protsenko et al. showed that quantum interference can be used to construct a 2-qubit unitary gate by controlling the relative phase of the photons emitted by the two atoms. This interference principle was later proposed for building 2-qubit gates between a pair of atoms in optical cavities coupled by linear optics [@Zou2005]. In this paper, we propose an alternative measurement-based 2-qubit unitary gate for Nitrogen-Vacancy (NV) centers in diamond heralded by a single scattered photon. Further, we predict that there exists a “magic” frequency which suppresses spin-state preserving scattering transitions in favor of spin-flipping scattering transitions and a “balance” point where two spin-state flipping scattering transitions are equal. Utilizing these frequencies, in combination with a single mode diamond waveguide to collect and interfere the scattered photons, enables the proposed 2-qubit gate to achieve high fidelity and high success probability. For success probability approaching unity, the gate fidelity is $\sim 92\%$, while for fidelity approaching unity the success rate approaches $\sim 34\%$. A key advantage of our scheme is that, unlike the schemes in Refs. [@Bernien2013; @Pfaff2014; @Hensen2015] that rely on two-photon Hong-Ou-Mandel interference, the success of our entangling unitary gate is heralded by a single photon detection. For example, if our protocol were implemented with bulk optics and microfabricated solid-immersion lenses in diamond as has been previously demonstrated, the detection probability is $p \sim 10^{-4}$ [@Bernien2013], and with a conservative repetition rate $\sim 20$ kHz, this would result in a successful entangling gate operation every 0.5 seconds. By contrast, entanglement events occur every 10 minutes in the two-photon heralded schemes, which represents orders of magnitude improvement in the clock rate. With further improvements in collection efficiency using e.g. the nanobeam waveguides that we propose and analyze in this paper, and fast electronics, we can potentially achieve kHz - MHz clock rates that would be comparable to superconducting qubit quantum information processors. This paper is organized as follows. In Sections \[sec:setup\] and \[sec:transitions\] we describe the main ingredients of our 2-NV center unitary gate. In Section \[sec:setup\], we focus on the proposed experimental setup and how to use interference to construct a unitary gate. In Section \[sec:transitions\], we argue for the existence of a “magic” frequency at which qubit state-preserving transitions are suppressed and a “balance” frequency at which qubit state-flipping transitions are balanced. We propose four gate operation schemes, three utilizing the “magic” frequency and one the “balance” frequency, and analyzed their fidelity, success probability and unitarity. In Section \[sec:fidelity\], we analyze the success probability and fidelity of the 2-qubit unitary gate with possible experimental imperfections. We first build a qualitative understanding of the processes involved in the qubit dynamics and their effects on gate fidelity. Then we perform a quantitative analysis using the quantum trajectory method. We draw conclusions and present an outlook in section \[sec:summary\]. Details of the proposed waveguide geometry, photon collection efficiency, transition rate calculations and further discussion of gate fidelity can be found in the Appendix. Proposed experimental setup for a 2-NV unitary gate {#sec:setup} =================================================== In this section, we propose a realization of the scheme of Ref. [@Protsenko2002] adapted for NV centers. The 2-qubit unitary gate that was proposed in Ref. [@Protsenko2002] has two main ingredients: (1) qubit state-flipping transitions that result in the emission of identical heralding photons, and (2) optical path-lengths from the qubits to the detector that differ by a $\pi/2$ phase difference. Ingredient (1) ensures that no matter the initial state of a qubit, whenever it absorbs a drive-photon and flips, it emits the desired heralding scattered photon. Ingredient (2) ensures that the measurement of a scattered photon corresponds to a unitary operation as opposed to a projection (e.g. ingredient 2 ensures that disentangled initial states map onto four distinct Bell states). ![(a) Schematic illustration for the proposed measurement-based two NV center quantum gate. A sketch of the level diagram of NV centers is shown in (b). The NV centers can undergo scattering transitions to flip the qubit states and emit scattered photons when they are driven by an off-resonance continuous wave (CW) pump laser. The two NV centers with quarter wavelength separation are in a single-mode diamond waveguide. The waveguide collects and interferes the scattered photons emitted from the NV centers. The detectors monitor the scattered photons collected by the diamond waveguide. The unitary gate operation is heralded by the detection of a photon. (c) The coordinate system of an NV center (red spheres – carbon; blue – vacancy; brown – nitrogen), relative to the crystallographic axes of the diamond waveguide. The $\hat{x}$, $\hat{y}$ and $\hat{z}$ directions of the NV center match those of the waveguide, e.g. the $[\bar{1}\bar{1}\bar{1}]$ direction of diamond crystal (the red vector from the nitrogen to the vacancy) coincides with the axial direction of the waveguide. []{data-label="fig:MBEphonon"}](Fig1_v9_jul22.pdf){width="3.4"} The experimental setup that we propose for a 2-qubit unitary gate using spin states of two NV centers is shown in Fig. \[fig:MBEphonon\](a). The two NV centers are embedded into a single-mode diamond waveguide, and are selected so that they are separated by $(2n+1)/4$-wavelengths, where $n$ is an integer. The separation ensures that the emitted photons have $\pi/2$ phase difference when they are captured by the detectors. Both NV centers are aligned so that their $x$, $y$, and $z$-directions [@Doherty2011] (i.e. the $[11\bar{2}]$, $[1\bar{1}0]$, $[\bar{1}\bar{1}\bar{1}]$, direction of the diamond crystal) match the $x$, $y$, and $z$-directions of the waveguide (see Fig. \[fig:MBEphonon\](c)). State-flipping transitions in both NV centers are pumped by a continuous-wave laser applied transverse to the waveguide \[in Fig. \[fig:MBEphonon\](a)\]. The diamond waveguide collects and interferes the state-flipping scattered photons from the NV centers. Two detectors detect the photons collected by the waveguide from both ends to improve the detection efficiency. We note that depending on whether the detector on the left or on the right captures the photon we obtain slightly different unitary gates, which we discuss below. We begin by reviewing why the $\pi/2$ phase is critical to achieve a unitary gate [@Protsenko2002]. Assume that the NV centers have suitable state-flipping transitions which flip the qubit state between $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ and emit indistinguishable photons \[Fig. \[fig:MBEphonon\](b)\]. Next, suppose that there is a phase difference of $\chi$ in the optical path from the two NV centers to the detector (on the right). Consider the two initial states $\ket{0,0}$ and $\ket{1,1}$. If the detector on the right clicks, the output states are $\ket{0,1}+e^{i \chi} \ket{1,0}$ and $\ket{1,0}+e^{i \chi} \ket{0,1}$. In order for our 2-qubit gate to be unitary, these two output states must be orthogonal, hence $\chi=\pi/2+n\pi$ where $n$ is an integer. Similar logic applies to the cases in which the initial states are $\ket{1,0}$ and $\ket{0,1}$. When the right detector clicks, the unitary 2-qubit gate is described by the matrix: $$G_{r} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 1 & i & 0\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & i\\ i & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & i & 1 & 0\\ \end{array}\right), \label{eq:right_detector_gate}$$ in the $\ket{0,0}$, $\ket{0,1}$, $\ket{1,0}$ and $\ket{1,1}$ basis. On the other hand if the left detector clicks we obtain the gate described by the matrix: $$G_{l} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & i & 1 & 0\\ i & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & i\\ 0 & 1 & i & 0\\ \end{array}\right). \label{eq:left_detector_gate}$$ Note that if we wanted to obtain $G_{r}$, but the left detector clicks instead, we can apply the single-qubit operation $X_{1} \otimes X_{2}$ to both qubits to convert the gate operation in Eq. to the gate operation in Eq. . We note that $G_{r}$ can be expressed in terms of the control-Z (CZ) gate and single-qubit gates as $$G_{r} = \frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2}} (H \otimes H) \left(S^{-1} \otimes S \right) \textrm{CZ} (H \otimes H),$$ where $H$ is the Hadamard gate and $S$ is the single-qubit $\pi/2$ phase gate $$H=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{array}\right), \quad\quad S = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & i \end{array}\right), \label{eq:HS_gates}$$ and therefore, our two-qubit gate, in combination with the available NV single-qubit gates, forms a universal gate set. Scattering transitions of an NV center for unitary 2-qubit gates {#sec:transitions} ================================================================ The main missing ingredient for constructing a 2-qubit gate with NV centers is finding suitable state-flipping transitions between qubit states of NV centers that emit indistinguishable scattering photons. In this section, we explore the electronic structure of NV centers and argue for the existence of suitable transitions. ![The magnitudes of state-preserving and state-flipping transition amplitudes given in the R.H.S of Eq. and Eq. as we shift the driving light frequency $\nu_{d}$. There are two frequency points that draw our attention: (1) the “magic” point (labeled by red arrow) at which the two state-preserving transition amplitudes are strongly suppressed, (2) the “balance” point (labeled by blue arrow), where two state-flipping transition amplitudes are balanced.[]{data-label="fig:transition"}](Fig3_magic_point_jun3_v2.pdf){width="3.4"} Detailed information on electronic structures of NV centers can be found in Ref. [@Doherty2011; @Doherty2013] and in \[subsec:dipole\] of our paper. The electronic levels, including fine-structure, of NV centers in diamond crystals without strain is shown in Fig. \[fig:levels\](a). The electronic ground state of NV center is a spin triplet. The spin-spin interaction breaks the degeneracy of the NV electronic ground state and splits the state $\ket{g_1}=\ket{g,S_z=0}$ from the states $\ket{g_2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \left( \ket{g,S_z=+1}+ \ket{g,S_z=-1} \right)$ and $\ket{g_3}=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \left(\ket{g,S_z=+1}- \ket{g,S_z=-1} \right)$ by the zero field splitting $D/h = 2.87$ GHz. The manifold of excited states spans several GHz and consists of four discrete sets of states with six states in total \[see Fig. \[fig:levels\](a)\]. These excited states can be labeled by the irreducible representation of the $C_{3V}$ group and the $S_z$ quantum number. To simplify notation, we label them $\ket{e_j}$, where $j=1$ to $6$. We note that in the presence of spin-spin (SS) interactions $S_z$ is not a good quantum number for the lowest four excited states. However, as the SS interaction results in only a slight mixing between $S_z = \pm 1$ states and $S_z=0$ states we label the eigenstates $\ket{e_1}$, $\ket{e_2}$, $\ket{e_3}$ and $\ket{e_4}$ by the dominant $S_z$ component. We propose to use the two-fold degenerate $S_z=\pm 1$ spin states, $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$, as the logic $0$ and $1$ qubit states. We use scattering transitions pumped by an off-resonant laser to drive transitions between states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ and hence flip the logic state \[Fig. \[fig:levels\](b)\]. The scattered photons from the two state-flipping transitions have the same frequency because the states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ are energetically degenerate. There are two more scattering transitions that can occur in principle, i.e. Rayleigh scatterings. These two transitions do not flip the qubit state \[Fig. \[fig:levels\](c)\] and hence we call these transitions state-preserving transitions. The scattered photons emitted from these two transitions have the same frequency as the ones from state-flipping transitions. To ensure successful 2-qubit gate operation we must ensure that the detectors only click on state-flipping and not state-preserving transitions. The two ingredients that go into the calculation of the optical transition rates are: (1) the dipole matrix elements between NV center ground and excited states and (2) the interference between virtual excitations of the various excited states. The results of the rate calculations for the state-flipping and state-preserving transitions, as a function of the drive frequency, are plotted in Fig. \[fig:transition\]. We find that as we tune the drive frequency the interference between virtual excitation paths results in the significant variation of the transition rates. We identify two special frequencies: first, there is a “magic” frequency for which the state-preserving transitions are approximately turned off. Second, there is a “balance” point frequency for which the two state-flipping transition rates are equal. We present the outline of the transition rate calculation in Section \[subsec:outline\_tran\_rate\] (the details are presented in \[subsec:dipole\]). Next, we discuss four different schemes for building a 2-qubit gate using the two special drive frequencies and different configurations of polarizers in the collection path. Specifically, we discuss how different schemes can be used to optimize gate fidelity, success probability, and unitarity. In Sections \[subsec:magic\] and \[subsec:rotate\] we discuss gates schemes $M1$, $M2$ and $M3$ that utilize “magic” frequency drive light. The three schemes differ by drive light polarization and collection path configuration which let us optimize either gate success probability or gate unitarity. In Section \[subsec:balance\_point\], we discuss the gate scheme $B1$, that utilizes driving light frequency which makes the two state-flipping transitions balanced. We summarize the configurations of the four gate operation schemes in Table. \[tab:schemes\]. --------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Gate Drive Drive Collection path schemes frequency polarization filter polarization $M1$ “magic” point $\hat{x} \, (\hat{y})$ $\hat{y} \, (\hat{x})$ $M2$ “magic” point $\hat{x} + \hat{y} \, (\hat{x} - \hat{y})$ $\hat{x} - \hat{y} \, (\hat{x} + \hat{y})$ $M3$ “magic” point $\hat{x} + \hat{y} \, (\hat{x} - \hat{y})$ $\hat{x} + \hat{y} \, (\hat{x} - \hat{y})$ $B1$ “balanced” point $\hat{x} \, (\hat{y})$ $\hat{y} \, (\hat{x})$ --------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- : \[tab:schemes\] The configurations of the four gate operation schemes. We list the driving light frequency and polarization, and the collection path polarizer orientation for each schemes. Polarizations that appear in brackets are alternative to the ones that appear with no brackets. Transition rate calculation: interference of virtual excitation paths {#subsec:outline_tran_rate} --------------------------------------------------------------------- The dipole moment matrix after taking spin-orbital (SO) and spin-spin (SS) interaction into account can be written as $$\frac{\hat{\mathbf{p}}}{p_0}=\left( \begin{array}{cccccc} -F_{21} \hat{x} & F_{21} \hat{y} & F_{22} \hat{x} & F_{22} \hat{y} & -F_{23} \hat{y} & F_{23} \hat{x} \\ F_{21} \hat{y} & F_{21} \hat{x} & -F_{22} \hat{y} & F_{22} \hat{x} & F_{23} \hat{x} & F_{23} \hat{y} \end{array} \right). \label{eq:dipole}$$ Here, $p_0$ is the scale of the dipole moment; the matrix is written in the basis $\hat{p}_{ij} = \bra{g_i} \hat{\mathbf{p}} \ket{e_j}$, where $i=1$ for $\ket{g_2}$, $i=2$ for $\ket{g_3}$ and $j=1$ to $6$ for excited states $\ket{e_1}$ to $\ket{e_6}$; and the factors $F_{21}$, $F_{22}$, $F_{23}$ are three dimensionless parameters from the microscopic NV center Hamiltonian, $F_{21}=0.7062$, $F_{22} = 0.0363$, $F_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}$ (see Ref. [@Doherty2011] and \[subsec:dipole\] for details). The scattering transition rates between the states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ can be calculated using second order Fermi’s golden rule. According to Eq. , if the driving light is linearly polarized along $\hat{x}$ or $\hat{y}$ direction, the photons from state-preserving transitions have the same polarization as the incoming light, while the photons from the state-flipping transitions have orthogonal polarization. Therefore, the state-flipping scattering photons can be distinguished from state-preserving scattering photons by polarization. In general, the result of perturbation theory can be expressed as $$\ket{g_j}\ket{\hat{\sigma}_1}_i \xrightarrow{H_{\textrm{scatter}}} A_{p,j}^{\hat{\sigma}_1} \ket{g_j} \ket{\hat{\sigma}_1}_o + A_{f,j}^{\hat{\sigma}_1} \ket{g_k} \ket{\hat{\sigma}_2}_o \label{eq:trans_amp}$$ where $j,k=1,2$ and $j \neq k$, $A$’s represent the transition amplitudes, the incoming drive light is in the polarization state $\hat{\sigma}_1$, and the outgoing light in the waveguide is in the polarization state $\hat{\sigma_1}$ or $\hat{\sigma_2}$ [^1]. Let us consider the case in which the driving light is linearly polarized along either $\hat{x}$ or $\hat{y}$ direction, and hence $\langle\hat{\sigma}_1\|\hat{\sigma}_2\rangle=0$. We present the generic case in \[subsec:transition\_rates\]. Assuming the driving light frequency is $\nu_d$, based on the dipole moment matrix, the state-preserving transition amplitudes can be worked out as, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{A^{x}_{p,2}}{{A}_{0}^{(x)}} = \frac{A^{y}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(y)}} & = \frac{1}{\Delta_1} F_{21}^2 + \frac{1}{\Delta_3} F_{22}^{2} + \frac{1}{\Delta_6} F_{23}^2 \\ \frac{A^{x}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} = \frac{A^{y}_{p,2}}{A_{0}^{(y)}}& = \frac{1}{\Delta_2} F_{21}^2 + \frac{1}{\Delta_4} F_{22}^{2} + \frac{1}{\Delta_5} F_{23}^2 \end{aligned} \label{eq:tran_amp_p}$$ where the $\Delta_i = \epsilon_{e,i}-\epsilon_{g}-h \nu_{d}$ is the energy mismatch, $\epsilon_{e,i}$, $\epsilon_{g}$ are the energy of the excited state $\ket{e_i}$ and the ground state $\ket{g_2}$, $\ket{g_3}$. As we shift the driving light frequency $\nu_{d}$, the energy detuning of each excited level ($\Delta_i$) changes. Two scale factors, $A_{0}^{(x)}$ and $A_{0}^{(y)}$, are defined as $A_{0}^{(\sigma)} = p_{0}^2 E_{d,\sigma} \mathcal{E}_0 u_0$, where $E_{d,\sigma}$ is the driving light electric field along $\hat{\sigma}$ direction, $\mathcal{E}_0 = \sqrt{h \nu_{d}/(2 \varepsilon_0)}$ is the electric field associated with a single photon in the waveguide, $u_0$ is the normalized waveguide mode profile at the location of the NV centers (see Eq. in \[subsec:transition\_rates\]) We assume that the electric fields of the two guided modes have the same $u$ at the location of the NV centers. In \[subsec:transition\_rates\], we show that there is a region inside the waveguide where the two modes have balanced coupling to the NV centers. See \[subsec:transition\_rates\] for details. In the following discussion, we assume these two parameters, $A_{0}^{(x)}$ and $A_{0}^{(x)}$, are equal. We also notice that the equality relations $$\frac{A^{x}_{p,2}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} = \frac{A^{y}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(y)}}, \quad \frac{A^{y}_{p,2}}{A_{0}^{(y)}} = \frac{A^{x}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} \label{eq:pres_amp_equality}$$ hold if $\vert \bra{g_2} \hat{\mathbf{p}} \ket{e_i} \vert = \vert \bra{g_3} \hat{\mathbf{p}} \ket{e_i} \vert$ for all excited states. Similarly, the state-flipping transition amplitudes are, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{A^{x}_{f,2}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} = \frac{A^{y}_{f,3}}{A_{0}^{(y)}}& = -\frac{1}{\Delta_1} F_{21}^{2} - \frac{1}{\Delta_{3}} F_{22}^{2} +\frac{1}{\Delta_6} F_{23}^{2} \\ \frac{A^{x}_{f,3}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} = \frac{A^{y}_{f,2}}{A_{0}^{(y)}}& = \frac{1}{\Delta_2} F_{21}^{2} + \frac{1}{\Delta_4} F_{22}^{2} - \frac{1}{\Delta_5} F_{23}^{2} \end{aligned} \label{eq:tran_amp_f}$$ Note that these two equality relations $\frac{A^{x}_{f,2}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} = \frac{A^{y}_{f,3}}{A_{0}^{(y)}}$ and $\frac{A^{y}_{f,2}}{A_{0}^{(y)}} = \frac{A^{x}_{f,3}}{A_{0}^{(x)}}$ do not rely on the special symmetry in dipole moment elements. We plot the magnitudes of the R.H.S. of the Eq. and Eq. in Fig. \[fig:transition\] as we shift the driving light frequency $\nu_d$. M1 2-qubit gate scheme: “Magic” frequency, $\hat{x}$-polarized drive light {#subsec:magic} -------------------------------------------------------------------------- As we shift the driving light frequency $\nu_d$, we notice that there is a “magic” point where both state-preserving transition rates are highly suppressed because of the destructive interference between the virtual paths through the different excited states (see Fig. \[fig:transition\]). When we use an $\hat{x}$ polarized driving light, the scattered photons from state-preserving transitions are polarized along the $\hat{x}$ direction, while the polarization of the photons from state-flipping transitions are orthogonal, i.e. along $\hat{y}$. We can use a polarizer to further filter the state-flipping photons from the state-preserving photons. Heralding on the photons coming through the polarizer, we achieve a 2-qubit gate on the NV centers. This is our proposed gate scheme $M1$. At the “magic” frequency the transition amplitudes satisfy $A_{p,2}^{x} = -A_{p,3}^{x} > 0$, $A_{f,2}^{x}<0$ and $A_{f,3}^{x} > 0$. Therefore we define $A_{p,2}^{x} = - A_{p,3}^{x} = A_{p} >0$ and define $$A_{1} \equiv \vert A_{f,2}^{x}\vert = -A_{f,2}^{x}, \, A_{2} \equiv \vert A_{f,3} \vert=A_{f,3}. \label{eq:trans_amp_mgcpt}$$ Since the state-preserving transition amplitudes satisfies $A_{p,2}^{x} = -A_{p,3}^{x}>0$, we can also define $A_p = A_{p,2}^{x} = -A_{p,3}^{x}$. At the “magic” frequency, however, the two state-flipping transition amplitudes are not balanced. These two unbalanced transition amplitudes cause the resulting gate to be slightly non-unitary. Assuming the polarizer is perfect and the right detector captures the heralding photon, the 2-qubit gate is described by the matrix, $$G^{(1),\text{ub}}_r= \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & A_2 & i A_2 & 0 \\ -A_1 & 0 & 0 & i A_2 \\ -i A_1 & 0 & 0 & A_2 \\ 0 & -i A_1 & -A_1 & 0 \\ \end{array}\right) \label{eq:gate_1}$$ in the basis $\ket{g_2;g_2}$, $\ket{g_2;g_3}$ and $\ket{g_3;g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3;g_3}$. If we have two balanced state-flipping transitions, i.e. $A_{1} = A_{2}$, after proper normalization, the gate operation is a 2-qubit unitary gate, and it can be written as $$G^{(1),\text{b}}_r = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 1 & i & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 0 & i\\ -i & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & -i & -1 & 0 \\ \end{array}\right) \label{eq:gate_matrix_ideal}$$ where we write down the gate operation in the same basis as Eq. . Notice that this gate operation is different from the one shown in Eq. . This is because of the negative state-flipping transition amplitude $A_{f,2}^{x}$. This gate is also equivalent to CZ gate combining with single qubit gates as, $$G^{(1),\text{b}}_r = \frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2}}\left((S^{-1} H) \otimes (S H)\right) \textrm{CZ} \left((H S^{-1}) \otimes (H S)\right)$$ where $S$, $H$ are single qubit phase gate and Hadamard gate shown in Eq. . When the two transition amplitudes are not balanced, i.e. $A_{1} \neq A_{2}$, the gate operation shown by Eq. is not unitary. we calculate the entanglement fidelity of our 2-qubit gate. Notice that both the entanglement fidelity and the average fidelity, which can be relatively easily calculated, it is proven to be related [@Horodecki1999; @Nielsen2002]. Here Here, we use the entanglement fidelity for the quantum channel to evaluate the quality of our gate [@Nielsen2004]. Consider a quantum channel $\mathcal{E}$ acting on quantum system $Q$. Suppose there is another quantum system $R$ and there is a maximally entangled state $\ket{\phi}$ on system $QR$. The entanglement fidelity is defined as: $$F_{e}(\mathcal{E}_Q) = \bra{\phi} \left[\mathcal{I}_{R}\otimes \mathcal{E}_{Q}\right](\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}) \ket{\phi}$$ where $\mathcal{I}_{R}$ is the action of the identity operation on the system $R$ and $\mathcal{E}_Q$ is the action of the quantum channel on the system $Q$. In our scenario we considered a 2-qubit gate operation instead of a quantum channel to transfer a quantum state. We adapt the above definition to the entanglement fidelity of an imperfect quantum gate operation $\mathcal{G}$ as compared to the ideal quantum gate operation $\mathcal{U}$ via: $$F_{e}(\mathcal{U}_Q,\mathcal{G}_Q) = \bra{\phi} \left[\mathcal{I}_{R}\otimes (\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}_{Q} \circ \mathcal{G}_{Q})\right](\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}) \ket{\phi}$$ where $\mathcal{U}_{Q}$ is the desired unitary gate operation on system $Q$ and $\mathcal{G}_{Q}$ is the non-ideal gate operation, notation $\circ$ stands for composition of gate operations. Note that the quantum operation $\mathcal{G}$ should be trace preserving, though it may be non-unitary. For example, the quantum operation $\mathcal{G}$, corresponding to the gate $G^{(1),\textrm{ub}}_r$, on the system density operator $\rho$ is, $$\mathcal{G}^{(1),\textrm{ub}}_r (\rho) = \frac{ G^{(1),\textrm{ub}}_r \rho \, \left[{G^{(1),\textrm{ub}}_r}\right]^{ \dagger} }{\textrm{Tr} \left[G^{(1),\textrm{ub}}_r \rho \, \left[{G^{(1),\textrm{ub}}_r}\right]^{\dagger} \right] }$$ To apply the definition above to a two-qubit system, we need another two-qubit system in order to construct a maximally entangled state over the four-qubits. We choose the state $\ket{\phi} = \sum_{j=1}^{4} \frac{1}{2} \ket{j_{R}}\ket{j_{Q}}$, where $\ket{j}$ is $\ket{g_2;g_2}$, $\ket{g_2;g_3}$, $\ket{g_3;g_2}$, $\ket{g_3;g_3}$ for $j=1$ to $4$ on corresponding 2-qubit systems. With the transition amplitudes calculated at the “magic” frequency as $A_1 \sim 0.1696$ and $A_2 \sim 0.2252$, the entanglement fidelity of our gate operation shown in Eq. is $$\begin{aligned} F_e (\mathcal{G}^{(1),\textrm{b}}_r, \mathcal{G}^{(1),\textrm{ub}}_r) = \frac{(A_1+A_2)^2}{2(A_1^2+A_2^2)} \sim 0.981.\end{aligned}$$ M2 & M3 2-qubit gate schemes: “Magic” frequency, $\hat{x}\pm\hat{y}$-polarized drive light {#subsec:rotate} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In this subsection, we discuss two schemes, $M2$ and $M3$, to perform the 2-qubit gate operation at the “magic” frequency. In the $M2$ scheme, we choose $(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$ polarized driving light with a $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ polarizer (mode filter) on the collection path. In the $M3$ scheme, we also choose $(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$ polarized diving light, but use $(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$ polarizer. Scheme $M2$ results in a slightly non-unitary gate with higher success probability as compared to scheme $M3$. Scheme $M3$, on the other hand, results in a 2-qubit gate that is exactly unitary, but has a low success probability. We note that similar schemes can be constructed with the alternative choice of $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ polarized drive light. To understand the gate operation when we rotate the driving light polarization, we need to know the scattered photon polarization. Suppose the driving photon is in state $\ket{\hat{\sigma}_d} = \cos(\theta) \ket{\hat{x}}_i + \sin(\theta)e^{i \phi} \ket{\hat{y}}_i$. According to Eq. , if an NV center is initialized in $\ket{g_2}$ state, the final states of the NV center and the scattered photon are $$\begin{aligned} \ket{g_2} \otimes &\ket{\hat{\sigma}_d} \xrightarrow{H_{\textrm{scatter}}} \ket{\Psi_{2;\hat{\sigma}_d}} \\ & =\ket{g_2} \left( \cos(\theta) A^{x}_{p,2} \ket{\hat{x}} + \sin(\theta) e^{i \phi} A^{y}_{p,2} \ket{\hat{y}} \right) \\ & +\ket{g_3} \left( \cos(\theta) A^{x}_{f,2} \ket{\hat{x}} + \sin(\theta) e^{i \phi} A^{y}_{f,2} \ket{\hat{y}} \right) \end{aligned}$$ where we use notation $\ket{\Psi_{2,\hat{\sigma}_d}}$ to show the final state of the NV center and the scattered photon when the initial state of NV center is $\ket{g_2}$ and the drive light is $\ket{\hat{\sigma}_d}$. Using the $\hat{\sigma}_d$ polarized driving light to pump the transition from a single NV center in state $\ket{g_2}$, the state-preserving scattered photon is in state $\ket{\hat{\sigma}^{p}_{2}} \propto \cos(\theta) A^{x}_{p,2} \ket{\hat{x}} + \sin(\theta) e^{i \phi} A^{y}_{p,2} \ket{\hat{y}}$ up to a normalization constant, while the state-flipping scattered photon is in state $\ket{\hat{\sigma}^{f}_{3}} \propto \cos(\theta) A^{x}_{f,2} \ket{\hat{y}} + \sin(\theta) e^{i \phi} A^{y}_{f,2} \ket{\hat{x}}$. Similarly, the state of the photons from the scattering process with initial state $\ket{g_3}$ are $\ket{\hat{\sigma}^{p}_{3}} \propto A^{x}_{p,3} \cos(\theta)\ket{\hat{x}} + A^{y}_{p,3} \sin(\theta)\ket{\hat{y}}$ for state-preserving photons, and $\ket{\hat{\sigma}^{f}_{3}} \propto A^{x}_{f,3} \cos(\theta) \ket{\hat{y}} + A^{y}_{f,3} \sin(\theta) e^{i\phi} \ket{\hat{x}}$ for state-flipping photons. As we rotate the driving light from the $\hat{x}$ to $\hat{y}$ direction, the scattered photons from two state-flipping transitions do not have the same polarization, i.e. $\langle\hat{\sigma}^f_2 \vert \hat{\sigma}^f_3\rangle \neq 1$ after the proper normalization of states $\ket{\hat{\sigma}^f_2}$ and $\ket{\hat{\sigma}^f_3}$. This occurs because the transition amplitudes $A^{x}_{f,2} = A^{y}_{f,3} \neq A^{y}_{f,2} = A^{x}_{f,3}$. Therefore, we need a polarizer on the collection path to erase the quantum information carried by the state-flipping photons. If the NV center in state $\ket{g_i}$ is pumped with $\ket{\hat{\sigma}_{d}}$ drive light and the polarizer in the collection path only allows photons in the state $\ket{p}=-\sin(\alpha) \ket{\hat{x}}_o + \cos(\alpha) e^{i \beta} \ket{\hat{y}}_o$, then the final state of the NV center heralded by a photon detection is $\ket{\psi^{\hat{p}}_{i,\hat{\sigma}_d}} \propto \langle p \ket{\Psi_{i;\hat{\sigma}_d}}$. ![Polarization diagram for drive light polarized along $(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$. State-preserving scattered photons are polarized along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$. State flipping scattered photons are polarized in a direction $\pm\theta$ away from $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ (the sign being determined by the initial state of the NV center). []{data-label="fig:polarization"}](polarization1){width="6cm"} By rotating the driving light polarization to the direction $(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$, i.e. $\ket{\hat{\sigma}_d}_i = \ket{+} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{\hat{x}}_i+\ket{\hat{y}}_i)$, we balance the state-flipping transition rates. In this case, the state-preserving photons are polarized along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction, and the state-flipping photons are polarized at a small angle $\pm \theta$ to the $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction, the sign being determined by the initial state of the NV center (see Fig. \[fig:polarization\]). In scheme $M2$, we erase quantum information carried by the state-flipping photon by inserting a polarizer along the $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction in the collection path. In scheme $M3$ we use $(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$ polarizer instead. We now analyze scheme $M2$ and come back to scheme $M3$ below. The polarizer only allows photons in the state $\ket{p} = \ket{-} = \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{\hat{x}}_o-\ket{\hat{y}}_o)$ to reach the detector. Using the relation of the transition amplitudes in Eq. , the transformation of a single NV center state after the detector captures a heralding scattered photon is described by: $$T_{s} = \frac{\bar{A}}{\sqrt{A_{p}^2+\bar{A}^2}} \left( \begin{array}{cc} A_p/\bar{A} & -1\\ 1 & - A_p/\bar{A} \end{array}\right)$$ in the basis $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$, where $\bar{A}$ is the average state-flipping transition amplitude defined as $\bar{A} = (A_1+A_2)/2$. Again, assuming the right detector captures a photon, the 2-qubit gate can be described by the matrix, $$G^{(2)}_{r} =\frac{\bar{A}}{N} \left( \begin{array}{cccc} \frac{-(1+i)A_{p}}{\bar{A}} & 1 & i & 0 \\ -1 & \frac{(1-i)A_p}{\bar{A}} & 0 & i \\ -i & 0 & \frac{(i-1)A_p}{\bar{A}} & 1\\ 0 & -i & -1 & \frac{(1+i)A_p}{\bar{A}} \end{array}\right)$$ in the basis of $\ket{g_2;g_2}$, $\ket{g_2;g_3}$ and $\ket{g_3;g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3;g_3}$, where the normalization constant is defined as $N^2 = 2 (A_{p}^{2} +\bar{A}^2)$. Note that this gate is still not unitary. The non-unitarity is due to the existence of the residual state-preserving photons that cannot be filtered out from the scattered light. However, since we are working at the “magic” frequency of the driving light where the state-preserving transitions are highly suppressed, the gate unitarity is only slightly broken. By the same argument as in Section \[subsec:magic\], with state-preserving transition amplitude $A_p \sim 0.0278$, the entanglement fidelity of this gate is $$\begin{aligned} F_{e} = \frac{\bar{A}^2}{\bar{A}^2 + A_{p}^2 }\sim 0.981.\end{aligned}$$ Since the polarization of the state-flipping photon is not aligned to the $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction exactly, the existence of the polarizer causes the desired photons to have a loss probability, which decreases the gate success probability. In an ideal experimental setup, the gate operation fails if the first state-flipping photon fails to pass the polarizer. Therefore, we calculate the probability that a photon emitted from the NV centers successfully passes the polarizer to estimate the gate success probability. This probability is given by: $$P_{-} = \bra{-} \textrm{Tr}_{\textrm{NV}} (\rho) \ket{-} = \frac{\bar{A}^{2}+A_{p}^{2}}{\left( A_{1}^{2} + A_{2}^{2}\right)/2 + A_{p}^{2}} \label{eq:suc_prob_minus}$$ where $\rho$ is the density operator for the NV centers and the scattered photon at the time when the scattering process has occurred but the photon has not gone through the polarizer, $\ket{-} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( -\ket{\hat{x}} + \ket{\hat{y}}\right)$ is the photon state that are allowed to pass the polarizer, $\textrm{Tr}_{\textrm{NV}}$ is the partial trace over all degrees of freedom of NV centers. In this case, the success probability of our gate is $98.1 \%$. Scheme $M3$ is similar to scheme $M2$, except that we orient the polarizer along $(\hat{x} + \hat{y})$ direction to only allow photons in state $\ket{p} = \ket{+} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\hat{x} + \hat{y}\right)$ to pass the polarizer. In this case, the gate is perfectly unitary (when operated at the “magic” frequency). Following arguments similar to the $M2$ scheme above, we find that the 2-qubit gate, conditioned on a click in the right detector, is described by the matrix: $$G^{(3)}_{r} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 1 & i & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & i \\ i & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & i & 1 & 0 \end{array}\right).$$ Note that this gate operation exactly matches Eq. . However, since the scattered photons from state-flipping transitions are nearly polarized along $(\hat{x} - \hat{y})$ direction, the component along the direction $(\hat{x} + \hat{y})$ is small, which causes a low gate success probability as most state-flipping photons are stopped by the polarizer. Similar to the previous case, the gate success probability is calculated as: $$P_{+} = \bra{+} \textrm{Tr}_{NV}(\rho) \ket{+} = \frac{\left(A_{1}-A_{2}\right)^{2}/4}{\left( A_{1}^{2} + A_{2}^{2}\right)/2 + A_{p}^{2}} \sim 1.9 \, \%. \label{eq:suc_prob_plus}$$ B1 2-qubit gate scheme: “Balance” frequency drive light {#subsec:balance_point} ------------------------------------------------------- Because of the orthogonality of the dipole moment matrix discussed at the beginning of Section \[subsec:magic\], the scattered photons from state-preserving and state-flipping transitions can be fully distinguished by polarization if the driving light is along $\hat{x}$ or $\hat{y}$ direction. Therefore, besides the “magic” frequency of the driving light, we can find a frequency point for the driving light to give us balanced state-flipping transitions and use a polarizer to discard the state-preserving photons. This “balanced” point is shown in Fig. \[fig:transition\] by the blue arrow. If the driving light is polarized along $\hat{x}$ direction, at the “balance” frequency, the state-flipping transition amplitudes satisfy $A_{f,2}^{x} = A_{f,3}^{x}$. Combining this fact with a polarizer along $\hat{y}$ direction in the collection path, if the right detector captures the scattered photon, the 2-qubit unitary gate is described by the matrix $$G^{(4)}_{r} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 1 & i & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & i \\ i & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & i & 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ in the same basis as Eq. . Unlike in scheme $M3$ that was described in the previous subsection, in scheme $B1$ the state-preserving transition rate is comparable to the state-flipping transition rate. We now point out that the existence of state-preserving transitions, though the scattered photons from these transitions are completely filtered out, decoheres the initial states of the NV centers. To understand the decoherence mechanism associated with the state-preserving transitions, we construct the master equation to describe the time evolution of the NV center. We assume the NV centers are driven by a $\hat{x}$ polarized light and the polarizer in the collection path is along $\hat{y}$ direction. For simplicity, we assume the emitted photons only couple to the right propagating modes of the waveguide and are detected by the right detector. Since the state-preserving photons are polarized along $\hat{y}$, while the state-flipping photons are polarized along $\hat{x}$, they couple to two different waveguide modes (see \[subsec:waveguide\] for details). We further assume the driving light is weak and far-detuned from the excited states, so we can construct an effective Hamiltonian to describe the scattering process where only ground states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ of NV centers appear (see \[subsec:transition\_rates\] for details). Therefore, we can treat each NV center as a two-level system. We further treat the two waveguide modes as two thermal baths at temperature zero and trace out the photon degrees of freedom, so that the master equation for the NV centers is: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t \rho & = B \left(2\hat{L}\rho \hat{L}^{\dagger} - \hat{L}^{\dagger} \hat{L} \rho - \rho \hat{L}^{\dagger} \hat{L}\right) \\ & + B \left(2 \hat{G} \rho \hat{G}^{\dagger} - \hat{G}^{\dagger} \rho \hat{G} -\hat{G} \rho \hat{G}^{\dagger} \right), \\ \hat{L} & = A_{f,2}^{(x)} \left( i \sigma_{23}^{(1)} + \sigma_{23}^{(2)}\right) + A_{f,3}^{(x)} \left( i \sigma_{32}^{(1)} + \sigma_{32}^{(2)}\right), \\ \hat{G} & = A_{p,2}^{(x)} \left( i \sigma_{22}^{(1)} + \sigma_{22}^{(2)}\right) + A_{p,3}^{(x)} \left( i \sigma_{33}^{(1)} + \sigma_{33}^{(2)}\right), \end{aligned} \label{eq:full_master_v1}$$ where $\hat{L}$ and $\hat{G}$ are two jump operators describing the state-flipping transitions and state-preserving transitions respectively, the operator $\sigma_{jk}^{(i)}$ is the operator acting on $i$-th NV center and flips NV state from $\ket{g_j}$ to state $\ket{g_k}$, i.e. $\sigma_{jk}^{(i)} = \ket{g_k}\bra{g_j}$ for $i$-th NV center, and $B = \frac{2 \pi n_{\textrm{eff}}}{c \hbar^2}$ is a constant, where $n_{\textrm{eff}}$ is the mode effective refractive index (see Eq. in \[subsec:transition\_rates\]). We find that the second term in the master equation involving $\hat{G}$ causes the off-diagonal elements of the two-NV density matrix to decay if the state-preserving transitions are not balanced. This means that if our initial state is prepared in an entangled state of two NV centers, the entanglement between the two NV centers is destroyed by these undetected state-preserving transitions, which will also limit our gate operation time at this frequency point. We can also calculate the gate success probability using a similar method to the one illustrated by Eq. and Eq. , which we find to be $37.4 \%$. Note that the success probability is a “first-photon” success probability, which means we know in advance the scatter has happened and a single scattered photon has already been emitted into the waveguide mode. In the more realistic case, we can only monitor the detector and we have no information whether the state-preserving transitions happens or not. Gate fidelity and success probability for this case will be discussed in Section. \[sec:fidelity\] using quantum trajectory method. 2-qubit gate fidelity and success probability {#sec:fidelity} ============================================= ![image](gate_fidelity_jun3_v8_v2.pdf){width="\textwidth"} In this section, we analyze the fidelity and success probability of our proposed 2-qubit gate for NV centers with possible experimental imperfections. First of all, we notice that NV centers have a phonon side bind which causes Raman scatterings. However, these scattered photons do not have same frequencies as the driving light so that we can filter out and also monitor these photons. The existence of the phonon side band decreases the gate success probability, but does not decrease the gate fidelity. In the following discussion, we ignore the phonon side band and mainly focus on (1) the imperfect scattered photon collection and detection efficiency of the experimental setup, (2) the unbalanced state-flipping transition rates, and (3) possible population loss from the $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ manifold. We use quantum trajectory simulations with continuous measurement of the scattered photons to estimate the output state fidelity and success probability with different gate operation schemes and photon collection strategies. In the simulations we use the transition amplitudes calculated at the corresponding driving light frequency and take different types of imperfections together into consideration. Imperfect scattered photon collection and detection efficiency {#subsec:imperfect_collection} -------------------------------------------------------------- Unlike the quantum entanglement proposals in Ref. [@Cabrillo1999; @Bose1999; @Duan2001; @Feng2003; @Barrett2005], when applying a measurement-based unitary gate to two NV centers, in general, we do not know in advance which states these NV centers are. Therefore the NV centers cannot be reset back to initial input state to re-apply the gate operation. It is critical to detect the first state-flipping photon from the two NV centers to perform the unitary gate operation successfully. One possible error source in real experiment for our proposed 2-qubit gate is the imperfect photon collection and detection efficiency of the experimental setup, which we now discuss. If the detection efficiency of the setup is imperfect, any loss of the heralding photons indicates that undetected state-flipping transitions occurred on either of the two qubits. After missing one or several scattered photons, a photon detection projects the NV centers into an undesired 2-qubit state, which degrades the gate fidelity. To estimate the quality of the gate operation with imperfect photon detection efficiency, we perform quantum trajectory calculation with continuous measurement of the scattered photons to numerically investigate the gate fidelity and success probability. In our model, because we only consider the scattering between the states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$, we treat NV centers as 2-level systems by using the effective Hamiltonian for the scattering process (see \[subsec:transition\_rates\] for details). For simplicity, we ignore other imperfections, i.e. our 2-qubit gate is working at a fictitious driving frequency at which two state-preserving transitions are perfectly suppressed and the two state-flipping transitions are balanced. Therefore, the transition amplitudes in Eq. satisfy $A^{x}_{p,2} = A^{x}_{p,3} = 0$ and $A^{x}_{f,2} = A^{x}_{f,3} \equiv A $ and thus the master equation can be written as, $$\begin{aligned} & \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -\frac{\Gamma}{2} \left(\hat{L}^{\dagger} \hat{L} \rho + \rho \hat{L}^{\dagger} \hat{L} -2 \hat{L}\rho \hat{L}^{\dagger} \right) \\ & \hat{L} = i \sigma_{23}^{(1)} + \sigma_{23}^{(2)} + i \sigma_{32}^{(1)} + \sigma_{32}^{(2)} \end{aligned} \label{eq:masterEq}$$ where $\Gamma = B \vert A \vert^2$ is the state-flipping transition rates, $\sigma^{(i)}_{jk} = \ket{g_k}\bra{g_j}$ is the operator for $i$-th NV transiting from state $\ket{g_j}$ to state $\ket{g_k}$ with $j,k = 2,3$. Because in the present consideration, the two state-flipping transitions are balanced, the output state fidelity for all possible input states should be the same and hence the output state fidelity for a certain input state is the gate fidelity. We choose state $\ket{\psi_i} = \ket{g_2} \otimes \ket{g_2}$ as the input state. We labels the 2-NV state $\ket{g_i} \otimes \ket{g_j}$ as $\ket{g_i;g_j}$. To calculate the output state fidelity of input state $\ket{\psi_i} = \ket{g_2;g_2}$, at the beginning of each trajectory, we initialize both NV centers in $\ket{g_2}$ state and stochastically evolve the two NV centers according to the master equation in Eq. conditioned on the measurement result from the detector. When a photon is emitted from NV center, it has probability $\eta$ to be detected by the detector, otherwise the photon is lost into the bath. The photon detection is a projection measurement, with the jump operator $\hat{L}$ in Eq. as the measurement projector. When a scattered photon is detected by the detector, the density matrix collapses to $\rho' \propto \hat{L}\rho\hat{L}^{\dagger}$ up to a normalization constant. It is obvious that if the detection efficiency $\eta=1$, the gate operation is a 2-qubit unitary gate described by $G_r$ in Eq. . The first strategy to perform the 2-qubit unitary gate is to run the trajectory until we receive a photon by the detector. In real experiment, it is equivalent to running the experiments until a photon is detected without limiting the collection time window. When a photon is detected, we stop the time evolution of the trajectory and calculate the output state fidelity using the target state $\ket{\psi_{\text{t}}} = G_r \ket{\psi_i} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \ket{g_2;g_3} + i \ket{g_3;g_2}\right)$. Since we do not limit the total time to end the protocol, we always have a positive detection result and thus the gate is always considered as success. However, the gate fidelity suffers from the missing photon cases. We ran $1000$ independent trajectories in total to build up statistics for the gate fidelity. The gate fidelity as a function of overall photon detection efficiency ($\eta$) is shown in Fig. \[fig:fidqt\](a). The numerical simulation matches our expectation that as the collection efficiency drops, it becomes more and more likely that the first scattered photon is missed, and hence the overall output state fidelity drops. When the collection efficiency $\eta=1$, the fidelity is $1$. The fidelity drops to $0.5$ when the overall photon detection efficiency drops to $\eta \sim 0.45$. Based on the proposed geometry of the diamond waveguide, we calculate the overall collection efficiency of the diamond waveguide to be $85 \%$ (see Appendix for details). At the $85 \%$ photon collection efficiency, the gate fidelity is $0.8547 \pm 0.0040$. The second strategy aims to improve gate fidelity with an imperfect photon detection efficiency, by limiting the maximum photon collection time window. This will help to rule out missing photon cases and improve the fidelity of the 2-qubit gate operation. However, as we decrease the collection window, it is possible not to detect any photons within the time bin, and hence the gate success probability is expected to drop as we shrink the collection window. We numerically investigate the output state fidelity and success probability as we change the duration of collection window. We use the same quantum trajectory method with a collection efficiency $\eta$ to stochastically time evolve the master equation in Eq. . We still use the state $\ket{\psi_i} = \ket{g_2;g_2}$ as the input state and $\ket{\psi_t} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\ket{g_2;g_3} + i \ket{g_3;g_2})$ as the target state. If we get a positive detection result within the collection window, we stop the trajectory and measure the output state fidelity. Otherwise, if no scattered photon is detected till the end of the collection window, we reckon the gate fails and stop the trajectory. The numerically calculated average gate fidelity and gate success probability with $\eta=0.85$ as we change the collection window is plotted in Fig. \[fig:fidqt\](b) and Fig. \[fig:fidqt\](c) respectively. The average gate fidelity improves as we shrink the collection window, but the success probability drops, as we expected. For example, if we choose the collection window $\Gamma \Delta \tau = 0.1$, the fidelity can be improved to $0.9857 \pm 0.0007$, however, the success probability of the gate decreases to $0.155$. To conclude, this gate operation strategy trades the successful probability for high gate fidelity. We want to point out that Ref. [@Benjamin2009] shows that constructing a graph or cluster state requires a minimum success probability of $1/3$. In our numerical simulations this threshold can be met by setting the collection window to be $\Gamma\Delta \tau=0.3$, which results in the gate success probability of $0.397$ and an average output state fidelity of $0.9588 \pm 0.0013$. Unbalanced state-flipping transitions {#subsec:unbalance_transition} ------------------------------------- In the above calculation, we assumed that the two state-flipping transition rates are balanced. However, this assumption does not have to hold. For example, in scheme $M1$, which we discuss in Section \[subsec:magic\], the transition rates for the two state-flipping transitions are different. Furthermore, the state-flipping transition rates of two NV centers may also be different (e.g. due to different coupling strength to the waveguide modes). In Section \[subsec:magic\], we considered the gate fidelity when the state-flipping transitions rates are not equal, but two NV centers are identical. In this subsection we consider a more general case when the two state-flipping transitions of two NV centers emit indistinguishable scattered photons, but the rates can be different. We analyze the gate operation and the gate fidelity. When the state-flipping transition rates are different from one NV center to the other one, we use $A^{(i)}_{1}$ and $A^{(i)}_{2}$ to note the transition amplitude for state-flipping transitions from $\ket{g_2}$ to $\ket{g_3}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ to $\ket{g_2}$ of $i$-th NV center. Here we assume there is no state-preserving transitions and detection efficiency is $1$ to only focus on the imperfection caused by the unbalanced state-preserving transitions. We also assume the state-flipping transition amplitudes are all positive. Similar to the previous subsection, we assume the scattered photons only couples to the right-propagating modes, and thus the master equation of the two NV centers in this case is similar to the master equation shown in Eq. as, $$\begin{aligned} & \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -\frac{B}{2} \left(\hat{L}^{\dagger} \hat{L} \rho + \rho \hat{L}^{\dagger} \hat{L} -2 \hat{L}\rho \hat{L}^{\dagger} \right) \\ & \hat{L} = i A^{(1)}_{1} \sigma_{23}^{(1)} + A^{(2)}_{1} \sigma_{23}^{(2)} + i A^{(1)}_{2} \sigma_{32}^{(1)} + A^{(2)}_{2} \sigma_{32}^{(2)} \end{aligned}$$ When a photon is captured by the detector, it corresponded to a projection measurement onto the NV centers which is described by the jump operator $\hat{L}$. Therefore the gate operation can be described by the matrix, $$\hat{L} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & A^{(2)}_2 & i A^{(1)}_2 & 0\\ A^{(2)}_1 & 0 & 0 & i A^{(1)}_2 \\ i A^{(1)}_{1} & 0 & 0 & A^{(2)}_2\\ 0 & i A^{(1)}_{1} & A^{(2)}_1 & 0\\ \end{array} \right)$$ in the same basis as Eq. . We can use the same method as discussed in Section \[subsec:magic\] to estimate the gate fidelity. We can define $\bar{A}$ as the average of these four state-flipping transition amplitudes as $\bar{A} = \sum_{i,j} A^{(i)}_{j}/4$ and the derivations of each specific transition amplitude from this average amplitude by $\delta_{i,j} = A^{(i)}_j -\bar{A}$. When the four transition amplitudes are not severely unbalanced, i.e. $\left\vert \delta_{i,j}/\bar{A}\right\vert \ll 1$, we can expand the output state fidelity in series of $\delta_{i,j}/\bar{A}$. In general, the gate fidelity will drop linearly as $\delta^{2}_{i,j}/\bar{A}^2$ increases. As we see from Section \[subsec:magic\], when $A^{(1)}_i = A^{(2)}_i$, the deviation of the transition amplitudes $\delta_{i,1} = - \delta_{i,2} \equiv \delta$. The gate fidelity can then be expanded as, $$F = \frac{\bar{A}^2}{\bar{A}^2 + \delta^2} \sim 1 - \frac{\delta^2}{\bar{A}^2} \label{eq:expand_fid}$$ Let’s also discuss the case when two state-flipping transition amplitudes for a single NV center are balanced, however, the same transitions for different NV centers have a constant transition amplitude offset. In this case, we assume $A^{(1)}_{j} = \bar{A} - \delta$, and $A^{(2)}_{j} = \bar{A}+\delta$. The gate fidelity is also given by Eq. . Overall output state fidelity ----------------------------- In this subsection, we evaluate the gate quality by numerically simulating the output state fidelity and success probability with the four possible gate operation schemes discussed in Section \[sec:transitions\] combined with the two proposed collection strategies discussed in Section \[subsec:imperfect\_collection\]. The four gate operation schemes are summarized in Table. \[tab:schemes\]. The two collection strategies are collecting the photon (1) without and (2) with a maximum collection window $\Delta \tau$. With all four gate operation schemes, we explore the output state fidelity when state $\ket{\psi_1} = \ket{g_2;g_2}$, $\ket{\psi_2}=\ket{g_2;g_3}$ and $\ket{\psi_3} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \ket{g_2;g_2} + i \ket{g_3;g_3}\right)$ as the gate input states using quantum trajectory simulation with continuous measurement on the scattered photons. We set the overall collection efficiency of the photons through the polarizer to $85 \%$. The gate average fidelity and gate success probability without and with a maximum collection time window $\Delta \tau = 0.1 / \bar{\Gamma}_f$ is shown in Table \[tab:fid\_list\]. Here, $\bar{\Gamma}_f$ is the average state-flipping transition rates, $\bar{\Gamma}_f = \left( A_{1}^{2} + A_{2}^{2}\right)/2$, where $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ is the absolute value of the state-flipping transition amplitudes at the working frequency \[see Eq. \]. We also listed the output state fidelity with corresponding gate operation schemes with perfect photon detection efficiency and infinite pump power for reference, which set a theoretical upper bound for the output state fidelity in the corresponding cases. ------------------ ------------ --------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------- Input Perfect $\eta=0.85$ State Collection $\bar{\Gamma}_f \Delta \tau = \infty$ $F$ $F$ $F$ $P$ $M1$ $\ket{\Psi_{1}}$ $1.0$ $0.848 \pm 0.004 $ $0.9896 \pm 0.0006 $ $0.106$ $\ket{\Psi_{2}}$ $0.981$ $0.837 \pm 0.005$ $ 0.9704 \pm 0.0005$ $0.164$ $\ket{\Psi_{3}}$ $0.981$ $0.824\pm 0.005$ $ 0.9665 \pm 0.0006$ $0.156$ $M2$ $\ket{\Psi_{1}}$ $0.981$ $0.819 \pm 0.005 $ $0.9683 \pm 0.0006$ $0.172$ $\ket{\Psi_{2}}$ $0.981$ $0.824 \pm 0.005 $ $0.9678 \pm 0.0006 $ $0.166$ $\ket{\Psi_{3}}$ $0.981$ $0.823 \pm 0.005 $ $0.9683 \pm 0.0006 $ $0.169$ $M3$ $\ket{\Psi_{1}}$ $1.0$ $0.255 \pm 0.002 $ $0.916 \pm 0.004 $ $0.0037$ $\ket{\Psi_{2}}$ $1.0$ $0.256 \pm 0.002 $ $0.902 \pm 0.004$ $0.0035$ $\ket{\Psi_{3}}$ $1.0$ $0.255 \pm 0.002$ $ 0.911 \pm 0.004$ $0.0033$ $B1$ $\ket{\Psi_{1}}$ $ 1.0 $ $0.859 \pm 0.004 $ $0.9870 \pm 0.0006 $ $0.172$ $\ket{\Psi_{2}}$ $ 1.0 $ $0.857 \pm 0.004 $ $0.9842 \pm 0.0007 $ $0.153$ $\ket{\Psi_{3}}$ $ 1.0 $ $0.571 \pm 0.006 $ $0.906 \pm 0.004 $ $0.150$ ------------------ ------------ --------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------- : \[tab:fid\_list\] Output state fidelity and gate success probability for input states $\ket{\Psi_1} = \ket{g_2;g_2}$, $\ket{\Psi_2} = \ket{g_2;g_3}$, $\ket{\Psi_3} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\ket{g_2;g_2}+i\ket{g_3;g_3})$ with the four gate operation schemes, $M1$, $M2$, $M3$ and $B1$ (see Table. \[tab:schemes\]), when the photon collection efficiency is perfect (labeled Perfect Collection), imperfect with an infinite photon collection time window (labeled $\eta = 0.85, \bar{\Gamma}_f \Delta \tau = \infty$), and imperfect with a finite photon collection time window (labeled $\eta = 0.85, \bar{\Gamma}_f \Delta \tau = 0.1$). Note for the case of perfect collection, and the case of imperfect collection with infinite photon collection time window $P=1$. To estimate the gate fidelity of the different schemes we use the worst output state fidelity in Table \[tab:fid\_list\]. $M3$ and $B1$ are two schemes that are perfectly unitary in ideal conditions. When we don’t setup a finite collection window, since the gate operation scheme $M3$ suffers low success probability, even with perfect collection efficiency, the output state fidelity drops significantly from unity. This is because most of the detected photons are from the long-time scatter events, i.e. the NV center system tends to relax to its steady state before the heralding photon is detected. Therefore, it is equivalent to applying the gate to the steady state of the master equation, which gives an output state fidelity $\approx 0.25$. If we don’t limit the collection window, the gate operation scheme $B1$ has significantly different output state fidelity when the input state is $\ket{\psi_1}$ (or $\ket{\psi_2}$) and $\ket{\psi_3}$. This is because the undetected state-preserving transitions decohere the input state, even though they do not flip the NV spin states and their photons are perfectly separated from the state-flipping photons. The input state $\ket{\psi_3}$ decoheres to an equal mixture of states $\ket{g_2;g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3;g_3}$, which makes the output state-fidelity drop to $\approx 0.5$. The finite collection time window helps to discard the long-time detection events, which improves the output-state fidelity significantly, especially for the gate operation scheme $M3$. Gate operation schemes $M1$ and $M2$ are not perfectly unitary even in the ideal case. However, since the polarizer setup has little probability to block the state-flipping photons and the state-preserving transitions are highly suppressed due to the “magic” frequency of the driving light, these two schemes behave much better when the collection time is not limited. When we have a finite collection window, the output state fidelity also improves. Compared to the gate operation schemes $M3$ and $B1$, the schemes $M1$ and $M2$ have better output state fidelity. Population loss due to the transition out of the $\ket{g_2}$, $\ket{g_3}$ manifold ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![We study the population leakage from state $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ manifold into state $\ket{g_1}$ state caused by spin-Raman transitions. We plot the transition rate under the same pumping laser as in Fig. \[fig:transition\]. The “magic” frequency is pointed out by the red arrow while the “balance” frequency is labeled by the blue arrow. The population leakage rate by spin-Raman transition is much slower than the state-flipping transitions shown in Fig. \[fig:transition\] and hence we do not expect to see large population within the detection window.[]{data-label="fig:leakage"}](Fig_fid_v8_jun3.pdf){width="3.2"} Any process that transfers population out of $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ manifold, i.e. to the other states like $\ket{g_1}$, results in no further photon detections after this “leakage” transition happens. This will degrade the success probability of the gate. There are two possible leakage paths, (1) by the Raman scattering process to state $\ket{g_1}$, (2) by exciting to the NV electronic excited states then by the non-radiative relaxation through the meta-stable states of NV centers to $\ket{g_1}$. To examine the effect of spin Raman transition from logic states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ to state $\ket{g_1}$, we refer to the dipole matrix in Eq. in \[subsec:dipole\], and calculate the leakage transition amplitudes as, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{A^{x}_{l,2}}{A^{(x)}_{0}} & = \frac{1}{\Delta_1} F_{21}F_{11} - \frac{1}{\Delta_3} F_{22}F_{12} \\ \frac{A^{y}_{l,2}}{A^{(y)}_{0}} & = - \frac{1}{\Delta_1} F_{21}F_{11} + \frac{1}{\Delta_3} F_{22}F_{12} \\ \frac{A^{x}_{l,3}}{A^{(y)}_{0}} & = - \frac{1}{\Delta_2} F_{21}F_{11} + \frac{1}{\Delta_4}F_{22}F_{12} \\ \frac{A^{y}_{l,3}}{A^{(x)}_{0}} & = - \frac{1}{\Delta_1} F_{21}F_{11} + \frac{1}{\Delta_3}F_{22}F_{12} \end{aligned} \label{eq:leak_amp}$$ Where $F_{11} = 0.0513$ and $F_{12} = 0.9987$ are two dimensionless parameters from the dipole moments between eigenstates of spin-orbit and spin-spin Hamiltonian of single NV centers (see Eq. in \[subsec:dipole\]), $\Delta_i$ are the energy mismatch for excited level $\ket{e_i}$. If we consider the fact that the excited states $\ket{e_1}$ and $\ket{e_2}$, $\ket{e_3}$ and $\ket{e_4}$ are energetically degenerate, i.e. $\Delta_1 = \Delta_2$, $\Delta_3 = \Delta_4$, these four transition amplitudes satisfies $ -\frac{A^{x}_{l,2}}{A^{(x)}_{0}} = \frac{A^{y}_{l,2}}{A^{(y)}_{0}} = \frac{A^{x}_{l,3}}{A^{(y)}_{0}} = \frac{A^{y}_{l,3}}{A^{(x)}_{0}}$. We plot the magnitude of R.H.S of Eq. in Fig. \[fig:leakage\], and label the “magic” point and “balance” point by red and blue arrows respectively. At the “balance” point, the leak transition amplitudes are two orders of magnitudes smaller than the state-flipping transition amplitudes and hence have little impact on the gate operation scheme $B1$. The population of the NV centers in ground states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ decays slowly to $\ket{g_1}$ due to the existence of the leakage transitions, which sets a maximum gate operation window to avoid significant population loss. At the “magic” point, the leak transition amplitudes are comparable to the state-preserving transition amplitudes. Note that this suppression is not due to the interference. Instead, it is mainly suppressed by the small mixing of excited spin $S_z=0$ states with spin $S_z=\pm 1$ states that caused by the spin-spin interaction [@Doherty2011]. Compared to the state-flipping transition amplitudes, the leakage transition amplitudes are approximately ten times smaller than the state-flipping transition amplitudes. The gate operation schemes working at the “magic” frequencies are not severely affected. To quantitatively estimate the effect of the non-radiative relaxation process, we approximate the dynamics of NV centers with the metastable spin-singlet states as a three-level system, ground state $\ket{0}$, excited state $\ket{1}$ and meta-stable state $\ket{2}$. The transition between states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ are driven by an off-resonance classical laser field. The non-radiative relaxation process from state $\ket{1}$ to meta-stable state $\ket{2}$ are modeled by the coupling to a thermal optical phonon bath with temperature zero. Therefore the dynamics can be described by the master equation $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t \rho & = -i (2\pi) \left[ -\delta \sigma_{00} + \Omega_{R} \left(\sigma_{01}+ \sigma_{10} \right), \, \rho \right] + \mathcal{L} \rho, \\ \mathcal{L}\rho & = -\frac{\Gamma_{NR}}{2} \left( \sigma_{11}\rho + \rho\sigma_{11} - 2 \sigma_{21}\rho\sigma_{12} \right), \end{aligned} \label{eq:leakage_master_equation}$$ where operators $\sigma_{ij}$ are defined by $\sigma_{ij} = \vert i \rangle \langle j \vert$, $h\delta = \epsilon_{1} - \epsilon_{0} - h \nu_{d}$ is the detuning of the drive field, $\epsilon_{i}$ is the energy of the state $\ket{i}$, $h \Omega_{R} = p_0 E_{d}$ is the Rabi frequency, $p_0$ is the dipole moment for the optical transition between $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$, which is approximated as $p_0 \approx 5.2$ Debye (see \[subsec:transition\_rates\] and Ref. [@Alkauskas2014]), $E_{d}$ is the driving light electric field, $\Gamma_{\textrm{NR}}$ is the non-radiative relaxation rate from state $\ket{1}$ to $\ket{2}$. We estimate the non-radiative relaxation rate $\Gamma_{\textrm{NR}}$ by the lifetime of the excited levels of NV centers. In Ref. [@Doherty2013], a six-level model is introduced to describe the NV center electronic structure. The excited manifold is simplified as two states with quantum number $S_z = 0$ and $S_z = \pm 1$, with measured lifetime $12.0$ ns and $7.8$ ns respectively [@Batalov2008]. We further assume that the excited state $S_z = 0$ has no relaxation path to the meta-stable state and the radiative relaxation from excited states back to ground states of NV centers are the same, and hence the non-radiative relaxation rate from excited state $S_z = \pm 1$ can be estimated using the difference of the lifetimes of these two excited states as $\Gamma_{\textrm{NR}} \approx 44.9$ MHz. We approximate the detuning by the smallest detuning of our driving light, to one of the four excited states with $S_z \sim \pm 1$, i.e. $\ket{e_1}$, $\ket{e_2}$, $\ket{e_5}$ and $\ket{e_6}$. If our proposed gate is working at the “magic” frequency of the driving light, the detuning $\delta \approx 3.95$ GHz for a $\hat{y}$ polarized driving light and $5.11$ GHz for a $\hat{x}$ polarized driving light. Clearly, $\Gamma_{\textrm{NR}} / \delta \ll 1$, so that we work in the dressed-state basis and then treat the Lindblad term $\mathcal{L}\rho$ in Eq. as a perturbation. In our previous treatment of scattering transitions, we implicitly assumed that the Rabi frequency is small compared to detuning, i.e. $\Omega_{R} / \delta \ll 1$. The dressed state basis for the Hamiltonian in Eq. is $\ket{-} \sim \ket{0} - \frac{\Omega_{R}}{\delta} \ket{1}$ and $\ket{+} \sim \ket{1} + \frac{\Omega_{R}}{\delta} \ket{0}$. If all the population is in state $\ket{0}$ at the beginning, we would expect most of the population will be remain in the state $\ket{-}$ after we start driving the Rabi oscillation. Since the non-radiative relaxation removes the population in state $\ket{1}$ only, the decay rate for the population in state $\ket{-}$ is $\Gamma_{-} \sim \Gamma_{\textrm{NR}} \sigma_{11}\ket{-}\bra{-}\sigma_{11} \sim \Gamma_{\textrm{NR}} \frac{\Omega_{R}^2}{\delta^2} \propto E_{d}^2$. As we show in \[subsec:transition\_rates\], the state-flipping transition rate at the “magic” point is $\Gamma_{t} \sim \Gamma_0 \propto E_{d}^2$, we can calculate the ratio between the lower state-flipping transition rates versus the non-radiative relaxation rate as $\Gamma_{t} / \Gamma_{-} \sim 1.63$ and $0.975$ for $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ polarized driving light respectively, which are independent of the driving strength $E_{d}$. These two ratios set a hard limit on the collection time window of the scattered photon before the population is lost. We perform the same calculation at the “balance” point, and determine the hard limit on the collection window. As the “balance” point is located between the excited states $\ket{e_5}$ and $\ket{e_6}$, this balance frequency for gate operation is more vulnerable to population loss. The transition ratio $\Gamma_{t}/\Gamma_{-}$ is calculated as $0.744$ and $0.412$ for $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ polarized driving light at “balance” point. We summarize the parameters we used and the results in Table \[tab:data\] for reference. ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------------- NV-center electronic dipole moment $p_0$ $5.2$ Debye Non-radiative relaxation rate for NV excited states $\Gamma_{\textrm{NR}}$ $44.9$ MHz $\hat{x}$-polarized drive at “magic” frequency detuning $\delta$ $5.11$ GHz transition rates ratio $\Gamma_t/\Gamma_{-}$ 1.63 $\hat{y}$-polarized drive at “magic” frequency detuning $\delta$ $3.95$ GHz transition rates ratio $\Gamma_t/\Gamma_{-}$ 0.975 $\hat{x}$-polarized drive at “balance” frequency detuning $\delta$ $3.45$ GHz transition rates ratio $\Gamma_t/\Gamma_{-}$ 0.744 $\hat{y}$-polarized drive at “balance” frequency detuning $\delta$ $2.57$ GHz transition rates ratio $\Gamma_t/\Gamma_{-}$ 0.412 ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------------- Summary and Outlook {#sec:summary} =================== In this paper, we proposed a 2-qubit unitary quantum gate to achieve quantum logic operations using two NV centers. We theoretically analyzed how a photon is scattered by an NV center, taking care of the interference between different excitation paths. We found that for scattering rates between two electronic spin states ($\ket{S_z=\pm1}$) there are two special frequencies for the driving light: a “magic” frequency at which the state conserving scattering rate is suppressed and a “balanced” frequency at which the state-flipping transition rates are equal. We analyzed the gate unitarity, fidelity and success probability for each of the schemes with possible experimental imperfections. When the photon collection efficiency is $\sim 0.85$, the gate fidelity of the most reliable scheme can reach $\sim 0.97$ when we impose a photon collection window $0.1/\bar{\Gamma}_{f}$, where $\bar{\Gamma}_{f}$ is the averaged state-flipping transition rate. While decreasing the photon collection window can improve the gate fidelity, the corresponding decrease in the success probability will have to be mitigated by some other means to ensure we stay above the threshold for cluster or graph-state quantum computing. The proposed scheme could also be extended to other qubits such as Silicon-vacancy in diamond, or to localized vibronic states of the NV or other defect centers where the larger energy splittings can allow for quantum computing even at room temperature. Acknowledgment ============== The authors acknowledge useful discussion with Roger Mong and Sophia Economou. The work was supported by the Charles E. Kaufman foundation Grant Number KA2014-73919 (CL, MVGD, DP), ARO (CL, DP), NSF Grant Number EFRI ACQUIRE 1741656 (MVGD). Appendix {#Apendix} ======== Waveguide modes and the NV center coupling strength {#subsec:waveguide} --------------------------------------------------- ![image](Modes.pdf){width="7"} In this section of the appendix, we analyze the triangular diamond waveguide and its mode profiles. The triangular diamond waveguide we proposed in our paper has $300$ nm edge. The diamond waveguide can be experimentally fabricate using anisotropic plasma etching [@Burek2012]. The mode profiles are calculated by solving eigenproblem of discretized transverse Maxwell equation using Lumerical Mode solution solver. There are only two degenerate guided modes at the “magic” frequency. The mode profiles are shown in Fig. \[fig:waveguide\]. The modes are normalized according to, $$\int d x d y \epsilon_{r} (x,y) \vec{E}_{m}^{} (x,y) \cdot \vec{E}_{n} (x,y) = \delta_{m,n} \label{eq:mode_normalization}$$ where indices $m$ and $n$ are for modes, $\epsilon_r$ is the relative permittivity. To calculate the light collection efficiency of the diamond waveguide, we treat the NV-center as a dipole moment $\vec{p} = \lvert p \rvert \cdot \hat{p}$ located at position $\vec{r}_0$, where $\hat{p}$ is the unit vector along the dipole moment. We only consider the dipole interaction between NV-centers and the modes inside the waveguide. If we have a well defined mode in the cross-section, whose electric field is $\vec{E}_n(\vec{r})$, the emission rate from the NV-center to this mode $\Gamma_n$ is proportional to $\lvert p \rvert^2 \cdot \lvert \vec{E}_n(\vec{r}_0) \cdot \hat{p} \rvert^2$. For a complete set of orthonormal modes in space with frequency of emission light $\{ \vec{E}_n(\vec{r}) \}$, the total rate can be calculated as $\Gamma_{\text{total}} = \sum_n \lvert p \rvert^2 \cdot \lvert \vec{E}_n(\vec{r}_0) \cdot \hat{p} \rvert^2$. Therefore, the collection efficiency of the waveguide is, $$\eta(\vec{r}_0)=\frac{ \sum_{n}^{\prime} \lvert \vec{E}_n(\vec{r}_0) \cdot \hat{p} \rvert^2}{\sum_{n} \lvert \vec{E}_n(\vec{r}_0) \cdot \hat{p} \rvert^2}, \label{eq:collection}$$ where $\sum_{n}^{\prime}$ is the summation over the guided modes only, an $\sum_n$ is the summation over all the modes in the complete set of orthonormal modes. ![image](Fig5_Oct17.pdf){width="\textwidth"} In the numerical approach, we cannot solve an infinite large region. Instead, we solve the modes using a finite size cross-section region. The boundary condition around the region is chosen as perfect matched layer (PML) to simulate the infinite space. We plot the collection efficiency of the diamond waveguide with a dipole moment pointing along $x$, $y$ and $z$ direction at different position in this cross-section in Fig. \[fig:collection\]. From the figure, the collection efficiency for a NV-center whose electric dipole moment is along the $x$ or $y$ direction is $\eta \approx 0.86$. However, when the dipole moment is pointing along $z$ direction, the collection efficiency is poor because a dipole moment pointing along $z$ direction mainly radiates in a direction transverse to the direction of the waveguide. Assuming the NV center is centered in the waveguide, i.e. $x,y \sim 0$, and the NV center is orientated as Fig. \[fig:MBEphonon\](c) shows, the optical dipole moment is along the transverse direction of the waveguide. According to Fig. \[fig:collection\], the NV center optical transitions with $\hat{x}$ dipole moment strongly couples to the mode 1 and almost no coupling to mode 2, while the transitions with $\hat{y}$ dipole moment strongly couples to the mode 2 and almost no coupling to mode 1. Dipole moment of NV-centers without external magnetic field {#subsec:dipole} ----------------------------------------------------------- In this section, we discuss the NV center dipole moment matrix for optical transitions between electronic ground and excited state of NV centers with spin-orbit, spin-spin interactions, and with strain field in diamond crystal. We assume there is no magnetic field applied to the NV center. Here, we follow the notation of Ref. [@Doherty2011], which gives a detailed review of the electronic properties of negatively charged NV centers. We want to stress that the directions $\hat{x}$, $\hat{y}$ and $\hat{z}$ in this section are the intrinsic directions of an NV center. The direction $\hat{z}$ is defined as the axial direction of NV center, i.e. the direction along the nitrogen atom and the vacancy site, which is the $[111]$ direction of the diamond crystal. The NV center electronic fine states structure is shown in Fig. \[fig:transition\](a) of our main paper. Here we assume the dipole moment operator $\hat{\vec{p}}$ between the molecule orbits of NV-centers are, $$\bra{e_x}\hat{\vec{p}}\ket{a_1} = p_0 \cdot \hat{x} \quad , \quad \bra{e_y}\hat{\vec{p}}\ket{a_1} = p_0 \cdot \hat{y} \label{eq:MOdipole}$$ where $\ket{a_1}$, $\ket{e_x}$ and $\ket{e_y}$ are molecule orbits of NV centers [@Doherty2011], $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ are unit vector pointing along $x$ or $y$ direction. We note that the state $\ket{e_y}$ has intrinsic dipole moment and $\bra{e_x}\hat{\vec{p}}\ket{e_y}$ is non-zero. However, since we only consider the transition between spin-triplet ground states and excited states of an NV center, the assumption in Eq. is enough. The equality of the magnitude of these two dipole moment is guaranteed by Wigner-Echart theorem. Using Eq. with Table 1 (and Table A.1) in Ref. [@Doherty2011], we can calculate the dipole moment operators between the electronic fine levels of ground and excited states. Here we only consider spin $1$ states whose energy is inside the diamond band gap. Because the dipole transition does not interact with spin degree of freedom, the spin projection along $z$ direction should be invariant. The non-zero dipole moment operator elements between definite orbital symmetry states are: $$\begin{aligned} \bra{A_2,1,0} &\hat{\vec{p}} \ket{E_x,1,0} & = p_0 \cdot \hat{y} \\ \bra{A_2,1,0} &\hat{\vec{p}} \ket{E_y,1,0} & = p_0 \cdot \hat{x} \\ \bra{A_2,1,+1} &\hat{\vec{p}} \ket{E_x,1,+1} & = p_0 \cdot \hat{y} \\ \bra{A_2,1,+1} &\hat{\vec{p}} \ket{E_x,1,+1} & = p_0 \cdot \hat{x} \\ \bra{A_2,1,-1} &\hat{\vec{p}} \ket{E_x,1,-1} & = p_0 \cdot \hat{y} \\ \bra{A_2,1,-1} &\hat{\vec{p}} \ket{E_x,1,-1} & = p_0 \cdot \hat{x} \end{aligned}$$ Here the states are labeled as $\ket{k,S,S_z}$, where $k$ labels the lattice symmetry group irreducible representations, $S$ is the spin quantum number, $S_z$ is the $z$-direction spin projection quantum number. These states can be found in Ref. [@Doherty2011] Table 1 and Table A.1. For completeness, we list them using hole representation here, $$\begin{array}{ll} \ket{A_2,1,0} & = \left( \ket{e_x \bar{e_y}} + \ket{\bar{e_x} e_y} \right)/ \sqrt{2} \\ \ket{E_x,1,0} & = \left( \ket{\bar{a_1} e_x} + \ket{a_1 \bar{e_x}} \right)/ \sqrt{2} \\ \ket{E_y,1,0} & = \left( \ket{\bar{a_1} e_y} + \ket{a_1 \bar{e_y}} \right)/ \sqrt{2} \\ \ket{A_2,1,1} & = \ket{\bar{e_x} \bar{e_y}} \\ \ket{E_x,1,1} & = \ket{\bar{a_1} \bar{e_x}} \\ \ket{E_y,1,1} & = \ket{\bar{a_1} \bar{e_y}} \\ \ket{A_2,1,-1} & = \ket{e_x e_y} \\ \ket{E_x,1,-1} & = \ket{a_1 e_x} \\ \ket{E_y,1,-1} & = \ket{a_1 e_y} \end{array}$$ where the bar denotes spin-down. Similarly, we can also find the dipole moment operators between definite spin-orbital symmetry states which are shown in Table 1 of Ref. [@Doherty2011]. The states $\ket{g_1}$, $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ are used to label states $\Phi_{1,A_1}^{\text{SO}}$, $\Phi_{2,E,x}^{\text{SO}}$ and $\Phi_{2,E,y}^{\text{SO}}$ in Ref. [@Doherty2011] respectively. Since these states do not mix under spin-orbit and spin-spin interactions, we write them down explicitly here for ease of use later, $$\begin{aligned} \ket{g_1} = & \ket{A_2,1,0} \\ \ket{g_2} = & \frac{-1}{\sqrt 2} \left( \ket{A_2,1,1} - \ket{A_2,1,-1} \right) \\ \ket{g_3} = & \frac{-i}{\sqrt 2} \left( \ket{A_2,1,1} + \ket{A_2,1,-1} \right). \end{aligned} \label{eq:groundState}$$ We also write down the excited fine levels with definite spin-orbit symmetry, which we label $\ket{e_1}$ to $\ket{e_6}$ here (these are labeled $\Phi_{5,E,x}^{\text{SO}}$, $\Phi_{5,E,y}^{\text{SO}}$, $\Phi_{6,E,x}^{\text{SO}}$, $\Phi_{6,E,x}^{\text{SO}}$, $\Phi_{7,A_2}^{\text{SO}}$ and $\Phi_{8,A_1}^{\text{SO}}$ in Ref. [@Doherty2011]): $$\begin{array}{lll} \ket{e_1} &=\Phi_{5,E,x}^{\textrm{SO}}=&\frac{1}{2} [ -i\left( \ket{E_x,1,1}+\ket{E_x,1,-1} \right) \\ & & -\left( -\ket{E_y,1,1} + \ket{E_y,1,-1} \right)] \\ \ket{e_2} &=\Phi_{5,E,y}^{\textrm{SO}}=&\frac{1}{2} [- \left( -\ket{E_x,1,1}+\ket{E_x,1,-1} \right) \\\ & & +i \left( \ket{E_y,1,1} + \ket{E_y,1,-1} \right)] \\ \ket{e_3} &=\Phi_{6,E,x}^{\textrm{SO}}=&-\ket{E_y,1,0} \\ \ket{e_4} &=\Phi_{6,E,y}^{\textrm{SO}}=&\ket{E_x,1,0} \\ \ket{e_5} &=\Phi_{7,A_2}^{\textrm{SO}}=&\frac{1}{2} [ \left( -\ket{E_x,1,1}+\ket{E_x,1,-1} \right) \\ & & +i \left( \ket{E_y,1,1} + \ket{E_y,1,-1} \right)] \\ \ket{e_6} &=\Phi_{8,A_1}^{\textrm{SO}}=&\frac{1}{2} [ -i\left( \ket{E_x,1,1}+\ket{E_x,1,-1} \right) \\ & & +\left( -\ket{E_y,1,1} + \ket{E_y,1,-1} \right)] \end{array}$$ The non-zero dipole moment operator matrix elements can be calculated for states of definite spin-orbital (SO) symmetry using the molecular orbitals. The dipole moment operators between the SO ground and excited state are labeled $\hat{\vec{p}}_{i,j}=\bra{g_i} \hat{\vec{p}} \ket{e_j}$, and can be represented as a matrix: $$\hat{\vec{p}}_{i,j} = p_0 \cdot \left( \begin{array}{cccccc} \bm{0} & \bm{0} & \hat{x} & \hat{y} & \bm{0} & \bm{0}\\ -\frac{\hat{x}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{\hat{y}}{\sqrt 2} & \bm{0} & \bm{0} & -\frac{\hat{y}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{\hat{x}}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{\hat{y}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{\hat{x}}{\sqrt 2} & \bm{0} & \bm{0} & \frac{\hat{x}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{\hat{y}}{\sqrt{2}} \end{array} \right). \label{eq:SOStates}$$ Here $\bm{0}$ indicates forbidden in dipole transitions. Note, this dipole moment operator matrix is consistent with the group symmetry prediction shown in Table A.4 of the Ref. [@Doherty2011]. Furthermore, the spin-orbit interaction and spin-spin (SS) Hamiltonian given in the basis of SO states can be found in Ref. [@Doherty2011] Table 2 and Table 3. Due to the large energy separation between the electronic ground states and excited states, the matrix elements out of the block of ground states or excited states are ignored, i.e. the perturbation theory can applied to the electronic ground states and excited states separately. The perturbation Hamiltonian for SO and SS interactions in ground state manifold, $V_{g} = V_{g}^{\text{(SO)}} + V_{g}^{\text{(SS)}}$, is diagonal, which means the states $\ket{g_1}$, $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ are still the eigenstates of the NV-center with SO interaction ($V_{g}^{\text{(SO)}}$) and SS interaction ($V_{g}^{\text{(SS)}}$). However, the perturbation Hamiltonian in the excited state manifold, $V_{e} = V_{e}^{(SO)} + V_{e}^{(SS)}$, is not diagonal. Besides affecting the level splitting, the perturbation interaction Hamiltonian results in mixing of the excited state. We can find a unitary matrix $U_e$ to diagonalize the excited state perturbation Hamiltonian $V_{e}$ by $U_{e} V_{e} U_{e}^{\dagger}$. The eigenstates of the new basis can be transformed from the SO basis by applying the unitary matrix $U_e$ to the SO basis. Therefore, the dipole moment operator between the ground states and the new excited states can be found by treating $\left( \hat{\vec{p}}_{i,j} \right)$ in Eq. as a matrix and applying $\left( \hat{\vec{p}}_{i,j} \right) \cdotp U_{e}^{\dagger}$. After taking the SS interactions into consideration, the excited state $\ket{e_1}$ mixes with state $\ket{e_3}$, state $\ket{e_2}$ mixes $\ket{e_4}$, which results in small but non-zero dipole moment matrix elements between ground states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ to the excited states $\ket{e_3}$ and $\ket{e_4}$. The eigenstates that diagonalize the SO and SS interaction Hamiltonian in NV electronic excited states are noted as SS basis of the NV center excited states and they are labeled as $\ket{\tilde{e}_i}$ for $i=1$ to $6$. Note that the notation $\ket{e_i}$ in our main paper refers to the SS basis states instead. The dipole moment operator between NV ground states and SS basis states of excited states is $$\frac{\hat{\vec{p}}}{p_0}= \left( \begin{array}{cccccc} -F_{11} \hat{x} & -F_{11} \hat{y} & F_{12} \hat{x} & F_{12} \hat{y} & \vec{0} & \vec{0} \\ -F_{21} \hat{x} & F_{21} \hat{y} & -F_{22} \hat{x} & F_{22} \hat{y} & -F_{23} \hat{y} & F_{23} \hat{x} \\ F_{21} \hat{y} & F_{21} \hat{x} & F_{22} \hat{y} & F_{22} \hat{x} & F_{23} \hat{x} & F_{23} \hat{y} \end{array} \right) \label{eq:dipole_SS}$$ where $F_{11} = 0.0513 $, $F_{12} = 0.9987$, $F_{21}=0.7062$, $F_{22} = 0.0363$, $F_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}$. The strain field ($\vec{\xi}$) can also affect the NV electronic states. The strain field interactions to the NV electronic ground states are much smaller than the interactions to the excited states. Therefore we ignore the strain interaction to the NV ground states and only consider the excited state mixing due to the strain field. According to Ref. [@Doherty2011], axial strain field ($\xi_z$) does not mix the excited states, it only shifts the energy of the excited states and hence the dipole moment matrix does not change. However, the interaction Hamiltonian due to transverse strain field $\xi_x$ and $\xi_y$ has off-diagonal matrix elements in the SO basis of excited states, which means the transverse strain field mixes the SO basis of excited states. Assume the transverse strain field is small so that the group symmetry of NV center is still preserved. The interaction Hamiltonian for $\hat{x}$-direction strain field is $$H(\xi_x) = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -E \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & E & 0\\ 0 & 0 & E & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -E & 0 & 0\\ 0 & E & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -E & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) \label{eq:x_strain}$$ in the basis of the SO basis states, where $E$ is the interaction strength introduced by $\hat{x}$ direction strain field. From the Hamiltonian, the excited state $\ket{e_1}$ mixes with state $\ket{e_6}$, state $\ket{e_2}$ mixes with state $\ket{e_5}$. Since the dipole moment between the states $\ket{e_1}$, $\ket{e_6}$ and ground states has the same direction, we should expected that the dipole moment elements between SS basis states $\bra{\tilde{e}_1} \hat{\vec{p}} \ket{g_j}$ and $\bra{\tilde{e}_6} \hat{\vec{p}} \ket{g_j}$ for $j=2,3$ does not change directions, which can be easily checked after diagonalize the SO, SS with the strain field coupling Hamiltonian. Similar to the $\bra{\tilde{e}_2} \hat{\vec{p}} \ket{g_j}$ and $\bra{\tilde{e}_5} \hat{\vec{p}} \ket{g_j}$. Besides, due to the perturbation introduced by $\hat{x}$-direction strain field, the degeneracy of excited states $\ket{\tilde{e}_1}$ and $\ket{\tilde{e}_2}$ as well as the degeneracy of states $\ket{\tilde{e}_3}$ and $\ket{\tilde{e}_4}$ is broken. The Hamiltonian for small $\hat{y}$-direction strain field in diamond crystal is, $$H(\xi_y) = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -E & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -E \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -E & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & -E & 0 & 0 & 0\\ -E & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -E & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) \label{eq:y_strain}$$ where $E$ is the interaction energy due to the $\hat{y}$ direction strain field. The $\hat{y}$ direction strain field mixes the excited state $\ket{e_1}$ with $\ket{e_5}$, state $\ket{e_2}$ with $\ket{e_6}$ and state $\ket{e_3}$ with $\ket{e_4}$. The dipole moment $\bra{\tilde{e}_i} \hat{\vec{p}} \ket{g_j}$ for $i=1$ to $6$ and $j=2,3$ does not point along $\hat{x}$ or $\hat{y}$ directions any more. Instead, the dipole moment between the same excited state and the two ground states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ are no longer orthogonal. This feature of the dipole moment matrix causes that the scattering light from state-preserving and state-flipping transitions are not polarized along perpendicular directions. Transition rates and Raman photon polarization {#subsec:transition_rates} ---------------------------------------------- In this section, we present the details of the scattering rate calculation. To estimate the magnitude of the dipole moment, we modeled the relaxation from the electronic excited state with $S_z=0$ (e.g $\ket{e_3}$), back to ground state with $S_z=0$ (e.g. $\ket{g_1}$) as a two-level system spontaneous relaxation process. If we ignore the slow relaxation processes from state $\ket{e_3}$ to the other two ground state levels $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$, then the lifetime of state $\ket{e_3}$, which is $13$ ns [@Doherty2013], can be used to estimate the value of dipole moment. The magnitude of dipole moment estimated based on this method is $\lvert p \rvert = e \lvert d \rvert = 5.2$ Debye [@Alkauskas2014], where $e$ is the electron charge. As we pointed out in \[subsec:waveguide\] and \[subsec:dipole\] the NV center dipole moments for optical transition between ground and excited states are along the transverse direction. Therefore, we choose to match the axial direction of NV centers ($\hat{z}$ direction) to the waveguide $\hat{z}$ direction to have optimum coupling efficiency. We also choose to match the NV center intrinsic transverse directions $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ with the waveguide transverse direction $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ as Fig. \[fig:MBEphonon\](c) shows. To calculate the scattering transition rates between ground states $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$, we consider a single NV center residing inside an infinitely long waveguide shown in \[subsec:waveguide\]. The quantized guided waveguide mode in a length $L$ waveguide, with wavevector along the waveguide axial direction $k_z$ and mode index $m$ is [@Lodahl2015]: $$\hat{E}_{k_z,m} = \mathcal{E}_0 (k_z) \vec{u}_{k_z,m} (x,y) a_{k_z,m} \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}} e^{i k_z z - i \omega_{k_z}t} + h.c., \label{eq:quantize_guide_mode}$$ where $a_{k_z,m}$ is the annihilation operator for photons with $k_z$ and mode $m$, $\omega_{k_z}$ is the angular frequency of the mode photon, which can be determined by the waveguide dispersion relations, $\mathcal{E}_0 (k_z) = \sqrt{\hbar \omega_{k_z}/2 \varepsilon_0}$ in which $\varepsilon_0$ is the vacuum permittivity, $\vec{u}_{k_z,m}(x,y)$ is the mode profile on the cross section of the waveguide. The mode profile is normalized according to the normalization condition, $$\int dx dy \, \varepsilon_r (x,y) \vec{u}_{k_z,m}^{} (x,y) \cdot \vec{u}_{k_z,n} (x,y) = \delta_{m,n} \label{eq:mode_normalization_2}$$ To simplify the calculation, we assume the NV centers only couple to the driving light and the waveguide modes, and ignore the coupling to the non-guided modes. We further assume the driving light is a classical field while the waveguide modes are quantized. The interaction Hamiltonian is, $$\begin{aligned} H_{\text{int}} = & H_{\text{drive}} + H_{\text{guide}} \\ H_{\text{drive}} = & \left[ \sum_{i,j} \vec{E}_{d}^{}(\vec{r}_0) \cdot \hat{\vec{p}}_{i,j} \ket{g_i}\bra{e_j} e^{i \left( \omega_d - \omega_{ej,gi}\right) t} +h.c. \right]\\ H_{\text{guide}} = & \left[ \sum_{i,j} \sum_{k_z} \sum_{m_k} \mathcal{E}_0(k_z) \left( \vec{u}_{k_z,m_k} (\vec{r}_0) \cdot \hat{\vec{p}}_{i,j}^{} \right) a_{k_z,m} \ket{e_j}\bra{g_i} e^{i \left( \omega_{ej,gi}-\nu_{\vec{k},\lambda}\right)}+ h.c.\right]. \end{aligned} \label{eq:RamanRate}$$ $H_{\text{drive}}$ is for the interaction between the NV center and the driving light. The classical electromagnetic field, $\vec{E}(\vec{r}) e^{i \omega_d t}$, is the driving laser light. $\hat{\vec{p}}_{i,j}$ is defined as $\bra{g_i} \hat{\vec{p}} \ket{e_j}$, where $\ket{e_j}$ is the eigenstates of electronic excited state of NV center. $H_{\text{guide}}$ is for the interaction with the waveguide guided modes, $\vec{r}_0$ is the position of the NV center. The summation index $i = 1$ to $3$, while index $j=1$ to $6$. The mode index $m$ goes through all the guided modes in the waveguide with wave vector $k_z$. Note that the photon scattering process from ground state $\ket{g_i}$ to the ground state $\ket{g_{i'}}$ is a second order process. We use second order Fermi’s golden rule to calculate the transition rates. Assuming that initially there are no photons in the guided modes, and hence the initial state is $\ket{\Psi_i}=\ket{g_i}\otimes \ket{0}$, where $\ket{0}$ is the vacuum guided mode fields, while the scattering final state is $\ket{\Psi_f}=\ket{g_{i'}}\otimes\ket{1_m}$, where $\ket{1_m}$ is the state for one photon inside the guided mode $m$. Based on the second order Fermi’s Golden Rule, the transition rate from initial state $\ket{g_i}\otimes \ket{0}$ to final state $\ket{g_{i'}}\otimes \ket{1_m}$ is, $$\begin{aligned} & \Gamma_{i \rightarrow i'} = \frac{2 \pi}{\hbar} \delta(\epsilon_{f}-\epsilon_{i}) \\ & \times \left\vert \sum_{j=1}^{6} \bra{\Psi_f} \frac{H_{\text{guide}}\ket{e_j}\ket{0}\bra{0}\bra{e_j}H_{\text{drive}}}{\hbar \omega_d + \epsilon_{g,i}- \epsilon_{e,j}} \ket{\Psi_i}\right\vert^2 \end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{g,i}$ and $\epsilon_{e,j}$ are for the energy of NV states $\ket{g_i}$ and $\ket{e_j}$, $\omega_d$ is the driving light angular frequency. We define an effective Hamiltonian for Raman transition as, $$\begin{aligned} & H_{\textrm{eff}} = \sum_{j=1}^{6} \frac{H_{\text{guide}}\ket{e_j}\ket{0}\bra{0}\bra{e_j}H_{\text{drive}}}{\hbar \omega_d + \epsilon_{g,i}- \epsilon_{e,j}} \\ & = \sum_{k_z,m} \sum_{j=1}^{6} \frac{\mathcal{A}_{k_z,m}(\vec{r}_0)}{\Delta_j} \left( \hat{u}_{k_z,m}\cdot \hat{p}_{i',j}\right)^{}\left( \hat{\lambda}_d \cdot \hat{p}_{i,j}\right) a_{k_z,m}^{\dagger} \end{aligned} \label{eq:eff_H}$$ where $\mathcal{A}_{k_z,m}(\vec{r}_0)$ is a constant defined as $\mathcal{E}_0(k_z) u^{}_{k_z,m} E_d p_{0}^2$, energy mismatch $\Delta_j$ is defined as $\hbar \omega_d + \epsilon_{g,i} - \epsilon_{e,j}$. The variable $u_{k_z,m}$ is the magnitude of the waveguide mode with wave-vector $k_z$ and mode index $m$ at the NV position $\vec{r}_0$, $\hat{u}_{k_z,m}$ is the unit vector along the electric field of the mode at the NV center location, $\hat{p}_{i,j}$ is defined as $\hat{p}_{i,j} = \vec{p}_{i,j} / p_0$ in which $\vec{p}_{i,j}$ is the dipole moment operator elements between ground state $\ket{g_i}$ and excited $\ket{e_j}$. The driving field magnitude at the NV location is noted as $E_d$, while its polarization direction is labeled as $\hat{\lambda}_d$. The transition amplitude can be written as $\bra{\Psi_f} H_{\textbf{eff}} \ket{\Psi_i}$. As we pointed out in \[subsec:waveguide\], at the “magic” frequency, there are only two guided modes supported by the diamond waveguide. Further, mode $1$ and mode $2$ only have non-zero $E_x$ or $E_y$ components respectively (when the NV center is centered in the waveguide: $x,y\sim 0$). Therefore, the transitions with $\hat{x}$ dipole and transitions with $\hat{y}$ dipole couple to different modes. If we also assume that at the NV center location, $E_x(\vec{r}_0)$ of mode $1$ is equal to $E_y(\vec{r}_0)$ of mode $2$, the constant $\mathcal{A}$ does not depend on mode number $m$. If we only considered the modes which respect the energy conservation, and use $\hat{x}$ polarized light to drive the transitions, the effective Hamiltonian can be written as, $$\begin{aligned} H_{\textrm{eff},k_{z0}}/\mathcal{A}_{k_{z0}} & = \left( \frac{F_{21}^2}{\Delta_1} + \frac{F_{22}^2}{\Delta_3} + \frac{F_{23}^2}{\Delta_6}\right)\ket{g_2}\bra{g_2} a_{k_{z0},2}^{\dagger} +\left( \frac{F_{21}^2}{\Delta_2} + \frac{F_{22}^2}{\Delta_4} + \frac{F_{23}^2}{\Delta_5}\right)\ket{g_3}\bra{g_3} a_{k_{z0},2}^{\dagger} \\ & + \left( \frac{-F_{21}^2}{\Delta_1} + \frac{-F_{22}^2}{\Delta_3} + \frac{F_{23}^2}{\Delta_6}\right)\ket{g_3}\bra{g_2} a_{k_{z0},1}^{\dagger} + \left( \frac{F_{21}^2}{\Delta_2} + \frac{F_{22}^2}{\Delta_4} + \frac{-F_{23}^2}{\Delta_5}\right)\ket{g_2}\bra{g_3} a_{k_{z0},1}^{\dagger} \end{aligned} \label{eq:detail_eff_H}$$ where we adopt the dipole moment operator expression in Eq. . The first and second terms give the state-preserving transitions, while the third and fourth terms give the state-flipping transitions. According to Eq. , photons from state-preserving transitions and state-flipping transitions have perpendicular polarizations, and hence they couple to two different modes. Similarly, if the driving light is polarized along $\hat{y}$ direction, following the same argument, it is easy to show that the photons from state-preserving transitions are coupled to mode $2$, while photons from state-preserving transitions are coupled to the mode $1$ instead. The orthogonal polarization of photons is a feature that originates in the orthogonal dipole moment between the ground states $\ket{g_2}$, $\ket{g_3}$ and the same excited state $\ket{e_j}$, i.e. $$\bra{g_2}\hat{\vec{p}}\ket{e_{j}} \cdot \bra{g_3} \hat{\vec{p}} \ket{e_{j}} = 0 \label{eq:dipole_orthogonal}$$ for $j=1$ to $6$ (we call this property orthogonality). The perturbation on the excited state energy, the dipole moment elements and the $\hat{x}$ direction strain field interaction, does not change this dipole moment property, and hence orthogonal polarization of photons is still expected from state-preserving and state-flipping transitions. If this feature does not persist, e.g. adding $\hat{y}$ direction strain field, the photons coming from state-flipping and state-preserving transitions become non-orthogonally polarized. The “magic” point is the point where both state-preserving transitions are highly suppressed. According to the Eq. , this requires, $$\begin{aligned} & \frac{F_{21}^2}{\Delta_1} + \frac{F_{22}^2}{\Delta_3} + \frac{F_{23}^2}{\Delta_6} =0 \\ & \frac{F_{21}^2}{\Delta_2} + \frac{F_{22}^2}{\Delta_4} + \frac{F_{23}^2}{\Delta_5} =0 \end{aligned}$$ However, there is no driving light frequency that can satisfy both equations. Instead, we choose to minimize the larger rates of these two transitions to improve the gate fidelity, i.e. to minimize $$\text{Max}\left[ \left\vert \frac{F_{21}^2}{\Delta_1} + \frac{F_{22}^2}{\Delta_3} + \frac{F_{23}^2}{\Delta_6}\right\vert, \, \left\vert\frac{F_{21}^2}{\Delta_2} + \frac{F_{22}^2}{\Delta_4} + \frac{F_{23}^2}{\Delta_5}\right\vert \right].$$ We found this is equivalent to solving the equation: $$\left( \frac{F_{21}^2}{\Delta_1} + \frac{F_{22}^2}{\Delta_3} + \frac{F_{23}^2}{\Delta_6}\right)^2 = \left(\frac{F_{21}^2}{\Delta_2} + \frac{F_{22}^2}{\Delta_4} + \frac{F_{23}^2}{\Delta_5}\right)^2,$$ which gives the frequency of the “magic” point used in the main manuscript. The transition rates at the “magic” point can be calculated using Fermi’s golden rule. We sum over all the possible $k_z$ and $m$ to get the transition rate from the initial state $\ket{g_i}$ to final state $\ket{g_{i'}}$: $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{i \rightarrow i'} = & \frac{\pi n_{\textrm{eff}} \omega_d p_{0}^{4} \vert u \vert^2 \vert E_d \vert^2}{c\hbar \varepsilon_0} \\ & \times \left\vert \sum_{j,m}\frac{1}{\Delta_j}\left( \hat{u}_{m}\cdot \hat{p}_{i',j}\right)^{}\left( \hat{\lambda}_d \cdot \hat{p}_{i,j}\right) \right\vert^2. \end{aligned} \label{eq:rate_v1}$$ Here, $n_{\textrm{eff}}$ is the effective refractive index for the modes at the frequency of the driving light, the dispersion relation of the guided modes at the driving light frequency is $\omega = (c/n_{\textrm{eff}}) k_z$. We also assume the NV center is located at a point where the $E_x$ field of mode $1$ is equal to the $E_y$ field of mode $2$, which is represented as $u$, while the $E_y$ of mode $1$ and $E_x$ of mode $2$ is zero. The unit vectors $\hat{u}_m$ and $\hat{\lambda}_d$ shows the direction of the guided field in waveguide and the driving field at the NV location. To convert the term inside $\|\dots\|^2$ to a dimensionless parameter, we define $ \Delta_{j} = h \nu_0 \tilde{\Delta}_j$ where $\nu_0 = 1$ GHz. Therefore we can define a rate constant $\Gamma_0$ and a dimensionless parameter $\mathcal{G}_{i,i'}$ so that the transition rate $\Gamma_{i \rightarrow i'} = \Gamma_0 \mathcal{G}_{i,i'}(\omega_d)$, where $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_0 & = \frac{n_{\textrm{eff}} \omega_d p_{0}^{4} \vert u \vert^2 \vert E_d \vert^2}{4\pi c\hbar^3 \varepsilon_0 \nu_0} \\ \mathcal{G}_{i,i'} & = \left\vert \sum_{j,m}\frac{1}{\tilde{\Delta}_j} \left( \hat{u}_{m}\cdot \hat{p}_{i',j}\right)^{}\left( \hat{\lambda}_d \cdot \hat{p}_{i,j}\right) \right\vert^2\end{aligned}$$ By solving the mode profiles at the “magic” frequency, the effective refractive index of these two modes are $n_{\textrm{eff}}=1.580$. At $x=0$, after properly normalize the mode fields using Eq. , we can find a point which satisfies our assumptions, i.e. $E_{x,1}(y_0) = E_{y,2}(y_0)$ (see Fig. \[fig:field\_slice\]). At this point, $u = 2.4847 \, \mu\textrm{m}^{-1}$. We estimate the electric field of the driving light by a $1\, \mu\textrm{W}$ plane wave focused with a $1\, \mu\textrm{m}^2$ region. The transition rate constant is calculated as $\Gamma_0 = 20.78$ MHz. Gate fidelity and tolerance of the magic point against NV electronic state perturbation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this section, we provide a more detailed discussion and analysis of how perturbations to NV electronic states affect the drive frequency (especially the “magic” frequency) and the gate fidelity. We focused on three types of perturbations: (1) shifts of the excited state energy /effect of an NV center, (2) perturbation of the dipole moment matrix elements and (3) small transverse strain fields inside the diamond crystal. We also analyze how each of the perturbation affects the polarization of the emitted photons. We mainly focus on the effect of perturbation at the “magic” point and explore how these perturbations affect gate fidelity for the gate operation schemes $M1$, $M2$, and $M3$. ![image](Magic_point_perturbation_energy_level_v9_jul22.pdf){width="\textwidth"} First, we consider perturbations that shift the energy of NV excited states. Since this type of perturbations does not affect the dipole moment between the ground states and excited states, the orthogonal property of scattered photon polarizations that are utilized by $M1$ and $B1$ are preserved. However, shifts of the excited state energies changes the transition amplitudes and hence may shift the position of the “magic” point. Changes in the state-flipping amplitudes affect the imbalance of the two state-flipping transitions rates, thus affect gate fidelity in scheme $M1$. Changes of the state-preserving transition amplitudes affect the suppression at the “magic” frequency, which affects the gate fidelity of scheme $M2$. To quantitatively explore the effects of the shifting of NV center electronic excited states, we artificially shift the energy of the excited states $\ket{e_1}$ to $\ket{e_6}$ one-by-one by $\pm 1$ GHz, while leave the dipole moments unchanged. With the energy level perturbation, we search around the original “magic” frequency to find a new “magic” frequency that minimize both state-flipping transition amplitudes. The shift of the “magic” frequency as we shift each of the excited state energies is plotted in Fig. \[fig:energy\_shift\](a). Assuming that the imbalance of the two state-flipping transition amplitudes is small, i.e. $\frac{\vert A_1 - A_2 \vert}{A_1 + A_2} \ll 1$, where $A_1$ and $A_2$ are defined in Eq. , enables us to expand the gate fidelity of scheme $M1$ as: $$F_{e,1} = \frac{\left(A_1+A_2\right)^2}{2\left( A_1^2 + A_2^2 \right)} = \frac{\bar{A}^2}{\bar{A}^2 + \Delta A^2} \sim 1 - \frac{\Delta A^2}{\bar{A}^2} \label{eq:m1_fid}$$ where $\bar{A} = (A_1+A_2)/2$ and $\Delta A = \vert A_1 - A_2 \vert/2$. We calculate the gate infidelity ($1-F_{e1}$) in each cases with gate operation scheme $M1$ and show it in Fig. \[fig:energy\_shift\](b). As we shift each excited state energy of the NV center by $\pm 1$ GHz, the gate fidelity of gate operation scheme $M1$ is only slightly affected. In the worst case, when we shift the energy of state $\ket{e_2}$ by $+1$ GHz, the gate fidelity drops to $\sim 0.96$. The gate operation scheme $M2$ is not affected by the imbalance of state-flipping transitions. However, because the state-preserving transition relation $\frac{A^{x}_{p,2}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} = \frac{A^{y}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(y)}}=-\frac{A^{y}_{p,2}}{A_{0}^{(y)}} = -\frac{A^{x}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(x)}}$ holds, when drive light is polarized along $(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$ direction, the state-preserving scattered photons are still along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction, which causes leakage of the state-preserving photons to the detector. Since we are working at the “magic” point where the state-preserving transitions are highly suppressed, we can also expand the gate fidelity of gate operation scheme $M2$ as: $$F_{e,2} = \frac{\bar{A}^2}{\bar{A}^2 + A_{p}^2} \sim 1 - \frac{A_{p}^2}{\bar{A}^2} \label{eq:m2_fid}$$ where $A_{p}$ is the magnitude of the state-preserving transition amplitudes. In Fig. \[fig:energy\_shift\](c), we plot the gate infidelity of the scheme $M2$. When shifting energy of state $\ket{e_1}$ by $+1$ GHz, the gate infidelity increases $\sim 0.04$. Again, the gate operation fidelity is only slightly affected by the excited state energy level shifting. Scheme $M3$ is not effected by shifting the excited state levels. Because the dipole moment is not affected, when the drive light is polarized along $(\hat{x} + \hat{y})$ direction, the state-preserving photons are still polarized along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction. The collection path polarizer along $(\hat{x} + \hat{y})$ can fully eliminate the state-preserving photons. The polarizations of the two types of state-flipping photons still deviated from $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction by $\pm \theta$ (see Fig. \[fig:polarization\]), where $\theta$ is determined by the imbalance of the state-flipping transitions. However, since these two directions are centered on the direction $(\hat{x} - \hat{y})$, after the polarizer, the two state-flipping transition rates are balanced. Second, we explore the effect of perturbations that modify the dipole moments of the NV centers. In \[subsec:dipole\], we constructed the dipole moment using Eq. . Let $\bra{e_x}\hat{\vec{p}}\ket{a_1} = p_{0x} \cdot \hat{x}, \bra{e_y}\hat{\vec{p}}\ket{a_1} = p_{0y} \cdot \hat{y}$, then $C_{3v}$ symmetry in combination with the Wigner-Eckart theorem guarantees that $p_{0x} = p_{0y}$, which is consistent with the assumptions in Eq. . Here we assume there might be certain types of perturbations that break this relation and give $p_{0x}/p_{0y} \neq 1$. Notice, that these perturbations break the state-preserving amplitudes relation, i.e. $\vert \bra{g_2} \hat{\mathbf{p}} \ket{e_i} \vert \neq \vert \bra{g_3} \hat{\mathbf{p}} \ket{e_i} \vert$, which voids the origin of the equality of state-preserving transition amplitudes in Eq. . Therefore, we will have four different state-preserving transition amplitudes. If we assume $p_{0y} = p_0$, as we shift $p_{0x}$, in dipole moment matrix in Eq. , the components along $\hat{y}$ direction do not change, while the components along $\hat{x}$ change by a factor $O_{x} = p_{0x} / p_{0}$ and hence the state-preserving transition amplitudes become $\tilde{A}^{x}_{p,2} = O_{x}^{2} A^{x}_{p,2}$ and $\tilde{A}^{x}_{p,3} = O_{x}^{2} A^{x}_{p,3}$. At the unperturbed “magic” point, the state-preserving transition amplitudes satisfy $\frac{A^{x}_{p,2}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} = \frac{A^{y}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(y)}}=-\frac{A^{y}_{p,2}}{A_{0}^{(y)}} = -\frac{A^{x}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(x)}}$. Under the dipole moment perturbation we obtain: $$\frac{\tilde{A}^{x}_{p,2}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} = -\frac{\tilde{A}^{x}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(x)}} = O_{x}^{2} \frac{\tilde{A}^{y}_{p,3}}{A_{0}^{(y)}} = - O_{x}^{2} \frac{\tilde{A}^{y}_{p,2}}{A_{0}^{(y)}}. \label{eq:dipole_preserv_trans_amp}$$ Even through we cannot suppress all four state-preserving transition amplitudes to the same level, we can still achieve a good suppression for $\tilde{A}^{x}_{p,2}$ and $\tilde{A}^{x}_{p,3}$ at the original “magic” point if the dipole mismatch factor $O_x$ is close to identity and hence we still use this drive frequency point as a “magic” point under perturbation. We also notice that the orthogonality property of the dipole matrix persists, i.e. $\bra{g_2}\hat{\mathbf{p}}\ket{e_j} \cdot \bra{g_3} \hat{\mathbf{p}}\ket{e_j} = 0$ for $j=1$ to $6$. Due to this feature, if the drive is polarized along $\hat{x}$ or $\hat{y}$ direction, the state-flipping photons are polarized along the direction perpendicular to state-preserving photons. Hence, the drive and polarizer setup in $M1$ can fully eliminate the state-preserving Raman photons from the collection path. Moreover, according to the state-flipping transition amplitudes in Eq. , when the perturbation gives mismatch factor $O_x \neq 1$, the state-flipping transition amplitudes are all enhanced (or shrunk) by a factor of $O_x$. Based on Eq. , the gate fidelity for scheme $M1$ is not affected by the dipole moment perturbation, as shown in Fig. \[fig:dipole\_perturb\](a). When the drive is polarized along $(\hat{x} + \hat{y})$ direction, due to the fact that the four state-preserving transition amplitudes in Eq. are not all equal at “magic” point, the state-preserving photons are not polarized along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$. We plot the deviation of the state-preserving transition photon polarization direction from $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ as the dipole mismatch changes in Fig. \[fig:dipole\_perturb\](b). Due to the rotation of the polarization direction of state-preserving photons, the state-preserving transition amplitudes seen after a $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ polarizer also varies. However, as the state-flipping transition amplitudes after the polarizer is much larger than the state-preserving transitions amplitudes, the gate operation scheme $M2$ is tolerant to small dipole mismatch as shown in Fig. \[fig:dipole\_perturb\](a). When the dipole moment mismatch is large (e.g. $\sim 0.5$), the gate fidelity of $M2$ drops by $\sim 0.01$. The gate fidelity of scheme $M3$ is strongly affected by the dipole moment perturbation as shown in Fig. \[fig:dipole\_perturb\](a). The polarizer setup in $M3$ is along $(\hat{x} + \hat{y})$ direction, which blocks most of the state-flipping photons. However, under the dipole moment perturbation, the state-preserving photons are not polarized along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction, which breaks the unitarity of scheme $M3$. Further, the leakage of the state-preserving photons through the polarizer can be as strong as the state-flipping photons, which strongly affects the gate fidelity. Since the two kinds of state-preserving photons are linearly polarized along the same direction, it is possible to rotate the polarizer on the collection path to completely eliminate the state-preserving photons. However, the two state-flipping transitions seen after the polarizer are not balanced anymore. In this way, we can improve the fidelity of scheme $M3$, but the gate is no longer perfectly unitary. Third, we consider perturbations due to a strain field in the diamond crystal. A strain field applied along the $\hat{x}$ ($\hat{y}$) direction mixes the NV excited states via the perturbation Hamiltonian Eq. (Eq. ). The strain field also acts on the ground state manifold, however, it only shifts the energy of the $\ket{g_2}$ and $\ket{g_3}$ states. Here, we ignore the impact of the strain fields on the ground states and only focus on the excited states. Due to the mixing of the excited states, the dipole moment matrix does not preserve the property $\vert \bra{g_2} \hat{\mathbf{p}} \ket{e_i} \vert = \vert \bra{g_3}\hat{\mathbf{p}}\ket{e_i}\vert$ and hence we expect the four state-preserving transition amplitudes to be different. Moreover, in the presence of a strain field, it is impossible to find a frequency point to make all four transitions balanced. Instead, in the vicinity of the unperturbed “magic” frequency, there is a window of drive frequencies in which the state-preserving transitions are suppressed. Therefore, we can still use the unperturbed “magic” point as the drive frequency in the presence of a weak strain field. Strain field applied in the $\hat{x}$ direction mixes the states $\ket{e_1}\leftrightarrow\ket{e_6}$, and $\ket{e_2} \leftrightarrow \ket{e_5}$. Note, the dipole moments between a certain ground state and the two excited states that are being mixed have the same direction. Hence, while the magnitude of the dipole moment between ground and excited states is affected by strain, its direction is not. Therefore, the orthogonal properties of the dipole moment \[see Eq. \] are preserved with the $\hat{x}$ direction strain field perturbation. In Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](a) we plot the gate entanglement fidelity for schemes $M1$, $M2$, and $M3$ as a function of strain in the $\hat{x}$ direction \[expressed via the matrix element $E$ in Eq. \]. We observe that strain has essentially no effect on the $M1$ scheme, weak effect on the $M2$ scheme, and strong effect on the $M3$ scheme. To understand the effect of the $\hat{x}$ strain field on the gate fidelity, we begin by plotting its effect on the non-zero state-preserving and state-flipping transition amplitudes at the “magic” frequency \[see Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](b)\]. We observe that in the presence of a small $\hat{x}$ strain field the state-flipping transitions are only slightly affected, while the state preserving transition amplitudes are still suppressed. In scheme $M1$, state-preserving photons can be blocked by the polarizer on the collection path due to the orthogonality property of the dipole moment matrix elements. As the state-flipping transitions are only slightly affected by the $\hat{x}$ direction strain field, the gate fidelity of $M1$ is almost flat \[see Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](a)\]. When the drive is polarized along $(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$ direction, since the transition amplitudes $A_{f,2}^{x}$ and $A_{f,3}^{x}$ only slightly affected by the $\hat{x}$ strain field \[see Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](b)\], neither the rates nor the polarizations of the state-flipping photons are heavily affected \[see green and red curves in Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](d)\]. However, the $\hat{x}$ strain field shifts the four state preserving transition amplitudes a lot, which causes the increase of the state-preserving transition rates \[see blue and orange curves in Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](d)\]. Note, the fact that the polarization of the state-preserving photons points along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction without strain field is because the state-preserving transition amplitudes satisfy $A_{p,2}^{x}=A_{p,3}^{y} = - A_{p,2}^{y} = - A_{p,3}^{x}$ at the “magic” point. The non-zero $\hat{x}$ strain field destroys this feature, which causes the polarization of the state-preserving photons deviates from $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction \[see Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](d) top panel\]. In $M2$, the polarizer on the collection path is along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction, which still allows most of the state-flipping photons passing through. In non-perturbed case, the state-preserving photons are polarized along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction, which can pass the collection path polarizer for certain. With the $\hat{x}$ strain field perturbation, the more the polarization of the state-preserving photons deviates from $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction, the less probable the photon can pass the collection path polarizer. However, the $x$-direction strain field also boost the generation rates of the state-preserving photons \[see Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](d) bottom panel\]. Combining these two factors, the overall gate fidelity for scheme $M2$ drops to $\sim 0.95$ as the $x$-direction strain field increases to $1$ GHz \[see Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](a)\]. However, in scheme $M3$, the collection path $(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$ polarizer blocks most of the state-flipping photons, which makes this scheme fragile to the leaking state-preserving photons. The key for the success of $M3$ in the non-perturbed case is the fact that state-preserving photons is polarized along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction. However, as we increase the $\hat{x}$ strain field, the polarization of the state-preserving photons are not exactly aligned $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction \[see Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](d) top panel\], which deteriorates the gate fidelity as shown in Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](a). The entanglement gate fidelity $F_e$ when $\hat{y}$ direction strain field is applied to the diamond crystal is plotted in Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](b). The $\hat{y}$ direction strain field mixes the states $\ket{e_1} \leftrightarrow \ket{e_5}$, $\ket{e_2}\leftrightarrow\ket{e_6}$, and $\ket{e_3}\leftrightarrow\ket{e_4}$. The mixing of the states results in the loss of the dipole moment orthogonality property. Therefore, for drive photons polarized along $\hat{x}$ direction the state-preserving photons are not necessarily polarized along $\hat{x}$, nor the state-flipping photons along $\hat{y}$. The polarization of both state-preserving photons and state-flipping photons relative to the $\hat{y}$ direction is plotted in Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](c). As we vary the $\hat{y}$ direction strain field, the polarization of the two kinds of state-flipping photons remains nearly along the $\hat{y}$ direction, but the polarization of state-preserving photons changes significantly. For scheme $M1$ (with $\hat{x}$ polarized drive), there are two main sources of error: (1) unbalanced state-flipping transitions as before and (2) $\hat{y}$ photons from state-preserving transitions that leak past the polarizer. We plot the polarization angule with respect to the $\hat{y}$ direction and the magnitude of the transition amplitudes for both state-preserving and state-flipping transitions in Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](e). As we increase the perturbation of $y$-direction strain field, the state-preserving transition amplitudes are slightly increased. Combining with the fact that polarization of the state-preserving photons are no longer along $\hat{x}$ direction exactly, the leaking state-preserving photons to the detector decreases the gate fidelity to $\sim 0.95$ as we change $\hat{y}$ direction strain field to $\sim \pm 1$ GHz. Similarly, when the drive is along $(\hat{x} + \hat{y})$ direction, the polarization features that were utilized in gate operation schemes $M2$ and $M3$ are no longer valid. We plot the deviation of the polarization angle of all scattered photons with respect to the polarizer direction in $M2$, i.e. $(\hat{x} - \hat{y})$, in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](f). The polarization of the state-flipping photons are slightly affect by the $\hat{y}$-direction strain field, while the state-preserving photon polarization rotates $\sim 54^{\circ}$ as we increase $\hat{y}$-direction strain field to $\pm 1$ GHz. The amplitudes of the state-preserving and state-flipping transitions are plotted in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](f). We observe that the transition amplitudes are only slightly affected by the applied $\hat{y}$-direction strain field. Therefore, to understand the effect of $y$-direction strain field on schemes $M2$ and $M3$, we mainly focus on the rotation of the scattered photon polarizations. The main error source in scheme $M2$ without perturbation is the leakage of state-preserving photons past the polarizer in the collection path. As we change the $\hat{y}$-direction strain field, the state-preserving transitions are only slightly affected, while the polarization of the state-preserving photons rotates away from the collection path polarizer direction, i.e. $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction \[see Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](h)\]. The state-preserving photons thus have a smaller probability to get past the polarizer in the collection path. Consequently, the gate fidelity for scheme $M2$ slightly improves as a result of $\hat{y}$-direction strain field perturbation, as we show in Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](b). On the other hand, the perfect gate fidelity of scheme $M3$ in the absence of perturbation is based on the fact that all state-preserving photons are polarized along $(\hat{x}-\hat{y})$ direction and hence are stopped by the polarizer in the collection path (along with most of the state-flipping photons). Large rotation angle of the state-preserving photon polarization makes the leakage rate of the state-preserving photons comparable to that of the state-flipping photons. This quickly degrades the gate fidelity as we show in Fig. \[fig:strain\_field\](b). [^1]: As we discuss in \[subsec:waveguide\], the transverse directions of the NV centers are aligned to the transverse directions of the waveguide, which leads to the $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ directions of the dipole moment to couple to two different guided modes of the waveguide.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We study the distribution of the sandpile group of random d-regular graphs. For the directed model, we prove that it follows the Cohen-Lenstra heuristics, that is, the limiting probability that the $p$-Sylow subgroup of the sandpile group is a given $p$-group $P$, is proportional to $\|\operatorname{Aut}(P)\|^{-1}$. For finitely many primes, these events get independent in the limit. Similar results hold for undirected random regular graphs, where for odd primes the limiting distributions are the ones given by Clancy, Leake and Payne. This answers an open question of Frieze and Vu whether the adjacency matrix of a random regular graph is invertible with high probability. Note that for directed graphs this was recently proved by Huang. It also gives an alternate proof of a theorem of Backhausz and Szegedy. address: 'Central European University, Budapest, and Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Budapest' author: - András Mészáros title: The distribution of sandpile groups of random regular graphs --- Introduction ============ We start by defining our random graph models. Let $d\ge3$. The graph of a permutation $\pi$ consists of the directed edges $i\pi(i)$. The random directed graph $D_n$ is defined by taking the union of the graphs of $d$ independent uniform random permutations of $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. Thus, the adjacency matrix $A_n$ of $D_n$ is just obtained as $A_n=P_1+P_2+...+P_d$, where $P_1,P_2,\dots,P_d$ are independent uniform random $n\times n$ permutation matrices. For the undirected model, assume that $n$ is even. The random $d$-regular graph $H_n$ is obtained by taking the union of $d$ independent uniform random perfect matchings. The adjacency matrix of $H_n$ is denoted by $C_n$. The reduced Laplacian $\Delta_n$ of $D_n$ is obtained from $A_n-dI$ by deleting its last row and last column. The subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$ generated by the rows of $\Delta_n$ is denoted by $\operatorname{RowSpace}(\Delta_n)$. The group $\Gamma_n=\mathbb{Z}^{n-1}/\operatorname{RowSpace}(\Delta_n)$ is called the sandpile group of $D_n$. If $D_n$ is strongly connected (which happens with high probability as $n\to \infty$), then $\Gamma_n$ is a finite abelian group of order $\|\det \Delta_n\|$. Note that from the Matrix-Tree Theorem, $\|\det \Delta_n\|$ is the number of spanning trees in $D_n$ oriented towards the vertex $n$. For general directed graphs the sandpile group may depend on the choice of deleted row and column, but not in our case, because $D_n$ is Eulerian. The sandpile group of $H_n$ is defined the same way. Assuming that $H_n$ is connected, the order of the sandpile group is equal to the number of spanning trees in $H_n$. Our main results are the following. \[CohenlenstraD\] Let $p_1,p_2,\dots,p_s$ be distinct primes. Let $\Gamma_n$ be the sandpile group of $D_n$. Let $\Gamma_{n,i}$ be the $p_i$-Sylow subgroup of $\Gamma_n$. For $i=1,2,\dots, s$, let $G_i$ be a finite abelian $p_i$-group. Then $$\label{Cohenlenstraeq} \lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^s \Gamma_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i\right)=\prod_{i=1}^s \left(\|\operatorname{Aut}(G_i)\|^{-1} \prod_{j=1}^\infty (1-p_i^{-j})\right).$$ \[CohenlenstraUD\] Let $\Gamma_n$ be the sandpile group of $H_n$. Again let $\Gamma_{n,i}$ be the $p_i$-Sylow subgroup of $\Gamma_n$, and for $i=1,2,\dots, s$, let $G_i$ be a finite abelian $p_i$-group. Assuming that $d$ is odd, we have $$\begin{gathered} \label{Cohenlenstraeq2} \lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^s \Gamma_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i\right)\\=\prod_{i=1}^s \left(\frac{\|\{\phi:G_i \times G_i \to \mathbb{C}^* \operatorname{ symmetric, bilinear, perfect }\}\|}{\|G_i\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G_i)\|} \prod_{j=0}^\infty (1-p_i^{-2j-1})\right).\end{gathered}$$ Assume that $d$ is even and $p_1=2$. Then the $2$-Sylow subgroup of $\Gamma_n$ has odd rank[^1]. Furthermore, if we assume that $G_1$ has odd rank, then $$\begin{gathered} \lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^s \Gamma_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i\right)=\\ 2^{\operatorname{Rank}(G_1)}\prod_{i=1}^s \left(\frac{\|\{\phi:G_i \times G_i \to \mathbb{C}^* \operatorname{ symmetric, bilinear, perfect }\}\|}{\|G_i\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G_i)\|} \prod_{j=0}^\infty (1-p_i^{-2j-1})\right).\end{gathered}$$ The distribution appearing in is the one that appears in the Cohen-Lenstra heuristics. It was introduced by Cohen and Lenstra [@cohlens] in a conjecture on the distribution of class groups of quadratic number fields. The distribution appearing in is a modified version of the distribution from the Cohen-Lenstra heuristics that was introduced by Clancy et al [@clp13; @clp14]. A recent breakthrough paper of Wood [@wood] shows that the sandpile group of dense Erdős-Rényi random graphs satisfies the latter heuristic. That is, Theorem \[CohenlenstraUD\] says that in terms of the sandpile group, random 3-regular graphs exhibit the same level of randomness as dense Erdős-Rényi graphs. The conceptual explanation is that the random matrices coming from both models mix the space extremely well, as we will see in Theorem \[FoFo22\] for our model. We can gain information about the sandpile group by counting the surjective homomorphisms from it to a fixed finite abelian group $V$. For a random abelian group $\Gamma$ and a fixed finite abelian group $V$, we call the expectation $\mathbb{E} \|\operatorname{Sur}(\Gamma,V)\|$ the surjective $V$-moment of $\Gamma$. Our next theorems determine the limits of the surjective moments of the sandpile groups for our random graph models. The convergence of these moments then implies Theorem \[CohenlenstraD\] and Theorem \[CohenlenstraUD\], using the work of Wood [@wood]. \[momentumokD\] Let $\Gamma_n$ be the sandpile group of $D_n$. For any finite abelian group $V$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(\Gamma_n,V)\|=1.$$ Recall that the exterior power $\wedge^2 V$ is defined to be the quotient of $V\otimes V$ by the subgroup generated by elements of the form $v\otimes v$. \[momentumokUD\] Let $\Gamma_n$ be the sandpile group of $H_n$. Let $V$ be a finite abelian group. If $d$ is odd, then $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(\Gamma_n,V)\|=\|\wedge^2 V\|,$$ if $d$ is even, then $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(\Gamma_n,V)\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|,$$ where ${\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}$ is the rank of the $2$-Sylow subgroup of $V$. These theorems are proved by using the fact that, when they are acting on $V^n$, the adjacency matrices $A_n$ and $C_n$ both exhibit strong mixing properties, described as follows: For $q=(q_1,q_2,\dots,q_n)\in V^n$, the minimal coset in $V$ containing $q_1,q_2,\dots,q_n$ is denoted by $\operatorname{MinC}_q$. Note that $\operatorname{MinC}_q$ is the coset $q_n+V_0$ where $V_0$ is the subgroup of $V$ generated by $q_1-q_n,q_2-q_n,\dots,q_{n-1}-q_n$. The sum of the components of $q$ is denoted by $s(q)=\sum_{i=1}^n q_i$, and we define $$R(q,d)=\{r\in (d\cdot \operatorname{MinC}_q)^n\quad\|\quad s(r)=ds(q)\}.\footnote{By definition $d\cdot\operatorname{MinC}_q=\{g_1+g_2+\dots+g_d\|g_1,g_2,\dots,g_d\in \operatorname{MinC}_q\}$.}$$ It is straightforward to check that $A_n q\in R(q,d)$. Let $U_{q,d}$ be a uniform random element of $R(q,d)$. Given two random variables $X$ and $Y$ taking values of the finite set $\mathcal{R}$, we define $d_{\infty}(X,Y)=\max_{r\in \mathcal{R}} \|\mathbb{P}(X=r)-\mathbb{P}(Y=r)\|$. We prove that the distribution of $A_n q$ is close to that of $U_{q,d}$ in the following sense. \[FoFo\] For $d\ge 3$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in V^n} d_\infty(A_n q,U_{q,d})=0.$$ We have a similar theorem for $C_n$. For $q,w\in V^n$, we define $$<q\otimes w>=\sum_{i=1}^n q_i\otimes w_i.$$ Furthermore, let $I_2=I_2(V)$ be the subgroup of $V\otimes V$ generated by the set $\{a\otimes b+b\otimes a\|\quad a,b\in V\}$. Let $\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)$ be the rank of the $2$-Sylow of $V$, and let $I=I(V)$ be the subgroup of $V\otimes V$ generated by all elements of the form $a\otimes a$ for $a\in V$. Note that $I_2$ is a subgroup of $I$ of index $2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}$. Since the random matrix $C_n$ is symmetric and the diagonal entries are all equal to $0$, for any $q\in V^n$, we have $<q\otimes C_n q>\in I_2$. Let us define $R^S(q,d)$ as $$R^S(q,d)=\{r\in (d\cdot \operatorname{MinC}_q)^n\quad\|\quad s(r)=ds(q)\text{ and }<q\otimes r>\in I_2\}.$$ It is clear from what is written above that $C_n q\in R^S(q,d)$. Similarly as before, let $U_{q,d}^S$ be a uniform random element of $R^S(q,d)$. Then, we have \[FoFo22\] For $d\ge 3$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in V^n} d_\infty(C_n q,U_{q,d}^S)=0.$$ Note that the limits in Theorems \[momentumokD\], \[momentumokUD\], \[FoFo\] and \[FoFo22\] are uniform in $d$. See Section \[secuniform\] for further discussion. However, until Section \[secuniform\], we never claim any uniformity over the choice of $V$ and $d$. Recently, Huang [@Huang] considered a slightly different random $d$-regular directed graph model on $n$ vertices, the configuration model introduced by Bollobás [@bollob]. Let $F_n$ be the adjacency matrix of this random graph. Huang proves that for a prime $p$ such that $\text{gcd}(p,d)=1$, we have $$\mathbb{E} \|\{0\neq x\in \mathbb{F}_p^n\|\quad F_nx=0\}\|=1+o(1),$$ as $n$ goes to infinity, where $F_n$ is considered as a matrix over $\mathbb{F}_p$. Then he combines this with Markov’s inequality to obtain that $$\mathbb{P}(F_n\text{ is singular in }\mathbb{F}_p)\le \frac{1+o(1)}{p-1}.$$ Consequently, as a random matrix in $\mathbb{R}$, $$\mathbb{P}(F_n\text{ is singular in }\mathbb{R})=o(1).$$ This solves an open problem of Frieze [@Frieze] and Vu [@Vu] for random regular bipartite graphs. Using Theorem \[FoFo22\], we can answer this question in its original form. \[inverti\] For the adjacency matrix $C_n$ of $H_n$, we have $$\mathbb{P}(C_n\text{ is singular in }\mathbb{R})=o(1).$$ Indeed, from Theorem \[FoFo22\] with the choice of $V=\mathbb{F}_p$, it is straightforward to prove that for an odd prime $p$ such that $\text{gcd}(p,d)=1$, we have $$\mathbb{E} \|\{0\neq x\in \mathbb{F}_p^n\|\quad C_nx=0\}\|=1+o(1).$$ Therefore, the statement follows as above. There are contiguity results [@cont1; @cont2] which allow us to pass from one random $d$-regular graph model to another. In particular, Theorem \[inverti\] also true for uniform random $d$-regular graphs with even number of vertices. See also the work of Nguyen and Wood [@ngwood]. After the first version of this paper appeared online, Huang [@Huang2] also extended his results to the undirected configuration model, giving credit to this paper. Theorem \[CohenlenstraUD\] describes the local behavior of the sandpile group $\Gamma_n$ of $H_n$. Now we try to gain some global information on these groups. The next statement gives the asymptotic order of $\Gamma_n$. This was first proved by McKay [@mckay], but it also follows from the more general theorem of Lyons [@lyons]. Let us choose $H_2,H_4,\dots$ independently. The torsion part of $\Gamma_n$ is denoted by $\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n)$. \[ThmLyons\] With probability $1$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\log \|\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n)\|}{n}=\log\frac{(d-1)^{d-1}}{[d(d-2)]^{d/2-1}}.$$ Theorem \[momentumokUD\] leads to the following statement on the rank of $\Gamma_n$. \[rankThm\] With probability $1$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\operatorname{Rank}(\Gamma_n)}{n}=0.$$ Observe that $\operatorname{Rank}(\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n))=\max_{p\text{ is a prime}} \operatorname{Rank}_p(\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n))$, where $\operatorname{Rank}_p(\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n))$ is the rank of the $p$-Sylow subgroup of $\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n)$. Thus, this theorem suggests that many primes should contribute to reach the growth described in Theorem \[ThmLyons\], but we do not have a definite result in this direction. A conjecture of Abért and Szegedy [@Abert] states that if $G_1,G_2,\dots$ is a Benjamini-Schramm convergent sequence of finite graphs, then for any prime $p$ the limit $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\operatorname{co-rank}_p G_n}{\|V(G_n)\|}$$ exists, here $\operatorname{co-rank}_p G_n=\dim\ker \text{Adj}(G_n)$, where $\text{Adj}(G_n)$ is the adjacency matrix of $G_n$ considered as a matrix over the finite field $\mathbb{F}_p$. One of the most common examples of a Benjamini-Scramm convergent sequence is the sequence of random d-regular graphs $H_n$. This means that if we choose $H_n$ independently, then with probability $1$, the sequence converges. Following along the lines of the proof of Theorem \[rankThm\], one can prove that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\max_{p\text{ is a prime}} \operatorname{co-rank}_p(H_n)}{n}=0$$ with probability $1$, which settles this special case of the conjecture, and we even get a uniform convergence in $p$. Note that this has been proved by Backhausz and Szegedy [@back] using a different method. Theorem \[CohenlenstraD\] follows from Theorem \[momentumokD\] using the results of Wood [@wood] on the moment problem. The general question is the following. Given a random finite abelian $p$-group $X$, is it true that the surjective $V$-moments of $X$ uniquely determine the distribution of $X$? Note that we can restrict our attention to the surjective $V$-moments, where $V$ is a $p$-group, because any other moment is $0$. Furthermore, is it true that if $X_1,X_2,\dots$ is a sequence of random abelian $p$-groups such that the surjective $V$-moments of $X_n$ converge to those of $X$, then the distribution of $X_n$ converge weakly to the distribution of $X$? Ellenberg, Venkatesh and Westerland [@ellenb] proved that the answer is affirmative for both questions in the special case when each surjective moment of $X$ is $1$. In this case $X$ has the distribution from the Cohen-Lenstra heuristic. Later, it was proved by Wood [@wood] that the answer is yes for both questions if the moments do not grow too fast, namely, if $\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X,V)\|\le \|\wedge^2 V\|$ for any finite abelian $p$-group $V$. The proof generalizes the ideas of Heath-Brown [@HeathBrown]. In [@wood] this is stated only in the special case, when the limiting surjective $V$-moments of $X$ are exactly $\|\wedge^2 V\|$, but in a later paper of Wood [@wood2] it is stated in its full generality above. In fact, Wood proved this theorem in a slightly more general setting. Instead of abelian $p$-groups, one can consider groups which are direct sums of finite abelian $p_i$-groups for a fixed finite set of primes. See Section \[mixingboldist\] for details. Note that for even $d$, the moments of the sandpile groups of $H_n$ are larger than the bounds above. But using the extra information that the $2$-Sylow subgroups have odd rank in this case, we can modify the arguments of Wood to obtain the convergence of probabilities. See Section \[parosparos\]. Now we discuss the Cohen-Lenstra heuristic in terms of random matrices over the $p$-adic integers. Let $\mathbb{Z}_p$ be the ring of $p$-adic integers. Given an $n\times m$ matrix $M$ over $\mathbb{Z}_p$ we define $\operatorname{RowSpace}(M)=\{xM\|x\in \mathbb{Z}_p^n\}$. The cokernel of $M$ is defined as $\operatorname{cok}(M)=\mathbb{Z}_p^m/\operatorname{RowSpace}(M)$. Freidman and Washington [@frwa] proved that if $M_n$ is an $n\times n$ random matrix over $\mathbb{Z}_p$, with respect to the Haar-measure, then $\operatorname{cok}(M_n)$ asymptotically follows the distribution from the Cohen-Lenstra heuristic, that is, for any finite abelian $p$-group $G$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(M_n){\simeq}G)=\|\operatorname{Aut}(G)\|^{-1} \prod_{j=1}^\infty (1-p^{-j}).$$ In fact this is true even in a more general setting. It is enough to assume that the entries of $M_n$ are independent and they are not degenerate in a certain sense. This was proved by Wood [@wood2]. Her paper also contains similar results for non-square matrices. Bhargava, Kane, Lenstra, Poonen and Rains [@bkl] proved that the cokernels of Haar-uniform skew-symmetric random matrices over $\mathbb{Z}_p$ are asymptotically distributed according to Delaunay’s heuristics. The following somewhat analogous result was obtained by Clancy, Leake, Kaplan, Payne and Wood [@clp14]. Let $M_n$ be a Haar-uniform symmetric random matrix over $\mathbb{Z}_p$. Then, for any finite abelian $p$-group $G$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \label{szimformula} \lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(M_n){\simeq}G)\\= \frac{\|\{\phi:G \times G \to \mathbb{C}^* \operatorname{ symmetric, bilinear, perfect }\}\|}{\|G\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G)\|} \prod_{j=0}^\infty (1-p^{-2j-1}).\end{gathered}$$ This is exactly the distribution appearing in Theorem \[CohenlenstraUD\]. Note that this is not the original formula given in [@clp14], but it can be easily deduced from it, see [@wood]. Here, a map $\phi: G \times G \to \mathbb{C}^$ is called a symmetric, bilinear, perfect pairing if (i) $\phi(x,y)=\phi(y,x)$, (ii) $\phi(x,y+z)=\phi(x,y)\phi(x,z)$, and (iii) for $\phi_x(y)=\phi(x,y)$, we have $\phi_x\equiv 1$ if and only if $x=0$. We can give a more explicit formula for the limiting probability above by using the following fact from [@wood]. If $G=\bigoplus_{i} \mathbb{Z}/p^{\lambda_i}\mathbb{Z}$ with $\lambda_1\geq\lambda_2\geq\cdots$ and $\mu$ is the transpose of the partition $\lambda$, then $$\begin{gathered} \label{explicite} \frac{\|\{\phi:G \times G \to \mathbb{C}^ \operatorname{ symmetric, bilinear, perfect }\}\|}{\|G\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G)\|}\\= p^{-\sum_i \frac{\mu_i(\mu_i+1)}{2}} {\prod_{i=1}^{\lambda_1} \prod_{j=1}^{\lfloor \frac{\mu_i-\mu_{i+1}}{2} \rfloor} (1-p^{-2j})^{-1}}.\end{gathered}$$ Now we give a brief summary of results on distribution of sandpile groups. We already defined the Laplacian and the sandpile group of a $d$-regular graph, now we give the general definitions. We start by directed graphs. Let $D$ be a strongly connected directed graph on the $n$ element vertex set $V$. The Laplacian $\Delta$ of $D$ is an $n\times n$ matrix, where the rows and the columns are both indexed by $V$, and for $i,j\in V$, we have $$\Delta_{ij}= \begin{cases} d(i,j)&\text{for }i\neq j,\\ d(i,i)-d_{\text{out}}(i)&\text{for }i=j. \end{cases}$$ Here $d(i,j)$ is the multiplicity of the directed edge $ij$, $d_{\text{out}}(i)$ is the out-degree of $i$, that is, $d_{\text{out}}(i)=\sum_{j\in V} d(i,j)$. For $s\in V$, the reduced Laplacian $\Delta_s$ is obtained from $\Delta$ by deleting the row and column corresponding to $s$. The group $\Gamma_s=\mathbb{Z}^{n-1}/\operatorname{RowSpace}(\Delta_s)$ is called the sandpile group at vertex $s$. The order of $\Gamma_s$ is the number of spanning trees in $D$ oriented towards $s$. Let us define$\mathbb{Z}_0^n=\{x\in \mathbb{Z}^n\|\sum_{i=1}^n x_i=0\}$. Note that every row of $\Delta$ is in $\mathbb{Z}_0^n$. Thus the following definition makes sense. The group $\Gamma=\mathbb{Z}_0^n/\operatorname{RowSpace}(\Delta)$ is called the total sandpile group. If $D$ is Eulerian, then all of these definitions of sandpile groups coincide, so it is justified to speak about the sandpile group of $D$. In fact, the converse of the above statement about Eulerian graphs is also true, see Farrel and Levine [@farlev]. For an undirected graph $G$, let $D$ be the directed graph obtained from $G$ by replacing each edge $\{i,j\}$ of $G$ by the directed edges $ij$ and $ji$. Then $D$ is Eulerian. The sandpile group of $G$ is defined as the sandpile group of $D$. See [@jarai; @SPS1; @SPS2; @SPS3] for more information on sandpile groups. We already mentioned the result of Wood [@wood] on Erdős-Rényi random graphs. Here we give more details. For $0\le \varrho\le 1$, the Erdős-Rényi random graph $G(n,\varrho)$ is a graph on the vertex set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, such that for each pair of vertices, there is an edge connecting them with probability $\varrho$ independently. Let $p_1,p_2,\dots,p_s$ be distinct primes. Fix $0<\varrho<1$. Let $\Gamma_n$ be the sandpile group of $G(n,\varrho)$. Let $\Gamma_{n,i}$ be the $p_i$-Sylow subgroup of $\Gamma_n$, and for $i=1,2,\dots, s$, let $G_i$ be a finite abelian $p_i$-group. Then $$\begin{gathered} \lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^s \Gamma_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i\right)\\=\prod_{i=1}^s \left(\frac{\|\{\phi:G_i \times G_i \to \mathbb{C}^* \operatorname{ symmetric, bilinear, perfect }\}\|}{\|G_i\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G_i)\|} \prod_{j=0}^\infty (1-p_i^{-2j-1})\right).\end{gathered}$$ See Equation for an even more explicit formula. Koplewitz [@kopl] proved the analogous result for directed graphs. For $0\le \varrho\le 1$, the random directed graph $D(n,\varrho)$ is a graph on the vertex set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, such that for each ordered pair of vertices, there is a directed edge connecting them with probability $\varrho$ independently. Let $p_1,p_2,\dots,p_s$ be distinct primes. Fix $0<\varrho<1$. Let $\Gamma_n$ be the total sandpile group of $D(n,\varrho)$. Let $\Gamma_{n,i}$ be the $p_i$-Sylow subgroup of $\Gamma_n$, and for $i=1,2,\dots, s$, let $G_i$ be a finite abelian $p_i$-group. Then $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^s \Gamma_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i\right)=\prod_{i=1}^s \frac{\prod_{j=2}^\infty (1-p_i^{-j})}{\|G\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G)\|}.$$ Note that, unlike what we would expect knowing the undirected case, this distribution is not the same as the one given in Theorem \[CohenlenstraD\] for the random directed $d$-regular graph $D_n$. A quick explanation is that $D_n$ is Eulerian, while $D(n,\varrho)$ is not. Indeed, the total sandpile group is defined as $\mathbb{Z}_0^n{\simeq}\mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$ factored out by $n$ relations, so for a general directed graph, we expect that it behaves like the cokernel of a random $n\times (n-1)$ matrix. However, for an Eulerian graph these $n$ relations are linearly dependent, because their sum is zero, so we expect that the total sandpile group behaves like the cokernel of a random $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ matrix. The results above indeed support these intuitions. Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Miklós Abért for the useful discussions throughout the writing of this paper, to Melanie Wood for her comments and the proof of Lemma \[explicitnu\], and to Van Vu for pointing out relevant references. The exceptionally detailed and thorough reports of the anonymous referees were of great help in improving the presentation of the paper. The author was partially supported by the ERC Consolidator Grant 648017 and the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office, NKFIH grant K109684. The structure of the paper Section \[preli\] contains the basic definitions that we need, including the notion of typical vectors. In Section \[mixing\], we investigate the distribution of $A_nq$, where $q$ is a typical vector. The results in this section allow us to handle the contribution of the typical vectors to the sum $\sum_{q\in V^n} d_\infty(A_n^{(d)}q,U_{q,d})$ in Theorem \[FoFo\], but we still need to control the contribution of the non-typical vectors. This is done in Section \[Secmom\]. The connection between the mixing property of the adjacency matrix and the sandpile group is explained in Section \[mixingboldist\]. In Section \[secuniform\], we prove that several results hold uniformly in $d$. Most of the paper deals with the directed random graph model, the necessary modifications for the undirected model are given in Section \[modificat\] and Section \[parosparos\]. In Section \[sublin\], we prove Theorem \[rankThm\]. At many points of the paper we need to estimate the probabilities of certain non-typical events, the proofs of these lemmas are collected in Section \[Bounding\]. Preliminaries {#preli} ============= In most of the paper we will consider the directed model, and then later give the modifications of the arguments that are needed to be done for the undirected model. Consider a vector $q=(q_1,q_2,...,q_n)\in V^n$. For a permutation $\pi$ of the set $\{1,2,\dots, n\}$, the vector $q_{\pi}=(q_{\pi(1)},q_{\pi(2)},\dots,q_{\pi(n)})$ is called a permutation of $q$. We write $q_1\sim q_2$ if $q_1$ and $q_2$ are permutations of each other. The relation $\sim$ is an equivalence relation, the equivalence class of $q$, i.e., the set of permutations of $q$ is denoted by $S(q)$. A random permutation of $q$ is defined as the random variable $q_{\pi}$, where $\pi$ is chosen uniformly from the set of all permutations, or equivalently, as a uniform random element of $S(q)$. Note that for $q\in V^n$, the equivalence class $S(q)$ can be described by $\|V\|$ non-negative integers summing up to $n$. Namely, for $c\in V$, we define $$m_q(c)=\|\{i\quad\|\quad q_i=c\}\|,$$ so $m_q$ can be considered as a vector in $\mathbb{R}^V$. Fix $\frac{1}{2}<\alpha<\beta<\gamma<\frac{2}{3}$. We keep these choices fixed throughout the whole paper. All the (explicit or implicit) constants are allowed to depend on the choice of $\alpha,\beta$ and $\gamma$. However, since we view $\alpha,\beta$ and $\gamma$ as fixed, we will never emphasize this. Note that if we choose a uniform random element $q$ of $V^n$, then the expectation of $m_q(c)$ is $\frac{n}{\|V\|}$ for any $c\in V$. This makes the following definition quite natural. A vector $q\in V^n$ is called $\alpha$-typical if $\left\\|m_q-\frac{n}{\|V\|}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right\\|_{\infty}<n^{\alpha}$. Here ${\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}$ is the all $1$ vector and $\\|.\\|_{\infty }$ is the maximum norm. Similarly, we can can define $\beta$-typical vectors. Note that, since $\alpha>\frac{1}2$, a uniform element of $V^n$ will be $\alpha$-typical with probability $1-o(1)$. We write $A_n^{(d)}$ in place of $A_n$ to emphasize the value of $d$. One of the key steps towards Theorem \[FoFo\] is the following theorem. \[mixingThm2\] For any fixed finite abelian group $V$ and $d\ge 3$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \|V\|^n \sup_{q\in V^n\quad \alpha-\text{typical}} d_\infty(A_n^{(d)}q,U_{q,d})=0.$$ This will be an easy consequence of the following theorem. \[mixingThm\] For any fixed finite abelian group $V$ and $h\ge 2$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\substack{q\in V^n\quad \alpha-\text{typical}\\r\in R(q,h)\quad \beta-\text{typical}}} \left\|\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(h)}q=r) \|V\|^{n-1}-1\right\|=0.$$ In the proofs we often need to consider $h$-tuples $Q=(q^{(1)},q^{(2)},\dots,q^{(h)})$ where each $q^{(i)}$ is a permutation of a fixed $q\in V^n$. Such $h$-tuples will be called $(q,h)$-tuples. Let $\mathcal{Q}_{q,h}$ be the set of $(q,h)$-tuples. A random $(q,h)$-tuple is a tuple $\bar{Q}=(\bar{q}^{(1)},\bar{q}^{(2)},\dots,\bar{q}^{(h)})$, where $\bar{q}^{(1)},\bar{q}^{(2)},...,\bar{q}^{(h)}$ are independent random permutations of $q$. Whenever we use the symbols $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$, they stand for a $(q,h)$-tuple, and a random $(q,h)$-tuple respectively, even if this is not mentioned explicitly. The value of $q$ should be clear from the context. Sometimes, it will be convenient to view a $(q,h)$-tuple $Q$ as a vector $Q=(Q_1,Q_2,\dots, Q_n)$ in $\left (V^h\right)^n$, where $Q_i=(q^{(1)}_i,q^{(2)}_i,\dots,q^{(h)}_i)$. The vector $m_q$ was used to extract the important information from a vector $q\in V^n$, we do the same for $(q,h)$-tuples, that is, for $t\in V^h$, we define $$m_Q(t)=\|\{i\quad\|\quad Q_i=t\}\|.$$ For a subset $S$ of $V^h$, the sum $\sum_{t\in S} m_Q(t)$ is denoted by $m_Q(S)$. Instead of $S$, we usually just write the property that defines the subset $S$. For example, $m_Q(\tau_1=c)$ stands for $m_Q(\{\tau\in V^h\|\quad \tau_1=c\})$. A $(q,h)$-tuple $Q$ or $m_Q$ itself will be called $\gamma$-typical if $$\left\\|m_Q-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right\\|_{\infty}<n^\gamma.$$ The sum $\Sigma(Q)$ of a $(q,h)$-tuple $Q$ is defined as $\Sigma(Q)=\sum_{i=1}^h q^{(i)}$. Note that for a random $(q,h)$-tuple $\bar{Q}$, the distribution of $\Sigma(\bar{Q})$ is the same as that of $A_n^{(h)}q$. Later in the paper we will give asymptotic formulas that will be true uniformly in the following sense. \[unidef\] Let $X_1,X_2,...$ and $Y_1,Y_2,...$ be two sequences of finite sets, $P_n\subset X_n\times Y_n$, $f:\cup_{n=1}^{\infty} X_n\to \mathbb{R}$ and $g:\cup_{n=1}^{\infty} Y_n\to \mathbb{R}$. The term $f(x_n)\sim g(y_n)$ uniformly for $(x_n,y_n)\in P_n$ means that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{(x_n,y_n)\in P_n}\left\|\frac{f(x_n)}{g(y_n)}-1\right\|=0.$$ The statement of Theorem \[mixingThm\] then can be reformulated as $$\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\sim \frac{1}{\|V\|^{n-1}}$$ uniformly for any $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$ and $\beta$-typical $r\in R(q,h)$. Behavior of typical vectors {#mixing} =========================== In this section and the next section, we keep $V$ and $h$ fixed. All the (explicit or implicit) constants are allowed to depend on $V$ and $h$. Moreover, whenever we claim the convergence of any quantity, it is meant that the convergence is only true for fixed $V$ and $h$. We never claim any uniformity over the choice of $V$ and $h$. Note that we deal with the question of uniformity in $d$ in Section \[secuniform\] separately. We assume that $h\ge 2$ throughout this section. The proof of Theorem \[mixingThm\] ---------------------------------- We express the event $\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r$ as the disjoint union of smaller events, which can be handled more easily. Let $$\mathcal{M}(q,r)=\{m_Q\quad\|\quad Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{q,h},\Sigma(Q)=r\}.\footnote{Here we omitted from the notation the dependence on $h$, later we will do this several times without mentioning it.}$$ Then the event $\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r$ can be written as the disjoint union of the events $(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m)$ where $m$ runs through $\mathcal{M}(q,r)$, so $$\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)=\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}(q,r)} \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m)).$$ Observe that $\mathcal{M}(q,r)$ consists of the non-negative integral points of a certain affine subspace $A(q,r)$ of $\mathbb{R}^{V^h}$. This affine subspace $A(q,r)$ is determined by linear equations expressing that whenever $\Sigma(Q)=r$ for a $(q,h)$-tuple $Q=(q^{(1)},q^{(2)},\dots,q^{(h)})$, we have $m_{q^{(i)}}=m_q$ for every $i=1,2,\dots,h$ and $m_{\Sigma(Q)}=m_r$, as the following lemma shows. For $t=(t_1,t_2,\dots,t_h)\in V^h$, we define $t_\Sigma$ as $t_\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^h t_i$. \[euq12lemma\] Consider $q,r\in V^n$. If $m\in \mathcal{M}(q,r)$, then $m$ is a non-negative integral vector satisfying the following linear equations: $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ1} m(\tau_i=c)&=m_q(c) & \forall i\in\{1,2,\dots,h\}, c\in V,\\\label{equ2} m(\tau_\Sigma=c)&=m_r(c) & \forall c\in V. $$ Now assume that $m$ is a nonnegative integral vector satisfying the equations above, then $$\begin{aligned} \label{epr} \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m))&=\frac{\prod_{c\in V} m_r(c)!}{\prod_{t\in V^h} m(t)!}\Bigg/\left(\frac{n!}{\prod_{c\in V} m_q(c)!}\right)^h\\&= \frac{\prod_{c\in V} m(\tau_\Sigma=c)!}{\prod_{t\in V^h} m(t)!}\Bigg/\left(\frac{n!}{\prod_{c\in V} m_q(c)!}\right)^h.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m))>0$ so $m\in \mathcal{M}(q,r)$. Thus, $\mathcal{M}(q,r)$ is the set of non-negative integral points of the affine subspace $A(q,r)$ given by the linear equations above. We only give the proof of Equation , since all the other statements of the lemma are straightforward to prove. For $c\in V$, let $$I_c=\{i\in \{1,2,\dots,n\}\|\quad r_i=c\},$$ and let $W_c=\{t\in V^h\|t_\Sigma=c\}$. Let $Q=(Q_1,Q_2,\dots,Q_n)\in \left(V^h\right)^n$. Assume that $m$ is a nonnegative integral vector satisfying Equation and Equation above. Observe that $Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{q,h}$, $m_Q=m$ and $\Sigma(Q)=r$ if and only if for every $c\in V$, the sets $$\left(\{i\in \{1,2,\dots,n\}\quad\|\quad Q_i=t\}\right)_{t\in W_c}$$ give us a partition of $I_c$, such that for every $t\in W_c$, the size of the corresponding part is $m(t)$. Note that for any $c\in V$, we have $$\frac{\|I_c\|!}{\prod_{t\in W_c} m(t)!}=\frac{m_r(c)!}{\prod_{t\in W_c} m(t)!}$$ such partitions of $I_c$. Clearly, the total number $(q,h)$-tuples is $$\left(\frac{n!}{\prod_{c\in V} m_q(c)!}\right)^h.$$ Putting everything together the statement follows. The left hand sides of Equation and Equation in Lemma \[euq12lemma\] do not depend on $q$ or $r$, therefore the affine subspaces $A(q,r)$ are all parallel for any choice of $q$ and $r$. Hence, for every $q,r_1,r_2\in V^n$, there is a translation that moves $A(q,r_1)$ to $A(q,r_2)$. There are many such translations, and we will use the one given in the next lemma. \[eltolas\] For any $r_1,r_2\in V^n$, we define the vector $v=v_{r_1,r_2}\in \mathbb{R}^{V^h}$ by $$v(t)=\frac{m_{r_2}(t_\Sigma)-m_{r_1}(t_\Sigma)}{\|V\|^{h-1}}$$ for every $t\in V^h$. Then, for any $q\in V^h$, we have $$A(q,r_1)+v_{r_1,r_2}=A(q,r_2).$$ It is enough to prove that $A(q,r_1)+v_{r_1,r_2}\subset A(q,r_2)$ or equivalently if $m$ satisfies Equation and Equation in Lemma \[euq12lemma\] above for $r=r_1$, then $m'=m+v_{r_1,r_2}$ satisfies Equation and Equation for $r=r_2$. Observe that for any $i=1,2,\dots,h$ and $c,s\in V$, we have $$\|\{t\in V^h\|\quad t_i=c,t_\Sigma=s\}\|=\|V\|^{h-2}.$$ (Here we need to use that $h\ge 2$.) So we have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\ t_i=c}} m'(t)&=\sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\ t_i=c}} m(t)+\sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\ t_i=c}} v_{r_1,r_2}(t)\\&= m_q(c)+\sum_{s\in V} \|\{t\in V^h\|\quad t_i=c,t_\Sigma=s\}\|\frac{m_{r_2}(s)-m_{r_1}(s)}{\|V\|^{h-1}}\\&=m_q(c)+\frac{1}{\|V\|}\left(\sum_{s\in V} m_{r_2}(s)-\sum_{s\in V} m_{r_1}(s)\right)\\&=m_q(c)+\frac{1}{\|V\|}(n-n)=m_q(c),\end{aligned}$$ that is, Equation is satisfied. Furthermore, for any $c\in V$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\ t_\Sigma=c}} m'(t)&=\sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\ t_\Sigma=c}} m(t)+\sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\ t_\Sigma=c}} v_{r_1,r_2}(t)\\&= m_{r_1}(c)+\|V\|^{h-1} \frac{m_{r_2}(c)-m_{r_1}(c)}{\|V\|^{h-1}}=m_{r_2}(c),\end{aligned}$$ that is, Equation is satisfied. Whenever $A(q,r)$ contains integral points, the integral points of $A(q,r)$ are placed densely, in the sense that there is a $D$, depending only on $h$ and $V$, such that for any point $x\in A(q,r)$, there is an integral point $y\in A(q,r)$ with $\\|x-y\\|_\infty<D$. Actually, this is a general fact as the following lemma shows. Let $A$ be an affine subspace of $\mathbb{R}^k$ which is given by a set of equations with rational coefficients. Assume that $A$ contains an integral point $p$. Then there is a $D$ such that for any point $x\in A$, there is an integral point $y\in A$ with $\\|x-y\\|_\infty<D$. For parallel subspaces, we can choose the same $D$. Observe that we can write $A$ as $A=p+A_0$, where $A_0$ is a linear subspace generated by a set of rational vectors $\{a_1,a_2,\dots,a_\ell\}$. Multiplying these vectors with an appropriate scalar, we may assume that they are all integral vectors. Let $$D=\sum_{i=1}^\ell \\|a_i\\|_\infty.$$ Note that $x-p\in A_0$, so $x-p=\sum_{i=1}^\ell \alpha_i a_i$ for some constants $\alpha_i$. Then $$y=p+\sum_{i=1}^\ell \lfloor\alpha_i\rfloor a_i$$ is an integral vector such that $\\|x-y\\|_\infty<D$. For $c\in V$, let $w_c\in \mathbb{R}^{V^h}$ be such that $w_c(t)=1$ if $t_\Sigma=c$ and $w_c(t)=0$ otherwise. For $i=1,2,\dots, h$ and $c\in V$, let $u_{i,c}\in \mathbb{R}^{V^h}$ be such that $u_{i,c}(t)=1$ if $t_i=c$ and $u_{i,c}(t)=0$ otherwise. \[vanegesz\] If $r\in R(q,h)$, then $A(q,r)$ contains an integral point. We need to show that the system of linear equations given by Equation and Equation admits an integral solution. Using the integral analogue of Farkas’ lemma [@schr Corollary 4.1a.], we obtain that there exists an integral solution if and only if for every choice of rational numbers $0\le \gamma(i,c)<1$ ($i=1,2,\dots,h,\quad c\in V)$ and $0\le \delta(c)<1$ ($c\in V)$ such that $$\label{cond1} \sum_{i=1}^h \sum_{c\in V} \gamma(i,c) u_{i,c}+\sum_{c\in V} \delta(c) w_{c}\text{ is an integral vector}$$ the number $\sum_{i=1}^h \sum_{c\in V} \gamma(i,c) m_q(c)+\sum_{c\in V} \delta(c) m_r(c)$ is an integer. We project the rational numbers $\gamma(i,c)$ and $\delta(c)$ to the group $S^1=\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$. From now on we work in the group $S^1$. The condition given in translates as follows. For every $t\in V^h$, $$\label{equt1} \sum_{i=1}^h \gamma(i,t_i)+\delta(t_{\Sigma})=0$$ in the group $S^1$. We define $\gamma'(i,c)=\gamma(i,c)-\gamma(i,0)$ and $\delta'(c)=\delta(c)+\sum_{i=1}^h \gamma(i,0)$. Clearly $\gamma'(i,0)=0$. Moreover, from Equation with $t=0$, we get that $\delta'(0)=0$. Equation can be rewritten as $$\sum_{i=1}^h \gamma'(i,t_i)+\delta'(t_{\Sigma})=0.$$ For every $i$ and $c$, if $t\in V^h$ is such that $t_i=c$ and $t_j=0$ for $i\neq j$, then we obtain that $\gamma'(i,c)=-\delta'(c)$. Therefore, Equation can be once again rewritten as $$\sum_{i=1}^h \delta'(t_i)=\delta'(t_{\Sigma})=\delta'\left(\sum_{i=1}^h t_i\right),$$ which means that $\delta'$ is a group homomorphism between $V$ and $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$. Thus, we get that $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{i=1}^h &\sum_{c\in V} \gamma(i,c) m_q(c)+\sum_{c\in V} \delta(c) m_r(c)\\&= \sum_{i=1}^h \sum_{c\in V} \left(\gamma'(i,c)+\gamma(i,0)\right) m_q(c)+\sum_{c\in V} \left(\delta'(c)-\sum_{i=1}^h \gamma(i,0)\right) m_r(c)\\&= \sum_{i=1}^h \sum_{c\in V} -\delta'(c) m_q(c)+\sum_{c\in V} \delta'(c) m_r(c)\\&=-h \sum_{c\in V} \delta'(c) m_q(c)+\sum_{c\in V} \delta'(c) m_r(c)\\&= -h\sum_{i=1}^n \delta'(q_i)+\sum_{i=1}^n \delta'(r_i)=\delta'\left(-h\cdot s(q)+s(r)\right)=\delta'(0)=0\end{aligned}$$ using that $r\in R(q,h)$. That is, $\sum_{i=1}^h \sum_{c\in V} \gamma(i,c) m_q(c)+\sum_{c\in V} \delta(c) m_r(c)$ is indeed an integer. Suppose that $r_1,r_2\in R(q,h)$. Let $v=v_{r_1,r_2}$. Then there is an integral point $m_1$ in $A(q,r_1)$. Since $m_1+v\in A(q,r_2)$, there is an integral point $m_2$ in $A(q,r_2)$ such that $\\|m_1+v-m_2\\|_\infty<D$. Set $\hat{v}=\hat{v}_{r_1,r_2}=m_2-m_1$, then $\\|\hat{v}-v\\|_{\infty}<D$ and the map $m\mapsto m+\hat{v}$ gives a bijection between the integral points of $A(q,r_1)$ and the integral points of $A(q,r_2)$. For each $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, fix an arbitrary $\beta$-typical $r_0=r_0(q)\in R(q,h)$, that is, let $r_0$ be any $\beta$-typical $r_0\in V^n$ such that $s(r_0)=h\cdot s(q)$. Set $$\mathcal{M}^(q,r_0)=\left\{m\in \mathcal{M}(q,r_0)\quad\Big\|\quad \left\\|m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right\\|_\infty<2n^{\gamma}\right\}.$$ For any other $\beta$-typical $r\in R(q,h)$, we define $$\mathcal{M}^(q,r)=\{m+\hat{v}_{r_0,r}\quad\|\quad m\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r_0)\}\subset \mathcal{M}(q,r).$$ Observe that for large enough $n$, if both $r_0$ and $r$ are $\beta$-typical, then $$\\|\hat{v}_{r_0,r}\\|_{\infty}<D+\frac{2n^{\beta}}{\|V\|^{h-1}}<n^{\gamma}.$$ Thus, using that the map $m\mapsto m+\hat{v}_{r_0,r}$ is a bijection between the integral points of $A(q,r_0)$ and the integral points of $A(q,r)$, we obtain that if $n$ is large enough, then for every $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$ and $\beta$-typical $r\in R(q,h)$, we have $$\label{tartalmazza} \left\{m\in \mathcal{M}(q,r)\quad\Big\|\quad \left\\|m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right\\|_\infty<n^{\gamma}\right\}\subset \mathcal{M}^(q,r).$$ Here the set on the left is just the set of the $\gamma$-typical elements of $\mathcal{M}(q,r)$. The crucial point of our argument is the next lemma. \[lemma20\] For an $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, a $\beta$-typical $r\in R(q,h)$, $r_0=r_0(q)$ and $m\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r_0)$, we have that $$\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_0)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m))\sim \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m+\hat{v}_{r_0,r}))$$ uniformly in the sense of Definition \[unidef\]. For clarity, we write out the definition of the uniform convergence above. That is, Lemma \[lemma20\] is equivalent with the statement that for any fixed $V$ and $h$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\substack{q\in V^n\quad\alpha\text{-typical}\\ m\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r_0(q))\\r\in R(q,h)\quad\beta\text{-typical}}}\left\|\frac{\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_0(q))\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m))}{ \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m+\hat{v}_{r_0(q),r}))}-1\right\|=0.$$ To prove Lemma \[lemma20\], we need a few lemmas. The following approximation will be useful for Lemma \[ujapprox\]. \[factorial\] Fix $K(n)$ such that $K(n)=o\left(n^{\frac{2}{3}}\right)$. Then for $\|k\|<K(n)$, we have $$(n+k)!\sim \sqrt{2\pi n}\left(\frac{n}{e}\right)^n \exp\left(k\log n+\frac{k^2}{2n}\right)$$ uniformly. In other words, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\|k\|<K(n)} \left\|\frac{\sqrt{2\pi n}\left(\frac{n}{e}\right)^n\exp\left(k\log n+\frac{k^2}{2n}\right)}{(n+k)!}-1\right\|=0.$$ Using Taylor’s theorem with the Lagrange form of the remainder [@rudin Theorem 5.15] for the function $f(x)=x\log x$, we get that $$\left\|(n+k)\log(n+k)-\left(n\log n+(\log n+1)k+\frac{k^2}{2n}\right)\right\|=\left\|\frac{f^{(3)}(c)}{6}k^3\right\|=\frac{\|k\|^3}{6c^2}$$ for some $c\in (n,n+k)$. This implies that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\|k\|<K(n)} \left\|(n+k)\log(n+k)-\left(n\log n+(\log n+1)k+\frac{k^2}{2n}\right)\right\|= 0.$$ It is also clear that $$\frac{\sqrt{n+k}}{\sqrt{n}}\sim 1$$ uniformly for $\|k\|\le K(n)$. Recall that Stirling’s formula [@rudin (8.22)] states that $$n!\sim \sqrt{2\pi n}\exp(n \log n-n).$$ If we put everything together, then we get that $$\begin{aligned} (n+k)!&\sim \sqrt{2\pi (n+k)}\exp\left((n+k)\log (n+k)-(n+k)\right)\\ &\sim \sqrt{2\pi n} \exp\left(\left(n\log n+(\log n+1)k+\frac{k^2}{2n}\right)-(n+k)\right)\\ &=\sqrt{2\pi n}\left(\frac{n}{e}\right)^n \exp\left(k\log n+\frac{k^2}{2n}\right)\end{aligned}$$ uniformly for $\|k\|\le K(n)$. Note that in the lemma above, we do not need to assume that $n$ is an integer, as long as $n+k$ is an integer. In the next lemma, we use the notation $a(n)=\sqrt{2\pi n}(\frac{n}{e})^n$. \[ujapprox\] For $q,r\in V^n$ and $m\in \mathcal{M}(q,r)$ such that $\left\\|m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right\\|_\infty<3n^\gamma$, we have $$\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m))\sim f(q) \exp\left(\frac{1}{2n}B\left(m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}},m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right)\right)$$ uniformly, where $$f(q)=\left (\frac{n!}{\prod_{c\in V} m_q(c)!}\right)^{-h} \frac{\left(a\left(\frac{n}{\|V\|}\right)\right)^{\|V\|}}{\left(a\left(\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}\right)\right)^{\|V\|^h}},$$ and $B:\mathbb{R}^{V^h}\times \mathbb{R}^{V^h}\to \mathbb{R}$ is a bilinear form defined as $$B(x,y)=\|V\|\sum_{c\in V}\left(\sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\t_\Sigma=c}} x(t)\right)\left( \sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\t_\Sigma=c}} y(t) \right)-\|V\|^h\sum_{t\in V^h} x(t)y(t).$$ Note that $f(q)$ does not depend on $r$ and $m$. Recall that $\gamma<\frac{2}{3}$, so for any $t\in V^h$, Lemma \[factorial\] can be applied to expand $m(t)!$ at the point $\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}$. Thus, we obtain the approximation $$m(t)!\sim a\left(\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}\right)\cdot \exp\left(\left(m(t)-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}\right)\log \frac{n}{\|V\|^h}+\frac{\|V\|^h\left(m(t)-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}\right)^2}{2n}\right).$$ Similarly, for every $c\in V$, by expanding $m(\tau_\Sigma=c) !$ at the point $\frac{n}{\|V\|}$, we obtain the approximation $$\begin{gathered} m(\tau_\Sigma=c) !\sim \\ a\left(\frac{n}{\|V\|}\right) \cdot\exp\left(\left( \sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\t_\Sigma=c}} m(t)-\frac{n}{\|V\|}\right)\log\frac{n}{\|V\|}+\frac{\|V\|\left(\sum_{\substack{t\in V^h\\t_\Sigma=c}}\left(m(t)-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}\right)\right)^2}{2n}\right). \end{gathered}$$ Substituting these approximations in Equation , we obtain the statement. We made all the necessary preparations to prove Lemma \[lemma20\]. (Lemma \[lemma20\]) It is easy to check that $w_c$ is in the radical of the bilinear form $B$, that is, $B(.,w_c)=B(w_c,.)=0$. ($w_c$ was defined before Lemma \[vanegesz\].) Since $v_{r_0,r}\in \text{Span}_{c\in V} w_c$, we get that $v_{r_0,r}$ is also in the radical. Observe that if $n$ is large enough, then $\\|\hat{v}_{r_0,r}\\|_{\infty}<D+\frac{2n^{\beta}}{\|V\|^{h-1}}<n^{\gamma}$, so both $m$ and $m+\hat{v}_{r_0,r}$ satisfies the conditions of Lemma \[ujapprox\]. It is also clear that $B(x,y)=O(\\|x\\|_\infty \\|y\\|_\infty)$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned} &\frac{1}{2n} B \left(m+\hat{v}_{r_0,r}-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}},m+\hat{v}_{r_0,r}-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right)\\&= \frac{1}{2n}B\left(m+(\hat{v}_{r_0,r}-v_{r_0,r})+v_{r_0,r}-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}},m+(\hat{v}_{r_0,r}-v_{r_0,r})+v_{r_0,r}-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right)\\&= \frac{1}{2n}\Bigg(B\left(m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}},m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right)+2B\left(m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}},\hat{v}_{r_0,r}-v_{r_0,r}\right)\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad+B\left(\hat{v}_{r_0,r}-v_{r_0,r},\hat{v}_{r_0,r}-v_{r_0,r})\right)\Bigg)\\&= \frac{1}{2n}\left(B(m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}},m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}})+O(4Dn^\gamma+D^2)\right)\\&= \frac{1}{2n}B\left(m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}},m-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right)+O(n^{\gamma-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Then, the statement follows from Lemma \[ujapprox\]. From Lemma \[lemma20\], it follows immediately that for an $\alpha$-typical $q$ and $\beta$-typical $r_1,r_2\in R(q,h)$, we have $$\sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r_1)} \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_1)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m))\sim \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r_2)} \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_2)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m))$$ uniformly, or equivalently $$\label{kovetk} \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_1)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r_1)))\sim \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_2)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r_2)))$$ uniformly. The content of the next lemma can be summarized as “only the typical events matter”. \[OTEM\] We have (i) \[OTEM1\] A uniformly chosen element of $V^n$ is $\beta$-typical with probability $1-o(1)$. (ii) \[OTEM2\] There is a $C_1$ such that for any $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, we have $$\mathbb{P}(\bar{Q}\text{ is not }\gamma-\text{typical})\le C_1\exp(-n^{2\gamma-1}/C_1).$$ In particular, for an $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, we have $\mathbb{P}(\bar{Q}\text{ is }\gamma-\text{typical})\sim 1$ uniformly in the sense of Definition \[unidef\]. (iii) \[OTEM3\] There is a $C_2$ such that for any $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, we have $$\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})\text{ is not }\beta-\text{typical})\le C_2\exp(-n^{2\beta-1}/C_2).$$ In particular, for an $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, we have $\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})\text{ is }\beta-\text{typical})\sim 1$ uniformly in the sense of Definition \[unidef\]. (iv) \[OTEM4\] The following holds $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\substack{q\in V^n\quad \alpha-\text{typical}\\r\in R(q,h)\quad \beta-\text{typical}}} \mathbb{P}\left((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge(\bar{Q}\text{ is not }\gamma-\text{typical})\right)\|V\|^{n-1}=0.$$ Part can be proved using standard concentration results. We omit the details. To prove the other statements of Lemma \[OTEM\], we need the following result. \[interm\] Fix $K(n)$ such that $n^{\alpha}=o(K(n))$. There is a $C$ such that for any $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$ and a random $(q,h)$-tuple $\bar{Q}$, we have $$\mathbb{P}\left(\left\\|m_{\bar{Q}}-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right\\|_{\infty}\ge K(n)\right)\le C\exp\left(-\frac{K(n)^2}{Cn}\right).$$ Observe that for any $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$ and $t\in V^h$, we have $$\left\|n\prod_{i=1}^h \frac{m_q(t_i)}n-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}\right\|=O(n^{\alpha})=o(K(n)),$$ where the hidden constant does not depend on $q$ or $t$. Thus, for an $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$ and a $(q,h)$-tuple $Q$, if we have $$\left\|m_{Q}(t)-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}\right\|\ge K(n)$$ for some $t\in V^h$, then $$\left\|m_{Q}(t)-n\prod_{i=1}^h \frac{m_q(t_i)}n\right\|\ge (1-o(1))K(n).$$ The lemma follows from Lemma \[itbazuma\] and the union bound. With the choice of $K(n)=n^\gamma$ Lemma \[interm\] implies part . To prove part , choose $K(n)=\|V\|^{-(h-1)} n^\beta$, and observe the following. For $(q,h)$-tuple $Q$, if we have $$\left\\|m_{{Q}}-\frac{n}{\|V\|^h}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right\\|_{\infty}<K(n),$$ then $\Sigma(Q)$ is $\beta$-typical. To prove part , we need the following lemma. \[tech2\] There is a $C_3>0$ such that for every $\beta$-typical $r\in V^n$, if we consider the number of permutations of $r$, i. e., the cardinality of the set $S(r)=\{r'\text{ is a permutation of }r\}$, then we have $$\|S(r)\|\ge \|V\|^n \exp\left(-C_3 n^{2\beta-1}\right).$$ This can be proved using Lemma \[factorial\]. Part follows from the next lemma. \[tech3\] We will use the constants $C_1$ and $C_3$ provided by Lemma \[tech2\] and part . For every $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, $\beta$-typical $r\in V^n$ and a random $(q,h)$-tuple $\bar{Q}$, we have $$\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r\text{ and } \bar{Q} \text{ is not }\gamma\text{-typical})<\frac{C_1 \exp\left(-n^{2\gamma-1}/C_1+C_3 n^{2\beta-1}\right)}{\|V\|^n}.$$ Here the numerator $C_1 \exp\left(-n^{2\gamma-1}/C_1+C_3 n^{2\beta-1}\right)$ on the right hand side goes to $0$ as $n$ goes to infinity. For every $r'\in S(r)$, consider the event that $\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r'$ and $\bar{Q}$ is not $\gamma$-typical. These events are disjoint, and by symmetry, they have the same probability. Moreover, they are all contained by the event that $Q$ is not $\gamma$-typical. Thus, $$\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r\text{ and } \bar{Q} \text{ is not }\gamma\text{-typical})\le\frac{\mathbb{P}(\bar{Q}\text{ is not }\gamma\text{-typical})}{\|S(r)\|}.$$ The statement then follows from part and Lemma \[tech2\]. This concludes the proof of Lemma \[OTEM\]. Fix an $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$. For every $\beta$-typical $r\in R(q,h)$, consider the events $(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r))$. These events are pairwise disjoint. Moreover, from above, we see that their union contains the event $(\Sigma(\bar{Q})\text{ is }\beta-\text{typical})\wedge (\bar{Q}\text{ is }\gamma-\text{typical})$ for large enough $n$. So for large enough $n$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})\text{ is }\beta-\text{typical})\wedge (\bar{Q}\text{ is }\gamma-\text{typical}))\\ \le \sum_{r\in R(q,h)\quad\beta-\text{typical}} \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r)))\le 1.\end{gathered}$$ From part and of Lemma \[OTEM\], we get that $$\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})\text{ is }\beta-\text{typical})\wedge (\bar{Q}\text{ is }\gamma-\text{typical}))\sim 1$$ uniformly for all $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$. Thus $$\sum_{r\in R(q,h)\quad\beta-\text{typical}} \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge( m_{\bar{Q}}\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r)))\sim 1$$ uniformly for every $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$. Combining this with Equation , we obtain that $$\begin{gathered} \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}\in \mathcal{M}^(q,r)))\sim \\ \|\{r\in R(q,h)\|\quad r\text{ is }\beta\text{-typical}\}\|^{-1}\sim \|R(q,h)\|^{-1}=\|V\|^{-(n-1)}\end{gathered}$$ uniformly for all $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$ and $\beta$-typical $r\in R(q,h)$. Here in the second line, we used part of Lemma \[OTEM\]. Finally, using part of Lemma \[OTEM\] and , we get Theorem \[mixingThm\]. The proof of Theorem \[mixingThm2\] ----------------------------------- We start by a simple lemma. \[lemmamixingthm2\] For $q,r\in V^n$, and $h\ge 2$, we have $\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(h)}q=r)\le \|S(q)\|^{-1}$. Let $q'$ be a uniform random permutation of $q$ independent from $A_n^{(h-1)}$. Observe that $A_n^{(h)}q$ has the same distribution as $A_n^{(h-1)}q+q'$. The statement of the lemma follows from the facts that $$\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(h-1)}q+q'=r\|\quad r-A_n^{(h-1)}q\sim q)=\|S(q)\|^{-1}$$ and $$\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(h-1)}q+q'=r\|\quad r-A_n^{(h-1)}q\not\sim q)=0.$$ Now we prove Theorem \[mixingThm2\] from Theorem \[mixingThm\]. Let $q\in V^n$ be $\alpha$-typical, and let $r\in R(q,d)$. Let $q'$ be a uniform random permutation of $q$ independent from $A_n^{(d-1)}$. Observe that $A_n^{(d)}q$ has the same distribution as $A_n^{(d-1)}q+q'$. Now, we have $$\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r)=\mathbb{E}\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q=r-q'),$$ where the expectation is over the random choice of $q'$. Observe that - $\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q=r-q')\sim \|V\|^{-(n-1)}$ uniformly, if $r-q'$ is $\beta$-typical. - $0\le \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q=r-q')\le \|S(q)\|^{-1}$ otherwise. Indeed, the first statement follows from Theorem \[mixingThm\] and the fact that $r-q'\in R(q,d-1)$. The second statement follows from Lemma \[lemmamixingthm2\]. Moreover, combining Lemma \[bazuma\] with the union bound, we get the following statement. There is a $c>0$ such that $$\mathbb{P}(r-q'\text{ is not }\beta-\text{typical})\le \exp(-cn^{2\beta-1}).$$ From the law of total probability, we have $$\begin{gathered} \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r)=\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q=r-q'\|r-q'\text{ is }\beta-\text{typical})\mathbb{P}(r-q'\text{ is }\beta-\text{typical})\\+ \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q=r-q'\|r-q'\text{ is not }\beta-\text{typical})\mathbb{P}(r-q'\text{ is not }\beta-\text{typical}).\end{gathered}$$ Inserting the inequalities above into this, we obtain that $$\begin{gathered} (1+o(1))\|V\|^{-(n-1)}(1-\exp(-cn^{2\beta-1}))\\\le \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r)\le(1+o(1)) \|V\|^{-(n-1)}+\frac{\exp(-cn^{2\beta-1})}{\|S(q)\|}.\end{gathered}$$ Since there is $c'$ such that $\|S(q)\|\ge \|V\|^n\exp(-c'n^{2\alpha-1})$ for every $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, we get that ${\exp(-cn^{2\beta-1})}/{\|S(q)\|}=o(\|V\|^{-n})$. The theorem follows. Only the typical vectors matter {#Secmom} =============================== The aim of this section to prove Theorem \[FoFo\]. Let $\operatorname{Cos}(V)$ be the set of all cosets in $V$. Given a function $f(n)$, and a subset $W$ of $V$, a vector $q\in V^n$ will be called $(W,f(n))$-typical if for every $c\in W$, we have $\left\|m_q(c)-\frac{n}{\|W\|}\right\|<n^\alpha$ and $\sum_{c\not\in W}m_q(c)\le f(n)$. In the previous section, we used the term $\alpha$-typical for $(V,0)$-typical vectors. We start by a simple corollary of Theorem \[mixingThm2\]. \[tipikuskulonbseg\] We have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \sum_{\substack{q\text{ is }\\(W,0)-\text{typical}}} d_{\infty}(A_nq,U_{q,d})=0.$$ If $W$ is a subgroup of $V$, then from Theorem \[mixingThm2\], we know that $d_\infty(A_n q,U_{q,d})$ is $o(\|W\|^{-n})$ uniformly for all $(W,0)$-typical $q$. On the other hand, the number of $(W,0)$-typical vectors is at most $\|W\|^n$. Thus, $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\text{ is }(W,0)-\text{typical}} d_{\infty}(A_n q,U_{q,d})=0.$$ Consider a coset $W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)$ such that $W$ is not a subgroup of $V$. Let $t\in W$, then $W_0=W-t$ is a subgroup of $V$. For $q=(q_1,q_2,\dots,q_n)\in W^n$, we define $q'=(q_1-t,q_2-t,\dots,q_n-t)$. Note that $q\mapsto q'$ is a bijection between $W^n$ and $W_0^n$, and it is also a bijection between $(W,0)$-typical and $(W_0,0)$-typical vectors. Using this, it is easy to see that $d_\infty(A_nq,U_{q,d})=d_\infty(A_n q',U_{q',d})$, which implies that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{q\text{ is }(W,0)-\text{typical}} d_{\infty}(A_n q,U_{q,d})=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{q'\text{ is }(W_0,0)-\text{typical}} d_{\infty}(A_n q',U_{q',d})=0,$$ using the already established case. Since $\operatorname{Cos}(V)$ is finite, the statement follows. For $q\in V^n$, choose $r_q$ such that $$\mathbb{P}(A_n q=r_q)=\max_{r\in V^n} \mathbb{P}(A_n q=r).$$ For $W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)$, we define $I(W^n)=\{q\in W^n\quad\|\quad \operatorname{MinC}_q=W\}$. Note that $V^n=\cup_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} I(W^n)$, where this is a disjoint union. Then $$\begin{aligned} \limsup_{n\to\infty} & \sum_{q\in V^n} d_\infty(A_n q,U_{q,d})\nonumber\\ &=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \sum_{q\in I(W^n)} d_\infty(A_n q,U_{q,d})\nonumber\\ &=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \sum_{\substack{q\text{ is }\\(W,0)-\text{typical}}} d_\infty(A_n q,U_{q,d})\nonumber\\ &\qquad+\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)}\quad \sum_{\substack{q\in I(W^n)\text{ is }\\\text{not }(W,0)-\text{typical}}} d_\infty(A_n q,U_{q,d}).\label{felbecsles} \end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[tipikuskulonbseg\], we have $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \sum_{\substack{q\text{ is }\\(W,0)-\text{typical}}} d_\infty(A_n q,U_{q,d})=0.$$ For $q\in I(W^n)$, we have $$d_\infty(A_n q,U_{q,d})\le \|W\|^{-(n-1)}+\mathbb{P}(A_n q=r_q)$$ from the triangle inequality. Moreover, $$\|\{q\in I(W^n)\quad\|\quad q\text{ is not }(W,0)-\text{typical}\}\|=o(\|W\|^n)$$ from standard concentration results. Inserting these into Equation , we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \limsup_{n\to\infty} & \sum_{q\in V^n} d_\infty(A_n q,U_{q,d})\\ &\le\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \quad\sum_{\substack{q\in I(W^n)\text{ is}\\\text{not }(W,0)-\text{typical}}} \left(\|W\|^{-(n-1)}+\mathbb{P}(A_n q=r_q)\right)\\ &=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \|\{q\in I(W^n)\quad\|\quad q\text{ is not }(W,0)-\text{typical}\}\|\|W\|^{-(n-1)}\\ &\qquad+ \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \quad \sum_{\substack{q\in I(W^n)\text{ is}\\\text{not }(W,0)-\text{typical}}} \mathbb{P}(A_n q=r_q)\\ &= \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)}\quad \sum_{\substack{q\in I(W^n)\text{ is}\\ \text{not }(W,0)-\text{typical}}} \mathbb{P}(A_n q=r_q).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, in order to prove Theorem \[FoFo\], it is enough to prove that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \quad\sum_{\substack{q\in I(W^n)\text{ is}\\ \text{not }(W,0)-\text{typical}}} \mathbb{P}(A_n q=r_q)=0.$$ We establish this in three steps, namely, we prove that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eegyenlo1} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \quad\sum_{\substack{q\in V^n\text{ is not}\\ (W,n^{\alpha})-\text{typical for any }W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)}} \mathbb{P}(A_n q=r_q)&=0,\\ \label{eegyenlo2} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \quad\sum_{\substack{q\text{ is }(W,n^{\alpha})-\text{typical,}\\ \text{but not } (W,C\log n)-\text{typical}}} \mathbb{P}(A_n q=r_q)&=0,\\ \label{eegyenlo3} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \quad\sum_{\substack{q\text{ is }(W,C\log n)-\text{typical,}\\ \text{but not } (W,0)-\text{typical}}} \mathbb{P}(A_n q=r_q)&=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a constant to be chosen later. Equations , and are proved in Subsections \[egyenlo1\], \[egyenlo2\] and \[egyenlo3\] respectively. Proof of Equation {#egyenlo1} ------------------ The following terminology will be useful for us. With every $(q,d-1)$-tuple $Q=(Q_1,Q_2,\dots,Q_n)$ we associate the random variables $Z\in V$ and $X^Q=(X^Q_1,X^Q_2,\dots,X^Q_{d-1})\in V^{d-1}$, such that $Z=r_q(i)$ and $X^Q=Q_i$, where $i$ is a uniform random element of the set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. Each $X^Q_j$ has the same distribution as $q_i$ where $i$ is chosen uniformly from $\{1,2\dots,n\}$. The random variable $X^Q_\Sigma\in V$ is defined as $X^Q_\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^{d-1} X^Q_i$. These two sets of $(q, d - 1)$-tuples are equal: $$\{Q\quad\|\quad r_q-\Sigma(Q)\sim q\}=\{Q\quad\|\quad Z-X_\Sigma^Q{\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny d}}}{=}}}X^Q_1\}.$$ Here ${\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny d}}}{=}}}$ means that the two random variables have the same distribution. Thus, $$\mathbb{P}\left(r_q -A_n^{(d-1)}q\sim q\right)=\mathbb{P}_{\bar{Q}}\left(Z-X^{\bar{Q}}_\Sigma {\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny d}}}{=}}}X^{\bar{Q}}_1\right),$$ where the subscript in the notation $\mathbb{P}_{\bar{Q}}$ indicates that the probability is over the random choice of $\bar{Q}$. We call the random variables $Z,X_1,X_2,...,X_{d-1}\in V$ $\varepsilon$-independent, if for every $z,x_1,x_2,...,x_{d-1}\in V$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \|\mathbb{P}(Z=z,X_1=x_1,...,X_{d-1}=x_{d-1})-\mathbb{P}(Z=z)\mathbb{P}(X_1=x_1)\cdots \mathbb{P}(X_{d-1}=x_{d-1})\|\\<\varepsilon.\end{gathered}$$ Fix $\frac{1}{2}<\eta<\alpha$. The next lemma follows from Lemma \[itbazuma\] and the union bound. \[tech26\] For any $q\in V^n$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \mathbb{P}_{\bar{Q}}(Z,X^{\bar{Q}}_1,X^{\bar{Q}}_2,\dots,X^{\bar{Q}}_{d-1}\text{ are not }n^{\eta-1}\text{-independent})\\\le \|V\|^d 2(d-1)\exp\left(-\frac{2 n^{2\eta-1}}{(d-1)^2}\right).\qed\end{gathered}$$ The crucial step in the proof of Equation is the following lemma, which is proved in the next subsection. \[lenyeges\] Let $d\ge 3$. There is $C$ and $\varepsilon_0>0$ (which may depend on $d$ and $V$), such that the following holds. Assume that $Z,X_1,X_2,...,X_{d-1}$ are $\varepsilon$-independent $V$-valued random variables, for some $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0$. Let $X_{\Sigma}=X_1+X_2+\dots +X_{d-1}$. Assume that $X_1,X_2,\dots,X_{d-1}$ and $Z-X_\Sigma$ have the same distribution $\pi$. Then there is a coset $W$ in $V$ such that $d_{\infty}(\pi,\pi_W)<C\varepsilon$. Here $\pi_W$ is the uniform distribution on $W$. For two distribution $\pi$ and $\mu$ on the same finite set $\mathcal{R}$, their distance $d_{\infty}(\pi,\mu)$ is defined as $$d_{\infty}(\pi,\mu)=\max_{r\in\mathcal{R}} \|\pi(r)-\mu(r)\|.$$ Combining the last lemma with Lemma \[tech26\], we get the following lemma. \[lemma13nak\] Assume that $n$ is large enough. Let $q\in V^n$. If $$\mathbb{P}\left(r_q -A_n^{(d-1)}q\sim q\right)=\mathbb{P}_{\bar{Q}}\left(Z-X^{\bar{Q}}_\Sigma {\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny d}}}{=}}}X^{\bar{Q}}_1\right)> \|V\|^d 2(d-1)\exp\left(-\frac{2 n^{2\eta-1}}{(d-1)^2}\right),$$ then $q$ is $(W,n^{\alpha})$-typical for some coset $W$ in $V$. In other words, if $q$ is not $(W,n^{\alpha})$-typical for any coset $W$, then $$\mathbb{P}\left(r_q -A_n^{(d-1)}q\sim q\right)=\mathbb{P}_{\bar{Q}}\left(Z-X^{\bar{Q}}_\Sigma {\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny d}}}{=}}}X^{\bar{Q}}_1\right)\le \|V\|^d 2(d-1)\exp\left(-\frac{2 n^{2\eta-1}}{(d-1)^2}\right).$$ Combining our assumptions on $q$ with Lemma \[tech26\], we have $$\mathbb{P}_{\bar{Q}}\left(Z,X^{\bar{Q}}_1,X^{\bar{Q}}_2,\dots,X^{\bar{Q}}_{d-1}\text{ are }n^{\eta-1}\text{-independent and }Z-X^{\bar{Q}}_\Sigma {\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny d}}}{=}}}X^{\bar{Q}}_1\right)>0.$$ So there exist $n^{\eta-1}$-independent random variables $Z,X_1,X_2,\dots,X_{d-1}$, such that $X_1,X_2,\dots,X_{d-1}$ and $Z-X_\Sigma=Z-\sum_{i=1}^{d-1} X_i$ all have the same distribution as $q_i$ where $i$ is chosen uniformly from $\{1,2,...,n\}$. Let us call this distribution $\pi$. For large enough $n$, we have $n^{\eta-1}<\varepsilon_0$, so Lemma \[lenyeges\] can be applied to give us that there is a coset $W$ in $V$ such that $d_{\infty}(\pi,\pi_W)<Cn^{\eta-1}$. Since $n^\alpha>C \|V\|n^\eta$, this implies that $q$ is $(W,n^{\alpha})$-typical. Now we made all the necessary preparations to prove Equation . Due to symmetry if $q_1\sim q_2$, then $\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)} q_1=r_{q_1})=\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)} q_2=r_{q_2})$. Let $q^{(d)}$ be a uniform random permutation of $q$ independent from $A_n^{(d-1)}$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{q'\sim q} \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)} q'=r_{q'}) &=\|S(q)\| \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r_q)\\ &=\|S(q)\| \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q+q^{(d)}=r_q)\\ &=\|S(q)\|\sum_{q'\sim q} \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q=r_q-q')\mathbb{P}(q^{(d)}=q')\\ &=\sum_{q'\sim q} \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q=r_q-q')=\mathbb{P}(r_q-A_n^{(d-1)}q\sim q).\end{aligned}$$ Let $T_n\subset V^n$ be such that it contains exactly one element of each equivalence class. Then, assuming that $n$ is large enough, we have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\substack{q\in V^n\text{ is not}\\ (W,n^{\alpha})-\text{typical for any }W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)}} &\mathbb{P}(A^{(d)}_n q=r_q)\\&=\sum_{\substack{q\in T_n\text{ is not}\\ (W,n^{\alpha})-\text{typical for any }W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)}}\mathbb{P}(r_q-A_n^{(d-1)}q\sim q) \\&\le \|T_n\| \|V\|^d 2(d-1)\exp\left(-\frac{2 n^{2\eta-1}}{(d-1)^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ In the last step, we used Lemma \[lemma13nak\]. Equation follows from the fact that $\|T_n\|=o\left(n^{\|V\|+1}\right)=o\left(\exp\left(\frac{2 n^{2\eta-1}}{(d-1)^2}\right)\right)$. The proof of Lemma \[lenyeges\] ------------------------------- Although we will not use the following lemma directly, we include it and its proof, because it contains many ideas, that will occur later, in a much clearer form. \[szemlelet\] Let $Z,X_1,X_2,...,X_{d-1}$ be independent $V$-valued random variables. Let $X_{\Sigma}=X_1+X_2+\dots+X_{d-1}$. Assume that $X_1,X_2,\dots,X_{d-1}$ and $Z-X_\Sigma$ have the same distribution $\pi$. Then $\pi=\pi_W$ for some coset $W$ in $V$. We use discrete Fourier transform, that is, for $\varrho\in \hat{V}=\operatorname{Hom}(V,\mathbb{C}^)$, we define $$\hat{\pi}(\varrho)=\sum_{v\in V} \pi(v)\varrho(v)$$ and $$\hat{\mu}(\varrho)=\sum_{v\in V} \mathbb{P}(Z=v)\varrho(v).$$ The assumptions of the lemma imply that $$\hat{\mu}(\varrho)\left(\overline{\hat{\pi}(\varrho)}\right)^{d-1}=\hat{\pi}(\varrho)$$ for every $\varrho\in \hat{V}$. In particular $\|\hat{\mu}(\varrho)\|\cdot\left\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\right\|^{d-1}=\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|$ for every $\varrho\in \hat{V}$. Since $\|\hat{\mu}(\varrho)\|, \|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|\le 1$, this is only possible if $\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|\in \{0,1\}$ for every $\varrho\in \hat{V}$. Let us define $\hat{V}_1=\{\varrho\in \hat{V}\|\quad \|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|=1\}$. Note that $\hat{V}_1$ always contains the trivial character. Then for every $\varrho\in \hat{V}_1$, the character $\varrho$ is constant on the support of $\pi$. Or in other words, the support of $\pi$ is contained in $W_\varrho=\varrho^{-1}(\hat{\pi}(\varrho))$, which is a coset of $\ker \varrho$. Therefore, the support of $\pi$ is contained in the coset $W=\cap_{\varrho\in \hat{V}_1}W_\varrho$. Now we prove that $\hat{\pi}(\varrho)=\hat{\pi}_W(\varrho)$ for every $\varrho\in \hat{V}$, which implies that $\pi=\pi_W$. This is clear for $\varrho\in \hat{V}_1$, so assume that $\varrho\not\in \hat{V_1}$, that is, $\hat{\pi}(\varrho)=0$. This implies that $\varrho$ is not constant on $W$. So there are $w_1,w_2\in W$ such that $\varrho(w_1)\neq\varrho(w_2)$. For $w=w_1-w_2$, we have $\varrho(w)\neq 1$ and $W=w+W$. Thus $$\begin{aligned} \label{zerohatpi} \hat{\pi}_W(\varrho)&=\frac{1}{\|W\|}\sum_{v\in W} \varrho(v)=\frac{1}{\|W\|}\sum_{v\in W} \varrho(w+v)\\&=\frac{1}{\|W\|}\varrho(w)\sum_{v\in W} \varrho(v)=\varrho(w)\hat{\pi}_W(\varrho).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $\varrho(w)\neq 1$, this means that $\hat{\pi}_W(\varrho)=0$. Now we turn to the proof of Lemma \[lenyeges\]. Using the notations of the proof of Lemma \[szemlelet\], the conditions of the lemma imply that $$\left\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)-\hat{\mu}(\varrho)\left(\overline{\hat{\pi}(\varrho)}\right)^{d-1}\right\|\le \|V\|^d \varepsilon$$ for every $\varrho\in \hat{V}$. Using the fact that $\|\hat{\mu}(\varrho)\|\le 1$, we obtain $$\left\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)-\hat{\mu}(\varrho)\left(\overline{\hat{\pi}(\varrho)}\right)^{d-1}\right\|\ge \|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|-\left\|\hat{\mu}(\varrho)\right\|\cdot\left\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\right\|^{d-1} \ge \|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|-\left\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\right\|^{d-1} ,$$ which gives us $\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|-\left\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\right\|^{d-1}\le \|V\|^d \varepsilon$ for every $\varrho\in \hat{V}$. Consider the $[0,1]\to [0,1]$ function $x\mapsto x-x^{d-1}$, this function only vanishes at $0$ and $1$. Moreover, the derivative of this function does not vanish at $0$ and $1$. This implies that there is an $\varepsilon_1>0$ and a $C_1>0$ such that for every $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon_1$ the following holds. For $x\in [0,1]$, if we have $x-x^{d-1} \le \|V\|^{d} \varepsilon$, then either $x<C_1\varepsilon$ or $x>1-C_1\varepsilon$. In the rest of the proof, we assume that $\varepsilon<\varepsilon_1$. Then for every $\varrho\in \hat{V}$, we have either $\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|<C_1\varepsilon$ or $\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|>1-C_1\varepsilon$. Let $\hat{V}_1=\{\varrho\in \hat{V}\| 1-C_1\varepsilon<\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|\}$. Take any $\varrho\in \hat{V}_1$. Set $$z=\frac{\overline{\hat{\pi}(\varrho)}}{\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|}.$$ Choose $\xi_0=\xi_0(\varrho)$ in the range $R(\varrho)$ of the character $\rho$, such that $\operatorname{Re}z\xi_0=\max_{\xi\in R(\varrho)} \operatorname{Re}z \xi$. An elementary geometric argument gives that for $\xi_0 \neq \xi\in R(\varrho)$, we have $\operatorname{Re}z\xi\le 1-\delta$, where $\delta=1-\cos\frac{\pi}{\|V\|}>0$.[^2] Clearly $\operatorname{Re}z\xi_0 \le 1$. Then we have $$\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|=z\hat{\pi}(\varrho)=\operatorname{Re}z \hat{\pi}(\varrho)=\sum_{\xi\in R(\varrho)} \pi(\varrho^{-1}(\xi)) \operatorname{Re}z\xi\le 1-\left(1-\pi(\varrho^{-1}(\xi_0))\right)\delta.$$ Thus, $\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|>1-C_1\varepsilon$ implies that for the coset $W_\varrho=\varrho^{-1}(\xi_0)$, we have $\pi(W_\varrho)>1-C_1\delta^{-1}\varepsilon$. So the coset $W=\cap_{\varrho\in \hat{V}_1} W_\varrho$ satisfies $\pi(W)>1-C_1\delta^{-1}\|V\|\varepsilon$. Consider a $\varrho\in \hat{V}_1$. Let $\xi_0=\xi_0(\varrho)$ be like above. Note that $\varrho(v)=\xi_0$ for any $v\in W_\varrho$. In particular, we have $\hat{\pi}_W(\varrho)=\xi_0$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \|\hat{\pi}_W(\varrho)-\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|&=\left\|\xi_0-\left(\pi(W_\varrho)\xi_0-\sum_{v\in V\backslash W_\varrho}\pi(v)\varrho(v)\right)\right\|\\&=\left\|(1-\pi(W_\varrho))\xi_0-\sum_{v\in V\backslash W_\varrho}\pi(v)\varrho(v)\right\|\\ &\le 1-\pi(W_\varrho)+\sum_{v\in V\backslash W_\varrho}\pi(v)= 2 (1-\pi(W_\varrho))\le 2C_1\delta^{-1}\varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Now take $\varrho\in \hat{V}\backslash \hat{V}_1$. We know that $\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|<C_1\varepsilon$. We claim that $\varrho$ is not constant on $W$. To show this, assume that $\varrho$ is constant on $W$, then $$\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|\ge \pi(W)-\pi(V\backslash W)\ge 1-2C_1\delta^{-1}\|V\|\varepsilon>C_1\varepsilon$$ provided that $\varepsilon$ is small enough, which gives us a contradiction. Using that $\varrho$ is not constant on $W$, Equation gives us $\hat{\pi}_W(\varrho)=0$. Thus, $$\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)-\hat{\pi}_W(\varrho)\|=\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)\|\le C_1\varepsilon.$$ This gives us that $\|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)-\hat{\pi}_W(\varrho)\| \le 2C_1\delta^{-1}\varepsilon$ for any $\varrho\in \hat{V}$. Since the map $\pi\mapsto \hat{\pi}$ is an invertible linear map, there is a constant $L=L_V$ such that $d_\infty(\pi,\pi_W)\le L\max_{\varrho\in \hat{V}} \|\hat{\pi}(\varrho)-\hat{\pi}_W(\varrho)\|$. This gives the statement. Proof of Equation {#egyenlo2} ------------------ We start by the following lemma. \[ee2lemma\] There is a $C$ such that if $W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)$ and $q\in V^n$ is $(W,n^{\alpha})$-typical, but not $(W,C\log n)$-typical, then for a random $(q,d-1)$-tuple $\bar{Q}$, we have $$\mathbb{P}(r_q-\Sigma(\bar{Q})\sim q)\le n^{-(\|V\|+1)}.$$ Let $E=\sum_{c\not\in W} m_q(c)$. Since $q$ is $(W,n^\alpha)$-typical, we have $E\le n^{\alpha}$. Assume that $r=\sum_{i=1}^d q^{(i)}$, where $q^{(i)}\sim q$. Note that $$\{j\|\quad r_j\not\in dW\}\subset \cup_{i=1}^d \{j\|\quad q^{(i)}(j)\not\in W\},$$ so $\sum_{c\not\in dW} m_r(c)\le d E$. In particular, this is true for $r_q$, that is, $$\sum_{c\not\in dW} m_{r_q}(c)\le d E.$$ Let $$H_0=\{j\quad\|\quad r_q(j)\not\in dW\}.$$ For $i=1,2,...,d-1$, we define the random subset $H_i$ of $\{1,2,...,n\}$ using the random $(q,d-1)$-tuple $\bar {Q}=(\bar {q}^{(1)},\bar {q}^{(2)},\dots,\bar {q}^{(d-1)})$ as $$H_i=\{j\quad\|\quad \bar{q}^{(i)}(j)\not\in W\},$$ and let the random subset $H^\subset\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ be defined as $$H^=\{j\quad\| r_q(j)-\Sigma(\bar{Q})(j)\not\in W\}.$$ Then $0\le \|H_0\|\le dE$ and $\|H_1\|=\|H_2\|=...=\|H_{d-1}\|=E$. Let $$B=\{j\quad\|\quad j\text{ is contained in exactly one of the sets $H_0,H_1,H_2,...,H_{d-1}$}\}.$$ Then $B\subset H^$, therefore we have $$\mathbb{P}(r_q-\Sigma(\bar{Q})\sim q)\le \mathbb{P}(\|H^\|=E)\le \mathbb{P}(\|B\|\le E).$$ We will need the following inequality $$\|B\|\ge \sum_{i=0}^{d-1} \|H_i\|-2\sum_{0\le i<j\le d-1} \|H_i\cap H_j\|\ge(d-1)E-2\sum_{0\le i<j\le d-1} \|H_i\cap H_j\|.$$ The proof of this is straightforward, or see [@feller Chapter IV, 5.(c)]. Thus, if $\|B\|\le E$, then $$2\sum_{0\le i<j\le d-1} \|H_i\cap H_j\|\ge (d-2) E.$$ So $\|H_i\cap H_j\|\ge \frac{(d-2)E}{d(d-1)}$ for some $i<j$. Therefore, $$\label{szita} \mathbb{P}(r_q-\Sigma(Q)\sim q)\le \mathbb{P}(\|B\|\le E)\le \sum_{0\le i<j\le d-1} \mathbb{P}\left(\|H_i\cap H_j\|\ge \frac{(d-2)E}{d(d-1)}\right).$$ \[most\] There is a constant $C$ such that, for all $a,b$ and $E$ satisfying $C\log n< E< n^{\alpha}$ and $a,b\le dE$, if $A$ and $B$ are two random subset of $\{1,2,...,n\}$ of size $a$ and $b$ respectively chosen independently and uniformly, then $$\mathbb{P}\left(\|A\cap B\|\ge \frac{(d-2)E}{d(d-1)}\right)<n^{-(\|V\|+1)}\Big/{{d}\choose{2}}.$$ We may assume that $n$ is large enough, because we can always increase $C$ to handle the small values of $n$. Let $\delta=\frac{(d-2)}{d(d-1)}$. For large enough $n$, we have $\frac{ab}{n}\le \frac{\delta}{2}E$. Using Lemma \[bazuma\], we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}\left(\|A\cap B\|\ge \frac{(d-2)E}{d(d-1)}\right)&=\mathbb{P}\left(\|A\cap B\|\ge \delta E\right)\\ &\le \mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\|A\cap B\|-\frac{ab}{n}\right\|\ge \frac{\delta}{2} E\right)\le 2\exp\left(-\frac{\delta^2E^2}{2a}\right)\\&\le 2\exp\left(-\frac{\delta^2E}{2d}\right)\le 2\exp\left(-\frac{\delta^2C\log n}{2d}\right)\\&=2n^{-\frac{\delta^2C}{2d}}<n^{-(\|V\|+1)}\Big/{{d}\choose{2}} \end{aligned}$$ for large enough $C$. Combining this lemma with Inequality , we get the statement of Lemma \[ee2lemma\]. Then Equation follows, because $$\begin{aligned} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)}& \quad\sum_{\substack{q\text{ is }(W,n^{\alpha})-\text{typical,}\\ \text{but not } (W,C\log n)-\text{typical}}} \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)} q=r_q)\\&= \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)} \quad\sum_{\substack{q\in T_n\text{ is }(W,n^{\alpha})-\text{typical,}\\ \text{but not } (W,C\log n)-\text{typical}}} \mathbb{P}(r_q-A_n^{(d-1)}q\sim q)\\&\le \limsup_{n\to\infty} \|\operatorname{Cos}(V)\|\cdot\|T_n\| n^{-(\|V\|+1)}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Proof of Equation {#egyenlo3} ------------------ Since there are only finitely many cosets in $V$, it is enough to prove that for any coset $W\in \operatorname{Cos}(V)$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in D_W^n} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q)=0,$$ where $$D_W^n=\{q\in T_n\quad\|\quad q\text{ is }(W,C\log n)-\text{typical, but not }(W,0)\text{-typical}\},$$ and $\bar{Q}$ is a random $(q,d)$-tuple. (Recall that $S(q)$ is the set of permutations of $q$.) Given a $q\in V^n$, a $(q,d)$-tuple $Q$ or $m_Q$ itself will be called $W$-decent if for any $u\in W^d$, we have $$\frac{1+m_{\Sigma(Q)}(u_\Sigma)}{1+m_Q(u)}\le \log^2 n,$$ and it will be called $W$-half-decent if $(1+m_{\Sigma(Q)}(u_\Sigma))/(1+m_Q(u))\le \log^4 n$. Or even more generally, a non-negative integral vector $m$ indexed by $V^d$ will be called $W$-half-decent if for every $u\in W^d$, we have $$\frac{1+ m(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)}{1+m(u)}\le \log^4 n,$$ where $n=\sum_{t\in V^d} m(t)$. \[csakdecent\] For any coset $W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in D_W^n} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q)\\=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in D_W^n} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q\text{ and }\bar{Q}\text{ is }W-\text{decent}).\end{gathered}$$ It is enough to show that if $n$ is large enough, then $$\|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q\text{ and }\bar{Q}\text{ is not }W-\text{decent})\le n^{-(\|V\|+1)}$$ for every $q\in D_W^n$. Indeed, once we establish this, it follows that $$\begin{gathered} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in D_W^n} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q\text{ and }\bar{Q}\text{ is not }W-\text{decent})\\\le \limsup_{n\to\infty}\|T_n\|n^{-(\|V\|+1)}=0,\end{gathered}$$ which gives the statement. Just for this proof $(q,h)$-tuples and random $(q,h)$-tuples will be denoted by $Q^h$ and $\bar{Q}^h$, because it will be important to emphasize the value of $h$. Given any $(q,d-1)$-tuple $Q^{d-1}=(q^{(1)},q^{(2)},\dots,q^{(d-1)})$ such that $r_q-\Sigma(Q^{d-1})\sim q$ the tuple $(q^{(1)},q^{(2)},\dots,q^{(d-1)},r_q-\Sigma(Q^{d-1}))$ will be a $(q,d)$-tuple and it is denoted by $\text{Ext}(Q^{d-1})$. It is also clear that $\Sigma(\text{Ext}(Q^{d-1}))=r_q$, and for any $(q,d)$-tuple $Q^d$ such that $\Sigma(Q^d)=r_q$ there is a unique $(q,d-1)$-tuple $Q^{d-1}$ such that $r_q-\Sigma(Q^{d-1})\sim q$ and $Q^d=\text{Ext}(Q^{d-1})$. Also note that $\mathbb{P}(\bar{Q}^{d-1}=Q^{d-1})=\|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\bar{Q}^d=Q^d)$. Therefore, for any $q\in D_W^n$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q}^{d})=r_q\text{ and }\bar{Q}\text{ is not }W-\text{decent})\\=\mathbb{P}(r_q-\Sigma(\bar{Q}^{d-1})\sim q\text{ and }\text{Ext}(\bar{Q}^{d-1})\text{ is not }W-\text{decent}).\end{gathered}$$ The event on the right-hand side is contained in the even that $$\text{there are }t\in W^{d-1}\text{ and }c\in dW\text{, such that }\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad$$ $$\label{ineqdec} \frac{1+m_{r_q}(c)}{1+\|\{i\|\quad r_q(i)=c\text{ and }\bar{Q}^{d-1}(i)=t\}\|}> \log^2 n.$$ This event has probability at most $n^{-(\|V\|+1)}$ for every $(W,C\log n)$-typical vector $q\in V^n$, if $n$ is large enough. Indeed, for a $c\in dW$ such that $m_{r_q}(c)< \log^2 n$, Inequality can not be true. On the other hand, if $m_{r_q}(c)\ge \log^2 n$, then with high probability $$\|\{i\|\quad r_q(i)=c\text{ and }\bar{Q}^{d-1}(i)=t\}\|>\frac{1}{2}\frac{m_{r_q}(c)}{\|W\|^{d-1}}>\frac{1+m_{r_q}(c)}{\log^2 n}$$ for any $t\in W^{d-1}$, as it follows from Lemma \[itbazuma\]. As before, we define $$\mathcal{M}(q,r)=\{m_Q\quad\|\quad Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{q,d},\Sigma(Q)=r\}.$$ Let $$\mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r)=\{m\in \mathcal{M}(q,r)\|\quad m\text{ is }W-\text{decent}\}.$$ From the previous lemma, we need to prove that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{q\in D_W^n}\quad\sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m ))=0.$$ Let $$\mathcal{M}=\{m_Q\quad\|\quad Q\text{ is a }(q,d)\text{-tuple for some }n\ge 0\text{ and }q\in V^n\}.$$ The set $\mathcal{M}$ is the set of non-negative integral points of the linear subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{V^{d}}$ consisting of the vectors $m$ satisfying the following linear equations: $$m(\tau_i=c)= m(\tau_1=c)$$ for every $c\in V$ and $i=1,2,\dots,d$. In other words, $\mathcal{M}$ consists of the integral points of a rational polyhedral cone. From [@schr Theorem 16.4], we know that this cone is generated by an integral Hilbert basis, i. e., we have the following lemma. \[Hilbert\] There are finitely many vectors $m_1,m_2,...,m_{\ell}\in \mathcal{M}$, such that $$\pushQED{\qed}\mathcal{M}=\{c_1 m_1+c_2m_2+\dots+ c_\ell m_\ell \quad \|\quad c_1,c_2,\dots, c_{\ell}\text{ are non-negative integers}\}.\qedhere \popQED$$ We may assume that the indices in the lemma above are chosen such that there is an $h$ such that the supports of $m_1,m_2,\dots,m_h$ are contained in $W^{d}$, and the supports of $m_{h+1},m_{h+2},...,m_\ell$ are not contained in $W^{d}$. Given a vector $m\in \mathcal{M}$, write $m$ as $m=\sum_{i=1}^\ell c_im_i$, where $c_1,c_2,...,c_\ell$ are non-negative integers, and let $\Delta(m)=\sum_{i=h+1}^\ell c_im_i$. (If the decomposition of $m$ is not unique just pick and fix a decomposition.) With the notation $\\|m\\|_{W^C}=m(\tau\not\in W^d)$, we have $\\|m\\|_{W^C}=\\|\Delta(m)\\|_{W^C}$ and $\\|m-\Delta(m)\\|_{W^C}=0$. For any non-negative integral vector $m\in \mathbb{R}^{V^{d}}$, we define $$\label{Emdef} E(m)=\frac{\prod_{c\in V} m(\tau_\Sigma=c)!}{\prod_{t\in V^d} m(t)!} \left(\prod_{i=1}^d \frac{\prod_{c\in V} m(\tau_i=c)!}{m(V^d)!}\right)^{\frac{d-1}{d}}.$$ For every $q,r\in V^n$ and $m\in\mathcal{M}(q,r)$, we have $$\|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge(m_{\bar{Q}}=m))=\frac{\prod_{c\in V} m_r(c)!}{\prod_{t\in V^{d}} m(t)!}\Big/\left(\frac{n!}{\prod_{c\in V} m_q(c)!}\right)^{d-1}=E(m).$$ The first equality is a consequence of Lemma \[euq12lemma\]. To prove the second equality, note that since $m\in \mathcal{M}(q,r)$, for any $c\in V$ and $i\in \{1,2,\dots, d\}$, we have $m_q(c)=m(\tau_i=c)$. By taking factorials, we get that $m_q(c)!=m(\tau_i=c)!$. Multiplying all these equations, we get that $$\prod_{i=1}^d \prod_{c\in V} m(\tau_i=c)!=\left(\prod_{c\in V} m_q(c)!\right)^d,$$ that is, $$\left(\prod_{i=1}^d \prod_{c\in V} m(\tau_i=c)!\right)^{\frac{d-1}d}=\left(\prod_{c\in V} m_q(c)!\right)^{d-1}.$$ Of course there are many other equivalent ways to express the quantity $\|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge(m_{\bar{Q}}=m))$ and each of them suggests a way to extend the formula to all non-negative integral vectors, but the formula given in Equation will be useful for us later. \[segedlem\] Consider a non-negative integral $W$-half-decent vector $m_0\in\mathbb{R}^{V^{d}}$, such that $\\|m_0\\|_{W^C}=O(\log n)$, where $n=\sum_{t\in V^d} m(t)$. For $u\in V^{d}$, let $\chi_u\in\mathbb{R}^{V^{d}}$ be such that $\chi_u(u)=1$ and $\chi_u(t)=0$ for every $t\neq u\in V^{d}$. - If $u\in W^{d}$, then $E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=O( \log^4 n);$ - If $u\not\in W^{d}$, then $E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=O( n^{-(d-2)/d}\log^{2} n).$ Let $$g=\frac{1+ m_0(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)}{1+m_0(u)}\qquad\text{ and }\qquad f_i=\frac{1+ m_0(\tau_i=u_i) }{n+1}.$$ Note that$$E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=g\cdot\left(\prod_{i=1}^d f_i \right)^{\frac{d-1}{d}}.$$ If $u\in W^d$, then since $m_0$ is $W$-half-decent, we have $g\le\log^4 n$, and clearly $f_i\le 1$, so the statement follows. If $u\not\in W^d$, we consider the following two cases: 1. If $u_\Sigma\not\in dW$, then $$g\le 1+m_0(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)\le 1+ \\|m_0\\|_{W^c}=O(\log n),$$ and there is an $i$ such that $u_i\not\in W$. This imply that $f_i=O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)$. So $$E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=O\left(\log n \left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)^{\frac{d-1}{d}}\right)=O\left( n^{-\frac{d-2}{d}}\log^2 n\right).$$ 2. If $u_\Sigma\in W^d$, then there are at least two indices $i$ such that $u_i\not\in W$, for such an index $i$, we have $f_i=O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)$, clearly $g=O(n)$, so $$E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=O\left(n\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)^{\frac{2(d-1)}{d}}\right)=O\left( n^{-\frac{d-2}{d}}\log^2 n\right).$$ The next lemma follows easily from the previous one. \[DeltaMbecsElo\] There is a $D$, such that for any $i\in \{h+1,h+2,\dots,\ell\}$ and any non-negative integral $W$-half-decent vector $m_0\in\mathbb{R}^{V^{d}}$, such that $\\|m_0\\|_{W^C}=O(\log n)$, we have $$\pushQED{\qed}E(m_0+m_i)/E(m_0)=O\left(\left(n^{-(d-2)/d}\log^D n\right)^{\\|m_i\\|_{W^C}}\right).\qedhere \popQED$$ \[WHDLemma\] Assume that $n$ is large enough. Let $q\in V^n$ be $(W,C\log n)$-typical, and let $m\in\mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)$. If $m_0$ is an integral vector indexed by $V^d$ such that $(m-\Delta(m))(t)\le m_0(t)\le m(t)$ for every $t\in V^d$, then $m$ is $W$-half-decent. Let $L=\max_{i=h+1}^\ell \\|m_i\\|_\infty$. Note that $m(t)-m'(t)\le L\\|m\\|_{W^C}\le LC\log n$ for every $t\in V^d$. Let $n_0=\sum_{t\in V^d} m_0(t)$. Then $$n_0\ge n-L\cdot\|V\|^d\cdot \\|m\\|_{W^C}\ge n-L\|V\|^d C\log n.$$ If $n$ is large enough, then $LC\log^3 n\le \frac{1}2 \log ^4 n_0$. We need to prove that $$\frac{1+ m_0(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)}{1+m_0(u)}\le \log^4 n_0,$$ for every $u\in W^d$. If $1+ m_0(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)\le \log^4 n_0$, then it is clear. Thus, assume that $1+ m_0(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)> \log^4 n_0$. Then, $$\begin{aligned} 1+ m_0(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)&\le 1+m(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)\\&\le (1+m(u))\log^2 n\\ &\le (1+m_0(u)+LC\log n)\log^2 n\\&\le (1+m_0(u))\log^2 n +\frac{1}{2}\log^4 n_0\\&\le (1+m_0(u))\log^2 n +\frac{1}{2}\left(1+ m_0(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if $n$ is large enough, then we have $$\frac{1+ m_0(\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)}{1+m_0(u)}\le 2\log^2 n\le \log^4 n_0.$$ The following estimate will be crucial later. \[DeltaMbecs\] There is a $K$ such that for any $(W,C\log n)$-typical $q\in V^n$ and $m\in\mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)$, we have $$E(m)\le \left(Kn^{-(d-2)/d}\log^D n\right)^{\\|\Delta(m)\\|_{W^C}}E(m-\Delta(m)).$$ We may assume that $n$ is large enough, because we can increase $K$ to handle the small values of $n$. Then the statement follows from repeated application of Lemma \[DeltaMbecsElo\]. Observe that $m-\Delta(m)$ and all other $m_0$ we need to apply that lemma is $W$-half-decent by Lemma \[WHDLemma\]. Now we made all the necessary preparations to prove Equation . With our new notations, we have to prove that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in D_n^W} \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}^\sharp (q,r_q)} E(m)=0.$$ We prove it by induction on $\|V\|$. The statement is clear if $W=V$, because in that case $D_n^W$ is empty. So we may assume that $\| W\|<\| V\|$. There is a finite $B=B_W$ such that for every $n$, we have that $$\sum_{q\in W^n\cap T_n} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r_q) <B.$$ First consider the case when the coset $W$ is a subgroup. Then from the induction hypothesis, we can use Theorem \[FoFo\] to get that that $$\sum_{q\in W^n} \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r_q)= \sum_{q\in W^n} \mathbb{P}(U_{q,d}=r_q)+o(1).$$ Recall that for $W_0\in \operatorname{Cos}(W)$, we defined $I(W_0^n)$ as $$I(W_0^n)=\{q\in W_0^n\quad\|\quad\operatorname{MinC}_q=W_0\}.$$ Now, we have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{q\in W^n} \mathbb{P}(U_{q,d}=r_q)&= \sum_{W_0\in\operatorname{Cos}(W)}\sum_{q\in I(W_0^n)}\mathbb{P}(U_{q,d}=r_q)\\&=\sum_{W_0\in\operatorname{Cos}(W)} \|I(W_0^n)\|\cdot\|W_0\|^{-(n-1)}\le \sum_{W_0\in\operatorname{Cos}(W)} \|W_0\|.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{q\in W^n\cap T_n} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r_q) &= \sum_{q\in W^n} \mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r_q)\\&= \sum_{q\in W^n} \mathbb{P}(U_{q,d}=r_q)+o(1)\le \sum_{W_0\in \operatorname{Cos}(W)}\|W_0\|+o(1).\end{aligned}$$ This proves the lemma when $W$ is a subgroup of $V$. If the coset $W$ is not a subgroup, then we need to use the bijection given in the proof of Lemma \[tipikuskulonbseg\]. We need a few notations, let $$\mathcal{M}^\Delta_n=\cup_{q\in D_n^W} \{\Delta(m)\quad\|\quad m\in\mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)\}.$$ For $m_{\Delta}\in \mathcal{M}^\Delta_n$ let $$\Delta^{-1}_n(m_{\Delta})=\cup_{q\in D_n^W} \{m\in \mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)\quad\|\quad \Delta(m)=m_\Delta\}.$$ Using Lemma \[DeltaMbecs\], we obtain that $$\begin{gathered} \label{folytkov} \sum_{q\in D_n^W} \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)} E(m)=\sum_{m_\Delta\in\mathcal{M}^{\Delta}_n}\quad \sum_{m\in \Delta^{-1}_n(m_\Delta)} E(m)\le\\ \sum_{m_\Delta\in\mathcal{M}^{\Delta}_n} \left(Kn^{-(d-2)/d}\log^{D} n\right)^{\\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}}\sum_{m\in \Delta^{-1}_n(m_\Delta)} E(m-m_\Delta).\end{gathered}$$ Fix a vector $m_{\Delta}\in \mathcal{M}^\Delta_n$. Set $n'=n-\sum_{t\in V^{d}}m_\Delta(t)$. Let $X$ be the set of $q\in D_n^W$, such that $\mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)\cap \Delta^{-1}_n(m_{\Delta})$ is non-empty. For each $q\in X$, there is a unique $q'\in W^{n'}\cap T_{n'}$ such that for every $c\in V$, we have $m_{q'}(c)=m_q(c)-m_{\Delta}(\tau_1=c)$, and a unique $w_q\in W^{n'}\cap T_{n'} $ such that for every $c\in V$, we have $m_{w_q}(c)=m_{r_q}(c)- m_{\Delta}(\tau_\Sigma=c)$. Note that for any $m\in \mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)\cap \Delta^{-1}_n(m_{\Delta})$, we have $m-m_\Delta\in \mathcal{M}(q',w_q)$. Moreover, $$E(m-m_\Delta)=\|S(q')\|\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=w_q)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m-m_\Delta)),$$ where $\bar{Q}$ is a random $(q',d)$ -tuple. The map $m\mapsto m-m_\Delta$ is injective, so it follows that $$\sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)\cap \Delta^{-1}_n(m_{\Delta})} E(m-m_\Delta)\le \|S(q')\|\mathbb{P}(A_{n'}^{(d)}q'=w_q).$$ Also note that that the map $q\mapsto q'$ is injective. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{m\in \Delta^{-1}_n(m_\Delta)} E(m-m_\Delta)&=\sum_{q\in X}\quad \sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)\cap \Delta^{-1}_n(m_{\Delta})} E(m-m_\Delta)\\&\le \sum_{q\in X} \|S(q')\| \mathbb{P}(A_{n'}^{(d)}q'=w_q)\\&\le \sum_{q'\in W^{n'}\cap T_{n'}} \|S(q')\| \mathbb{P}(A_{n'}^{(d)}q'=r_{q'})<B .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, continuing Inequality , we have $$\sum_{q\in D_n^W} \sum_{m\in \mathcal{M}^\sharp(q,r_q)} E(m)\le B \sum_{m_\Delta\in\mathcal{M}^{\Delta}_n} \left(Kn^{-(d-2)/d}\log^{D} n\right)^{\\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}}.$$ There is an $F$ such that $\|\mathcal{M}_n^\Delta\|\le n^F$. We choose a constant $G$ such that for a large enough $n$, we have $\left(Kn^{-(d-2)/d}\log^{d-1} n\right)^{\\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}}<n^{-(F+1)}$, whenever $\\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}\ge G$. Let $H$ be the cardinality of the set $$\{m\quad\|\quad m=\sum_{i=h+1}^{\ell} c_i m_i,\quad c_{h+1},c_{h+2},\dots,c_\ell\text{ non-negative integers, }\\|m\\|_{W^c}< G\}.$$ Note that $H\le G^{\ell-h}$. Finally observe that $\\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}\ge 1$ for all $m_\Delta\in\mathcal{M}_n^\Delta$. So for large enough $n$ $$\begin{aligned} B &\sum_{m_\Delta\in\mathcal{M}^{\Delta}_n} \left(Kn^{-(d-2)/d}\log^D n\right)^{\\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}}\\ &= B \sum_{\substack{m_\Delta\in\mathcal{M}^{\Delta}_n\\ \\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}\ge G}} \left(Kn^{-(d-2)/d}\log^{D} n\right)^{\\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}}\\ &\qquad +B \sum_{\substack{m_\Delta\in\mathcal{M}^{\Delta}_n\\ \\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}< G}} \left(Kn^{-(d-2)/d}\log^D n\right)^{\\|m_\Delta\\|_{W^C}}\\ &\le Bn^Fn^{-(F+1)}+BHK n^{-(d-2)/d}\log^{D} n=o(1).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have proved Equation . The connection between the mixing property of the adjacency matrix and the sandpile group {#mixingboldist} ========================================================================================= The random $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ matrix $A_n'$ is obtained from $A_n$ by deleting its last row and last column. For $q\in V^{n-1}$, the subgroup generated by $q_1,q_2,\dots,q_{n-1}$ is denoted by $G_q$. Let $U_q$ be a uniform random element of $G_q^{n-1}$. The next corollary of Theorem \[FoFo\] states that the distribution of $A_n' q$ is close to that of $U_q$. \[correduced\] We have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in V^{n-1}} d_\infty(A_n'q,U_{q})=0.$$ For $q\in V^{n-1}$ and $r\in G_q^{n-1}$, we define $\bar{q}=(q_1,q_2,\dots,q_{n-1},0)\in V^n$ and $\bar{r}=(r_1,r_2,\dots,r_{n-1},d\cdot s(q)-s(r))\in G_q^n$. Note that $s(\bar{r})=d\cdot s(q)=d\cdot s(\bar{q})$ and $\operatorname{MinC}_{\bar{q}}=G_q$, so $\bar{r}\in R(\bar{q},d)$. Moreover, $A_n'q=r$ if and only if $A_n\bar{q}=\bar{r}$, so $\mathbb{P}(A_n'q=r)=\mathbb{P}(A_n\bar{q}=\bar{r})$. From these observations, it follows easily that $d_\infty(A_n' q,U_q)=d_\infty(A_n \bar{q},U_{\bar{q},d})$. The rest of the proof follows from Theorem \[FoFo\]. Recall that the reduced Laplacian $\Delta_n$ of $D_n$ was defined as $\Delta_n=A_n'-dI$. The next well-known proposition connects $\operatorname{Hom}(\Gamma_n,V)$ and $\operatorname{Sur}(\Gamma_n,V)$ with the kernel of $\Delta_n$ when $\Delta_n$ acts on $V^{n-1}$. \[prop1\] For any finite abelian group $V$, we have $$\|\operatorname{Hom}(\Gamma_n,V)\|=\|\{q\in V^{n-1}\quad\|\quad \Delta_n q=0\}\|$$ and $$\|\operatorname{Sur}(\Gamma_n,V)\|=\|\{q\in V^{n-1}\quad\|\quad \Delta_n q=0,\quad G_q=V\}\|.$$ There is an obvious bijection between $\operatorname{Hom}(\Gamma_n,V)$ and $$\{\varphi\in \operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}^{n-1},V)\|\quad \operatorname{RowSpace}(\Delta_n)\subset \ker \varphi\}.$$ Moreover, any $\varphi\in \operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}^{n-1},V)$ is uniquely determined by the vector $q=(\varphi(e_1),\varphi(e_2),\dots,\varphi(e_{n-1}))\in V^{n-1}$, where $e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{n-1}$ is the standard generating set of $\mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$. Furthermore, $\operatorname{RowSpace}(\Delta_n)\subset\ker \varphi$ if and only if $\Delta_n q=0$, so the first statement follows. The second one can be proved similarly. Combining Proposition \[prop1\] with with Corollary \[correduced\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(\Gamma_n,V)\|&=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{\substack{q\in V^{n-1}\\ G_q=V}}\mathbb{P}(\Delta_n q=0)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{\substack{q\in V^{n-1}\\ G_q=V}}\mathbb{P}(A_n' q=dq)\\&= \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{\substack{q\in V^{n-1}\\ G_q=V}}\mathbb{P}(U_q=dq)\\&=\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\{q\in V^{n-1}\|\quad G_q=V \}\|\cdot \|V\|^{-(n-1)}=1.\end{aligned}$$ This proves Theorem \[momentumokD\]. To obtain Theorem \[CohenlenstraD\] from this theorem, we need to use the results of Wood on the moment problem. (Wood [@wood2 Theorem 3.1] or [@wood Theorem 8.3])\[woodmoment\] Let $X_n$ and $Y_n$ be sequences of random finitely generated abelian groups. Let $a$ be a positive integer and $A$ be the set of (isomorphism classes of) abelian groups with exponent dividing $a$. Suppose that for every $G\in A$, we have a number $M_G\leq \|\wedge^2 G\|$ such that $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{E}\| \operatorname{Sur}(X_n, G)\| = M_G,$$ and $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{E}\| \operatorname{Sur}(Y_n, G)\| = M_G.$$ Then for every $H\in A$, the limits $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}(X_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/a\mathbb{Z} {\simeq}H)\quad\text{ and }\quad\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}(Y_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/a\mathbb{Z} {\simeq}H)$$ exist, and they are equal. This has the following consequence. Let $p_1,p_2,\dots,p_s$ be distinct primes. Let $X_n$ and $Y_n$ be sequences of random finitely generated abelian groups. Assume that for any finite abelian group $G$, we have a number $M_G\leq \|\wedge^2 G\|$ such that $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{E}\| \operatorname{Sur}(X_n, G)\| = M_G,$$ and $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{E}\| \operatorname{Sur}(Y_n, G)\| = M_G.$$ Let $X_{n,i}$ (resp. $Y_{n,i}$) be the $p_i$-Sylow subgroup of $X_n$ (resp. $Y_n$). For $i=1,2,\dots,s$, let $G_i$ be a finite abelian $p_i$-group. Then the limits $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^s X_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i\right)\quad\text{ and }\quad\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^s Y_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i\right)$$ exist, and they are equal. Let $a_0$ be the exponent of the group $\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i$. Let $a=a_0\cdot\prod_{i=1}^s p_i$. Observe that $\bigoplus_{i=1}^s X_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i$ if and only if $X_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/a\mathbb{Z}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i$. Thus, the previous theorem gives the statement. The next theorem gives two special cases which are of particular interest for us. \[momentproblemspec\] Let $p_1,p_2,\dots,p_s$ be distinct primes. Let $\Gamma_n$ be sequence of random finitely generated abelian groups. Let $\Gamma_{n,i}$ be the $p_i$-Sylow subgroup of $\Gamma_n$. 1. Assume that for any finite abelian group $V$, we have $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{E}\| \operatorname{Sur}(\Gamma_n, V)\| = 1.$$ For $i=1,2,\dots,s$, let $G_i$ be a finite abelian $p_i$-group. Then $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^s \Gamma_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i\right)=\prod_{i=1}^s \left(\|\operatorname{Aut}(G_i)\|^{-1} \prod_{j=1}^\infty (1-p_i^{-j})\right).$$ 2. Assume that for any finite abelian group $V$, we have $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{E}\| \operatorname{Sur}(\Gamma_n, V)\| = \|\wedge^2 V\|.$$ For $i=1,2,\dots,s$, let $G_i$ be a finite abelian $p_i$-group. Then $$\begin{gathered} \lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^s \Gamma_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i\right)=\\\prod_{i=1}^s \left(\frac{\|\{\phi:G_i \times G_i \to \mathbb{C}^ \operatorname{ symmetric, bilinear, perfect }\}\|}{\|G_i\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G_i)\|} \prod_{j=0}^\infty (1-p_i^{-2j-1})\right).\end{gathered}$$ The first part follows from the previous theorem and [@wood2 Lemma 3.2] with the choice of $u=0$. Or alternatively, we can use the results of [@ellenb Section 8]. The second part follows from the previous theorem and [@clp14 Theorem 2 and Theorem 11]. See also the proof of Corollary 9.2 in [@wood]. Combining the first statement of the previous theorem with Theorem \[momentumokD\], we obtain Theorem \[CohenlenstraD\]. The proofs of the corresponding statements about the sandpile group of $H_n$ are postponed to Section \[modificat\] and \[parosparos\]. A version of Theorem \[FoFo\] with uniform convergence {#secuniform} ====================================================== We sate our results for the directed random graph model, but the arguments can be repeated for the undirected model as well. We write $A_n^{(d)}$ in place of $A_n$ to emphasize the dependence on $d$. We start by a simple lemma. For a fixed $n$ and $q\in V^n$, we have $$d_\infty(A_n^{(d)}q,U_{q,d})\le d_\infty(A_n^{(d-1)}q,U_{q,d-1}).$$ Take any $r\in R(q,d)$. Observe that for $q'\sim q$, we have $r-q'\in R(q,d-1)$. Let $q'$ be a uniform random element of $S(q)$ independent from $A_n^{(d-1)}$, then $$\begin{aligned} \|\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r)-\mathbb{P}(U_{q,d}=r)\|&=\|\mathbb{E}\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q=r-q')-\|R(q,d)\|^{-1}\|\\&\le \mathbb{E}\|\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d-1)}q=r-q')-\|R(q,d-1)\|^{-1}\|\\&\le d_\infty(A_n^{(d-1)}q,U_{q,d-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that here the expectations are over the random choice of $q'$. Since this is true for any $r\in R(q,d)$, the statement follows. Using this we can deduce the following uniform version of Theorem \[FoFo\]. \[FoFouni22\] We have $$\pushQED{\qed}\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{d\ge 3} \sum_{q\in V^n} d_\infty(A_n^{(d)}q,U_{q,d})=0.\qedhere \popQED$$ This also implies a uniform version of Corollary \[correduced\]. Therefore, the limits in Theorem \[momentumokD\] are uniform in $d$. Consequently, Theorem \[CohenlenstraD\] remains true if we allow $d$ to vary with $n$. Sum of matching matrices: Modifications of the proofs {#modificat} ===================================================== A fixed point free permutation of order $2$ is called a matching permutation. The permutation matrix of a matching permutation is called matching matrix. Then $C_n=M_1+M_2+\dots+M_d$, where $M_1,M_2,\dots,M_d$ are independent uniform random $n\times n$ matching matrices. Consider a vector $q=(q_1,q_2,...,q_n)\in V^n$. For a matching permutation $\pi$ of the set $\{1,2,\dots, n\}$ the vector $q_{\pi}=(q_{\pi(1)},q_{\pi(2)},\dots,q_{\pi(n)})$ is called a matching permutation of $q$. A random matching permutation of $q$ is defined as the random variable $q_{\pi}$, where $\pi$ is chosen uniformly from the set of all matching permutations. A $(q,1,h)$-tuple is a $1+h$-tuple $Q=(q^{(0)},q^{(1)},\dots,q^{(h)})$, where $q^{(0)}=q$ and $q^{(1)},q^{(2)},\dots,q^{(h)}$ are matching permutations of $q$. A random $(q,1,h)$-tuple is a tuple $\bar{Q}=(\bar{q}^{(0)},\bar{q}^{(1)},\dots\bar{q}^{(h)})$, where $\bar{q}^{(0)}=q$ and $\bar{q}^{(1)},\bar{q}^{(2)},\dots,\bar{q}^{(h)}$ are independent random matching permutations of $q$. Similarly as before, a $(q,1,h)$-tuple can be viewed as a vector $Q=(Q_1,Q_2,\dots,Q_n)$ in $(V^{1+h})^n$. For $t\in V^{1+h}$, we define $$m_Q(t)=\|\{i\quad\|\quad Q_i=t\}\|.$$ In this section the components of a vector $t\in V^{1+h}$ are indexed from $0$ to $h$,that is, $t=(t_0,t_1,\dots,t_h)$. For $t\in V^{1+h}$, we define $t_\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^n t_i$. The sum $\Sigma(Q)$ of a $(q,1,h)$-tuple $Q$ is defined as $\Sigma(Q)=\sum_{i=1}^h q^{(i)}$. Note that the sums above do not include $t_0$ and $q^{(0)}$. We define $$\mathcal{M}^S(q,r)=\{m_Q\|\quad Q\text{ is a }(q,1,h)\text{-tuple such that }\Sigma(Q)=r\}.$$ A $(q,1,h)$-tuple $Q$ is $\gamma$-typical if $\left\\|m_Q-\frac{n}{\|V\|^{1+h}}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right\\|_\infty<n^{\gamma}$. For two vectors $q,r\in V^n$ and $a,b\in V$, we define $$m_{q,r}(a,b)=\|\{i\|\quad q_i=a\text{ and }r_i=b\}\|.$$ The vector $r$ is called $(q,\beta)$-typical if $$\left\\|m_{q,r}-\frac{n}{\|V\|^{2}}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right\\|_\infty<n^{\beta}.$$ With these notations, we have the following analogue of Theorem \[mixingThm\]. \[mixingThmk\] For any fixed finite abelian group $V$ and $h\ge 2$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\substack{q\in V^n\quad \alpha-\text{typical}\\r\in R^S(q,h)\quad (q,\beta)-\text{typical}}} \left\|\mathbb{P}(C_n^{(h)}q=r)\Big/\left(\frac{2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|}{\|V\|^{n-1}}\right)-1\right\|=0.$$ The proof is analogous with the proof of Theorem \[mixingThm\]. We need to replace the notion of $(q,h)$-tuple with the notion of $(q,1,h)$-tuple, the notion of $\beta$-typical vector with the notion of $(q,\beta)$-typical vector. Moreover, some of the statements should be slightly changed. Now we list the modified statements. We start by determining the size of $R^S(q,h)$. Let $q\in V^n$ such that $\operatorname{MinC}_q=V$, then $$\|R^S(q,h)\|=\frac{\|V\|^{n-1}}{2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|} .$$ We define the homomorphism $\varphi:V^n\to (V\otimes V)\times V$ by setting $$\varphi(r)=(<q\otimes r>,s(r))$$ for every $r\in V^n$. We claim that it is surjective. First, take any $a,b\in V$. The condition $\operatorname{MinC}_q=V$ implies that $q_1-q_n,q_2-q_n,\dots,q_{n-1}-q_n$ generate $V$. In particular, there are integers $c_1,c_2,\dots, c_{n-1}$ such that $a=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} c_i(q_1-q_n)$. Let us define $r=(c_1b,c_2b,\dots,c_{n-1}b,-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} c_i b)\in V^n$. Then $$<q\otimes r>=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}q_i\otimes c_i b+q_n\otimes \left(-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} c_i b\right)=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} c_i(q_i-q_n)\right)\otimes b=a\otimes b,$$ and $s(r)=0$, that is, $\varphi(r)=(a\otimes b,0)$. Thus, $V\otimes V\times\{0\}$ is contained in the range of $\varphi$. Now take any $(x, v)\in (V\otimes V)\times V$. Clearly, we can pick an $r_1\in V^n$ such that $s(r_1)=v$. Then from the previous paragraph, there is an $r_2$ such that $\varphi(r_2)=(x-<q\otimes r_1>, 0)$. Then $\varphi(r_1+r_2)=(x,v)$. This proves that $\varphi$ is indeed surjective. Since $R^S(q,h)=\varphi^{-1}(I_2\times\{h\cdot s(q)\})$, we have $$\|R^S(q,h)\|=\frac{\|I_2\|}{\|(V\otimes V)\|\cdot\| V\|}\|V\|^n=\frac{\|V\|^{n-1}}{2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|}.$$ \[matching3\] Consider $q,r\in V^n$. Let $m\in \mathcal{M}^S (q,r)$. Then $m$ is a nonnegative integral vector with the following properties. $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ1k} &m(\tau_0=a\text{ and }\tau_i=b)=m(\tau_0=b\text{ and }\tau_i=a)&\forall i\in\{1,2,\dots,h\},\quad a,b\in V,\\\label{equ2k} &m(\tau_0=a\text{ and }\tau_\Sigma=b)=m_{q,r}(a,b)&\forall a,b\in V.\\\intertext{Moreover,} \label{equ3k} &m(\tau_0=c\text{ and }\tau_i=c)\text{ is even}&\forall i\in\{1,2,\dots,h\},\quad c\in V.\end{aligned}$$ Now assume that $m$ is a nonnegative integral vector satisfying the conditions above. Then $$\begin{gathered} \label{eprk} \mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r\text{ and }m_{\bar{Q}}=m)=\\ \left(\frac{n!}{2^{n/2} (n/2)!}\right)^{-h} \frac{\prod_{a,b\in V} m(\tau_0=a,\tau_\Sigma=b)!}{\prod_{t\in V^{1+h}} m(t)!} \times\\ \prod_{i=1}^h\left(\left(\prod_{a\in V} \frac{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)!}{2^{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)/2} (m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)/2)!}\right)\left(\prod_{a\neq b\in V} \sqrt{m(\tau_0=a,\tau_i=b)!}\right)\right).\end{gathered}$$ In particular, $\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m))>0$ so $m\in \mathcal{M}^S(q,r)$. Let $A^S(q,r)$ be the affine subspace given by the linear equations and above. Then $\mathcal{M}^S(q,r)$ is the set of non-negative integral points of the affine subspace $A^S(q,r)$ satisfying the parity constraints in above. We only give the proof of Equation , since all the other statements of the lemma are straightforward to prove. The number of $(q,1,h)$-tuples $Q$ such that $\Sigma(Q)=r$ and $m_Q=m$ is $$\frac{\prod_{a,b\in V} m(\tau_0=a,\tau_\Sigma=b)!}{\prod_{t\in V^{1+d}} m(t)!}.$$ Fix any $(q,1,h)$-tuple $Q=(q^{(0)},q^{(1)},\dots,q^{(h)})$ such that $\Sigma(Q)=r$ and $m_Q=m$. Now, we calculate the probability that $\mathbb{P}(\bar{Q}=Q)$ for a random $(q,1,h)$-tuple $\bar{Q}$. For $i\in \{1,2,\dots,h\}$ and $a,b\in V$, we define $$I_{i,a,b}=\{j\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}\quad\|\quad q^{(i)}_j=a\text{ and }q^{(0)}_j=b \}.$$ First, for $i=1,2,\dots, h$, we determine the number of matching permutations $\pi$ such that $q_\pi=q^{(i)}$. In other words, we are interested in the number of perfect matchings $M$ on the set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ such that 1. For every $a\in V$, the restriction of $M$ to the set $I_{i,a,a}$ is a perfect matching. 2. For every unordered pair $\{a,b\}\subset V$, where $a\neq b$, the restriction of $M$ gives a perfect matching between the disjoint set $I_{i,a,b}$ and $I_{i,b,a}$. Since $\|I_{i,a,a}\|=m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)$, we have $$\frac{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)!}{2^{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)/2} (m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)/2)!}$$ perfect matchings on the set $I_{i,a,a}$. For every unordered pair $\{a,b\}\subset V$, where $a\neq b$, let $$n_{i,\{a,b\}}=m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=b)=m(\tau_i=b,\tau_0=a)$$ be the common size of $I_{i,a,b}$ and $I_{i,b,a}$. Then there are $$n_{i,\{a,b\}}!=\sqrt{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=b)!}\cdot \sqrt{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=b)!}$$ perfect matchings between $I_{i,a,b}$ and $I_{i,b,a}$. We choose to express $n_{i,\{a,b\}}!$ as above, because this way we get a symmetric expression. Since the total number perfect matchings is $\frac{n!}{2^{n/2} (n/2)!}$, we obtain that for a uniform random matching matrix $M$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \mathbb{P}(Mq=q^{(i)})=\left(\frac{n!}{2^{n/2} (n/2)!}\right)^{-1} \\\times \left(\prod_{a\in V} \frac{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)!}{2^{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)/2} (m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)/2)!}\right)\left(\prod_{a\neq b\in V} \sqrt{m(\tau_0=a,\tau_i=b)!}\right).\end{gathered}$$ From this, Equation follows easily. For any $q,r_1,r_2\in V^n$, we define the vector $v=v_{q,r_1,r_2}\in\mathbb{R}^{V^{1+h}}$ by $$v(t)=\frac{m_{q,r_2}(t_0,t_\Sigma)-m_{q,r_1}(t_0,t_\Sigma)}{\|V\|^{h-1}}$$ for every $t\in V^{1+h}$. Then we have $$\pushQED{\qed}A^S(q,r_1)+v_{q,r_1,r_2}=A^S(q,r_2).\qedhere \popQED$$ \[vanegesz2\] Assume that $n$ is large enough. For an $\alpha$-typical vector $q\in V^n$ and $r\in R^S(q,h)$, the affine subspace $A^S(q,r)$ contains an integral vector satisfying the parity constraints in of Lemma \[matching3\]. To prove Lemma \[vanegesz2\] we need a few lemmas. The group $V$ has a decomposition $V=\bigoplus_{i=1}^\ell <v_i>$ such that $o_1\|o_2\|\cdots\|o_\ell$, where $o_i$ is order of $v_i$. \[vanszimmetrikus\] Let $q\in V^n$ be such that $m_q(v_i)>0$ for every $1\le i \le \ell$. Let $r\in V^n$ such that $<q\otimes r>\in I_2$. Then there is a symmetric matrix $A$ over $\mathbb{Z}$ such that $r=Aq$ and all the diagonal entries of $A$ are even. We express $q_k$ as $q_k=\sum_{i=1}^\ell q_k(i) v_i$, and similarly we express $r_k$ as $r_k=\sum_{i=1}^\ell r_k(i) v_i$, where $q_k(i),r_k(i)\in \mathbb{Z}$. The condition that $<q\otimes r>\in I_2$ is equivalent to the following. For $1\le i\le j\le \ell$, we have $$\label{tensorequiv} \sum_{k=1}^n q_k(i)r_k(j)\equiv \sum_{k=1}^n q_k(j)r_k(i)\pmod{o_i}$$ and whenever $o_i$ is even, we have $$\label{tensorequiv2} \sum_{k=1}^n q_k(i)r_k(i)\text{ is even.}$$ Due to symmetries and the fact that $m_q(v_i)>0$ for every $1\le i\le \ell$, we may assume that $q_i=v_i$ for $1\le i\le \ell$. We define the symmetric matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ by $$a_{ij}= \begin{cases} r_i(j)&\text{for }\ell<i\le n\text{ and } 1\le j\le\ell,\\ r_j(i)&\text{for }1\le i\le \ell \text{ and } \ell< j\le n,\\ 0& \text{for }\ell<i\le n \text{ and } \ell< j\le n,\\ r_i(j)+r_j(i)-\sum_{k=1}^n q_k(j) r_k(i) &\text{for }1\le i\le j\le\ell,\\ r_i(j)+r_j(i)-\sum_{k=1}^n q_k(i) r_k(j) &\text{for }1\le j< i\le\ell. \end{cases}$$ From Equation we obtain that for $1\le j<i\le\ell$, we have $$a_{ij}\equiv r_i(j)+r_j(i)-\sum_{k=1}^n q_k(j) r_k(i) \pmod{o_j}.$$ In particular, $a_{ij} q_j=a_{ij} v_j=(r_i(j)+r_j(i))v_j-\sum_{k=1}^n q_k(j) r_k(i)v_j$ for every $1\le i,j\le \ell$. Let $w=Aq$. We need to prove that $w_i=r_i$ for every $1\le i\le n$. It is easy to see for $i>\ell$. Now assume that $i\le \ell$. Then $$\begin{aligned} w_i&=\sum_{h=1}^\ell \sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}q_j(h)v_h=\sum_{h=1}^\ell \left(a_{ih}v_h+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^n r_j(i)q_j(h)v_h\right)\\&= \sum_{h=1}^\ell \left(r_i(h)+r_h(i)-\sum_{k=1}^n q_k(h) r_k(i)+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^n r_j(i)q_j(h)\right)v_h\\&= \sum_{h=1}^\ell \left(r_i(h)+r_h(i)-\sum_{k=1}^\ell q_k(h) r_k(i) \right)v_h=\sum_{h=1}^\ell r_i(h) v_h=r_i.\end{aligned}$$ Now we modify $A$ slightly to achieve that all the diagonal entries are even. If $i>\ell$, then $a_{ii}=0$ which is even. If $1\le i\le \ell$ and $o_i$ is even, then $a_{ii}=2r_i(i)-\sum_{k=1}^n q_k(i) r_k(i)$, which is even using the condition above. If $1\le i\le \ell$, $o_i$ is odd and $a_{ii}$ is odd, we replace $a_{ii}$ by $a_{ii}+o_i$, this way we can achieve that $a_{ii}$ is even, without changing $Aq$. To see this, observe that $o_i q_i=o_i v_i=0$. For $q,w\in V^n$ and $c\in V$, we define $$z_{q,w}(c)=\sum_{\substack{1\le i\le n\\q_i=c}} w_i.$$ Note that $<q\otimes w>=\sum_{c\in V} c\otimes z_{q,w}(c)$. \[lemmavm\] Let $q\in V^n$ such that $m_q(c)>10\|V\|^2$ for every $c\in V$, and let $z\in V^V$. Then there is an $m$-permutation $w$ of $q$ such that $z_{q,w}=z$, if and only if $$\label{vm1} \sum_{c\in V}z(c) =s(q)$$ and $$\label{vm2} \sum_{c\in V} c\otimes z(c)\in I_2.$$ It is clear that the conditions are indeed necessary, so we only need to prove the other direction. Since $m_q(c)>0$ for all $c\in V$, we can find a $w_0$ such that $z_{q,w_0}=z$. (Of course $w_0$ is not necessarily a matching permutation of $q$.) Condition gives us that $<q\otimes w_0>\in I_2$. Using Lemma \[vanszimmetrikus\], it follows that there is a symmetric matrix $A=(a_{ij})$, such that $Aq=w_0$ and all the diagonal entries of $A$ are even. For $a,b\in V$ we define $$m_0(a,b)=\sum_{\substack{1\le i,j\le n\\q_i=a,\quad q_j=b}} a_{ij}.$$ Since $A$ is symmetric and the diagonal entries are even, we have $m_0(a,b)=m_0(b,a)$ and $m(a,a)$ is even for every $a,b\in V$. Let $m=m_0$. Replace $m(a,b)$ by $m(a,b)-2\ell \|V\|$, where $\ell$ is an integer chosen such that $0\le m(a,b)-\ell 2\|V\|<2\|V\|$. Now for every $0\neq a\in V$, we do the following procedure. We find the unique integer $\ell$ such that for $$\Delta=m_q(a)-\sum_{b\in V} m(a,b)-\ell 2\|V\|,$$ we have $0\le\Delta<2\|V\|$. Now increase $m(a,a)$ by $\ell 2\|V\|$. (Note that $\ell$ is non-negative because of the condition $m_q(a)>10\|V\|^2$.) Increase both $m(a,0)$ and $m(0,a)$ by $\Delta$. Finally, let $\Delta_0=m_q(0)-\sum_{b\in V} m(0,b)$, and increase $m(0,0)$ by $\Delta_0$. (Once again $\Delta_0$ is non-negative because of the condition $m_q(a)>10\|V\|^2$.) This way we achieved that for every $a\in V$, we have $\sum_{b\in V} m(a,b)=m_q(a)$. It is clear that $m(a,b)$ is a non-negative integer and $m(a,b)=m(b,a)$ for every $a,b\in V$. Moreover, $m(a,a)$ is even for $0\neq a\in V$. It is also true for $a=0$, but this requires some explanation. Indeed, $m(0,0)$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} m(0,0)&=\sum_{a,b\in V}m(a,b)-2\sum_{\substack{\{a,b\}\\a\neq b\in V}} m(a,b)-\sum_{0\neq a\in V} m(a,a)\\&=n-2\sum_{\substack{\{a,b\}\\a\neq b\in V}}m(a,b)-\sum_{0\neq a\in V} m(a,a). \end{aligned}$$ Here in the last row, every term is even, so $m(0,0)$ is even too. From these observations, it follows that there is an $m$-permutation $w$ of $q$ such that $m_{q,w}=m$. We will prove that $z_{q,w}=z$. Consider an $0\neq a\in V$. Observe that $m(a,b)\equiv m_0(a,b)$ modulo $\|V\|$ for $b\neq 0$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned} z_{q,w}(a)&=\sum_{\substack{1\le i\le n\\q_i=a}} w_i=\sum_{b\in V} m_{q,w}(a,b)b=\sum_{b\in V}m_0(a,b) b= \sum_{b\in V} \sum_{\substack{1\le i,j\le n\\q_i=a,\quad q_j=b}} a_{ij}b\\&= \sum_{b\in V}\sum_{\substack{1\le i,j\le n\\q_i=a,\quad q_j=b}} a_{ij}q_j= \sum_{\substack{1\le i\le n\\q_i=a}} \sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}q_j=\sum_{\substack{1\le i\le n\\q_i=a}} w_0(i)=z_{q,w_0}(a)=z(a).\end{aligned}$$ Finally $$\begin{aligned} z_{q,w}(0)&=\sum_{a\in V} z_{q,w}(a)-\sum_{0\neq a\in V} z_{q,w}(a)=\sum_{i=1}^n q_i-\sum_{0\neq a\in V} z_{q,w}(a)\\&= s(q)-\sum_{0\neq a\in V} z(a)=\sum_{a\in V} z(a)-\sum_{0\neq a\in V} z(a)=z(0),\end{aligned}$$ using condition . The proof of Lemma \[vanegesz\] also gives us the following statement. \[vanegesz3\] Let $q_1,q_2,\dots,q_h\in V^n$ and $r\in V^n$. Assume that $\sum_{i=1}^n s(q_i)=s(r)$. Then there is an integral vector $m$ indexed by $V^h$ such that[^3] $$m(\tau_i=b)=m_{q_i}(b)$$ for every $i=1,2,\dots, h$ and $b\in V$, and $$m(\tau_\Sigma=b)=m_{r}(b)$$ for every $b\in V$. Now we are ready to prove Lemma \[vanegesz2\]. Fix an $\alpha$-typical $q$, and $r\in R^S(q,h)$. Let $W$ be the set of $z\in V^V$ satisfying the conditions and of Lemma \[lemmavm\]. Observe that $W$ is a coset of $V^V$. Moreover, $r\in R^S(q,h)$ implies that $z_{q,r}\in hW$. Thus, we can find $z_1,z_2,\dots,z_h\in W$ such that $z_{q,r}=\sum_{i=1}^h z_i$. If $n$ is large enough, then for an $\alpha$-typical $q$, we have $m_q(c)>10\|V\|^2$. By using Lemma \[lemmavm\], for each $i\in\{1,2,\dots,h\}$ we can find a matching permutation $w_i$ of $q$ such that $z_{q,w_i}=z_i$. For $a\in V$, let $w_i^a\in V^{m_q(a)}$ be the vector obtained from $w_i$ by projecting to the coordinates in the set $\{i\|\quad q_i=a\}$. Similarly, $r^a$ is obtained from $r$ by projecting to the same set of coordinates. Observe that $\sum_{i=1}^h s(w^a_i)=\sum_{i=1}^h z_i(a)=z_{q,r}(a)=s(r^a)$. Thus, from Lemma \[vanegesz3\], we obtain an integral vector $m^a$ indexed by $V^h$ such that $$m^a(\tau_i=b)=m_{w^a_i}(b)=m_{q,w_i}(a,b)$$ for every $i=1,2,\dots, h$ and $b\in V$, and $$m^a(\tau_\Sigma=b)=m_{r^a}(b)=m_{q,r}(a,b)$$ for every $b\in V$. Then the vector $m$ defined by $$m((t_0,1_1,\dots,t_h))=m^{t_0}((t_1,\dots,t_h))$$ gives us an integral point in $A^S(q,r)$ satisfying the parity constraints in of Lemma \[matching3\]. For an $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, a $(q,\beta)$-typical $r\in R^S(q,h)$, $r_0=r_0(q)$ and $m\in \mathcal{M}^{S}(q,r_0)$, we have that $$\mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_0)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m))\sim \mathbb{P}((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge (m_{\bar{Q}}=m+\hat{v}_{q,r_0,r}))$$ uniformly. For any $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$, $(q,\beta)$-typical $r\in R^S(q,h)$ and $m\in \mathcal{M}^{S}(q,r)$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \mathbb{P}(\Sigma(Q)=r\text{ and }m_Q=m)\sim f(q) \exp\left(\frac{1}{2n} B\left(m-\frac{1}{\|V\|^{h+1}}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}},m-\frac{1}{\|V\|^{h+1}}{\text{\usefont{U}{bbm}{m}{n}1}}\right)\right)\end{gathered}$$ uniformly, where $f(q)$ is some function of $q$ and the bilinear form $B(x,y)$ is defined as $$\begin{gathered} B(x,y)=-\|V\|^{1+h}\sum_{t\in V^{1+h}} x(t) y(t)+\frac{\|V\|^2}{2}\sum_{i=1}^h \sum_{a,b\in V} x(\tau_0=a,\tau_i=b) y(\tau_0=a,\tau_i=b)\\+\|V\|^2\sum_{a,b\in V} x(\tau_0=a,\tau_\Sigma=b) y(\tau_0=a,\tau_\Sigma=b).\end{gathered}$$ The statement follows from the fact that $v_{q,r_0,r}$ is in the radical of $B$. The following holds $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{\substack{q\in V^n\quad \alpha-\text{typical}\\r\in R^S(q,h)\quad (q,\beta)-\text{typical}}} \mathbb{P}\left((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge(\bar{Q}\text{ is not }\gamma-\text{typical})\right)\|V\|^{n}=0.$$ Take any $\alpha$-typical $q\in V^n$ and $(q,\beta)$-typical $r\in R^S(q,h)$. We define $$S(q,r)=\{r'\in V^n\|\quad m_{q,r'}=m_{q,r}\}.$$ From symmetry, it follows that $\mathbb{P}\left((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r')\wedge(\bar{Q}\text{ is not }\gamma-\text{typical})\right)$ is the same for every $r'\in S(q,r)$. Thus, $$\mathbb{P}\left((\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r)\wedge(\bar{Q}\text{ is not }\gamma-\text{typical})\right)\le\frac{\mathbb{P}(\bar{Q}\text{ is not }\gamma-\text{typical})}{\|S(q,r)\|}.$$ Since there is $c>0$ such that $\|S(q,r)\|\ge \|V^n\| \exp(-c n^{2\beta-1})$, the statement follows as in the proof of Lemma \[tech3\]. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[mixingThmk\]. The analogue of Theorem \[mixingThm2\] is the following. \[mixingThm2k\] For any fixed finite abelian group $V$ and $d\ge 3$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \|V\|^n \sup_{q\in V^n\quad \alpha-\text{typical}} d_\infty(C_n^{(d)}q,U^S_{q,d})=0.$$ This theorem follows immediately from Theorem \[mixingThmk\] once we prove the following analogue of Lemma \[lemmamixingthm2\]. \[elhalasztott\] Let $q\in V^n$ be $\alpha$-typical, $r\in V^n$, $h\ge 2$ and $Q$ is a random $(q,h)$-tuple. Then there is a polynomial $g$ and a constant $C$ (not depending on $q$ and $r$), such that $$\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(Q)=r)\le g(n) \|V\|^{-n}\exp(Cn^{2\alpha-1}).$$ This will be proved after Lemma \[Eesp\], because the proofs of these two lemmas share some ideas. Once we have Theorem \[mixingThm2k\], we only need to control the non-typical vectors to obtain Theorem \[FoFo22\]. This can be done almost the same way as in Section \[Secmom\]. Here we list the necessary modifications. In the next few lemmas, our main tool will be the notion of Shannon entropy. Given a random variable $X$ taking values in a finite set $\mathcal{R}$, its Shannon entropy $H(X)$ is defined as $$H(X)=\sum_{r\in \mathcal{R}} -\mathbb{P}(X=r)\log\mathbb{P}(X=r).$$ In the rest of this discussion, we always assume that random variables have finite range, and all the random variables are defined on the same probability space. If $X_1,X_2,\dots,X_k$ is a sequence random variables, then their joint Shannon entropy $H(X_1,X_2,\dots,X_k)$ is defined as the Shannon entropy $H(X)$ of the (vector valued) random variable $X=(X_1,X_2,\dots,X_k)$. See [@information] for more information on Shannon entropy. A few basic properties of Shannon entropy are given in the next lemma. \[entl\] Let $X,Y,Z$ be three random variables. Then $$\label{szubad} H(X,Y)\le H(X)+H(Y),$$ and $$\label{szubmod} H(X,Z)+H(Y,Z)\ge H(Z)+H(X,Y,Z).$$ Let $X,Y$ be two random variables such that $Y$ is a function of $X$. Then $$H(X,Y)=H(X).$$ Note that the quantity $H(X,Z)+H(Y,Z)-H(Z)-H(X,Y,Z)$ is usually denoted by $I(X;Y\|Z)$ and it is called conditional mutual information. It is well known that $I(X;Y\|Z)\ge 0$. See [@information (2.92)]. This proves Inequality . We can obtain Inequality as a special case of Inequality , if we we choose $Z$ to be constant. The last statement is straightforward from the definitions. Later we will need the following lemma. \[shaererszeru\] For $d\ge 1$, let $Y_0,Y_1,\dots,Y_d$ be $d+1$ random variables. Then $$H(Y_0,Y_1,\dots,Y_d)\le\sum_{i=1}^d H(Y_0,Y_i)-(d-1)H(Y_0).$$ The statement can be proved by induction. Indeed, from Inequality , we have $$H(Y_0,Y_1,\dots,Y_d)+H(Y_0)\le H(Y_0,Y_1,\dots,Y_{d-1})+H(Y_0,Y_d).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} H(Y_0,Y_1,\dots,Y_d)&\le H(Y_0,Y_1,\dots,Y_{d-1})+H(Y_0,Y_d)-H(Y_0)\\&\le \sum_{i=1}^d H(Y_0,Y_i)-(d-1)H(Y_0),\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we used the induction hypothesis. In Section \[Secmom\], we used the fact that $\|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(A_n^{(d)}q=r)=\mathbb{P}(r-A_n^{(d-1)}q\sim q)$. This equality is replaced by the following lemma. \[Eesp\] Let $q,r\in V^n$ and $$m\in \mathcal{M}^S(q,r)=\{m_Q\|\quad Q\text{ is a $(q,1,d)$-tuple and }\Sigma(Q)=r \}.$$ We define $$E(m)=\|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(m_{\bar{Q}}=m\text{ and }\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r),$$ where $\bar{Q}$ is random $(q,1,d)$-tuple. Moreover, let $p(m)$ be the probability of the event that for a random $(q,1,d-1)$-tuple $\bar{Q}=(\bar{q}^{(0)},\bar{q}^{(1)},\dots,\bar{q}^{(d-1)})$, we have that $r-\Sigma(\bar{Q})$ is a matching permutation of $q$ and the $(q,1,d)$-tuple $Q'=(\bar{q}^{(0)},\bar{q}^{(1)},\dots,\bar{q}^{(d-1)},r-\Sigma(\bar{Q}))$ satisfies $m_{Q'}=m$. Then there is a polynomial $f(n)$ (not depending on $q,r$ or $m$) such that $$E(m)\le f(n) p(m)^{\frac{1}{d-1}}.$$ Furthermore, there is a polynomial $g(n)$ such that $$\|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(C_n^{(d)}q=r)\le g(n) \mathbb{P}(r-C_n^{(d-1)}q\sim q)^{\frac{1}{d-1}}.$$ Let $X=(X_0,X_1,X_2,\dots, X_d)\in V^{1+d}$ be a random variable, such that $\mathbb{P}(X=t)=\frac{m(t)}{n}$ for every $t\in V^{1+d}$. We define $X_\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^d X_i$. Then $$E(m)=c_1(m)\exp\left(n\left(H(X_0)+H(X)-H(X,X_\Sigma)-\frac{1}2\sum_{i=1}^d H(X_0,X_i)\right)\right),$$ and $$p(m)=c_2(m)\exp\left(n\left(H(X)-H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}H(X_0,X_i)\right)\right),$$ where $\frac{1}{b(n)}\le c_1(m),c_2(m)\le b(n)$ for some polynomial $b(n)$. Since $X_d=X_\Sigma-\sum_{i=1}^{d-1} X_i$ and $X_\Sigma=\sum_{i=1}^d X_i$, applying the last statement of Lemma \[entl\] twice, we get that $$\begin{aligned} \label{mutdet} H(X)=(X_0,X_1,\dots, X_{d})&=H(X_0,X_1,\dots, X_{d},X_\Sigma)\\&=H(X_0,X_1,\dots, X_{d-1},X_\Sigma).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with Lemma \[shaererszeru\], we get that $$\begin{aligned} H(X)&=H(X_0,...,X_{d-1},X_\Sigma)\\&\le \sum_{i=1}^{d-1} H(X_0,X_i)+H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-(d-1)H(X_0). \end{aligned}$$ Or more generally, for every $i=1,2,\dots, d$, we have $$H(X)\le \sum_{\substack{1\le j\le d\\j\neq i}} H(X_0,X_j)+H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-(d-1)H(X_0).$$ Summing up these inequalities for $i=1,2,...,d-1$, we get that $$\begin{gathered} \label{Hegy} (d -1)H(X)\\\le (d-2)\sum_{i=1}^{d-1} H(X_0,X_i)+(d-1)H(X_0,X_d)+(d-1)H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-(d-1)^2 H(X_0).\end{gathered}$$ Note that $X_0,X_1,\dots, X_d$ all have the same distribution, so $H(X_0)=H(X_1)=\dots=H(X_d)$. Combining this with Equation and Inequality , we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{Hketto} H(X)&=H(X_0,...,X_{d-1},X_\Sigma)\\&\le H(X_0,X_\Sigma)+\sum_{i=1}^{d-1} H(X_i)=H(X_0,X_\Sigma)+(d-1)H(X_0).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} H(X_0)+H(X)&-H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-\frac{1}2\sum_{i=1}^d H(X_0,X_i)\\&= H(X_0)+H(X)-H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-\frac{1}{2(d-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{d-1} H(X_0,X_i)\\&\qquad\qquad-\frac{1}2 \left(\frac{d-2}{d-1} \sum_{i=1}^{d-1} H(X_0,X_i)+H(X_0,X_d)\right)\\ & \le H(X_0)+H(X)-H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-\frac{1}{2(d-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{d-1} H(X_0,X_i)\\&\qquad\qquad-\frac{1}2 \left(H(X)+(d-1)H(X_0)-H(X_0,X_\Sigma)\right)\\&= \frac{1}{d-1}\left(H(X)-H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-\frac{1}2\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}H(X_0,X_i)\right)\\&\qquad\qquad+\frac{d-3}{2(d-1)}(H(X)-H(X_0,X_\Sigma))-\frac{(d-3)}{2}H(X_0)\\& \le \frac{1}{d-1}\left(H(X)-H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-\frac{1}2\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}H(X_0,X_i)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where at the first inequality, we used Inequality , and at the second inequality, we used Inequality . This gives the first statement. To get the second one, observe that $$\begin{aligned} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(C_n^{(d)}q=r)&=\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}^S(q,r)}E(m)\le\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}^S(q,r)}f(n)p(m)^{\frac{1}{d-1}}\\&\le \|\mathcal{M}^S(q,r)\|f(n)\mathbb{P}(r-C_n^{(d-1)}q\sim q)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we prove Lemma \[elhalasztott\]. Clearly we may assume that $h=2$. The size of $\mathcal{M}^S(q,r)$ is polynomial in $n$, so it is enough to prove that for a fixed $m\in \mathcal{M}^S(q,r)$, we have a good upper bound on $\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(Q)=r\text{ and }m_Q=m)$. To show this, let $X=(X_0,X_1,X_2)\in V^{1+2}$ be a random variable, such that $\mathbb{P}(X=t)=\frac{m(t)}{n}$ for every $t\in V^{1+2}$, and let $X_\Sigma=X_1+X_2$. Then $\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(Q)=r\text{ and }m_Q=m)$ can be upper bounded by some polynomial multiple of $$\begin{aligned} \exp&\left(n\left(H(X)-H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-\frac{1}2\left(H(X_0,X_1)+H(X_0,X_2)\right)\right)\right)\\&= \exp\Big(n\big(-H(X_0)-\frac{1}{2}((H(X_0,X_1)+H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-H(X)-H(X_0))\\&\qquad\quad+(H(X_0,X_2)+H(X_0,X_\Sigma)-H(X)-H(X_0)))\big)\Big)\\& \le \exp(-nH(X_0))\le \|V\|^{-n}\exp(Cn^{2\alpha-1}),\end{aligned}$$ using the fact that for $i\in\{1,2\}$, we have $$H(X_0,X_i)+H(X_0,X_\Sigma)\ge H(X_0)+H(X_0,X_i,X_\Sigma)=H(X_0)+H(X),$$ which is a combination of Inequality and the last statement of Lemma \[entl\]. For any non-negative integral vector $m$ indexed by $V^{1+d}$ and for $i \in \{1,2,\dots,d\}$, we define $$E_0(m)=\frac{m(V^{1+d})!}{\prod_{c\in V} m(\tau_0=c)!} \frac{\prod_{a,b\in V} m(\tau_0=a,\tau_\Sigma=b)!}{\prod_{t\in V^{1+d}} m(t)!},$$ and $$\begin{gathered} E_i(m)=\left(\frac{m(V^{1+d})!}{2^{m(V^{1+d})/2} (m(V^{1+d})/2)!}\right)^{-1} \\\times \left(\prod_{a\in V} \frac{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)!}{2^{m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)/2} (m(\tau_i=a,\tau_0=a)/2)!}\right)\left(\prod_{a\neq b\in V} \sqrt{m(\tau_0=a,\tau_i=b)!}\right).\end{gathered}$$ Finally, let $$E(m)=E_0(m)\prod_{i=1}^d E_i(m).$$ Here we need to define $(\ell+\frac{1}{2})!$ for an integer $\ell$. The simple definition $(\ell+\frac{1}{2})!=\ell!\sqrt{\ell+1}$ is good enough for our purposes. Recall that for $q,r\in V^n$ and $m\in \mathcal{M}^S(q,r)$, we already defined $E(m)$ as $$E(m)=\|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(m_{\bar{Q}}=m\text{ and }\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r),$$ where $\bar{Q}$ is a random $(q,1,d)$-tuple. Using Equation , it is straightforward to verify that for a special $m$ like above, the two definitions coincide. Given a $q\in V^n$, a $(q,1,d)$-tuple $Q$ or $m_Q$ itself will be called $W$-decent if for any $u\in W^{1+d}$ we have $$\frac{1+m_Q(\tau_0=u_0,\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)}{1+m_Q(u)}\le \log^2 n.$$ A non-negative integral vector $m$ indexed by $V^{1+d}$ will be called $W$-half-decent if for every $u\in W^{1+d}$, we have $$\frac{1+ m(\tau_0=u_0,\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)}{1+m(u)}\le \log^4 n,$$ and for every $c\in W$, we have $$\left\|m(\tau_0=c)-\frac{n}{\|W\|}\right\|<2n^{\alpha},$$ where $n=\sum_{t\in V^{1+d}} m(t)$. For any coset $W\in\operatorname{Cos}(V)$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in D_W^n} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q)\\=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in D_W^n} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q\text{ and }\bar{Q}\text{ is }W-\text{decent}).\end{gathered}$$ As in the proof of Lemma \[csakdecent\], it is enough to show that $$\|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q\text{ and }\bar{Q}\text{ is not }W-\text{decent})<n^{-(\|V\|+1)}$$ for every $(W,C\log n)$-typical vector $q\in V^n$ if $n$ is large enough. Consider a $(W,C\log n)$-typical vector $q\in V^n$, and let $$\begin{gathered} \mathcal{M}_B=\\ \{m_Q\|\quad Q\text{ is a not $W$-decent }(q,1,d)\text{-tuple, such that }\Sigma(Q)=r_q\}\subset\mathcal{M}^S(q,r_q).\end{gathered}$$ Recall that for $m\in \mathcal{M}^S(q,r_q)$, we defined $p(m)$ as the probability of the event that for a random $(q,1,d-1)$-tuple $\bar{Q}=(\bar{q}^{(0)},\bar{q}^{(1)},\dots,\bar{q}^{(d-1)})$, we have that $r_q-\Sigma(\bar{Q})$ is a matching permutation of $q$ and the $(q,1,d)$-tuple $Q'=(\bar{q}^{(0)},\bar{q}^{(1)},\dots, \bar{q}^{(d-1)}, r_q-\Sigma(\bar{Q}))$ satisfies $m_{Q'}=m$. Note that for $m\in \mathcal{M}_B$ the event above is contained in the event that $$\text{there is a }t\in W^{1+(d-1)}\text{ and }c\in dW\text{ such that }\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad$$ $$\frac{1+\|\{i\|\quad r_q(i)=c\text{ and }q_i=t_0\}\|}{1+\|\{i\|\quad r_q(i)=c\text{ and }\bar{Q}(i)=t\}\|}> \log^2 n.$$ Let $p'(q)$ be the probability of the latter event. As we just observed, $p(m)\le p'(q)$ for all $m\in \mathcal{M}_B$. Using Lemma \[Eesp\] and Lemma \[bazumaM\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \|S(q)\|\mathbb{P}(\Sigma(\bar{Q})=r_q\text{ and }\bar{Q}\text{ is not }W-\text{decent})&=\sum_{n\in \mathcal{M}_B} E(m)\\&\le \sum_{n\in \mathcal{M}_B} f(n)p(m)^{\frac{1}{d-1}}\\&\le \|\mathcal{M}_B\|f(n)p'(q)^{\frac{1}{d-1}}<n^{-(\|V\|+1)}\end{aligned}$$ for large enough $n$. Let $$\mathcal{M}^S=\{m_Q\quad\|\quad Q\text{ is a }(q,1,d)\text{-tuple for some }n\ge 0\text{ and }q\in V^n\}.$$ There are finitely many vectors $m_1,m_2,...,m_{\ell}\in \mathcal{M}^S$, such that $$\mathcal{M}^S=\{c_1 m_1+c_2m_2+\dots+ c_\ell m_\ell \quad \|\quad c_1,c_2,\dots, c_{\ell}\text{ are non-negative integers}\}.$$ We define $$\mathcal{R}=\left\{(m,g)\quad\|\quad m\in\mathbb{R}^{V^{1+d}},\quad g\in \mathbb{R}^{\{1,2,\dots,d\}\times V}\right\}.$$ Consider the linear subspace $\mathcal{R}'$ of $\mathcal{R}$ consisting of pairs $(m,g)$ satisfying the following liner equations: $$m(\tau_0=a\text{ and }\tau_i=b)=m(\tau_0=b\text{ and }\tau_i=a)$$ for all $a,b\in V$ and $i\in\{1,2,\dots, d\}$, moreover, $$m(\tau_0=c\text{ and }\tau_i=c)=2g(i,c)$$ for all $c\in V$ and $i\in\{1,2,\dots,d\}$. Let $\mathcal{M}_0$ be the set of non-negative integral points of $\mathcal{R}'$. Observe that $\mathcal{M}_0$ consists of the integral points of a rational polyhedral cone. From [@schr Theorem 16.4], we know that this cone is generated by an integral Hilbert basis, i. e., there are finitely many vectors $(m_1,g_1),(m_2,g_2),...,(m_{\ell},g_\ell)\in \mathcal{M}_0$, such that $$\mathcal{M}_0=\{c_1 \cdot(m_1,g_1)+\dots+ c_\ell\cdot (m_\ell,g_\ell) \|\quad c_1,c_2,\dots, c_{\ell}\text{ are non-negative integers}\}.$$ Then the vectors $m_1,m_2,\dots,m_\ell\in \mathcal{M}^S$ have the required properties. Note we only introduced the extra component $g$ to enforce the parity constraints in . As before, we may assume that the indices in the lemma above are chosen such that there is an $h$ such that the supports of $m_1,m_2,\dots,m_h$ are contained in $W^{1+d}$, and the supports of $m_{h+1},m_{h+2},...,m_\ell$ are not contained in $W^{1+d}$. Consider a non-negative integral $W$-half-decent vector $m_0\in\mathbb{R}^{V^{1+d}}$, such that $\\|m_0\\|_{W^C}=m(t\not \in W^{1+d})=O(\log n)$, where $n=\sum_{t\in V^{1+d}} m(t)$. For $u\in V^{1+d}$, let $\chi_u\in\mathbb{R}^{V^{1+d}}$ be such that $\chi_u(u)=1$ and $\chi_u(t)=0$ for every $t\neq u\in V^{1+d}$. - If $u\in W^{1+d}$, then $E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=O\left( \log^4 n\right)$; - If $u_0\not\in W$, then $E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=O\left(\frac{\log^{d+1} n}{n^{d/2-1}}\right)$; - If $u_0\in W$ and $u\not\in W^{1+d}$, then $E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=O\left(\log^2 n\right).$ Let $$\begin{aligned} g&=\frac{1+ m_0(\tau_0=u_0,\tau_\Sigma=u_\Sigma)}{1+m_0(u)},\\ h&=\frac{n+1}{m(\tau_0=u_0)+1}, \qquad\qquad\text{ and}\\f_i&=\sqrt{\frac{1+ m_0(\tau_0=u_0,\tau_i=u_i)} {n+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ $$E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=O(g\cdot h\cdot\prod_{i=1}^d f_i).$$ It is straightforward to check that $E_0(m_0+\chi_u)/E_0(m_0)=g\cdot h$. Let $i\in \{1,2,\dots,d\}$. First assume that $u_i\neq u_0$, then $$E_i(m_0+\chi_u)/E_i(m_0)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{n+1} \cdot\frac{\left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)!}{\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)!}\cdot \sqrt{m_0(\tau_i=u_i,\tau_0=u_0)+1}.$$ Recall that for any integer $\ell$ we defined $(\ell+\frac{1}{2})!$ as $(\ell+\frac{1}{2})!=\ell!\sqrt{\ell+1}$. Thus, if $n$ is even, then $$\frac{\left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)!}{\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)!}=\sqrt{\frac{n}{2}+1}=O(\sqrt{n+1}),$$ and if $n$ is odd, then $$\frac{\left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)!}{\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)!}=\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{2}}=O(\sqrt{n+1}).$$ Therefore, $E_i(m_0+\chi_u)/E_i(m_0)=O(f_i)$. In the case $u_i=u_0=c$, we have $$E_0(m_0+\chi_u)/E_0(m_0)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{n+1} \cdot\frac{\left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)!}{\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)!}\cdot \frac{m_0(\tau_i=c,\tau_0=c)+1}{\sqrt{2}} \cdot \frac{\left(\frac{m_0(\tau_i=c,\tau_0=c)}{2}\right)!}{\left(\frac{m_0(\tau_i=c,\tau_0=c)+1}{2}\right)!}.$$ A similar argument as above gives that $E_i(m_0+\chi_u)/E_i(m_0)=O(f_i)$ also holds in this case. The statement follows from the fact that $$E(m_0+\chi_u)/E(m_0)=\prod_{i=0}^d E_i(m_0+\chi_u)/E_i(m_0).$$ If $u\in W^{1+d}$, then since $m_0$ is $W$-half-decent, we have $g\le\log^4 n$, $h=O(1)$ and clearly $f_i\le 1$, thus the statement follows. If $u_0\not\in W$, then $g=O(\log n)$, $h=O(n)$, $f_i=O(\frac{\log n}{\sqrt{n}})$, and the statement follows. If $u_0\in W$ and $u\not\in W^{1+d}$, then we consider two cases: 1. If $u_\Sigma\in dW$, then $g=O(n)$, $h=O(1)$, moreover there are at least two indices $i$ such that $u_i\not\in W$. For such an $i$, we have $f_i=O(\frac{\log n}{\sqrt{n}})$, otherwise we have $f_i\le 1$, from these the statement follows. 2. If $u_\Sigma\not\in dW$, then $g=O(\log n)$, $h=O(1)$ and $f_i\le 1$ for every $i$. The statement follows. The previous lemma has the following consequence. \[DBecsS\] There are $D,\delta>0$, such that for any $i\in \{h+1,h+2,\dots,\ell\}$ and any non-negative integral $W$-half-decent vector $m_0\in\mathbb{R}^{V^{1+d}}$, such that $\\|m_0\\|_{W^C}=O(\log n)$, we have $$E(m_0+m_i)/E(m_0)=O\left(\left(n^{-\delta}\log^D n\right)^{\\|m_i\\|_{W^C}}\right).$$ Take any $i\in\{h+1,h+2,\dots,\ell\}$. Since $m_i$ is not supported on $W^{1+d}$,we have a $u\not\in W^{1+d}$ such that $m_i(u)\ge 1$. If $u_0\not \in W$, then $m_i(\tau_0\not\in W)\ge m_i(\tau_0=u_0)\ge 1$. If $u_0\in W$, then there is a $j$ such that $u_j\not\in W$, thus $$m_i(\tau_0\not\in W)\ge m_i(\tau_0=u_j,\tau_j=u_0)=m_i(\tau_0=u_0,\tau_j=u_j)\ge m_i(u)\ge 1.$$ In both cases, we obtained that $m_i(\tau_0\not\in W)\ge 1$. Note that for $d\ge 3$, we have $d/2-1>0$. From the previous statements and Lemma \[DBecsS\], it follows that for a large enough $D$ and a small enough $\delta>0$, we have $$E(m_0+m_i)/E(m_0)=O\left(\left(\log^D n\right)^{\\|m_i\\|_{W^C}}n^{-(d/2-1)}\right)=O\left(\left(n^{-\delta}\log^D n\right)^{\\|m_i\\|_{W^C}}\right).$$ With these modifications above, we proved Theorem \[FoFo22\]. As an easy consequence of Theorem \[FoFo22\] we obtain following analogue of Corollary \[correduced\]. The random $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ matrix $C_n'$ is obtained from $C_n$ by deleting its last row and last column. Recall $q\in V^{n-1}$ the subgroup generated by $q_1,q_2,\dots,q_{n-1}$ is denoted by $G_q$. Let $U_q^S$ be a uniform random element of the set $\{w\in G_q^{n-1}\|\quad <q\otimes w>\in I_2\}$. \[correduced22\] We have $$\pushQED{\qed} \lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{q\in V^{n-1}} d_\infty(C_n'q,U_{q}^S)=0.\qedhere \popQED$$ Note that for $q\in V^{n-1}$ such that $G_q=V$, if $r\in V^{n-1}$ and $<q\otimes r>\in I_2$ then $\mathbb{P}(U_q^S=r)=\|V\|^{-(n-1)}2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)} \|\wedge^2 V\|$. Therefore, Theorem \[momentumokUD\] can be proved using the following observation. If $d$ is even, then $<q\otimes dq>\in I_2$ for every $q\in V^{n-1}$. If $d$ is odd, then $<q\otimes dq>\in I_2$ if and only if $s(q)$ is an element of the subgroup $V'=\{2v\|v\in V\}$. The subgroup $V'$ has index $2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}$ in $V$. For odd $d$, Theorem \[CohenlenstraUD\] follows from Theorem \[momentumokUD\] and Theorem \[momentproblemspec\] part (2). The $2$-Sylow subgroup in the case of even $d$ {#parosparos} ============================================== Assume that $d$ is even. Let $\Delta_n$ be the reduced Laplacian of $H_n$, and $\Gamma_n$ be the corresponding sandpile group. Theorem \[momentumokUD\] provides us the limit of the surjective $V$-moments of $\Gamma_n$. However, these moments grow too fast, so Theorem \[woodmoment\] can not be applied to get the existence of a limit distribution. We can overcome this difficulty by using that $\Gamma_n$ has a special property given in the next lemma. \[paratlanrang\] The group $\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ has odd rank. Given any integral matrix $M$, let $\overline{M}$ be its mod 2 reduction. That is, $\overline{M}$ is a matrix over the $2$ element field, where an entry is $1$ if and only if the corresponding entry of $M$ is odd. Let $M$ be a integral $m\times m$ matrix. Then $$\operatorname{Rank}(\operatorname{cok}(M)\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})=\dim\ker\overline{M}=m-\operatorname{Rank}(\overline{M}).$$ It is straightforward to verify the statement if $M$ is diagonal. If $M$ is not diagonal, then $M$ can be written as $M=ADB$, where $D$ is diagonal, and $A,B\in \text{GL}_m(\mathbb{Z})$. This is the so-called Smith normal form. The statement follows from the fact that $\dim\ker\overline{M}=\dim\ker\overline{ADB}=\dim\ker\overline{A}\cdot\overline{D}\cdot\overline{B}=\dim\ker\overline{D}$, and $\operatorname{cok}{M}=\operatorname{cok}{ADB}=\operatorname{cok}{D}$. (Lemma \[paratlanrang\]) Observe that $\overline{\Delta_n}$ is a symmetric matrix, where all the diagonal entries are $0$. Such a matrix alway has even rank. See for example [@macw Theorem 3]. Recall that $\Delta_n$ is an $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ matrix, where $n$ is even. Thus, the statement follows from the previous proposition. In the first part of this section, we prove a modified version of Theorem \[woodmoment\], which allows us to make use of the fact that $\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ has odd rank. For most of the proof we can follow the original argument of Wood [@wood] almost word by word with only small modifications. A few proofs are deferred to the Appendix, since they are almost identical to the proofs of Wood [@wood]. We start by giving a few definitions. A partition $\lambda$ of length $m$ is a sequence $\lambda_1\ge\lambda_2\ge\dots\ge \lambda_m\ge 1$ of positive integers. It will be a convenient notation to also define $\lambda_i=0$ for $i>m$. The transpose partition $\lambda'$ of $\lambda$ is defined by setting $\lambda'_j$ to be the number of $\lambda_i$ that are at least $j$. Thus, the length of $\lambda'$ is $\lambda_1$. Recall that any finite abelian $p$-group $G$ is isomorphic to $$\bigoplus_{i=1}^m \mathbb{Z}/p^{\lambda_i}\mathbb{Z}$$ for some partition $\lambda$ of length $m$. We call $\lambda$ the type of the group $G$. In fact, this provides a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes of finite abelian $p$-groups and the set of partitions. 1 \[L:Hacts\] 1. Given a positive integer $m$, and $b\in \mathbb{Z}^m$ such that $b_1$ is odd, $b_1\ge b_2\ge \dots \ge b_m$, we have an entire analytic function in the $m$ variables $z_1,\dots,z_m$ $$H_{m,2,b}(z)=\sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \geq 0\\d_2+\cdots + d_m \leq b_1 }} a_{d_1,\dots,d_m} z_1^{d_1} \cdots z_m^{d_m}$$ and a constant $E$ such that $$a_{d_1,\dots,d_m}\leq E 2^{-b_1d_1 - d_1(d_1+1)}.$$ Further, if $f$ is a partition of length $\le m$ such that $f > b$ (in the lexicographic ordering), $f_1$ is odd, then ${H}_{m,2,b}(2^{f_1}, 2^{f_1+f_2}, \dots, 2^{f_1+\dots+f_m})=0$. If $f=b$, then ${H}_{m,2,b}(2^{f_1}, 2^{f_1+f_2}, \dots, 2^{f_1+\dots+f_m})\ne 0.$ 2. Given a positive integer $m$, a prime $p>2$,[^4] and $b\in {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}^m$ with $b_1\geq b_2\geq \dots \geq b_m$, we have an entire analytic function in the $m$ variables $z_1,\dots,z_m$ $$H_{m,p,b}(z)=\sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \geq 0\\d_2+\cdots + d_m \leq b_1 }} a_{d_1,\dots,d_m} z_1^{d_1} \cdots z_m^{d_m}$$ and a constant $E$ such that $$a_{d_1,\dots,d_m}\leq E p^{-b_1d_1 - \frac{d_1(d_1+1)}{2}}.$$ Further, if $f$ is a partition of length $\leq m$ and $f > b$ (in the lexicographic ordering), then $H_{m,p,b}(p^{f_1}, p^{f_1+f_2}, \dots, p^{f_1+\dots+f_m})=0$. If $f=b$, then $H_{m,p,b}(p^{f_1}, p^{f_1+f_2}, \dots, p^{f_1+\dots+f_m})\ne0.$ See the Appendix for the proof. In the original proof of Wood [@wood], the prime $2$ was not handled separately. That is, the functions given in part (2) of Lemma \[L:Hacts\] were used for all primes. Let us restrict our attention to random groups $G$ where $G\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ has odd rank. Then, for the prime $2$, we can use the functions given in part (1) of Lemma \[L:Hacts\] instead of the ones given in part (2), and still proceed with the proof, as we show in the next lemmas. Note that part (1) provides better bounds for the coefficients. This allows us to handle faster growing moments. \[T:Momdet\] Let $2=p_1,\dots,p_s$ be distinct primes. Let $m_1,\dots,m_s\geq 1 $ be integers. Let $M_j$ be the set of partitions $\lambda$ at most $m_j$ parts. Let $M=\prod_{j=1}^{s} M_j$. For $\mu\in M$, we write $\mu^j$ for its $j$th entry, which is a partition consisting of non-negative integers $\mu^j_i$ with $\mu^j_1\geq\mu^j_2\geq\dots \mu^j_{m_j}$. Let $$M_0=\{\mu\in M\quad\|\quad \mu^1_1\text{ is odd}\}.$$ Suppose we have non-negative reals $x_\mu, y_\mu$, for each tuple of partitions $\mu\in M_0$. Further suppose that we have non-negative reals $C_\lambda$ for each $\lambda\in M$ such that $$C_\lambda\leq 2^{\lambda_1^1}\prod_{j=1}^{s} {F^{m_j}p_j^{\sum_i \frac{\lambda^{j}_i(\lambda^{j}_i-1)}{2}}},$$ where $F>0$ is an absolute constant. Suppose that for all $\lambda\in M$, $$\label{E:infsys} \sum_{\mu\in M_0} x_\mu \prod_{j=1}^{s} p_j^{\sum_i \lambda^{j}_i \mu^{j}_i} =\sum_{\mu\in M_0} y_\mu \prod_{j=1}^{s} p_j^{\sum_i \lambda^{j}_i \mu^{j}_i} =C_\lambda.$$ Then for all $\mu\in M_0$, we have that $x_\mu=y_\mu$. See the Appendix for the proof. \[L:BoundMom\] There is a constant $F$, such that for any finite abelian $p$-group $G$ of type $\lambda$, we have $$\sum_{G_1\text{ subgroup of G}}\|\wedge^2 G_1\|\le F^{\lambda_1}p^{\sum_i \frac{\lambda_i'(\lambda_i'-1)}{2}}.$$ Moreover, if $G$ finite abelian $2$-group $G$ of type $\lambda$, we have $$\sum_{G_1\text{ subgroup of G}}2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G_1)}\|\wedge^2 G_1\|\le F^{\lambda_1}2^{\lambda_1'+\sum_i \frac{\lambda_i'(\lambda_i'-1)}{2}}.$$ The first statement is the same as [@wood Lemma 7.5].[^5] The second statement follows from first by using the elementary fact that for any subgroup $G_1$ of $G$, we have $\operatorname{Rank_2}(G_1)\le \operatorname{Rank_2}(G)=\lambda_1'$. ([@wood Lemma 7.1])\[HomSize\] Let $G_\mu$ and $G_\lambda$ be two finite abelian $p$-groups of type $\mu$ and $\lambda$. Then $$\|\operatorname{Hom}(G_\mu,G_\lambda)\|=p^{\sum_i \mu_i'\lambda_i'}.$$ \[T:MomDetDetail\] Let $X_n$ be a sequence of random variables taking values in finitely generated abelian groups. Let $a$ be an even positive integer and $A$ be the set of (isomorphism classes of) abelian groups with exponent dividing $a$. Assume that $\operatorname{Rank}(X_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ is odd with probability $1$ for every $n$. Suppose that for every $G\in A$, we have $$\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} \mathbb{E}\| \operatorname{Sur}(X_n, G)\| = 2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G)}\|\wedge^2 G\|.$$ Then for every $H\in A$, the limit $ \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} \mathbb{P}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) $ exists, and for all $G\in A$, we have $$\sum_{H\in A} \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Sur}(H,G)\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G)}\|\wedge^2 G\|.$$ Suppose $Y_n$ is a sequence of random variables taking values in finitely generated abelian groups such that $\operatorname{Rank}(Y_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ is odd with probability $1$ for every $n$, and for every $G\in A$, we have $$\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} \mathbb{E}\| \operatorname{Sur}(Y_n, G)\| = 2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G)}\|\wedge^2 G\|.$$ Then, we have that for every every $H\in A$ $$\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) =\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(Y_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H).$$ See the Appendix for the proof. For a measure $\nu$ on the finitely generated abelian groups and a finite abelian group $V$, we define $\operatorname{Sur}(\nu,V)=\sum_{G}\nu(G)\|\operatorname{Sur}(G,V)\|$. \[wool\] (i) \[wooi\] Let $k$ be a positive integer. Then there is a unique probability measure $\nu_k$ on $FA_{odd}(2,k)$, such that $\operatorname{Sur}(\nu_k,V)=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|$ for any $V\in FA(2,k)$. Moreover, if $X_n$ is a sequence of random finitely generated abelian groups of odd rank, such that for any $V\in FA(2,k)$ we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X_n,V)\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|,$$ then for every $V\in FA_{odd}(2,k)$ $$\lim_{n\to\infty} P(X_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}{\simeq}V)=\nu_k(V).$$ (ii) \[wooii\] There is a unique probability measure $\nu$ on the set of finite abelian $2$-groups of odd rank, such that $\operatorname{Sur}(\nu,V)=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|$ for any finite abelian $2$-group $V$. Moreover, if $X_n$ is a sequence of random finite abelian $2$-groups of odd rank[^6], such that for any finite abelian $2$-group $V$ we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X_n,V)\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|,$$ then for every finite abelian $2$-group $V$ of odd rank we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}(X_n{\simeq}V)=\nu(V).$$ The statements of (\[wooi\]) can be obtained by slightly modifying the argument of Wood [@wood]\[Theorem 8.3\] by making use of the fact that the ranks of the groups $X_n$ are odd. We only point out the details needed to be changed. Lemma 8.1. should be replaced by the following lemma. \[lemma8p1\] Given a positive integer $m$, and $b\in \mathbb{Z}^m$ such that $b_1$ is odd, $b_1\ge b_2\ge \dots \ge b_m$, we have an entire analytic function in the $m$ variables $z_1,\dots,z_m$ $$\bar{H}_{m,2,b}(z)=\sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \geq 0\\d_2+\cdots + d_m \leq b_1 }} a_{d_1,\dots,d_m} z_1^{d_1} \cdots z_m^{d_m}$$ and a constant $E$ such that $$a_{d_1,\dots,d_m}\leq E 2^{-b_1d_1 - d_1(d_1+1)}.$$ Further, if $f$ is a partition of length $\le m$ such that $f > b$ (in the lexicographic ordering) and $f_1$ is odd, then $\bar{H}_{m,2,b}(2^{f_1}, 2^{f_1+f_2}, \dots, 2^{f_1+\dots+f_m})=0$. If $f=b$, then $\bar{H}_{m,2,b}(2^{f_1}, 2^{f_1+f_2}, \dots, 2^{f_1+\dots+f_m})\ne 0.$ The proof is the same as the proof of [@wood]\[Lemma 8.1\]. But instead of $G(z_1)$ we use $$\bar{G}_1=\prod_{\substack{j>b_1\\j\text{ is odd}}} \left(1-\frac{z_1}{2^j}\right)=\sum_{d_1\ge 0}c_{d_1} z_1^{d_1}.$$ Observe that $\bar{G}_1(4z)=(1-\frac{z}{2^{b_1}})\bar{G}_1(z)$. So $4^n c_n=c_n-2^{-b_1}c_{n-1}$, or equivalently $c_n=\frac{-2^{-b_1-2n}}{1-4^{-n}}c_{n-1}$. Since $c_0=1$, by induction we obtain that $$c_n=\frac{(-1)^n 2^{-n b_1-n(n+1)}}{\prod_{i=1}^n (1-4^{-i})}.$$ So $\|c_n\|\le 2^{-n b_1-n(n+1)} \prod_{i=1}^{\infty} (1-4^{-i})^{-1}$. Lemma 7.4. of Wood [@wood] states that there is a constant $F$ such that for any abelian 2-group $G$ of type $\lambda$ we have $$\sum_{G_1\text{ subgroup of }G} \|\wedge^2 G_1\|\le F^{\lambda_1} 2^{\sum_i\frac{\lambda_i'(\lambda_i'-1)}{2}}.$$ As a simple corollary of this we obtain that $$\sum_{G_1\text{ subgroup of }G} \|\wedge^2 G_1\|2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G_1)}\le F^{\lambda_1} 2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G)} 2^{\sum_i\frac{\lambda_i'(\lambda_i'-1)}{2}}=F^{\lambda_1} 2^{\lambda_1'+\sum_i\frac{\lambda_i'(\lambda_i'-1)}{2}}.$$ Instead of Theorem 8.2. we use the following lemma. Let $m\ge 1$ be an integer. Let $M_0$ be the set of partitions $\lambda$ with at most $m$ parts. Let $M$ be the set of partitions $\lambda\in M_0$ such that $\lambda_1$ is odd. Suppose we have non-negative reals $x_\mu, y_\mu$, for each partition $\mu\in M$. Further suppose that we have non-negative reals $C_\lambda$ for each $\lambda\in M_0$ such that $$C_\lambda\le F^m 2^{\lambda_1+\sum_i\frac{\lambda_i(\lambda_i-1)}{2}},$$ where $F>0$ is an absolute constant. Suppose that for all $\lambda\in M_0$, $$\sum_{\mu\in M} x_\mu 2^{\sum_i \lambda_i \mu_i} =\sum_{\mu\in M} y_\mu 2^{\sum_i \lambda_i \mu_i} =C_\lambda.$$ Then for all $\mu$, we have that $x_\mu=y_\mu$. We can again follow the proof of Wood. However, when we define $A_\lambda$ we use the function $\bar{H}_{m,2,\mu}(z)=\sum_d a_d z_1^{d_1}z_2^{d_2}\dots z_m^{d_m}$ provided by Lemma \[lemma8p1\], instead of $H_{m,2,\mu}$. That is for every $\lambda\in M_0$ we define $$A_\lambda=a_{\lambda_1-\lambda_2,\lambda_2-\lambda_3,\dots, \lambda_{m}}.$$ To proceed with the proof we need to prove that $\sum_{\lambda\in M_0} A_\lambda C_\lambda$ is absolute convergent. We have $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{\lambda\in M_0} \|A_\lambda C_\lambda\| \le \sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \ge 0\\ d_2+\dots+d_m \le \mu_1 }} \|a_{d_1,d_2,\dots, d_m}\| F^{m}2^{\sum_i d_i +\sum_i \frac{\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k (\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k-1)}{2}} \\ \le \sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \geq 0\\ d_2+\dots+d_m \le \mu_1 }} E 2^{-b_1 d_1 -{d_1(d_1+1)}} F^{m}2^{\sum_i d_i +\sum_i \frac{\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k (\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k-1)}{2} } .\end{gathered}$$ For each choice of $d_2,\dots d_m$, the remaining sum over $d_1$ is a constant times$ \sum_{d_1\geq 0} 2^{d_1(-b_1-\frac{1}{2}+d_2+\dots+d_m)-\frac{d_1^2}{2}}, $ which converges, so it follows that $\sum_{\lambda\in M} A_\lambda C_\lambda$ converges absolutely. The rest of the proof follows by repeating the arguments of Wood [@wood]. To prove (\[wooii\]) first we need to following lemma. \[tight\] For a random finite $2$-group $X$ we have $$\mathbb{P}(X\not \in FA(2,k))\le \frac{\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X,\mathbb{Z}/2^{k+1}\mathbb{Z})\|}{2^k}.$$ Observe that if a finite abelian $2$-group has exponent at least $2^{k+1}$, then it has at least $2^k$ surjective homomorphism to $\mathbb{Z}/2^{k+1}\mathbb{Z}$. Thus the statement follows from $$\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X,\mathbb{Z}/2^{k+1}\mathbb{Z})\|\ge \mathbb{P}(x\not \in AF(2,k))2^k.$$ Now we prove the uniqueness of the measure $\nu$. Let $\nu$ be a measure satisfying the properties of (\[wooii\]). Let $X$ be a random group with distribution $\nu$. Let $V\in FA_{odd}(2,k)$. Take any $m>k$. Then for any $W\in FA(2,m)$ we have $$\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^m \mathbb{Z},W)\|=\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X,W)\|=\|W\|2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(W)}.$$ Using the statement of (\[wooi\]) we get that $X\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^m \mathbb{Z}$ has distribution $\nu_m$. Thus $$\label{wooiieq} \nu(V)=\mathbb{P}(X{\simeq}V)=\mathbb{P}(X\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^m \mathbb{Z}{\simeq}V)=\nu_m(V).$$ This shows that the only possible measure is the one defined as follows. For $V\in FA_{odd}(2,k)$ we set $\nu(V)=\nu_m(V)$, where $m>k$. A similar argument as above shows that this does not depend on the choice of $m$ as long as $m>k$. An alternative way to express $\nu(V)$ is $\nu(V)=\lim_{m\to\infty} \nu_m(V)$. We need to prove that for any $W\in FA(2,k)$ we have $\operatorname{Sur}(\nu,W)=\|W\|2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(W)}$. Let $\bar{\nu}$ be the push forward of the measure $\nu$ by the map $X\mapsto X\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}$. It is enough to prove that $\bar{\nu}=\nu_k$. If $V$ has exponent smaller than $2^k$, then $\bar{\nu}(V)=\nu(V)=\nu_k(V)$. If $V\in FA_{odd}(2,k)\backslash FA_{odd}(2,k-1)$ then $$\bar{\nu}(V)=\sum_{U\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}{\simeq}V} \nu(U)=\sum_{U\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}{\simeq}V} \lim_{m\to\infty}\nu_m(U)\le \lim_{m\to\infty} \sum_{U\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}{\simeq}V} \nu_m(U)=\nu_k(V),$$ using Fatou’s lemma and the fact that if $X_m$ has distribution $\nu_m$ for $m>k$, then $X_m\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}$ has distribution $\nu_k$. Using the latter fact and Lemma \[tight\] we obtain that $$\begin{gathered} \nu_k(V)=\mathbb{P}(X_m\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}{\simeq}V)=\\ \sum_{\substack{U\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}{\simeq}V\\ U\in \cup_{i=k}^{m-1} FA_{odd}(2,i)}} \nu_m(U)+\sum_{\substack{U\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}{\simeq}V\\ U\in FA_{odd}(2,m)}} \nu_m(U)\le\\ \sum_{\substack{U\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}{\simeq}V\\ U\in \cup_{i=k}^{m-1} FA_{odd}(2,i)}} \nu(U) +\mathbb{P}(X_m\not\in FA(2,m-1))\le\\ \bar{\nu}(V)+\frac{\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X,\mathbb{Z}/2^{m}\mathbb{Z})\|}{2^{m-1}}= \bar{\nu}(V)+2^{-(m-2)}.\end{gathered}$$ Tending to infinity with $m$, we obtain that $\nu_k(V)\le \bar{\nu}(V)$. So indeed $\nu_k=\bar{\nu}$. The last statement of (\[wooii\]) follows from (\[wooi\]) and (\[wooiieq\]). In Lemma \[wool\] above we concentrated only on the prime $2$ for simplicity, but the using the same argument we can handle finitely many primes simultaneously by following the argument of Wood [@wood], that is, we have the following theorem. In the rest of the section we find a sequence of random groups, such that they have same limiting surjective moments as the sequence of sandpile groups of $H_n$. The nice algebraic properties of these groups allow us to give an explicit formula for their limiting distribution. Then the previous theorem can be used to conclude that the sandpile group of $H_n$ has the same limiting distribution. We start by showing that Lemma \[vanszimmetrikus\] is true under slightly weaker conditions. \[vanszimmetrikus2\] Assume that $n\ge 2\|V\|$. Let $q\in V^n$ be such that $G_q=V$. Let $r\in V^n$ such that $<q\otimes r>\in I_2$. Then there is a symmetric matrix $A$ over $\mathbb{Z}$ such that $r=Aq$ and all the diagonal entries of $A$ are even. We start by the following lemma. As in Lemma \[vanszimmetrikus\], let $V=\bigoplus_{i=1}^\ell <v_i>$. There is an invertible integral matrix $B$, such that $B^{-1}$ is integral, and $q'=Bq$ satisfies that $m_{q'}(v_i)>0$ for every $1\le i \le \ell$. Using the condition $n\ge 2\|V\|$ and $G_q=V$, we can choose $n-\ell$ components of $q$ such that they generate $V$. Due to symmetry we may assume that $q_{\ell+1},q_{\ell+2},\dots, q_n$ generates $V$. Let us define $q'=(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_\ell,q_{\ell+1},q_{\ell+2},\dots, q_n)$. We define the integral matrix $B=(b_{ij})$ by $$b_{ij}= \begin{cases} 1&\text{for } 1\le i=j\le n,\\ 0&\text{for } 1 \le j<i\le n,\\ 0& \text{for }\ell<i<j\le n,\\ 0& \text{for }1\le i<j\le \ell . \end{cases}$$ We still have not defined $b_{ij}$ for $1\le i\le \ell$ and $\ell<j\le n$. Since $q_{\ell+1},q_{\ell+2},\dots, q_n$ generates $V$ we can choose these entries such that $Bq=q'$. Since $B$ is an upper triangular integral matrix such that each diagonal entry is $1$, it is invertible and the inverse is an integral matrix. Let $B$ the matrix provided by the lemma above. Set $q'=Bq$ and $r'=\left(B^{-1}\right)^T r$. Observe that $$<q'\otimes r'>=<Bq\otimes \left(B^{-1}\right)^T r>=<B^{-1}Bq\otimes r>=<q\otimes r>\in I_2.$$ Applying Lemma \[vanszimmetrikus\], we obtain a symmetric integral matrix $A'$ with even diagonal entries such that $r'=A'q'$. Consider $A=B^TA'B$. Then $A$ is a a symmetric integral matrix with even diagonal entries. Moreover, $$Aq=B^TA'Bq=B^T A' q'=B^Tr'=B^T \left(B^{-1}\right)^T r=r.$$ \[moment2k\] Let $V$ be a finite abelian $2$-group. Assume that $2^k$ is divisible by the exponent of $V$. Let $A_n$ be uniformly chosen from the set of symmetric matrices in $M_n(\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z})$, such that all the diagonal entries are even. Then we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\|\{q\in V^n\|\quad G_q=V,\quad A_nq=0\}\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|.$$ Take any $q\in V^n$ such that $G_q=V$. Let $N_n$ be the set of symmetric matrices with even diagonal entries in $M_n(\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z})$. The distribution of $A_nq$ is the uniform distribution on the image of the $N_n\to V^n$ homomorphism ${C\mapsto Cq}$.From Lemma \[vanszimmetrikus2\] one can see that if $n$ is large enough then this image is $\{r\in V^n\|<q\otimes r>\in I_2\}$, which has size $\|V\|^n\left(2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|\right)^{-1}$. It is clear that $0$ is always contained in the image, thus $\mathbb{P}(A_nq=0)=\|V\|^{-n}2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|$. Thus $$\begin{gathered} \lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\|\{q\in V^n\|\quad G_q=V,\quad A_nq=0\}\|=\\ \lim_{n \to\infty}\mathbb{E}\|\{q\in V^n\|\quad G_q=V\}\|\frac{2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|}{\|V^n\|}=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|.\end{gathered}$$ Let $\mathbb{Z}_2$ be the ring of $2$-adic integers. Recall the fact that $\mathbb{Z}_2$ is the inverse limit of $\mathbb{Z}/2^k \mathbb{Z}$. Thus combining the lemma above with the analogue of Proposition \[prop1\], we get the following. \[masik2\] Let $\operatorname{Symm}_0(n)$ be the set of $n\times n$ symmetric matrices over $\mathbb{Z}_2$, such that all diagonal entries are even. Let $Q_n$ be a Haar-uniform element of $\operatorname{Symm}_0(n)$. For any finite abelian $2$-group $V$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_n),V)\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|.$$ Moreover, if $\overline{Q}_n\in M_n(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ is obtained by reducing each entry of $Q_n$ modulo $2$, then $\overline{Q}_n$ is a symmetric matrix with $0$ as its diagonal entries. Consequently, $\operatorname{Rank}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_n))\equiv n$ modulo $2$. The next lemma gives an explicit formula for the limiting distribution of $\operatorname{cok}(Q_n)$. The author is grateful to Melanie Wood who proved this result for him. \[explicitnu\](Wood [@personal]) For any finite abelian $2$-group $G$ of odd rank, we have $$\begin{gathered} \nu(G)=\lim_{\substack{n\to\infty\\n\text{ is odd}}} \mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_n){\simeq}G)=\\ 2^{\operatorname{Rank}(G)}\frac{\|\{\phi:G \times G \to \mathbb{C}^* \operatorname{ symmetric, bilinear, perfect }\}\|}{\|G\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G)\|} \prod_{j=0}^\infty (1-2^{-2j-1}).\end{gathered}$$ Assume that $G=\bigoplus_{i=1}^k(\mathbb{Z}/2^{e_i}\mathbb{Z})^{n_i}$ where $e_1>e_2>\dots>e_k>0$. We consider $\mathbb{Z}_2^n$ as a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ module. Let $L_n(G)$ be the set of submodules $M$ of $\mathbb{Z}_2^n$ such that $\mathbb{Z}_2^n/M$ is isomorphic to $G$. $$\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_n){\simeq}G)={\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(\operatorname{RowSpace}(Q_n)\in L_n(G))=\sum_{M\in L_n(G)} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(\operatorname{RowSpace}(Q_n)=M).$$ Let $\mu_n$ be the Haar probability measure on $\operatorname{Symm}_0(n)$. Fix $M\in L_n(G)$. We are interested in the probability $$\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{RowSpace}(Q_n)=M)=\mu_n(\{S\in \operatorname{Symm}_0(n)\|\operatorname{RowSpace}(S)=M\}).$$ Fix any (not necessary symmetric) $n\times n$ matrix $N$ over $\mathbb{Z}_p$ such that ${\operatorname{RowSpace}(N)=M}$. Observe that $$\{S\in \operatorname{Symm}_0(n)\|\operatorname{RowSpace}(S)=M\} =\{CN\|\quad CN\in\operatorname{Symm}_0(n), C\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)\}.$$ Since $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is a principal ideal domain $N$ has a Smith normal form, that is, we can find $A,B\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)$ such that $D=ANB$ is a diagonal matrix. Since each nonzero element of $\mathbb{Z}_2$ can written as $2^du$, where $d$ is a nonnegative integer, $u$ is a unit in $\mathbb{Z}_2$, we may assume each entry of $D$ is of the form $2^d$ for some $d$. But since $\mathbb{Z}_2^n/\operatorname{RowSpace}(D){\simeq}\mathbb{Z}_2^n/\operatorname{RowSpace}(N){\simeq}G$, we know exactly what is $D$. Let $ n_{k+1}=n-\sum_{i=1}^k n_i$, and $e_{k+1}=0$. From now on it will be convenient to view $n\times n$ matrices as $(k+1)\times (k+1)$ block matrices, where the block at the position $(i,j)$ is an $n_i\times n_j$ matrix. Then $D$ is a block matrix $(D_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{k+1}$ where all the off-diagonal blocks are zero and $D_{ii}=2^{e_i}I$. Observe that map $S\mapsto B^T S B$ is an automorphism of the abelian group $\operatorname{Symm}_0(n)$. Thus, it pushes forward $\mu_n$ to $\mu_n$, which gives us $$\begin{aligned} \mu_n(\{CN\|&\quad CN\in\operatorname{Symm}_0(n), C\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)\})\\&= \mu_n(\{B^TCNB\|\quad B^TCNB \in\operatorname{Symm}_0(n), C\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)\})\\&= \mu_n(\{B^TCA^{-1}ANB\|\quad B^TCA^{-1}ANB \in\operatorname{Symm}_0(n), C\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)\})\\&= \mu_n(\{B^TCA^{-1}D\|\quad B^TCA^{-1}D \in\operatorname{Symm}_0(n), C\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)\})\\&= \mu_n(\{FD\|\quad FD \in\operatorname{Symm}_0(n), F\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)\}).\end{aligned}$$ We consider $F=(F_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{k+1}$ as $(k+1)\times (k+1)$ block matrix as it was described above. Then $FD\in \operatorname{Symm}_0(n)$ if and only if for every $i<j$, we have $$\label{oszt} F_{ij} = 2^{e_i-e_j}F_{ji}^T$$ and the diagonal entries of $F_{k+1,k+1}$ are even. Assuming that $F$ has these properties, when does $F$ belong to $GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)$? Observe that $F\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)$ if and only if the mod 2 reduction $\overline{F}$ of $F$ is invertible, but Equation tells us $\overline{F}$ is a block lower triangular matrix, so $F\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)$ if and only if $F_{ii}\in GL_{n_i}(\mathbb{Z}_2)$ for each $i$. From this it follows that $\{FD\|\quad FD \in\operatorname{Symm}_0(n), F\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)\}$ consists of all block matrices $H\in \operatorname{Symm}_0(n)$, such that 1. For $1\le i,j\le k+1$ all entries of the block $H_{ij}$ is divisible by $2^{\max(e_i,e_j)}$. 2. For $1\le i \le k+1$ the mod $2$ reduction of the matrix $2^{-e_i}H_{ii}$ is an invertible symmetric matrix over $\mathbb{F}_2$. Moreover, if $i=k+1$, then all its diagonal entries are zero. Let $p_m$ be the probability that a uniform random symmetric $m\times m$ matrix over $\mathbb{F}_2$ is invertible, and let $p_m'$ be the probability that a uniform random symmetric $m\times m$ matrix over $\mathbb{F}_2$ is invertible and all its diagonal entries are zero. $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}(\operatorname{RowSpace}(Q_n)=M)&=\mu_n(\{FD\|\quad FD \in\operatorname{Symm}_0(n), F\in GL_n(\mathbb{Z}_2)\})\\&= 2^{n}p_{n_{k+1}}'\prod_{i=1}^k p_{n_i} 2^{e_i\left(n_i(n-\sum_{j=1}^i n_j)+{{n_i+1}\choose{2}}\right)} .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, this does not depend on the choice of $M\in L_n(G)$. Thus, we obtain that $$\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_n){\simeq}G)=\|L_n(G)\|2^{n}p_{n_{k+1}}'\prod_{i=1}^k p_{n_i} 2^{e_i\left(n_i(n-\sum_{j=1}^i n_j)+{{n_i+1}\choose{2}}\right)}.$$ Now let $Q_n' $ be a Haar-uniform $n\times n$ symmetric matrix over $\mathbb{Z}_2$. A very similar calculation as above gives that $$\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_n'){\simeq}G)=\|L_n(G)\|p_{n_{k+1}}\prod_{i=1}^k p_{n_i} 2^{e_i\left(n_i(n-\sum_{j=1}^i n_j)+{{n_i+1}\choose{2}}\right)}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \label{rank2sz} \frac{\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_n){\simeq}G)}{\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_n'){\simeq}G)}&=2^n\frac{p_{n_{k+1}}'}{p_{n_{k+1}}}=2^{n-n_{k+1}}\frac{2^{n_{k+1}}p_{n_{k+1}}'}{p_{n_{k+1}}}\\&=2^{\operatorname{Rank}(G)}\frac{2^{n_{k+1}}p_{n_{k+1}}'}{p_{n_{k+1}}}=2^{\operatorname{Rank}(G)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The last equality follows from the results of MacWilliams [@macw]. Note that here we needed to use that $n$ and $\operatorname{Rank}(G)$ are both odd, therefore $n_{k+1}$ is even. As we already mentioned in the Introduction in line by the result of [@clp14], we have $$\begin{gathered} \lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_n'){\simeq}G)\\=\frac{\|\{\phi:G \times G \to \mathbb{C}^* \operatorname{ symmetric, bilinear, perfect }\}\|}{\|G\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G)\|} \prod_{j=0}^\infty (1-2^{-2j-1}).\end{gathered}$$ Combining this with line above, we get the statement. Now we can prove the remaining part of Theorem \[CohenlenstraUD\] (Theorem \[CohenlenstraUD\] for even $d$) Let $p_i^{k_i}$ be the exponent of $G_i$. Let $Q_{n,1}$ be a Haar-uniform element of the the set of $(2n-1)\times (2n-1)$ symmetric matrices over $\mathbb{Z}_2$, where all the diagonal entries are even. For $i>1$, let $Q_{n,i}$ be a Haar-uniform element of the the set of $(2n-1)\times (2n-1)$ symmetric matrices over $\mathbb{Z}_{p_i}$. All the choices are made independently. Let $\bar{Q}_{n,i}\in M_{2n-1}(\mathbb{Z}/p_i^{k_i+1} \mathbb{Z})$ be the mod $p_i^{k_i+1}$ reduction of $Q_{n,i}$. Let $a=\prod_{i=1}^s p_i^{k_i+1}$. Let $X_n$ be the sandpile group $\Gamma_{2n}$ of $H_{2n}$. Let $Y_n=\bigoplus_{i=1}^s \operatorname{cok}(\bar{Q}_{n,i})$. Let $V$ be a finite abelian group with exponent dividing $a$. Then, from Theorem \[momentumokUD\], we have $$\lim_{m\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X_n,V)\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|.$$ Let $V_i$ be the $p_i$-Sylow subgroup of $V$. From Lemma \[moment2k\], we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(\operatorname{cok}(\bar{Q}_{n,1}),V_1)\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V_1)}\|\wedge^2 V_1\|.$$ For $i>1$, from [@clp14 Theorem 11], we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(\operatorname{cok}(\bar{Q}_{n,1}),V_1)\|=\|\wedge^2 V_i\|.$$ It is also clear that $$\|\operatorname{Sur}(Y_n,V)\|=\prod_{i=1}^s \|\operatorname{Sur}(\operatorname{cok}(\bar{Q}_{n,i}),V_i)\|.$$ Thus, from the independence of $Q_{n,i}$, we get that $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(Y_n,V)\|&=\prod_{i=1}^s \lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(\operatorname{cok}(\bar{Q}_{n,i}),V_i)\|\\ &=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V_1)}\prod_{i=1}^{s}\|\wedge^2 V_i\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(V)}\|\wedge^2 V\|.\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \[explicitnu\] and [@clp14 Theorem 2], we have $$\begin{gathered} \lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}( Y_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/a\mathbb{Z}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i)=\lim_{n\to\infty} \prod_{i=1}^s \mathbb{P}(\operatorname{cok}(Q_{n,i}){\simeq}G_i)=\\2^{\operatorname{Rank}(G_1)}\prod_{i=1}^s \left(\frac{\|\{\phi:G_i \times G_i \to \mathbb{C}^* \operatorname{ symmetric, bilinear, perfect }\}\|}{\|G_i\|\|\operatorname{Aut}(G_i)\|} \prod_{j=0}^\infty (1-p_i^{-2j-1})\right).\end{gathered}$$ Note that $\bigoplus_{i=1}^s \Gamma_{n,i}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i$ if and only if $X_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/a\mathbb{Z}{\simeq}\bigoplus_{i=1}^s G_i$. Note that both $\operatorname{Rank_2}(X_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ and $\operatorname{Rank_2}(Y_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ are odd. Therefore, Theorem \[T:MomDetDetail\] can be applied to finish the proof. The sublinear growth of rank {#sublin} ============================ In this section we prove Theorem \[rankThm\]. Let $\Gamma_n$ be the sandpile group of $H_n$. We start by a simple lemma. Recall that $\operatorname{Rank}_p(\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n))$ is the rank of the $p$-Sylow subgroup of $\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n)$. \[nagyprim\] There is a constant $c_d$ such that $\|\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n)\|< c_d^n$. Consequently, for any prime $p$, we have $$\operatorname{Rank}_p(\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n))\le \frac{n\log c_d}{\log p}.$$ Let $v_1,v_2,...,v_k=n$ be a subset of the vertices of $H_n$, such that each connected component of $H_n$ contains exactly one of them. (With high probability $k=1$.) Let $\Delta_0$ be the matrix obtained from the Laplacian by deleting the rows and columns corresponding to the vertices $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_k$. Observe that $\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n)=\|\det \Delta_0\|$. Each row of $\Delta_0$ has Euclidean norm at most $c_d=\sqrt{2d^2}$. Thus, $\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n)=\|\det \Delta_0\|\le c_d^{n-k}<c_d^n$, from Hadamard’s inequality [@hadam]. The proof of the second statement is straightforward from this. The lemma above will be used for large primes, for small primes we will use the next lemma. \[kicsiprim\] For every prime $p$, there is a constant $C_p$ such that for any $n$ and $\varepsilon>0$, we have $$\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{Rank}(\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})\ge \varepsilon n)\le C_p p^{-\varepsilon n}.$$ It is an easy consequence of Corollary \[correduced22\] and Proposition \[prop1\] that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E} \|\operatorname{Hom}(\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})\|$$ exists. This implies that there is a constant $C_p$ such that $$\mathbb{E} \|\operatorname{Hom}(\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})\|\le C_p$$ for any $n$. Note that $\|\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}\|=\|\operatorname{Hom}(\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})\|$. Thus, from Markov’s inequality $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}(\operatorname{Rank}(\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})\ge \varepsilon n)&=\mathbb{P}(\|\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}\|\ge p^{\varepsilon n})\le p^{-\varepsilon n} \mathbb{E}\|\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}\|\\&= p^{-\varepsilon n} \mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Hom}(\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})\|\le C_p p^{-\varepsilon n}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[rankThm\]. Take any $\varepsilon>0$. Set $K=\exp(\varepsilon^{-1}\log c_d)$. Let $\{p_1,p_2,\dots,p_s\}$ be the set of primes that are at most $K$. Using Lemma \[kicsiprim\], we get that $$\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{Rank}(\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p_i\mathbb{Z})\ge \varepsilon n\text{ for some }i\in\{1,2,\dots,s\})\le \sum_{i=1}^s C_{p_i} p_i^{-\varepsilon n}.$$ Since $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{i=1}^s C_{p_i} p_i^{-\varepsilon n}$ is convergent, the Borel-Cantelli lemma gives us the following. With probability $1$ there is an $N$ such that for every $n>N$ and $i=1,2,\dots,s$, we have $\operatorname{Rank}(\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/p_i\mathbb{Z})< \varepsilon n$. By the choice of $K$ and Lemma \[nagyprim\], for a prime $p>K$, we have $\operatorname{Rank}_p(\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n))\le \varepsilon n$. Write $\Gamma_n$ as $\Gamma_n=\mathbb{Z}^f \times \operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n)$. Then for $n>N$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{Rank}(\Gamma_n)&=f+\max_{p\text{ is a prime}} \operatorname{Rank}_p(\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n))\\&\le \operatorname{Rank}(\Gamma_n\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}) +\max_{p\text{ is a prime}} \operatorname{Rank}_p(\operatorname{tors}(\Gamma_n))\le \varepsilon n+\varepsilon n.\end{aligned}$$ Tending to $0$ with $\varepsilon$, we get the statement. Bounding the probabilities of non-typical events {#Bounding} ================================================ At several points of the paper we need to bound the probability of that something is not-typical. These estimates are all based on the following lemma. \[bazuma\] Given $0\le a,b\le n$, let $A$ and $B$ be a uniform independent random subset of $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ such that $\|A\|=a$ and $\|B\|=b$. Then for any $k>0$, we have $$\mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\|A\cap B\|-\frac{ab}n\right\|\ge k\right)\le 2\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a}\right)\le 2\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{n}\right).$$ Note that $A\cap B$ has the same distribution as $\sum_{i=1}^a X_i$, where $X_1,X_2\dots,X_a$ is a random sample drawn without replacement from an $n$ element multiset, where $1$ has multiplicity $b$ and $0$ has multiplicity $n-b$. Then the statement follows from [@concent Proposition 1.2]. Applying this iteratively we get the following lemma. \[itbazuma\] Given $0\le a_1,a_2,...,a_d\le n$, let $A_1,A_2,...,A_d$ be uniform independent random subsets of $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ such that $\|A_i\|=a_i$ for $i=1,2,\dots, d$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\|A_1\cap\dots\cap A_d\|-n\prod_{i=1}^d \frac{a_i}{n}\right\|\ge (d-1) k\right)&\le 2(d-1)\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a_1}\right)\\& \le 2(d-1)\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{n}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The proof is by induction. For $d=2$, it is true as Lemma \[bazuma\] shows. Now we prove for $d$. By induction $$\mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\|A_1\cap\dots A_{d-1}\|-n\prod_{i=1}^{d-1} \frac{a_i}{n}\right\|\ge (d-2) k\right)\le 2(d-2)\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a_1}\right).$$ Using Lemma \[bazuma\] for $A_1\cap\dots A_{d-1}$ and $A_d$ and the fact that $\|A_1\cap\dots A_{d-1}\|\le a_1$, we have $$\mathbb{P}\left(\left\|\|A_1\cap\dots A_{d}\|-\frac{\|A_1\cap\dots\cap A_{d-1}\|a_d}{n}\right\|\ge k\right)\le 2\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a_1}\right).$$ Thus, with probability at least $1-2(d-1)\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a_1}\right)$, we have that $$\left\|\|A_1\cap\dots A_{d}\|-\frac{\|A_1\cap\dots\cap A_{d-1}\|a_d}{n}\right\|\le k$$ and for $$\Delta=\|A_1\cap\dots A_{d-1}\|-n\prod_{i=1}^{d-1} \frac{a_i}{n},$$ the inequality $\|\Delta\|\le (d-2)k$ holds. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \left\|\|A_1\cap\dots\cap A_d\|-n\prod_{i=1}^d \frac{a_i}{n}\right\|&=\left\|\|A_1\cap\dots\cap A_d\|-\frac{a_d(\|A_1\cap \dots \cap A_{d-1}\|-\Delta)}{n}\right\|\\&\le \left\|\|A_1\cap\dots\cap A_d\|-\frac{a_d\|A_1\cap \dots \cap A_{d-1}\|}{n}\right\|+\frac{a_d\|\Delta\|}n\\&\le k+(d-2)k\le (d-1)k.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$ Next we give the analogue of Lemma \[bazuma\] for uniform random perfect matchings. \[bazumaM\] Assume that $n$ is even. Let $A$ and $B$ be two fixed subsets of $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, let $\|A\|=a$ and $\|B\|=b$. Let $M$ be uniform random perfect matching on the set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. Let $X$ be the number of elements in $A$ that are paired with an element in $B$ in the matching $M$. Then for any $k>0$, we have $$\mathbb{P}\left(\left\|X-\frac{ab}n\right\|\ge 4k\right)\le 6\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a}\right)\le 6\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{n}\right).$$ Observe that the uniform random matching $M$ can be generated as follows. First we partition the set $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ into two disjoint subsets $H_1$ and $H_2$ of size $\frac{n}{2}$ uniformly at random. Then we consider a uniform random perfect matching between $H_1$ and $H_2$. For $i\in \{1,2\}$, let $a_i=\|A\cap H_i\|$, and let $b_i=\|B\cap H_i\|$. Let $X_i$ be the number of element in $A\cap H_i$ that are paired with an element in $B$. From Lemma \[bazuma\], we have $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}\left(\left\|a_1-\frac{a}2\right\|\ge k\right)&\le 2\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a}\right),\\ \mathbb{P}\left(\left\|X_1-\frac{2a_1b_2}{n}\right\|\ge k\right)&\le 2\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a_1}\right),\\ \mathbb{P}\left(\left\|X_2-\frac{2a_2b_1}{n}\right\|\ge k\right)&\le 2\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a_2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ It follows from the union bound that with probability at least $1-6\exp\left(-\frac{2k^2}{a}\right)$, we have that $$\left\|a_1-\frac{a}2\right\|< k,\quad \left\|X_1-\frac{2a_1b_2}{n}\right\|<k\text{ and }\left\|X_2-\frac{2a_2b_1}{n}\right\|<k.$$ On this event $$\begin{aligned} \left\|X-\frac{ab}n\right\|&=\left\|\left(X_1-\frac{ab_2}{n}\right)+\left(X_2-\frac{ab_1}{n}\right)\right\|\\ &\le \left\|X_1-\frac{ab_2}{n}\right\|+\left\|X_2-\frac{ab_1}{n}\right\|\\ &\le \left\|X_1-\frac{2a_1b_2}{n}\right\|+\left\|\frac{2a_1b_2}{n}-\frac{ab_2}{n} \right\|+\left\|X_2-\frac{a_2b_1}{2n}\right\|+\left\|\frac{2a_2b_1}{n}-\frac{ab_1}{n} \right\|\\ &<2k+\frac{2b_1}{n}\left\|a_2-\frac{a}{2}\right\|+\frac{2b_2}{n}\left\|a_1-\frac{a}{2}\right\|<4k.\end{aligned}$$ Applying this iteratively, we can get a lemma similar to Lemma \[itbazuma\]. [10]{} Miklós Abért, ’Graph convergence, Luck approximation mod p and the entropy of cellular automata’, Growth, symbolic dynamics and combinatorics of words in groups, June 2, 2015, ENS, Paris, video available at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRFOGPnaJY> Ágnes Backhausz, Balázs Szegedy, On large girth regular graphs and random processes on trees, arXiv:1406.4420 Rémi Bardenet, Odalric-Ambrym Maillard, Concentration inequalities for sampling without replacement, Bernoulli 21 (2015), no. 3, 13611385. M. Bhargava, D. Kane, H. Lenstra, B. Poonen, and E. Rains, Modeling the distribution of ranks, Selmer groups, and Shafarevich-Tate groups of elliptic curves, preprint arXiv:1304.3971, 2013. Rajendra Bhatia, Matrix analysis Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 169. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. xii+347 pp. ISBN: 0-387-94846-5. B. Bollobás. A probabilistic proof of an asymptotic formula for the number of labelled regular graphs. European J. Combin., 1(4):311-316, 1980. Julien Clancy, Timothy Leake, and Sam Payne. A note on jacobians, tutte polynomials, and two-variable zeta functions of graphs. arXiv:1309.3340 \[math\], September 2013. Julien Clancy, Timothy Leake, Nathan Kaplan, Sam Payne, and Melanie Matchett Wood. On a cohen-lenstra heuristic for jacobians of random graphs. 2014. preprint. H. Cohen and H. W. Lenstra, Jr. Heuristics on class groups of number fields. In Number theory, Noordwijkerhout 1983 (Noordwijkerhout, 1983), volume 1068 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 33-62. Springer, Berlin, 1984. Thomas M. Cover, Joy A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 2nd Edition (Wiley Series in Telecommunications and Signal Processing) Jordan Ellenberg, Akshay Venkatesh, and Craig Westerland. Homological stability for Hurwitz spaces and the Cohen-Lenstra conjecture over function fields. arXiv:0912.0325, 2009. Matthew Farrell and Lionel Levine. CoEulerian graphs. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 2015. William Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications ( Volume 1 ), 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc. E. Friedman and L. Washington, On the distribution of divisor class groups of curves over a finite field, Théorie des nombres (Quebec, PQ, 1987), de Gruyter, Berlin, 1989, pp. 227-239. A. Frieze. Random structures and algorithms. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians-Seoul 2014. Vol. 1, pages 311-340. Kyung Moon Sa, Seoul, 2014. D. R. Heath-Brown. The size of selmer groups for the congruent number problem, ii. 118, 1994. preprint version, http://eprints.maths.ox.ac.uk/154/. Alexander E. Holroyd, Lionel Levine, Karola Mészáros, Yuyal Peres, James Propp, and David B. Wilson. Chip-firing and rotor-routing on directed graphs. In Vladas Sidoravicius and Maria Eulália Vares, editors, In and Out of Equilibrium 2, volume 60, pages 331-364. Birkhauser Basel, Basel. Jiaoyang Huang, Invertibility of adjacency matrices for random d-regular directed graphs, arXiv:1806.01382 Jiaoyang Huang, Invertibility of adjacency matrices for random d-regular graphs, arXiv:1807.06465 Svante Janson. Random Regular Graphs: Asymptotic Distributions and Contiguity. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 4(04):369-405, December 1995. Antal A. Járai, Sandpile models, Probability Surveys, Volume 15 (2018), 243-306. Shaked Koplewitz. Sandpile groups and the coEulerian property for random directed graphs, Advances in Applied Mathematics, 2017 Lionel Levine and James Propp. What is ... a sandpile? Notices Amer. Math. Soc., 57(8):976-979, 2010. Jessie MacWilliams. Orthogonal matrices over finite fields. The American Mathematical Monthly, 76(2):152-164, February 1969 McKay, B. D. (1983) Spanning trees in regular graphs. Europ. J. Combin. 4 149-160. M. S. O. Molloy, H. Robalewska, R. W. Robinson, and N. C. Wormald. $1$-factorizations of random regular graphs. Random Structures & Algorithms, 10(3):305-321, 1997. Hoi H. Nguyen, Melanie Matchett Wood, Cokernels of adjacency matrices of random $r$-regular graphs, arXiv:1806.10068 Serguei Norine and Peter Whalen. Jacobians of nearly complete and threshold graphs. European Journal of Combinatorics, 32(8):1368-1376, November 2011. Russel Lyons. Asymptotic Enumeration of Spanning Trees, Combin. Probab. Comput. 14 (2005), 491-522. Walter Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd Edition Alexander Schrijver, Theory of Linear and Integer Programming, John Wiley & Sons, Van Vu, Random discrete matrices. Horizons of combinatorics, 257-280, Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud., 17, Springer, Berlin, 2008 Melanie Matchett Wood, The distribution of sandpile groups of random graphs, Journal of the American Mathematical Society 30 (2017), pp. 915-958. Melanie Matchett Wood, Random integral matrices and the Cohen Lenstra Heuristics, to appear American Journal of Mathematics, Melanie Matchett Wood, Personal communication, 2018 Appendix. Proofs omitted from Section \[parosparos\] {#appendix.-proofs-omitted-from-section-parosparos .unnumbered} ==================================================== We only prove the first statement. The second statement is the same as [@wood Lemma 8.1], and it can be proved essentially the same way. We define analytic functions $$G(z_1)=\prod_{\substack{j> b_1\\j\text{ is odd}}}(1-\frac{z_1}{2^j}) =\sum_{d_1\geq 0} c_{d_1} z^{d_1}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} H(z_2,&\dots,z_m)=\\& \prod_{j= b_1+b_2+1}^{2b_1}(1-\frac{z_2}{2^j}) \prod_{j= b_1+b_2+b_3+1}^{b_1+2b_2}(1-\frac{z_3}{2^j}) \cdots \prod_{j= b_1\dots+b_m+1}^{b_1+\dots+b_{m-2}+2b_{m-1}}(1-\frac{z_m}{2^j})=\\& \sum_{d_2,\dots,d_m \geq 0} e_{d_1,\dots,d_m} z_2^{d_2} \cdots z_m^{d_m}.\end{aligned}$$ In each of the $z_i$ separately, for $2\leq i \leq m$, we have that $H$ is a polynomial of degree $b_{i-1}-b_i$. We then have an entire, analytic function in $m$ variables $$H_{m,2,b}(z)=G(z_1)H(z_2,\dots,z_m)=\sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \geq 0\\ d_2+\dots+d_m\leq b_1 }} a_{d_1,\dots,d_m} z_1^{d_1} \cdots z_m^{d_m}.$$ We now estimate the size of the $a_d$. We see that $a_d=c_{d_1} e_{d_2,\dots d_m}$. We have that $ G(4z)=(1-\frac{z}{2^{b_1}})G(z). $ So $ c_n 4^n=c_n-2^{-b_1}c_{n-1}. $ Thus $ c_n= - \frac{2^{-b_1}c_{n-1}}{4^n-1}, $ and by induction, $ c_n=(-1)^n \frac{2^{-b_1n}}{\prod_{i=1}^n (4^i-1)}. $ So $ \|c_n\|\leq 2^{-b_1n - n(n+1)} \prod_{i\geq 1} (1-4^{-i})^{-1} . $ Thus, $$a_d\leq \frac{1}{\prod_{i\geq 1} (1-4^{-i})} 2^{-b_1d_1 - d_1(d_1+1)} \max_{d_2,\dots,d_m}e_{d_2,\dots d_m}.$$ Now we check the final statements of the lemma. If $f>b$, suppose $f_i=b_i$ for $i\leq t$ and $f_{t+1} > b_{t+1}$ for some $0\leq t \leq m-1$. Then, in particular $f_1+\dots+ f_i = b_1+\dots+ b_i$ for $i \leq t$, and $f_1+\dots+ f_{t+1} \geq b_1+\dots+ b_{t+1}+1$. However, (when $t\geq 1$) since $f_{t+1}\leq f_t=b_t,$ we have $f_1+\dots+ f_{t+1} \leq b_1+\dots+ b_{t-1}+2b_{t}.$ Since $H$ vanishes whenever $z_{t+1}=p^{k}$ for integers $k$ with $b_1+\dots+ b_{t+1}+1 \leq k \leq b_1+\dots+ b_{t-1}+2b_{t},$ we obtain the desired vanishing. For the last statement, we first note that since the product in the definition of $G$ is absolutely convergent, we have that $z_1=p^{b_1}$ is not a root of $G$. Then we observe all the other finitely many factors in $H$ are non-zero in this case as well. We will induct on the size of $\mu$ in the lexicographic total ordering (we take the lexicographic ordering for partitions and then the lexicographic ordering on top of that for tuples of partitions). Suppose we have $x_\pi=y_\pi$ for every $\pi<\nu$. We use Lemma \[L:Hacts\] to find $H_{m_j,p_j,\nu^j}(z)=\sum_d a(j)_d z_1^{d_1}\dots z_{m_j}^{d_{m_j}}.$ Note the definition of $H_{m_j,p_j,\nu^j}(z)$ is different for $j=1$ and $j>1$. Namely, for $j=1$ we use the first part of Lemma \[L:Hacts\], and for $j>1$ we use the second part. For $\lambda\in M$, we define $$A_\lambda=\prod_{j=1}^{s} a(j)_{\lambda^j_1-\lambda^j_2,\lambda^j_2-\lambda^j_3,\dots, \lambda^j_{m_j}}.$$ We wish to show that the sum $ \sum_{\lambda\in M} A_\lambda C_\lambda $ converges absolutely. We have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\lambda\in M} \|A_\lambda C_\lambda\| &\leq\sum_{\lambda\in M} 2^{\lambda_1^1}\prod_{j=1}^{s} \left\| a(j)_{\lambda^j_1-\lambda^j_2,\lambda^j_2-\lambda^j_3,\dots, \lambda^j_{m_j}}{F^{m_j}p_j^{\sum_i \frac{\lambda^{j}_i(\lambda^{j}_i-1)}{2}}} \right\|\\ &= \left(\sum_{\lambda\in M_1}\left\|a(1)_{\lambda_1-\lambda_2,\lambda_2-\lambda_3,\dots, \lambda_{m_1}}{F^{m_1}2^{\lambda^1+\sum_i \frac{\lambda_i(\lambda_i-1)}{2}}} \right\| \right)\\ &\quad\cdot \prod_{j=2}^{s} \sum_{\lambda\in M_j} \left\|a(j)_{\lambda_1-\lambda_2,\lambda_2-\lambda_3,\dots, \lambda_{m_j}}{F^{m_j}p_j^{\sum_i \frac{\lambda_i(\lambda_i-1)}{2}}} \right\|.\end{aligned}$$ First we investigate the first term in the product above. We drop the index $1$, and let $b=\nu^1$. We apply the first part of Lemma \[L:Hacts\] to obtain $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \geq 0\\ d_2+\dots+d_m \leq b_1 }} \|a_{d_1,d_2,\dots, d_m}\| F^{m}2^{\sum_i d_i+\sum_i \frac{\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k (\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k-1)}{2}} \leq \\ \sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \geq 0\\ d_2+\dots+d_m \leq b_1 }} E 2^{-b_1 d_1 -{d_1(d_1+1)}} F^{m}2^{\sum_i d_i+\sum_i \frac{\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k (\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k-1)}{2} } .\end{gathered}$$ For each choice of $d_2,\dots d_m$, the remaining sum over $d_1$ is a constant times$ \sum_{d_1\geq 0} 2^{d_1(-b_1-\frac{1}{2}+d_2+\dots+d_m)-\frac{d_1^2}{2}}, $ which converges. We now investigate the inner sum in the second term. We drop the $j$ index, and let $b=\nu^j$. We apply the second part of Lemma \[L:Hacts\] to obtain $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \geq 0\\ d_2+\dots+d_m \leq b_1 }} \|a(j)_{d_1,d_2,\dots, d_m}\| F^{m}p^{\sum_i \frac{\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k (\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k-1)}{2}} \leq \\ \sum_{\substack{d_1,\dots,d_m \geq 0\\ d_2+\dots+d_m \leq b_1 }} E p^{-b_1 d_1 -\frac{d_1(d_1+1)}{2}} F^{m}p^{\sum_i \frac{\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k (\sum_{k=i}^{m}d_k-1)}{2} } . $$ For each choice of $d_2,\dots d_m$, the remaining sum over $d_1$ is a constant times $ \sum_{d_1\geq 0} p^{d_1(-b_1-1+d_2+\dots+d_m)}, $ which converges, so it follows that $\sum_{\lambda\in M} A_\lambda C_\lambda$ converges absolutely. Suppose we have $x_\mu$ for $\mu \in M_0$ all non-negative, such that for all $\lambda\in M$, $$\sum_{\mu\in M_0} x_\mu \prod_{j=1}^{s} p_j^{\sum_i \lambda^{j}_i \mu^{j}_i}=C_\lambda.$$ So we have that $$\sum_{\lambda\in M} \sum_{\mu\in M_0} A_\lambda x_\mu \prod_{j=1}^{s} p_j^{\sum_i \lambda^{j}_i \mu^{j}_i}$$ converges absolutely. Thus, $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\lambda\in M} A_\lambda C_\lambda &=\sum_{\lambda\in M} \sum_{\mu\in M_0} A_\lambda x_\mu \prod_{j=1}^{s} p_j^{\sum_i \lambda^{j}_i \mu^{j}_i}\\ &=\sum_{\mu\in M_0} x_\mu \sum_{\lambda\in M} A_\lambda \prod_{j=1}^{s} p_j^{\sum_i \lambda^{j}_i \mu^{j}_i}\\ &=\sum_{\mu\in M_0} x_\mu \prod_{j=1}^{s} \sum_{\lambda\in M_j} a(j)_{\lambda_1-\lambda_2,\lambda_2-\lambda_3,\dots, \lambda_{m_j}} p_j^{\sum_i \lambda_i \mu^{j}_i}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we consider the inner sum. Again we drop the $j$ indices. We have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\lambda\in M_j} & a(j)_{\lambda_1-\lambda_2,\lambda_2-\lambda_3,\dots, \lambda_{m}} p^{\sum_i \lambda_i \mu_i}\\&= \sum_{d_1,\dots,d_{m}\geq 0} a(j)_{d_1,\dots,d_m} (p^{\mu_1})^{d_1}(p^{\mu_1+\mu_2})^{d_2} \cdots (p^{\mu_1+\dots+\mu_m})^{d_m} \\ &= H_{m,p,\nu}(p^{\mu_1}, p^{\mu_1+\mu_2}, \dots, p^{\mu_1+\dots+\mu_m}).\end{aligned}$$ If $\mu,\nu\in M_0$ and $\mu > \nu$ (in the lexicographic total ordering), then some $\mu^j>\nu^j$ and so for $m=m_j$ and $p=p_j$, by Lemma \[L:Hacts\], $H_{m,p,\nu^j}(p^{\mu_1}, p^{\mu_1+\mu_2}, \dots, p^{\mu_1+\dots+\mu_m})=0$. Furthermore, if $\mu=\nu$, then for each (implicit) $j$, we have $H_{m,p,\nu}(p^{\mu_1}, p^{\mu_1+\mu_2}, \dots, p^{\mu_1+\dots+\mu_m})\ne0.$ So for some non-zero $u$, $$\sum_{\lambda\in M} A_\lambda C_\lambda = x_\nu u + \sum_{\mu\in M_0, \mu < \nu } x_\mu \sum_{\lambda\in M} A_\lambda \prod_{j=1}^{s} p_j^{\sum_i \lambda^{j}_i \mu^{j}_i}.$$ So since by assumption $x_\mu$ with $\mu<\nu$ we determined by the $C_\lambda$, we conclude that $x_\nu$ is determined as well. First, we will suppose that the limits $ \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) $ exist, and from that show that $$\sum_{H\in A} \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Sur}(H,G)\|=2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G)} \|\wedge^2 G\|.$$ For each $G \in A$, we claim we can find an abelian group $G'\in A$ such that $$\sum_{H\in A} \frac{\|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\|}{\|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G')\|}$$ converges. We can factor over the primes $p$ dividing $a$, and reduce to the problem when $a=p^e$. Then if $G$ has type $\lambda$, we take $G'$ of type $\pi$ with $\pi_i'=2\lambda_i'+1$ for $1\leq i \leq e$. Then using Lemma \[HomSize\] we see that $$\sum_{H\in A} \frac{\|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\|}{\|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G')\|}=\sum_{c_1\geq \dots \geq c_e \geq 0} p^{\sum_{i=1}^e c_i(\lambda_i'-2\lambda_i'-1)} =\sum_{c_1\geq \dots \geq c_e \geq 0} p^{\sum_{i=1}^e c_i(-\lambda_i'-1)}$$ converges. We have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{B\in A}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}B) \|\operatorname{Hom}(B,G')\|&=\mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Hom}(X_n,G')\|\\ &=\sum_{H<G'} \mathbb{E}\|\operatorname{Sur}(X_n,H)\|,\end{aligned}$$ and by supposition, each of the finite summands on the right-hand side has a finite limit as $n\to \infty$ (and in particular is bounded above for all n). Thus, there is some constant $D_G$ such that for all n we have $${\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G')\| \leq \sum_{H\in A} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G')\| \leq D_G.$$ Thus, for all $n$, $${\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\|\leq D_G\|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\| \cdot\|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G')\|^{-1} .$$ Since $ \sum_{H\in A } D_G \|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\|\cdot \|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G')\|^{-1} $ converges, by the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, we have $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{H\in A } \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\|\\ = \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } \sum_{H\in A } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\|.\end{gathered}$$ As this holds for every $G\in A$, we also have (by a finite number of additions and subtractions) $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{H\in A } &\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Sur}(H,G)\|\\ &= \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } \sum_{H\in A } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Sur}(H,G)\|\\ &= 2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G)}\|\wedge^2 G\|.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we show that if for every $G\in A$, $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{H\in A } &\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Sur}(H,G)\|\\ &= \sum_{H\in A } \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(Y_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Sur}(H,G)\|\\ &= 2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G)}\|\wedge^2 G\|,\end{aligned}$$ then we have for every $H\in A$ that $$\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H)=\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(Y_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H).$$ For each $G$, by a finite number of additions, we have $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{H\in A } &\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\|\\ &= \sum_{H\in A } \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(Y_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) \|\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\|\\&= \sum_{G_1 \textrm{ subgroup of } G } 2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G_1)} \|\wedge^2 G_1\|.\end{aligned}$$ Now we will explain how to apply Theorem \[T:Momdet\] to conclude that $ \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H)=\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(Y_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H). $ We factor $a=\prod_{j=1}^s p_j^{m_j}$. Since $a$ is even we may assume that $p_1=2$. The partition $\lambda^j\in M_j$ is the transpose of the type of the Sylow $p_j$-subgroup of $H$, which gives a bijection between $M$ and $A$. Let $A_0=\{G\in A\quad\|\quad\operatorname{Rank_2}(G)\text{ is odd}\}$. By restricting the bijection above we get a bijection between $M_0$ and $A_0$, where $M_0$ was defined in Lemma \[T:Momdet\]. We have that for $G\in A$ with corresponding $\lambda\in M$, $$C_\lambda=\sum_{G_1 \textrm{ subgroup of } G } 2^{\operatorname{Rank_2}(G_1)} \|\wedge^2 G_1\|\leq 2^{\lambda_1^1} \prod_{j=1}^s {F^{m_j}p_j^{\sum_i \frac{\lambda^{j}_i(\lambda^{j}_i-1)}{2}}}$$ by Lemma \[L:BoundMom\]. For $H,G\in A$ with corresponding $\mu,\lambda\in M$, we have $ \| \operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\| = \prod_{j=1}^s p_j^{\sum_i \lambda_i^j \mu_i^j } $ by Lemma \[HomSize\]. So for $H\in A_0$ with corresponding $\mu\in M_0$, we let $$x_\mu= \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty } {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H)$$ and similarly for $y_\mu$ and we can apply Theorem \[T:Momdet\]. Now, we suppose for the sake of contradiction that the limit $ \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_n{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) $ does not exist for at least some $H\in A_0$. Then we can use a diagonal argument to find a subsequence of $X_n$ where the limits do exist for all $H\in A_0$, and then another subsequence where the limits do also exist for all $H \in A_0$, but at least one is different. But since in each subsequence the limits $ \lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{P}}}}(X_{i_n}{\otimes}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}/a{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}\xspace}{\simeq}H) $ exist, we can use the argument above to conclude that these limits have to be the same for both subsequences, a contradiction. [^1]: The rank of a group is the minimum number of generators. [^2]: Here $\pi=3.14\dots$ is the well-known constant. [^3]: Unlike in the rest of this section, here the components of a $t\in V^h$ are indexed from $1$ to $h$. [^4]: In fact, this statement is also true for $p=2$, but we will not use this. [^5]: In the latest arxiv version of this paper this is Lemma 7.4 [^6]: Or slightly more generally $X_n$ has odd rank and it is a direct sum of a finite abelian 2-group and a finitely generated free abelian group.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We explore the biasing in the clustering statistics of halos as compared to dark matter (DM) in simulations. We look at the second and third order statistics at large scales of the (intermediate) MICEL1536 simulation and also measure directly the local bias relation $h = f(\delta)$ between DM fluctuations, $\delta$, smoothed over a top-hat radius $R_s$ at a point in the simulation and its corresponding tracer $h$ (i.e. halos) at the same point. This local relation can be Taylor expanded to define a linear ($b_1$) and non-linear ($b_2$) bias parameters. The values of $b_1$ and $b_2$ in the simulation vary with $R_s$ approaching a constant value around $R_s >30-60$ Mpc/h. We use the local relation to predict the clustering of the tracer in terms of the one of DM. This prediction works very well (about percent level) for the halo 2-point correlation $\xi(r_{12})$ for $r_{12}>15$ Mpc/h, but only when we use the biasing values that we found at very large smoothing radius $R_s >30-60$ Mpc/h. We find no effect from stochastic or next to leading order terms in the $f(\delta)$ expansion. But we do find some discrepancies in the 3-point function that needs further understanding. We also look at the clustering of the smoothed moments, the variance and skewness which are volume average correlations and therefore include clustering from smaller scales. In this case, we find that both next to leading order and discreetness corrections (to the local model) are needed at the $10-20\%$ level. Shot-noise can be corrected with a term $\sigma_e^2/\bar{n}$ where $\sigma_e^2<1$, i.e., always smaller than the Poisson correction. We also compare these results with the peak-background split predictions from the measured halo mass function. We find 5-10% systematic (and similar statistical) errors in the mass estimation when we use the halo model biasing predictions to calibrate the mass.' author: - \| M.Manera$^{1,2}$ & E.Gaztañaga$^{3}$\ $^{1}$Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Dennis Sciama Building, Burnaby Road, Portsmouth PO1 3FX, UK\ $^{2}$Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, New York University, 4 Washington Place, NY 1003, New York,USA\ $^{3}$Institut de Ciències de l’Espai, CSIC/IEEC, Campus UAB, F. de Ciències, Torre C5 par-2, Barcelona 08193, Spain\ title: The Local Bias Model in the Large Scale Halo Distribution --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ To do precision cosmology it is important to understand accurately galaxy bias, i.e., how the spatial distribution of galaxies is related to the underlying dark matter distribution. Because galaxies are known to form in dark matter halos, its biasing can be approached in two natural steps. The first step is the bias between halos and dark matter. The second step is the bias between galaxies and halos, which is commonly approached by means of models of galaxy occupation in halos (see for instance Zheng et al 2005 & 2009, Brown 2008, Tinker 2006 & 2010). Biasing requires a complex modeling and in this paper we will focus on the first step only. This means that our findings might not be directly applicable to galaxy surveys. In the limit in which halo biasing resembles galaxy biasing or in the limit where observations are good tracers of the halo distribution (i.e., for galaxy groups or clusters) our results will be of direct relevance to the interpretation of clustering statistics in galaxy and cluster surveys. We will study the halo bias in a big cosmological dark matter simulation from the MICE collaboration (Fosalba et al. 2008, Crocce et al. 2009). [^1]. We will address two main questions: a) how accurate is the so-called local bias model to predict clustering statistics, and b) how bias predictions from the mass function compare with the ones in local model. In the process of answering these questions we will also learn about nonlinear and stochasticity contributions to the halo variance. The local bias model, introduced by Fry and Gaztañaga (1993), assumes a general non-linear (but local and deterministic) relation between the smoothed density contrast in the distribution of halos (or galaxies) and the smoothed density contrast of the dark matter, i.e., $\delta_h = F[\delta_m]$. In reality, bias is stochastic and not quite deterministic (eg., see Somerville et al. 1999, Tegmark & Bomley 1999, Dekel & Lahav 1999) and at some level, due to tidal forces and evolution, it will have non-local and anisotropic contributions. It is also not clear to what extent the halo or galaxy density should depend only on the underlying matter density, without including other direct dependencies (like the gravitational potential or velocity fields, for instance). Bias could also relate to mass at some initial condition or in Lagrangian space (see, Catelan, Matarrese & Porciani 1998, Matsubara 2008 and references therein). The bias parameters of the local model are the coefficients of the Taylor expansion of $F[\delta]$, and depend on the halo and dark matter smoothing scale. In this paper we show that for halo samples with a minimum mass less than $10^{14}$ solar masses the bias parameters converge at a smoothing scale $\sim 30$-$60$ Mpc/h. We can then compare these local bias parameters obtained by directly fitting $F[\delta]$ in the simulations with the bias from clustering measurements like the two and 3-point correlations functions, the variance and the skewness. We will show that the local bias model works well at least within a few percent level. When this local model is applied to interpret real galaxy surveys it can be used to recover information about dark matter clustering and biasing parameters. One common way to predict the bias parameters is to use the peak background split Ansatz. Bias parameters are predicted from the mass function using few assumptions: locality and also the assumption that the conditional mass function of an overdense (underdense) patch of the universe can be treated as if it were equal to the average mass function of the universe at a different time, or mean density. Peak background split predictions for the bias, specially from the Sheth Tormen mass function (Sheth and Tormen 1999), and the Press-Schechter mass function (Press & Schechter 1974, PS from now on) have been used a lot in the literature. In the second part of this paper we will compare these bias predictions with the bias from clustering, and with the local bias, and study their dependence on the halo mass threshold used to fit the mass function. The inaccuracy of the peak background split has also been studied in Manera, Sheth and Scoccimarro (2010) with complementary results to those of this work. The peak background split bias parameters predicted from the Press-Schechter (PS) mass function together with the assumption of the local bias was tested in a precursor paper by Mo, Jing and White (1997), where the local model was used to compare the skewness and higher order moments of halos in N-Body simulations with predictions and observations, leading to the conclusion that the galaxies from the APM survey (as measured in Gaztanaga 1994) should not be highly biased. Mo, Jing and White used a small simulation of only 256 Mpc/h and $128^3$ particles with plots that show no errorbars. In some of their plots, specially when halos are identified at the same time that moments are calculated, differences between theory and simulations could be interpreted as being significant for our current precision requirements. Unfortunately since they tested the PS bias parameters and the local bias model together, it is unclear how each assumption contributes to the mismatch. In a follow-up paper, Casas-Miranda, Mo and Boener (2003) redid the previous analysis, this time with the Sheth and Tormen mass function, and applied the results to the Lyman break galaxies at $z=3$. Their plots of skewness and higher order moments still show no error bars, and differences between theory and simulations could amount more than 15% in some cases. Again, the question arises to whether the local bias is a good approximation or not independent of the bias prediction from the mass function, which requires extra assumptions and varies depending which mass function one decides to use. In our paper we can separate these effects by obtaining the local bias parameters directly from a fit of the local bias relation $F$, thus testing the local model separately, from the bias predictions. A failure of the local bias model could point towards what other contributions should be included next (if any) when analysing observational data to the precision needed for the current generation of surveys. Another difference in our analysis with respect to the previous works above is that we study both moments (variance and skewness) and 2 and 3-point correlation functions. Moments are closer to the local relation in that they are both smoothed (spherically averaged) quantities, so one would expect better agreement for them. But they suffer from shot-noise (or discreteness effects) and stronger non-linear effects (as they include clustering on all scales smaller than the smoothing radius). The 2 and 3-point functions do not suffer from shot-noise and can better separate the effect of different scales (because they are averaged over radial shells rather than integrated over spheres). Moreover, the 3-point function provides different information than the skewness. Both are related third order statistics, but the 3-point function also gives shape information (i.e., how elongated are the triangles) which is missing in the skewness. We also study the 2-point cross-correlation of mass and halos which gives an idea of how important the stochasticity is in the bias relation. The relation between the mass function and the bias can be inverted. Consequently one may use the bias as a proxy for the mass of the halo sample. This is of direct relevance to the interpretation of observational data. Systematic errors in estimating the mass from the bias would propagate to, and broaden, the constraints on cosmological parameters (like the dark energy equation of state parameter $w$) when fitted to the estimated halo mass function. Notice that self calibration methods for the mass function, which are expected to be used by DES-like surveys, assume that we know the mass-bias relation (Lima & Hu 2005, 2007). In this work we will assess how well the halo mass is recovered by using as input the clustering bias parameters from the two and from the 3-point correlation functions. Going one step further, to relate halos to galaxies, it has become customary to use the Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) prescription, which consists of populating either theoretically, or in the simulation, the dark matter halos with galaxies, using some simple (author-variable) population function that usually depends only on three or four parameters. The HOD prescriptions are far from providing a few percent precision of all measurements. For instance, Scoccimarro et al. (2001) found that they were unable to match both the variance and the skewness of APM galaxies. Since a local model of biasing is assumed along with the bias prediction from the mass function, it is unclear if this disagreement is due to the HOD choice or to the failure of either the local model or the bias predictions. It is therefore of direct observational interest to assess each step separately, which is what this paper starts doing. Indications that more work is needed to construct reliable galaxy mocks has been given by Guo and Jing (2009). Using a semianalytical mock sample of galaxies constructed from an N-Body simulation, they compared the local bias parameters from clustering with the local bias predicted using the peak background split Ansatz plus an HOD, which were found to be significantly different. Such difference may arise from the fact that the authors were using a published prescription instead of fitting their own HOD function, but part of the disagreement could come as well from the local bias and the PBS Ansatz. Finally, note that we only study clustering in configuration space. Bias will most likely have different effects in Fourier space, in particular regarding shot-noise effects and stochasticity (see eg. Tinker et al. 2010, Seljak, Hamaus & Desjacques 2009, Cai, Bernstein & Sheth 2010, and references therein). The paper is organized as follows. Section II gives a brief introduction to the simulations. In section III we study the performance of the local bias model in simulations and present a study of shot-noise and next to leading order contributions. In section IV we compare the clustering of halos in the simulations with the peak backgrounds split predictions and check how well we can recover the mass of halos from the bias parameters. We present our conclusions in section V. Numerical Simulations ===================== In this paper we work with the comoving data from the MICE intermediate dark matter simulation, which has a volume of $V= ( 1536 Mpc/h) ^3$ and $N = 1024^3$ particles, and consequently a mass resolution of $2.34\; 10^{11} M_{\odot}/h$ This simulation have been run with Marenostrum at the Barcelona Supercomputer Center using the L-GADGET code, periodic boundary conditions, and 128 processors. In this paper we use the $z=0.0$ and the $z=0.5$ comoving outputs. The cosmological model parameters for the simulation are $\Omega_m=0.25$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.75$, $\Omega_B=0.044$, $n_s=0.95$, $h=0.7$ and $\sigma_8=0.8$. The softening length of the simulation is 50 Kpc/h. The initial conditions were set at $z=50$ using Zeldovich approximation. Halos have been found using a Friends of Friends algorithm with a linking length 0.168 times the mean interparticle distance, which results in 2729833 halos of more than 20 particles at z=0, and 2110669 halos at z=0.5. The effect of chancing linking length have been studied in Manera, Sheth and Scoccimarro 2010. By working with comoving data we concentrate on the gravitational evolution and structure formation and get rid of redshift distortions and other lightcone effects, which might not be directly related to the questions addressed here. Nevertheless, since at the end we want to model observational data, the inclusion of lightcone effects and redshifts distortions have to be considered as the natural next step in this study (see also Marin et al 2008). -0.5cm -0.2cm ![image](figures/deltadeltat_isnp200grth050lcell24.jpg){width="84mm"} ![image](figures/deltadeltat_isnp128grth050lcell24.jpg){width="84mm"} -0.1cm -0.2cm ![image](figures/deltadeltat_isnp200grth050lcell48R.jpg){width="84mm"} ![image](figures/deltadeltat_isnp128grth050lcell48R.jpg){width="84mm"} -0.1cm -0.2cm ![image](figures/deltadeltat_isnp200grth050lcell128.jpg){width="84mm"} ![image](figures/deltadeltat_isnp128grth050lcell128.jpg){width="84mm"} -0.5cm ![image](figures/figureb1vRz0p5.pdf){width="84mm"} ![image](figures/figurec2vRz0p5.pdf){width="84mm"} -1.cm ![image](figures/figureb1vRz0.pdf){width="84mm"} ![image](figures/figurec2vRz0.pdf){width="84mm"} Local Bias Performance {#sec:localbias} ====================== A simple model for halo or galaxy bias was introduced by Fry and Gaztañaga (1993). These authors assumed that the density contrast in the halo (or more generally in the galaxy) distribution $\delta_h$ can be expressed as a non-linear function of the local density contrast of dark matter, $\delta_m$, so that $\delta_h=F[\delta_m]$. On large enough smoothing scales, where the fluctuations are small, this relation can be expanded in a Taylor series \_h=F\[\_m\] = \_[k=0]{}\^\^k\_m=b\_0+b\_1\_m+\^2\_m+ where $\delta_m(r)$ is the local density contrast at position $r$ smoothed over a given characteristic $R_s$ scale. With this local bias model, one can compute the 2 and 3-point halo biased correlation functions, to find [@Fry93; @Frieman94] \^h(r\_[12]{}) && <\_h(r\_1)\_h(r\_2)> b\_1\^2 (r\_[12]{})\ Q\_3\^h(r\_[12]{},r\_[23]{},r\_[13]{}) && [1]{} where $c_2 \equiv b_2/b_1$ and $\xi(r_{12}) \equiv <\delta_m(r_1)\delta_m(r_2)>$ is the 2-point matter correlation function. The distance $r_{12}$ corresponds to the separation of two arbitrary positions 1 and 2. The hierarchical 3-point function, $Q_3$ has 3 such distances and is defined as Q\_3() We need three parameters to specify the triangle formed by the 3 positions $r_1$, $r_2$ and $r_3$. We will fix two of these sizes ($r_{12}$ and $r_{13}$) and show the results as a function of $\alpha$, the angle between $r_{12}$ and $r_{13}$. In general $Q_3(\alpha)$ has a characteristic U or V-shape (see Fig.\[Q3z\]): is larger for small and large angles than for intermediate values. There is ambiguity over what we should use as smoothing scale $R_s$ in Eq. \[deltataylor\]. A common and natural choice is that $R_s$ should be smaller than $r_{12}$. But we will show that this does not provide a good model for $r_{12}< 60$ Mpc/h. Another possibility, that we will support here, is to think of an effective $R_s$ that can be larger than $r_{12}$. Correlations are estimated from spatial averages over very large volumes and one can then think of Eq.\[deltataylor\] as some average transformation over the whole volume. In this sense this bias transformation just provides an effective description which is only local over a very large smoothing radius. When the correlation distances are zero we recover the corresponding relations between smoothed variances and skewness (see Eq.\[varskew\]). \^2\_h b\_1\^2 \^2 ; S\_3\^h (S\_3 + 3 c\_2 )/b\_1 Here it is common to identify $R_s$ with the smoothing scale in variance and skewness, but this does not need to be the case. In the above equations, and also in Eq.\[Q3G\], the $\simeq$ sign indicates that this is the leading order in $\xi$. Note that in general, even when $\delta_m \ll 1$, the linear bias prescription (i.e., using only $b_1$) is not accurate for higher-order moments like $Q_3$, the reason being that nonlinearities in bias (i.e. $c_2$) generate non-Gaussianities of the same order as those of gravitational origin. In general, to predict higher order correlations in halo (or galaxies) to order $N$ the local relation has to be expanded to order $N-1$ [@Fry93]. In this paper we will only study the clustering to order $N=3$ which means that bias only needs to be quadratic in the local model. Thus, in practice, we will be testing the following model: \_h&=&b\_0+b\_1\_m+ \^2\_m+\ &=& b\_1\_m+ (\^2\_m-\_m\^2) +\_where $\epsilon$ represents the scatter around the local relation (and also includes higher order contributions in $\delta_m$). Because we require $<\delta_h>=0$, we have $b_0=-b_2 \sigma_m^2-<\epsilon>$ and define $\delta_\epsilon \equiv \epsilon-<\epsilon>$. One important prediction of this local model is to expect the shape of the correlation to be unaffected by bias (or in other words that the effective bias is constant) on large scales: \^h(r\_[12]{}) b\_1\^2 (r\_[12]{}) + [O]{}\[\^2(r\_[12]{}) \] The next to leading contribution to $\xi^h$ above is proportional to $\xi^2$ and consequently negligible at large $r_{12}$ where $\xi<1$. This will be tested below in section §\[sec:2pt\]. It is in principle possible to use the shape of $Q_3^h$ in simulations (or observations) to separate $b_1$ from $c_2 \equiv b_2/b_1$. This is done by a fit of the halo (or galaxy) measurements of $Q_3^h(\alpha)$ in Eq.\[Q3G\] using the corresponding dark matter predictions or measurements $Q_3(\alpha)$. Changing $b_1$ will produce a distortion of the U-shape of $Q_3$ (as a function of $\alpha)$, while $c_2$ only produces a constant shift. Thus, unless $Q_3$ is constant within the errors or $b_1$ is very large, one could simultaneously measure $b_1$ and $c_2$ from $Q_3^h$ [@Frieman94; @Fry94]. This idea will be tested below in section §\[sec:3pt\]. One could also predict $b_1 $ from the ratio of the halo to dark matter correlations: $b_1^2 = \xi_h/\xi_m$, but this requires knowledge of the normalization of the dark matter clustering amplitude in $\xi_m$, which is often what we want to fit from observations. The fit to $Q_3$ can produce an estimate of the linear bias $b_1$ which is independent of the overall amplitude of clustering $\xi_m$, because the $Q_3$ prediction is independent of the normalization. This approach has already been implemented for the skewness $S_3$ (Gaztañaga 1994, Gaztañaga & Frieman 1994), the bispectrum (Frieman & Gaztañaga 1994, Fry 1994, Feldman et al. 2001, Verde et al. 2002) or the angular 3-point function (Fry 1994, Frieman & Gaztañaga 1999, Gaztañaga & Scoccimarro 2005, Gaztañaga et al. 2005). Measurements in $\delta_h$ vs $\delta_m$ scatter plot {#sec:scatter} ----------------------------------------------------- We are interested in exploring and determining the local bias parameters directly. In order to do so we will compare the halo density contrast $\delta_h$ with the corresponding local matter density fluctuation $\delta_m$ at the same cells. We will do this for all cells in the simulation. This will give us an scatter plot of the relation $\delta_h=F[\delta_m]$ from which we can obtain $b_1$ and $c_2$ by means of a least mean square fit to the local bias parabola from the Taylor expansion of $\delta_h$ in Eq.\[eq:epsilon\]. Scatter plots of halos of more than n=50 particles are shown in Fig.\[scatterzRs\] for a selection of sizes of the cubical cell ($l_c=24,48,128$ Mpc/h), which correspond to spherical top hat volumes of radius $R_s=14.9,29.8,79.4$ Mpc/h as labeled in the figures. Left and right panels show results for $z=0$ and $z=0.5$ respectively. It is apparent how the quadratic bias $c_2$ changes sign from convex ($c_2<0$) to concave ($c_2>0$) as the redshift increases. One prominent feature in the plots is the discreteness of the $\delta_h$ values, i.e., that we see horizontal lines in the figures. This obviously comes from the fact that we have an integer number of halos in each cell. The step in the halo density fluctuations is consequently $\Delta \delta_h=1/\bar{n}$, where $\bar{n}$ is the mean number of halos in the cells. This is the value of the Poisson shot-noise, which will decrease when increasing the cell size or when lowering the mass threshold of halos, for we will have a larger $\bar{n}$. The matter density field is also discrete, but because the large number of matter particles per cell this effect is not visible in the plots. Smoothing scale --------------- The bias parameters obtained from the least mean square fit depend on the size of the cell used to smooth the density field, therefore the issue of what smoothing radius to use when comparing with clustering bias should be addressed. First, notice that for the smallest smoothing radius the scatter of points is very big. In this case many points have $\delta_m \ge 1$, which situate us in a regime where the Taylor expansion of $F[\delta_m]$ can not be applied. When the radius is set to a larger value the scatter gets reduced and almost all points have $\delta_m < 1$, situating us within the perturbation regime and producing a particular fit of the bias parameters. Our results of the dependence of the bias on the smoothing radius for several halo minimum masses are presented in Fig.\[figb1Rs\]. As expected, we see that the values of $b_1$ and $c_2$ change significantly as we increase the smoothing radius $R_s$ from $5$ to $20-25$ Mpc/h, from where they start to converge to their large scale values. The convergence is reached faster at lower mass thresholds and, for a fixed mass, at lower redshifts. In our study we will take smoothing radius of $30$ and $60$ Mpc/h, where the convergence regime has been reached. Through all the paper errors on the measured bias parameters have been computed using the jack-knife method with 64 subsamples of the density fluctuations field. This is, we first compute the density fluctuations using the true mean density of the simulation and then we create the jack-knife subsamples from which we obtain, using these fluctuations, a set of 64 bias. Applying equation \[jkeq\] gives the estimated jack-knife error. We have check that changing the number of regions does not change results significantly. Comparison with 2-point correlations {#sec:2pt} ------------------------------------ -0.3cm ![Symbols with JK errorbar show the 2-point correlation function $\xi(r)$ from simulations for different minimum number of particles ($N>25, 100$ or $400$) per halo as labeled in the figure. The bottom errorbars corresponds to the measurements in the DM distribution. The bottom continuous (dashed) lines in each panel shows the RPT (linear) theory prediction. The upper continuous lines show the best fit amplitude for the RPT prediction shape, whose amplitudes $b^2$ are shown in the bottom labels. Top (bottom) panel correspond to z=0 (z=0.5).[]{data-label="correlacio3D"}](figures/x2test200.pdf "fig:"){width="77mm"} -1.9cm ![Symbols with JK errorbar show the 2-point correlation function $\xi(r)$ from simulations for different minimum number of particles ($N>25, 100$ or $400$) per halo as labeled in the figure. The bottom errorbars corresponds to the measurements in the DM distribution. The bottom continuous (dashed) lines in each panel shows the RPT (linear) theory prediction. The upper continuous lines show the best fit amplitude for the RPT prediction shape, whose amplitudes $b^2$ are shown in the bottom labels. Top (bottom) panel correspond to z=0 (z=0.5).[]{data-label="correlacio3D"}](figures/x2test128.pdf "fig:"){width="77mm"} -0.4cm -0.3cm ![Bias from the ratio of 2-point correlation function $\xi(r)$ for different minimum number of particles per halo N=25, 100, 400 (from bottom to top). Top panel shows results for $z=0$ and bottom panel for $z=0.5$. The dashed lines show the values of the linear bias fit in the range $25<r<40$Mpc/h.[]{data-label="biascorrelacio3D"}](figures/rx2test200.pdf "fig:"){width="77mm"} -1.9cm ![Bias from the ratio of 2-point correlation function $\xi(r)$ for different minimum number of particles per halo N=25, 100, 400 (from bottom to top). Top panel shows results for $z=0$ and bottom panel for $z=0.5$. The dashed lines show the values of the linear bias fit in the range $25<r<40$Mpc/h.[]{data-label="biascorrelacio3D"}](figures/rx2test128.pdf "fig:"){width="77mm"} -0.4cm We have computed the 2-point correlation function $\xi(r)$ for the matter and halo density contrast in the simulation. To estimate $\xi(r)$ we have used the 4Mpc/h density mesh of the simulation and average all the mesh points separated by $(r\pm \Delta r)$, where $\Delta r = 0.5 Mpc/h$ (see Barriga & Gaztanaga 2002 for details). The results for the matter correlation function and for different halo masses (given by the minimum number of particles per halo) are shown in Fig.\[correlacio3D\]. The top panel shows the $z=0$ case and the bottom panel the $z=0.5$. To convert particles to halo mass remember that $M_p = 2.34\; 10^{11} M_{\odot}/h$. As expected the more massive the halos the more biased the correlation function. Note as well what is called the stable clustering, i.e., the fact that for a given halo mass threshold the absolute value of $\xi$ remains approximately constant in redshift while the matter correlation function decreases (in redshift). This could be understood however because halos of a given mass but at different redshift do not correspond to the same Lagrangian mass. The ones at higher redshift are situated in a rarer (less expected) matter fluctuations, being therefore more biased. The measured correlation function from the simulation shows very clearly the acoustic peak at about $\sim 110 Mpc/h$ for both the matter and the halo functions. For comparison, in this figure we have also plotted the Linear Perturbation Theory (PT) prediction (dashed lines) and the Renormalized Perturbation Theory (RPT) prediction (continuous) for the correlation function, which has been kindly provided by M. Crocce The RPT shows deviations of the linear theory at much larger scales that have been previously thought and even in the acoustic peak scale one gets a contribution of the nonlinear effects [@Crocce08]. As can be seen in the figure these nonlinear contributions results into a smoother prediction for the acoustic peak shape in the RPT that is in better agreement with what we find in the simulations. We find the bias from b(r)= This bias is expected to be constant at large scales in the local bias model of Eq.\[eq:x2b\]. Cosmic variance and shot-noise will add variations to this large scale constant bias. Both errors get more pronounced for larger scales (where we have few modes in the simulation) and for larger halo mass thresholds (since the number of halos is smaller). This can be seen in Fig.\[biascorrelacio3D\] where we plot $b^2$ as a function of separation for redshifts $z=0$ and $z=0.5$ and different mass thresholds. We do not find any evidence in the data for scale variations of $b$ for $r>20$ Mpc/h. This favors the local bias model, but note that this statement is only accurate within the $\simeq 10\%$ accuracy in our analysis. ![Comparison of different estimates for the linear bias as a function of the minimal halo mass. Continuous line correspond to the local model fit to the scatter relation $\delta_m-\delta_h$ in Fig.\[figb1Rs\] at R=60Mpc/h. Triangles correspond to bias from the 2-point function on large 30-80 Mpc/h scales (open triangles) and intermediate 20-40 Mpc/h scales (filled triangles).[]{data-label="fig:b1x2"}](figures/b1x2.pdf){width="80mm"} ![image](figures/q3clur24L192.pdf){width="85mm"} ![image](figures/q3clur24L192z05.pdf){width="85mm"} We do a fit to a constant $b(r)$, weighted by the inverse variance, for different range of scales. The result is shown as continuous lines in Fig.\[correlacio3D\] and triangles in Fig.\[fig:b1x2\]. The bias from $\xi(r)$ is slightly larger when we fit to smaller scales of $20-40 Mpc/h$, but results are consistent within errors. We can see in this later figure that, within its errors, the bias from clustering is in good agreement with the local bias determined directly from the $\delta_h$-$\delta_m$ relation at larger scales. The values in the figure correspond to cell size $R_s=60$ Mpc/h where the bias in Fig.\[figb1Rs\] has reach its asymptotic value for all masses. The agreement is no so good for smaller smoothing scales. Even for cells as large as $R_s=30$ Mpc/h we find some deviations in $b$ for large masses. This clearly indicates that the local bias prescription in Eq.\[deltataylor\] is to be understood as an effective relation smoothed over very large scales and it fails when we try to apply it as a truly local transformation (where $R_s<r_{12}$, with $R_s < 60$ Mpc/h). Also note that at these large smoothings the stochastic component $\delta_\epsilon$ (see Eq \[eq:epsilon\]) is small as illustrated in Fig. \[deltataylor\] and that, in particular we can neglect the stochasticity correlation between two different points $<\delta_\epsilon(r_1) \delta_\epsilon(r_2)>$ in the modeling of the 2-point correlation. Comparison with 3-point correlations {#sec:3pt} ------------------------------------ We have computed the hierarchical relation $Q_3(\alpha)$ (see equation \[Q3G\] ) for dark matter and halos in the simulation (as for 2-point function we follow Barriga & Gaztanaga 2002). We use triangles with fixed $r_{23}=2 r_{12} = 48 Mpc/h$ and $r_{13}$ given by the angle $\alpha$ between $r_{23}$ and $r_{12}$. Some results for $z=0$ (left) and $z=0.5$ (right) are shown in Fig.\[Q3z\]. Dark matter measurements are shown as (blue) continuous lines while halo measurements correspond to errorbars. Errorbars in dark matter are negligible as compare to errors in the halo distribution, which is dominated by shot-noise. The standard perturbation theory prediction for $Q_3$ is quite close to the DM measurements on these large scales. Notice the characteristic U shape in $Q_3(\alpha)$. This is an indication of filamentary structure, i.e, aligned structures ($\alpha \sim 0$, $\alpha\sim 180 \deg$ ) are more probable than perpendicular configurations (for instance, equilateral triangles). Spherical structures will produce constant values of $Q_3(\alpha)$. As the bias increases, the distribution becomes less filamentary and this information can be used to measure the bias. We have fitted the shape of $Q_3^h$ in simulations to $b_1$ and $c_2$ in Eq.\[Q3G\] using the corresponding dark matter measurements $Q_3$ (we follow the procedure described in Gaztañaga & Scoccimarro 2005) Changing $b_1$ produces a distortion of the U-shape of $Q_3$, while $c_2$ only produces a constant shift. The fits are shown as contours in the bottom panel of Fig.\[Q3z\] and they are compare with the values of $b_1$ and $c_2$ (squares) from the scatter plot in Fig.\[figb1Rs\] at $R_s=60$ Mpc/h. For errorbars we use the JK covariance matrix. This matrix is degenerate because of the strong correlations of different $\alpha$ bins. To be safe we only use the two principal components with larger eigenvalues (see Gaztañaga & Scoccimarro 2005). This is quite conservative in terms of the size of the resulting errorbars. Better estimates would require a more careful study of the covariance matrix, which is beyond the scope of this paper. The values of $b_1$ recovered from $Q_3$ (squares) for different mass thresholds are shown in Fig.\[fig:b1q3\]. There is good agreement in the general tendency of $b$ as a function of mass but there are some significant deviations for small masses ($\log M< 13$). This failure of the local biasing model for $Q_3$ is intriguing in the light of the very good agreement that we found from $\xi$ in Fig.\[fig:b1x2\]. This is an important point to clarify because we do not know $b_1$ in the real universe and we were hoping to be able to use the values of $b_1$ from $Q_3$ to find the dark matter normalization of $\xi$. According to Fig.\[fig:b1q3\] this will produce a significant (2-sigma level) deviation for small halo masses. This mismatch can hardly be attributed to the stochastic component $\delta_\epsilon$ (which includes also non-local contributions). As in the case of the 2-point function, because the smoothing radius in the local model is very large, we expect the stochastic correlation components to be subdominant (see section above). A key difference between the 2 and the 3-point function is that the former takes isotropic averages while the later keeps anisotropic information (something which is not captured either by the skewness, see below, which is a third order statistics but is smoothed in spherical cells). So our finding hint in the direction that we need some anisotropic component to the halo biasing model in Eq.\[deltataylor\], at least for $\log M\simeq 13$. This conclusion might not be generic. For biasing in galaxy mock catalogs where $b \simeq 1$, corresponding to lower mass thresholds in the halo picture, Gaztañaga & Scoccimarro (2005) and Marin et al. (2008) found good agreement of the values of $b_1$ coming from $\xi$ and $Q_3$ clustering under the local model. More work needs to be done to clarify these issues. ![Comparison of different estimates for the linear bias as a function of the minimal halo mass. Continuous line correspond to the local model fit to the scatter relation $\delta_m-\delta_h$ in Fig.\[figb1Rs\] at $R_s=60$Mpc/h. Open squares come from fitting the 3-pt function $Q_3$, i.e., see Fig.\[Q3z\].[]{data-label="fig:b1q3"}](figures/b1q3.pdf){width="80mm"} Comparison with the variance and skewness ----------------------------------------- So far we have studied the bias from 2-pt and 3-pt correlation functions because they do not suffer from the discreteness effects that appear in the variance and the skewness. However, the latter are closer to the local model assumptions (since they prove a local smoothed quantities). Since they bring different aspects to the comparison we will also study them here. We define the variance $\sigma^2$ and skewness $m^3$ as second and third order moments of the fluctuation field: \^2=\^2 = 1N \_[i=1]{}\^N \_i\^2 ; m\_3=\^3 = 1N \_[i=1]{}\^N \_i\^3 where the sum is over a fair sample of points in the simulation (ergodic assumption). In this case, one typically considers these quantities as a function of the smoothing radius R. It is also convenient to define the normalized skewness: S\_3 = ### Variance One of the common ways of determining the linear bias of galaxies or halos is by comparing their variance with the measured/predicted matter variance. However, to do the correct comparison one has to account for the shot-noise contribution (a very similar problem occurs in the estimation of the power spectrum which is the variance in Fourier space). This contribution to the variance appears because galaxies and halos are not a continuous fields, but discrete ones. For a top hat window function, $W_R(r)=\Theta(\mid r \mid -\, R )$ the Poisson shot-noise is well known and it is equal to $1/\bar{n}$ where $\bar{n}$ is the mean number of halos in a sphere of radius R. The shot-noise corrected variance is therefore: \^2(R)=<\^2>- where R stands for the window function smoothing scale. The dark matter in the simulation is also a discrete field and, as mentioned before, it will have its own shot-noise correction, which will obviously be much smaller than the halo one due to its higher number density. Now, we can use the halo variance to compute an estimator for the linear bias as $$b_{hh}\equiv\frac{\sigma(R)}{\sigma_m(R)} =\sqrt{ \frac{<\delta_h \delta_h>-1/\bar{n}}{<\delta_m \delta_m >}} \label{varianceb1} \eeq Another estimator for the linear bias that can be computed from the simulation is \begin{equation} b_{hm}\equiv\frac{<\delta_h \delta_m>}{<\delta_m \delta_m>} \label{bilinear}$$ In Fig.\[b1massclustering\] we show the values for the different bias estimators computed in cubical cells of side $l_c=48$ Mpc/h. The variance in a cubical cells is very similar to the one in a top hat smoothing sphere of equal volume as the cube (Baugh, Gaztanaga & Efstathiou 1995). For our cells of side $l_c=48$ Mpc/h the spherical equivalent radius is $R=29.8 Mpc/h$. Errors in the figure are from the Jack-knife method with 64 regions, and we have checked that changing the number of regions does not change results significantly. -.5cm -.5cm ![ Bias as a function of halo mass. The linear bias $b_1$ (shown as black lines) is estimated from a fit to the scatter plot $\delta_h$-$\delta_m$ in the simulations. This is compared with the bias values obtained from the (shot-noise corrected) variance $b_{hh}=\sigma/\sigma_m$ (red squares) and from the cross-correlation $b_{hm}=<\delta_m \delta_h>/\sigma_m^2$ (blue triangles). Also shown are the predictions for $b_{hh}$ and $b_{hm}$ after applying non-linear contributions (i.e., in Eq.\[blpred\] and Eq.\[bcpred\]). Results are shown for both $z=0$ (bottom lines and symbols) and $z=0.5$ (on top).[]{data-label="b1massclustering"}](figures/comparemultipleb1_pretty3.pdf "fig:"){width="100mm"} We can see that all three bias estimators $b_1$, $b_{hh}$ and $b_{hm}$ give significant different results given the errorbars. Consequently one needs to be cautious when trying to use these bias estimators for precision cosmology where errors lower than 10% are sought. Below we discuss the origin of these differences focusing mainly in non-linear and discreteness effects, which we find are the dominant effects. Other contribution could arise from the truncation of the Taylor expansion. ### Skewness -0.8cm ![ Dependence of $c_2$ on the halos mass as measured directly from the $\delta_h$-$\delta_m$ local relation in the simulation (black lines) compared with the values obtained from the skewness and three different linear bias estimates in Eq.\[skewc2\]: $b_1$ from the local relation (red squares), $b_{hh}$ (blue diamonds) and $b_{hm}$ (pink triangles). Top (bottom) set of lines are for $z=0$ ($z=0.5$).[]{data-label="c2massclustering"}](figures/comparemultiplec2more.pdf "fig:"){width="100mm"} -0.4cm An important clustering statistic for understanding quadratic bias is the skewness. As all the moments and cumulants of the halo field it has to be shot-noise corrected. For the normalized skewness this correction is found to be (eg. see Gaztanaga 1994): S\_3(R)= where $\sigma^2$ is again the shot-noise corrected variance and $R$ stands for the window function smoothing scale. Note that when comparing the measured skewness to predictions one has to take into account the fact that we are smoothing the density field. For a top hat smoothing and CDM power spectrum the normalized skewness can be approximated by [@jusz93; @CooraySheth02; @bcgs] S\_3=4+\_m\^[-2/63]{}+\_1 where $\gamma_1=\frac{d ln(\sigma^2 (R))}{d ln(R))}$. Obviously for the Einstein-de-Sitter cosmology and no smoothing we recover the well known value in the spherical collapse model $34/7$ (see Fosalba & Gaztanaga 1998 for the interpretation in terms of the spherical collapse model). With the skewness and the linear bias we can easily compute $c_2$ as (see section §2) c\_2=(S\_3\^h b\_1-S\_3\^m)/3 Here we can either use the direct local $b_1$ as measured from the $\delta_h-\delta_m$ scatter plot or other estimators of the linear bias as $b_{hm}$ or $b_{hh}$. Results are shown in Fig.\[c2massclustering\] and compared with the $c_2$ obtained directly from the $\delta_m - \delta_h $ scatter plot fit. Errors for these points are computed by means of the Jack-knife method with 64 subsamples in the simulation. As in the case of the variance we find significant deviations between the different estimators. Next-to-leading order contributions as well as modeling stochasticity would be needed for precision cosmology. Non-Linear effects and stochasticity ------------------------------------ In order to asses how good the linear approximation is we compute the nonlinear contribution to the linear bias $b_{hm}$ and $b_{hh}$ using Eq.\[eq:epsilon\]. We start with $b_{hm}$ which should be subject to smaller discreteness effects. The next order in $\sigma^2$ is: $$b_{hm} = \frac{<\delta_m \delta_h>}{<\delta_m \delta_m >} = b_1 + \frac{1}{2} b_2 S_3 \sigma_m^2 + b_{\epsilon} \label{blpred}$$ where $b_{\epsilon} \equiv {{<\delta_m\delta_{\epsilon}>}\over{<\delta_m\delta_m>}}$, and $\delta_{\epsilon}=\epsilon-<\epsilon>$. Because of symmetry reasons, $b_\epsilon$ can be expected to be very small, as we will show next. Nonlinear corrections in Eq.\[blpred\] seem to account well for the difference that we saw in Fig.\[b1massclustering\] between the measured $b_{hm}$ (blue triangles) and the linear bias $b_1$ (black continuous line) from the fit to the scatter plots. The non-linear correction to $b_{hm}$ in Eq.\[blpred\] is also shown in Fig.\[b1massclustering\] as a blue line (for $b_\epsilon=0$) and it overlaps well with the $b_{hm}$ measurements within errors. The nonlinear terms are therefore large (10-15% effect) and certainly have to be taken into account in precision cosmology. We infer from this very good agreement that the contributions from the scatter $b_{\epsilon}$ in Eq.\[blpred\] and the effect of the Taylor truncation (i.e., higher orders in the expansion) are negligible given the errors. The corresponding corrections for $b_{hh}$ is: $$b_{hh}^2 = b_1^2 + \left[b_1 S_3 + \frac{1}{2} b_2 + \frac{1}{4} b_2 S_4 \sigma_m^2\right] b_2\sigma_m^2 + \mathcal{E}_{hh} \nonumber \\ \label{bcpred}$$ where the second term includes all the non-linear corrections and the third term is: $$\mathcal{E}_{hh}=b_1 b_{\epsilon}+{<\delta^2_m \delta_{\epsilon}>\over{\sigma_m^2}}+{<\delta_{\epsilon}^2>-1/\bar{n}\over{\sigma_m^2}} \label{ehh}$$ which only includes terms involving the scatter. As pointed out above, because of symmetry, we expect linear terms in $ \delta_{\epsilon} $ to vanish so that $< \delta_{\epsilon} \delta_m^n > \simeq 0, n=0,1,2$. This is well supported by the good agreement that we found above between $b_{hm}$ in Eq.\[blpred\] (with $b_\epsilon \simeq 0$) and measurements in Fig.\[b1massclustering\]. But this might not be necessarily the case for the quadratic term $<\delta_{\epsilon}^2>$ because there is no cancellation between positive and negative fluctuations. The $1/\bar{n}$ term comes from the shot-noise correction (i.e., Eq.\[varianceb1\]) which allows us to move from the discrete to the continuous halo variance; it assumes that halos are a Poisson sample of the dark matter field. If all scatter $<\delta_{\epsilon}^2>$ in the local relation were just Poisson, then we expect that $\mathcal{E}_{hh} \simeq <\delta_{\epsilon}^2> -1/\bar{n} \simeq 0$. In Fig. \[b1massclustering\] we show how the non-linear corrections in Eq.\[bcpred\] fail to explain the difference between $b_{hh}$ and $b_1$. The predicted $b_{hh}$ (dashed line) is higher that $b_{hm}$ (blue triangles) while the measured one (red squares) is lower. In fact, the nonlinear terms seem to increase the differences between the predicted and measured bias. This could be explained if $\mathcal{E}_{hh}$ turns out to be negative, which would happen if the scatter is sub-Poisson (smaller than Poisson) and consequently we overcorrected shot-noise it by using $1/\bar{n}$ term. Sub-Poisson shot-noise have been found in simulations (Casas-Miranda et al. 2002) for halos larger than $M_\star$.[^2] ![Comparison of the Poisson shot-noise correction $1/\bar{n}$ (continuous line) and the scatter $<\delta_{\epsilon}^2>$ (dashed line) in the local bias. There are two sets of lines, one for each redshift as labeled in the figure (larger values correspond to $z=0$). Dotted lines show $\sigma_\epsilon^2$, the ratio of the two in Eq.\[eq:shot-noise\].[]{data-label="scattermoment"}](figures/plot_scattervarianceratio.pdf){width="90mm"} We have indeed found that our halo simulations have $<\delta_{\epsilon}^2>$ which is smaller than $1/\bar{n} $. This can be seen in Fig.\[scattermoment\], which compares the two terms. Besides shot-noise or discreteness effects $<\delta_{\epsilon}^2>$ also include other sources of scatter: non-deterministic bias and possibly higher order contributions than the quadratic terms in Eq.\[eq:epsilon\]. The later is a smoothed component and is unlikely to result in a major increase in the actual scatter. Fig.\[scattermoment\] therefore indicates that the final scatter is overestimated by the Poisson model. We can write the new effective shot-noise term as: <\_\^2> where $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ is plotted as dotted lines in Fig.\[scattermoment\] . For small halo masses $\sigma_\epsilon^2$ tends to unity, while it is roughly constant $\sigma_\epsilon^2 \simeq 0.6-0.8$ for larger masses. -0.5cm -0.5cm ![ Bias in $b_{hh}$ as a function of halo mass as in Fig.\[b1massclustering\] but here we do not apply the Poisson shot-noise correction to the measurements of $b_{hh}$. When apply instead the discreteness correction to the predictions (this correction estimated from the scatter $<\delta_{\epsilon}^2>$ shown in Fig.\[scattermoment\]). We only find a good agreement between the non-linear predictions (red lines) and measurements (squares) after both discreteness and non-linear terms are included.[]{data-label="b1massclustering2"}](figures/plot_b1many.pdf "fig:"){width="100mm"} In Fig.\[b1massclustering2\] we apply the discreteness correction to the prediction rather than to the measurements (which are not corrected here for Poisson shot-noise). When we use the new estimate for the scatter, i.e., $\mathcal{E}_{hh} \simeq <\delta_{\epsilon}^2>$ we find a very good match between the predictions and the measurements for $b_{hh}$, We can see here that, as happened for $b_{hm}$ in Fig.\[b1massclustering\], non-linearities are also important for the variance. The main difference between $b_{hm}$ and $b_{hh}$ is that the later also needs a shot-noise correction that is different from Poisson, at least for large halo masses. Both discreteness and and non-linearities are needed to interpret the bias from the variance. Cross correlation and stochasticity ----------------------------------- A simple measure to study deviations away from the local linear bias relation has been pointed out by several authors ( see Tegmark & Peebles 1998, Dekel & Lahav 1999, Seljak, Hamaus & Desjacques 2009, Cai, Bernstein & Sheth 2010, and references therein). This is to consider the dimensionless cross-correlation coefficient between the distribution of mass and galaxies (we use halos as a proxy for galaxies in our case): r which is in general a function of scale. In the local linear bias model $r=1$. But both non-linearities and stochasticity (the scatter around the local relation) can change this away from one. Note that this test is fundamentally different from previous test of the local bias. This test focus on how important is the stochasticity in the bias relation. For a deterministic function one expects $r=1$, but when the scatter in the $\delta_h-\delta_m$ relation is large one would expect that it could have a different impact in both parts of this ratio. -1.4cm ![Dimensionless cross-correlation coefficient $r$ in Eq.\[stovar\] as a function of halo mass. This is for 1-point fluctuations smoothed over cells of $R\simeq 30Mpc/h$ radius. Different pairs of lines show results using different ways to correct for the discreteness in the halo variance. Dashed (continuous) lines correspond to $z=0.5$ ($z=0.0$).[]{data-label="stochasvariance"}](figures/plot_stocasticity.pdf "fig:"){width="90mm"} For 1-point smoothed fields we have that in our notation (see Eq.\[varianceb1\]-\[bilinear\]) this corresponds to: r= We can estimate this quantity directly from the variance measured in simulations. The result is shown in Fig. \[stochasvariance\] as a function of halo mass. We compare measurements without any correction (lower lines) and using two different ways to correct for scatter and discreteness effects in the halo variance: the Poisson corrected variance: $<\delta_h^2>-1/\bar{n}$ and the scatter corrected variance $<\delta_h^2> - <\delta_\epsilon^2>$. The cross-correlation deviates significantly from unity if we do not correct from these effects. Deviations increases with halo mass and redshift, and can be as large as 20-30% for large halos. As shown before (eg. see Fig.\[scattermoment\]) the Poisson model does not provide a good correction for the scatter. If we use instead the scatter away from the local relation, as measured in the simulation, we recover values which are close to unity. ![Symbols with errorbars show $r$ in Eq.\[stovar\], i.e., the dimensionless cross-correlation coefficient between dark matter and halos with $M>5 \times 10^{12}$ in the MICE simulation at $z=0.5$. The continuous line correspond to the scale dependence bias $b_{hh}$, normalized to the mean value. []{data-label="stochas2pf"}](figures/rx25.pdf){width="79mm"} We can also estimate $r$ in the 2-point correlation function, which should be less affected by discreteness effects. Fig.\[stochas2pf\] shows $r$ as a function of scale (separation between pairs) for halos with $M>5 \times 10^{12} M_{\sun}$. In Fig.\[stochas2pf\] we estimate JK errors from the $r$ ratio, i.e., we estimate the ratio in different JK subsamples and calculate the error from the scatter in the JK regions (this produces smaller errorbars because sampling variance mostly cancels in doing the ratio). For comparison we also show in this figure (continuous line) how much $b_{hh}$ deviates from a constant (i.e., from Fig.\[biascorrelacio3D\]). The measurements are compatible with unity for all scales. There is a hint of a deviation ($\simeq 3\%$) around the BAO scale which could be related to recent findings about scale dependence bias (eg. see Desjacques et al. 2010 and references therein). Similar results, but with much larger errors, are found for larger halos masses and different redshifts. Note that for masses larger than $10^{14} M_{\sun}$ Manera et al. 2010 found $b_{hm}/b_{hh}$ to be slightly larger than unity, with $b_{hm}$ measured at low k in Fourier space and $b_{hh}$ at large separations in the autocorrelation function. Altogether, our analysis indicates that the linear local bias model provides a very good approximation, within our sampling errors, for the 2-point function. On scales larger than $r \simeq 20 Mpc/h$, the halo-halo correlation and halo-mass correlations are, to a good approximation, linear tracers of the underlying dark-matter correlation function and the resulting bias is just the one expected in linear theory. This conclusion is important to interpret measurements of redshift space distortions and BAO in galaxy surveys, which on large scale usually are interpreted under the assumption that linear bias and linear theory are good approximations. This is not so much the case for the variance, which seems more affected by non-linearities and discreetness effects. This is understood from the fact that the variance (as well as the power spectrum) is quadratic in fluctuations and is an average over all scales, including small, non-linear, scales. Bias Predictions form the Mass function and their performance ============================================================= In the previous section we have studied how the local bias performs when compared with the bias measured from clustering. In this section we will compare those bias with predictions from the mass function. Bias predictions from the mass function ---------------------------------------- In the peak-background split Ansatz (Bardeen et al. 1986; Cole & Kaiser 1989) one can relate the halo bias with the halo mass function at large scales by treating perturbed regions as if they were unperturbed regions in a slightly different background cosmology universe but one of the same age (Martino & Sheth 2009). Consequently, from a well motivated functional form of the mass function, one can derive theoretical predictions for the halo bias parameters as well as study their accuracy (Mo et al. 1997, Scoccimarro et al. 2001, Cooray & Sheth 2002, Manera et al. 2010). In this paper we will use the Sheth and Tormen (1999) mass function: $$\begin{aligned} n(m) dm & = & {\rho_m \over m }f(\nu) d\nu \\ \nu f(\nu) & = & A(p) \left(1+(q\nu)^{-p}\right) \left(\frac{q\nu}{2\pi}\right)^{1/2} \exp \left(-\frac{q\nu}{2}\right). \label{eq:ST}\end{aligned}$$ where $ A(p)=[1+(2^{-p}\Gamma(1/2-p))/{\sqrt{\pi}}]^{-1}$. is the normalized amplitude. The corresponding bias predictions are \[eqbiasparam\] b\_1(m,z) & = & 1+\_1+E\_1\ b\_2(m,z) & = & 2(1+a\_2)(\_1+E\_1)+\_2+E\_2 where $a_2=-17/21$, and \_1 & = & \_2=()\ E\_1 & = & =+2\_1\ Throughout the paper $\nu=\delta^2_{sc}(z)/(D^2(z)\sigma_0^2(m))$. In this notation $D(z)$ is the growth factor in units of its value at $z=0$; $\sigma_0(m)$ is the linear variance of the matter field at redshift $z=0$, when smoothed with a top hat filter of radius $R=(3m\bar{\rho}/4\pi)^{-1/3}$ and $\delta_{sc}(z)$ is the critical density contrast for collapse at a given redshift z. Although it is popular in the literature to use a fixed value for $\delta_{sc}$ we will be using its proper redshift dependence from the spherical collapse (Eke et al. 1996, Cooray & Sheth 2002) since there is some indications that in this case the mass function closer to universal (Manera et al. 2010). These predictions for the bias depend on the mass function through the parameters $p$ and $q$. When $p=0$ and $q=1$ we recover the Press-Schechter (Press & Shechter 1974) formula. Original values for this mass function fit were $p\simeq0.3$ and $q\simeq0.7$ (Sheth & Tormen 1999) which discusses afterwards that $q=0.75$ (and therefore $A\simeq0.3222$) gives better results [@ST01; @CooraySheth02]. We confirmed that this is the case and consequently we will use the latter values as their fiducial values for the ST. At the same time we will also use our own set of $p$ and $q$ values obtained by fitting the mass function as we explain in section \[massfuncsection\]. Bias parameters from a mass function with a functional form like that Warren et al. (2006) has been studied by Manera et al. (2010) and showed to give similar results than that of ST for a range of masses similar to that of this paper. The above $b_i(m)$ predictions are for a given halo mass, but the simulation results are for halos above a mass threshold, consequently in this paper we integrated these predictions over the mass range, weighting appropriately according the number of halos at each mass. If one has a model for populating galaxies in halos one can weight each halo by the number of galaxies given by the halo occupation distribution (HOD), and therefore obtain a prediction for the galaxy bias. For an approach of how this can be done see for instance, Sefusatti & Scoccimarro (2005) or Tinker & Wetzel (2010). In this paper we are interested in separating these two steps and understanding the errors that come from the halo predictions for clustering. Mass function fits {#massfuncsection} ------------------ ![image](figures/massfuncmany_density_pretty.pdf){width="130mm"} ![image](figures/massfuncmany_ratio3.pdf){width="130mm"} We have computed the mass function of halos for the MICE simulation. We show it in Fig.\[figmassf\]. Halos have been found using a Friends of Friends algorithm with a linking length 0.168 times the mean interparticle distance, and their masses have been corrected for discreteness effect following Warren et al. (2006), i.e., the mass of the halo have been set equal to $M_p\, N (1-N^{-0.6})$ where N is the number of particles and $M_p$ the particle mass (which is $2.34 \; 10^{11} M_\odot$ in our simulation). The Warren correction has been experimentally set using a linking length equal to 0.2 times while we are using 0.168. Differences in the correction, however, are very likely to be minimal if not negligible for the halo mass range in which we fit the mass function. Notice also that Crocce et al. (2009) has tested this correction for MICE simulations by means of randomly removing a fraction of the dark matter particles as a way of lowering the mass resolution, and found it to work quite well. We have performed a $\chi^2$ fit to the mass function data, starting from different lower mass thresholds for halos. Best fits for Sheth and Tormen (ST) functional form are shown as dashed colored lines in Fig. \[figmassf\] (top panel), while data is in black dots. The fits are dominated by the lower mass bins which have smaller errorbars. For comparison we have added a line showing the mass function with the commonly used ST fiducial values $(p,q)=(0.3,0.75)$. To appreciate better the differences between fits we show, in the bottom panel, the ratio of the best fit curves to that of the ST fiducial case. The values for p and q of each fit and their statistical errors are shown in the Table 1. Errors come from jack-knife subsampling and are computed in the following way. We divide our simulation in 64 compact regions with equal volume. Then we create a set of $J=64$ jack-knife subsamples of the data by removing each time one of these regions from the whole sample. For each jack-knife subsample we compute the mass function and fit its $(p,q)$ parameters. Errors are then obtained as $$(\Delta \theta )^2 = \frac{(J-1)}{J} \sum_{j=1}^J (\bar{\theta}-\theta_j)^2 \label{jkeq}$$ where $\theta$ is a generic name of any of the parameters in which we are interested, in this case $p$ and $q$, and $\bar{\theta}$ is the average of $\theta$ over the jack-knife subsamples. And for the best fit values of our parameters we take $\bar{\theta}$. When doing the $\chi^2$ fit, errors in the mass functions are taken to be Poisson but results do not change significantly if they are estimated by the jack-knife method as well. Similar results are obtained if we divide the simulation in 27 jack-knife regions instead of 64. As it is shown in Table 1 we find that jack-knife errors on of $p$ and $q$ are smaller than the systematic errors that we are trying to asses by setting different halo mass thresholds.\ \ $log(M_{min})$ z p q $\sigma_p$ $\sigma_q$ ---------------- ----- ------- ------- ------------ ------------ 13.0 0.0 0.334 0.665 0.001 0.003 13.5 0.0 0.309 0.733 0.002 0.004 14.0 0.0 0.275 0.786 0.004 0.006 13.0 0.5 0.347 0.691 0.001 0.003 13.5 0.5 0.312 0.763 0.003 0.004 14.0 0.5 0.280 0.801 0.010 0.011 Best fit values of the Sheth and Tormen’s $p$ and $q$ parameters to the simulation mass function, and their jack-knife errors $\sigma_p$ and $\sigma_q$. Comparison with the local model {#compsec} ------------------------------- We compare the bias predictions from the mass function fits with the measured local bias from scatter plots, in Fig. \[b1c2mass\]. Both $b_1$ and $c_2$ are shown as a function of halo mass, and for both redshifts that we are studying. We find that, generically, the predicted linear bias $b_1$ falls below the local bias. This happens for all three mass thresholds we use to fit the mass function. [^3] The best agreement between the linear local bias and the predictions is when the mass function is fitted for masses above $10^{14} M_{\sun}$. The lower the mass threshold to fit the mass function the worst the agreement between measurements and predictions. For a threshold of $M > 10^{13} M_{\sun}$ predictions are completely misplaced, for a threshold of $M > 10^{13.5} M_{\sun}$ we have differences of about 5-10%, while if the threshold is $M > 10^{14} M_{\sun}$ differences are of few percent. This few percent agreement however have to be taken with caution because we are using the high mass halo tail to predict the bias of a halo sample in which most of the halos had not contributed to the ST fit. In the same Fig. \[b1c2mass\], for comparison with most ST plots in the literature, we have shown also the predictions for the fiducial ST case of $p=0.3$ and $q=0.75$. Its performance is similar to the one with a threshold of $10^{13.5} M_{\sun}$, i.e, with differences about 5-10% with the local bias measurement. If we where to use the values $p=0.3$ and $q=0.707$ that also exist in the literature it would yield much lower values of $b_1$, thus we confirm the convenience of using higher values for $q$ as suggested in Sheth and Tormen (2001). We show the $c_2$ values from the scatter plot (black dots with errorbars) in the bottom plot of Fig. \[b1c2mass\], against the ST predictions from the mass function fit (dashed lines). As expected $c_2$ errors from the scatter plot are larger than errors in $b_1$ since it is more difficult to fit the second order of the Taylor expansion than the first one. For the predictions, statistical errors have been computed using Jack-Knife subsampling (also for $b_1$) but they are not shown because they are much smaller than the systematics we see by changing the mass threshold. ![Variation of $b_1$ (top panel) and $c_2$ (bottom panel) as a function of the halos mass. In black we show the values measured directly from the $\delta_h$-$\delta_m$ local relation in the simulation with a smoothing of $R=30Mpc/h$ and compare them with ST predictions (dashed lines) and the fiducial ST p=0.3 q=0.75 case (dots). As labeled in the figure each panel have both $z=0$ and $z=0.5$ results.[]{data-label="b1c2mass"}](figures/compareb1c2vsST_masses.pdf){width="88mm"} Comparison with clustering -------------------------- So far we have compared the scatter plot bias values both with bias from clustering statistics (section \[sec:localbias\]) and with ST predictions (this section). This comparisons have allowed the study of the local bias model. Since the local bias is not a direct observable in observations we now proceed to compare directly the bias predictions from the mass function with the bias from clustering. This comparison for $b_1$ and $c_2$ is shown in Fig. \[b1clusteringtoST\]. For reference we have also included the fiducial ST prediction with $p=0.3$ and $q=0.75$ We find that the clustering of both $b_{hm}$ and $b_{hh}$ are slightly higher than the ST predictions. Recall that we have shown that the Poisson shot-noise correction does not work for $b_{hh}$. The correct shot-noise correction is smaller, see Eq.\[eq:shot-noise\], and produces values of $b_{hh}$ that are close to $b_{hm}$ Thus the apparent agreement between $b_{hh}$ and the mass function predictions for $z=0$ is just a fluke and one should only compare to $b_{hm}$ which is not affected by shot-noise. The values of $c_2$ are also affected by the shot-noise correction. Similar differences between predictions and measurements where found by Manera et al. (2010) when studying the large scale bias from other set of simulations. If we are looking only at the $b_{hh}$, ST predictions work at 5-10% level at $z=0.5$ As we will comment in section §\[sec:masscal\] this could be enough to calibrate mass of halos at about the same percent level. For greater precision more elaborate modeling is needed. ![Comparison of the linear and second order bias from clustering with that of ST predictions from the mass function fit. Errors are from Jack-knife method with 64 regions. Smoothing radius of $R=30Mpc/h$[]{data-label="b1clusteringtoST"}](figures/compareb1clusteringtoST.pdf "fig:"){width="95mm"} -0.7cm ![Comparison of the linear and second order bias from clustering with that of ST predictions from the mass function fit. Errors are from Jack-knife method with 64 regions. Smoothing radius of $R=30Mpc/h$[]{data-label="b1clusteringtoST"}](figures/comparec2clusteringtoST.pdf "fig:"){width="95mm"} \[c2clusteringtoST\] ![Relative error in the Mass recovered using bias measurements from clustering together with the bias-Mass relation in the peak-background split model obtained from ST fit to MF for $log M>14$. Short-dashed line corresponds to the bias from the cross-variance $b_{hm}$ in section §2.5. Continuous line correspond to the bias from the 2-point function on large 30-80 Mpc/h scales. Long dashed line come from $Q_3$ in section §2.3.[]{data-label="recovM"}](figures/recovM.pdf){width="80mm"} Halo mass estimation {#sec:masscal} -------------------- We now explore the potential use of linear bias $b$ measurements to calibrate the mass threshold of a halos sample. For a given mass-bias ($b$-$M$) relation in the halo model (i.e., Eq.\[biasparam\]) we can use the measurements of bias $b$ in the halo sample to predict the corresponding mass threshold. This is illustrated in Fig.\[recovM\]. We have used the clustering biases measured in the 2-point function (i.e., Fig.\[fig:b1x2\]) and in the variance (i.e., Fig.\[b1massclustering\]) at z=0.5 and use the mass-bias relation from the the ST fit to $log M>14$ (which seems to provide the best fit to data) to calibrate the mass from bias. For the variance we use $b_{hm}$ (the halo-mass cross variance) rather than $b_{hh}$ to avoid discreteness effects. The idea of recovering the mass function from bias and variance measurements, and subsequently fit for cosmological parameters, have been explored by Lima and Hu (2004, 2005, 2007) in the so-called self calibration method. They assume a peak background split prediction to relate the bias to the mass function (in particular Eq.\[biasparam\] with the fiducial ST values), and allow for an scatter relation between the proxy of the mass (eg. X-ray Temperature) and the true mass. Fig. \[recovM\] clearly shows that there is a bias in the recovered mass, which will propagate into the cosmological fits as a systematic error. This bias in the recovered mass, could in principle be corrected with the use of mock samples or the non-linear corrections presented above. To measure the bias based on the 2-point statistics we need to know $\sigma_8$. Otherwise we just recover the value of $M $ in units of $\sigma_8$. This is not the case for $Q_3$, which provides $M$ with independence of $\sigma_8$, but at the expense of a larger errorbar and more systematic effects for small masses. For large masses there are too few halos to have a reliable measurement of $Q_3$. Also note that observations are in redshift space while here we have only show results in real space. We expect differences in redshift space and we defer this to future studies. Conclusions =========== In this paper we have used a cosmological dark matter simulation of volume $V=(1536 Mpc/h)^3$ from the MICE simulation team to study the halo clustering and bias of halos above $2\cdot 10^{13} M_{\odot}$. We have focused in clustering in configuration space (as oppose to Fourier space): the 2 and 3-point correlation function, the variance and skewness and the halo-mass cross-correlations. Our main results can be summarized as follows: - We have looked at the local deterministic biasing prescription, which assumes a local non-linear relation $T=f(\delta)$ between mass fluctuations, $\delta$, and its tracer,$T$. In simulations this relation is an approximation with significant scatter around the mean $f(\delta)$ relation. We have fitted this scattered relation with a parabola and found the linear bias $b_1$ and the quadratic bias, $b_2$ (or equivalently $c_2=b_2/b_1$) at different smoothing scales (see Figs 1 & 2). We show that constant biasing values are reached for smoothings larger than $30-60Mpc/h$. This provides a new interpretation for the so-called local model: it local only on average over very large scales. This has an immediate application for bias calculations as one can set $R_s\rightarrow\infty$ in practice and neglect many of the next to leading order terms in a multipoint expansion. - We have measured the correlation function of halos, $\xi_h(r)$, and compared it to the matter correlation function, finding that the bias is approximately constant at scales larger than 20Mpc/h (see Figs 2-3) as predicted by the local bias model. Given our errors, there is some room for a small (few percent) scale dependence at scales near the BAO. We have shown (see Fig. \[fig:b1x2\]) that this bias in the correlation is very well matched by the local bias prediction from the scattered $\delta_m$-$\delta_h$ parabola, when we use a large smoothing $R_s$ (where convergence to constant values is reached) - We have measured the 3-point correlation function of halos and fitted its shape to obtain $b_1$ and $c_2 = b_2/b_1$. We have shown (see Fig. \[fig:b1q3\]) that the linear bias obtained from the 3-point correlation function does not quite match the bias of the 2-pt correlation function (or the local bias, which are the same within errors) at our lower mass bins: $M < 10^{13} M_\odot/h\simeq$ 50 particles. The 3-point predictions for $b_1$ follow well the qualitative behavior of bias as a function of mass and redshift but there are some systematic (2-sigma) deviations at the lower mass end with good agreement for $M > 10^{13} M_\odot/h$. For $M > 10^{14} M_\odot/h \simeq$ 500 particles, error bars start becoming too large to conclude. - We have measured the bias from the halo cross-variance $b_{hm}=<\delta_h \delta>/<\delta^2>$ and found that it differs from the local bias at about 10%, or even more for the most massive halos (see Fig. \[b1massclustering\]). The true local bias can be recovered, if we include non-linear correction (using the measured $b_2$ of the local model). This is in contrast to the bias from the 2-pt correlation function for which there was no need of including nonlinear terms. - We have measured the bias from the halo variance $b^2_{hh}=(<\delta_h^2>-1/\bar{n})/<\delta^2>$ and found that it is different from $b_{hm}$ and from the linear local bias. We have shown that in order to be able to predict $b_{hh}$ from the local bias we need to take into account both nonlinear and stochastic effects (see Fig. \[b1massclustering\]). - We have shown that the appropriate discreteness correction to the variance is sub-Poisson, and found that its ratio to the Poisson term $1/n$ is approximately constant in our range of masses. (see Fig. \[scattermoment\]). Overcorrecting the variance with $1/n$ masks the nonlinear contributions, thus giving an estimated value of $b_1$ apparently closer to that of the local bias (specially at z=0), as we show in Fig. \[b1massclustering\]. - We have fitted the mass function of halos with a Sheth and Thormen functional form and applied the peak-background split Ansatz to predict the bias parameters. These predictions depend significantly on the mass threshold used to fit the mass function and they give systematically lower linear bias (about 5-10%) than that measured in clustering or local relation (see Fig. \[b1clusteringtoST\] and Fig.\[b1c2mass\]). - Finally, we have estimated the mass of halos from the measured bias (Fig. \[recovM\]), showing that there is a systematic error when using the common ST peak-background split prediction. These systematic errors have to be taken into account when recovering the mass function from clustering of halos, since they will propagate to the estimator of cosmological parameters, like the dark energy equation of state. We can conclude from the above that the different bias predictions are only accurate to 5-10% level. In the case of the 2-point functions (auto and cross-correlations), the local model seems accurate and we find that the origin of the discrepancy lies in the peak-background prescription. This is not so clear for the 3-point function, where probably both assumptions contribute to the error. For the smoothed moments, we find that next to leading order and discreetness corrections (to the local model) are needed at the $10-20\%$ level. Although this accuracy might still be adequate for current data, where typical errors are 10-20% (eg. Norberg et al. 2002, Zehavi et al. 2005, Gaztanaga et al. 2005, Nichol et al 2006), more work needs to be done to narrow this to the percent level that will be likely needed in upcoming and future surveys for precision cosmology and better understanding of galaxy evolution. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We thank all the MICE collaboration team, and specially P. Fosalba who provided the central positions of halos in the simulation. We thank Roman Scoccimarro for his comments on the first draft of this paper. The MICE simulations have been developed at the MareNostrum supercomputer (BSC-CNS) thanks to grants AECT-2006-2-0011 through AECT-2010-1-0007. Data products have been stored at the Port d’Informació Científica (PIC). This work was partially supported by NSF AST-0607747, NASA NNG06GH21G and NSF AST-0908241, and the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN), projects AYA2009-13936, Consolider-Ingenio CSD2007- 00060 and research project 2009-SGR-1398 from Generalitat de Catalunya. Bardeen J., Bond J., Kaiser N., Szalay A., 1986, Astropy.J., 304,15 Barriga J., Gaztanaga E., 2002, MNRAS 361, 842 Baugh, Gaztanaga & Efstathiou, 1995, MNRAS 274, 1049 Bernardeau F., Colombi S., Gaztanaga E., Scoccimarro R., 2002, Phys. Rep. 367, 1 Brown, M.J.I., Zheng, Z., White, M., Dey, A., Jannuzi, B.T., A. J. Benson, K. Brand, M. Brodwin, D. J. Croton, 2008, ApJ, 682, 937 Cai Y.-C., Bernstein G., Sheth R. K., 2010, arXiv:1007.3500 Catelan, P., Matarrese, S. and Porciani, C., 1998, Astrophys. J. Letters, 502, L1 Casas-Miranda R., Mo H.J. Sheth R.K., Borner G., 2002, MNRAS 333, 730 Cole S., Kaiser N., 1989, MNRAS 237, 1127 Cooray A. & Sheth, 2002, Phys. Rept. 372, 1 Crocce M., & Scoccimarro R., 2008, Phys.Rev.D, 78, 103521, astro-ph 070427 Crocce, M., Fosalba, P., Castander, F. J.; Gaztanaga, E., 2009, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., 403,Issue 3, 1353 Dekel, A & Lahav O., 1999, ApJ 520, 22 Cabre, A. % Gaztanaga E., 2009, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., 393, 1183 Desjacques V., Crocce M., Scoccimarro R., Sheth R.K., 2010, submitted to PRD, eprint arXiv:1009.3449 Eke, V. R., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 263 Feldman H.A., Frieman J.A., Fry J.N. & Scoccimarro R., 2001, PRL 86, 1434 Fosalba P. & Gazta[ñ]{}aga E. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 503 Fosalba P., Gazta[ñ]{}aga E., Castander F. J., Manera M., 2008, MNRAS, 391, 435 Frieman J.A., & Gaztanaga E., 1994, ApJ 425, 392 Frieman J.A., & Gaztanaga E., 1999, ApJ 521, L83 Fry J.N., 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 215 Fry J.N., & Gaztanaga E., 1993, ApJ, 413, 447 Gaztanaga E., 1994, Mon.Not.Roy.Astro.Soc., 268,913 Gaztanaga E. & Frieman, J. A., 1994, ApJ 437, L13 Gaztanaga E., Scoccimarro R., 2005, MNRAS 361, 824 Gaztanaga E., Norberg P., Baugh C.M., Croton D.J., 2005, MNRAS 364, 620 Guo H. & Jing P., 2009, ApJ, 702, 425 Juszkiewicz, R., Bouchet, F.R, & Colombi, S., 1993, Astrophys. J. 412, L9 Lima M. & Hu W. 2007, PRD 76, 123013 Lima M. & Hu W. 2005, PRD 72, 043006 Lima M. & Hu W. 2004, PRD 70, 043504 Manera M. Sheth R.K., Scoccimarro R., 2010, MNRAS 402, 589 Marin F.A., Wechsler R.H., Frieman J.A., Nichol R.C, 2008, ApJ, 672, 849-860 Martino M.C., Sheth R.K., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2109 Matsubara T., 2008, PhRvD, 78, 083519 Mo H.J., Jing Y.P., White S.D.M., 1997, MNRAS, 284, 189 Nichol, R.C. et al. 2006, MNRAS 368, 1507 Norberg P., et al., 2002, MNRAS, 332, 827 Peebles P.J.E., 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ Press W. & Schechter P., 1974, Astrophys. J., 304, 297 Sefussati E., Scoccimarro R., 2005, PRD 71, 063001 Sheth R.K., Lemson G., 1999, MNRAS , 304, 767 Sheth R.K. & Tormen G., 1999, MRNAS, 301,119 Sheth R.K. & Tormen G., 2001, MRNAS, 323,1 Scoccimarro R., Couchman H.M.P., & Friedman J.A., 1999, ApJ 517, 531 Scoccimarro R., Sheth. R.K., Hui L., Jain B., 2001, ApJ 546, 20 Seljak U., Hamaus N., Desjacques V., 2009, PhRvL, 103, 091303 Somerville R.S., Lemson G., Sigad Y., Dekel A., Kauffmann G., White S.D.M., 2001, MNRAS, 320, 289 Tegmark, M. & Peebles, 1998, ApJ 500, L79 Tegmark M., Bomley B.C., 1999, ApJ 518, L69 Tinker, J.L., Weinberg, D.H., Zheng, Z., 2006, MNRAS 368, 85 Tinker, J.L. & Wetzel, A.R., 2010, ApJ 719, 88 Tinker J. L., Robertson B. E., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A., Warren M. S., Yepes G., Gottlober S., 2010, arXiv, arXiv:1001.3162 , L., [Heavens]{}, A. F., [Percival]{}, W. J., [Matarrese]{}, S., [Baugh]{}, C. M. et al., 2002, MNRAS, 335, 432 Warren M.S., Abazajiian K., Holz D.E., Teodoro L., 2006, ApJ, 646, 881 Zheng, Z., Berlind, A.A., Weinberg, D.H., 2005, ApJ, 633, 791 Zheng, Z., Zehavi, I., Eisenstein, D.J., Weinberg, D.H., Jing, Y.P., 2009, ApJ, 707, 554 Zehavi I., et al., 2005, ApJ, 630, 1 [^1]: For more information about the MICE collaboration team and the simulations, see http://ice.cat.es/mice/ [^2]: Also note that the same effect seems to result in super-Poisson errorbars (Cabre & Gaztanaga 2009). This two statements are not in contradiction because the former refers to the Poisson correction to the mean variance (in Fourier or configuration space) while the later refers to the noise or error (around the mean 2-point function) induced by discreteness noise. [^3]: The only exceptions are halos above $7 \cdot 10^{13} M_{\sun}$ at $z=0.5$, where predictions seems to be above measurements. This is because at these masses convergence in the biasing parameters as a function of $R_s$ (i.e., in Fig.\[figb1Rs\]) has not been reached for $R_s=30$. For this halos, we have checked that if we use a higher smoothing radius (i.e, $R_s=60$ Mpc/h) we recover the general trend where $b_1$ measure in the scatter plot is above ones from the mass function.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We discuss BPS states preserving 1/4 supersymmetries of ${\cal N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory as M2-branes holomorphically embedded and ending on M5-branes. We use techniques in electrodynamics to find the M2-brane configurations, and give some explicit examples. In case the M2-brane worldsheet has handles, the worldsheet moduli of the M2-brane is constrained in a discrete manner. Several aspects of multi-pronged strings in type IIB string theory are beautifully reproduced in the M-theory description. We also discuss the relation between the above construction and the D2-brane dynamics in type IIA string theory.' author: - \| Naoki [Sasakura]{}[^1] and Shigeki [Sugimoto]{}[^2]\ [Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan]{} date: 'November, 1998' title: \| \ M-theory description of 1/4 BPS states\ in ${\cal N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory --- 22.5cm16.8cm-.4cm-.9cm = 6pt plus 2pt minus 1pt =18.8pt plus 0.2pt minus 0.1pt =msbm10 at 12pt \#1 =msbm10 at 8pt \#1 addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{} Introduction ============ The recent developments of non-perturbative string theory have provided new powerful tools for analysis of non-perturbative properties of supersymmetric gauge theories. A supersymmetric gauge theory can be studied as a low energy effective field theory on a brane, and its BPS state may correspond to a BPS configuration of a brane ending on the background brane in string theory. The four-dimensional ${\cal N}=4$ $SU(N)$ SYM theory in Coulomb phase can be studied as the effective field theory on nearly coincident $N$ parallel D3-branes in type IIB string theory [@WIT; @TSE]. The BPS states of the SYM theory preserving 1/2 of its supersymmetries such as W-bosons, monopoles and dyons appear as $(p,q)$ strings connecting two of the D3-branes in the IIB side. The famous duality conjecture [@MON] of the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory which interchanges W-bosons and monopoles is obvious as the $SL(2,\Z)$ duality symmetry of IIB string theory. A pronged string [@PROSTR] can also end on the D3-branes. It was conjectured that such configurations would appear as another set of BPS states of the SYM theory preserving 1/4 of its supersymmetries [@BER]. The condition to preserve the 1/4 supersymmetries gives a set of field equations of the SYM theory, and its classical solutions were constructed [@CLSOUR; @CLS]. The description of such BPS states in the full quantum treatment of the SYM theory is an open problem. The M-theory gives another non-perturbative description of supersymmetric gauge theories. The exact low energy effective lagrangian of the full quantum ${\cal N}=2$ SQCD [@SEIWIT] can be described by an M5-brane embedded in a target space with one compactified direction [@WITTWO]. The IIB string theory is related to the M-theory in the target space with two compactified directions, and a D3-brane is an M5-brane wrapped in the two directions. Hence the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory may be studied as the low energy dynamics of some parallel such M5-branes. The 1/4 BPS states above should correspond to M2-branes ending on the M5-branes and preserving the 1/4 of the supersymmetries of the M5-branes. In this paper we shall investigate such M2-brane configurations. The cases without ends on M5-branes have already been discussed by several people [@MTH; @KOL]. A new thing in this paper is the presence of such ends. Among other things, we shall show the existence of such M2-brane configurations. We shall also construct the configurations explicitly in some elementary cases as examples. BPS states in ${{\cal N}}=4$ SYM {#BPS} ================================ In this section we briefly review an M-theory description of BPS states in four dimensional gauge theory, and arrange them to formulate 1/4 BPS states in the ${{\cal N}}=4$ SYM theory, following [@HY; @M; @MTH]. Complex structures and BPS states --------------------------------- Consider M-theory compactified on a torus with the modular parameter $\tau$. ${{\cal N}}=4$ $U(N)$ SYM with the gauge coupling $\tau$ is obtained as an effective worldvolume theory on $N$ parallel M5-branes wrapped on the torus. We take the coordinate of space-time $(x^0,x^1,\cdots,x^9,x^{10})$ with the identifications $$\begin{aligned} (x^{10},x^9)\sim (x^{10}+2\pi R,x^9) \sim (x^{10}+2\pi R\tau_1\,,x^9+2\pi R\tau_2), \label{lat}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are real and imaginary part of $\tau$, respectively. From now, we will abbreviate $R$ for simplicity, although it is easy to recover the $R$ dependence from the dimensional analysis. We also use complex variables $v=x^4+x^5 i$ and $z=x^{10}+x^9 i$, which define a complex structure $I$ of a 4-manifold $Q\equiv\R^2\times T^2=\{(v,z)\}$. M5-branes are taken to be stretched along $\R^{1,3}\times T^2 =\{(x^0,\cdots,x^3,x^9,x^{10})\}$ directions, and the transverse positions correspond to vacuum expectation values of scalar fields in the SYM [^3]. For our purpose, it is enough to consider the case, in which all the M5-branes are placed with $(x^6,x^7,x^8)=(0,0,0)$. Let $v_a$ ($a=1,2,\cdots,N$) be the position of $a^{\rm th}$ M5-brane on the $v$-plane. We take $v_a$ to be distinct and consider the Coulomb branch of the SYM, on which the gauge symmetry is broken to $U(1)^N$. Note that the M5-branes are fixed by the equations $v=v_a$, which define Riemann surfaces holomorphically embedded in $Q$ with respect to the complex structure $I$. BPS-saturated states in M5-brane worldvolume theory are obtained by M2-branes, whose boundaries lie on the M5-branes. The M2-brane worldvolume is decomposed as $\R\times\Sigma$, where $\R$ is the time axis and $\Sigma$ is a Riemann surface embedded in $Q$. In ${{\cal N}}=2$ MQCD, it is known that $\Sigma$ must be holomorphically embedded in $Q$ with respect to another complex structure $J$ which is orthogonal to $I$ (i.e. $IJ=-JI$) in order to saturate the BPS condition [@FS; @HY; @M]. Of course, we can apply this argument to the ${{\cal N}}=4$ case, implying that if $\Sigma$ is holomorphically embedded in $Q$ with respect to the complex structure $J$, at least 4 supersymmetries are preserved. What is different from the ${{\cal N}}=2$ case is that the M5-branes, projected on $Q$, are also holomorphic with respect to another complex structure $I'$ with holomorphic coordinates $({\overline}v,z)$. Since $Q$ is a flat 4-manifold, there are complex structures $I,J,K,I',J',K'$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} &&IJ=-JI=K,\\ &&I'J'=-J'I'=K',\\ &&II'=I'I,~IJ'=J'I,~IK'=K'I,~JI'=I'J,~etc.\end{aligned}$$ We can also apply the above argument replacing the complex structure $I$ with $I'$, and find that if $\Sigma$ is holomorphically embedded in $Q$ with respect to the complex structure $J'$, another 4 supersymmetries are preserved. In conclusion, in order to obtain 1/4 BPS states (1/2 BPS states), $\Sigma$ should be holomorphic with respect to either $J$ or $J'$ (both $J$ and $J'$). The complex coordinates on $Q$, which are holomorphic with respect to the complex structure $J$, are given as $$\begin{aligned} z^1&=&\cos\alpha\,x^4+\sin\alpha\,x^5+x^{10}i,\\ z^2&=&-\sin\alpha\,x^4+\cos\alpha\,x^5+x^9i,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ parameterizes the freedom of choice of the complex structure $J$. In the following sections, we will set $\alpha=0$, rotating $v$-plane: $$\begin{aligned} z^1&=&x^4+x^{10}i,\\ z^2&=&x^5+x^9i.\end{aligned}$$ It is useful to define single valued coordinates $$\begin{aligned} \label{s} s&=&\exp\left( z^1-\frac{\tau_1}{\tau_2}z^2\right) ,\\ \label{t} t&=&\exp\left(\frac{z^2}{\tau_2}\right) $$ which parameterize $Q$ globally. In section \[sec:3\], we will search for the Riemann surface $\Sigma$, which can be expressed as the zero locus of a holomorphic function, $$\begin{aligned} f(s,t)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Charges and BPS mass formula ---------------------------- The boundaries of the M2-brane lie on the M5-branes and couple with the M5-brane worldvolume theory via the interaction $$\begin{aligned} \label{Sint} S_{\rm int}\sim\int_{\sR\times\partial\Sigma}B^+,\end{aligned}$$ where $B^+$ is the self dual 2-form field on the M5-branes. Now the M5-branes are wrapped on the torus and $U(1)$ gauge fields in four dimension are related to $B^+$ as $A^a_{\mu}\sim B^{a+}_{10\,\mu}$ or ${\widetilde}A^a_{\mu}\sim B^{a+}_{9\,\mu}$, where the superscript $a$ represents $a^{\rm th}$ $U(1)$ gauge field coming from the $a^{\rm th}$ M5-brane. As the field strength of $B^+$ is self dual, one can see that $A^a_{\mu}$ and ${\widetilde}A^a_{\mu}$ are ele-mag dual to each other. If the homology class of $\partial\Sigma$ is $n_e^a\alpha_a+n_m^a\beta_a$, where $\alpha_a$ and $\beta_a$ are $\alpha$-cycle ($x^{10}$ direction) and $\beta$-cycle ($x^{9}$ direction) of the torus on the $a^{\rm th}$ M5-brane, (\[Sint\]) implies $$\begin{aligned} S_{\rm int}\sim(n^a_e+n^a_m\tau_1)\int_{\sR}A^a_{\mu}\,dx^{\mu} +n^a_m\tau_2\int_{\sR}{\widetilde}A^a_{\mu}\,dx^{\mu}.\end{aligned}$$ From this, we can interpret $Q^a_e\equiv n^a_e+n^a_m\tau_1$ as the electric charges and $Q^a_m\equiv n^a_m\tau_2$ as the magnetic charges of the BPS states.[@FS; @MNS; @S] One of the significance of the above construction of the BPS states is that we can easily compute mass of the BPS states using the BPS mass formula. As shown in [@FS; @HY], mass of the BPS state is given by a simple formula $$\begin{aligned} \label{mass} M=\left\|\,\int_\Sigma\Omega\,\right\|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega$ is a 2-form on $Q$, which is holomorphic with respect to the original complex structure $I$ (or $I'$). In our case, we have $\Omega=dv\wedge dz=d(v\,dz)$ and (\[mass\]) can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{mass2} M=\left\|\,\int_{\partial\Sigma}v\,dz\,\right\| =\left\|\,(n^a_e+n^a_m\tau)\,v_a\,\right\|,\end{aligned}$$ which is exactly what we expect from the field theory analysis [@FH] or mass of the string web in type IIB string theory [@BER; @BK]. In fact, if we define electric and magnetic charge vectors as $$\begin{aligned} \vec Q_E&=&Q^a_e\, (x^4_a,x^5_a),\\ \vec Q_M&=&Q^a_m\, (x^4_a,x^5_a),\end{aligned}$$ where $v_a=x^4_a+x^5_a i$, (\[mass2\]) can be rewritten in the more familiar form: [^4] $$\begin{aligned} \label{mass3} M=\sqrt{\,\|\,\vec Q_E\|^2+\|\,\vec Q_M\|^2+2\,\|\,\vec Q_E\times\vec Q_M\|\,}.\end{aligned}$$ Membrane configuration and electrodynamics {#sec:3} ========================================== In this section, we shall discuss the configuration of the holomorphically embedded M2-brane ending on M5-branes by an electric potential on the M2-brane worldsheet satisfying certain boundary conditions. General treatment {#sec:general} ----------------- As has been discussed so far, the 1/4 supersymmetries are preserved if the embedding functions $v$ and $z$ of the M2-brane worldsheet $\Sigma$ are holomorphic functions on the Riemann surface $\Sigma$. Locally this condition becomes the Cauchy-Riemann equations d x\^4 &=& \* d x\^[10]{}, d x\^5 &=& \* d x\^[9]{}, \[eq:cau\] where $$ denotes the Hodge star operator on $\Sigma$. The local integrability condition of [(\[eq:cau\])]{} is that the $x^4$ and $x^5$ be harmonic functions on $\Sigma$; x\^[4]{}=x\^[5]{}=0. \[eq:har\] Hence the functions $x^{4},x^{5},x^{9},x^{10}$ on the Riemann surface satisfying [(\[eq:cau\])]{} can be obtained by first solving [(\[eq:har\])]{} and then obtaining $x^{9},x^{10}$ by [(\[eq:cau\])]{}. Boundary and global integrability conditions must also be considered. Let us consider an M2-brane ending on $n$ M5-branes. In such a case, $\Sigma$ has $n$ connected components of its boundary $(\pt \Sigma)_a$ $(a=1,\cdots,n)$, where the M5-branes are attached. Since an M5-brane has definite values of its locations $x^{4}$ and $x^{5}$, the functions $x^4,x^5$ must take constant values at each boundary: x\^4(u)=x\^4\_a, x\^5(u)=x\^5\_a, [for]{} u()\_a, \[eq:boucon\] where $u$ denotes a complex coordinate on $\Sigma$, and $x^4_a$ and $x^5_a$ are the $a^{\rm th}$ M5-brane location. The identification [(\[lat\])]{} of $x^9$ and $x^{10}$ gives the global constraints on the shifts of $x^9$ and $x^{10}$ under going along a one-dimensional cycle on $\Sigma$. For boundaries, we have \_[()\_a]{} dx\^[10]{}&=&2(n\_e\^a + \_1 n\_m\^a), [\ ]{}\_[()\_a]{} dx\^9&=&2\_2 n\_m\^a, \[eq:quabou\] and, for the one-cycles $\alpha_i$ $(i=1,\cdots,2g)$ associated to the handles, \_[\_i]{}dx\^[10]{}&=&2(N\_e\^i + \_1 N\_m\^i), [\ ]{}\_[\_i]{}dx\^9&=&2\_2 N\_m\^i, \[eq:quahan\] where $n_e^a,n_m^a,N_e^i,N_m^i$ are integers. In the IIB string picture, the $n_e^a$ and $n_m^a$ are the two-form charges of the strings ending on the D3-branes. The $N_e^i$ and $N_m^i$ should be associated to the two-form charges of the strings forming loops. From (\[eq:quabou\]), the conservation of the two-form charges is derived : $\sum_a n^a_e=\sum_a n^a_m=0$. It is useful to introduce the language of electrodynamics to solve the above problem. Let us first discuss $x^4$ and $x^{10}$. Firstly we can regard $x^4$ as an electric potential because of its harmonicity. Then the boundary condition [(\[eq:boucon\])]{} implies that the boundaries are conductors, on which the electric potential must take constant values. The vector field $dx^4$ gives the electric vector field associated to the electric potential. From the Gauss law, the total electric charge in a region can be evaluated by the line integral $\int dx^4$ along its boundary. Since $x^4$ is harmonic on $\Sigma$, the charges are located only on the boundaries $(\pt\Sigma)_a$. Using [(\[eq:cau\])]{} and [(\[eq:quabou\])]{}, the total electric charge on $(\pt\Sigma)_a$ is given by Q\^a=\_[()\_a]{} \* dx\^4 = 2(n\_e\^a + \_1 n\_m\^a). \[eq:charge\] Thus $x^4$ is given by the electric potential generated by the electric charges $Q^a$ distributed on the conductors at $(\pt\Sigma)_a$. With the above reinterpretation of the conditions [(\[eq:boucon\])]{} and [(\[eq:quabou\])]{}, the existence of $x^4$ for any configuration of $\Sigma$ with given charges $Q^a=2\pi(n_e^a + \tau_1 n_m^a)$ is intuitively obvious in case with vanishing genus. In this case, the values of $x^4$ at the boundaries, i.e. the M5-brane locations, are given by a linear function of the charges $Q^a$. The coefficients of the linear function is determined by the configuration of $\Sigma$. In fact they are invariant under the conformal transformation of $\Sigma$ because of the conformal invariance of the problem. In a case with non-vanishing genus, the condition [(\[eq:quahan\])]{} constrains further so that the electric fluxes associated to the handles must be quantized too. This constrains the possible configuration of $\Sigma$ in a discrete manner. In fact, this is essential in deriving the condition on the possible two-from charges of the pronged string configuration with one-loop. This issue will be discussed in the next subsection. More rigorously, we can use some mathematical results on the Dirichlet first boundary value problem. There is a theorem [@F] implying that, for any given $x_a^4$, there exists a unique harmonic function $x^4$ on $\Sigma$ which satisfies the boundary conditions (\[eq:boucon\])[^5]. Since the harmonic function $x^4$ depends linearly on the boundary values $x^4_a$, the charges $Q^a$ depend linearly on $x_a^4$: Q\^a=C\^[ab]{} x\^4\_b + c\^a, \[eq:linrel\] where the “capacity” $C^{ab}$ and $c^a$ are determined by the configuration of $\Sigma$. To see the properties of $C^{ab}$ and $c^a$, first consider the boundary condition that the $x_a^4$ takes an $a$-independent value, say ${x_0}^4$. Then the unique solution of $x^4$ is obviously the constant ${x_0}^4$, and all the charges $Q^a=\int_{(\pt \Sigma)_a} * dx^4$ vanish. Thus we obtain $c^a=0$ and that $C^{ab}$ has an eigenvector $x^4_a={x_0}^4$ with a vanishing eigenvalue. On the other hand, if all the $Q^a$ vanish, $x_a^4$ takes an $a$-independent value, say ${x_0}^4$. To prove this, suppose that $x_b^4$ is the maximum among all the $x^4_a$’s. Then the maximum principle of the harmonic function implies $x^4 \leq x_b^4$. Thus $Q^b= \int_{(\pt \Sigma)_b} * dx^4 \geq 0$. The equality holds only if $dx^4=0$ at $(\pt \Sigma)_b$. This boundary condition determines uniquely $x^4= {x_b}^4={x_0}^4$ on $\Sigma$, and hence $x^4_a$ are independent of $a$. Thus the linear relation [(\[eq:linrel\])]{} is invertible up to an arbitrary $a$-independent piece ${x_0}^4$: x\^4\_a=D\_[ab]{} Q\^b + [x\_0]{}\^4=2D\_[ab]{} (n\_e\^b + \_1 n\_m\^b) + [x\_0]{}\^4. \[eq:rel4\] where $D_{ab}$ is determined by the configuration of $\Sigma$. The $x^5_a$ can be just derived by substituting $Q^a=2\pi \tau_2 n_m^a$ in (\[eq:rel4\]) with the same coefficients: x\^5\_a=2\_2 D\_[ab]{} n\_m\^b + [x\_0]{}\^5. \[eq:rel5\] In a case with non-vanishing genus, the electric fluxes associated to handles [(\[eq:quahan\])]{} are also related linearly to the charges $n_e^a,n_m^a$ with coefficients determined by the configuration of $\Sigma$. Hence the quantization condition [(\[eq:quahan\])]{} constrains the possibility of the coefficients, and so the configuration of $\Sigma$ is constrained in a discrete manner. The “capacity” matrix $C^{ab}$ is a symmetric matrix, as can be found in a text book of electromagnetism. Thus we find[^6] x\^5\_a(n\_e\^a + \_1 n\_m\^a)=x\^4\_a\_2 n\_m\^a. \[eq:iibcon\] This equation agrees with a necessary condition for that there exists a multi-pronged string connecting the D3-branes in the IIB string picture [@CLSOUR]. Examples -------- In this subsection we shall explicitly construct the M2-brane configurations in the following elementary cases, using the results in the previous subsection \[sec:general\]. The first one corresponds to a tree-like three-pronged string two of the external strings end on D3-branes. The next one corresponds to a one-loop multi-pronged string stretching to infinity. ### Three-pronged string ending on D3-branes Here we shall explicitly construct the M2-brane configuration of a three-pronged string such that two of its ends are on the M5-branes while the other stretches to the infinity. For simplicity, we take the type IIB coupling $\tau=i$ ($\tau_1=0,\tau_2=1$). The two-form charges of the strings we consider are given by $(-1,0)$, $(0,-1)$ and $(1,1)$. Then the M2-brane worldsheet $\Sigma$ is mapped to an annulus region in the $s$-plane as in fig. \[fig:annulus\]. Here we assumed that the $(-1,0)$ and $(1,1)$ strings end at $x^4=0$ and $x^4=b$, respectively, while the $(0,-1)$ string goes to $(x^4,x^5)=(a,-\infty)$. We may choose $s$ as the complex coordinate on $\Sigma$. Following the way in the preceding subsection \[sec:general\], the $x^5$ is given by an electric potential generated by a point-like charge of -1 at $s=e^a$ and a total charge of 1 on the conductor at $\|s\|=e^b$, while there is another conductor at $\|s\|=1$ with a total charge zero. To obtain the electric potential, we may change the coordinate $s$ to $\log(s)$ as in fig. \[fig:change\], and apply the standard method of images. By summing up all the contributions from the original point-like charge and its images, we obtain t&=& s\^[-a/b+1]{} \_[m,n=-]{}\^ [\ ]{}&=& s\^[-a/b+1]{} , where $\theta_1$ is the Jacobi theta function and we put a point-like charge of $-a/b+1$ at $s=0$ to cancel the otherwise non-vanishing total charge on the conductor at $\|s\|=1$. ### Multi-pronged string with one loop To see how the quantization condition [(\[eq:quahan\])]{} appears, we shall construct the M2-brane configuration associated to a one-loop multi-pronged string the external strings of which stretch to infinity. In this case, the Riemann surface $\Sigma$ is a torus with some punctured points. The punctured points correspond to the ends of the infinitely stretching external strings. We parameterize $\Sigma$ with complex coordinate $u$ with identifications $u\sim u+1$ and $u\sim u+\tau_\Sigma$, where $\tau_\Sigma$ is the modular parameter of $\Sigma$. This curve is embedded in $Q=\{(s,t)\}$ with $$\begin{aligned} s=s\,(u),~~t=t\,(u),\end{aligned}$$ where $s\,(u)$ and $t\,(u)$ are some elliptic functions on the worldsheet torus $\Sigma$. From the definition of the parameters $s$ (\[s\]) and $t$ (\[t\]), we know that the punctured points correspond to the poles or zeros of the function $s\,(u)$ or $t\,(u)$. Let us first discuss the function $s\,(u)$. Suppose the two-form charges of the infinitely stretching external strings are given by $(n_e^a,n_m^a)$ ($a=1,\cdots,n$). Then the end of a string with a positive $n_e^a$ should appear as an $n_e^a$-th order pole of $s$, while one with a negative $n_e^a$ as an $-n_e^a$-th order zero. Now suppose the ends are at $u=u_a$ on the torus $\Sigma$. Then, if and only if \_[a=1]{}\^n n\_e\^a u\_a=-Q\_1 - Q\_2 \_ \[eq:elicon\] with some integers $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, there exists an elliptic function with the above desired property: s(u)=(2(Q\_1\_1+Q\_2\_3)u) \_[a=1]{}\^n (u-u\_a)\^[-n\_e\^a]{}, where the function $\sigma(u)$ is defined by (u)=(\_1u\^2)\_1(u\|\_)/\_1’(0\|\_) and $\eta_1=\sigma'(1/2)/\sigma(1/2)$ and $\eta_3=\sigma'(\tau_\Sigma/2)/\sigma(\tau_\Sigma/2)$. The construction of the function $t\,(u)$ is similar. The following quantization condition must be satisfied by the charges $n_m^i$ and some integers $q_1,q_2$: \_[a=1]{}\^n n\_m\^a u\_a=-q\_1 - q\_2 \_. \[eq:elicon2\] This equation gives further constraints on $u_a$. Then t(u)=(2(q\_1\_1+q\_2\_3)u) \_[a=1]{}\^n (u-u\_a)\^[-n\_m\^a]{}. There is a theorem that any two elliptic functions on a torus have an algebraic relation. Thus the torus coordinate $u$ can be eliminated, and the M2-brane configuration should be given by the zero locus of an algebraic function depending on the moduli of $\Sigma$: f\_(s,t)=0. To see what [(\[eq:elicon\])]{} means, we consider the line integral in fig. \[fig:torus\]: \_C (s) du &=& i (x\^[10]{}(u+1)-x\^[10]{}(u))\_- i(x\^[10]{}(u+\_)-x\^[10]{}(u)) [\ ]{}&=& 2i (N\_1 \_- N\_2 ), where the $N_1$ and $N_2$ are the electric fluxes crossing the two one-cycles of the torus, respectively. The other way to evaluate the integral is summing up the contributions from the zeros and poles of $s$: -\_C u d( (s)) = 2i \_[a=1]{}\^n n\_e\^a u\_a. Thus [(\[eq:elicon\])]{} is just the quantization condition of the fluxes associated to the handles [(\[eq:quahan\])]{}, and gives constraints on $u_a$. We can also describe the conditions [(\[eq:elicon\])]{} and [(\[eq:elicon2\])]{} graphically. Suppose that $u_a$ are in the fundamental region: u\_a=x\_a+y\_a\_, (0x\_a,y\_a 1). Then the conditions [(\[eq:elicon\])]{} and [(\[eq:elicon2\])]{} become \_[a=1]{}\^n (n\_e\^a,n\_m\^a) x\_a \^2, \[xinzz\]\ \_[a=1]{}\^n (n\_e\^a,n\_m\^a) y\_a \^2. \[yinzz\] Since these two conditions are equivalent, it is enough to consider [(\[xinzz\])]{} only. We put the order of $x_a$ to satisfy $0\le x_1\le x_2\le\cdots\le x_n\le 1$, and define t\_1&=&x\_1,\ t\_i&=&x\_i-x\_[i-1]{} (i>1), which satisfy $t_i\ge 0$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n t_i\le 1$. We also define (n\^i,m\^i)=\_[a=i]{}\^n(n\_e\^a,n\_m\^a), with $i=1,\cdots,n$. Note that the charge conservation condition implies $(n^1,m^1)=(0,0)$. Then we can rewrite the condition (\[xinzz\]) as \_[i=1]{}\^n (n\^i,m\^i) t\_i \^2, \[convex\] which implies that there should exist a lattice point inside the convex hull of the vertices $(n^i,m^i)$. The condition [(\[convex\])]{} is most relaxed when $(n^i,m^i)$ become vertices of a convex polygon whose edges are given by the vectors $(n_e^a,n_m^a)$ as in fig.\[fig:polygon\]. Hence we conclude that the surface $\Sigma$ exists if and only if there is an integer lattice point inside the convex polygon whose edges are given by the vectors $(n_e^a,n_m^a)$. This condition is equivalent to that found in type IIB string theory using the grid diagrams [@MNS; @BK]. The modulus represented by the size of the loop diagram in string junction is now complexified and corresponds to the modular parameter $\tau_\Sigma$ in the M-theory description. Physical interpretation in type IIA string theory ================================================= In the previous section, we used some technical methods in electrodynamics to find out holomorphic surface $\Sigma$ with given winding numbers $(n^a_e,n^a_m)$. The methods in electrodynamics was introduced with a purely mathematical motivation, and we did not care about the physical meaning. In this section, we will try to make a physical interpretation of the methods and answer the question why the electrodynamics appeared in our problem. It turns out that there is a natural interpretation from the worldvolume gauge theory of D2-branes in the type IIA string theory. Consider $n$ parallel D2-branes stretched along $x^0,x^5,x^9$ directions. We will use the static gauge $$\begin{aligned} \label{static} \sigma^0=x^0,~\sigma^1=x^5,~\sigma^2=x^9, \end{aligned}$$ where $(\sigma^0,\sigma^1,\sigma^2)$ are the worldvolume coordinates of the D2-branes. The effective worldvolume theory is 3-dim $U(n)$ SYM which is obtained by dimensional reduction of 10-dim ${{\cal N}}=1$ $U(n)$ SYM. The bosonic part of the action is $$\begin{aligned} \label{D2} S=T\int d^3\sigma\Tr\left( -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{2}D_\mu X^I D^\mu X^I +\frac{1}{4}[X^I,X^J]^2 \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ is the D2-brane tension, and $X^I$ $(I=1,\cdots,4,6,\cdots,8)$ are adjoint scalar fields, which represent the transverse fluctuations of the D2-branes. Let us consider the BPS configuration of this system. The energy is expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{energy} U=\frac{\,T\,}{2}\int d^2\sigma\Tr\left( \vec E^2+B^2+(D_0X^I)^2+(\vec DX^I)^2-\frac{1}{2}[X^I,X^J]^2 \right),\end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed that the fermion fields are zero. Here we have defined electric and magnetic fields in 3-dim as $$\begin{aligned} \vec E&=&(E_1,E_2)=(F_{01},F_{02}),\\ B&=&F_{12}.\end{aligned}$$ Introducing a unit vector $\eta^I$ in $\R^7$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{energy2} U=\frac{\,T\,}{2}\int d^2\sigma\Tr\left( \,\left\|\,\eta^I\vec E-\vec DX^I\,\right\|^2 +B^2+(D_0X^I)^2-\frac{1}{2}[X^I,X^J]^2 +2\eta^I\vec E\cdot\vec DX^I \right).\end{aligned}$$ Since the first four terms in the parenthesis in (\[energy2\]) are positive definite, we obtain a bound for the energy $$\begin{aligned} \label{bound} U\geq T\,\eta^I\,Q_E^I,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the charge vector $$\begin{aligned} Q_E^I &=&\int d^3\sigma\Tr\left(\vec E\cdot\vec DX^I\right)\\ &=&\int_{S^1_\infty} d\vec S\cdot\Tr\left(\vec E X^I\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the Gauss’s Law in the last equality. The right hand side of (\[bound\]) is maximized when $\eta^I$ is proportional to the charge vector $Q^I_E$, and then we obtain the Bogomol’nyi bound $$\begin{aligned} U\geq T\,\\|\,Q_E^I\\|.\end{aligned}$$ The BPS configurations, which saturate this bound, satisfy the following equations: $$\begin{aligned} \label{BPSeq} \eta^I\vec E=\vec DX^I,~~B=0,~~D_0X^I=0,~~[X^I,X^J]=0.\end{aligned}$$ Now consider the M-theory description of the D2-brane configurations. We consider the case with a single D2-brane ($n=1$ case). As shown in [@T; @BT; @APPS], the M2-brane action can be obtained by performing a duality transformation of a worldvolume gauge field in the D2-brane action. The scalar field corresponding to the fluctuations of the M2-brane in $x^{10}$ direction is the dual of the worldvolume gauge field on the D2-brane: $$\begin{aligned} \label{dual} F^{\mu\nu}=\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}\,\partial_{\rho}X^{10}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us assume $X^I=0$ for $I=1,2,3,6,7,8$ as in the previous sections. The BPS configurations (\[BPSeq\]) are static configurations satisfying $$\begin{aligned} \label{BPS1} E_i=\partial_iX^4,~~B=0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, using (\[dual\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{CR} \epsilon_{0ij}\,\partial_{j}X^{10}&=&\partial_iX^4,\\ \partial_0X^{10}&=&0.\end{aligned}$$ (\[CR\]), together with (\[static\]), is nothing but the Cauchy-Riemann equation $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial X^4}{\partial x_5} =\frac{\partial X^{10}}{\partial x_9}, ~~~\frac{\partial X^4}{\partial x_9} =-\frac{\partial X^{10}}{\partial x_5},\end{aligned}$$ which imply that the M2-brane is holomorphically embedded in $Q$, as explained in section \[BPS\]. In the previous section, we interpreted $X^4$ as the scalar potential and the winding number $n_e^a$ on the boundary of the membrane in $x^{10}$ direction as the electric charge in the 3-dim electrodynamics. Now it is clear from (\[BPS1\]) and (\[dual\]) that these interpretations can be naturally understood from the electrodynamics of the D2-brane worldvolume gauge theory. [Acknowledgments]{}\ We would like to thank K. Hashimoto, H. Hata and T. Kugo for valuable discussions. We would like to thank also the organizers of the Summer Institute ‘98, where we began the present work. N.S. is Supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (\#09640346) and Priority Area: “Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles” (\#707). S.S. is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS fellows. [99]{} E. Witten, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B460]{} (1996) 335]{}, hep-th/9510135. A.A. Tseytlin, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B469]{} (1996) 51]{}, hep-th/9602064; M.B. Green and M. Gutperle, [[[Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [B377]{} (1996) 28]{}, hep-th/9602077. C. Montonen and D. Olive, [[[Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [B72]{} (1977) 117]{}. J.H. Schwarz, [[[Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.]{}]{} [55B]{} (1997) 1]{}, hep-th/9607201; O. Aharony, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielowicz, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B474]{} (1996) 309]{}, hep-th/9603009. O. Bergman, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B525]{} (1998) 104]{}, hep-th/9712211. K. Hashimoto, H. Hata and N. Sasakura, [[[Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [B431]{} (1998) 303]{}, hep-th/9803127; hep-th/9804164. T. Kawano and K. Okuyama, [[[Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [B432]{} (1998) 338]{}, hep-th/9804139; K. Lee and P. Yi, [[[Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [D58]{} (1998) 066005]{}, hep-th/9804174. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B426]{} (1994) 19]{}, hep-th/9407087; [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B431]{} (1994) 484]{}, hep-th/9408099. E. Witten, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B500]{} (1997) 3]{}, hep-th/9703166. M. Krogh and S. Lee, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B516]{} (1998) 241]{}, hep-th/9712050; Y. Matsuo and K. Okuyama, [[[Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [B426]{} (1998) 294]{}, hep-th/9712070; I. Kishimoto and N. Sasakura, [[[Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [B432]{} (1998) 305]{}, hep-th/9712180. B. Kol, hep-th/9705031; O. Aharony, A. Hanany and B. Kol, [[[J. High Energy Phys.]{}]{} [01]{} (1998) 002]{}, hep-th/9710116. A. Fayyazuddin and M. Spalinski, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B508]{} (1997) 219]{}, hep-th/9706087. M. Henningson and P. Yi, [[[Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [D57]{} (1998) 1291]{}, hep-th/9707251. A. Mikhailov, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B533]{} (1998) 243]{}, hep-th/9708068. A. Mikhailov, N. Nekrasov and S. Sethi, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B531]{} (1998) 345]{}, hep-th/9803142. S. Sugimoto, [[[Prog. Theor. Phys.]{}]{} [100]{} (1998) 123]{}, hep-th/9804114. C. Fraser and T. Hollowood, [[[Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [B402]{} (1997) 106]{}, hep-th/9704011. O. Bergman and B. Kol, hep-th/9804160. P.K. Townsend, [[[Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [B373]{} (1996) 68]{}, hep-th/9512062. E. Bergshoeff and P.K. Townsend, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B490]{} (1998) 145]{}, hep-th/9611173. M. Aganagic, J. Park, C. Popescu, and J.H. Schwarz, [[[Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [B496]{} (1997) 215]{}, hep-th/9702133. See for example, O. Forster, “Lectures on Riemann Surfaces”, Springer-Verlag. [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: [email protected] [^3]: We take the vacuum expectation value of the self dual 2-form field on each M5-brane to be zero. [^4]: If $\vec Q_E\times\vec Q_M$ turns out to be negative, we should take the complex structure $I'$ to obtain (\[mass3\]) [^5]: Rigorously, some [local]{} conditions on the shapes of the boundaries must be satisfied, but they seem irrelevant for our physical problem. [^6]: [(\[eq:iibcon\])]{} can be directly shown by noting that the both sides are $\int_\Sigma * dx^4 dx^5$.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We formulate a method to solve the coordinate space Faddeev equations for positive energies. The method employs hyperspherical coordinates and analytical expressions for the effective potentials at large distances. Realistic computations of the parameters of the resonances and the strength functions are carried out for the Borromean halo nucleus $^6$He (n+n+$\alpha$) for J$^{\pi} = 0^{\pm}, 1^{\pm}, 2^{\pm}$.\ PACS numbers: 21.45.+v, 11.80.Jy, 31.15.Ja, 21.60.Gx author: - \| A. Cobis, D. V. Fedorov and A. S. Jensen\ Institute of Physics and Astronomy,\ Aarhus University, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark title: 'Computations of three-body continuum spectra' --- #### Introduction. {#introduction. .unnumbered} The three-body continuum problem has been the subject of numerous investigations [@glo96]. Tremendous progress has been achieved, but still a number of problems remain [@fri95]. Many approximate solutions have been invented without an emerging established general procedure. Different treatments are usually needed for short-range and long-range interactions and for energies below or above possible two-body thresholds [@car93; @fri95a; @kie96]. It is necessary, but not always easy, to distinguish between inaccurate numerical results and shortcomings of the basic interactions. During the last decade a new class of weakly bound three-body systems, nuclear halos, attracted enormous attention [@han95; @fed94; @zhu93]. If no binary subsystem is bound, they are called Borromean nuclei. These concepts are general and of interest in many subfields of physics [@efi90; @esr96]. Accumulating data from such systems demand analyses heavily relying on the properties of their continuum spectra [@dan93a; @dan93b]. However, technical difficulties related to the precise behavior at large distance are substantial and so far unsolved. Recently a new method with explicit analytical treatment of the large distances [@fed93; @fed96] was used to obtain bound-state solutions to the Faddeev equations. The method is very powerful as seen by the successful investigation of the Efimov effect [@efi90; @fed94a]. The purpose of this letter is to generalize the method to obtain continuum state solutions. In order to illustrate the efficiency of the method we perform a realistic computation of a three-body Borromean halo system. #### Method. {#method. .unnumbered} The $k$’th particle has mass $m_{k}$ and coordinate ${\bf r}_k$. The two-body potentials are $V_{ij}$. We shall use the three sets of Jacobi coordinates (${\bf x}_i,{\bf y}_i$) and the corresponding three sets of hyperspherical coordinates ($\rho$, $\alpha_i$, $\Omega_{xi}$, $\Omega_{yi}$) [@fed94; @zhu93; @fed94a]. The kinetic energy operator is then $$\begin{aligned} \label{e10} T=\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\left( -\rho ^{-5/2}\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \rho ^{2}}\rho ^{5/2}+\frac{15}{4\rho ^{2}}+\frac{\hat{\Lambda}^{2}}{\rho ^{2}}\right) \; , \\ \label{e15} \hat \Lambda^2=-{1 \over \sin(2\alpha)} {{\partial}^2\over {\partial} \alpha^2} \sin(2\alpha) +{\hat l_x^2 \over {\sin^2 \alpha}} +{\hat l_y^2 \over {\cos^2 \alpha}} -4 \; , \end{aligned}$$ where the angular momentum operators $\hat l_{x}^2$ and $\hat l_{y}^2$ are related to the ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf y}$ degrees of freedom. The total wave function is now expanded in a complete set of hyperangular functions $$\begin{aligned} \label{e20} \Psi (\rho ,\Omega )= \frac{1}{\rho ^{5/2}}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f_{n}(\rho ) \sum_{i=1}^{3} \frac{\phi _{n}^{(i)}(\rho,\Omega_i)}{\sin(2\alpha_i)} \; , \label{e23}\end{aligned}$$ Each of the three components $\phi _{n}^{(i)}$ is expressed in the corresponding system of Jacobi coordinates and they satisfy for each $\rho$ the three Faddeev equations $$\label{e25} \big(\hat{\Lambda}^{2}-\lambda_n\big) \frac{\phi_{n}^{(i)}}{\sin(2\alpha_i)} +\frac{2m}{\hbar ^{2}}\rho ^{2}V_{jk} \sum_{l=1}^{3} \frac{\phi _{n}^{(l)}}{\sin(2\alpha_l)} =0 ,\;$$ where $\{i,j,k\}$ is a permutation of $\{1,2,3\}$. In the absence of bound subsystems the eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ approach at large distances the hyperspherical spectrum obtained for $V_{jk}=0$, i.e. $\lambda_n(\rho \rightarrow \infty) = K_n(K_n+4)$, where $K_n$ is odd or even natural numbers depending on the parity. The expansion coefficients $f_{n}(\rho )$ satisfy the equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{e30} \left( -\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \rho ^{2}}+\frac{\lambda _{n}+15/4}{% \rho ^{2}}-Q_{nn}-\frac{2mE}{\hbar ^{2}}\right) f_{n}(\rho ) \\ \nonumber =\sum_{n^{\prime }\neq n}\left( Q_{nn^{\prime }}+2P_{nn^{\prime }}\frac{\partial }{\partial \rho }\right) f_{n^{\prime }}(\rho )\ .\end{aligned}$$ The coupling terms $P$ and $Q$ approach zero at least as fast as $\rho^{-3}$. For Borromean systems we can then choose those solutions $\Psi_{n'}$ to eq.(\[e20\]) where the large-distance ($\rho \rightarrow \infty)$ boundary conditions for $f^{(n')}_{n}$ are given by [@tay72] $$\label{e35} f^{(n')}_n(\rho) \rightarrow \delta_{n,n'} F^{(-)}_{n}(\kappa \rho) - S_{n,n'} F^{(+)}_{n}(\kappa \rho) \; ,$$ where $\kappa^2=2mE/\hbar^2$ and $F^{(\pm)}_{n}$ are related to the Hankel functions of integer order by $$\begin{aligned} \label{e40} F^{(\pm)}_{n}(\kappa \rho) = \sqrt{\frac{m \rho}{4 \hbar^2}}\, H^{(\pm)}_{K_n+2}(\kappa \rho) \nonumber \\ \rightarrow \sqrt{\frac{m}{2 \pi \kappa \hbar^2}} \exp\left[\pm i\kappa \rho \pm {i\pi\over 2}(K_n+{3\over 2})\right] \; .\end{aligned}$$ The continuum wave functions are orthogonal and normalized to delta functions in energy. By diagonalization of the $S$-matrix we obtain eigenfunctions and eigenphases. The phase shifts reveal the continuum structure of the system. In particular, a rapid variation with energy indicates a resonance. A precise computation of resonances and related widths can be done by use of the complex energy method, where eq.(\[e30\]) is solved for $E=E_r-i\Gamma/2$ with the boundary condition $f^{(n')}_n=\delta_{n,n'} \sqrt{\frac{m \rho}{4 \hbar^2}}\, H^{(+)}_{K_n+2}(\kappa \rho)$. These solutions correspond to poles of the $S$-matrix [@tay72]. #### Large-distance behavior. {#large-distance-behavior. .unnumbered} Eq.(\[e25\]) can be solved for large distances, where for short-range potentials all partial waves, except s-waves, decouple. We expand each component on the hyperspherical basis with the quantum numbers $\{l_x,l_y,L,s_x,s_y,S,J\}$ where L,S and J are the total orbital angular momentum, total spin and total angular momentum, respectively. We express two of the Faddeev components $(j,k)$ in the coordinates related to the third Jacobi set $(i)$ and project out the partial wave with a given set of angular momentum quantum numbers. This operation, leading from the i’th to the j’th Jacobi coordinates, is denoted by $R_{i,j}$. For large $\rho$ only small $\alpha$ contribute to the terms proportional to $V_{jk}(r_i)$ in eq.(\[e25\]). This is due to the assumption of short-range potentials and because $r_i \propto \rho \sin \alpha_i$. Let us first explicitly consider the three coupled components, $\phi^{(i)}_L$, characterized by $l_{xi}=0$ and $l_{yi}=L$ and therefore with the same total orbital angular momentum $L$ and furthermore with the same spin structure. We expand in powers of $\alpha_i$ and find the leading order contribution from the transformation of such terms to be $$\begin{aligned} \label{e45} R_{i,j}\left[\frac{\phi^{(j)}_{L}(\rho,\alpha_{j})} {\sin(2 \alpha_{j})}\right] \simeq \frac{(-1)^L \phi^{(j)}_{L}(\rho,\varphi_{j,i})} {\sin(2 \varphi_{j,i})} \; , \\ \label{e67} \tan \varphi_{i,j} = (-1)^p\sqrt{\frac{m_k(m_i+m_j+m_k)}{m_i m_j}} \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ is the parity of the permutation $\{i,j,k\}$. Non-zero $l_{xi}$-values had produced higher powers of $\alpha_i$ in eq.(\[e45\]). Thus, the eigenvalues $\lambda$ related to the other partial waves decouple at large distances and approach the hyperspherical spectrum. These waves assume the asymptotic behavior on a distance scale defined by the range of the interactions. On the other hand the s-waves couple and feel consequently the interactions over a distance defined by the scattering lengths. We shall now concentrate on a system consisting of two neutrons and a spin-zero core. This model directly applies to $^6$He, a halo nucleus for which a large amount of experimental data exists. The model is also a good approximation for another halo nucleus, $^{11}$Li [@zhu93]. Due to the antisymmetry between neutrons the three coupled components ($l_{xi}=0$, $l_{yi}=L$, $i=1,2,3$) reduce to two and the angular Faddeev equations eq.(\[e25\]) are to leading order in $\alpha$ (large $\rho$) given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{e50} \left( - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha_1^2} + \frac{L(L+1)}{\cos^2\alpha_1} + \rho^2 v_{\mbox{\scriptsize NN}}(\rho \sin{\alpha_1}) - \nu^2 \right) \\ \nonumber \times \phi_{L}^{(1)}(\rho,\alpha_1) = - 2 \alpha_1 (-1)^L \rho^2 v_{\mbox{\scriptsize NN}} (\rho \sin{\alpha_1}) C^{(1)}_{L} \; , \\ \left( - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha_2^2} + \frac{L(L+1)}{\cos^2\alpha_2} + \rho^2 v_{\mbox{\scriptsize N}c}(\rho \sin{\alpha_2}) - \nu^2 \right) \label{e55} \\ \nonumber \times \phi_{L}^{(2)}(\rho,\alpha_2) = - 2 \alpha_2 (-1)^L \rho^2 v_{\mbox{\scriptsize N}c}(\rho \sin{\alpha_2}) C^{(2)}_{L} \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu^2 = \lambda +4$, $v_{\mbox{\scriptsize NN}}(x_1) = V_{23}(x_1/\mu_{23}) 2m/\hbar^2$, $v_{\mbox{\scriptsize N}c}(x_2) = V_{13}(x_2/\mu_{13}) 2m/\hbar^2$, $m\mu^2_{jk}=m_jm_k/(m_j+m_k)$, $$\label{e69} C^{(1)}_{L} = 2 \frac{\phi^{(2)}_{L}(\rho,\varphi)}{\sin(2 \varphi)} , C^{(2)}_{L} = \frac{\phi^{(1)}_{L}(\rho,\varphi)}{\sin(2 \varphi)} + \frac{\phi^{(2)}_{L}(\rho,\tilde{\varphi})} {\sin(2 \tilde{\varphi})} \; .$$ with $\varphi = \varphi_{12}$, $\tilde \varphi = \varphi_{23}$. For large $\rho$ the short range potentials $\rho^2 v(\rho\sin{\alpha_i})$ vanish for all $\alpha_i$ except in a narrow region around zero. Due to this rescaling the effective range approximation becomes better with $\rho$ increasing and therefore any potential with the same scattering length and effective range would lead to the same results. Let us then in the region of large $\rho$ use square well potentials $V_{jk}(r) = - V^{(i)}_0 \Theta(r<R_i)$, or equivalently expressed by the reduced quantities $v_{jk}(x) = - v^{(i)}_0 \Theta(x<X_i=R_i \mu_{jk})$, where the parameters are adjusted to reproduce the given two-body scattering lengths and effective ranges. The corresponding solutions are then accurate approximations to our original problem at distances larger than $2R_i$ [@jen97]. The potentials $v(\rho \sin{\alpha_i})$ are zero when $\alpha_i>\alpha^{(i)}_0 \equiv \arcsin(X_i/\rho)$. Then eqs.(\[e50\]-\[e55\]) are especially simple, i.e. $$\label{e72} \left( - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha_i^2} + \frac{L(L+1)}{\cos^2\alpha_i} -\nu^2 \right) \phi_{L}^{(i)}(\rho,\alpha_i) = 0 \;$$ and the solutions, vanishing at $\alpha_i=\pi/2$, are given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{e76} \phi_{L}^{(i,II)}(\rho,\alpha_i) = A_L^{(i)} P_{L}(\nu,\alpha_i) \; , \label{e82} \\ P_{L}(\nu,\alpha) \equiv \cos^L\alpha \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha} \frac{1}{\cos\alpha} \right)^L \sin\left[ \nu \left(\alpha - \frac{\pi}{2} \right) \right] \; .\end{aligned}$$ The potentials $v(\rho \sin{\alpha_i})$ are for large $\rho$ only finite when $\alpha_i < \alpha^{(i)}_0 \ll 1$. Then eqs.(\[e50\]) and (\[e55\]) are $$\begin{aligned} \label{e86} \left( - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha_i^2} + L(L+1) - \rho^2 v_0^{(i)} -\nu^2 \right) \phi_{L}^{(i)}(\rho,\alpha_i) = \nonumber \\ + 2 \alpha_i (-1)^L \rho^2 v_0^{(i)} C^{(i)}_{L} \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where the wave functions in $C^{(i)}_{L}$ in eq.(\[e69\]) must be $\phi^{(i,II)}_{L}$. The solutions to eq.(\[e86\]) are then $$\begin{aligned} \label{e89} \phi_{L}^{(i,I)}(\rho,\alpha) = B_L^{(i)}\sin(\kappa_i\alpha) - 2 \alpha (-1)^L \frac{\rho^2 v_0^{(i)}}{\kappa_i^2} C^{(i)}_{L} \; , \\ \label{e92} \kappa_i^2 \equiv -[ L(L+1) - \rho^2 v_0^{(i)} - \nu^2 ] \; .\end{aligned}$$ Matching the solutions, eqs.(\[e76\]) and (\[e89\]), and their derivatives at $\alpha_i=\alpha^{(i)}_0$ gives a linear set of equations for $A_L^{(i)}$ and $B_L^{(i)}$. Physical solutions are then only obtained when the corresponding determinant is zero. This is the quantization condition for $\lambda$ and the eigenvalue equation determining the asymptotic behavior of $\lambda(\rho)$. #### Realistic computations for $^6$He. {#realistic-computations-for-6he. .unnumbered} The practical implementation of the method is tested on $^6$He considered as two neutrons and a $^4$He-core. The two-body interactions reproduce accurately the s-, p- and d-phase shifts up to 20 MeV. Furthermore, a diagonal three-body force, $S_3 \exp(-\rho^2 /b^2_3)$, is added in eq.(\[e30\]) for fine tuning. The range of the three-body force is by its definition given in terms of the hyperradius. For $^6$He, $\rho$=2 fm and 3 fm correspond roughly to configurations where the neutrons respectively are at the surface of the $\alpha-$particle and outside the surface by an amount equal to their own radius. The idea of using the three-body force is to include effects beyond those accounted for by the two-body interactions. Several phase equivalent parametrizations are possible for each radial shape of the two-body potential. They differ in the number of two-body bound states of which the lowest s-state is occupied by the core neutrons and therefore subsequently has to be excluded in the computation. The results are very close after fine tuning by use of the three-body interaction [@gar97]. We shall therefore only use the potentials without bound states. All possible s-, p- and d-waves are included whereas other waves can be ignored to the accuracy we need. The number of Jacobi polynomials in the basis expansion is carefully chosen to give accurate numerical results up to a distance, typically around 40 fm, where the asymptotic behavior is reached and from then on the asymptotic solutions eqs.(\[e76\]) and eq.(\[e89\]) are used. The accurate low-energy continuum spectrum calculations require integration of the radial equations up to distances of the order of ten times the sum of the scattering lengths. For the n+n+$\alpha$ system this is about 180 fm. Too small basis size and too small maximum distance are both disastrous for the numerical reliability. In Fig. 1 we show the two (strictly decoupled ) angular eigenvalue spectra for $1^{-}$ and $2^{+}$. The structure is complicated at small distances where avoided level crossings are seen. The lowest level has in both cases an attractive pocket unable to bind the system, but still responsible for several resonances. At large distance the structure is simpler as the hyperspherical spectrum is approached. In the computation we use the asymptotic behavior, also shown on Fig.1. This improvement of the procedure is absolutely essential when accurate results are required. The phase shifts for the cases in Fig. 1 are shown in Fig. 2. The rapid variation and the subsequent crossing of $\pi/2$, seen at four energies, are the traditional signs of resonances. On the other hand it is also possible to have resonance-like structures without phase shifts crossing $\pi/2$. They may still show up as poles of the S-matrix. In Table 1 we give for a few spins and parities the two lowest $S$-matrix poles obtained by the complex energy method. The radial equations were integrated numerically up to $\rho_{max}$=180 fm where the $1/\rho^3$ tail of the effective potential becomes negligible. The numerical solutions were then matched at $\rho_{max}$ with the Hankel functions $H^{(\pm)}$. Precisely at the pole only the $H^{(+)}$ function must match the numerical solution. We show the results for two different three-body forces, i.e. fine tuned to the ground state energy and to the $2^{+}$-resonance. Although the differences appear to be relatively small, they are important for the observable properties. The two cases in Table 1 can be considered to give the realistic range of the possible variation of the three-body force. For angular momentum $0^{-}, 1^{\pm}$ and $2^{-}$ the relatively small pocket in the effective radial potential combined with strong centrifugal barrier hinders the effect of the three-body force on the phase shifts and the resonance properties. Apart from the lowest 2$^+$ state all these resonances reside above the effective centrifugal barrier and must therefore correspond to rather smooth structures in the cross sections. $J^{\pi}$ $E_r$ $\Gamma$ $E_r$ $\Gamma$ $E_r$ $\Gamma$ $E_r$ $\Gamma$ ----------- ------- ---------- ------- ---------- ------- ---------- ------- ---------- $0^{+}$ 0.94 0.64 1.46 0.83 0.62 0.56 1.16 0.67 $0^{-}$ 2.07 0.74 - - 2.07 0.74 - - $1^{+}$ 1.62 0.74 2.55 0.86 1.62 0.74 2.55 0.86 $1^{-}$ 1.11 0.42 1.67 0.58 0.95 0.38 1.43 0.56 $2^{+}$ 1.02 0.37 1.23 0.45 0.845 0.093 1.05 0.40 $2^{-}$ 0.90 0.34 1.82 0.57 0.90 0.34 1.82 0.57 \[tab1\] An observable less sensitive to the large-distance behavior is related to the excitations from the ground state. We show in Fig. 3 the lowest three strength functions, $S^{\lambda}_{0^{+} \rightarrow J^{\pi}}(E)$, as functions of energy both for plane waves and for the proper continuum wave functions. We find 91%, 60% and 70% of the strength below 5 MeV, respectively for monopole, dipole and quadrupole excitations. We notice the usual rise from zero to a maximum and the fall off towards zero at large energy. The peak is very pronounced for $2^{+}$ reflecting the observed resonance of width 0.11 MeV at 0.82 MeV. Above the smooth plane-wave background for $1^{-}$ is seen a peak at about 0.95 MeV and a shoulder at about 1.8 MeV. This significant $1^{-}$ enhancement is the result of a combination of two overlapping broad resonances, see the S-matrix poles in table 1. It should be detectable although in the same energy region as the $2^{+}$-resonance. The nuclear $0^{+}$ strength function resembles the plane wave result reflecting broader underlying structures. #### Conclusions. {#conclusions. .unnumbered} We have formulated a method to compute low-energy three-body continuum spectra for arbitrary short-range potentials. It is based on a recent successful method used to calculate bound states by solving the Faddeev equations in coordinate space. The angular part of the equations are treated purely numerically at short distances, whereas the large-distance behavior of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions is computed essentially analytically for all partial waves. Combining the results from these two regions allow accurate computations up to very large distances. Realistic computations for ground state properties, transition matrix elements, phase shifts, resonance energies and widths of $J^{\pi}=0^{\pm},1^{\pm},2^{\pm}$ are carried out for the Borromean halo nucleus $^6$He. The established $J^{\pi}=2^{+}$ resonance is found together with a number of other broader resonances. #### Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered} One of us A.C. acknowledges the support from the European Union through the Human Capital and Mobility program contract nr. ERBCHBGCT930320. [99]{} W.Glöckle, H.Witala, D.Hüber, H.Kamada and J.Golak, Phys. Rep. [274]{}, 107 (1996). J.L.Friar, Proc. Int. Conf. on Few Body Problems in Physics, Williamsburg 1994, ed. F.Gross, AIP Conference proceedings [334]{}, 323 (1995). J. Carbonell, C. Gignoux, and S. P. Merkuriev, Few-Body Systems [15]{}, 15 (1993). J.L. Friar, G.L. Payne, W.Glöckle, D.Hüber and H.Witala, Phys. Rev. [C51]{}, 2356 (1995). A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, W. Tornow and M.Viviani, Nucl. Phys. [A607]{}, 402 (1996). P.G. Hansen, A.S. Jensen and B. Jonson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [45]{}, 591 (1995). D.V. Fedorov, A.S. Jensen, and K. Riisager, Phys. Rev. [C49]{}, 201 (1994); [C50]{}, 2372 (1994). M.V. Zhukov, B.V. Danilin, D.V. Fedorov, J.M. Bang, I.J. Thompson, and J.S. Vaagen, Phys. Rep. [231]{}, 151 (1993). V.N. Efimov, Comm. Nucl. Part. Phys. [19]{}, 271 (1990). B.D. Esry, C.D. Lin and C.H. Greene, Phys. Rev. [A54]{}, 394 (1996). B.V. Danilin and M.V. Zhukov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. [56]{}, 460 (1993). B.V. Danilin, T. Rogde, S.N. Ershov, H.Heiberg-Andersen, J.S. Vaagen, I.J. Thompson and M.V. Zhukov, Phys. Rev. [C55]{}, R577 (1997). D. V. Fedorov and A. S. Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [71]{}, 4103 (1993). D. V. Fedorov and A. S. Jensen, Phys. Lett. [B389]{}, 631 (1996). D.V. Fedorov, A.S. Jensen and K. Riisager, Phys. Rev. Lett. [73]{}, 2817 (1994). J.R. Taylor, Scattering Theory, (Wiley and Sons, New York 1972) Chapter 20. A.S. Jensen, E. Garrido and D.V. Fedorov, Few-Body Systems (in press). E. Garrido, D.V. Fedorov and A.S. Jensen, Nucl. Phys. [A 617]{}, 153 (1997).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Loop closure detection, which is the task of identifying locations revisited by a robot in a sequence of odometry and perceptual observations, is typically formulated as a visual place recognition (VPR) task. However, even state-of-the-art VPR techniques generate a considerable number of false positives as a result of confusing visual features and perceptual aliasing. In this paper, we propose a robust incremental framework for loop closure detection, termed incremental loop closure verification. Our approach reformulates the problem of loop closure detection as an instance of a multi-model hypothesize-and-verify framework, in which multiple loop closure hypotheses are generated and verified in terms of the consistency between loop closure hypotheses and VPR constraints at multiple viewpoints along the robot’s trajectory. Furthermore, we consider the general incremental setting of loop closure detection, in which the system must update both the set of VPR constraints and that of loop closure hypotheses when new constraints or hypotheses arrive during robot navigation. Experimental results using a stereo SLAM system and DCNN features and visual odometry validate effectiveness of the proposed approach.' author: - 'Tanaka Kanji [^1] [^2]' bibliography: - 'sii2016\_lcd.bib' title: ' Multi-Model Hypothesize-and-Verify Approach for Incremental Loop Closure Verification ' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Loop closure detection, which is the task of identifying locations revisited by a robot in a sequence of odometry and perceptual observations, is a major first step to robotic mapping, localization and SLAM [@lcd2]. Failure in loop closure detection can yield catastrophic damage in an estimated robot trajectory, and achieving an acceptable tradeoff between precision and recall is critical in this context. Loop closure detection is typically formulated as a visual place recognition (VPR) task. However, even state-of-the-art VPR techniques generate a considerable number of false positives as a result of confusing visual features and perceptual aliasing. In this study, we propose a robust incremental framework for loop closure detection, which we call incremental loop closure verification. Our approach reformulates loop closure detection as an instance of a multi-model hypothesize-and-verify problem in which a set of hypotheses of robot trajectories is generated from VPR constraints using a general pose graph SLAM [@thrun2005probabilistic], and verified for the consistency between loop closure hypotheses and VPR constraints at multiple viewpoints along the robot’s trajectory. Furthermore, we consider the general incremental setting of loop closure detection, in which the system must update both the set of VPR constraints and that of loop closure hypotheses when new constraints or hypotheses arrive during robot navigation. ![image](fig2.eps){width="17cm"} The proposed approach is motivated by three independent observations. First, we are inspired by the recent success of hypothesize-and-verify techniques (e.g., USAC [@raguram2013usac]). Second, loop closure detection is essentially a multi-model estimation problem [@kanazawa2004detection], rather than a single model estimation considered in classical applications of the hypothesize-and-verify approach (e.g., structure-from-motion [@raguram2013usac]), where the goal is to identify multiple instances of models (i.e., loop closure hypotheses) and where the inliers to one model behave as pseudo-outliers to the other models. Finally, and most importantly, the framework is sufficiently general and effective for implementing various hypothesize-and-verify strategies that implement various types of domain knowledge. Although the proposed approach is general, we focus on a challenging SLAM scenario to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed system. Our experiments employ a stereo SLAM system that implements stereo visual odometry as in [@geiger2011stereoscan], loop closure detection using appearance-based image retrieval with DCNN features as in [@lcd5] and binary landmark as in [@ikeda2010visual], and finally, pose graph SLAM as in [@thrun2005probabilistic]. Fig.\[fig:T\] illustrates an odometry-based robot trajectory, as well as a trajectory corrected by loop closing, and a set of VPR constraints selected by our method. As can be seen, major errors in trajectory are accumulated as the robot navigates and these errors are corrected given correct VPR constraints. Fig. \[fig:T\] also reveals that image retrieval-based loop closure detection is less than perfect; a considerable number of false positives and negatives are present. These two types of errors, (i.e., accumulated errors in odometry and misrecognition in VPR of errors), are the main error sources that we address in this study. Experimental results using our stereo SLAM system confirm that the proposed strategy, which includes the use of VPR constraints and loop closure hypotheses as a guide, achieves promising results despite the fact that many false positive constraints and hypotheses exist. The proposed approach is orthogonal to many existing approaches to loop closure detection. In literature, most of the existing works on loop closure detection have focused on the image retrieval step in the task, rather than the verification step [@lcd2]. In fact, loop closure detection techniques are typically classified in terms of image retrieval strategies (rather than post-verification strategies) [@lcd3]. Images are typically represented by a collection of invariant local descriptors [@lcd5] or a global holistic descriptor [@lcd6]. Loop closure detection has been employed by many SLAM systems [@lcd7]. However, the above works did not focus on the post-verification step or introduce novel insight to the hypothesize-and-verify framework. This paper is a part of our studies on loop closure detection. In [@arxiv15a], we addressed the issue of guided sampling strategies for loop closure verification, by which the number of image matching over all the locations is minimized, whereas the current study assumes a constant number of image matching at each location and focuses on the hypothesize-and-verify approach to loop closure verification. The proposed is partially inspired by an incremental extension of multi-modal hypothesize-and-verify approach in [@icra06a], where a different task of robot relocation was considered. Recently, we have discussed robust VPR algorithms [@iros15a], landmark discovery [@icra15a], and DCNN landmarks [@iros16a] in IROS15, ICRA15 and IROS16 papers. Hypothesize-and-verify strategy in loop closure detection has not been addressed in the above papers. Approach ======== Loop Closure Detection {#sec:3a} ---------------------- For clarity of presentation, we first describe a baseline SLAM system in which the proposed approach is built and used as a benchmark for performance comparison in the experimental section. As previously mentioned, we build the proposed system on a stereo SLAM system in which a stereo vision sensor is employed for both visual odometry [@geiger2011stereoscan] and visual feature acquisition [@lcd5]. In addition, we follow the standard formulation of pose graph SLAM [@thrun2005probabilistic]. In pose graph SLAM, the robot is assumed to move in an unknown environment, along a trajectory described by a sequence of variables $x_{1:T}=$ $x_1$, $\cdots$, $x_T$. While moving, it acquires sequences of odometry measurements $u_{1:T}=$ $u_1$, $\cdots$, $u_T$ and perceptual measurements $z_{1:T}=$ $z_1$, $\cdots$, $z_T$. Each odometry measurement $u_t$ $(1\le t\le T)$ is a pairing of rotation and translation acquired by visual odometry. Each perceptual measurement $z_t$ is both a set of VPR constraints $z_t^1$, $\cdots$, $z_t^{N_r}$, and a pair of location IDs, $t$, $t'$. This measurement also has a similarity score that represents the likelihood that the location pair belongs to the same place. In our case, this score is obtained by the VPR task. More formally, we begin with an empty history of VPR constraints. At each time $t$, we run the VPR using the latest visual image as a query to identify the top $N_r=10$ ranked retrieved images that obtain the highest similarity scores. We then insert the $N_r$ pairs from the query image and each of the $N_r$ top-ranked retrieved images as new constraints to the history. To prevent trivial VPR constraints, images are acquired when the interval $[t-\Delta t, t+\Delta t]$ is not considered a candidate for the VPR constraint ($\Delta t=200$). For simplicity, we begin by assuming that fixed sets of VPR constraints $z_{1:T}$ and $N_h$ trajectory hypotheses $m_{1:M}$ are a priori given. Typical hypothesize-and-verify algorithms require such a fixed set assumption [@kanazawa2004detection]. Clearly, this assumption is violated in our SLAM applications as both the VPR constraints and trajectory hypotheses must be incrementally derived as the robot navigates. This incremental setting is addressed in Section \[sec:3c\] by relaxing the fixed set assumption. We divide the entire measurement sequence into constant time windows and generate $N_g=100$ new hypotheses per window. To generate a hypothesis, we employ pose graph SLAM that expects the following as input: 1) an existing trajectory hypothesis and 2) a new VPR constraint selected from the history $z_{1:T}$ of loop closure constraints. In experiments, we set the time window size to $W=500$ frames. The performance is evaluated in terms of quality of estimated trajectory. As previously mentioned, a trajectory hypothesis can be obtained by performing the pose graph SLAM using the loop closure hypothesis as input. To evaluate the quality of a given trajectory hypothesis, we first compute a set of VPR constraints that are consistent with the hypothesis, count the numbers of true positives $N_{TP}$, false positives $N_{FP}$, and false negatives $N_{FN}$. We then evaluate the precision and recall in the form of $N_{TP}/(N_{TP}+N_{FP})$ and $N_{TP}/(N_{TP}+N_{FN})$, respectively. This performance measure requires a set of ground truth VPR constraints. For each query image $i$, we define pairs of locations $(t,t')$ that satisfy $$\|\| p(t,h) - p(t',h) \|\| < T_p \label{eq:gt}$$ as ground-truth VPR constraints. In (\[eq:gt\]), $p(t,h)$ is the two-dimensional coordinate of location $t$ conditioned on a robot trajectory hypothesis $h$, and $T_p$ is the preset threshold of 10 m. VPR Constraints {#sec:constraints} --------------- The image retrieval system encodes the image to a DCNN feature representation as in [@lcd5]. First, we extract a 4,096 dimensional DCNN feature from an image. Although a DCNN is composed of several layers in each of them responses from the previous layer are convoluted and activated by a differentiable function. We use the sixth layer of DCNN, because it has proven to produce effective features with excellent descriptive power in previous studies [@lcd5]. We then perform PCA compression to obtain 128 dimensional features. Our strategy is supported by the recent findings in [@lcd5] in which PCA compression provides excellent short codes with 128 short vectors that generate state-of-the-art accuracy on several recognition tasks. In our experiments, we use DCNN features from the image collection to train PCA models for different settings of the output dimension of 128. However, direct use of DCNN features for image retrieval is computationally demanding as it requires many-to-many comparisons of high-dimensional DCNN features between the query and the image collection. To address this concern, we employ a compact binary encoding of images and fast bit-count operation that enables fast image comparison (Fig. \[fig:R\]). Query and library features are encoded to $N_b=20$-bit binary codes using the compact projection technique borrowed from [@tomomi2011incremental] and then compared using the Hamming distance to obtain a set of candidate images. The, L2 distance of high-dimensional DCNN features between the query and each element of the set are then computed and the top-$N_r$ elements with the lowest L2 distance are inserted into the constraint history $z_{1:T}$. In this study, the threshold $T_b$ for the Hamming distance and the parameter $N_r$ are empirically set to 3 and 10, respectively. Fig.\[fig:R\] shows several examples of input images, DCNN features and binary codes. Hypothesization {#sec:hypothesization} --------------- At each iteration, the system generates a set of $N_h$ hypotheses from $N_h$ constraints that are selected from the constraint history $z_{1:T}$. The task of selecting $N_h$ constraints can be formulated as an iterative process of selecting the $i$-th constraint given a sequence $C^{(i-1)}$ of $(i-1)$ constraints chosen thus far. Therefore, the remaining problem is the manner by which select the $i$-th constraint. To address this issue, we present a simple strategy using the trajectory hypothesis. Our approach begins with an empty sequence $C^{(0)}$ of constraints. It randomly selects the first constraint $z^{(1)}$ from the constraint history $z_{1:T}$. We then run the pose graph SLAM using the selected VPR constraint to generate a trajectory hypothesis $h^{(1)}$ that is consistent with $z^{(1)}$. Intuitively, the next constraint $z^{(2)}$ should be [inconsistent]{} with the trajectory hypothesis $h^{(1)}$, because we want to obtain a new trajectory hypothesis $h^{(2)}$ that is dissimilar from the existing hypothesis $h^{(1)}$. In general, the $i$-th constraint should be inconsistent with the trajectory hypothesis $h^{(i-1)}$. To implement this idea, we propose to select the next constraint $z^{(i)}$ from those constraints $\{(t,t')\}$ whose distance exceeds a pre-defined threshold: $$\|\| p(t,h^{(i-1)}) - p(t',h^{(i-1)}) \|\| > T_p.$$ \ \ Incremental Extension {#sec:3c} --------------------- In this section, we relax the fixed set assumption given in Section \[sec:3a\] and consider the general incremental setting of loop closure detection, in which the system must update the sets of VPR constraints and loop closure hypotheses. Most part of the proposed algorithm work properly with the incremental setting. One exception is that the hypothesis list and constraint history are no longer fixed but grow linear to the time. The main space cost for a hypothesis includes 1) IDs of VPR constraints that are used for generating the hypothesis, and 2) estimated the trajectory or a sequence of estimated robot poses in 3DOF, which is linear to time. Because the number of hypotheses is also linear to time, the total space cost grows quadratically with time. Fortunately, in this study, the length of VPR constraints is shorter than 2000 and the number of hypotheses is smaller than 200. As a result, the number of evaluated hypothesis-constraint pairs is small. Specifically, it is less than $2000\times 200=400,000$ per iteration. Furthermore, we observe that one can eliminate the lowest ranked hypotheses to save space and time costs, as their contribution to the overall performance is typically minimal. Time cost is nearly constant. Although strictly speaking, the evaluation of hypotheses using constraints grows quadratically with time, this evaluation can be performed quickly using a look-up table that stores the results of image retrieval (i.e., indicating which constraint is consistent with which hypothesis). This look-up table must be updated when new hypotheses and constraints arrive, a process that requires a constant cost per time. Another exception is with respect to the hypothesis generation procedure. For each time window, we iterate the hypothesis generation step for 10 times. Then, in each hypothesis generation step, 10 hypotheses are generated from 10 top-ranked hypotheses. This yields $N_g$$=$$10\times 10$ new hypotheses per time window. Fig.\[fig:Q\] and \[fig:S\] show examples of incremental hypothesis generation. Experiments {#sec:4} =========== Settings -------- We conducted loop closure detection experiments using a stereo SLAM system in a university campus. Our experiments employed a stereo SLAM system that implemented the proposed strategies for loop closure detection. The main steps involved visual odometry, loop closure detection, and post-verification. The first step executed stereo visual odometry in order to reconstruct the robot trajectory. We adopted the stereo visual odometry algorithm proposed in [@geiger2011stereoscan], which has proven to be effective in recent visual odometry applications (e.g., [@brubaker2013lost]). The second step applied the appearance-based image retrieval with DCNN features, a fast visual search using a binary landmark [@ikeda2010visual] and precise image matching using DCNN features [@lcd5]. This second step generates a set of new $N_r$ VPR constraints and inserted these into the history of VPR constraints as mentioned in Section \[sec:constraints\]. The third step performed incremental loop closure verification to generate and verify hypotheses in terms of the consistency between loop closure hypotheses and VPR constraints from multiple viewpoints along the robot’s trajectory. This step also incorporates new hypotheses and constraints from the VPR task. \ ![image](fig6.eps){width="17cm"} ![Consistent hypothesis-constraint pairs for different time windows of 1000, 1500 and 2000. Vertical axis: constraint ID. Horizontal axis: hypothesis ID (left) and hypothesis rank (right). []{data-label="fig:W"}](fig7.eps){width="8cm"} ![Sequential hypothesis generation. Vertical axis: hypothesis ID. Horizontal axis: iteration ID. Each line connects one of the top-10 ranked hypotheses and to the next generation hypothesis generated from it. []{data-label="fig:X"}](fig8.eps){width="8cm"} Fig. \[fig:T\] presents robot trajectories superimposed on Google map imagery. The ground-truth trajectories were generated using a SLAM algorithm based on the graph optimization in [@thrun2005probabilistic] using manually identified ground-truth VPR constraints as input. As indicated, major odometry errors were collected as the robot navigated. We collected three sequences along routes with travel distances of 756, 657, and 401 m, respectively, using a cart equipped with a Bumblebee stereo vision camera system, as illustrated in Fig.\[fig:S\]. We defined a ground-truth loop closure constraint as a pairing of two locations $i,j$ whose distance was less than 10 m. Occlusion was severe in the scenes and people and vehicles were dynamic entities occupying the scenes. We processed each path and collected three stereo image sequences with lengths of 1651, 1621, and 979, respectively. We used images with a size of $640\times 480$ pixels from the left-eye view of the stereo camera as input for the image retrieval system. Results ------- Fig.\[fig:U\] shows the performance of loop closure detection in terms of estimated trajectory accuracy. We can see that the proposed method (ILV) achieves good tradeoff between precision and recall. No clear correlation exists between the parameter $N_r$ and the performance of the proposed method. The figure also shows results for loop closure detection using only image retrieval (i.e., combining the binary landmark [@ikeda2010visual] and DCNN feature [@lcd5]). In this case, we randomly sampled $X$ ($X\in \{10,20,30,40,50\}$) VPR constraints from the history of VPR constraints and used the samples to estimate the trajectory using the pose graph SLAM. Fig.\[fig:U\] reveals that these methods (i.e., loop closing with image retrieval only) do not achieve high precision performance, which indicates the effectiveness of the proposed post-verification framework. Fig.\[fig:V\] provides examples of estimated trajectories for 10 hypotheses that were top-ranked at the end of the navigation. We can see that most of the top-ranked hypotheses are successful at estimating sufficiently accurate trajectories. Fig.\[fig:W\] visualizes consistency between hypotheses and constraints for three time windows of 1000, 1500, and 2000. This figure reveals that the number of hypotheses is linear to time. As expected, top-ranked hypotheses (e.g., hypotheses ranked 0-10 as shown in the right panels) are consistent with a greater number of constraints than are those hypotheses shown in the figure. Fig.\[fig:X\] shows examples of the sequential hypothesis generation. Conclusions =========== The main contribution of this study is a novel robust framework for loop closure detection, termed incremental loop closure verification. Our approach reformulated the problem of loop closure detection as an instance of a multi-model hypothesize-and-verify framework, in which multiple loop closure hypotheses are generated and verified using VPR results at multiple viewpoints along the robot’s trajectory. Then, we considered the general incremental setting of loop closure detection, where the system must update the set of VPR constraints and set of loop closure hypotheses when new constraint or hypothesis arrives during the robot navigation. Experimental results using a stereo SLAM system and DCNN features and visual odometry validated effectiveness of the proposed approach. [^1]: Our work has been supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) 23700229, and for Scientific Research (C) 26330297. [^2]: K. Tanaka is with Graduate School of Engineering, University of Fukui, Japan. [[email protected]]{}	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We propose and analyze the concept of the vertical hot-electron terahertz (THz) graphene-layer detectors (GLDs) based on the double-GL and multiple-GL structures with the barrier layers made of materials with a moderate conduction band off-set (such as tungsten disulfide and related materials). The operation of these detectors is enabled by the thermionic emissions from the GLs enhanced by the electrons heated by incoming THz radiation. Hence, Hence, these detectors are the hot-electron bolometric detectors. The electron heating is primarily associated with the intraband absorption (the Drude absorption). In the frame of the developed model, we calculate the responsivity and detectivity as functions of the photon energy, GL doping, and the applied voltage for the GL detectors (GLDs) with different number of GLs. The detectors based on the cascade multiple-GL structures can exhibit a substantial photoelectric gain resulting in the elevated responsivity and detectivity. The advantages of the THz detectors under consideration are associated with their high sensitivity to the normal incident radiation and efficient operation at room temperature at the low end of the THz frequency range. Such GLDs with a metal grating, supporting the excitation of plasma oscillations in the GL-structures by the incident THz radiation, can exhibit a strong resonant response at the frequencies of several THz (in the range, where the operation of the conventional detectors based on A$_3$B$_5$ materials, in particular THz quantum-well detectors, is hindered due to a strong optical phonon radiation absorption in such materials). We also evaluate also the characteristics of GLDs in the mid- and far-infrared ranges where the electron heating is due to the interband absorption in GLs.' author: - 'V. Ryzhii[^1]$^{1,2}$, A. Satou$^1$, T. Otsuji$^{1}$, M. Ryzhii$^{3}$, V. Mitin$^4$, and M.S. Shur$^5$' title: ' Graphene vertical hot-electron terahertz detectors ' --- Introduction ============ The gapless energy spectrum of graphene [@1] enables using single- or multiple graphene-layer (GL) structures for different terahertz (THz) and infrared (IR) photodetectors based on involving the interband transitions [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5; @6; @7] (see, also Refs [@8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14; @15; @16; @17; @18]), where different THz and IR photodetectors based on GLs were explored). The interband photodetectors use either the GLs serving as photoconductors or the lateral p-i-n junctions. In the latter case, the electrons and holes are generated in the depleted i-region and move to the opposite GL contacts driven by the electric field in the depletion region [@3]. The multiple-GL structures with the lateral p-i-n junctions can consist of either several non-Bernal stacked twisted) GLs as in Ref. [@3] or GLs separated by the barrier layers such as thin layers of Boron Nitride (hBN), Tungsten Disulfide (WS$_2$), or similar materials. Such heterostructures have recently attracted a considerable interest and enabled several novel devices being proposed and realized [@19; @20; @21; @22; @23; @24; @25; @26; @27; @28; @29; @30; @31]. The GL-photodetectors, especially those based on the multiple-GL structures, can combine a high responsivity with a relatively low dark current at elevated temperatures (up to room temperatures). This is because the dark current in the photodetectors in question is mainly determined by the absorption of the optical phonons. Since the optical phonon energy $\hbar\omega_0$ in GLs is rather large (about 0.2 eV), the number of optical phonons is small even at the room temperature. This results in a low thermal generation rate. The mechanisms of the thermal generation associated with the absorption of the acoustic phonons and the Auger processes are forbidden due to the features of the GL energy spectrum. However, the interband tunneling in strong lateral electric fields in the i-region can lead to an enhanced generation of the electron-hole pairs and an elevated dark current limiting the photodetector detectivity [@4]. Effective THz detection can be achieved in the lateral diodes with the absorbing GL source and drain sections separated by an array of grapnene nanoribbons (GNRs), which form the potential barriers for hot electrons injected from the source to the drain [@22]. As shown in this paper, an effective THz detection can be achieved in the photodetectors based on double-GL and cascade multiple-GL structures with the vertical transport of hot electrons over the barrier layers. We propose and evaluate such THz detectors operating in the regime of the thermionic emission of hot electrons from GLs and their vertical transport over the barrier layers. The advantages of the THz detectors under consideration include high responsivity and detectivity in a wide spectral range at room temperature and a relatively high-speed operation. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we discuss the device structures under consideration and the GLD operation principle. Section III deals with general formulas for the dark current and photocurrent associated with the thermionic emission of electrons from GL and controlled by their capture into GLs. In Sec. IV, we calculate the variations of the electron temperature in GLs cause by the intraband (Drude) absorption of the incident THz radiation. In Sections V and VI, using the formulas obtained in Sections III and IV, we derive the expressions for the GLD responsivity and dark-current-limited detectivity, respectively. In Sec. VII, we discuss how the electron capture in the GLs affects the GLD responsivity and detectivity. In Sec. VIII, we consider the possibility to use the plasmonic resonances and get an enhanced response at elevated frequencies. Section IX deals with the analysis of the limitations of our model. In Sec. X we evaluate the GLD operation in the IR spectral range and compare GLDs with some other photodetectors. In Conclusions, we summarize the main results of the paper. The Appendix deals with the heat removal problem ![Schematic structure of vertical GLDs based on multiple-GL structure (with minimum of two GLs). The arrows show the current flow (for the case when all electrons crossing a GL are captured in it, i.e., for capture probability $p_c = 1$). ](Bolom_Fig1.eps){width="5.0cm"} ![image](Bolom_Fig2.eps){width="12.0cm"} Device structures and principle of operation ============================================ We consider two types of the GLDs: (a) based on the n-doped double-GL structure and (b) n-doped multiple-GL structure with the GLs separated by the barrier layers made of WS$_2$ or similar material with a relatively small conduction band off-set. As an example, Fig. 1 shows a GLD using a four-GL structure. The double-GLDs consist of only the top and bottom GLs serving as the emitter and collector, respectively (no inner GLs). In the multiple-GLDs, the inner GLs clad by the emitter and collector GLs are disconnected from the contacts. In the double-GLDs (with a single barrier), the bias voltage $V$ applied between the top and bottom GLs induces the negative electron charge in the emitter GL the equal positive charge in the collector GL. If the equilibrium electron concentration is low and the bias voltage is sufficiently strong, the hole gas will be formed in the collector GL. In GLDs with multiple-GL structures, the inner GLs remain quasi-neutral, so that the electron gas in each GL is formed primarily due the n-type doping, whereas the top and bottom GLs can be charged due to the bias voltage. Figure 2 shows the GLPD band diagrams under the bias. It is assumed that the GLDs under consideration are irradiated by the normally incident THz photons with the energy $\hbar\Omega$. The operation of GLDs is associated with the electron heating due to the intraband absorption (Drude absorption) and the interband absorption (see, for example, [@32]) of the incident radiation resulting in an increase of the thermionic current over the barrier layers. Thus, the proposed GLDs are the barrier hot-electron bolometers. In GLDs with the double-GL structures, the electrons entering from the emitter GL and exiting to the collector GL support the lateral current flowing via the contacts, so that the carrier densities in the GLs are maintained. In the multiple-GL structures, the electron density in each GL between the emitter and collector GLs is maintained due to the balance between the electrons leaving and entering GLs via the adjacent barriers due to the thermal emission and the capture processes. If the probability of the capture of an electron crossing a GL is smaller than unity, the GLD operation can exhibit the effect of photoelectric gain. The origin of this gain is of the same nature as in the vertical quantum-well infrared photodetectors (QWIPs) [@33; @34; @35; @36]. The donor density $\Sigma_i$ and the bias voltage $V$ determine the electron Fermi energies $\mu_e$ and $\mu_c$ in the top (emitter) and bottom (collector) GLs, respectively, ($\mu_e > \mu_h$, because the bias voltage increases the electron density in the emitting GL and decreases it in the collecting GL). Considering the geometrical and quantum capacitances [@37] and taking into account the energy gap between the Dirac points in GLs \[see Fig. 2(a)\] in the double-GL structure, at relatively low bias voltages one can obtain: $$\label{eq1} \mu_e \simeq \mu_i\biggl[1 + \frac{eV}{2(eV_i + \mu_i)}\biggr], \, \mu_c \simeq \mu_i\biggl[1 - \frac{eV}{2(eV_i + \mu_i)}\biggr],$$ $$\label{eq2} \mu_i = \hbar\,v_W\sqrt{\pi\Sigma_i}$$ Here $V_i = 4\pi\Sigma_ied/\kappa$, $e$ is the electron charge, $\hbar$ is the Planck constant, $v_W \simeq 10^8$ cm/s is the characteristic velocity of electrons and holes in GLs,and $\kappa$ and $d$ are the dielectric constant and the thickness of the barrier, respectively. At $\Sigma_i= (1.0 - 1.8)\times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$, $\kappa = 4$ and $d = 10 - 50$ nm, one obtains $\mu_i \simeq 100 - 150$ meV and $V_i \simeq 452 - 3630$ mV. Relatively large values of $V_i$ imply that for the realistic moderate values of $V$ considered in the following, the correction of the Fermi energies in the emitter and collector GLs is small in comparison with $\mu_i$. In the multiple-GL structures (with a large number of GLs and the inter-GL barriers $N \gg 1$), all the GLs except the top and bottom one’s are quasi-neutral. Although the electrically-induced variation of the Fermi energies in the emitter and collector GLs can be essential (for the mechanism of the photoelectric gain), we will assume that in all GLs, including the top and bottom one’s, the Fermi energies are close to each other and approximately equal to the value determined by the donor density: $$\label{eq3} \mu \simeq \mu_i.$$ Vertical electron dark current and photocurrent =============================================== We restrict our consideration to the double- and multiple-GL structures with relatively thick inter-GL barriers, so that the tunneling current between the GLs can be neglected (the pertinent calculations can be done using the approach developed in Refs. [@38; @39]. We assume that the main contribution to the vertical current is due to the thermoemission of electrons resulting in the inter-GL transitions (producing the dark current). The impinging THz irradiation heats the electron gas in GLs. This leads to an increase in the thermoemission rate intensifying of the inter-GL transitions, and, hence, the vertical current. The direct electron photoemission is insignificant when the energy of photons $\hbar\Omega$ is smaller than the GL-barrier conduction band off-set $\Delta_C$ (the height of the barrier with respect of the Dirac point). For the GL structures with the WS$_2$ barriers [@40] it implies $\hbar\Omega < \Delta_C \simeq 0.4$ eV. Hence, this inequality is well satisfied for the THz radiation. The rate of the thermionic emission from a GL (per unit of its area) is given by $$\label{eq4} \Theta = \frac{\Sigma_i}{\tau_{esc}}\exp\biggl(\frac{\mu_i - \Delta_C}{k_BT}\biggr),$$ where $T$ is the effective electron temperature which (under the irradiation) is higher than the lattice temperature $T_l$), $k_BT$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $\tau_{esc}$ is the characteristic time of escape from the GLs of the electrons with the energy $\varepsilon > \Delta_C$, $\tau_{esc} \sim \tau$, where $\tau$ is the momentum relaxation time. Using Eq. (4) and assuming for simplicity that $eV/N > k_BT$ ($V/N$ is the voltage drop across the barrier, and taking into account the electrons photoexcited from the emitter and the photoexcited from and captured to the internal GLs (in multiple-GLDs), we find the thermionic current density, $j$: $$j = \frac{e\Theta}{p_c} = \frac{e\Sigma_i}{p_c\tau_{esc}}\exp\biggl(\frac{\mu_i - \Delta_C}{k_BT}\biggr)$$ $$\label{eq5} \simeq \frac{e\mu_i^2}{\pi\hbar^2v_W^2p_c\tau_{esc}}\exp\biggl(\frac{\mu_i - \Delta_C}{k_BT}\biggr).$$ Here $p_c$ is the probability of the capture of an electron crossing a GL. In the GL structures with at least one internal GL (and in the multiple-GL structures), the effects of the balance of thermogeneration from and capture to each GL, are taken into account by introducing the capture probability $p_c$, as in the standard models of QWIPs [@33; @34; @35; @36]. In such an approach, the rate of the electron capture into each GL is equal to $p_cj/e$. Equating the capture rate $p_cj/e$ and the thermogeneration rate $\Theta$, one obtains $j = e\Theta/p_c$ \[Eq. (5)\]. The quantity $p_c^{-1}$ can be relatively large if the capture probability is small. This quantity essentially determines the dark current and photocurrent gain $g \propto 1/p_c$. Equation (5) yields the following formula for the current density $j_0$ without irradiation (i.e., for the dark current) when the dark electron temperature $T$ is equal to the lattice temperature $T_0$: $$\label{eq6} j_0 \simeq \frac{e\mu_i^2}{\pi\hbar^2v_W^2p_c\tau_{esc}}\exp\biggl(\frac{\mu_i - \Delta_C}{k_BT_0}\biggr).$$ In the double-GLDs all the electrons generated by the emitter GL are captured by the collector GL, so that in such a case $p_c = 1$. Considering the variation of the electron temperature $T - T_0$, the photocurrent density $j - j_0$ can be presented as $$\label{eq7} j - j_0 = j_0\biggl(\frac{\Delta_C - \mu_i}{k_BT_0}\biggr)\frac{(T - T_0)}{T_0}.$$ Electron heating by incoming THz radiation ========================================== As previously [@22; @32], we assume that the electron energy relaxation is associated with the processes of the emission and absorption of optical phonons. In this case, for the rate, $\hbar\omega_0R$, of the energy transfer from the electron system to the optical phonon system is determined by (see, for example, [@22; @32]): $$\label{eq8} R = \frac{\Sigma_i}{\tau_{0}}\biggl[({\cal N}_0 + 1)\exp\biggl(- \frac{\hbar\omega_0}{k_BT}\biggr) - {\cal N}_0\biggr]$$ Here $\hbar\omega_0$ and ${\cal N}_0$ are the energy and the number of optical phonons, respectively, $\tau_0$ is the characteristics time of the optical phonon spontaneous emission for the electron energy $\varepsilon > \hbar\omega_0$. If the characteristic time of the optical phonons decay $\tau_0^{decay} \ll \tau_0$, ${\cal N}_0$ is close to its equilibrium value: ${\cal N}_0 = [\exp(\hbar\omega_0/k_BT_0) - 1]^{-1} \simeq \exp(- \hbar\omega_0/k_BT_0)$. In the case of $\tau_0^{decay} > \tau_0$, the effective energy relaxation time $\tau_0$ should be replaced by $\tau_0(1 + \xi_0)$ (where $\xi_0 = \tau_0^{decay}/\tau_0$) [@14]. When the effective electron temperature in GLs deviates from its equilibrium value (due to the absorption of THz radiation), the energy relaxation rate can be presented as \[see Eq. (8)\] $$\label{eq9} R \simeq \frac{\Sigma}{\tau_0}\biggl(\frac{\hbar\omega_0}{k_BT_0}\biggr) \exp\biggl(- \frac{\hbar\omega_0}{k_BT_0}\biggr) \frac{(T - T_0)}{T_0}.$$ The rate of the energy transfer from the electron system to the optical phonon system $\hbar\omega_0R$ is equal to the rate, $\hbar\Omega G$, of the energy transferred from the THz radiation to the electron system: $$\label{eq10} \hbar\omega_0\ R = \hbar\Omega\,G.$$ Considering the intraband, i.e., the so-called free electron absorption (the Drude absorption) and the interband absorption, the net absorption rate can approximately be presented as $$G \simeq \beta\,I\biggl[\frac{D}{(1 + \Omega^2\tau^2)}$$ $$\label{eq11} + \frac{\sinh(\hbar\Omega/2k_BT)} { \displaystyle\cosh(\hbar\Omega/2k_BT) + \displaystyle\cosh(\mu_i/k_BT)}\biggr].$$ Here $\beta = \pi\,e^2/c_0\hbar \simeq 0.023$, $c_0$ is the speed of light in vacuum, $I$ is the THz photon flux entering into the device (or the incident photon flux in the case of the anti-reflection coating), and $$\label{eq12} D = \frac{4k_BT\tau}{\pi\hbar}\ln\biggl[\exp\biggl(\frac{\mu_i}{k_BT}\biggr) + 1\biggr] \simeq \frac{4\mu_i\tau}{\pi\hbar}$$ is the Drude weight, the factor determining the contribution of the Drude absorption (it is proportional for the real part of the intraband conductivity of GLs). For the realistic values of $\tau$, the factor $D$ can markedly exceed unity. Indeed, assuming $\mu_i = 100- 150$ meV and $\tau = 10^{-13}$ s, one obtains $D \simeq 20 - 30$. Strictly speaking, Eq. (11) is valid at not too strong absorption. Since the Fermi energy in the GLD under consideration should be sufficiently large, the processes of the interband absorption of THz photons (their energy $\hbar\Omega \ll \mu_i$), corresponding to the second term in Eq. (11), are effectively suppressed due to the Pauli blocking. This implies that the electron heating by THz radiation is primarily associated with the intraband absorption (with the Drude or the so-called free-electron absorption). In Eq. (11) and in the following equations we disregard the attenuation in the multiple-GLDs of the THz photon flux associated with the absorption of in GLs, which are closer to the irradiated surface (emitter). This should be valid at not too large values of $N$. Taking into account the energy balance in each GL governed by Eq. (10) and using Eq. (11) (omitting the term describing the interband absorption), we arrive to the following expression for the variation of the effective electron energy caused by the THz of IR radiation of moderate intensity: $$\label{eq13} \frac{(T - T_0)}{T_0} = \frac{\beta\,D\tau_0(1 + \xi_0)I}{\Sigma_i(1 + \Omega^2\tau^2)} \biggl(\frac{k_BT_0}{\hbar\omega_0}\frac{\Omega}{\omega_0}\biggr)\exp\biggl(\frac{\hbar\omega_0}{k_BT_0}\biggr).$$ Equation (13) corresponds to the electron energy relaxation time (determined by the optical phonons), which is equal to [@22] $$\label{eq14} \tau_0^{\varepsilon} = \tau_0 (1 + \xi_0) \biggl(\frac{k_BT_0}{\hbar\omega_0}\biggr)^2\exp\biggl(\frac{\hbar\omega_0}{k_BT_0}\biggr) \gg \tau_0.$$ Responsivity ============ Using Eqs. (6) and (8), for the GLD responsivity ${\cal R} = (j - j_0)/\hbar\Omega\,I$, we obtain $${\cal R} = \frac{e\mu_i^2}{\pi\hbar^2v_W^2p_c\tau_{esc}\hbar\Omega I}\biggl(\frac{\Delta_c - \mu_i}{k_BT_0}\biggr)$$ $$\label{eq15} \times \exp\biggl(\frac{\mu_i - \Delta_C}{k_BT_0}\biggr)\frac{(T - T_0)}{T_0}.$$ Using Eqs. (13) and (15), we arrive at the following expressions for the responsivity: $$\label{eq16} {\cal R} = \frac{\overline{ {\cal R}}} {(1 + \Omega^2\tau^2)} \biggl(\frac{\mu_i}{\hbar\omega_0}\biggr)\biggl(\frac{\Delta_c - \mu_i}{\hbar\omega_0}\biggl) \exp \biggl(\frac{\mu_i + \hbar\omega_0 - \Delta_c}{k_BT_0} \biggr)$$ Here $$\label{eq17} \overline{ {\cal R}} = \frac{4e\beta(1 + \xi_0)}{\pi\,p_c\hbar} \biggl(\frac{\tau_0\tau}{\tau_{esc}}\biggr) .$$ As seen from Eq. (16), the GLD responsivity is proportional to an exponential factor. To achieve reasonable GLD characteristics, the Fermi energy $\mu_i$ should not be too small in comparison with the barrier height $\Delta_C$. One can also see that ${\cal R} \propto {\overline{\cal R}} \propto 1/p_c$. As stated above, in the GLDs with the multiple-GL structures, the factor $1/p_c$ can be fairly large. Equation (16) describes the GLD responsivity as a function of the THz radiation frequency $\Omega$, the temperature $T_0$ and the GL doping (via the dependence of $\mu_i$ on $\Sigma_i$). Assuming $\hbar\omega_0 = 200$ meV, $\tau_0^{decay} + \tau_0 = 0.7$ ps, $\tau_{esc}/\tau \sim 1.2$, and $p_c = 1$ for $T = 300$ K, from Eq. (17) we obtain from Eq. (17) $\overline{ {\cal R}} \simeq 27$ A/W. Figure 3 shows the GLD responsivity versus the photon frequency $f = \Omega/2\pi$ calculated for different donor densities $\Sigma_i$ using Eqs. (16) and (17) for $\Delta_C = 400$ meV and the same other parameters as in the above estimate. This corresponds to the GLDs based on the double-GL structure or to the GLDs based on the multiple-GLDs with a strong electron capture in the internal GLs. The responsivity of the latter can be much higher than that shown in Fig. 3 if $p_c \ll 1$ (see below). ![Spectral dependences of responsivity of GLDs with different donor densities. ](Bolom_Fig3.eps){width="7.5cm"} ![Spectral dependences of detectivity of GLDs with different donor densities and $N/p_c = 25$).](Bolom_Fig4.eps){width="7.5cm"} Dark current limited detectivity ================================ Considering that the shot noise current (at the value of the signal current equal to the dark current) is given by $J_{noise} = \sqrt{4egJ_{dark}\Delta f}$, where $\Delta f$ is the bandwidth and $g = 1/Np_c$ is the dark current and photoelectric gain, the dark current limited detectivity (see, for example, Ref. [@36]), can be presented in the following form: $$\label{eq18} D^{} =\frac{{\cal R}}{\sqrt{4egj_0}}.$$ Accounting for Eq. (16), we arrive at $$D^{} = \frac{{\overline D^}}{(1 + \Omega^2\tau^2)} \biggl(\frac{\Delta_C - \mu_i}{\hbar\omega_0}\biggl)$$ $$\label{eq19} \times\exp \biggl(\frac{\mu_i - \Delta_C}{2k_BT_0}\biggr) \exp \biggl(\frac{\hbar\omega_0}{k_BT_0}\biggr)\sqrt{\frac{N}{p_c}},$$ where $$\label{eq20} {\overline D^} = 2\sqrt{\pi}\beta \biggl(\frac{k_BT_0}{\hbar\omega_0}\biggr) \biggl[\frac{(1 + \xi_0)\tau_0\tau\,v_W}{\hbar\omega_0\sqrt{\tau_{esc}}}\biggr].$$ For $\tau_0^{decay} + \tau_0 = 0.7$ ps, $\tau \sim 0.1$, ps, $\tau_{esc} \sim 0.12$ ps, and $T = 300$ K, $\Delta_C = 400$ meV, $\Sigma_i = 1.8\times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ ($\mu_i = 150$ meV), $N/p_c = 1 - 25$, and $f = \Omega/2\pi \ll 1.6$ THz from Eqs. (19) and (20) we obtain ${\overline D^{}} \simeq 1.3\times 10^7$cm Hz$^{1/2}$/W and $D^{} \simeq (0.35 - 1.75)\times 10^9$ cm Hz$^{1/2}$/W. Figure 4 shows the spectral characteristics of GLDs with $\Sigma_i = 1.0\times 10^{12} - 1.8\times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ ($\mu_i \simeq 100 - 150$ meV) calculated using Eqs. (19) and (20) for the same other parameters as from the latter estimate and Fig. 3. From Eqs. (16), (17), (19), and (20), one can see that the GLD responsivity is independent on $N$ (in the framework of the present model), whereas the GLD detectivity is proportional to $\sqrt{N}$ (as in QWIPs [@36]). Role of the electron capture ============================ ![Responsivity of GLD as a function of the capture parameter $p_c$ for different radiation frequencies ($\Sigma_i = 1.8\times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$). ](Bolom_Fig5.eps){width="7.5cm"} ![Detectivity as a function of the capture parameter $p_c$ for GLDs with different number of the inter-GL barriers $N$ ($\Sigma_i = 1.8\times10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $f = 1$ THz).](Bolom_Fig6.eps){width="7.5cm"} As follows from Eqs. (16), (17), (19), and (20), both the responsivity and detectivity of the multiple GLDs increase with decreasing capture probability $p_c$, i.e., with increasing photoelectric gain. The latter quantity is determined by several factors, in particular, by the degree of the electron heating in the inter-GL barriers and, hence, by the potential drop across these barriers and their thickness. The detailed calculations of $p_c$ require additional quantum-mechanical calculations of the electron transitions from the continuum states above the barriers to the bound states in GLs coupled with the ensemble Monte Carlo modeling of the electron propagation across the GL-structure similar to that made previously for multiple-QW structures based on the standard semiconductor heterostructures (see, for example, Refs. [@35; @41; @42]). This is, however, beyond the scope of this work, so that here we consider $p_s$ as a phenomenological parameter. Figures 5 and 6 show the GLD responsivity and detectivity as functions of the capture parameter. One can see that a decrease in the capture parameter $p_c$ leads to a substantial rise of ${\cal R}$. At low $p_c$, the GLD responsivity can be fairly high. The detectivity $D^$ of GLDs with the multiple-GL structure also rises with decreasing $p_c$ as well as with increasing $N$. Since the capture probability $p_c$ in the multiple-GL structures should markedly decrease with increasing electric field in the barrier layers $E = V/Nd$ (as in multiple-QWIPs [@35]), the GLD responsivity and detectivity can be rising functions of the bias voltage if the proper heat removal is provided. Effect of plasmonic resonances ============================== Since the absorption of the incident THz radiation is associated with the Drude mechanism, the absorption efficiency and, hence, the GLD responsivity and detectivity can be relatively small in the frequency range $\Omega/2\pi > \tau^{-1}$. If $\tau \simeq 0.1$ ps, this corresponds to $\Omega/2\pi > 1.6$ THz. However, the operation of GLDs can be extended to much higher frequencies if the GLD structure is supplied by a metal grating over the top GL (not shown in Fig. 1). In this case, the incident THz radiation can result in an efficient excitation of plasma oscillations in the electron-hole system in the double-GL GLDs and in the system of electrons in all GLs (in the multiple-GL structures). Simplifying the equations from Ref. [43]{} for the GLDs with a metal grating, the rate of the THz radiation absorption $G_n$ at the frequency near the $n$-th plasmon resonance ($\Omega \simeq \Omega_n$) can be presented as [@43]: $$\label{eq21} G_n = \frac{\beta\,I DA_n}{1 + (\Omega - \Omega_n)^2\tau^2a_n^2}.$$ Here $A_n = 1/(1 + \beta\,D/2\sqrt{\kappa})^2 \simeq 1$ and $a_n = 4/(1 + \beta\,D/2\sqrt{\kappa})^2 \simeq 4$ are determined by the ratio of the collisional damping (which is actually close to $1/2\tau$) and the parameter of the radiative damping [@44]. Equation (21) does not contain any geometrical parameters such as the grating period, length of grating strips, and the spacing between the grating and the top GL. These parameters only determine the dependence of the resonant plasma frequencies $\Omega_n$ on the device geometry. This is valid as long as those dimensions are much shorter than the THz radiation wavelength and the net length of the grating is of the same order of magnitude as the wavelength. The quantities $\Omega_n$ depend on the net electron density in all GLs $(N + 1)\Sigma_i$, the spacing between the top GL and the metal grating $W$, and the period of the grating. The latter determines the “quantized” wave-number $q_n$ of the excited plasma modes (standing plasma waves). One can put $q_n = (\pi/2L)n$, $2L$, the length of the GL-structure in the lateral direction,and $n = 1,2,3,...$ is the plasma mode index. For simplicity, one can use the following equation for the frequency of the plasma modes (corresponding to $q_nW \gtrsim 1$): $$\label{eq22} \Omega_n \sim \sqrt{\frac{e^2\mu_i(N + 1)}{\kappa\hbar^2}q_n},$$ or $$\label{eq23} \Omega_n \sim \sqrt{\frac{\pi\,e^2\mu_i(N + 1)}{2L\kappa\hbar^2}n}.$$ The square-root dependence of $\Omega_n$ on $N$ appears because the net electron density, which determines the contribution to the self-consistent electric field in the plasma waves by all the GLs is proportional to $(N + 1)$, whereas the electron fictitious mass $m_f$ in GLs is proportional to $\mu_i \propto \sqrt{\Sigma_i}$ (see, for example, Ref. [@39]). Setting $\mu_i = 150$ meV, $2L/n = 0.5 - 1.0~\mu$m (i.e. $2L = 10~\mu$m and $n = 10$), and $N = 5$, from Eq. (23) we obtain $f_{10} = \Omega_{10}/2\pi \simeq 7.4 - 10.4$ THz. If $A_n \sim 1 $ and $a_n \sim 1$, the GLD responsivity at the resonance is of the same order of magnitude as at the low edge of the THZ range $\Omega \ll \tau^{-1}$ (see Figs. 3 and 5). Thus, the resonant excitation of plasma oscillations results in a strong absorption of the incident THz radiation and, hence, in elevated values of the GLD responsivity (and detectivity) at relatively high frequencies (several THz). Such GLDs can cover the frequency range $f \simeq 6 - 10$ THz ($\hbar\Omega \simeq 25 - 40$ meV), which is not accessible by A$_3$B$_5$-based detectors, in particular, THz quantum-well detectors (QWDs) [@46; @47; @48]. Limitations of the model ======================== The model used in the above calculations some simplifications. These simplifications are: (i) The capture probability is the same for all GLs in the GL-structures; (ii) The thermoassisted tunneling is insignificant; (iii) The heating the Joule heating of the structure. Since the capture probability $p_c$ depends on the heating of electrons in the barriers, it can be determined on only by the average electric field in the GL-structure but partially by the electric field in the adjacent barriers. In this case, the probability of the electron capture to the particular GL can depend on its index. Such kind of non-locality of the electric-field dependence can lead to more nontrivial spatial distributions (as in QWIPs [@41; @42]). However, in the GL-structures with the barrier thickness much smaller than the characteristic energy relaxation length, the pertinent effect should be weak. This justifies the assumption that $p_c$ is a constant (which generally depends on the average electric field). At sufficiently high bias voltages (much higher than those assumed above), the electron escape from GLs can be associated with the thermoassisted tunneling from the bound states in GLs to the continuum states above the barriers. This tunneling can also be used in double- and multiple-GLDs with the structures similar to those considered above. Since the effective activation energy for this mechanism can be markedly smaller that $(\Delta_C - \mu)$, GLDs with the thermoassisted tunneling can comprise the barriers with larger conduction band offsets than between GLs and WS$ _2$, for example, with the $hBN$ barriers. However, this problem requires a separate consideration. Above we considered the case of not too low bias voltages ($eV/N > k_BT$). The Joule power $j_0V$ can result in an overheating of the GL structure if $V$ is relatively strong. Such an overheating can be avoided either by decreasing $\mu_i$ (decreasing the GL doping level) or by lowering the bias voltage $V$. In the range of bias voltages $eV/N < k_BT$, the GLD responsivity and detectivity given by Eqs. (16) and (19) should be multiplied by the factors $\zeta =\{1 - \exp[-(eV/Nk_BT)]\} \simeq eV/Nk_BT$ and $\sqrt{\zeta} = \sqrt{1 - \exp[-(eV/Nk_BT)]} \simeq \sqrt{eV/Nk_BT}$, respectively. The transfer to the range of relatively low bias voltages leads to a decrease in the Joule power as $V^2$, but at the expense of a decrease in the responsivity and detectivity (${\cal R} \propto V/N$ and $D^ \propto \sqrt{V/N}$). The Joule heating can lead to overheating of GLDs if the Joule power exceeds the maximum heat energy which can be removed from the GLD unit area, $W_{max}$, without a substantial heating. This results in the following limitation: $$\label{eq24} W^{max} > j_0VA = \frac{e\Sigma_i}{p_c\tau_{esc}}\exp\biggl(\frac{\mu_i - \Delta_C}{k_BT_0}\biggr)V,$$ where $A$ is the device area. Assuming a typical voltage drop cross the GL-structure to be on the order of 50 - 500 mV and the thermal resistance of the package to be on the order of 10 K/W, we obtain that $W^{max}$ and the current leading to the ten degrees overheating $j_0^{max}$ are equal to 1 W and 2 - 20 A, respectively. For a typical 300$\times 300~\mu$m$^2$ device, this corresponds to a fairly reasonable current density of $j_0^{max}\sim 2\times (10^3 - 10^4)$ A/cm$^2$. Setting $\Sigma_i = 2\times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$, $\tau_{esc} = 0.1$ ps, and $p_c = 0.5$, we obtain $j_0 \sim 3\times 10^2$ A/cm$^2$ (i.e., $j_0 < j_0^{max}$. Much higher current densities could be achieved with improved heat sinks (see, for example, Ref. [@49]) and/or in the pulsed regime of operation. Discussion ========== tunneling can be based on the materials with larger conduction band offsets than between GLs and WS$_2$. In principle, GLDs can also effectively operate in the mid- and near-IR ranges. At sufficiently high photon energies, the intraband absorption is negligible, whereas the interband radiative processes, corresponding to the second term in the right-hand side of Eq. (11), can efficiently contribute to the heating of the electron gas in GLs if $\hbar\Omega \gtrsim 2\mu_i$. In such a case for the photon energies $2\mu_i < \hbar\Omega < 2\Delta_C$, the GLD responsivity is given by $$\label{eq25} {\cal R}_{IR} \simeq {\tilde{ {\cal R}}} \biggl(\frac{\Delta_c - \mu_i}{\hbar\omega_0}\biggl) \exp \biggl(\frac{\mu_i + \hbar\omega_0 - \Delta_C}{k_BT_0} \biggr),$$ $$\label{eq26} \tilde{ {\cal R}}_{IR} = \frac{\pi\beta\,e(1 + \xi_0)}{p_c\hbar\omega_0}\biggl(\frac{\tau_0}{\tau_{esc}}\biggr) \biggl(\frac{k_BT_0}{\hbar\omega_0}\biggr). $$ At $\Sigma_i = (1.0 - 1.8)\times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ ($\mu_i \simeq 100 - 150$ meV), Eqs. (25) and (26) yield the values of the responsivity ${\cal R}_{IR} $ about 20-30 times smaller than ${\cal R}$ in the range $\Omega \ll 1/\tau$ (see Figs. 3 and 5). In particular, at $\Sigma_i = 1.8\times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ , assuming $p_c = 0.2 - 1.0$, we obtain rather high values ${\cal R}_{IR} \simeq 0.11 - 0.55$ A/W. The GLD detectivity in the mid- and near-IR range $D^_{IR}$, being much lower than $D^$ in the THz range, can be still relatively high (for room temperature). Note that $\tilde{ {\cal R}}_{IR}$ are $D^_{IR}$ independent of the photon energy in its wide range (from $200 -300$ meV to 800 meV). Comparing the GLDs based on the vertical double-GL structure under consideration with the GLDs with a lateral structure and the barrier region consisting of an array of graphene nanoribbons using the electron heating in n-GL contact region, [@22] one can see that both types of THz detectors at the room temperature exhibit close spectral characteristics. However, the GLDs with the vertical multiple-GL structure can have much higher responsivity and, especially, detectivity if $p_c < 1$ and $N \gg 1$. In principle, room-temperature THz detectors utilizing the thermionic emission of electrons heated by the absorbed THz radiation from QWs can be made of A$_3$B$_5$ or Si-Ge heterostructures. Such detectors on the base of vertical multiple-QW structures were proposed and realized a long time ago(see Refs. [@50] and [@51], respectively, as well as a recent paper [@52]). The THz detectors based on lateral structures with the barrier regions formed by the metal gates were also realized [@53; @54] (see also Ref. [@55]). However, the responsivity and detectivity of GLDs under consideration can be markedly higher than that using the A$_3$B$_5$ multiple-QW structures. Comparing the Drude factor $D$ for GL-structures \[see Eq. (12)\] and the same factor $D_{QW}$ for QW-structures with GaAs QWs, one can find the ratio of these factors at the equal electron density $\Sigma_i$ and momentum relaxation time $\tau$ is given by $$\label{eq27} \frac{D}{D_{QW}} \simeq \frac{mv_W^2}{\mu_i} \simeq \frac{m}{m_{f}},$$ where $m$ and $m_f$ are the effective and fictitious electron masses in QWs and GLs, respectively. For GaAs QWs and GLs with $\mu_i \simeq 150$ meV, these masses are approximately equal to each other. This implies that the THz power absorbed in QWs and GLs are close. However, the electron energy relaxation time in GLs is longer than that in GaAs-QWs and other standard semiconductor QWs. This is mainly due to relatively large optical phonon energy in GLs. Indeed, using Eq. (14) and assuming that $\tau_0^{decay} + \tau_0 = (0.7 -1.4)$ ps at the room temperature we obtain $\tau_0^{\varepsilon} \simeq (32.5 -65)$ ps, while for GaAs ($\hbar\omega_0 \simeq 36$ meV and $\tau_0 \simeq 0.14$ ps), InAs ($\hbar\omega_0 \simeq 30$ meV and $\tau_0 \simeq 0.2$ ps), and InSb ($\hbar\omega_0 \simeq 25$ meV and $\tau_0 \simeq 0.7$ ps) QWs one obtains $\tau_0^{\varepsilon} \simeq 0.56$, 0.93 and 3.93 ps, respectively. Longer electron energy relaxation time corresponds to more effective heating of the electron gas and, hence, higher responsivity. An other factor promoting higher responsivity (and detectivity) of GLDs is the possibility to achieve higher photoelectric gain due to smaller values of the expected capture parameter $p_c$. The THz QWPs using the direct intersubband photoexcitation from QWs require the heterostructures with rather small band off-sets ($\Delta_C \sim \hbar\Omega$). They exhibit a modest responsivity (about few tens of mA/W or less [@46; @47; @48]) with $D^ \simeq 5\times 10^7$ cm Hz$^{1/2}$/W at $T_0 = 10$ K [@46]. Hence, in the few-THz range, GLDs surpass QWPs. GLDs with the grating using the plasmonic effects although should exhibit advantages over QWPs in the range 6 - 10 THz (see above). Additional advantages of GLDs might be associated with better heat removal conditions [@49; @56; @57] than in the case of different A$_3$B$_5$ devices. Due to a substantial progress in fabrication and experimental studies of the multiple-GL structures with the inter-GL barrier layers made of transition metal dichalcogenides [@19] (see also Refs. [@58; @59; @60; @61; @62]), the realization of the proposed GLDs appears to be feasible. In particular, similar GL-structures with five periods and 20 nm thick barriers [@58] and with ten periods [@59] were demonstrated. Conclusions =========== We proposed THz GLDs based on the double-GL and multiple-GL structures with the barrier layers made of WS$_2$ exploiting the enhanced thermionic electron emission from GLs due to the intraband (Drude) absorption, developed the device model, and calculate the GLD responsivity and detectivity at the room temperature. We demonstrated that GLDs, especially, those based on the multiple-GL structures can exhibit fairly high responsivity and detectivity surpassing hot-electron detectors based on the standard heterostructures. The main advantages of GLDs are associated with relatively long electron energy relaxation time and the pronounced effect of photoelectric gain at a low capture probability of the electron capture into GLs. As shown, GLDs using the resonant electron heating associated with the plasmonic effects and GLDs exploiting the electron heating due to the interband absorption can also operate in the far-, mid, and near-IR ranges of the radiation spectrum. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== This work was supported by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoting Research $\# 23000008$), Japan. V. R. and M. R. acknowledge the support of the Russian Scientific Foundation( Project $\# 14-29-00277$). The work at the University at Buffalo was supported by the NSF TERANO grant and the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research. The work at RPI was supported by the US Army Cooperative Research Agreement. [99]{} A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K.S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. [81]{}, 109 (2009). F. T. Vasko and V. Ryzhii, Phys. Rev. B [77]{}, 195433 (2008). J. Park,Y. H. Ahn, and C. Ruiz-Vargas, Nano Lett. [9]{}, 1742–1746 (2009). V. Ryzhii, M. Ryzhii, V. Mitin, and T.Otsuji, J. Appl. Phys. [107]{}, 054512 (2010). T. Mueller, F. N. A. Xia, and P. Avouris, Nature Photon. [4]{}, 297–301 (2010). M. Furchi, A. Urich, A. Pospischil, G. Lilley, K. Unterrainer, H. Detz, P.Klang, A. M. Andrews, W. Schrenk, G. Strasser, and T. Mueller, Nano Lett. [12]{}, 2773 (2012). X. Gan, R.-J. Shiue, Y.Gao, I. Meric, T. F. Heinz, K. Shepard, J. Hone, S. Assefa, and D. Englund, Nature Photon. [7]{}, 888 (2013). F. Bonaccorso, Z. Sun, T, Hasan, and A.C. Ferrari, Nature Photon. [4]{}, 611 (2010). V. Ryzhii, N. Ryabova, M. Ryzhii, N. V. Baryshnikov, V. E. Karasik, V. Mitin, and T. Otsuji, Opto-Electronics Review [20]{},15-25 (2012). A. Tredicucci and M. S. Vitiello, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron [20]{}, 8500109 (2014). L. Vicarelli, M. S. Vitiello, D. Coquillat, A. Lombardo, A. C. Ferrari, W. Knap, M. Polini, V. Pellegrini, and A. Tredicucci, [11]{}, 865 (2012). doi:10.1038/nmat3417 M. S. Vitiello, D. Coquillat, L. Viti, D. Ercolani, F. Teppe, A. Pitanti, F. Beltram, L. Sorba, W. Knap, and A. Tredicucci Nanoeletters [12]{}, 96 (2012). A. Tomadin, A. Tredicucci, V. Pellegrini, M. S. Vitiello, and M. Polini, Appl. Phys. Lett. [103]{}, 211120 (2013). A. V. Muraviev, S. L. Rumyantsev, G. Liu, A. A. Balandin, W. Knap, and M. S. Shur, Appl. Phys. Lett. [103]{}, 181114 (2013). D. Spirito, D. Coquillat, S. L. De Bonis, A. Lombardo, M. Bruna, A. C. Ferrari, V. Pellegrini, A. Tredicucci, W. Knap, and M. S. Vitiello, Appl. Phys. Lett. [104]{}, 061111 (2014) L. Viti, D. Coquillat, D. Ercolani, L. Sorba, W. Knap, and M. S. Vitiello, Opt. Exp. [22]{}, 8996 (2014). C. Oh Kim, S. Kim. D. H. Shin, S. S. Kang, J. M. Kim, C. W. Jang, S. S.J, J.S. Lee, Ju H. Kim. S.-Ho Choi, and E. Hwang, Nat. Com. [5]{}, 3249 (2014). C.-H. Liu, Y.-C.Chang, T. B. Norris, and Z. Zhong, Nat. Nanotech. [9]{}, 273 (2014). A. K. Geim and I. V. Grigorieva, Nature [499]{}, 419-425 (2013). doi:10.1038/nature12385. M. Liu, X. Yin, and X. Zhang, Nano Lett. [12]{},1482–1485 (2012). L. Britnell, R. V. Gorbachev, R. Jalil, B.D . Belle, F. Shedin, A. Mishenko, T. Georgiou, M. I. Katsnelson, L. Eaves, S. V. Morozov, N. M. R. Peres, J. Leist, A. K. Geim, K. S. Novoselov, and L. A. Ponomarenko, Science, 335, 947–950 (2012). V. Ryzhii, T. Otsuji, M. Ryzhii, N. Ryabova, S. O. Yurchenko, V. Mitin, and M. S. Shur, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. [46]{}, 065102 (2013). T. Georgiou, R. Jalil, B. D. Bellee, L. Britnell, R. V. Gorbachev, S. V. Morozov, Y.-J. Kim, A. Cholinia, S. J. Haigh, O. Makarovsky, L. Eaves, L. A. Ponomarenko, A. K. Geim, K. S. Nonoselov, and A. Mishchenko, Nature Nanotechnology [7]{}, 100–103 (2013). L. Britnell, R. V. Gorbachev, A. K. Geim, L. A. Ponomarenko, A. Mishchenko, M. T. Greenaway, T. M. Fromhold, K. S. Novoselov, and L. Eaves, Nature Comm. [4]{}, 1794–1799 (2013). V. Ryzhii, T. Otsuji, M. Ryzhii, V. G. Leiman, S. O. Yurchenko, V. Mitin, and M. S. Shur, J. Appl. Phys. [112]{}, 104507 (2012). V. Ryzhii, T. Otsuji, M. Ryzhii, and M. S. Shur, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. [45]{}, 302001 (2012). V. Ryzhii, A. Satou, T. Otsuji, M. Ryzhii, V. Mitin, and M. S. Shur, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. [46]{}, 315107 (2013). V. Ryzhii, M. Ryzhii, V. Mitin, M. S. Shur, A. Satou, and T. Otsuji, J. Appl. Phys. [113]{}, 174506 (2013). V. Ryzhii, A. A. Dubinov, V. Ya. Aleshkin, M. Ryzhii, and T. Otsuji, Appl. Phys. Lett. [103]{}, 163507 (2013). V. Ryzhii,A. A. Dubinov, T.Otsuji, V.Ya. Aleshkin, M. Ryzhii, and M. S. Shur, Opt. Exp. [21]{}, 31560 (2013) V. Ryzhii, T.Otsuji, V.Ya. Aleshkin, A. A. Dubinov, M. Ryzhii, V. Mitin, and M. S. Shur, Appl. Phys. Lett. [104]{}, 163505 (2014). V. Ryzhii, M. Ryzhii, V. Mitin, A. Satou, and T. Otsuji, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [50]{}, 094001 (2011). H. C. Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett. [60]{}, 1507 (1992). V. Ryzhii, J. Appl. Phys. [81]{}, 6442 (1997). E. Rosencher, B. Vinter, F. Luc, L. Thibaudeau, P. Bois, and Nagle, IEEE Trans. Quantum Electron. [30]{}, 2975 (1994). K. K. Choi,[The Physics of Quantum Well Infrared Photodetectors,]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997). S. Luryi, Appl. Phys. Lett. [52]{}, 501 (1988). R. M. Feenstra, D. Jena, and G. Gu, J. Appl. Phys. [111]{}, 043711 (2012). F. T. Vasko, Rev.B [87]{}, 075424 (2013). H. Shi, H. Pan, Y.-W. Zhang, and B. Yakobson, Phys. Rev. B 87, 155304 (2013). M. Ryzhii and V. Ryzhii, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices [47]{}, 1935 (2000). M. Ryzhii, V. Ryzhii, R. Suris, and C. Hamaguchi, Phys. Rev. B [61]{}, 2742 (2000). V. V. Popov, O. V. Polischuk, T. V. Teperik, X. G. Peralta, S. J. Allen, N. J. M. Horing, and M. C. Wanke, J. Appl. Phys. [94]{}, 3556 (2003). S. A. Mikhailov and K. Ziegler, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat [20]{}, 384204 (2008). V. Ryzhii, A, Satou, and T. Otsuji, J. App. Phys. [101]{}, 024509 (2007). M. Graf, G. Scalari, D. Hofstetter, J. Faist, H. Beere, E. Linfeld, D. Ritchie, and G. Davies, Appl. Phy. Lett. [84]{}, 475 (2004) H. C. Liu, C. Y. Song, A. J. Spring Thorpe, and J. C. Cao, Appl. Phys. Lett. [84]{}, 4068 (2004) J. C. Cao and H. C. Liu, in [Advances in Infrared Photodetectors]{}, ed. By S. D. Gunapala, D. R. Rhiger and C. Jagadish (Academic Press, San Diego, 2011), p. 195. J. Yu Liu, A. V. Sumant, V. Goyal, and A. A. Balandin, Nano Lett. [12]{}, 1603 (2012). R. A. Suris and V. A. Fedirko, Sov. Phys. Semicond. [12]{}, 629 (1978). S. Barbieri, F. Mango, F. Beltram, M. Lazzarino, and L. Sorba, Appl. Phys. Lett. [67]{}, 250 (1995). J. K. Choi, V. Mitin, R. Ramaswamy, V. Pogrebnyak, M. Pakmehr, A. Muravjov, M. Shur, J. Gill, I. Medhi, B. Karasik, and A Sergeev, IEEE Sens. J. [13]{}, 80 (2013). X. G. Peralta, S. J. Allen, M. C. Wanke, N. E. Harff,J. A. Simmons, M. P. Lilly, J. L. Reno, P. J. Burke, and J. P. Eisenstein, Appl. Phys. Lett. [81]{}, 1627 (2002). E. A. Shanner, M. Lee,M. C. Wanke, A. D. Grine, J. L. Reno, and S. J. Allen, Appl. Phys. Lett. [87]{}, 193507 (2005). V. Ryzhii, A. Satou, T. Otsuji, and M. S. Shur, J. Appl. Phys. [103]{}, 014504 (2008). S. Ghosh, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, E. P. Pokatilov, D. L. Nika,A. A. Balandin, W. Bao, F. Miao, and C. N. Lau, Apl. Phys. Lett. [92]{}, 151911 (2008). E. Pop , V. Varshney , and A. K. Roy, MRS Bulletin [37]{}, 1273 (2012). H. Yan, X. Li, B. Chandra, G. Tulevski, Y. Wu, M. Freitag, W. Zhu, P. Avouris, and F. Xia, Nature Nanotech. [7]{}, 330 (2012). S. J. Haigh, A. Gholinia, R. Jalil, S. Romani, L. Britnell, D. C. Elias, K. S. Novoselov, L. A. Ponomarenko, A. K. Geim, and R. Gorbachev, Nature Materials [11]{}, 764 (2012) M. Xu, T. Lian, M. Shi, and H. Chen, Chem. Rev. [113]{}, 3766 (2013). Q.H.Wang, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, A. Kis, J.N.Coleman, and M.S. Strano, Nature Nanotechnol. [7]{}, 699 (2012). W. J. Yu, Y. Liu, H. Zhou, A. Yin, Z. Li, Y. Huang, and X. Duan, Nature Nanotech. [8]{}, 952 (2013). [^1]: Electronic mail: v-ryzhii(at)riec.tohoku.ac.jp	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'A two-state system (TSS) under time-periodic perturbations (to be regarded as input signals) is studied in connection with self-tuning (ST) of threshold and stochastic resonance (SR). By ST, we observe the improvement of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in a weak noise region. Analytic approach to a tuning equation reveals that SNR improvement is possible also for a large noise region and this is demonstrated by Monte Carlo simulations of hopping processes in a TSS. ST and SR are discussed from a little more physical point of energy transfer (dissipation) rate, which behaves in a similar way as SNR. Finally ST is considered briefly for a double-well potential system (DWPS), which is closely related to the TSS.' author: - Boyoung Seo$^1$ - Raishma Krishnan$^2$ - Toyonori Munakata$^1$ title: 'Self-tuning of threshold for a two-state system' --- INTRODUCTION {#sec:1} ============ Recently constructive or beneficial roles of noise gather considerable interest in many fields, such as physical [@1], and biological [@2] sciences as well as engineering [@3]. One of the conspicuous effects of noise or random disturbance is that it can drive a dynamical system out of an equilibrium state, thus giving a life time or Kramers time [@4] to (metastable) equilibrium states. Simulated annealing method[@3], which is used to search for solutions to minimization ( or more generally optimization) problems in a complex system, employs noise to prevent a search process from being trapped in local minimum(metastable) states. Sophisticated algorithms are developed to efficiently escape from local metastable states, which are useful for both simulated annealing and efficient Monte Carlo simulations.[@5] Stochastic resonance(SR)[@1], which stands for a phenomenon in which information transfer from input to output signals can be significantly increased by noise with appropriate (non-zero) intensity. One can comprehend SR by considering a simple threshold system,[@6] which gives 1(0) as an output signal $x$ if input signal $s$ plus noise $\xi$ is larger(smaller) than a certain threshold value $a$. If an input signal $s$ is always smaller than $a$ and there is no noise, $x$ is always equal to 0 and information transfer through the threshold system is impossible. By adding noise $\xi$ to $s$, there is some possibility of $s+\xi> a$, producing $x=1$ and information about $s$ is conveyed through the threshold system. However large noise deforms original input signals too much, leading to no correlation between $s$ and $x$, resulting in no information transfer from input to output signals. As a system similar to the threshold system mentioned above, let us consider an overdamped Brownian particle in a double-well potential driven by a sinusoidal time-periodic force, which was proposed and studied as a model for Earth’s ice ages[@7]. This model has an activation energy and the Gaussian Brownian noise $\xi_G$, which may be regarded as the threshold value $a$ and the noise $\xi$, respectively in the threshold system. In this case information on input signal, such as the frequency $2\pi\omega_0$ of the sinusoidal force, is transfered as the peak position in the power spectrum of output signal. When the variance ( or temperature from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem) of $\xi_G$ is tuned to an appropriate value, which turns out to be non-zero, the signal-to-noise ratio(SNR) attains its maximum value. From this we may consider that SR has a close relation with synchronization, especially when external disturbance is characterized by a frequency $f_0=2\pi\omega_0$. In this regard we mention stochastic synchronization, in which an excitable system like neurons, responds in synchrony with external disturbance(signal), which also gathers lots of interest in connection with electroreceptors in the paddlefish[@8]. When input signals are subthreshold, ability of a threshold system to transfer information is considerably limited for weak noise, as mentioned above. To improve information transfer in this region, we proposed recently a simple adaptation process[@9] for a threshold value $a$ hinted by a self-tuning mechanism proposed to explain auditory sensitivity[@10] when input signal becomes very weak. In this paper we consider effects of self-tuning(ST) of the threshold value for a two-state system(TSS) driven by a sinusoidal signal. One merit of TSS is that one can calculate SNR accurately[@11] by solving a differential equation, without doing numerical experiments to obtain the power spectrum, based on which SNR is usually calculated. In Sec. \[sec:2\] we introduce our system, TSS and a closely related double-well potential system(DWPS) and propose a mechanism to control a threshold value, i.e., an activation energy. In Sec. \[sec:3\] numerical results for SNR, the probability density for residence time[@12], stochastic dynamics of threshold values and the firing rate for the TSS are presented. We show that large SNR is achieved in the small noise region as expected. In Sec. \[sec:4\] the adaptation process, which is governed by a threshold equation with two parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, is studied both analytically and numerically. We discuss how these parameters affect quality of information transfer, with main emphasis put on a large noise region. Final section contains some comments on energy transfer rate from input signals to a reservoir and on a double well potential system(DWPS). Model {#sec:2} ===== In this section we first introduce the two-state system(TSS)[@11] and relate it to the double-well potential system(DWPS) for convenience for later discussions on physical aspects of the model such as energy transfer to a reservoir. The system variable $x(t)$ at time $t$ is assumed to take only two values, $x_+=1$ and $x_-=-1$ and transition between the two states is described by the master equation $$dp_+(t)/dt=-w_-(t)p_+(t)+w_+(t)(1-p_+(t)), \label{e:1}$$ where $p_+(t)$ denotes the probability that $x(t)=x_+$ with $p_+(t)+p_-(t)=1$. $w_-(t)$ is the transition probability at time $t$ for the particle to jump to the left($x_-$) site and $w_+(t)$ is similarly defined. The rates $w_+(t),w_-(t)$ are expressed in an Arrhenius form as $$\begin{aligned} w_+(t)&=& \exp[(-a+A_0 \cos(\omega_0 t))/T], \nonumber \\ w_-(t)&=& \exp[(-a-A_0 \cos(\omega_0 t))/T],\label{e:2}\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ measures strength of noise and $a\pm A_0 \cos(\omega_0 t)$ denotes (time dependent) activation energy for jumping. A physical system which is closely related to the TSS is a double-well potential system(DWPS) described by the Langevin equation $$\begin{aligned} dx/dt = -dV(x)/dx+ A_0\cos(\omega_0 t)+f(t), \label{e:3}\end{aligned}$$ where the random force $f(t)$ satisfies the fluctuation-dissipation relation $$\begin{aligned} \langle f(t)f(t')\rangle= 2T\delta(t-t'),\label{e:4}\end{aligned}$$ and $V(x)$ represents the double well potential $$\begin{aligned} V(x) &=& a (x-1)^2(x+1)^2.\label{e:5}\end{aligned}$$ When both $A_0$ and $T$ are smaller than $a$ in Eq. , Brownian particle described by Eq. may be considered to stay either at $x_+=1$ or $x_-=-1$ for time of the order of Kramers time $\tau_{Kr}\simeq \exp(a/T)$[@4] and occasionally jumps between $x_+$ and $x_-$. When the relaxation time $\tau_{r}\simeq (8a)^{-1}$ of intrawell motion is short in the sense $\tau_r \omega_0 \ll 1$ one can introduce the adiabatic assumption to reduce the DWPS approximately to a two-state system(TSS) described by Eq. . Both TSS and DWPS are extensively studied in connection with SR and are known to show SR[@1], that is, SNR shows maximum at nonzero $T$ when other parameters charactering the system, such as activation energy $a$ and $\omega_0, A_0$ are kept fixed. It may be noted that for the TSS[@11; @12] analytic (or integral form) results for SNR and the distribution function $p_{f.p}(\tau)$ of the first passage time for jumping to another state are available. One merit of the TSS is that even if we take effects of self-tuning(ST) into account, we can calculate SNR by solving a coupled set of differential equations Eq. and Eq. , to be given below, without recourse to Monte Carlo simulations, which inevitably introduce fluctuations to power spectra and consequently to SNR. Here we introduce a mechanism for self-tuning(ST) of the activation energy $a$ in Eq. [2]{}, following the prescription presented in Ref. [@9]. If there occurs no jumping or activation events, $a(t)$ simply decreases, while if a jumping event occurs $a(t)$ increases, thus controlling the jumping or firing rate by avoiding too large or too small firing rates. To express this adaptation process mathematically, we employ the following dynamics for $a(t)$, $$da(t)/dt=-\alpha a(t) +\beta[w_+(t)p_-(t)+w_-(t)p_+(t)].\label{e:6}$$ Indeed, if we tentatively put $\beta=0$, $a(t)$ goes to zero since $\alpha$ is chosen to be positive. If we put $\beta$ positive, we notice that $a(t)$ increases in proportion to the barrier crossing rate. By this mechanism we expect that the TSS adjusts $a(t)$, reflecting the circumstances it is put in. For the DWPS we propose a similar adaptation dynamics for $a(t)$ of the form $$da(t)\equiv a(t+dt)-a(t)=-\alpha a(t)dt+\beta \int_t^{t+dt} dt~\Sigma_i\delta(t-t_i), \label{e:7}$$ where $t_i(i=1,2,...)$ denotes the time when $x(t)=1$. Numerical results for TSS {#sec:3} ========================= We first explain how one can calculate SNR for the TSS with self-tuning(ST), by slightly modifying the approach in Ref.[@11]. SNR with self-tuning: methodology {#sec:level2} --------------------------------- Let us denote the solution to Eq. and Eq. as $$p_+(t)=p_+(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0), \hspace{0.6cm} a(t)=a(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0),\label{e:8}$$ which satisfy the initial conditions $p_+(t=t_0\|x_0,a_0,t_0)=\delta(1,x_0)$ and $a(t=t_0\|x_0,a_0,t_0)=a_0$ with $\delta(1,x)$ denoting the Kronecker $\delta$, i.e., $\delta(1,x)=1$ if $x=1$ and $\delta(1,x)=0$ if $x\neq 1$. The transition probability $p(x,a,t\|x_0,a_0,t_0)$ for $(x(t),a(t))$ to be at $(x,a)$ starting from $(x_0,a_0)$ is expressed as $$\begin{aligned} p(x,a,t&\|&x_0,a_0,t_0)=\delta(a-a(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0))\times \nonumber \\ &[& p_+(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0)\delta(x-1)\nonumber \\ &+&(1-p_+(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0))\delta(x+1)].\label{e:9}\end{aligned}$$ Following MacNamara and Wiesenfeld[@11] let us first introduce the time correlation function $\phi(t,\tau\|x_0,a_0,t_0)$ by $$\begin{aligned} \phi(t,\tau&\|&x_0,a_0,t_0) = \langle x(t)x(t+\tau)\|x_0,a_0,t_0)\rangle \nonumber \\ &\equiv& \int da'\int da \int dx \int dy xy p(x,a',t+\tau \nonumber \\ &\|& y,a,t)p(y,a,t\|x_0,a_0,t_0). \label{e:10}\end{aligned}$$ After performing integration of Eq. over $y$ and $a$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \phi(t,\tau&\|&x_0,a_0,t_0)=\int da' \int dx x [p_+(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0)\nonumber \\ &p&(x,a',t+\tau\|1,a(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0),t)-p_-(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0)\nonumber \\ &p&(x,a',t+\tau\|-1,a(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0),t)].\label{e:11}\end{aligned}$$ Now we take the limit $t_0\to -\infty$ to remove $x_0,a_0$ dependence of $p_+, p_-$ and of $a$ on the right hand side of Eq. , leading to $$\begin{aligned} \phi(t&,&\tau)=\int da' \int dx x [p_+(t)p(x,a',t+\tau\|1,a(t),t) \nonumber \\ &-&p_-(t)p(x,a',t+\tau\|-1,a(t),t],\label{e:12}\end{aligned}$$ where we replace $\lim_{t_0\to -\infty}p_+(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0)$ by $p_+(t)$ and $\lim_{t_0\to -\infty }a(t\|x_0,a_0,t_0)$ by $a(t)$. $\int da'$ can be performed trivially to have $$\begin{aligned} \phi(t,\tau)&=& p_+(t)[2p_+(t+\tau\|1,a(t),t)-1]\nonumber \\ &-&p_-(t)[2p_+(t+\tau\|-1,a(t),t)-1]. \label{e:13}\end{aligned}$$ Finally to make the function $\phi(t,\tau)$ independent of the time variable $t$ and also to conform to experimental situations, we take time average $(1/\tau_p)\int_0^{\tau_p} dt$ with $\tau_p=2\pi/\omega_0$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned} \phi(\tau)&=&(1/\tau_p)\int_0^{\tau_p} dt \{p_+(t)[2p_+(t+\tau\|1,a(t),t)-1]\nonumber \\ &-&p_-(t)[2p_+(t+\tau\|-1,a(t),t)-1\}. \label{e:14}\end{aligned}$$ Numerical implementation of Eq. is not difficult and the result is conveniently expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \phi(\tau)\approx\phi_{relax}(\tau)+B\cos(\omega_0\tau), \label{e:15}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_{relax}(\tau)$ is the relaxation part, which goes to zero asymptotically as $\tau \to \infty$, and $B\cos(\omega_0\tau)$ represents the periodic part of the external field. Fourier transformation of Eq. has the form $$\begin{aligned} \tilde \phi(\omega)=\tilde\phi_{relax}(\omega)+ B[\delta(\omega-\omega_0)+\delta(\omega_0+\omega_0)], \label{e:16}\end{aligned}$$ and SNR is define here as $$\begin{aligned} R_{SN}=B/\tilde\phi_{relax}(\omega_0), \label{e:17}\end{aligned}$$ Numerical results for SNR and other quantities {#sec:level2} ---------------------------------------------- ![ First passage time distribution functions for the system marked by black circle(a) and by the white circle(b) in Fig. 1. ](fig1.eps) [[a]{}]{} ![ First passage time distribution functions for the system marked by black circle(a) and by the white circle(b) in Fig. 1. ](fig2a.eps) [[b]{}]{} ![ First passage time distribution functions for the system marked by black circle(a) and by the white circle(b) in Fig. 1. ](fig2b.eps) It is noted that we take $\omega_0=0.5$ and $A_0=0.3$ in the following. In Fig.1 is plotted SNR for systems with self-tuning( $\alpha=0.03$ and $\beta=0.1, C\equiv \alpha/\beta=0.3$) and without self-tuning($a=0.5$). We observe that SNR is improved by self-tuning in the low temperature region. This is confirmed from the first-passage time distribution function $p_{f.p}(\tau)$ shown in Fig. 2 for the two systems marked by black circle with ST and by white circle( without ST) in Fig.1 ($T=0.15$). These $p_{f.p}(\tau)$ are obtained by Monte Carlo simulations, in which we actually followed particle motion with the hopping rate given by Eq. and obtain a histogram of the first passage time $\tau$. For a system with ST(Fig. 2a) we notice that most of the particles hop, taking the first chance of low activation energy. This is in contrast with the system without ST(Fig. 2b), for which we observe many bumps of probability with the spacing $\tau_{p}=2\pi/\omega_0$.[@12; @13; @14] [[a]{}]{} ![ Time-averaged activation energy $\overline{a}$ (a) and time-averaged firing rate $\overline{fr}$ as functions of $T$(b). Parameter values used for the solid and dashed curves correspond to the ones in Fig.1.](fig3a.eps "fig:") [[b]{}]{} ![ Time-averaged activation energy $\overline{a}$ (a) and time-averaged firing rate $\overline{fr}$ as functions of $T$(b). Parameter values used for the solid and dashed curves correspond to the ones in Fig.1.](fig3b.eps "fig:") [[a]{}]{} ![ Dynamical behavior $x(t)=\pm 1$ (full curves) and $a(t)$(dotted curves) from Monte Carlo simulations together with the sinusoidal signals $A_0\cos(\omega_0 t)$(dashed curves) for the system marked by the black squares(a) and the white squares(b) with $\alpha=0.03$ and $\beta=0.1$. ](fig4a.eps "fig:") [[b]{}]{} ![ Dynamical behavior $x(t)=\pm 1$ (full curves) and $a(t)$(dotted curves) from Monte Carlo simulations together with the sinusoidal signals $A_0\cos(\omega_0 t)$(dashed curves) for the system marked by the black squares(a) and the white squares(b) with $\alpha=0.03$ and $\beta=0.1$. ](fig4b.eps "fig:") We discuss now the overall $T$-dependence of SNR shown in Fig.1 based on time-averaged activation energy(Fig. 3a), $\overline{a}=\tau_p^{-1}\int_0^{\tau_p} a(t)$ with $\tau_p\equiv 2\pi/\omega_0$ and on a time-averaged firing rate $\overline{fr}$ similarly defined as $\overline{a}$(Fig. 3b). In the low temperature region ($T<0.25$), the firing rate $\overline{fr}$ is increased since self-tuning(ST) lowers the activation barrier $\overline{a}(<a=0.5)$. However in the high temperature region($T>0.25$) where noise intensity is high, SNR is deteriorated by ST due to considerable increase of $\overline{a}$, which results in rapid decrease of $\overline{fr}$ compared with the fixed threshold case(Fig.3). Firing events are in general useful for information transfer and our results suggests that rapid growth of $\overline{a}$ as $T$ increases is not welcome from the point of information processing by a threshold device. Behavior of $\overline{a}$ and $\overline{fr}$ depend on the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in Eq. and this will be considered in the next section. Before proceeding to this problem, we show a typical example of Monte Carlo trajectories $(x(t),a(t))$ together with the input signal $A_0\cos(\omega_0 t)$ in Fig. 4a for the system marked by black squares(a) and white squares(b), belonging to a high $T$ region($T=0.4$). When $T$ and consequently noise are large, we have some chances of successive hopping events as shown in Fig. 4. In this case the activation energy $a(t)$ increases rapidly as shown in Fig. 4a( typically around $t\simeq 80$) due to ST, which inhibits a firing event on average for some time. That is, in our Monte Carlo simulations we increase $a(t)$ by $\beta$ whenever there occurs a hopping event(see Eq. (6)). From this we intuitively see that large $\beta$ values makes $a(t)$ large, resulting in small $fr(t)$. With these preparations we now consider $\alpha$ and $\beta$ dependence of SNR. threshold dynamics and SNR {#sec:4} ========================== Now let us consider Eq. , which describes time evolution of the barrier height $a(t)$, and express it as $$\begin{aligned} da/dt=-\alpha a(t)+\beta fr(t), \label{e:18}\end{aligned}$$ where $fr(t)$ denotes a firing rate at time $t$. Since we are mainly interested in a subthreshold situation (i.e. $a(t)>A_0$) and a large $T$ region where ST did not work well compared with the weak noise region(see Fig.1), we neglect for qualitative discussion $A_0/T$ in Eq. and obtain, with a use of simple form for Kramers rate[@4], $$\begin{aligned} (\alpha/\beta)\overline{a}\equiv C\overline{a}= \exp(-\overline{a}/T), \label{e:19}\end{aligned}$$ [[a]{}]{} ![ Time averaged activation energy $\overline{a}$(a) and time-averaged firing rate $\overline{fr}$(b) as functions of $T$ from Eq. (19)](fig5a.eps "fig:") [[b]{}]{} ![ Time averaged activation energy $\overline{a}$(a) and time-averaged firing rate $\overline{fr}$(b) as functions of $T$ from Eq. (19)](fig5b.eps "fig:") ![ SNR ($R_{SN}$) with ST($\alpha=0.03, \beta=0.04, C=0.75$) (full curve) and without ST(dashed curve).](fig6.eps) after time averaging both sides of Eq. for one period $\tau_p=2\pi/\omega_0$ of the external field. From this we see that at large $T$, $\overline{a}\to 1/C$ and $\overline {fr}\to (1-1/(TC))$. In Fig. 5a we show $\overline{a}$ as a function of $T$, which is obtained by solving Eq. for three values of $C\equiv \alpha/\beta$($C=0.3,0.75, 1.0$ from above). We notice that the barrier height $\overline{a}$ remains small even for large $T$ when $C\equiv \alpha/\beta$ becomes large. The firing rate $\overline{fr}$, calculated from Eq. , Eq. , and Eq. , is shown in Fig. 5b($C=0.3,0.75, 1.0$ from below). Reflecting the fact that $\overline{a}$ does not increase rapidly with $T$ when $C$ is large, the firing rate seems to remain large in a large $T$ region when $C$ becomes slightly larger than 0.3. Guided by this observation we choose $C=0.75$( $\alpha=0.03$ and $\beta=0.04$) and plot SNR in Fig. 6 as a function of $T$. Compared with the solid curve in Fig. 1 we notice that SNR is improved considerably and our ST seems to work well even in the high $T$ region by choosing proper values for $C=\alpha/\beta$. ![ Dynamical behavior $x(t)=\pm 1$ (full curves) and $a(t)$(dotted curves) from Monte Carlo simulations together with the sinusoidal signals $A_0\cos(\omega_0 t)$(dashed curves) for the system marked by the white circle in Fig. 6. ](fig7.eps) Details of dynamics $(x(t),a(t))$ are shown in Fig. 7 for the system marked with a white circle in Fig. 6. This should be compared with the dynamics in Fig. 4a which is characterized by different parameter values($\alpha=0.03,\beta=0.1,C=0.3$). By choosing a smaller value for $\beta(=0.04)$(keeping $\alpha$ fixed to 0.03) we could prevent the activation energy becoming too large and this contributes to making SNR large. energy transfer, DWPS and conclusion {#sec:5} ==================================== In this section we consider briefly energy transfer from input signals to the reservoir(i.e. dissipation) and the DWPS, Eqs. (3-5) before concluding this paper. The hopping rate, Eq. (6), can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} w_+(t)&=& \exp[-(V_s-V_1(t))/T], \nonumber \\ w_-(t)&=& \exp[-(V_s-V_{-1}(t))/T],\end{aligned}$$ with $V_s(=a)$ and $V_{\pm 1}(t)$ the energy at the saddle point($x=0$) and at the position $x=\pm 1$, respectively. If $x(t)$ changes at $t=t_1$ from -1 to 1, the energy $\Delta E(t_1)$ transfered from the signal to the reservoir is given by $\Delta E=-(V_1(t_1)-V_{-1}(t_1))=2V_{-1}(t_1)$. Dividing all the energy $\sum_{i} \Delta E(t_i)$ by the experimental duration $\tau_{exp}$ and $\overline{a}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} E_{s \to r}=\sum_{i} \Delta E(t_i)/(\tau_{exp}\overline{a}),\label{e:21}\end{aligned}$$ which was obtained by Monte Carlo experiments. ![ Energy transfer rate $E_{s \to r}$ as a function of $T$ for s system without ST(full curve) and with ST with $\alpha=0.03,\beta=0.1$ (dotted curve) and $\alpha=0.03,\beta=0.04$ (dashed curve).](fig8.eps) ![ SNR ($R_{SN}$) for DWPS with ST(full curve) and without ST(dashed curve). For ST we use $\alpha=0.05,~\beta=0.05$ in Eq. and the barrier height is set $a=1$ for the system without ST where $A_0=0.8$ and $\omega_0=0.5$.](fig9.eps) [[a]{}]{} ![ First passage time distribution function $p_{f.p}(\tau/\tau_p)$ for DWPS with ST(a) and without ST(b) at $T=0.15$. Parameter values characterizing the system is the same with those for Fig. 9. ](fig10a.eps "fig:") [[b]{}]{} ![ First passage time distribution function $p_{f.p}(\tau/\tau_p)$ for DWPS with ST(a) and without ST(b) at $T=0.15$. Parameter values characterizing the system is the same with those for Fig. 9. ](fig10b.eps "fig:") In Fig. 8 is plotted $E_{s \to r}$ as a function of $T$. The dotted curve($\alpha=0.03,\beta=0.04$), the dashed curve($\alpha=0.03,\beta=0.1$), and the full curve correspond to the systems represented by the full curve in Fig. 6, the full curve in Fig. 1 and the dashed curve in Fig. 1, respectively. We see that SNR and $E_{s \to r}$ show surprisingly similar behaviors. This is rather natural since both quantities depend on the firing rate and the firing timing in similar ways. Especially the firing timing is important for both SNR and $E_{s \to r}$. When a hopping event from $x=-1$ to $x=1$ occurs at time $t_1$, maximum energy transfer is achieved when $V_{-1}$ becomes maximum at time $t_1$. This synchrony is evidently reflected to SNR. As noted in Sec. I the synchrony is also important for SNR. Final comment is on the double-well potential system(DWPS), Eqs. (3-5). Since TSS and DWPS describe similar hopping events under time periodic signals, we expect that both systems share common properties , especially in relation to ST and SR. Fig. 9 shows SNR of DWPS with(full curve) and without(dashed curve) ST, where SNR is defined as the ratio $P(\omega_0)/[P(\omega_0-d\omega)/2+P(\omega+d\omega)/2]$ with $P(\omega)$ denoting the power spectral density at frequency $\omega$ and $d\omega$ is the frequency mesh size in numerical calculations of $P(\omega)$. This should be compared with Fig.1 for TSS. Corresponding to Fig. 2, we compare $p_{f.p}(\tau)$ for the two systems marked by a white and black circle in Fig. 9. in Fig.10. From these results it is seen that TSS and DWPS behave similarly with respect to response to and information transfer of the periodic signals. In this paper we applied a ST mechanism, Eq. , to TSS, Eq. and confirmed that better SNR is simply obtained by ST mechanism for small fluctuation(i.e. low $T$) region. Tuning of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ was guided by a simple equation , leading to better SNR even for a high $T$ region. Energy transfer or dissipation rate was also studied and this quantity turned out to be able to play a similar role as a measure for information processing ability of a threshold device. [0]{} V. S. Anishchenko, V. V. Astakhov, A. B. Neiman, T. E. Vadivasova, and L. Schimansky-Geier, [Nonlinear Dynamics of Chaotic and Stochastic Systems]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2002). L. Gammaitoni, P. Hänggi, P. Jung, and F. Marchesoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. [70]{}, 223 (1998). P. Reimann, Phys. Rep. [361]{}, 57 (2002). F. Jülicher, A. Ajdari, and J. Prost, Rev. Mod. Phys. [69]{}, 1269 (1997). S.Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Science [220]{}, 671 (1983). H. A. Kramers, Physica [7]{}, 284 (1940). S. Chandrasekhar, Rev. Mod. Phys. [15]{}, 1 (1943), in [Selected Papers on Noise and Stochastic Processes]{}, edited by N. Wax, (Dover Publications, New York 1954). A. K. Hartmann, and H. Rieger, [Optimization Algorithms in Physics]{}, (Wiley-VCH, Berlin 2002). F. Marchesoni, F. Apostolico, and S. Santucci, Phys. Rev. E [59]{}, 3958 (1999). F. Apostolico, L. Gammaitoni, F. Marchesoni, and S. Santucci, Phys. Rev. E [55]{}, 36 (1997). R. Benzi, S. Sutera, and A. Vulpiani, J. Phys. A [14]{}, L453 (1981). A. B. Neiman, D. F. Russel, X. Pei, W. Wojtenek, J. Twitty, E. Simonotto, B. A. Wetting, E. Wagner, L. A. Wilkens, F. Moss, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos, [10]{}, 2499 (2000). T. Munakata, T. Hada, and M. Ueda, Physica A. [375]{}, 492 (2007). W. Denk, W. W. Webb, A. J. Hudspeth, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [86]{}, 5371 (1989). S. Camalet, T. Duke, F. Jülicher, J. Prost, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [97]{}, 3183 (2000). B. McNamara, and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. A. [39]{}, 4854 (1989). T. Zhou, F. Moss, and P. Jung, Phys. Rev. A [42]{}, 3161 (1990). L. Gammaitoni, F. Marchesoni, E. Menichella-Saetta, and S. Santucci, Phys. Rev. Lett. [62]{}, 349 (1989). L. Gammaitoni, F. Marchesoni, and S. Santucci, Phys. Rev. Lett. [74]{}, 1052 (1995).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: \| We present a simple sublinear-time algorithm for sampling an arbitrary subgraph $H$ exactly uniformly from a graph $G$, to which the algorithm has access by performing the following types of queries: (1) uniform vertex queries, (2) degree queries, (3) neighbor queries, (4) pair queries and (5) edge sampling queries. The query complexity and running time of our algorithm are $\tilde{O}(\min\{m, \frac{m^{\rho(H)}}{\# H}\})$ and $\tilde{O}(\frac{m^{\rho(H)}}{\# H})$, respectively, where $\rho(H)$ is the fractional edge-cover of $H$ and $\# H$ is the number of copies of $H$ in $G$. For any clique on $r$ vertices, i.e., $H=K_r$, our algorithm is almost optimal as any algorithm that samples an $H$ from any distribution that has $\Omega(1)$ total probability mass on the set of all copies of $H$ must perform $\Omega(\min\{m, \frac{m^{\rho(H)}}{\# H\cdot (cr)^r}\})$ queries. Together with the query and time complexities of the $(1\pm \varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm for the number of subgraphs $H$ by Assadi, Kapralov and Khanna [@assadi2018simple] and the lower bound by Eden and Rosenbaum [@total-lower-bound] for approximately counting cliques, our results suggest that in our query model, approximately counting cliques is “equivalent to” exactly uniformly sampling cliques, in the sense that the query and time complexities of exactly uniform sampling and randomized approximate counting are within a polylogarithmic factor of each other. This stands in interesting contrast to an analogous relation between approximate counting and almost uniformly sampling for self-reducible problems in the polynomial-time regime by Jerrum, Valiant and Vazirani [@jerrum1986random]. author: - 'Hendrik Fichtenberger [^1]' - 'Mingze Gao[^2]' - 'Pan Peng [^3]' bibliography: - 'mybibliography.bib' title: Sampling Arbitrary Subgraphs Exactly Uniformly in Sublinear Time --- \[section\] Introduction ============ “Given a huge real graph, how can we derive a representative sample?” is a first question asked by Leskove and Faloutsos in their seminal work on graph mining [@leskovec2006sampling], which is motivated by the practical concern that most classical graph algorithms are too expensive for massive graphs (with millions or billions of vertices), and graph sampling seems essential for lifting the dilemma. In this paper, we study the question of how to sample a subgraph $H$ uniformly at random from the set of all subgraphs that are isomorphic to $H$ contained in a large graph $G$ in sublinear time, where the algorithm is given query access to the graph $G$. That is, the algorithm only probes a small portion of the graph while still returning a sample with provable performance guarantee. Such a question is relevant for statistical reasons: we might need a few representative and unbiased motifs from a large network [@triangle_counting_app_3], or edge-colored subgraphs in a structured database [@atserias2008size], in a limited time. A subroutine for extracting a uniform sample of $H$ is also useful in streaming (e.g., [@ahmed2017sampling]), parallel and distributed computing (e.g., [@feng2017can]) and other randomized graph algorithms (e.g., [@hu2013survey]). Currently, our understanding of the above question is still rather limited. Kaufman, Krivelevich and Ron gave the first algorithm for sampling an edge almost uniformly at random [@edge_sampling_begin]. Eden and Rosenbaum gave a simpler and faster algorithm [@edge_sampling_1]. Both works considered the general graph model, where an algorithm is allowed to perform the following queries, where each query will be answered in constant time: uniform vertex query : the algorithm can sample a vertex uniformly at random; degree query : for any vertex $v$, the algorithm can query its degree $d_v$; neighbor query : for any vertex $v$ and index $i\leq d_v$, the algorithm can query the $i$-th neighbor of $v$; pair query : for any two vertices $u,v$, the algorithm can query if there is an edge between $u,v$. In [@edge_sampling_1], Eden and Rosenbaum gave an algorithm that takes as input a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges (where $m$ is unknown to the algorithm), uses $\tilde{O}(n/\sqrt{m})$ queries[^4] in expectation and returns an edge $e$ that is sampled with probability $(1\pm \varepsilon)/m$ (i.e., almost uniformly at random). This is almost optimal in the sense that any algorithm that samples an edge from an almost-uniform distribution requires $\Omega(n/\sqrt{m})$ queries. In their sublinear-time algorithm for approximately counting the number cliques [@eden2018approximating] (see below), Eden, Ron and Seshadhri use a procedure to sample cliques incident to a suitable vertex subset $S$ almost uniformly at random. However, for an arbitrary subgraph $H$, it is still unclear how to obtain an almost uniform sample in sublinear time. ##### Approximate counting in sublinear-time In contrast to sampling subgraphs (almost) uniformly at random, the very related line of research on approximate counting the number of subgraphs in sublinear time has made some remarkable progress in the past few years. Feige gave a $(2+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm with $\tilde{O}(n/\sqrt{m})$ queries for the average degree, which is equivalent to estimating the number of edges, of a graph in the model that only uses vertex sampling and degree queries [@edge_counting_app_1]. He also showed that any $(2-o(1))$-approximation for the average degree using only vertex and degree queries requires $\Omega(n)$ queries. Goldreich and Ron then gave a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm with $\tilde{O}(n/\sqrt{m})$ queries for the average degree in the model that allows vertex sampling, degree and neighbor queries [@edge_counting_0]. Eden, Levi, Ron and Seshadhri recently gave the first sublinear-time algorithm for $(1\pm \varepsilon)$-approximating the number of triangles [@triangle_counting_1]. Later, Eden, Ron and Seshadhri generalized it to $(1\pm \varepsilon)$-approximating the number of $r$-cliques $K_r$ [@eden2018approximating] in the general graph model that allows vertex sampling, degree, neighbor and vertex-pair queries. The query complexity and running time of their algorithms for $r$-clique $K_r$ counting are $\tilde{O}(\frac{n}{(\# {K_r})^{1/3}} +\min\{m,\frac{m^{r/2}}{\# {K_r}}\})$ and $\tilde{O}(\frac{n}{(\# {K_r})^{1/3}} +\frac{m^{r/2}}{\# {K_r}})$ respectively, for any $r\geq 3$, where $\# {K_r}$ is the number of copies of $K_r$ in $G$. Furthermore, in boths works it was proved that the query complexities of the respective algorithms are optimal up to polylogarithmic dependencies on $n, \epsilon$ and $r$. Later, Assadi, Kapralov and Khanna [@assadi2018simple] gave a sublinear-time algorithm for $(1\pm \varepsilon)$-approximating the number of copies of an arbitrary subgraph $H$ in the augmented general graph model [@AliSub17]. That is, besides the aforementioned vertex sampling, degree, neighbor and pair queries, the algorithm is allowed to perform the following type of queries: edge sampling query : the algorithm can sample an edge uniformly at random. The algorithm in [@assadi2018simple] uses $\tilde{O}(\min\{m, \frac{m^{\rho(H)}}{\# H}\})$ queries and $\tilde{O}(\frac{m^{\rho(H)}}{\# H})$ time, where $\rho(H)$ is the fractional edge-cover of $H$ and $\# H$ is the number of copies of $H$ in $G$. For the special case $H=K_r$, their algorithm performs $\tilde{O}(\min\{m,\frac{m^{r/2}}{\# {K_r}}\})$ queries and runs in $\tilde{O}(\frac{m^{r/2}}{\# {K_r}})$ time, which do not have the additive term $\frac{n}{(\# K_r)^{1/3}}$ in the query complexity and running time of the algorithms in [@triangle_counting_1; @eden2018approximating]. Eden and Rosenbaum provided simple proofs that most of the aforementioned results are nearly optimal in terms of their query complexities by reducing from communication complexity problems [@total-lower-bound]. Further investigation of sampling an edge and estimating subgraphs in low arboricity graphs [@eden_et_al:LIPIcs:2019:10628; @ERS20] and approximately counting stars [@AliSub17] has also been performed. ##### Relation of approximate counting and almost uniform sampling One of our original motivations is to investigate the relation of approximate counting and almost uniform sampling in the sublinear-time regime. That is, we are interested in the question whether in the sublinear-time regime, is almost uniform sampling “computationally comparable” to approximate counting, or is it strictly harder or easier, in terms of the query and/or time complexities for solving these two problems? Indeed, in the polynomial-time regime, Jerrum, Valiant and Vazirani showed that for self-reducible problems (e.g., counting the number of perfect matchings of a graph), approximating counting is “equivalent to” almost uniform sampling [@jerrum1986random], in the sense that the time complexities of almost uniform sampling and randomized approximate counting are within polynomial factor of each other. Such a result has been instrumental for the development of the area of approximate counting (e.g., [@sinclair1989approximate]). It is natural to ask if similar relations between approximate counting and sampling hold in the sublinear-time regime. [In [@eden_et_al:LIPIcs:2019:10628], the authors mentioned that in the general graph model, the query complexities of approximate counting and almost uniformly sampling edges are the same (up to $\log n, 1/\varepsilon$ dependencies), while there exist constant-arboricity graphs from which sampling triangles almost uniformly requires $\Omega(n^{1/4})$ queries while approximately counting triangles can be done with $\tilde{O}(1)$ queries.]{} Our Results ----------- In this paper, we consider the problem of (almost) uniformly sampling a subgraph in the augmented general graph model. As mentioned above, this model has been studied in [@AliSub17; @assadi2018simple], in which the authors find that “allowing edge-sample queries results in considerably simpler and more general algorithms for subgraph counting and is hence worth studying on its own”. On the other hand, allowing edge sampling queries is also natural in models where neighbor queries are allowed, e.g., in the well-studied bounded-degree model and the general model: most graph representations that allow efficient neighbor queries (e.g., GEXF, GML or GraphML) store edges in linear data structures, which often allows efficient (nearly) uniformly sampling of edges. We refer to [@assadi2018simple] for a deeper discussion on allowing edge sampling queries from both theoretical and practical perspectives. We prove the following upper bound on sampling subgraphs (exactly) uniformly at random and provide a corresponding algorithm in \[sec:upperbound\]. \[thm:main\] Let $H$ be an arbitrary subgraph. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges. There exists an algorithm in the augmented general graph model that uses $\tilde{O}(\min\{m, \frac{m^{\rho(H)}}{\# H}\})$ queries in expectation, and with probability at least $2/3$, returns a copy of $H$, if $\# H>0$. Each returned $H$ is sampled according to the uniform distribution over all copies of $H$ in $G$. The expected running time of the algorithm is $\tilde{O}(\frac{m^{\rho(H)}}{\# H})$. We stress that our sampler is an exactly uniform sampler, i.e., the returned $H$ is sampled from the uniform distribution, while to the best of our knowledge, the previous sublinear-time subgraph sampling algorithms are only almost uniform samplers. That is, they return an edge or a clique that is sampled from a distribution that is close to the corresponding uniform distribution. Indeed, it has been cast as an open question if it is possible to sample an edge exactly uniformly at random in the general graph model in [@edge_sampling_1]. Our algorithm is based on one idea from [@assadi2018simple] (see also [@atserias2008size]) that uses the fractional edge cover to partition a subgraph $H$ into stars and odd cycles (i.e., Lemma \[decomposition-lemma\]). The authors of [@assadi2018simple] also provided a scheme called subgraph-sampler trees for recursively sampling stars and odd cycles that compose $H$, while the resulting distribution is not (almost) uniform distribution. Instead, we show that one can sample stars and odd cycles by using rejection sampling in parallel (or, more precisely, sequentially but independently of each other) and check whether they form a copy of $H$. To complement our algorithmic result, we give a lower bound on the query complexity for sampling a clique in sublinear time by using a simple reduction from [@total-lower-bound]. We show the following theorem and present its proof in \[sec:lowerbound\]. \[thm:lowerbound\] Let $r\geq 3$ be an integer. Suppose $\mathcal{A}$ is an algorithm in the augmented general graph model that for any graph $G=(V,E)$ on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges returns an arbitrary $r$-clique $K_r$, if one exists; furthermore, each returned clique $K_r$ is sampled according to a distribution $\mathcal{D}$, such that the total probability mass of $\mathcal{D}$ on the set of all copies of $K_r$ is $\Omega(1)$. Then $\mathcal{A}$ requires $\Omega(\min\{m, \frac{m^{r/2}}{\# K_r\cdot (cr)^r}\})$ queries, for some absolute constant $c>0$. Note that the above theorem gives a lower bound for sampling $K_r$ from almost every non-trivial distribution $\mathcal{D}$. In particular, it holds if $\# K_r>0$ and $\mathcal{D}$ is a distribution that is only supported on the set of all copies of $K_r$, e.g., the (almost) uniform distribution on these copies. Together with the query and time complexities of the $(1\pm \varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm for the number of subgraphs $H$ by Assadi, Kapralov and Khanna [@assadi2018simple] and the lower bound by Eden and Rosenbaum [@total-lower-bound] for approximately counting cliques, our \[thm:main,thm:lowerbound\] imply that in the augmented general graph model, approximately counting the number of cliques is equivalent to exactly sampling cliques in the sense that the query and time complexities of them are within a polylogarithmic factor of each other. ##### Future Work Considering real-world applications, it would be interesting to relax the guarantees of the queries available to the algorithm. In particular, one may not be able to sample vertices or edges exactly uniformly at random, but only approximately uniformly. For example, there exist works that consider weaker query models in which even uniform vertex query is disallowed, and instead they sample vertices almost uniformly at random by performing random walks from some fixed vertex (see, e.g., [@Ben-Hamou2018; @Chiericetti2016]). Implementing these changes in the model would result in a weaker guarantee for the distribution of sampled subgraphs in \[thm:main\] but would be potentially more practical. Preliminaries ============= Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple graph with $\|V\|=n$ vertices and $\|E\|=m$ edges. For a vertex $v \in V$, we denote by $d_v$ the degree of the vertex, by $\Gamma_v$ the set of all the neighbors of $v$, and by $E_v$ the set of edges incident to $v$. We fix a total order on vertices denoted by $\prec$ as follows: For any two vertices $u$ and $v$, we say that $u \prec v$ if $d_u < d_v$ or $d_u = d_v$ and $u$ appears before $v$ in the lexicographic order. For any two vertices, we denote by $\Gamma_{uv}$ the set of the shared neighbors of $u$ and $v$ that are larger than $u$ with respect to “$\prec$”, i.e., $\Gamma_{uv} = \{ w \mid w \in \Gamma_u \cap \Gamma_v \wedge u \prec w \}$. Sometimes, we view our graph $G=(V,E)$ as a directed graph $(V,\vec{E})$ by treating each undirected edge $e=\{u,v\}\in E$ as two directed edges $\vec{e}_1=(u,v)$ and $\vec{e}_2=(v,u)$. The following was proven in [@triangle_counting_1]. \[lemma: tu-upper-bound\] For any vertex $v$, the number of neighbors $w$ of $v$ such that $v\prec w$ is at most $\sqrt{2 m}$. Given a graph $H$, we say that a subgraph $H'$ of $G$ is a copy or an instance of $H$ if $H'$ is isomorphic to $H$. An isomorphism-preserving mapping from $H$ to a copy of $H$ in $G$ is called an embedding of $H$ in $G$. ##### Rejection Sampling Given a starting distribution $\p$ and a target distribution $\q$ supported on a set $R$, let $M:=\max_{a\in R} \frac{\q(a)}{\p(a)}$. \[rejection-sampling\] is called rejection sampling. $M \gets \max_{a\in R} \frac{\q(a)}{\p(a)}$ sample $a$ from $\p$. sample a number $t \in [0, 1]$ uniformly at random. $a$ Observe that when the algorithm terminates, the probability that $a$ is returned is $\q(a)$ for every $a \in R$. The following lemma is known. \[rejection-rounds\] The expected number of iterations of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RejectionSampling</span>($\p,\q$) is $M$. ##### Edge Cover and Graph Decomposition We use the following definition of the fractional edge cover of a graph and a decomposition result based on it by Assadi, Kapralov and Khanna [@assadi2018simple]. A fractional edge-cover of $H(V_H,E_H)$ is a mapping $\psi: E_H \rightarrow [0,1]$ such that for each vertex $v\in V_H$, $\sum_{e\in E_H, v\in e} \psi(e)\geq 1$. The fractional edge-cover number $\rho(H)$ of $H$ is the minimum value of $\sum_{e\in E_H}\psi(e)$ among all fractional edge-covers $\psi$. Let $C_k$ denote the cycle of length $k$. Let $S_k$ denote a star with $k$ petals, i.e., $S_k = (\{u, v_1, \ldots, v_k\}, \cup_{i \in [k]} \{u, v_k\})$. Let $K_k$ denote a clique on $k$ vertices. It is known that $\rho(C_{2k+1})=k+1/2$, $\rho(S_k)=k$ and $\rho(K_k)=k/2$. \[decomposition-lemma\] Any subgraph $H$ can be decomposed into a collection of vertex-disjoint odd cycles $\overline{C_1},\ldots,\overline{C_o}$ and star graphs $\overline{S_1},\ldots,\overline{S_s}$ such that $$\rho(H)=\sum_{i=1}^o\rho(\overline{C_i})+\sum_{j=1}^s\rho(\overline{S_j}).$$ By a result of Atserias, Grohe and Marx [@atserias2008size], the number of instances of $H$ in a graph $G$ with $m$ edges is $O(m^{\rho(H)})$. Sampling an Arbitrary Subgraph $H$ {#sec:upperbound} ================================== In this section, we present sampling algorithms for odd cycles and stars and show how to combine them to obtain a sampling algorithm for arbitrary subgraphs. Note that we do not need to know the exact number of edges $m$ to run our algorithm; it is sufficient to have a constant approximation $\hat{m}$ of $m$ so that $m \leq \hat{m} \leq c m$ for some $c > 1$. Such an approximation can be obtained by using the algorithm from [@edge_counting_app_1; @edge_counting_0]. This increases the query complexity only by a constant factor. For the sake of simplicity, we will continue to use $m$ in the following. Sampling an Odd-Length Cycle ---------------------------- We describe our algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleOddCycle</span> for sampling a uniformly random odd-length $k$-cycle. For any instance of $C_{2k+1}$ in the input graph, our goal is to guarantee that it will be sampled with probability $\frac{1}{m^{k+1/2}}$. Let $e_1, \ldots, e_{2k+1}$ be a sequence of edges that represents a cycle of length $2k+1$. While we can use edge sampling to sample every second edge of the first $2k$ edges sequentially, i.e., $e_1, e_3, \ldots, e_{2k-1}$, and query the edges inbetween, i.e., $e_2, \ldots, e_{2k-2}$, by vertex pair queries, we use a different strategy to sample $e_{2k}$ and $e_{2k+1}$. Let $\{u,v\} = e_1$. If $u$ has low degree, i.e., $d_u \leq \sqrt{2m}$, we can afford to sample each neighbor of $u$ with probability $1 / \sqrt{2m}$ and fail if no neighbor is sampled. In particular, we need that a distinguished neighbor $x_1$ of $u$ is sampled with probability at least $1 / \sqrt{2m}$. However, if $d_u \geq \sqrt{2m}$, this is too costly. Instead, we invoke rejection sampling with the following starting distribution and target distribution. [We note that such an idea of using rejection sampling has also been used for sampling a clique in [@eden2018approximating] (cf. Lemma 14 therein), and one can show that if edge sampling queries are allowed, their algorithm can be used to sample a neighbor of a vertex with degree larger than $\sqrt{2m}$ with probability $1/\sqrt{2m}$.]{} \[p-pmf\] Let $u,v$ be two vertices such that $d_u > \sqrt{2m}$. Let $\p_u$ be a (starting) distribution with support $\Gamma_u$ such that: $$\p_u(w) = \frac{1}{d_u}, \quad w \in \Gamma_u$$ Let $\q_u$ be a (target) distribution with support $\Gamma_u$ such that: $$\q_u(w) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 m}}, & w \in \Gamma_{uv} \\ \big( 1 - \frac{\|\Gamma_{uv}\|}{\sqrt{2 m}} \big) \cdot \frac{1}{d_u - \|\Gamma_{uv}\|}, & w \notin \Gamma_{uv} \end{cases}$$ \[q-pmf\] We note that by Lemma \[lemma: tu-upper-bound\], it always holds that $\|\Gamma_{uv}\|\leq \sqrt{2m}$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{w \in \Gamma_u}\q_u(w) & =\sum_{w\in \Gamma_{uv}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}+\sum_{w\notin \Gamma_{uv}}\left(1 - \frac{\|\Gamma_{uv}\|}{\sqrt{2 m}} \right)\cdot \frac{1}{d_u - \|\Gamma_{uv}\|}\\ &= \frac{\|\Gamma_{uv}\|}{\sqrt{2m}} + (d_u-\|\Gamma_{uv}\|) \left( 1 - \frac{\|\Gamma_{uv}\|}{\sqrt{2 m}} \right) \cdot \frac{1}{d_u - \|\Gamma_{uv}\|}=1 .\end{aligned}$$ Thus the distribution $\q_u$ is well-defined. Let $M_u=\max_{w\in \Gamma_u}\frac{\q_u(w)}{\p_u(w)}$ (as in \[rejection-sampling\]). Then, $M_u$ is bounded as follows. \[M-bound\] Let $M_u$ be defined as above. Recall that $d_u > \sqrt{2m}$. Then $M_u=\frac{d_u}{\sqrt{2m}}$. If $w \in \Gamma_{uv}$, we have that $\frac{\q_u(w)}{\p_u(w)} = \frac{d_u}{\sqrt{2 m}}.$ If $w \notin \Gamma_{uv}$, we have that $$\frac{\q_u(w)}{\p_u(w)} = \frac{d_u (1 - \frac{\lvert \Gamma_{uv} \rvert}{\sqrt{2 m}})}{d_u - \lvert \Gamma_{uv} \rvert} = \frac{d_u (\sqrt{2 m} - \lvert \Gamma_{uv} \rvert)}{\sqrt{2 m} (d_u - \lvert \Gamma_{uv} \rvert)}\leq \frac{d_u}{\sqrt{2m}},$$ where the last inequality uses the fact that $d_u > \sqrt{2m}$. \[wedge-degree\] sample a number $i \in \{ 1, \ldots \sqrt{2 m} \}$ uniformly at random $w$ $\leftarrow$ $i^{th}$ neighbor of $u$ $w$ $\leftarrow$ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RejectionSampling</span>($\p_u,\q_u$) $w$ sample $k$ directed edges $\diedge{u_1,v_1}, \ldots, \diedge{u_k,v_k}$ u.a.r. and i.i.d. \[odd-cycle-loop\] \[path-check\] $\{(u_1,v_1),\ldots,(u_k,v_k)\}\cup \{ (v_{k},w), (w,u_1) \}$ As there exists a linear number of automorphisms for every cycle, it is crucial in our algorithm to define a unique embedding based on the order of vertices for every instance of a $k$-cycle. Otherwise, bounding the probability that an instance is sampled exactly uniformly is hard as some instance might be sampled less likely because, e.g., its edges participate in many overlapping cycles. We take care of this by enforcing that only uniquely defined embeddings are sampled in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleOddCycle</span>. In particular, we sample $k$ directed edges $(u_1, v_1), \ldots, (u_k, v_k)$ independently and uniformly at random and require that (i) they induce a path $u_1, v_1, u_2, \ldots, v_k$ and (ii) for the first edge $(u_1, v_1)$, $u_1$ is the smallest vertex according to the order “$\prec$” among all $u_i, v_i, i \geq 1$. Then, we call <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleWedge</span> on the two ends $u_1, v_k$ of this path to close a cycle and define an orientation of this cycle by requiring that $w \prec v_1$, where for $(v_k, w) = e_{2k+1}$. If any of these requirements is not met, we have not sampled the uniquely defined embedding we are looking for, and the algorithm fails. \[odd-cycle-sampler-lemma\] For any instance of an odd cycle $C_{2k+1}$ in $G$, the probability that it will be returned by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleOddCycle</span>($G,2k+1$) is $\frac{1}{(2m)^{k+1/2}}$. Let $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}$ be any instance of a cycle of odd length $2k+1$ in $G$. Let $x_0$ be the smallest vertex on $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}$ according to the total order “$\prec$”. Let $x_1, x_{2k}$ be the two neighbors of $x_0$ on $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}$ such that $x_1\prec x_{2k}$. Then, we let $x_i$ denote the vertices on $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}$ such that $(x_i, x_{i+1}) \in E(\mathcal{C}_{2k+1})$ for $0\leq i\leq 2k-1$ and $(x_{2k},x_0)\in E(\mathcal{C}_{2k+1})$. Note that for any $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}$, there is a unique way of mapping its vertices to $x_i$, for $0\leq i\leq 2k$. Thus, $\textsc{SampleOddCycle}$ returns $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}$ if and only if 1. $u_1 = x_0$ and $v_1 = x_{2k}$; \[odd-mapping-a\] 2. $u_i=x_{2k-2i+3}$ and $v_i=x_{2k-2i+2}$ for $2\leq i\leq k$; \[odd-mapping-b\] 3. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleWedge</span>($G,u_{1},v_k$) returns $x_1$. \[odd-mapping-c\] Event \[odd-mapping-a\] occurs with probability $1/(2m)$, and event \[odd-mapping-b\] occurs with probability $1/(2m)^{k-1}$, as each directed edge is sampled with probability $1/(2m)$. Now we bound the probability of event \[odd-mapping-c\]. In the call to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleWedge</span>, let $u := u_1$ and $v := v_k$, which satisfies that $u \prec v$. We first note that if $d_u < \sqrt{2m}$ in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleWedge</span>($G,u_{1},v_k$), then the vertex $x_1$ will be sampled with probability $1 / \sqrt{2m}$. Now we consider the case that $d_u \geq \sqrt{2m}$. Then, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RejectionSampling</span>($\p_u,\q_u$) will return $x_1$ with probability $\q_{u_1}(x_1)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}$, as $x_1$ is a common neighbor of $u_1, v_k$ and $u_1 \prec x_1$. Thus in both cases, the probability that event \[odd-mapping-c\] occurs is $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}$. Therefore, the probability that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleOddCycle</span> returns $\mathcal{C}_{2k+1}$ is $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}} \cdot \frac{1}{2m} \cdot (\frac{1}{2m})^{k-1}=\frac{1}{(2m)^{k+1/2}}$. #### Remark Our procedure <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleWedge</span> is similar to a subroutine of one algorithm “Sample-a-Clique” in [@eden2018approximating] (cf. Lemma 14 therein) that samples an almost uniform clique adjacent to a vertex set $S$. If edge sampling queries are allowed, one can modify their algorithm to produce a uniform clique $K_r$ in the graph with probability $1/(2m)^{r/2}$. Sampling a Star --------------- Similarly to odd cycles, we observe that every $k$-star admits an exponential number of automorphisms. Therefore, we enforce a unique embedding of every instance of a $k$-star in our sampling algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleStar</span>. Let $e_1, \ldots, e_k$ be the petals of an instance of a $k$-star. We sample $e_1, \ldots, e_k$ sequentially. If these edges form a star, we output it only if the leaves where sampled in ascending order with respect to “$\prec$”. Sequentially sample $k$ directed edges $ \{\diedge{u_1, v_1}, \ldots, \diedge{u_{k}, v_{k}}\}$ u.a.r. and i.i.d. $(u_1, v_1, \ldots, v_k)$ \[star-sampler-lemma\] For any instance of a $k$-star $S_k$ in $G$, the probability that it will be returned by the algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleStar</span>($G,k$) is $\frac{1}{(2m)^k}$. Consider any instance of $S_k$ with root $x$ and petals $y_1, \ldots, y_k$ such that $y_1 \prec \ldots y_k$. Note that it will be returned by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleStar</span> if and only if all the directed edges $\diedge{x,y_1},\ldots,\diedge{x,y_k}$ are sequentially sampled, which occurs with probability $1 /(2m)^k$. Sampling $H$ ------------ Let $H$ be a subgraph. It can be decomposed into collections of $o$ odd cycles $\overline{C_i}$ and $s$ stars $\overline{S_j}$ as given in \[decomposition-lemma\]. We say that $H$ has a (decomposition) type $\overline{T}=\{\overline{C_1},\ldots,\overline{C_o},\overline{S_1},\ldots,\overline{S_s}\}$. Given a graph $G$, for each potential instance $\mathcal{H}$ of $H$, we say that $\mathcal{H}$ can be decomposed into configurations $\mathcal{T}=\{\mathcal{C}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{C}_o,\mathcal{S}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{S}_s\}$ with respect to type $\overline{T}=\{\overline{C_1},\ldots,\overline{C_o},\overline{S_1},\ldots,\overline{S_s}\}$, if 1. $\mathcal{C}_i \cong \overline{C_i}$ for any $1\leq i\leq o$, and $\mathcal{S}_j \cong \overline{S}_j$, for any $1\leq i\leq s$ 2. all the remaining edges of $H$ between vertices specified in $\mathcal{T}$ all are present in $G$. We let $f_{\overline{T}}(H)$ denote the number of all possible configurations $\mathcal{T}$ into which $H$ can be decomposed with respect to $\overline{T}$. $\mathcal{C}_i \gets \mathcal{C}$\[alg:cycle\_H\] $\mathcal{S}_j \gets \mathcal{S}$\[alg:star\_H\] Query all edges $(\bigcup_{i \in [o]} V(\mathcal{C}_i) \cup \bigcup_{j \in [s]} V(\mathcal{S}_j))^2$ flip a coin and with probability $\frac{1}{f_{\overline{T}}(H)}$: $S$ \[alg:occurrence\_H\] \[subgraph-sampler-lemma\] For any instance of a subgraph $H$ in $G$, the probability that it will be returned by the algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraph</span>($G, H$) is $\frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}}$. For any instance $\mathcal{H}$ of $H$ in $G$, and any configuration $\mathcal{T}=\{\mathcal{C}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{C}_O,\mathcal{S}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{S}_s\}$ of $\mathcal{H}$ with respect to $\overline{T}$, $\mathcal{H}$ will be returned by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraph</span>($G,H$) if and only if 1. $\mathcal{C}_i$ is returned in \[alg:cycle\_H\] for each $1\leq i\leq o$, and $\mathcal{S}_j$ is returned in \[alg:star\_H\] for any $1\leq j\leq s$; 2. the configuration is returned with probability $\frac{1}{f_{\overline{T}}(H)}$ in \[alg:occurrence\_H\]. By Lemma \[odd-cycle-sampler-lemma\], each $\mathcal{C}_i$ will be returned with probability $\frac{1}{(2m)^{\|E(\overline{C_i})\|/2}}=\frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(\overline{C_i})}}$. By Lemma \[star-sampler-lemma\] each $\mathcal{S}_j$ will be returned with probability $\frac{1}{(2m)^{\|V(\overline{S_j})\|-1}}=\frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(\overline{S_j})}}$. Thus, $\mathcal{T}$ will be returned with probability $$\prod_{i=1}^o \frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(\overline{C_i})}}\cdot \prod_{j=1}^s \frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(\overline{S_j})}} \cdot \frac{1}{f_{\overline{T}}(H)} = \frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}}\cdot \frac{1}{f_{\overline{T}}(H)}.$$ Finally, since there are $f_{\overline{T}}(H)$ configurations of $\mathcal{H}$ with respect to $\overline{T}$, the instance will be returned with probability $f_{\overline{T}}(H)\cdot \frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}} \cdot \frac{1}{f_{\overline{T}}(H)} = \frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}}$. The Final Sampler ----------------- Let $X_H$ be an estimate of $\# H$. Such an estimate can be obtained by, e.g., the subgraph counting algorithm of Assadi, Kapralov and Khanna [@assadi2018simple] in expected time $\tilde{O}(m^{\rho(H)}/\# H)$. We show that by sufficiently many calls to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraph</span>, we can obtain a uniformly random sample of an instance of $H$ with constant probability. Invoke <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraph</span>($G,H$) $H$ \[correctness\] If $\# H \leq X_H\leq 2 \# H$, then Algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraphUniformly</span>$(G,{H}, X_H)$ returns a copy $H$ with probability at least $2/3$. The distribution induced by the algorithm is (exactly) uniform over the set of all instances of $H$ in $G$. Since $\# H \leq X_H\leq 2 \# H$, the probability that no instance of $H$ is returned in $q=10 \cdot {(2m)}^{\rho(H)}/X_H$ invocations is at most $$\left(1-\frac{\# H}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}}\right)^{q} \leq e^{-\frac{\# H}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}} \cdot q} < \frac13$$ by \[subgraph-sampler-lemma\]. Let $\mathcal{H}$ be an instance of $H$. By Lemma \[subgraph-sampler-lemma\], the probability that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraph</span>($H$) returns $\mathcal{H}$ is $\frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}}$. Thus, the probability that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraphUniformly</span>$(G,{H})$ successfully output an instance of $H$ is $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\# H}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}}. \end{aligned}$$ Conditioned on the event that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraphUniformly</span>$(G,{H})$ succeeds, the probability that any specific instance $\mathcal{H}$ will be returned is $$\begin{aligned} p_\mathcal{H} = \frac{\frac{1}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}}}{\frac{\# H}{(2m)^{\rho(H)}}} = \frac{1}{\# H}. \end{aligned}$$ That is, with probability at least $\frac23$, an instance $\mathcal{H}$ is sampled from the uniform distribution over all the instances of $H$ in $G$. Finally, we prove the expected query and time complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraphUniformly</span>. \[complexity\] The expected query and time complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraph</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Uniformly</span>$(G,H,X_H)$ is $O(m^{\rho(H)} / X_H)$. We analyze the query complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleOddCycle</span>$(G,2k+1)$ for $d_{u_1} < \sqrt{2m}$ and $d_{u_1} \geq \sqrt{2m}$ separately. The probability that $d_{u_1} < \sqrt{2m}$ is at most $1$, and the query complexity is at most $O(1)$ in this case. To bound the probability that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleWedge</span>$(G, u_1, v_k)$ is invoked such that $d_{u_1} \geq \sqrt{2m}$, recall that sampling an edge uniformly at random is equivalent to sampling a vertex proportionally to its degree and selecting a neighbor uniformly at random. The probability to sample a neighbor $x$ of $u_1$ is $1 / d_{u_1}$. There are at most $2m / \sqrt{2m} = \sqrt{2m}$ vertices that have degree at least $\sqrt{2m}$, so the probability that a uniformly random neighbor $v_1$ of $u_1$ has degree at least $\sqrt{2m}$ is at most $\sqrt{2m} / d_{u_1}$. Therefore, the probability that $v_1$ has degree at least $\sqrt{2m}$, which is implied by the check $u_1 \prec v_1$ in line \[path-check\], is bounded by $\sqrt{2m} / d_{u_1}$. By \[rejection-rounds,M-bound\], the expected number of queries in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleWedge</span>$(G, u_1, v_k)$ is at most $M \leq d_{u_1} / \sqrt{2m}$ if $d_{u_1} \geq \sqrt{2m}$. Thus, the expected query complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleOddCycle</span>$(G,2k+1)$ is bounded by $$\sum_{\substack{u_1 \in V\\ d_{u_1} < \sqrt{2m}}} \frac{d_{u_1}}{2m} \cdot O(1) + \sum_{\substack{u_1 \in V\\ d_{u_1} \geq \sqrt{2m}}} \frac{d_{u_1}}{2m} \cdot \frac{\sqrt{2m}}{d_{u_1}} \cdot \frac{d_{u_1}}{\sqrt{2m}} \leq O(1) + \sum_{\substack{u_1 \in V\\ d_{u_1} \geq \sqrt{2m}}} \frac{d_{u_1}}{2m} = O(1) .$$ The expected query complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleStar</span>$(G,k)$ is bounded by $k \in O(1)$. It follows that the expected query complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraph</span>$(G, H)$ is at most $(o + s + \lvert H \rvert^2) \cdot O(1) \subseteq \lvert H \rvert \cdot O(1)$. The expected query complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SampleSubgraphUniformly</span>$(G, H)$ is $O({(2m)}^{\rho(H)}/X_H \cdot \lvert H \rvert^2)=\tilde{O}({(2m)}^{\rho(H)}/X_H)$. To bound the expected running time, we observe that every loop in our algorithm issues at least one query, and we only perform isomorphism checks on subgraphs of constant size. Thus the running time is still $\tilde{O}({(2m)}^{\rho(H)}/X_H)$. The proof of \[thm:main\] follows almost directly from \[correctness,complexity\]. For the case that $m \geq m^{\rho(H)} / \# H$, the claim follows from \[correctness,complexity\]. If $m < m^{\rho(H)} / \# H$, we can query the whole graph, which requires $O(m)$ degree and neighbor queries, store the graph and answer the queries of the algorithm from this internal memory. Proof of Theorem \[thm:lowerbound\] {#sec:lowerbound} =================================== In this section, we give the proof of Theorem \[thm:lowerbound\], which follows by adapting the proofs for the lower bounds on the query complexity for approximate counting subgraphs given by Eden and Rosenbaum [@total-lower-bound]. \[thm:lower-bound-families\] For any choices of $n,m,r,c_r > 0$, there exist families of graphs with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, $\mathcal{F}_0$ and $\mathcal{F}_1$, such that - all graphs in $\mathcal{F}_0$ are $K_r$-free, - all graphs in $\mathcal{F}_1$ contain at least $c_r$ copies of $K_r$, - and any algorithm in the augmented general graph model that distinguishes a graph $G \in \mathcal{F}_0$ from $G \in \mathcal{F}_1$ with probability $\Omega(1)$ requires $\Omega(\min\{m, m^{r/2} / c_r(cr)^r\})$ queries for some constant $c>0$. Now we prove our Theorem \[thm:lowerbound\]. Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an algorithm that for any graph $G=(V,E)$ on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges returns an arbitrary $r$-clique $K_r$, if one exists; and each $K_r$ is sampled according to $\mathcal{D}$, using $f(m, r, \# K_r) \in o(\min\{m, \frac{m^{r/2}}{\# K_r\cdot (cr)^r}\})$ neighbor, degree, pair and edge sampling queries. Let $n, m, c_r > 0$ and let $\mathcal{F}_0, \mathcal{F}_1$ be the families from \[thm:lower-bound-families\]. Consider the following algorithm $\mathcal{A}'$: run $\mathcal{A}$ on a graph from $\mathcal{F}_0 \cup \mathcal{F}_1$ and terminate $\mathcal{A}$ if it did not produce a $K_r$ after $f(m, r, c_r)$ queries. If it output a clique, $\mathcal{A}'$ claims that $G \in \mathcal{F}_1$, otherwise it claims that $G \in \mathcal{F}_0$. By the assumption, $\mathcal{A}$ returns a clique after at most $f(m, r, c_r)$ queries with probability $\Omega(1)$ if $G \in \mathcal{F}_1$ because then $G$ contains at least $c_r$ copies of $K_r$ and the probability mass of $\mathcal{D}$ on the set of all copies of $K_r$ is $\Omega(1)$. Otherwise, $G \in \mathcal{F}_0$, which implies that $G$ contains no triangle. Therefore, $\mathcal{A}$ cannot output a triangle from $G$. It follows that $\mathcal{A}'$ can distinguish $\mathcal{F}_0$ and $\mathcal{F}_1$, which is a contradiction to \[thm:lower-bound-families\]. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments. In particular, we would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for their suggestion to improve the presentation of the proof of \[thm:lowerbound\] and their comment on applications, which we included as future work. [^1]: Department of Computer Science, TU Dortmund, Germany. Email: [[email protected]]([email protected]). [ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3246-5323](https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3246-5323) [^2]: Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, UK. Email: [[email protected]]([email protected]). [^3]: Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, UK. Email: [[email protected]]([email protected]). [ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2700-5699](https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2700-5699). [^4]: Throughout the paper, we use $\tilde{O}(\cdot)$ to suppress any dependencies on the parameter $\varepsilon$, the size of the corresponding subgraph $H$ and $\log(n)$-terms.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We present a new calculation of the renormalized HQET Lagrangian at order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^2)$ and discuss the consequences of the BRST invariance of QCD and the reparameterization invariance of HQET. Our result corrects earlier, conflicting calculations and sets the stage for the calculation of the renormalized currents at order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^2)$.' author: - \| Christopher Balzereit[^1] [^2]\ Thorsten Ohl[^3]\ \ Technische Hochschule Darmstadt\ Schloßgartenstr. 9\ D-64289 Darmstadt\ Germany date: \| IKDA 96/11\ hep-ph/9604352\ April 1996\ title: \| Heavy Quark Effective Field Theory at $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^2)$. I.\ QCD Corrections to the Lagrangian --- Introduction {#sec:introduction} ============ Heavy Quark Effective Field Theory (HQET) [@HQET_classic] has been established as the theoretical tool of choice for the description of mesons and baryons containing heavy quarks [@HQET_review]. This derives from the fact that it is a systematic expansion in inverse powers of the heavy quark with well defined and calculable coefficients. Furthermore, its realization of the spin and flavor symmetry of the low energy theory is a phenomenologically powerful tool. However, since the expansion parameter $\Lambda_H/m_Q$ is about $0.12$ (using a hadronic scale $\Lambda_H\approx 600\text{MeV}$ and $m_Q=m_b$) leading order calculations are not sufficient for precision calculations. Terms of order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^2)$ including leading QCD corrections have to be under control. An indispensable prolegomenon to the calculation of renormalized matrix elements of currents is the renormalization of the Lagrangian. Unfortunately, two calculations with conflicting results [@Lee:1991:HQET; @Balk/etal:1993:HQET] have been reported. In this note we present the result of a new calculation of the renormalized Lagrangian, which differs from the previous two. We will demonstrate that our result satisfies important consistency conditions that are violated by the earlier calculations. This note is organized as follows: in section \[sec:basis\] we introduce our operator basis. Our result for the anomalous dimensions is presented in section \[sec:anodim\]. In section \[sec:consistency\] we will discuss the consistency of this result and compare it in section \[sec:comparison\] with earlier calculations. Finally, we present the renormalization group flow in section \[sec:RG-flow\] and conclude in section \[sec:conclusions\]. The renormalized currents will be presented in a subsequent note [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:currents] and phenomenological applications will appear later [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:V_cb]. A more detailed discussion of technical matters will be presented in [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:technical]. Operator basis {#sec:basis} ============== The Lagrangian of HQET is defined by a systematic expansion of QCD in inverse powers of the heavy quark mass $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{HQET}} = \bar h_{v}(i v D) h_{v} + \frac{1}{2m_Q} \sum_i \breve C_i^{(1)} \mathcal{O}_i^{(1)} \mbox{} + \frac{1}{(2m_Q)^2} \sum_i \breve C_i^{(2)} \mathcal{O}_i^{(2)} + \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{(2m_Q)^3}) \,.$$ At order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^0)$ there is only one operator $\bar h_v(ivD)h_v$, which is independent of the spin and flavor of the quark, resulting in the celebrated spin-flavor symmetry of HQET. At order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q)$ there are three independent operators. We shall use the conventional basis $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{O}^{(1)}_1 &= \bar h_v (iD)^2 h_v \\ \mathcal{O}^{(1)}_2 &= \frac{g}{2} \bar h_v \sigma^{\mu \lambda} F_{\mu \lambda} h_v \\ \mathcal{O}^{(1)}_3 &= \bar h_v (ivD)^2 h_v \,.\end{aligned}$$ Below, the operators $\mathcal{O}^{(1)}_1$ and $\mathcal{O}^{(1)}_2$ will also be called kinetic and chromo-magnetic respectively. The operator $\mathcal{O}^{(1)}_3$ vanishes by the equations of motion (EOM) $$ivDh_v \|Q\rangle = 0$$ for heavy quark states $\|Q\rangle$. For the renormalization of the Lagrangian, it is not necessary to include this operator, if the EOM are used consistently. It is however needed as a counterterm in the renormalization of the heavy quark currents [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:currents] and will be included here. In addition, inclusion of the operators vanishing by the EOM allows to make the relations following from reparameterization invariance explicit. Finally, the extraction of coefficients with the aid of symbolic manipulation programs is more straightforward in the full basis, while the work induced by the additional operators is insignificant. At order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^2)$ there are thirteen independent operators. They are grouped in four classes. Two of the local operators do not vanish by the EOM. We will denote them collectively by $\vec\mathcal{O}^{(2)}$ and choose them as $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{O}^{(2)}_1 &= \bar h_v iD_{\mu} (ivD) iD^{\mu} h_v \\ \mathcal{O}^{(2)}_2 &= \bar h_v i \sigma^{\mu \lambda} iD_{\mu} (ivD) iD_{\lambda} h_v\,. \\ \intertext{ The five remaining local operators vanish by the EOM. We denote them by $\vec\mathcal{O}^{(2)}_{\operatorname{EOM}}$ and choose the basis} \mathcal{O}^{(2)}_3 &= \bar h_v (ivD) (iD)^2 h_v \\ \mathcal{O}^{(2)}_4 &= \bar h_v (iD)^2 (ivD) h_v \\ \mathcal{O}^{(2)}_5 &= \bar h_v (ivD)^3 h_v \\ \mathcal{O}^{(2)}_6 &= -\frac{g}{2} \bar h_v (ivD) \sigma^{\mu \lambda} F_{\mu \lambda} h_v \\ \mathcal{O}^{(2)}_7 &= -\frac{g}{2} \bar h_v \sigma^{\mu \lambda} F_{\mu \lambda} (ivD) h_v \,. \\ \intertext{ In addition to the local operators, there are the time-ordered products of the lower dimensional operators. There are three of them that do not vanish by the EOM. They will be denoted~$\vec\mathcal{T}^{(2)}$.} \mathcal{T}^{(2)}_{11} &= \frac{i}{2} T \left\{ \left[\bar h_{v}(iD)^{2}h_{v}\right] \left[\bar h_{v}(iD)^{2}h_{v}\right] \right\} \\ \mathcal{T}^{(2)}_{12} &= \frac{ig}{2} T \left\{ \left[\bar h_{v}(iD)^{2}h_{v}\right] \left[\bar h_{v} \sigma^{\mu \lambda} F_{\mu \lambda} h_{v}\right] \right\} \\ \mathcal{T}^{(2)}_{22} &= \frac{ig^2}{8} T \left\{ \left[\bar h_{v} \sigma^{\mu \lambda} F_{\mu \lambda} h_{v}\right] \left[\bar h_{v} \sigma^{\mu \lambda} F_{\mu \lambda} h_{v}\right] \right\} \\ \intertext{ Below, the operators~$\mathcal{T}^{(2)}_{11}$ and~$\mathcal{T}^{(2)}_{22}$ will also be called \emph{double-kinetic} and \emph{double-chromo-magnetic} respectively. Finally there are three more time-ordered products~$\vec\mathcal{T}^{(2)}_{\operatorname{EOM}}$ that vanish by the EOM} \mathcal{T}^{(2)}_{13} &= i\, T \left\{ \left[\bar h_{v}(iD)^{2}h_{v}\right] \left[\bar h_{v}(ivD)^{2}h_{v}\right] \right\} \\ \mathcal{T}^{(2)}_{23} &= \frac{ig}{2} T \left\{ \left[\bar h_{v} \sigma^{\mu \lambda} F_{\mu \lambda} h_{v}\right] \left[\bar h_{v}(ivD)^{2}h_{v}\right] \right\}\\ \mathcal{T}^{(2)}_{33} &= \frac{i}{2} T \left\{ \left[\bar h_{v}(ivD)^{2}h_{v}\right] \left[\bar h_{v}(ivD)^{2}h_{v}\right] \right\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Below we shall refer to the operators vanishing by the equations of motion as EOM operators, for short. For calculational convenience, we have not chosen a manifestly hermitian basis, but the results presented below show that indeed only hermitian linear combinations show up in counter terms. Anomalous dimensions {#sec:anodim} ==================== The most convenient approach to the calculation of anomalous dimensions uses the background field gauge [@BFM] with gauge fixing term $$\label{eq:gauge-fix} -\frac{1}{2\xi} \left( D_\mu(V)A^\mu \right)^2 \,,$$ because only the renormalization constants of those operators that are manifestly invariant under gauge transformations of the background field have to be calculated. Therefore, only the divergent three-point functions have to be calculated to derive the anomalous dimensions. Furthermore, the Ward identities for the classical background fields are particularly simple and provide a powerful tool for checking our results. The background field gauge with an arbitrary gauge parameter allows an independent test of the consistency of our results by comparing the $\xi$ dependence with general results [@Kluberg-Stern/Zuber:1975:BFM/operators] for the one-loop effective action. Below we shall write $\bar\xi=1-\xi$ for the gauge parameter. The anomalous dimensions at order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q)$ are well known [@HQET_renormalization] (the gauge parameter dependence has been calculated in [@Kilian:1994:thesis]): $$\label{eq:anodim1} \hat\gamma^{(1)} = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 2C_F^\xi \\ 0 & -\frac{1}{2}C_A & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -C_F^\xi \end{pmatrix}\,,$$ where we have introduced the shorthand $C_F^\xi = C_F(1+\bar\xi/2)$. Here and below, we have extracted the common loop factor $\alpha/\pi$ from (\[eq:anodim1\]). The matrix of anomalous dimensions can naturally be written in block form, separating local operators from non-local operators and separating EOM operators from the rest: $$\hat\gamma^{(2)} = \begin{matrix} \vphantom{{\displaystyle\int}} & \begin{matrix} \vec{\mathcal{O}}^{(2)} & \vec{\mathcal{O}}^{(2)}_{\operatorname{EOM}} & \vec{\mathcal{T}}^{(2)} & \vec{\mathcal{T}}^{(2)}_{\operatorname{EOM}} \end{matrix} \\ \begin{matrix} \vec{\mathcal{O}}^{(2)}\\ \vec{\mathcal{O}}^{(2)}_{\operatorname{EOM}}\\ \vec{\mathcal{T}}^{(2)}\\ \vec{\mathcal{T}}^{(2)}_{\operatorname{EOM}} \end{matrix} & \begin{pmatrix} \begin{matrix} \hat\gamma^{(2)}_{\mathrm{l}} & \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{l},1} \\ 0 & \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{l},2} \end{matrix} & \mbox{\Large$0$} \\ \begin{matrix} \hat\gamma^{(2)}_{\mathrm{m}} & \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{m},1} \\ 0 & \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{m},2} \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \hat\gamma^{(2)}_{\mathrm{n}} & \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{n},1} \\ 0 & \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{n},2} \end{matrix} \end{pmatrix} \end{matrix} \,.$$ The upper right block has to vanish, because Weinberg’s theorem [@Weinberg:1960:theorem] guarantees that the renormalization of the local operators does not require counterterms from the time-ordered products. The other three blocks display the block triangular structure required by the fact that the renormalization of EOM operators only induces counterterms that are EOM operators themselves. The anomalous dimensions have been calculated manually. These calculations have been verified with the help of `FORM` [@Vermaseren:1991:FORM2] as a warm-up for the renormalization of the currents [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:currents], which requires the use of symbolic manipulation programs for economical reasons. We start the presentation of the results with the renormalization of the local operators \[eq:anodim2\] $$\begin{aligned} \hat\gamma^{(2)}_{\mathrm{l}} &= \begin{pmatrix} -\frac{1}{3}C_A & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\ \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{l},1} &= \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{6}C_A & \frac{1}{6}C_A & -2C_F(1+\bar\xi) & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{3}{4}C_A & -\frac{3}{4}C_A \end{pmatrix} \\ \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{l},2} &= \begin{pmatrix} \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & -C_F(1+2\bar\xi) \\ 0 & 0 & -C_F(1+2\bar\xi) \\ 0 & 0 & -C_F^\xi \end{matrix} & \mbox{\Large$0$} \\ \mbox{\Large$0$} & \begin{matrix} -C_A & 0 \\ 0 & -C_A \end{matrix} \end{pmatrix} \,. \\ \intertext{ The renormalization of the time-ordered products requires local counterterms as well. The corresponding anomalous dimensions are} \label{eq:anodim2-mix} \hat\gamma^{(2)}_{\mathrm{m}} &= \begin{pmatrix} -\frac{1}{6}C_A - \frac{8}{3}C_F & 0 \\ 0 & -C_A \\ -\frac{5}{6}C_A & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\ \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{m},1} &= \begin{pmatrix} C_{AF}^\xi & C_{AF}^\xi & -8C_F^\xi & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & C_A-2C_F^\xi & C_A-2C_F^\xi \\ \frac{5}{12}C_A & \frac{5}{12}C_A & 2C_F & -\frac{3}{4}C_A & -\frac{3}{4}C_A \end{pmatrix} \\ \intertext{ using the shorthand~$C_{AF}^\xi = \frac{1}{12}C_A + C_F(\frac{10}{3}+\bar\xi)$.} \hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{m},2} &= \begin{pmatrix} -C_F^\xi & -C_F^\xi & 6C_F(1+\bar\xi) & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}C_A+C_F^\xi & -\frac{1}{2}C_A+C_F^\xi \\ 0 & 0 & -C_F^\xi & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ The blocks $\hat\gamma^{(2)}_{\mathrm{n}}$, $\hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{n},1}$ and $\hat\gamma^{(2)\operatorname{EOM}}_{\mathrm{n},2}$ are given by the sum of the appropriate anomalous dimensions from $\hat\gamma^{(1)}$. Consistency of the results {#sec:consistency} ========================== The symmetries of HQET entail relations among the anomalous dimensions that can be used to check the result (\[eq:anodim2\]). Such consistency checks are useful in the present case and are of vital importance in the considerably more involved renormalization of the HQET currents [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:currents]. Gauge invariance {#sec:gauge-invariance} ---------------- As alluded to in the previous section, we have used the Ward identities for the background fields and the $\xi$-dependence of the one-loop effective action for verifying our results. From the simple QED-like Ward identity for the background field $$q_\alpha\tilde\Gamma^\alpha(p,q) = \tilde S(p+q) - \tilde S(p),$$ with $\tilde S$ and $\tilde\Gamma^\alpha$ denoting the one-particle-irreducible two- and three-point functions with one operator insertion respectively, follows that the counterterms proportional to $C_A$ (i.e. the non-abelian contributions) have to be transversal. Our result (\[eq:anodim2\]) passes this consistency check. The technical details will be presented in [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:technical]. In background field gauge, the $\xi$-dependence of the renormalized effective action at one loop order is known to have the following form [@Kluberg-Stern/Zuber:1975:BFM/operators] $$\label{eq:xi-dep} -2\xi \frac{\partial}{\partial\xi} \tilde\Gamma^\alpha = \hat\Gamma^{(0)}_{A^\alpha Q} \ast \tilde\Gamma^{(1)}_{J L \bar h_{v} h_{v}} + \tilde\Gamma^{(0)}_{\bar h_v A^\alpha h_v} \ast \Gamma^{(1)}_{\bar{M} L h_v} + \Gamma^{(0)}_{\bar h_v A^\alpha h_v} \ast \tilde\Gamma^{(1)}_{\bar M L h_v} + \ldots \,$$ where $\Gamma^{(n)}$ denotes the effective action at $n$-loop order, $\hat\Gamma^{(n)}$ the same effective action with the gauge fixing term (\[eq:gauge-fix\]) subtracted and $\tilde\Gamma^{(n)}$ the effective action with an operator inserted. Finally, subscripts denote functional differentiation and $\ast$ integration over the corresponding space-time argument. With the help of power counting we can identify the possible contributions to the right hand side of (\[eq:xi-dep\]) that have the correct tensor structure. It can be shown [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:technical] for all operators, with the exception of $\mathcal{O}^{(2)}_6$ and $\mathcal{O}^{(2)}_7$, that such contributions have to be proportional to $C_F$. The explicit calculation shows that this feature remains true for $\mathcal{O}^{(2)}_6$ and $\mathcal{O}^{(2)}_7$ as well. Furthermore, there are no $\xi$-dependent counter terms that do not vanish by the EOM. Our result (\[eq:anodim2\]) passes these consistency checks as well. Reparameterization invariance {#sec:reparam-invariance} ----------------------------- The HQET Lagrangian is a reparameterized form of the QCD Lagrangian, therefore the matching coefficients $\breve C$ of different orders in $1/m_Q$ are related [@Luke/Manohar:1992:HQET_reparameterization]. For example the matching coefficient of the chromo-magnetic operators in $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^2)$ can be derived from the coefficient in $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q)$ $$\breve C^{(2)}_2 = 2 \breve C^{(1)}_2 - 1\,.$$ On the other hand, we know that the product of the matching coefficients and the renormalization constants $\vec{\breve C} \hat Z_{\text{MS}}^{-1}$ is finite and we can derive relations between the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ matching coefficients, the tree-level matching coefficients and the anomalous dimensions: $$\label{eq:reparam} \vec{\breve C}^{(\alpha)} +\vec{\breve C}^{(\text{tree})} \hat\gamma^{(2)} = 0 \,.$$ Since there are reparameterization invariance relations among the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ matching coefficients, (\[eq:reparam\]) induces reparameterization invariance relations among the anomalous dimensions [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:technical]. These relations are satisfied by our result (\[eq:anodim2\]). Comparison with earlier calculations {#sec:comparison} ==================================== Two calculations of the renormalized HQET Lagrangian at order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^2)$ have been circulated as preprints in the past [@Lee:1991:HQET; @Balk/etal:1993:HQET]. Their results are not consistent with each other and our result differs from both. Therefore a brief discussion of the errors in these calculations seems to be in order: - After transforming the result of [@Lee:1991:HQET] to our basis, it turns out that the coefficients $\hat\gamma^{(2)}_{\mathrm{m}}$ of the local counter terms for the double insertions are incorrect. In particular, the $-C_A$ entry in (\[eq:anodim2-mix\]) is fixed by reparameterization invariance, which is therefore violated by the result in [@Lee:1991:HQET]. The argument is unfortunately technically involved and will be presented elsewhere [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:technical]. - The operator basis used in [@Balk/etal:1993:HQET] is inconsistent. While these authors have used the EOM in their calculations, they do include an operator $$\frac{ig}{2} \left( \bar h_v \sigma^{\alpha\nu} T^a h_v \right) D_\alpha F^a_{\mu\nu} v^\mu = -\frac{g}{4} \bar h_v \sigma^{\mu\nu} \left[ F_{\mu\nu}, ivD \right] h_v$$ in their basis, which vanishes by this equation of motion. On the other hand, they have missed a spin-symmetric operator that is required as a counter term for the double insertions of the kinetic and chromo-magnetic operators. Renormalization group flow {#sec:RG-flow} ========================== An analytical solution of the renormalization group equation using $(\ref{eq:anodim2})$ in the full basis seems to be impracticable. We can however restrict ourselves to the basis of the operators $\vec{\mathcal{O}}^{(2)}\vec{\mathcal{T}}^{(2)}$ that do not vanish by the EOM: $$\hat\gamma_{\text{phys}}^{(2)} = \begin{pmatrix} -\frac{1}{3}C_A & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -\frac{1}{6}C_A - \frac{8}{3}C_F & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -C_A & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}C_A & 0 \\ -\frac{5}{6}C_A & 0 & 0 & 0 & -C_A \end{pmatrix}\,.$$ This reduced renormalization group equation $$\frac{d}{d\ln\mu}\vec C^{(2)}(\mu) + \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \hat\gamma_{\text{phys}}^{(2)\top}\vec{C}^{(2)}(\mu) = 0$$ with the initial (matching) conditions $$\begin{aligned} C^{(2)}_1(m_Q) &= -1 \\ C^{(2)}_2(m_Q) &= 1 \\ C^{(2)}_{11}(m_Q) &= C^{(1)}_1(m_Q) C^{(1)}_1(m_Q) = 1 \\ C^{(2)}_{12}(m_Q) &= C^{(1)}_1(m_Q) C^{(1)}_2(m_Q) = 1 \\ C^{(2)}_{22}(m_Q) &= C^{(1)}_2(m_Q) C^{(1)}_2(m_Q) = 1\end{aligned}$$ can be solved analytically \[eq:RGE:solution\] $$\begin{aligned} C^{(2)}_1(\mu) &= \left(\frac{8C_F}{C_A} - \frac{7}{4}\right) \left(\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{\alpha(m_Q)} \right)^{\displaystyle -\frac{C_A}{6\beta^{(1)}}} + \frac{5}{4} \left(\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{\alpha(m_Q)} \right)^{\displaystyle -\frac{C_A}{2\beta^{(1)}}} - \frac{8C_F}{C_A} - \frac{1}{2} \\ C^{(2)}_2(\mu) &= 2\left(\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{\alpha(m_Q)} \right)^{\displaystyle -\frac{C_A}{4\beta^{(1)}}} - 1 \\ C^{(2)}_{11}(\mu) &= C^{(1)}_1(\mu) C^{(1)}_1(\mu) = 1 \\ C^{(2)}_{12}(\mu) &= C^{(1)}_1(\mu) C^{(1)}_2(\mu) = \left(\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{\alpha(m_Q)} \right)^{\displaystyle -\frac{C_A}{4\beta^{(1)}}} \\ C^{(2)}_{22}(\mu) &= C^{(1)}_2(\mu) C^{(1)}_2(\mu) = \left(\frac{\alpha(\mu)}{\alpha(m_Q)} \right)^{\displaystyle -\frac{C_A}{2\beta^{(1)}}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Flavor threshold at which $\beta^{(1)}$ changes have been ignored in (\[eq:RGE:solution\]). It is straightforward to recover them by pasting solutions together at the thresholds. The solution of the renormalization group equation in the full basis can be obtained numerically for specific values of the gauge parameter $\xi$ and a specific gauge group (i.e. $\text{SU}(3)$). This will be done for the renormalization of the currents [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:currents]. Conclusions {#sec:conclusions} =========== We have presented a new calculation of the renormalized HQET Lagrangian at order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^2)$. Our result corrects previous calculations and obeys the Ward identities imposed by the BRST invariance of QCD and the reparameterization invariance of HQET. The new renormalized Lagrangian has been used in a calculation of the renormalized HQET currents at order $\mathcal{O}(1/m_Q^2)$. The results will be published in a sequel [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:currents] to this note. A more detailed discussion of the consistency checks provided by BRST and reparameterization invariance will be presented elsewhere [@Balzereit/Ohl:1996:technical], together with technical details of the calculation of renormalized Lagrangian and currents. [10]{} N. Isgur and M. Wise, Phys. Lett. [B208]{}, 504 (1988); N. Isgur and M. Wise, Phys. Lett. [B232]{}, 113 (1989); E. Eichten and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. [B234]{}, 511 (1990); H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. [B240]{}, 447 (1990); B. Grinstein, Nucl. Phys. [B339]{}, 253 (1990). B. Grinstein, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [42]{}, 101 (1993); T. Mannel, in [[QCD]{} – 20 years later, Proceedings of the Workshop, Aachen 1992]{}, edited by P. Zerwas and H. Kastrup (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993); M. Neubert, Phys. Rep. [245]{}, 259 (1994). C. L. Lee, Technical Report No. CALT-68-1663, California Institute of Technology. S. Balk, J. G. K[ö]{}rner, and D. Pirjol, Technical Report No. MZ-TH/93-13, [J]{}ohannes [G]{}utenberg-[U]{}niversit[ä]{}t Mainz. C. Balzereit and T. Ohl, to be published. C. Balzereit and T. Ohl, in preparation. C. Balzereit and T. Ohl, to be published. L. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. [B185]{}, 189 (1981); L. Abbott, M. Grisaru, and R. Schaefer, Nucl. Phys. [B229]{}, 372 (1983). H. Kluberg-Stern and J. Zuber, Phys. Rev. [D12]{}, 3159 (1975). E. Eichten and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. [B243]{}, 427 (1990); A. F. Falk, B. Grinstein, and M. Luke, Nucl. Phys. [B357]{}, 185 (1991). W. Kilian, Ph.D. thesis, TH Darmstadt, 1994, (in German). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [118]{}, 838 (1960). J. A. Vermaseren, [Symbolic Manipulation with [`FORM`]{}, Version 2]{} (CAN, Amsterdam, 1991). M. Luke and A. Manohar, Phys. Lett. [B286]{}, 348 (1992). [^1]: Supported by the German National Scholarship Foundation. [^2]: email: `[email protected]` [^3]: e-mail: `[email protected]`	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'This is an expository paper, which provides a first approach to nearly Kenmotsu manifolds. The purpose of this paper is to focus on nearly Kenmotsu manifolds and get some new results from it. We prove that for a nearly Kenmotsu manifold is locally isometric to warped product of real line and nearly Kähler manifold. Finally, we prove that there exist no nearly Kenmotsu hypersurface $M^{2n+1}$ of nearly Kähler manifold $N^{2n+2}$. It is shown that a normal nearly Kenmotsu manifold is Kenmotsu manifold.' address: ' Uludag University, Faculty of Art and Science, Department of Mathematics, Gorukle 16059, Bursa-TURKEY' author: - 'I. Küpeli Erken' - Piotr Dacko - 'C. Murathan' title: ON THE EXISTENCE OF PROPER NEARLY KENMOTSU MANIFOLDS --- Introduction ================ Nearly Kaehler manifolds were defined by Gray [@gray1]. He carry on study of Nearly Kaehler manifolds [@gray1.5], [@gray2]. Nearly Sasakian manifolds were introduced by Blair, Showers and Yano in [Blairnearly]{}. Afterwards, Olszak studied nearly Sasakian manifolds in [olszaktensor]{}. He gave properties of $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian non-Sasakian manifolds. Parallel to the study of [@olszaktensor], Endo studied nearly cosymplectic manifolds [@endo]. Recently, Cappelletti Montano and Dileo study Nearly Sasakian Geometry [@mino]. While much of the similarity between nearly Sasakian manifolds and nearly cosymplectic manifolds are emphasized, and properties of these manifolds are investigated, nearly Kenmotsu manifolds are ignored. The notion of nearly Kenmotsu manifold was introduced in [@shukla]. In the present paper, we want to fill this gap in the study of nearly Kenmotsu manifolds. In literature we did not fall in with proper nearly Kenmotsu manifold examples. So one can ask the following question. Do there exist proper nearly Kenmotsu manifolds? In this paper we give a positive answer to the question for dimension $>5$. In this study we gave certain properties of such manifolds. Our work is structured as follows: In Section $2$, we report some basic information about nearly Kenmotsu manifolds. In the next section, we give some curvature identies about nearly Kenmotsu manifolds and we prove that for a nearly Kenmotsu manifold, $H=0$ and the distribution $D$ is completely integrable. In the last section, we show that a normal nearly Kenmotsu manifold is Kenmotsu manifold and there exist no nearly Kenmotsu hypersurface $M^{2n+1}$ of nearly Kaehler manifold $N^{2n+2}$. Preliminaries {#n.k.m.} ============= In this paper all objects are to be considered as $C^\infty$-class, manifolds are assumed to be connected. We accept the following convention that $X,Y, Z,W \ldots $, will denote vector fields, if it is not otherwise stated. Let $M$ be a $(2n+1)$-dimensional differentiable manifold and $\phi $ is a $% (1,1)$ tensor field, $\xi $ is a vector field, $\eta $ is a one-form, $g$ Riemannina metric on $M$. Then $(\phi ,\xi ,\eta ,g)$ is called an almost contact metric structure on $M$, if$$\phi ^{2}=-Id+\eta \otimes \xi ,\quad \eta (\xi )=1,\quad g(\phi X,\phi Y)=g(X,Y)-\eta (X)\eta (Y).$$and $M$ is said to be an almost contact metric manifold if it is endowed with an almost contact metric structure [@Blair], [@yano]. For such manifold $$\begin{gathered} \eta (X)=g(X,\xi ),\quad \phi (\xi )=0,\quad \eta \circ \phi =0, \\ g(X,\phi Y)+g(Y,\phi X)=0, \label{2}\end{gathered}$$tensor field $\Phi (X,Y)=g(X,\phi Y)$, is customary called fundamental form. In this paper we will refer to $\xi $, as Reeb vector field and $\eta $, as Reeb form. By $[\phi ,\phi ]$ we denote Nijenhuis torsion tensor of $\phi $, by definition $$\lbrack \phi ,\phi ](X,Y)=\phi ^{2}[X,Y]+[\phi X,\phi Y]-\phi \lbrack X,\phi ,Y]-\phi \lbrack X,\phi Y],$$where $[X,Y]$ denotes the Lie bracket of vector fields. An almost contact metric manifold $(M,\phi ,\xi ,\eta )$ is called nearly Kenmotsu manifold [@shukla], if$$(\nabla _{X}\phi )Y+(\nabla _{Y}\phi )X=-\eta (Y)\phi X-\eta (X)\phi Y, \label{4}$$where $\nabla $ is the Levi-Civita connection of $g$. Moreover, if $M$ satisfies$$(\nabla _{X}\phi )Y=g(\phi X,Y)\xi -\eta (Y)\phi X, \label{5}$$then it is called Kenmotsu manifold [@kenmotsu]. Every Kenmotsu manifold is a nearly Kenmotsu manifold but the converse is not true, which in fact will be proved in this paper. If $M$ is nearly Kenmotsu but non Kenmotsu we will call manifold is proper nearly Kenmotsu manifold. Let $M$ be nearly Kenmotsu manifold. We define $(1,1)$-tensor field $H$, by $% d\eta(X,Y)=g(HX,Y)$. Later on we will show that $H=0$. \[killing\]For a nearly Kenmotsu manifold we have $$\begin{aligned} &&g(\nabla _{X}\xi ,Y)+g(X,\nabla _{Y}\xi )=2g(\phi X,\phi Y),\quad \nabla _{X}\xi =-\phi ^{2}X+HX, \label{8} \\ &&\nabla _{\xi }\phi =\phi H,\quad \phi H+H\phi =0,\text{ }H\xi =0,\quad \nabla _{\xi }\xi =0.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[4\]), $(\nabla _{\xi }\phi )\xi =\phi \nabla _{\xi }\xi =0$, hence $% \nabla _{\xi }\xi =0$, and $\nabla _{\xi }\eta =0$. Now, $g(\phi X,\phi Y)=g(X,Y)-\eta (X)\eta (Y)$, yields$$\begin{aligned} &&0=g((\nabla _{\xi }\phi )X,\phi Y)+g((\nabla _{\xi }\phi )Y,\phi X)=-g((\nabla _{X}\phi )\xi ,\phi Y)-g((\nabla _{Y}\phi )\xi ,\phi X) \\ {} &&-2g(\phi X,\phi Y)=g(\nabla _{X}\xi ,Y)+g(\nabla _{Y}\xi ,X)-2g(\phi X,\phi Y).\end{aligned}$$With help of definition of $H$, $\nabla _{X}\xi =-\phi ^{2}X+HX$. By $\phi \xi =0$, and $\eta (\phi X)=0$ $$\begin{aligned} &&0=(\nabla _{X}\phi )\xi +\phi \nabla _{X}\xi =-(\nabla _{\xi }\phi )X+\phi HX, \\ &&0=\eta ((\nabla _{X}\phi )Y)+\eta ((\nabla _{Y}\phi )X)=-g((\nabla _{X}\phi )\xi ,Y)-g((\nabla _{Y}\phi )\xi ,X) \\ &=&g((\nabla _{\xi }\phi )X,Y)+g((\nabla _{\xi }\phi )Y,X)=g(\phi HX,Y)+g(\phi HY,X) \notag \\ &=&g((\phi H+H\phi )X,Y). \notag\end{aligned}$$ \[2-form\] The fundamental form satisfies $$\begin{gathered} \label{2-FORM1} 3d\Phi (X,Y,Z)=-3g((\nabla _{X}\phi )Y,Z)-\eta (Y)g(\phi X,Z)+ \eta (Z)g(\phi X,Y) \\ {}-{}2\eta (X)g(\phi Y,Z). \notag \\ d\Phi(X,Y,Z) -\eta(Z)(\nabla_\xi\Phi)(X,Y)= \dfrac{1}{4}g([\phi,\phi](X,Y),% \phi Z) +2(\eta\wedge \Phi)(X,Y,Z).\end{gathered}$$ From identities $$\begin{gathered} 3d\Phi(X,Y,Z)= (\nabla_X\Phi)(Y,Z)+(\nabla_Y\Phi)(Z,X)+(\nabla_Z\Phi)(X,Y), \\ {} [\phi,\phi ](X,Y) = -\phi (\nabla_X\phi)Y+\phi(\nabla_Y\phi)X+(\nabla_{\phi X}\phi)Y -(\nabla_{\phi Y}\phi)X.\end{gathered}$$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered} 3d\Phi (X,Y,Z) =-g((\nabla _{X}\phi )Y,Z)-g((\nabla_Z\phi)X,Y)+ g((\nabla_Y\phi)X,Z) \\ =-3g((\nabla _{X}\phi )Y,Z) {} -2\eta (X)g(\phi Y,Z)+\eta (Y)g(\phi Z,X)-\eta (Z)g(\phi Y,X),\end{gathered}$$ $$\dfrac{1}{2}[\phi,\phi](X,Y) = -\phi(\nabla_X\phi)Y+\phi(\nabla_Y\phi)X+\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y.$$Hence $$\begin{gathered} 6d\Phi(X,Y,Z)= -3g((\nabla_X\phi)Y-(\nabla_Y\phi)X,Z) +\eta(Y)g(\phi X,Z) {}-\eta(X)g(\phi Y,Z) + 2\eta(Z)g(\phi X,Y) \\ = \dfrac{3}{2}g([\phi,\phi](X,Y),\phi Z) +4\eta(X)g(Y,\phi Z) {}+{} 4\eta(Y)g(Z,\phi X)+4\eta(Z)g(X,\phi Y)+ \\ {} 6\eta(Z)(\nabla_\xi\Phi)(X,Y) = \dfrac{3}{2}g([\phi,\phi],\phi Z) + 12 (\eta\wedge\Phi)(X,Y,Z)+6\eta(Z)(\nabla_\xi\Phi)(X,Y).\end{gathered}$$ Structure of nearly Kenmotsu Manifolds ====================================== In this section, we will proof curvature relations for nearly Kenmotsu manifold. Let $R$ be Riemann curvature operator $$R(X,Y)Z = (\nabla^2_{X,Y}Z)-(\nabla^2_{Y,X}Z) = [\nabla_X,\nabla_Y]Z-\nabla_{[X,Y]}Z,$$ by the same letter we denote corresponding $(0,4)$-tensor $$R(X,Y,Z,W)=g(R(X,Y)Z,W).$$ Let $(M,\phi ,\xi ,\eta ,g)$ be nearly Kenmotsu manifold. We have following curvature relations $$\begin{gathered} R(\phi X,Y,Z,W)+R(X,\phi Y,Z,W)+R(X,Y,\phi Z,W)+R(X,Y,Z,\phi W)=0, \label{FEN1} \\ R(\phi X,\phi Y,Z,W)=R(X,Y,\phi Z,\phi W), \label{RRR} \\ R(\phi X,\phi Y,\phi Z,\phi W)=R(X,Y,Z,W)-\eta (X)R(\xi ,Y,Z,W)+\eta (Y)R(\xi ,X,Z,W). \label{R5}\end{gathered}$$ Let $T$ be $(1,3)$-tensor defined by (cf. (\[4\])) $$(\nabla _{X,Y}^{2}\phi )Z+(\nabla _{X,Z}^{2}\phi )Y=T(X,Y,Z), \label{FEN2}$$clearly $T(X,Y,Z)=T(X,Z,Y)$. For simplicity $T$ will also denote corresponding $(0,4)$-tensor $$T(X,Y,Z,W)=g(T(X,Y,Z),W).$$From the Ricci identity, $$0=R(X,Y,Z,\phi W)-R(X,Y,W,\phi Z)-g((\nabla _{X,Y}^{2}\phi )Z,W)+g((\nabla _{Y,X}^{2}\phi )Z,W)$$eq. (\[FEN2\]), and the first Bianchi identity, we find $$\begin{gathered} R(X,Y,Z,\phi W)=R(X,Y,W,\phi Z)+g((\nabla _{X,Y}^{2}\phi )Z,W-g((\nabla _{Y,X}^{2}\phi )Z,W) \label{FEN3} \\ =R(X,Y,W,\phi Z)-g((\nabla _{X,Z}^{2}\phi )Y,W){}+{}g((\nabla _{Y,Z}^{2}\phi )X,W)+ \notag \\ T(X,Z,Y,W)-T(Y,Z,X,W), \notag \\ R(X,Y,Z,\phi W)=R(X,Z,Y,\phi W)-R(Y,Z,X,\phi W)=R(X,Z,Y,\phi W) \\ {}-{}R(Y,Z,W,\phi X)-g((\nabla _{Y,Z}^{2}\phi )(X,W)+g((\nabla _{Z,Y}^{2}\phi )X,W), \notag\end{gathered}$$comparing right hand sides of these equations, we obtain$$\begin{gathered} R(X,Z,Y,\phi W)-R(Y,Z,W,\phi X)-R(X,Y,W,\phi Z)+g((\nabla _{Z,Y}^{2}\phi )X,W)+ \label{FEN5} \\ {}g((\nabla _{X,Z}^{2}\phi )Y,W)+T(Y,Z,X,W)-T(X,Z,Y,W)=2g((\nabla _{Y,Z}^{2}\phi )X,W), \notag\end{gathered}$$we note, that $$\begin{gathered} g((\nabla _{Z,Y}^{2}\phi )X,W)+g((\nabla _{X,Z}^{2}\phi )Y,W)=R(X,Z,Y,\phi W) \\ {}-R(X,Z,W,\phi Y)+T(Z,X,Y,W), \notag \\ g((\nabla _{Y,Z}^{2}\phi )X,W)=g((\nabla _{Y,W}^{2}\phi )Z,X)-T(Y,W,Z,X),\end{gathered}$$which being taken into account in (\[FEN5\]), follow $$\begin{gathered} 2R(X,Z,Y,\phi W)-R(X,Y,W,\phi Z)-R(Y,Z,W,\phi X)-R(X,Z,W,\phi Y)+ \label{FEN7} \\ T(Y,Z,X,W)+T(Z,X,Y,W)-T(X,Y,Z,W)+ \notag \\ 2T(Y,W,Z,X)=2g((\nabla _{Y,W}^{2}\phi )Z,X). \notag\end{gathered}$$By straightforward computations $$\begin{gathered} T(Y,Z,X,W)+T(Z,X,Y,W)-T(X,Y,Z,W)+2T(Y,W,Z,X)= \label{pioT} \\ C(X,Y,Z,W)+2g(\phi Y,W)g(HX,Z)+2g(\phi X,Z)g(HY,W)+ \\ 2g(\phi X,W)g(HY,Z)+2g(\phi Z,W)g(HX,Y)+ \\ 2g(\phi Z,X)g(Y,\phi ^{2}W)+\eta (X)\eta (Y)g(\phi Z,W){}-\eta (Z)\eta (Y)g(\phi X,W),\end{gathered}$$where $$\begin{gathered} C(X,Y,Z,W)=-\eta (Y)g((\nabla _{Z}\phi )X,W)+\eta (Y)g((\nabla _{X}\phi )Z,W) \\ {}-2\eta (W)g((\nabla _{Y}\phi )Z,X). \notag\end{gathered}$$The anti-symmetrization of (\[FEN7\]), in $Y$ and $W$, and the first Bianchi identity, follow $$\begin{gathered} 3R(\phi X,Z,Y,W)+3R(X,\phi Z,Y,W)+3R(X,Z,\phi Y,W)+3R(X,Z,Y,\phi W)+ \\ 4g(\phi Y,W)g(HX,Z)+4g(\phi X,Z)g(HY,W)+2g(\phi X,W)g(HY,Z) \\ {}-2g(\phi X,Y)g(HW,Z)+2g(\phi Z,W)g(HX,Y)-2g(\phi Z,Y)g(HX,W)=0,\end{gathered}$$now (\[FEN1\]) will be proved, if $H=0$. We shall focus on the proof that $% H=0$. For $X=\xi $ ($H\xi =\phi \xi =0$) we obtain $$\begin{gathered} R(\xi ,\phi Z,Y,W)+R(\xi ,Z,\phi Y,W)+R(\xi ,Z,Y,\phi W)=0, \label{Rxi} \\ -R(\xi ,Z,\phi Y,W)-R(\xi ,\phi Z,Y,W)+\eta (Y)R(\xi ,\phi Z,\xi ,W)+ \\ R(\xi ,\phi Z,\phi Y,\phi W)=0, \notag\end{gathered}$$hence $$R(\xi ,Z,Y,\phi W)+R(\xi ,\phi Z,\phi Y,\phi W)+\eta (Y)R(\xi ,\phi Z,\xi ,W)=0, \label{Rxi2}$$and $$\begin{gathered} -R(\xi ,Z,\phi Y,W)+R(\xi ,\phi Z,Y,W)=\eta (W)R(\xi ,Z,\xi ,\phi Y) \\ {}-\eta (W)R(\xi ,\phi Z,\xi ,Y)+\eta (Y)R(\xi ,\phi Z,\xi ,W), \notag\end{gathered}$$by the last equation, we can simplify (\[Rxi\]), to $$\begin{gathered} 3R(\xi ,\phi Z,Y,W)=2\eta (Y)R(\xi ,\phi Z,\xi ,W)+2\eta (W)R(\xi ,Z,\xi ,\phi Y) \\ {}-\eta (W)R(\xi ,\phi Z,\xi ,Y)-\eta (Y)R(\xi ,Z,\xi ,W). \notag \\ R(\xi ,Z,\phi Y,\phi W)=0.\end{gathered}$$ For $\nabla\xi=-\phi^2+H$, $$\begin{gathered} \label{rxi} R(Y,Z,\xi ,X)=-g(\nabla _{Y}\phi ^{2})X,Z)+g(\nabla _{Z}\phi ^{2})X,Y) \\ {}-{}g((\nabla _{Y}H)X,Z)+g((\nabla _{Z}H)X,Y), \notag\end{gathered}$$ taking cycling sum, by Bianchi identity $$g((\nabla _{Z}H)X,Y)+g((\nabla _{X}H)Y,Z)-g((\nabla _{Y}H)X,Z)=0,$$hence $$\begin{gathered} R(Y,Z,\xi ,X) =-g((\nabla _{Y}\phi ^{2})X,Z)+g((\nabla _{Z}\phi ^{2})X,Y)-g(\nabla _{X}H)Y,Z) \\ =\eta (Y) g(X,Z) -\eta (Z) g(X,Y) +\eta(Y)g(X,HZ) -\eta(Z)g(X,HY) \notag \\ -2\eta (X)g(Z,HY)-g((\nabla _{X}H)Y,Z), \notag \\ 0 = R(\xi ,X,\phi Y,\phi Z) = -2\eta (X)g(H\phi Y,\phi Z)-g((\nabla_{X}H)\phi Y,\phi Z) \\ =2\eta(X)g(HY,Z)-g((\nabla_XH)\phi Y,\phi Z). \notag\end{gathered}$$ Let take local unit eigenvector field $Y$, $\eta(Y)=0$, $H^{2}Y=\lambda Y$, note that $H^2\phi Y=-\lambda \phi Y$, as $\phi H+H\phi=0$, then $$\begin{gathered} 0=R(\xi,X,\phi Y,\phi HY)= 2\lambda\eta(X)-g((\nabla_XH)\phi Y,\phi HY)= 2\lambda\eta(X) \\ {}-\dfrac{1}{2}((\nabla_XH^2)\phi Y,\phi Y) = 2\lambda\eta(X)+\dfrac{1}{2}% d\lambda(X), \notag\end{gathered}$$ so $d\lambda=-4\lambda\eta$, as $X$ is arbitrary, in consequence $\lambda =0$ or $d\eta =0$, and $H=0$ . To proof (\[RRR\]), let denote the left hand side of (\[FEN1\]) by $% \mathcal{R}_{l}$, then $$\begin{gathered} 0=\mathcal{R}_{l}(\phi X,Y,Z,W)+\mathcal{R}_{l}(X,\phi Y,Z,W)-\mathcal{R}% _{l}(X,Y,\phi Z,W) \\ {}-\mathcal{R}_{l}(X,Y,Z,\phi W)=2R(\phi X,\phi Y,Z,W)-2R(X,Y,\phi Z,\phi W), \notag\end{gathered}$$now (\[R5\]) is immediate. For nearly Kenmotsu manifold we have $$\begin{gathered} \label{bsteg} (\nabla_{\phi X}\phi)\phi Y +(\nabla_X\phi)Y -2g(\phi X, Y)\xi+\eta(Y)\phi X=0.\end{gathered}$$ By $\phi^2=-Id +\eta\otimes\xi$, $$\begin{gathered} g((\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y,Z)= g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,\phi Z)+\eta(Z)g(X,Y) + \\ \eta(Y)g(X,Z)-2\eta(X)\eta(Y)\eta(Z), \notag\end{gathered}$$ taking into account (\[4\]), we obtain $$\begin{gathered} g((\nabla_{\phi X}\phi)Y,Z)= g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,\phi Z) +2\eta(Y)g(X,Z) \\ {} - \eta(Z)g(X,Y) -\eta(X)\eta(Y)\eta(Z), \notag\end{gathered}$$ the last above identities, together follow (\[bsteg\]). For nearly Kenmotsu manifold, we have the following relations$$R(\xi ,X,Y,Z)=\eta (Y)g(X,Z)-\eta (Z)g(X,Y), \label{i24}$$$$Ric(\phi Y,\phi Z)=Ric(Y,Z)+2n\eta (Y)\eta (Z), \label{i27}$$$$Ric(Z,\phi Y)+Ric(\phi Z,Y)=0, \label{i26}$$where Ric indicates the Ricci tensor and $Q$ is the Ricci operator, $% Ric(X,Y)=g(QX,Y)$. Eq. (\[i24\]) is direct consequence of $\nabla \xi =-\phi ^{2}$, cf. ([rxi]{}). Let $(E_{0}=\xi ,E_{1},\ldots ,E_{n},E_{n+1},\ldots ,E_{2n})$, $\text{dim}% M=2n+1$, denote orthonormal $\phi $-frame, $\phi E_{i}=E_{i+n}$, $\phi E_{i+n}=-E_{i}$, $i=1,\ldots ,n$, then by (\[R5\]), $$\begin{gathered} Ric(X,Y)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(R(E_{i},X,Y,E_{i})+R(E_{i+n},X,Y,E_{i+n}))+R(\xi ,X,Y,\xi ) \\ =Ric(\phi X,\phi Y)+\eta (X)Ric(\xi ,Y)-R(\xi ,\phi X,\phi Y,\xi )+R(\xi ,X,Y,\xi ) \notag \\ =Ric(\phi X,\phi Y)+\eta (X)R(\xi ,Y)=Ric(\phi X,\phi Y)+Ric(\xi ,\xi )\eta (X)\eta (Y),\end{gathered}$$now by (\[i24\]), $Ric(\xi ,\xi )=-2n$, and the last identity is now direct consequence of (\[i27\]). Once we know that $d\eta=0$ we are able to describe completely local structure of nearly Kenmotsu manifold. \[Integ\] Let $(M,\phi ,\xi ,\eta ,g)$ be a nearly Kenmotsu manifold. Then - The distribution $D=\ker \eta $ is completely integrable, and maximall integral submanifolds of $D$ are totally umbilical hypersurfaces, - Maximall integral submanifolds naturally inherits nearly Kähler structure, - Nearly Kenmotsu manifold is locally isometric to warped product of real line and nearly Kähler manifold. $\Rightarrow a)$ As Reeb form is closed, it is clear that $D=\ker \eta$ is completely integrable. If $\tilde M$, denote maximal integral submanifold of $D$, particularly $dim \tilde M=2n$, then restriction $% \xi\|_{\tilde M}$ is normal vector field, and with respect to such choice of normal, Weingarten map is $A: \tilde X \mapsto \nabla_{\tilde X}\xi= -X$, hence $\bar M$ is umbilical. $\Rightarrow b)$ Let $J$ be $(1,1)$ tensor field on $\tilde M$ defined by $J\tilde X = \phi \tilde X$. This definition is correct, as $D$ is $\phi$-invariant. It is direct that $J$ is almost complex structure. We verify $$(\tilde\nabla_{\tilde X}J)\tilde X = \tilde \nabla_{\tilde X}J\tilde X - J\tilde \nabla_{\tilde X}\tilde X = (\nabla_{\tilde X}\phi)(\tilde X) = 0,$$ as $\eta(\tilde X)=0$, and $\tilde M$ is totally umbilical. $\Rightarrow c)$ We can choose coordinate neighborhood $U=I\times U^{\prime }$, where $I=(-\epsilon,\epsilon)$ is non-empty interval, and $% U^{\prime }\subset \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ is a disk, For any point $p \in U$, $% p=(t,x^1,\ldots,x^{2n})=(t,p^{\prime })$, coordinate $t$, can be defined in the way that $\eta=dt$, $\xi=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$. If we set $\hat g=dt^2$ on $I$, then $\pi: p \mapsto t$ is Riemannian submersion, with fibers $\pi^{-1}(t)=t\times U^{\prime }$. We find that O’Neill tensors $A$, and $T^0$ vanish, hence $(U,g)$ is warped product $(I\times U^{\prime 2}+f^2 h)$, as metric $h$ we may take $h=\iota_0^g$, $\iota_0:p^{\prime }\mapsto 0\times U^{\prime }$. As mean vector field $N=-2n\xi$, we have $\pi_(N)=-2n \ln \|f\|\pi_(\xi)$, hence ${d\ln\|f\|}/{dt}=1$, $f^2=Ce^{2t}$, and $C=1$, by our choice of $h$. In [@dileo], Dileo and Pastore proved special almost Kenmotsu manifold is locally isometric to warped product of real line and almost Kaehler manifold. Some theorems about nearly Kenmotsu manifolds ============================================= In this section we will show that normal and nearly Kenmostu manifolds of constant sectional curvature are Kenmotsu. Moreover, nearly Kenmotsu manifold can be never realized as hypersurface of nearly Kähler manifold. Normal nearly Kenmotsu manifold is Kenmotsu. We know that $d\eta =0$, hence nearly Kenmotsu manifold is normal iff $N=0$. But in view of the Proposition \[2-form\], in the case $N=0$, we have $$d\Phi =2\eta \wedge \Phi ,$$which means that $M$ is almost Kenmotsu. Now we use the fact that normal almost Kenmotsu manifold is Kenmotsu. The almost Hermitian manifold $(N,J,G)$ is called nearly Kähler if $(% \bar{\nabla}_{X}J)Y+$ $(\bar{\nabla}_{Y}J)X=0$, $\bar{\nabla}$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection of $G$, (see for more details [@gray1], [gray2]{}). Simplest facts about nearly Kähler manifolds: If $N$ is Hermitian or locally flat then is Kähler, any four-dimensional nearly Kähler manifold is necessarily Kähler. Y. Tashiro [@tas] proved that Riemannian hypersurface $(M,g)\subset (N,G) $, inherits almost contact metric structure $(\phi ,\xi ,\eta ,g)$, where $(\phi ,\xi ,\eta )$ are defined by $$JX=\phi X+\eta (X)N,~~~JN=-\xi , \label{w2}$$where $N$ is normal vector field. There is no nearly Kenmotsu hypersurface, in nearly Kähler manifold. Let $A=-\bar{\nabla}N$, be Weingarten map, and $\nabla $ denote Levi-Civita connection on $M$. From $(\bar{\nabla}_{X}J)Y+(\bar{\nabla}_{Y}J)X=0$, Gauss-Weingarten equations follow $$\begin{gathered} (\nabla _{X}\phi )Y+(\nabla _{Y}\phi )X-\eta (Y)AX-\eta (X)AY+2h(X,Y)\xi =0, \\ g(Y,\nabla _{X}\xi )+g(X,\nabla _{Y}\xi )=-h(Y,\phi X)-h(X,\phi Y),\end{gathered}$$if $M$ is nearly Kenmotsu, then $$\begin{gathered} -\eta (Y)\phi X-\eta (X)\phi Y=\eta (Y)AX+\eta (X)AY-2h(X,Y)\xi , \\ h(X,Y)=h(\xi ,\xi )\eta (X)\eta (Y).\end{gathered}$$In consequence $g(\nabla _{X}\xi ,Y)+g(\nabla _{Y}\xi ,X)=0$, which contradicts with Proposition \[killing\]. \[gray\] [@gray2] Let $M$ be a nearly Kaehler manifold with dim $% M\leq 4.$Then $M$ is Kaehlerian. Using Theorem \[gray\] we can give following corollary. There is not exist proper nearly Kenmotsu manifolds for dimension $3$ and $5. $ [99]{} D. E. Blair, Riemannian geometry of contact and symplectic manifolds, Progress Math. Vol 203, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 2010. D. E. Blair, D. K. Showers and K. Yano, Nearly Sasakian structures, Kodai Math. Sem. Rep, 27, 175-180 (1976). J.-B. Butruille, Classification des variétés approximativement kähleriennes homogènes, Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. 27,* 201-225 (2005). B. Cappelletti Montano and G. Dileo,* Nearly Sasakian Geometry and SU(2)-Structures, arXiv:1410.0942v2. G. Dileo and A. M. Pastore, Almost Kenmotsu manifolds and local symmetry, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. 14, 343-354 (2007). H. Endo, On the curvature tensor of Nearly cosymplectic manifolds of constant* $\Phi $-sectional curvature, An. Ştiint. Univ. Al. I. Cuza Iaşi. Mat., 51, no.2, 439-454 (2005). A. Gray,* Nearly Kähler manifolds, J. Differential Geometry 4, 283-309 (1970). A. Gray, Riemannian manifolds with geodesic symmetries of order 3, J. Differential Geometry 7, 343-369 (1972). A. Gray, The structure of nearly Kähler manifolds, Math. Ann. 223, no.3, 233-248 (1976). K. Kenmotsu, A class of almost contact Riemannian manifold, Tohoko Math. J. 24, 93-103 (1972). Z. Olszak, Nearly Sasakian manifolds, Tensor, N. S., 33, 277-286 (1979). Z. Olszak, Five-dimensional Nearly Sasakian manifolds, Tensor, N. S., 34, 273-276 (1980). S. Sasaki, Lecture Notes on Almost Contact Manifolds,* Part II. Tokohu University (1967). A. Shukla, Nearly trans-Sasakian manifolds, Kuwait J. Sci. Eng. 23, no.2, 139-144 (1996). Y. Tashiro, On contact structures of hypersurfaces in complex manifolds, Tohoku Math. J. 15, 50-62 (1963). K. Yano, M. Kon, Structures on Manifolds, World Scientific, Singapore (1984).	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'In this letter, we present an end-to-end performance analysis of dual-hop project-and-forward relaying in a realistic scenario, where the source-relay and the relay-destination links are experiencing MIMO-pinhole and Rayleigh channel conditions, respectively. We derive the probability density function of both the relay post-processing and the end-to-end signal-to-noise ratios, and the obtained expressions are used to derive the outage probability of the analyzed system as well as its end-to-end ergodic capacity in terms of generalized functions. Applying then the residue theory to Mellin-Barnes integrals, we infer the system asymptotic behavior for different channel parameters. As the bivariate Meijer-G function is involved in the analysis, we propose a new and fast MATLAB implementation enabling an automated definition of the complex integration contour. Extensive Monte-Carlo simulations are invoked to corroborate the analytical results.' author: - \| Hatim Chergui, , Mustapha Benjillali, ,\ and Samir Saoudi, title: 'Performance Analysis of Project-and-Forward Relaying in Mixed MIMO-Pinhole and Rayleigh Dual-Hop Channel' --- 0.4cm Capacity, Meijer G-function, Mellin-Barnes, MIMO, outage probability, performance analysis, pinhole channel, project-and-forward, relaying, residue theory. Introduction ============ detrimental situation to MIMO communication benefits is the pinhole effect that usually arises when the transmit-receive range is much larger than the radii of local scatterers in both sides. In that case, the fading energy propagates through a very thin air pipe, called a [pinhole]{} (or keyhole), reducing the MIMO channel to a rank-one matrix [@MIMO_Outdoor]. In downlink dual-hop multi-antenna relaying systems, the pinhole scenario may practically surface in either hops. Hence, in rich-scattering dense urban fixed deployments, a carefully planned relay location ensures a full-rank source-relay channel; while the relay-destination link may endure the pinhole effect for user equipments (UEs) experiencing poor scattering situations. Conversely, in suburban and rural areas with green-field deployment, the donor eNodeB and the relay are separated by a large distance in a line of sight (LOS) environment such that the source-relay channel has only one degree of freedom [@MIMO_Outdoor; @Long_Distance]. On the other hand, the fact that the relay is close to the target destination—e.g., a village presenting rich scattering and short ranges to the end UEs—leads to a full-rank Rayleigh relay-destination link. This scenario is also applicable to moving relay nodes (MRNs) in high speed vehicles [@MRN], where the large rural eNodeB LOS coverage and the rare handover events induce large eNodeB-relay distances, and therefore the pinhole effect, while the rich-scattering indoor structure of the vehicle (like trains for instance) and the small relay-UEs ranges yield a Rayleigh propagation. An inherent limitation in amplify-and-forward (AF) relaying systems is the so-called noise amplification and propagation that becomes even worse when the number of relay antennas increases, as the corresponding relayed noises accumulate at each of the destination receive antennas; the end-to-end SNR, and therefore the performance, are consequently degraded. To sidestep this drawback, a variant of AF relaying, termed “project-and-forward” (PF), has been introduced in [@Multihop_DMT], and consists on optimizing the number of active antennas at the relay by forwarding the degrees-of-freedom (DoF) of the received signal—yield by an orthogonal projection—instead of the signal itself. Only as few relay antennas as the rank of the source-relay MIMO channel are used, i.e., a single antenna in the unit-rank case. While the mixed full-rank/pinhole MIMO channel has been widely studied in the literature, especially for AF-based setups (cf. [@Keyhole1; @Keyhole2] and references therein), the MIMO-pinhole/Rayleigh channel has been rarely addressed and, to the best of our knowledge, never for the PF scheme that, in addition, turns out to be very opportune in such environments. In this letter, we present a novel end-to-end performance analysis of dual-hop PF systems over the mixed MIMO-pinhole/Rayleigh relay channel. We derive exact expressions for the probability density functions (PDFs) of both the first hop and the end-to-end SNRs, which are then used to infer the outage probability as well as the ergodic capacity whose formula is provided in terms of the bivariate Meijer G-function [@Bivariate_Meijer_G_def]. The asymptotic behavior is then derived using the residue theory. While the Meijer G-function [@Table_of_Integrals Eq. (9.301)] is a built-in routine in prevalent computing softwares, the bivariate Meijer G-function is available only in MATHEMATICA with no general contour definition [@BER_Bivariate_Meijer_G]. We therefore develop a fast MATLAB code with automated integration contour for this generalized function as a secondary contribution of this work. In the sequel, the superscript $^{\mathrm{H}}$ denotes the Hermitian transpose, $\left\Vert \cdot\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}$ and $\mathrm{Res}\left[\phi,p\right]$ represent the Frobenius norm and the residue of function $\phi$ at pole $p$. $\Gamma\left(\cdot\right)$, $\psi^{(0)}\left(\cdot\right)$, and $K_{\nu}\left(\cdot\right)$ stand for the Gamma function, the digamma function, and the $\nu^{th}$-order modified Bessel function of the second kind, respectively. $\mathrm{G}_{\cdot,\cdot}^{\cdot,\cdot}\left(\cdot\mid\cdot\right)$ is the Meijer G-function, and $\mathrm{G}_{\cdot,\cdot:\cdot,\cdot:\cdot,\cdot}^{\cdot,\cdot:\cdot,\cdot:\cdot,\cdot}\left(\cdot,\cdot\mid\cdot\mid\cdot\mid\cdot\right)$ is the bivariate Meijer G-function. System Model ============ Channel Description ------------------- We consider a half-duplex dual-hop multi-antenna cooperative transmission where an $n_{\mathrm{s}}$-antennas source is connected to a single antenna destination through an $n_{\mathrm{r}}$-antennas relay ($n_{\mathrm{s}},n_{\mathrm{r}}{>}1$). The communication between each couple of nodes, $\mathrm{i}\hspace{-1mm}\in\hspace{-1mm}\left\{ \mathrm{s,r}\right\} $ and $\mathrm{i'}\hspace{-1mm}\in\hspace{-1mm}\left\{ \mathrm{r,d}\right\} $, takes place over an independent wireless link $\mathrm{i-i'}$ experiencing an average propagation loss $\alpha_{\mathrm{ii'}}$. The corresponding small scale fading effects are represented by - A MIMO-pinhole channel matrix $\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{sr}}$ that is modelled as an outer product of two independent and uncorrelated Rayleigh fading vectors $\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{s}}\in\mathbb{C}^{n_{\mathrm{s}}\times1}$ and $\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{r}}\in\mathbb{C}^{n_{\mathrm{r}}\times1}$, i.e., $$\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{sr}}=\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{r}}\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{H}}\in\mathbb{C}^{n_{\mathrm{r}}\times n_{\mathrm{s}}}.$$ - An independent standard complex Gaussian vector $\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{rd}}$ whose coefficients $\left\{ h_{\mathrm{rd}}^{n,n'}\right\} $ are consequently Rayleigh distributed. Both relay and destination received signals are corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) vectors $\mathbf{w}_{\mathrm{r}}\sim\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbf{0}_{n_{\mathrm{r}}\times1},\sigma^{2}\mathbf{I}_{n_{\mathrm{r}}}\right)$ and $\mathbf{w}_{\mathrm{d}}\sim\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbf{0}_{n_{\mathrm{d}}\times1},\sigma^{2}\mathbf{I}_{n_{\mathrm{d}}}\right)$, respectively. The corresponding average SNRs per hop are $\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}=\alpha_{\mathrm{sr}}^{2}/\sigma^{2}$ and $\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}=\alpha_{\mathrm{rd}}^{2}/\sigma^{2}$. Project-and-Forward Relaying ---------------------------- Let $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{C}^{n_{s}\times1}$ denote a unitary precoded symbol vector transmitted by the source node. The $\mathrm{s-r}$ communication model can be accordingly expressed as, $$\mathbf{y}_{\mathrm{r}}=\alpha_{\mathrm{sr}}\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{sr}}\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{w}_{\mathrm{r}}\in\mathbb{C}^{n_{\mathrm{r}}\times1}.\label{eq:SR CM}$$ The key idea of PF relaying is to extract and forward the DoFs of the received signal vector $\mathbf{y}_{\mathrm{r}}$ via a QR-based orthogonal projection [@Matrix_Computations]. Given that $\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{sr}}$ is a pinhole channel, a single degree of freedom will be conveyed by the relay to be used in the estimation of the transmit vector $\mathbf{x}$ at the destination. Let $\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{sr}}=\mathbf{Q}\mathbf{R}$ denote the QR decomposition of $\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{sr}}$, where $\mathbf{Q}\in\mathbb{C}^{n_{\mathrm{r}}\times n_{\mathrm{r}}}$ is a unitary matrix with $\mathbf{q}\in\mathbb{C}^{n_{\mathrm{r}}\times1}$ standing for its first column vector, and $\mathbf{R}\in\mathbb{C}^{n_{\mathrm{r}}\times n_{\mathrm{s}}}$ is an upper triangular matrix whose $(n_{\mathrm{r}}-1)$ bottom rows consist entirely of zeros, i.e., $$\mathbf{R}=\left[\begin{array}{c} \mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{r}}\\ \mathbf{0}_{(n_{\mathrm{r}}-1)\times n_{\mathrm{s}}} \end{array}\right].\label{eq:R}$$ The DoF $\hat{y}_{\mathrm{r}}$ is first obtained as $$\widetilde{y}_{\mathrm{r}}=\mathbf{q}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{y}_{\mathrm{r}}=\alpha_{\mathrm{sr}}\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{r}}\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{q}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{w}_{\mathrm{r}}\in\mathbb{C},\label{eq:DoF}$$ and is then normalized with a scaling factor $\alpha_{\mathrm{r}}=\left(\alpha_{\mathrm{sr}}^{2}\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{r}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}^{2}+\sigma^{2}\right)^{\hspace{-1mm}-1/2}$ before being forwarded to the destination using only one relay antenna. The $\mathrm{r}$–$\mathrm{d}$ link is therefore a SISO Rayleigh channel whose fading coefficient $h_{\mathrm{rd}}$ is rid of the antenna index, resulting in a simpler case $$y_{\mathrm{d}}=\alpha_{\mathrm{rd}}\alpha_{\mathrm{r}}h_{\mathrm{rd}}\widetilde{y}_{\mathrm{r}}+w_{\mathrm{d}}\in\mathbb{C}.\label{eq:RD CM}$$ Performance Analysis ==================== Instantaneous SNRs Characterization ----------------------------------- By invoking communication models and , end-to-end SNR of the PF system in the mixed MIMO-pinhole/Rayleigh channel can be expressed similarly to a dual-hop AF transmission [@Hasna], i.e., $$\gamma_{\mathrm{srd}}=\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}\gamma_{\mathrm{rd}}}{\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}+\gamma_{\mathrm{rd}}+1},\label{eq:E2E SNR Compact}$$ where the conditional terms $\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}=\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{r}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}^{2}$ and $\gamma_{\mathrm{rd}}=\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}\left\|h_{\mathrm{rd}}\right\|^{2}$ represent the relay post-processing SNR and the destination receive SNR, respectively. To evaluate the PDF of $\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}$, we consider the equality $\mathbf{q}\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{r}}=\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{sr}}=\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{r}}\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{H}}$ that stems from the aforementioned QR decomposition. Given that $\mathbf{q}$ is unitary, we infer that $\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{r}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}=\left\Vert \mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{r}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}\left\Vert \mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{s}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}$, and due to the statistical independence between $\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{s}}$ and $\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{r}}$, the PDF of $\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{r}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}^{2}$ can be shown to be -0.2cm [ $$f_{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{r}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}^{2}}(\gamma)=\int_{0}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{\gamma_{\mathrm{r}}}f_{\left\Vert \mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{s}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}^{2}}\left(\frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{\mathrm{r}}}\right)f_{\left\Vert \mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{r}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}^{2}}(\gamma_{\mathrm{r}})\mathrm{d}\gamma_{\mathrm{r}}.\label{eq:hr2 pdf}$$ ]{} By recalling that both $\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{s}}$ and $\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{r}}$ are Rayleigh fading vectors, we have $2\left\Vert \mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{i}}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}^{2}\sim\mathcal{X}_{2n_{\mathrm{i}}}^{2},\mathrm{i}\hspace{-1mm}\in\hspace{-1mm}\left\{ \mathrm{s,r}\right\} $. After some algebraic manipulations and by making use of and [@Table_of_Integrals Eq. (3.471.9)], we obtain the PDF of $\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}$ under the form [ $$f_{\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}}\left(\gamma\right)=\frac{2}{\Gamma(n_{\mathrm{s}})\Gamma(n_{\mathrm{r}})\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}}\hspace{-1mm}\left(\frac{\gamma}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}}\right)^{\hspace{-1.5mm}\frac{n_{\mathrm{s}}+n_{\mathrm{r}}}{2}-1}\hspace{-1.5mm}K_{n_{\mathrm{r}}-n_{\mathrm{s}}}\hspace{-1mm}\left(\hspace{-1mm}2\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}}}\right).\label{eq:SR SNR PDF}$$ ]{} -0.2cm The $\mathrm{r}$–$\mathrm{d}$ link is experiencing Rayleigh flat fading. Hence, $\gamma_{\mathrm{rd}}$ is exponentially distributed with the probability density function written as [$f_{\gamma_{\mathrm{rd}}}\left(\gamma\right)=(1/\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}})\exp\left(-\gamma/\bar{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}\right)$]{}. -0.4cm [$$\label{eq:Pout} P_{\mathrm{out}}\left(\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\right)=1\hspace{-0.5mm}-\hspace{-0.5mm}\frac{e^{-\frac{\gamma_{t\mathrm{h}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}}}}{\Gamma(n_{\mathrm{s}})\Gamma(n_{\mathrm{r}})}\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{\left(-1\right)^{k}}{k!}\hspace{-0.5mm}\left(\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}+1}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}}\right)^{\hspace{-1mm}k}\sum_{l=0}^{+\infty}\frac{a_{k,l}}{l!}\left(\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}}\right)^{\hspace{-1mm}\hspace{-0.5mm}k+l+1}\hspace{-2mm}\mathrm{G}_{1,3}^{3,0}\left(\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}}\begin{array}{\|c} 0\\ \hspace{-0.5mm}-1,\frac{\nu}{2}\hspace{-0.5mm}+\hspace{-0.5mm}\alpha\hspace{-0.5mm}-\hspace{-0.5mm}k\hspace{-0.5mm}-\hspace{-0.5mm}l,-\frac{\nu}{2}\hspace{-0.5mm}+\hspace{-0.5mm}\alpha\hspace{-0.5mm}-\hspace{-0.5mm}k\hspace{-0.5mm}-\hspace{-0.5mm}l \end{array}\hspace{-1mm}\right)$$ ]{} Outage Probability ------------------ In noise-limited transmissions, quality of service (QoS) is ensured by keeping the instantaneous end-to-end SNR above a threshold $\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}$. The probability of outage in our relaying setup is expressed as -0.3cm [$$P_{\mathrm{out}}=\mathbf{\Pr}\left[\gamma_{\mathrm{srd}}<\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\right]=\mathbf{\Pr}\left[\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}\gamma_{\mathrm{rd}}}{\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}+\gamma_{\mathrm{rd}}+1}<\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\right],$$ ]{} -0.2cm which is actually the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of SNR $\gamma_{\mathrm{srd}}$. Marginalization over $\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}$ yields -0.25cm [$$P_{\mathrm{out}}\left(\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\right)=1-\int_{0}^{+\infty}\widetilde{F}_{\gamma_{\mathrm{\mathrm{rd}}}}\left[\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}+\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}^{2}+\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\gamma}\right]f_{\gamma_{\mathrm{sr}}}\left(\gamma\right)\mathrm{d}\gamma,$$ ]{} -0.25cm where $\widetilde{F}_{\gamma_{\mathrm{rd}}}\left(\cdot\right)$ is the complementary CDF (CCDF) of $\gamma_{\mathrm{rd}}$, given by $\exp\left(-\gamma/\bar{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}\right)$. By plugging into the above integral and making the change $u=1+\gamma/\gamma_\mathrm{th}$ as well as a Taylor expansion of an exponential term, we infer that [$$\label{eq:Pout1} P_{\mathrm{out}}\left(\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\right)=1-2\left(\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}}\right)^{\hspace{-0.5mm}\alpha+1}\hspace{-0.5mm}\frac{e^{-\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}}}}{\Gamma(n_{\mathrm{s}})\Gamma(n_{\mathrm{r}})}\times\mathcal{I},$$ ]{} with the term $\mathcal{I}$ given by [$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{I}=\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{\left(-1\right)^{k}}{k!}\left(\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}+1}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}}\right)^{k}\sum_{l=0}^{+\infty}\frac{a_{k,l}}{l!}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber \\ \times\int_{1}^{+\infty}u^{\alpha-k-l}K_{\nu}\left(2\sqrt{\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}}u}\right)\mathrm{d}u,\label{eq:Iout}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where $\alpha=(n_{\mathrm{s}}+n_{\mathrm{r}})/2-1$, $\nu=n_{\mathrm{r}}-n_{\mathrm{s}}$, and $a_{k,l}=\Gamma\left(k+l\right)/\Gamma\left(k\right)$ with the particular case $a_{0,0}=1$. Then, by combining and and using [@Table_of_Integrals Eq. (6.592.4)], an exact expression of $P_{\mathrm{out}}$ is obtained after some simplifications as shown in on top of the next page. Ergodic Capacity ---------------- Unlike the approximation in [@Waqar], the end-to-end ergodic capacity of the dual-hop PF system under consideration can be written as $$\overline{C}_{\mathrm{srd}}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{+\infty}\log_{2}\!\left(1+\gamma\right)f_{\gamma_{\mathrm{srd}}}\!\left(\gamma\right)\mathrm{d}\gamma,\label{eq:Ergodic Capacity}$$ where $f_{\gamma_{\mathrm{srd}}}$ is the PDF of $\gamma_{\mathrm{srd}}$ that is computed by firstly expanding the power $\left(\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}+1\right)^{k}$ in into a finite sum using the Binomial theorem. The resulting function is then differentiated with respect to $\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}$ via [@Wolfram Eq. (5)]. By rewriting the elementary functions involved in the obtained PDF as Meijer G-functions [@Elementary_MeijerG_Equivalent Eq. (11)], i.e., $\gamma^{p}e^{-\frac{\gamma}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}}}=\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}^{p}\mathrm{G}_{0,1}^{1,0}\!\left(\!\displaystyle{\frac{\gamma}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}}}\begin{array}{\|c} -\\ p \end{array}\!\right)$ and $\ln\left(1{+}\gamma\right){=}\mathrm{G}_{2,2}^{1,2}\!\left(\! \gamma~ \begin{array}{\|c} 1,1\\ 1,0 \end{array}\!\right)$, the ergodic capacity is expressed in terms of integrals of the product of three Meijer G-functions whose expressions are given in terms of the Bivariate Meijer G-function according to [@Bivariate_Meijer_G Eq. (12)] as shown in . Asymptotic Behavior =================== To highlight the effect of channel parameters on both the outage probability and the ergodic capacity, we study their asymptotic behaviors. Invoking [@Kilbas Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 1.11], expansions of the Mellin-Barnes integrals involved in the Meijer-G and bivariate Meijer-G functions can be derived by evaluating the residue of the corresponding integrands at the pole closest to the contour; the minimum pole on the right $p_\textrm{min}^{-}$ for small Meijer-G arguments and the maximum pole on the left $p_\textrm{max}^{+}$ for large ones, as depicted in Fig. 1. Moreover, the Inside-Outside theorem [@Inside-Outside] states that the obtained result is further multiplied by $-1$ in the case of a clockwise-oriented contour (i.e., for small arguments). Asymptotic Outage Probability ----------------------------- We study the asymptotic behavior of the outage probability for a low SNR threshold $\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}$. By keeping low order terms in , i.e., $k+l\leq1$, and given that $\alpha+\nu/2=n_{\mathrm{r}}-1\geq1$ and $\alpha-\nu/2=n_{\mathrm{s}}-1\geq1$, we have $\pm\nu/2+\alpha-k-l\geq0$. Therefore, we evaluate the residue at $-1$ (that is the smallest pole) as shown in . Replacing the exponential function with its first order expansion near zero, $\exp(-\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}})\thickapprox1-\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}}$, yields the following asymptotic expression: $$P_{\mathrm{out}}\left(\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\right)=\left(1+\frac{1}{\left(n_{\mathrm{s}}-1\right)\left(n_{\mathrm{r}}-1\right)\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}}\right)\frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}}+o\left(\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}\right).$$ ![Complex contour of the Mellin-Barnes integral of argument $z$. $W$ is set to a large value.](Chergui_CL2015_2492_Fig1) Asymptotic Ergodic Capacity --------------------------- Based on , the asymptotic behavior of the ergodic capacity is derived for different scenarios of the balance parameter $\beta=\frac{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{rd}}}{\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}}$ and the SNR $\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}$ as summarized in Table I. Let $s$ and $t$ denote the integration variables in the bivariate Meijer-G function. In the case $\beta\rightarrow+\infty$, we evaluate the residue of the first and second bivariate Meijer-G terms in at the highest poles on the left of the contour, i.e., $t=-(k+l+n+2+s)$ and $t=-(k+l+n+1+s)$, respectively. Keeping only 0-th orders on $1/\beta$ results in the expression (18). Expression (20) is inferred by computing the residue of the integrand of the Meijer-G term in (18) at $s=0$ as shown in . The remaining cases are obtained using the same approach. -2mm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Asymptotic $\overline{C}_{srd}$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $\beta\rightarrow+\infty$ $\begin{array} {lcl} \frac{1}{2\ln(2)\Gamma(n_{\mathrm{s}})\Gamma(n_{\mathrm{r}})}&& \\ \times \mathrm{G}_{6,4}^{2,5}\left(\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}\begin{array}{\|c} 1,1,1,1-n_{\mathrm{r}},1-n_{\mathrm{s}},0\\ 1,1,0,0 \end{array}\hspace{-1mm}\right) \hspace{1mm}\stepcounter{equation}\thetag{\theequation}&& \end{array}$ $\beta,\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}\rightarrow+\infty$ $\frac{1}{2\ln(2)}\left[\ln\left(\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}\right)+\psi^{(0)}\left(n_{\mathrm{s}}\right)+\psi^{(0)}\left(n_{\mathrm{r}}\right)\right]$ $\beta\rightarrow0$ or $\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}\rightarrow0$ $0$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Ergodic capacity asymptotic expressions -0.25cm Numerical Results ================= In this section, we present a few numerical results to illustrate the theoretical analysis. For different antenna and SNR setups, Fig. 2 and 3 show the exact and asymptotic results of both the end-to-end outage probability and the ergodic capacity, respectively. Throughout our numerical experiments, we found out that regardless of the average SNRs and antennas settings, accurate analytical curves can be obtained by truncating the infinite sums at $K=50$ and $L=5$ terms. The exact match with Monte-Carlo simulation results confirms the precision of the theoretical analysis. As the PF scheme is a variant of AF, also operating at the signal-level, per antenna CSI-assisted AF simulations are provided for comparison. The bivariate Meijer G-function with automated contour—presented in the Appendix—was developed to enable the numerical evaluation of in MATLAB environments. For the sake of precision, we note that the contour length $W$ should be increased (e.g., 10 and more) for high arguments. -0.5cm ![End-to-end outage probability versus $\gamma_{\mathrm{th}}$ for $\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}=0$ dB.](Chergui_CL2015_2492_Fig2 "fig:") -0.2cm -0.3cm Conclusion ========== In this letter, we have presented a performance evaluation of dual-hop PF systems over the practical mixed MIMO-pinhole/Rayleigh channel. For numerical evaluation purposes, we have proposed a novel and fast MATLAB implementation of the bivariate Meijer-G function. Exact and asymptotic results are in total agreement with Monte-Carlo simulations, and can be used by system designers to define SNR thresholds for switching between PF and other relaying schemes in pinhole conditions. function out = Bivariate_Meijer_G(am1, ap1, bn1, bq1, cm2, ... cp2, dn2, dq2, em3, ep3, fn3, fq3, x, y) %*** Integrand definition *** F = @(s,t)(GammaProd(am1,s+t).* GammaProd(1-cm2,s) ... .* GammaProd(dn2,-s) .* GammaProd(1-em3,t) ... .* GammaProd(fn3,-t).* (x.^s) .* (y.^t)) ... ./(GammaProd(1-ap1,-(s+t)).* GammaProd(bq1,s+t) ... .* GammaProd(cp2,-s) .* GammaProd(1-dq2,s) ... .* GammaProd(ep3,-t) .* GammaProd(1-fq3,t)); %*** Contour definition * Sups = min(dn2); Infs = -max(1-cm2); % cs cs = (Sups + Infs)/2;% s between Sups and Infs Supt = min(fn3); Inft = max([-am1-cs em3-1]);% t>-am1-s,s=cs ct = Supt - ((Supt - Inft)/10);% t between Supt and Inft W = 10; % W %* Bivariate Meijer G *** out = (-1/(2pi)^2)quad2d(F,cs-jW,cs+jW,ct-jW,ct+jW,... 'AbsTol',10^-5,'RelTol',10^-5,'MaxFunEvals',2000,... 'Singular',true); %Increase MaxFunEvals for higher W %*** GammaProd subfunction *** function output = GammaProd(p,z) [pp zz] = meshgrid(p,z); if (isempty(p)) output = ones(size(z)); else output = reshape(prod(gamma(pp+zz),2),size(z)); end end % The gamma function here is the complex gamma, available in % www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/3572-gamma end -0.7cm -0.5cm ![End-to-end ergodic capacity versus $\beta$ for different SNR $\overline{\gamma}_{\mathrm{sr}}$ and antennas configurations.](Chergui_CL2015_2492_Fig3 "fig:") 0.2cm [10]{} D. Gesbert, H. Bölcskei, D. A. Gore, and A. J. Paulraj, “Outdoor MIMO Wireless Channels: Models and Performance Prediction,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 1926-1934, Dec. 2002. J. M. Vella, S. Zammit, “Performance improvement of long distance MIMO links using cross polarized antennas,” in 15th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (MELECON), Valletta, Malta, 26-28 Apr. 2010, pp. 1287-1292. A. O. Laiyemo, P. Pirinen, M. Latva-aho, J. Vihriala, V. Van Phan, “Impact of LTE precoding for fixed and adaptive rank transmission in moving relay node system,” in ITS Telecommunications (ITST), 5-7 Nov. 2013, pp. 250-254. S. Yang and J.-C. Belfiore, “Diversity of MIMO Multihop Relay Channels–Part I: Amplify-and-Forward,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, Submitted, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0386 A. Firag, H. A. Suraweera, P. J. Smith and C. Yuen, “Dual-hop MIMO amplify-and-forward relay channel capacity with keyhole effect,” IEEE Commun. Letters, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 1050-1052, Oct. 2011. T. Q. Duong, H. A. Suraweera, T. A. Tsiftsis, H. Zepernick, A. Nallanathan, “OSTBC Transmission in MIMO AF Relay Systems with Keyhole and Spatial Correlation Effects,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Kyoto, Japan, 5-9 Jun. 2011, pp.1-6. B. L. Sharma and R. F. A. Abiodun, “Generating function for generalized function of two variables,” in Proc. American Mathematical Society, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 69-72, Oct. 1974. I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products, 7th ed., Academic Press, 2007. I. S. Ansari, S. Al-Ahmadi, F. Yilmaz, M.-S. Alouini, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “A new formula for the BER of binary modulations with dual-branch selection over Generalized-K composite fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 2654-2658, Oct. 2011. G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations (Third Edition), The John Hopkins University Press, 1996. M. O. Hasna and M.-S. Alouini, “End-to-end performance of transmission systems with relays over Rayleigh-fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1126-1131, Nov. 2003. O. Waqar, M. Ghogho, D. McLernon, “Performance analysis of dual-hop variable gain relay networks over Generalized-K fading channels,” in IEEE Eleventh International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), 20-23 Jun. 2010, pp.1-5. http://functions.wolfram.com/HypergeometricFunctions/MeijerG/20/01/01/ V. S. Adamchik and O. S. Marichev, “The algorithm for calculating integrals of hypergeometric type functions and its realization in REDUCE system,” in Proc. International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ACM, Academic Press, pp 212-224, 1990. S. C. Gupta, “Integrals involving products of G-functions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India, vol. 39(A), no. II, 1969 A. Kilbas, H-Transforms: Theory and Applications. Analytical Methods and Special Functions, Taylor & Francis, 2004. T. Rowland and E. W. Weisstein, “Inside-Outside Theorem”. From MathWorld – A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Inside-OutsideTheorem.html.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- author: - 'T. Khouri [^1], A. de Koter , L. Decin, L. B. F. M. Waters , R. Lombaert , P. Royer , B. Swinyard , M. J. Barlow , J. Alcolea, J. A. D. L. Blommaert, V. Bujarrabal , J. Cernicharo , M. A. T. Groenewegen , K. Justtanont , F. Kerschbaum , M. Maercker , A. Marston, M. Matsuura, G. Melnick, K. M. Menten , H. Olofsson , P. Planesas , E. Polehampton , Th. Posch , M. Schmidt , R. Szczerba , B. Vandenbussche, J. Yates' subtitle: 'I. The CO envelope' title: 'The wind of WHya as seen by Herschel[^2]' --- [Asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars lose their envelopes by means of a stellar wind whose driving mechanism is not understood well. Characterizing the composition and thermal and dynamical structure of the outflow provides constraints that are essential for understanding AGB evolution, including the rate of mass loss and isotopic ratios.]{} [We characterize the CO emission from the wind of the low mass-loss rate oxygen-rich AGB star WHya using data obtained by the HIFI, PACS, and SPIRE instruments onboard the Herschel Space Observatory and ground-based telescopes. $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO lines are used to constrain the intrinsic $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio from resolved HIFI lines.]{} [ We combined a state-of-the-art molecular line emission code and a dust continuum radiative transfer code to model the CO lines and the thermal dust continuum. ]{} [The acceleration of the outflow up to about 5.5 km/s is quite slow and can be represented by a $\beta$-type velocity law with index $\beta = 5$. Beyond this point, acceleration up the terminal velocity of 7 km/s is faster. Using the $J$= 10–9, 9–8, and 6–5 transitions, we find an intrinsic $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio of $18 \pm 10$ for WHya, where the error bar is mostly due to uncertainties in the $^{12}$CO abundance and the stellar flux around 4.6 $\mu$m. To match the low-excitation CO lines, these molecules need to be photo-dissociated at $\sim$500 stellar radii. The radial dust emission intensity profile of our stellar wind model matches PACS images at 70 $\mu$m out to 20$\arcsec$ (or 800 stellar radii). For larger radii the observed emission is substantially stronger than our model predicts, indicating that at these locations there is extra material present. ]{} [The initial slow acceleration of the wind may imply inefficient dust formation or dust driving in the lower part of the envelope. The final injection of momentum in the wind might be the result of an increase in the opacity thanks to the late condensation of dust species. The derived intrinsic isotopologue ratio for WHya is consistent with values set by the first dredge-up and suggestive of an initial mass of 2 M$_\odot$ or more. However, the uncertainty in the isotopologic ratio is large, which makes it difficult to set reliable limits on WHya’s main-sequence mass. ]{} Introduction ============ The asymptotic giant branch (AGB) represents one of the final evolutionary stages of low and intermediate mass stars. AGB objects are luminous and have very extended, weakly gravitationally bound and cool atmospheres. Their outermost layers are expelled by means of a dusty stellar wind [e.g. @Habing2003]. The high mass-loss rate during the AGB phase prevents stars with masses between 2 M$_{\odot}$ and 9 M$_{\odot}$ from evolving to the supernova stage. During their lives, low and intermediate mass stars may undergo three distinct surface enrichment episodes. Those are referred to as dredge-ups, and they happen when the convective streams from the outer layers reach deep into the interior. Elements synthesized by nuclear fusion or by slow-neutron capture in the interior of AGB stars are brought to the surface and eventually ejected in the wind [e.g. @Habing2003]. In this way, AGB stars contribute to the chemical enrichment of the interstellar medium and, in a bigger context, to the chemical evolution of galaxies. First and second dredge-up processes occur when these stars ascend the giant branch [@Iben1983]. The third dredge-up is in fact a series of mixing events during the AGB phase, induced by thermal pulses [TPs, @Iben1975]. Evolutionary models predict by how much the surface abundance of each element is enriched for a star with a given initial mass and metallicity [@Ventura2009; @Karakas2010; @Cristallo2011 and references therein]. These models, however, need to be compared with observations. In particular, the change in surface chemical composition of AGB stars depends on initial mass and the assumed mass loss as a function of time. A very powerful diagnostic for the enrichment processes are surface isotopic ratios. From evolutionary model calculations, these ratios are found to vary strongly depending on the dredge-up events the star has experienced, and, therefore, evolutionary phase, and on the main sequence mass of the star [e.g. @Boothroyd1999; @Busso1999; @Charbonnel2010; @Karakas2011 and references therein]. Since the outflowing gas is molecular up to large distances from the star (typically up to $\approx$ 1000 R$_{\star}$), the isotopic ratios must be retrieved from isotopologic abundance ratios. In this paper, we use an unparalleled number of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO emission lines and the thermal infrared continuum to constrain the structure of the outflowing envelope of the oxygen-rich AGB star W Hya and, specifically, the isotopic ratio $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C. WHya was observed by the three instruments onboard the Herschel Space Observatory [hereafter [Herschel]{}; @Pilbratt2010]. These are the Heterodyne Instrument for the Far Infrared, HIFI, [@deGraauw2010], the Spectral and Photometric Imaging Receiver Fourier-Transform Spectrometer, SPIRE FTS, [@Griffin2010], and the Photodetector Array Camera and Spectrometer, PACS, [@Poglitsch2010]. We supplemented these data with earlier observations from ground-based telescopes and the Infrared Space Observatory [ISO; @Kessler1996]. The observations carried out by [Herschel]{} span an unprecedented range in excitation energies for the ground vibrational level and cover, in the case of WHya, CO lines from an upper rotational level $J_{\rm up}$= 4 to 30. When complemented with ground-based observations of lower excitation transitions, this dataset offers an unique picture of the outflowing molecular envelope of WHya. This allows us to reconstruct the flow from the onset of wind acceleration out to the region where CO is dissociated, which is essential for understanding the poorly understood wind-driving mechanism. Specifically, the velocity information contained in the line shapes of the HIFI high-excitation lines of $^{12}$CO, $J$=16-15 and 10-9 probe the acceleration in the inner part of the flow; the integrated line fluxes from $J$=4-3 to $J$=11-10 measured by SPIRE and the highest $J$ transitions observed by PACS give a very complete picture of the CO excitation throughout the wind. Finally, the low-$J$ transitions secured from the ground probe the outer regions of the flow. The availability of multiple $^{13}$CO transitions, in principle, permits constraints to be placed on the intrinsic $^{13}$CO/$^{12}$CO isotopologic ratio. A robust determination of this ratio is sensitive to stellar parameters and envelope properties, and for this reason is not easy to obtain. We modelled the CO envelope of WHya in detail and discuss the effect of uncertainties on the parameters adopted to the derived $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio. Together with the gas, we simultaneously and consistently model the solid state component in the outflow and constrain the abundance and chemical properties of the dust grains by fitting the ISO spectrum of WHya. In this way we can constrain the dust-to-gas ratio. In Sect. \[sec:WHya\], the target, WHya, and the available dataset are introduced, and the envelope model assumptions are presented. Section \[sec:radiation\_field\] is devoted to discussing radiative transfer effects that hamper determinations of isotopic ratios from line strength ratios, especially for low mass-loss rate objects. We present and discuss the results of our models in Sects. \[sec:CO\_WHya\] and \[sec:disc\]. Finally, we present a summary of the points addressed in this work in Sect. \[sec:summary\]. Dataset and model assumptions {#sec:WHya} ============================= Basic information on WHya ------------------------- WHya is one of the brightest infrared sources in the sky and the second brightest AGB star in the K band [@Wing1971]. This bright oxygen-rich AGB star is relatively close, but some uncertainty on its distance still exists. Distances reported in the literature range from 78 pc to 115 pc [@Knapp2003; @Glass2007; @1997ESASP1200.....P]. In this study we adopt the distance estimated by @Knapp2003 (78 pc), following [@Justtanont2005]. The current mass-loss rate of the star is fairly modest. Estimates of this property do, however, show a broad range, from a few times 10$^{-7}$ M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ [@Justtanont2005] to a few times 10$^{-6}$ M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ [@Zubko2000]. This range is likely the result of the use of different diagnostics (SED fitting, H$_2$O and CO line modeling), and/or model assumptions. WHya is usually classified as a semi-regular variable, although this classification is somewhat controversial [@Uttenthaler2011]. Its visual magnitude changes between six and ten with a period of about 380 days. The star was one of the first AGB stars for which observations of H$_2$O rotational emission were reported, using the ISO [@Neufeld1996; @Barlow1996]. WHya was also observed in the 557 GHz ground-state water transition using SWAS [@Harwit2002] and using Odin [@Justtanont2005]. The water emission from this object is strong, and a lot of effort has been invested in modelling and interpreting the observed lines [e.g. @Neufeld1996; @Barlow1996; @Zubko2000; @Justtanont2005; @Maercker2008; @Maercker2009]. The results usually point to high water abundance relative to H$_2$, ranging from $10^{-4}$ to a few times $10^{-3}$. The dust envelope of WHya was imaged using the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) and found to be unexpectedly extended [@Hawkins1990]. [@Cox2012] reported WHya to be the only oxygen-rich AGB star in their sample to show a ring-like structure. The data, however, have to be studied in more detail before a firm conclusion on the cause of the structures can be drawn. [@Zhao-Geisler2011] monitored WHya in the near-IR (8-12 $\mu$m) with MIDI/VLTI and fitted the visibility data with a fully limb-darkened disk with a radius of 40 mas (4 AU). The authors set a lower limit on the silicate dust shell radius of 28 photospheric radii ($50$ AU). They propose that there is a much smaller Al$_2$O$_3$ shell that causes, together with H$_2$O molecules, the observed increase in diameter at wavelengths longer than $10\ \mu$m. This is consistent with the later observations by [@Norris2012] of close-in transparent large iron-free grains. These two works point to a picture in which an inner shell with large transparent grains is enclosed by an outer shell of more opaque silicate grains. Furthermore, [@Zhao-Geisler2011] discuss evidence seen on different scales and presented by different authors that point to a non-spherical symmetrical envelope of WHya. The observations reported in the literature usually indicate that the departures from spherical symmetry can be explained by an ellipsoid source. The PACS 70 $\mu$m images published recently by [@Cox2012] also show signs of asymmetry. Dataset ------- We compiled a dataset of WHya’s $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO emission lines that comprises observations carried out by all instruments onboard [Herschel]{}, as well as data from ISO and ground-based telescopes. These ground-based observatories are the Atacama Pathfinder EXperiment, APEX, the Arizona Radio Observatory Sub-Millimeter Telescope, SMT, and the Swedish-ESO 15 m Submillimeter Telescope, SEST. The CO lines were obtained as part of several projects: the HIFI observations were part of the HIFISTARS [Herschel]{} guaranteed time key programme and were presented by [@Justtanont2012]; the SPIRE and PACS data were obtained by the MESS consortium [@Groenewegen2011]; and the ground-based data were presented by [@DeBeck2010]. The line properties and the measured integrated flux are listed in Table \[table:WHya\_line\_fluxes\]. The $^{13}$CO lines from WHya are too weak to be seen above the noise in both the PACS and SPIRE spectra. We did not include the integrated line fluxes for the ground-based observations (for which the source size is comparable to the beam size of the telescopes, also presented in Table \[table:WHya\_line\_fluxes\]), since the conversion from antennae temperatures to fluxes for partially or fully spatially resolved lines is a function of the size of the emitting region. All together, the observed transitions used to constrain our models span a range from $J$=1-0 to $J$=24-23. This covers excitation energies of the upper level from 5.5 K to 1656 K. We did not include lines with upper rotational levels higher than 24 in our analysis. Transitions $J$=25-24 and $J$=26-25 are in a region where spectral leakage occurs so the measurements of PACS are not reliable. The even higher excitation lines ($T_{\rm ex} \geq 2000$K) are expected to be formed partially or fully inside the dust condensation radius. In this region, shocks may be important for the excitation structure of molecules. We present the extracted values of all transitions. Since the dust properties affect the excitation of the gas lines, our approach is to consistently fit gas and dust emission. The dust emission was characterized by comparing our dust model to ISO observations of the dust excess [@Justtanont2004] and PACS and SPIRE photometric measurements [@Groenewegen2011]. A comparison of our model to the PACS image at 70 $\mu$m [@Cox2012] shows dust emission at distances beyond 20$\arcsec$ that is not reproduced by our constant mass-loss rate dust model. We do not attempt to fit the 70 $\mu$m image but use it as evidence that the wind of WHya will not be reproduced well by our model beyond these distances. ### PACS spectra {#sec:PACS_spectra} The original observations were performed on 2010 August 25 (observation identifiers 1342203453 and 1342203454), but an anomaly onboard the spacecraft resulted in the absence of data in the red channel. The observations were then rescheduled for 2011 January 14 (observation identifier 1342212604), band B2A, covering 51-73$\mu$m, and R1A, 102-146$\mu$m) and on 2011 July 9 (observation identifier 1342223808) band B2B, covering 70-100$\mu$m and R1B, 140-200$\mu$m). The data were reduced with Herschel Interactive Pipeline (HIPE) 10 and calibration set 45. The absolute flux calibration was performed via PACS internal calibration blocks and the spectral shape derived through the PACS relative spectral response function. The data were rebinned with an oversampling factor of 2, which corresponds to Nyquist sampling with respect to the resolution of the instrument. From a spectroscopic point of view, WHya was considered a point source, because the transitions observed by PACS are formed deep in the molecular wind, a region that is small compared to the beam size. The corresponding beam correction was applied to the spectrum of the central spatial pixel. Wavelength shifts greater than 0.02$\,\mu$m were observed between the two spectra obtained in band B2A. In band B2B, the continua measured by both observations agree within 10%. Still, the spectral lines as measured on the first observation date were significantly weaker than those obtained on the later date. These two features indicate that there was a pointing error during the earlier observations. We have mitigated this by only considering the data obtained on 2011 January 14 in our line-flux determinations. The effect of mispointing is marginal in the red, and no CO line was detected shortwards of 70$\mu$m, so that the mispointing that affected the first observations has no impact on our results. The CO lines were fitted using a Gaussian profile on top of a local, straight continuum. Whenever necessary, multiple profiles were fitted to a set of neighbouring lines to account for blending and to improve the overall quality of the fit. For the continuum fit we used two spectral segments, one on each side of the fitted group of lines. These segments were taken to be four times the expected full width half maximum (FWHM) of a single line. We considered an intrinsic error of 20% on the measured line fluxes, owing to calibration uncertainties, on top of the error from the Gaussian fitting. ### SPIRE FTS spectra {#sec:SPIRE_spectra} The SPIRE FTS spectra were taken on 2010 January 9 (observation identifier 1342189116). Seventeen scans were taken in high spectral resolution, sparse pointing mode giving an on- source integration time of 2264 seconds. The native spectral resolution of the FTS is 1.4 GHz (FWHM) with a sinc-function instrument line shape. The data were reduced using the HIPE SPIRE FTS pipeline version 11 (Fulton et al, in prep.) into a standard spectrum of intensity versus frequency assuming W Hya to be a point source within the SPIRE beam. To allow the CO lines to be simply fitted with a Gaussian profile, the data were apodized to reduce ringing in the wings of the instrumental line function using the extended Norton-Beer function 1.5 [@Naylor2007]. The individual CO lines were then fitted using the IDL GAUSSFIT function. The fitted peak heights were converted to flux density using the measured average line width of 2.18 GHz and the error on the fitted peak height taken as a measure of the statistical uncertainty. The absolute flux calibration has been shown to be $\pm$6 % for the SPIRE FTS (Swinyard et al, in prep). We adopt a total uncertainty of 15 % for the extracted line fluxes, to which we add the errors of the individual Gaussian fits. Observed line shapes {#sec:lineshapes} -------------------- The CO lines observed by HIFI, APEX, and SMT are shown in Fig. \[fig:symmetry\]. A first inspection of the data already unveils interesting properties of WHya and indicates which region of the envelope is being probed by each transition. The low and intermediate excitation transitions ($J_{\rm up} \le 6$) of $^{12}$CO show profiles characteristic of an optically thin wind. There seem to be no indications of strong departure from spherical symmetry. These lines probe the outermost regions of the wind, where material has reached the terminal expansion velocity. The $J$=16-15 transition observed with HIFI shows a triangularly shaped profile characteristic of being formed in a region where the wind has not yet reached the terminal velocity [@Bujarrabal1986]. This profile is, therefore, an important tool for understanding the velocity profile of the accelerated material. The observations of transition $J$=16-15 were partially affected by standing waves, and the vertical polarization could not be used. The horizontal polarization, in its turn, was not affected, and the line shape and flux obtained from it are the ones used in this paper. Model assumptions ----------------- To model $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO emission lines, we use the non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (non-LTE) molecular excitation and radiative transfer code GASTRoNOoM [@Decin2006; @Decin2010a]. We calculate the dust temperature and emissivity as a function of radius with MCMax, a Monte Carlo dust continuum radiative transfer code presented by @Min2009. The two codes are combined to provide a consistent physical description of the gaseous and dusty components of the circumstellar envelope [@Lombaert2013]. The central stellar emission was approximated by a $2500\ K$ black body with $5400\ L_{\odot}$, based on the comparison with the ISO spectrum and adopting the value for WHya’s distance published by [@Knapp2003] (78 parsecs). Based on these assumptions, our model has a stellar radius, R$_\star$, of 2.7 $\times 10^{13}$ cm. Whenever we give values in units of stellar radii, we refer to this number. We assumed a constant mass-loss rate and spherical symmetry. However, observations of WHya’s photosphere and the region immediately surrounding it, i.e. the molecular layer seen in IR bands and the radio photosphere, seem to be reproduced better by an ellipsoid than a sphere, and may even show a slow bipolar outflow or a rotating disk-like structure [@Vlemmings2011]. As pointed out by [@Zhao-Geisler2011], however, the position angles reported for the orientation of the ellipsoid in the plane of the sky are sometimes contradictory, and therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the exact value of this observable. In an absolute sense, the departures from spherical symmetry reported are not large. We conclude that using a spherical symmetrical model should not affect our findings in a significant way. ### MCMax and dust model MCMax calculates the dust temperature as a function of radius for the different species being considered. [@Kama2009] implemented dust-sublimation calculations. In this way, grains are only present in regions where they can exist with a temperature lower than their sublimation temperature. The inner radius of the dust envelope is thus determined in a consistent way based on the dust species input. The dust temperature and opacity as a function of radius output by MCMax are fed to the molecular line code GASTRoNOoM. Our dust model is based on the work carried out by [@Justtanont2004], who calculated dust extinction coefficients assuming spherical grains using Mie theory. They took the grain size distribution to be the same as found by [@Mathis1977] for interstellar grains. Following [@Lombaert2013], we instead represent the shape distribution of the dust particles by a continuous distribution of ellipsoids [CDE, @Bohren1998; @Min2003]. In the CDE approximation, the mass-extinction coefficients are determined for homogeneous particles with constant volume. The grain size, $a_{CDE}$, in this context, is understood as the radius of a sphere with an equivalent volume to the particle considered. This approximation is valid in the limit where $a_\mathrm{CDE} \ll \lambda$. We assume $a_\mathrm{CDE} = 0.1\ \mu$m. A CDE model results in higher extinction efficiencies relative to spherical particles and more accurately reproduces the shape of the observed dust features [@Min2003]. In our modelling, we include astronomical silicates [@Justtanont1992], amorphous aluminium oxides, and magnesium-iron oxides. The optical constants for amorphous aluminium oxide and magnesium-iron oxide were retrieved from the University of Jena database from the works of [@Begemann1997] and [@Henning1995], respectively. ### GASTRoNOoM The velocity profile of the expanding wind is parametrized as a $\beta$-type law, $$\label{eq:beta-law} \varv(r) = \varv_{\circ} + (\varv_{\infty} - \varv_{\circ}) \left(1 - \frac{r_{\circ}}{r} \right)^{\beta},$$ where $\varv_{\circ}$ is the velocity at the dust-condensation radius $r_{\circ}$. We set $\varv_{\circ}$ equal to the local sound speed [@Decin2006]. The flow accelerates up to a terminal velocity $\varv_{\infty}$. The velocity profile in the wind of WHya seems to indicate a slowly accelerating wind [@Szymczak1998], implying a relatively high value of $\beta.$ We adopt a standard value of $\beta$=1.5. We explore in Sect. \[sec:vel\_law\] the impact of changing this parameter on the fit to the high-excitation line shapes. The value of $r_{\circ}$ can be constrained from the MCMax dust model, and is discussed in Sect. 4.2.4. The value of $\varv_{\infty}$ can be constrained from the width of low excitation CO lines, but depends on the adopted value for the turbulent velocity, $\varv_{\rm turb}$. The velocity profile inside $r_{\circ}$ is also taken to be a $\beta$-type law but with an exponent of 0.5, which is typical of an optically thin wind. We parametrize the gas temperature structure of the envelope using a power law where the exponent, $\epsilon$, is a free parameter, $$\label{eq:temp} T(r) = T_{\star}\ (R_{\star}/r)^{\epsilon}.$$ This simple approach was motivated by uncertainties in the calculations of the cooling due to water line emission in the envelope of AGB stars. The final free parameter is related to the photo-dissociation of CO by an external ultraviolet radiation field. We follow [@Mamon1988] who propose a radial behaviour for the CO abundance $$\label{eq:r_1/2} f_{\rm CO}(r) = f_{\rm CO}(r_\circ) \, {\rm exp}{\left[-{\rm ln}(2) \left(\frac{r}{{\rm r}_{\rm1/2}}\right)^{\alpha}\right]},$$ where $f_{\rm CO} (r_{\circ})$ is the CO abundance at the base of the wind, and the exponent value $\alpha$ is set by the mass-loss rate. A value of 2.1 is suitable for W Hya. The parameter $r_{1/2}$ represents the radius at which the CO abundance has decreased by half; lower values of this parameter correspond to a more efficient CO dissociation and therefore to a photodissociation zone that is closer to the star. The value found by [@Mamon1988] that suits a star with parameters similar to W Hya’s is referred to as $r_{1/2}^{\rm \,m}$. We assume that both isotopologues have identical dissociation radii, since chemical fractionation is expected to compensate for the selective dissociation [@Mamon1988]. The effects of changes in $r_{1/2}$ are discussed in Sect. \[subsub:just\]. We adopt a value of $2 \times 10^{-4}$ for the initial $^{12}$CO abundance number ratio relative to H, $f_{\rm CO}(r_\circ)$. The effect of changes in this value on the derived $^{12}$CO / $^{13}$CO ratio is discussed in Sect. \[sec:disc\]. We consider the lowest 60 rotational levels of both the ground and first-excited vibrational levels of the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO molecules. The adopted radiative and collisional coefficients are identical to those adopted by [@Decin2010a]. The code takes the beam shape of the telescope into account, allowing for a direct comparison of predicted and observed line shapes. The isotopic ratio from observed pure rotational transitions of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO {#sec:radiation_field} ======================================================================================= For the range of gas temperatures for which CO molecules are formed and observed in a low mass-loss rate AGB star, such as WHya, we can assume that the isotopologic $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio reflects the isotopic $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio directly. Therefore, the measured ratio of integrated line fluxes of corresponding pure rotational transitions of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO are good probes of the intrinsic $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C abundance ratio. However, owing to the different abundances of these two molecules, the two excitation structures are likely to be significantly different. This means that retrieving isotopologic ratios from observed flux ratios of pure rotational lines is not trivial. Understanding how different these excitation structures can be and how they affect the observed line intensities is a powerful tool when trying to retrieve the intrinsic isotopic ratio. In this section, we explore this mechanism and discuss important observables that may help constrain the $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio. As discussed by [@Morris1980], there are two sharply defined excitation regimes for CO molecules: when they are collisionally excited or when excitation is dominated by the near infrared ($\approx 4.6\ \mu$m) radiation field. $^{13}$CO responds more strongly to excitation governed by the infrared radiation field, since this is the less abundant isotopologue, and the medium is more transparent at the wavelengths of the relevant ro-vibrational transitions. We find that in a low mass-loss rate star, such as WHya where the stellar radiation field is the main source of infrared photons, $^{13}$CO molecules are more efficiently excited by direct stellar radiation to higher rotational levels further away from the star than $^{12}$CO. [@Schoier2000] discuss that this effect is important even for high mass-loss rate carbon stars. For low mass-loss rate AGB stars, similar to WHya, the observed $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO rotational transitions are mostly optically thin, with the highest tangential optical depths reached being around one. Therefore, the total emission of a given observed transition is roughly proportional to the total number of molecules in the corresponding upper rotational level. In Figure \[fig:J\_6\_12CO\_13CO\], we show the relative population of level $J$=6 for both $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO calculated in a model for a low mass-loss rate star. We define the relative population of a given rotational level $J$ as $f_J(r) = \frac{{\rm n}_J({\rm r})}{{\rm n}_{\rm CO}({\rm r})}$, where ${\rm n}_J({\rm r})$ and ${\rm n}_{\rm CO}({\rm r})$ are, respectively, the number densities at a distance r of CO molecules excited to level $J$ and of all CO molecules. As can be seen, the same level for the two molecules probes quite different regions of the envelope, and the relative amount of $^{13}$CO molecules in level $J$=6 is higher than for $^{12}$CO. In Fig. \[fig:Integrated\_12CO\_13CO\], we show that this effect influences the rotational levels of these two molecules different by plotting the integrated relative population, $\frac{\int_{\rm R_\star}^{\rm R_{\infty}}{\rm n}_J({\rm r})dr}{\int_{\rm R_\star}^{\rm R_{\infty}}{\rm n}_{\rm CO}({\rm r})dr}$, of up to $J$=12. Therefore, observations of different rotational lines of both isotopologues will result in very different line ratios. Owing to the more efficient excitation of $^{13}$CO to higher rotational levels further away from the star, the low-$J$ lines are expected to show a higher $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO line flux ratio value than the intrinsic isotopic ratio, and intermediate-$J$ lines are expected to show a lower value than the intrinsic isotopic ratio. The point where the envelope reaches the critical density, below which collisional de-excitation is less probable than spontaneous de-excitation, is also shown in Fig. \[fig:J\_6\_12CO\_13CO\]. Parameters such as the total H$_2$ mass-loss rate, which indirectly set in our models by the $^{12}$CO abundance, and the stellar luminosity control the location of the point where the critical density is reached. The infrared stellar radiation field will have an impact on the excitation structure of the two molecules, mainly of $^{13}$CO, especially when the density is below critical. Therefore, uncertainties on the $^{12}$CO abundance, the stellar luminosity, and the infrared stellar radiation field will very likely lead to uncertainties on the determined isotopic ratio. Interferometric observations might be an important tool for determining the $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio more precisely, since those would show the region where emission originates for a given level of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO, hence constraining the $^{12}$CO abundance and the importance of selective excitation of $^{13}$CO. Model for WHya {#sec:CO_WHya} ============== Dust model {#sec:dust_model} ---------- The model for the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO emission from WHya considers a dust component based on the parameters found by [@Justtanont2004], but fine-tuned to match our different approximation for calculating the extinction coefficient. This yielded slightly different abundances for each species and a smaller total dust mass-loss rate. We briefly discuss the dust model, stressing the points that are relevant for the CO emission analysis. A total dust mass-loss rate of $2.8 \times 10^{-10}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ is needed to reproduce the SED with our dust model. Our best fit model contains 58 % astronomical silicates, 34 % amorphous aluminium oxide (Al$_2$O$_3$), and 8 % magnesium-iron oxide (MgFeO). We prioritized fitting the region between 8 and 30 $\mu$m of the IR spectrum (see Fig. \[fig:fit\_ISO\]). However, we did not attempt to fit the 13 $\mu$m feature seen in the ISO spectrum of WHya, since its origin is still a matter of debate. Candidate minerals that might account for this feature are crystalline aluminium oxides, either crystalline corundum ($\alpha$-Al$_2$O$_3$) or spinel (MgAl$_2$O$_4$). One of these two species, at an abundance of less than 5%, might account for the observed 13 $\mu$m feature [see @Posch1999; @Zeidler2013 and references therein]. We estimate an uncertainty on each of the derived dust abundances of 30 %. The dust condensation radius found from the sublimation calculations is around $2.5\ R_{\star}$ for amorphous aluminium oxide (the species expected to condense first). This value is very similar to the $2\ R_{\star}$ inner radius of the shell of large transparent grains recently observed by [@Norris2012]. The condensation radius found for the astronomical silicates is at $5\ R_{\star}$, approximately a factor of 5 lower than inferred by [@Zhao-Geisler2011] from interferometric observations. However, these authors calculated an average of several observations taken at different epochs, and this mean is dominated by the data taken during mid-IR maximum. The ISO spectrum we used was obtained shortly after the visual minimum phase. This may explain part of the discrepancy. The dust model is compared to the ISO spectrum in Fig. \[fig:fit\_ISO\] and to the recently published PACS $70\ \mu$m maps in Fig. \[fig:fit\_PACS\]. In the near infrared, WHya’s spectrum is dominated by molecular absorption bands, which are not included in our models. That the assumption of constant mass loss fits the $70\ \mu$m PACS maps up to about 20 arcseconds (corresponding to 800 R$_\star$ for our adopted stellar parameters and distance) does not necessarily imply that the envelope is explained well by a constant dust mass-loss rate within that radius, since the contribution from the complex point-spread function is still important up to these distances. The good fit to the ISO spectrum between 10 $\mu$m and 30 $\mu$m, however, shows that the inner dust envelope is reproduced well by a constant mass-loss rate model. Interestingly, the $70\ \mu$m PACS image shows additional dust emission beyond 20 arcseconds from the star, which is not expected on the basis of our model. Also, our model under-predicts the ISO spectrum from 30 $\mu$m onwards. It is possible that these two discrepancies between our model and the observations could be explained by the extra material around the star seen in the PACS images. Furthermore, the point where the dust map shows extra emission, 800 R$_{\star}$, coincides with what is roughly expected for the CO dissociation radius from the predictions of [@Mamon1988] for a gas mass-loss rate of $1.5\times10^{-7}$ M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. Since much of the extra dust emission comes from outside of that radius, and we do not expect the extra supply of far-infrared photons produced by this dust to affect the CO excitation in a significant way, we will address the problem of the dust mass-loss history in a separate study. For the work carried out in this paper, it is important to stress that there seems to be an extra amount of material around the region where CO is typically expected to dissociate for a star such as WHya. The origin of this extra material has not yet been identified and our model does not account for it. Model for CO emission --------------------- Using GASTRoNOoM, we calculated a grid of models around the parameter values that are most often reported in the literature for WHya. We used a two-step approach. First, the modelled line fluxes were compared to the SPIRE, PACS, HIFI, ISO, and ground-based observations using a reduced $\chi^{2}$ fit approach. Then, the line shapes were compared by eye to the normalized lines observed by HIFI and ground-based telescopes. Once we had found the region of parameter space with the lower reduced $\chi^{2}$ values and good line shapes fit, we refined the grid in this region in order to obtain our best grid model. The model parameters that are explored in our grid are presented in Table \[tab:grid\_par\], together with the best fit values found by us. \[tab:grid\_par\] [ c \| c \| c ]{} Parameter & Grid values & Best fit\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $dM/dt$ \[$10^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$\]& 1.0; 1.5; 2.0; 2.5& $1.5 \pm 0.5$\ v$_{\infty}$ \[km/s\] & 6.5; 7.0; 7.5; 8.0 & $7.5 \pm 0.5$\ $\epsilon$ & 0.5; 0.6; 0.7; 0.8 & $0.65 \pm 0.05$\ v$_{\rm turb}$ \[km/s\] & 0.5; 1.0; 1.5; 2.0 & $1.4 \pm 1.0$\ $f_{\rm CO}$ & $2 \times 10^{-4}$ &$ 2 \times 10^{-4}$\ r$_{1/2}$ & r$_{1/2}^{\rm \,m}$ & r$_{1/2}^{\rm \,m}$\ T$_{\star}$ \[K\] & 2500 & 2500\ ### Result from grid calculation The best grid models have a terminal velocity of 7.5 km/s, $\epsilon=0.6$ or 0.7, and a mass-loss rate of $1.5 \times 10^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$. The turbulent velocity may be determined from the steepness of the line wings, but could not be well constrained. Models with values of 1.0 km/s or higher all produce reasonable fits. Figures \[fig:mamon\_fit\_flux\], \[fig:mamon\_fit\_shape\], and \[fig:mamon\_fit\_pacs\] show the comparison of the best grid prediction with the observed integrated line fluxes, line shapes, and the PACS spectrum, respectively. The overall fit of our best grid model to the line fluxes observed by SPIRE, PACS, HIFI, and ISO is quite good, and it does reproduce the broad trend of WHya’s $^{12}$CO line emission. However, when we compare our model with the line shapes observed by HIFI and the ground-based measurements, we notice two things. First, as can be seen from Fig. \[fig:mamon\_fit\_shape\], we over-predict the fluxes of the low-excitation $^{12}$CO lines, $J$=4-3, $J$=3-2, $J$=2-1, and $J$=1-0. Moreover, we predict the profiles to be double-peaked, while the observations do not show that. Since double-peaked line profiles are characteristic of an emission region that is spatially resolved by the beams of the telescopes, WHya’s $^{12}$CO envelope seems to be smaller than what is predicted by our models. We discuss the problem of fitting the low-excitation lines in Sect. \[subsub:just\]. Second, for the highest excitation line for which we have an observed line shape ($^{12}$CO $J$=16-15), our model not only over-predicts the flux observed by HIFI but also fails to match the width of the line profile. The observed triangular shape is characteristic of lines formed in the wind acceleration region [e.g. @Bujarrabal1986]. This indicates that either the wind acceleration is slower (equivalent to a higher $\beta$) or that the onset of the acceleration is more distant than the 2.5 R$_\star$ that is assumed in our grid and that corresponds to the condensation radius for amorphous Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$. This finding also implies that the velocity law may be more complex than the $\beta$-law Eq. \[eq:beta-law\]. We return to this in Sect. \[sec:vel\_law\]. ### $^{13}$CO abundance {#sec:13COMamon} Using our best grid model parameters, we calculated a small second grid of models, varying only the $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio and assuming an isotopologic ratio that is constant throughout the envelope. The results are presented in Fig. \[fig:13CO\_10-9\]. An isotopologic ratio of 20 fits the $J$=10-9 and $J$=9-8 transitions but somewhat over-predicts the $J$=6-5 one. Transition $J$=2-1 is predicted to be spatially resolved by SMT, though that is not supported by the observations. ![Model calculations for different $^{12}$CO / $^{13}$CO ratios compared to the observed $^{13}$CO lines adopting the dissociation radius by Mamom et al. (1988). The solid red line represents the observations. The long-dashed green, short-dashed blue, dotted purple, and dot-dashed light blue lines are for intrinsic isotope ratios 10, 15, 20, and 30, respectively. Transitions $J$=10-9 and 9-8 have been smoothed for a better visualization.[]{data-label="fig:13CO_10-9"}](Fig_13CO_model_2013-07-17h15-36-45_grid_RCO_1.0_new.ps){width="8cm"} As discussed in Sect. \[sec:radiation\_field\], our models show that these two molecules have very different excitation structures throughout the envelope. In Fig. \[fig:12CO\_13CO\_levels\] we compare the excitation region of the upper levels of the $^{12}$CO $J$=3-2, $^{12}$CO $J$=4-3, $^{12}$CO $J$=6-5, and $^{13}$CO $J$=6-5 transitions for our best grid model. This comparison shows that the $J$=6 level of $^{13}$CO has a similar excitation region to the $J$=4 level for $^{12}$CO. Our probes of the outer wind are the line shapes and strengths of the $^{12}$CO $J$=4-3 and lower excitation lines and the line strength of the $^{13}$CO $J$=6-5 line. They all point in the direction of fewer $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO molecules in these levels in the outer wind than our model predicts. ![Relative population distribution of different levels of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO for our best grid model.[]{data-label="fig:12CO_13CO_levels"}](Fig_comparison_populations_model_2013-01-15h11-10-30.ps){width="8cm"} ### The $\varv_{\rm LSR}$ of WHya A value of 40.7 km/s is commonly found for the local standard of rest velocity, $\varv_{\rm LSR}$, of WHya [e.g. @Justtanont2005]. However, there is still some uncertainty on this value, as determining it through different methods leads to slightly different results. For example, [@Uttenthaler2011] find a value of 40.5 km/s, while [@Etoka2001] suggest 40.6 $\pm$ 0.4. The value of $\varv_{\rm LSR}$ that best fits our data is 40.4 km/s. By shifting the modeled lines by this amount, the model fits the lines of $^{12}$CO and transition $J$=6-5 of $^{13}$CO well. For the $J$=10-9 and $J$=9-8 transitions of $^{13}$CO, a $\varv_{\rm LSR}$ of 39.6 km/s seems more appropriate. These two lines are also narrower than our model predicts. This difference points to an asymmetry in the wind expansion, the blue shifted-wing being accelerated faster than the red-wing one. A direction-dependent acceleration from the two higher excitation lines of $^{13}$CO is not, however, conclusive at this point. ### Fitting the high-excitation lines: velocity profile {#sec:vel_law} A value of 1.5 for the exponent of the $\beta$-type velocity profile over-predicts the width of $^{12}$CO $J$=16-15 observed by HIFI. To reproduce the narrow line profile observed for this high excitation transition, we have to increase $\beta$ to about 5.0. This corresponds to a very slowly accelerating wind. Increasing $\beta$ affects not only the line shapes but also the line fluxes. To maintain the fit to the observed fluxes, we have to decrease the mass-loss rate by about 10% to 1.3 $\times 10^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. With this change, the low-excitation lines also become roughly 10% weaker. This helps, but does not solve the problem of fitting these lines. The line shapes of transitions $J$=10-9 and $J$=6-5 of $^{12}$CO and $J$=10-9 and $J$=9-8 of $^{13}$CO (see Figs. \[fig:beta\_shapes\] and \[fig:13CO\_smaller\_radius\]) are strongly affected by these changes. In Fig. \[fig:beta\_shapes\] we show the comparison of our best grid model with the model with $\beta$ = 5.0 and lower mass-loss rate. As can be seen, the line shape of transition $^{12}$CO $J$=16-15 is much better fitted by the higher value of $\beta$. For transition $^{12}$CO $J$=10-9, that is also the case for the red wing but not for the blue wing. For transition $^{12}$CO $J$=6-5, the model with $\beta = 5.0$ predicts too narrow a line, while the model with $\beta = 1.5$ matches the red wing but slightly over-predicts the emission seen in the blue wing. ![Normalized predicted line shapes for different values of the velocity law exponent compared to the normalized observed line shapes of the $^{12}$CO transitions observed by HIFI. The observations are shown by the solid red line, the dashed green line represents a model with $\beta$ = 5.0, and the dotted purple line a model with $\beta$ = 1.5.[]{data-label="fig:beta_shapes"}](Fig_Beta_model_2013-07-17h18-21-42.ps){width="8.5cm"} Another possibility for decreasing the width of the high excitation lines is to set the starting point of the acceleration of the wind, r$_{\circ}$ in Eq. \[eq:beta-law\], further out. For those of our models discussed so far, the starting point of the acceleration is set at the condensation radius of the first dust species to form (amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$), which is at 2.5 $R_{\star}$. We need to set r$_{\circ}$ to 8 $R_{\star}$ to get a good fit to the line profile of transition $^{12}$CO $J$=16-15. As when $\beta$ is changed, we need to decrease the mass-loss rate by approximately 10% to compensate for the higher density in the inner wind . Increasing the value of r$_{\circ}$ has a similar impact to increasing the value of $\beta$ and, therefore, models with different combinations of these parameters will be able to reproduce the observed line shapes. That the wind has a slower start than expected, either because the gas acceleration starts further out or a very gradual acceleration is consistent with previous interferometric measurements of SiO, H$_2$O, and OH maser emission [@Szymczak1998] and of SiO pure rotational emission [@Lucas1992]. From the final values found for the dust ($2.8 \times10^{-10}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) and gas (1.3 $\times 10^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) mass-loss rate, we derive a value for the dust-to-gas ratio of $2 \times 10^{-3}$. Considering an uncertainty of 50 % for both the derived dust and the gas mass-loss rates, we estimate the uncertainty on this value to be approximately 70%. ### Fitting the low-excitation lines {#subsub:just} We now investigate why, within the parameter space region spanned by our grid calculation, we cannot simultaneously fit the line fluxes of the intermediate and high excitation lines ($J_{\rm up} \ge 6$) and the line fluxes and shapes of the low excitation lines ($J_{\rm up} \le 4$). One possible cause could be a variable mass loss. In this case, the low excitation transitions would be tracing gas that was ejected when the mass-loss rate was lower than what it is presently, which is traced by the higher excitation lines. This would be in strong contrast, however, to what we expect from the spatial distribution of the dust, since the PACS 70 $\mu$m image shows that there is more dust emission at distances greater than the 20 arcseconds ($\approx$ 800 R$_\star$) that our dust model can account for. To reconcile this, we would have to invoke not only a change in mass-loss rate but also quite an arbitrary and difficult-to-justify change in the dust-to-gas ratio. Therefore, we argue that a mass-loss rate discontinuity is not a likely explanation for the problem of fitting the low excitation lines in our model of WHya. Another possibility would be to consider a broken temperature law with a different exponent for the outer region where the low-excitation lines are formed. We can either increase the exponent given in Eq. \[eq:temp\] to obtain lower temperatures in the outer regions or decrease the exponent to have higher temperatures in the outer regions. Changing the gas temperature does not necessarily have a big impact on the $^{12}$CO level populations because the radiation field also plays an important role in the excitation. We calculated models with both higher (0.9) and lower (0.4) values of $\epsilon$ for the outer regions assuming two different breaking points for the temperature power law, either at 80 or 150 $R_{\star}$. The breaking points were chosen based on the excitation region of the low-excitation lines, since at 150 $R_{\star}$ the population of level $J$=4 of $^{12}$CO peaks. The models with a breaking point at 80 $R_{\star}$ represents an intermediate step between introducing a breakpoint that will only affect the low-excitation lines and changing the exponent of the temperature law in the entire wind. We find that the strength of the low-excitation lines relative to each other changes but that the overall fit does not improve, since most of the lines are still over-predicted. This suggests that we need a lower CO abundance in the outer envelope. Following [@Justtanont2005], another option for tacklng the problem is to vary the parameter that controls the point from which dissociation of CO happens, r$_{1/2}$. We calculated new models considering values r$_{1/2}$=0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.8 r$_{1/2}^{\rm \,m}$. This corresponds to a stronger dissociation than a value of unity, which corresponds to the prediction of [@Mamon1988], and, therefore, a smaller CO radius. For r$_{1/2}$= r$_{1/2}^{\rm \,m}$, the CO abundance has decreased by half at $\sim$860 stellar radii. This is at about the region where the PACS images show that there is more dust emission than predicted by our dust model. By decreasing r$_{1/2}$ to 0.4 r$_{1/2}^{\rm \,m}$, which corresponds to CO reaching half of the initial abundance around 350 stellar radii, being 40% of the size predicted by [@Mamon1988], we could fit the shape of transitions $^{12}$CO $J$=4-3, $^{12}$CO $J$=3-2, and $^{12}$CO $J$=2-1 and the total flux of transitions $^{12}$CO $J$=3-2 and $^{12}$CO $J$=2-1. The strength of transition $^{12}$CO $J$=4-3 is still over-predicted by 60% by this new model, and the number of CO molecules in the $J$=1 level becomes so small that the $^{12}$CO $J$=1-0 transition is predicted to be too weak to observe. Because the PACS image shows an unexpectedly strong dust emission at the radii where we expect the $J$=1-0 line of $^{12}$CO to be excited (the $J$=1 level population reaches its maximum at 1000 R$_{\star}$ in the absence of photo-dissociation), we do not attempt to model this emission further in the context of our model assumptions. The fit using r$_{1/2} = 0.4$ does not affect the flux of $J$=8-7 and higher excitation lines, because those are formed deep inside the envelope. The model with smaller CO radius and $\beta$=5.0 is compared to the observed $^{12}$CO line shapes in Fig. \[fig:best\_fit\_shape\_smaller\_radius\]. In Fig. \[fig:13CO\_smaller\_radius\] we show models for the $^{13}$CO transitions, considering the smaller dissociation radius and $\beta$ = 5.0. The $^{13}$CO $J$=10-9, $^{13}$CO $J$=9-8, and $^{13}$CO $J$=6-5 lines are now more consistently fitted by an isotopic ratio between 15 and 20. In Sect. \[sec:disc\] we discuss the uncertainty on the determined isotopic ratio. The predicted $^{13}$CO $J$=2-1 emission is so weak that it should not be measurable, similar to $^{12}$CO $J$=1-0. Since the population of level $J$=2 of $^{13}$CO peaks even further out than $J$=1 of $^{12}$CO, we also refrain from explaining the emission in this line in the context of our current model. ![Models with r$_{1/2} = 0.4$, $\beta$ = 5.0, and [$\dot{M}$]{}= 1.3 $\times 10^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ compared to the $^{13}$CO observed lines. The solid red line represents the observations. The long-dashed green, short-dashed blue, dotted pink, and dot-dashed light blue represent models with $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C = 10,15, 20, and 30, respectively. A value of 18 for the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio reproduces the data best.[]{data-label="fig:13CO_smaller_radius"}](Fig_13CO_model_2013-07-17h15-36-45_grid_RCO_0.41_new_ref.ps){width="8cm"} Discussion {#sec:disc} ========== The outer CO envelope --------------------- The modelling of WHya suggests a wind structure that is atypical of oxygen-rich AGB sources, both in terms of the behaviour of the CO gas and of the dust, particularly so near the CO photodissociation zone. Using maps of $^{12}$CO $J$=2-1 and $^{12}$CO $J$=1-0 for other sources, @Castro-Carrizo2010 show that the location of this zone matches, or is larger than, the photodissociation radius predicted by [@Mamon1988]. The strengths and shapes of low-excitation lines ($J_{\rm up} \le 4$) in WHya, however, clearly indicate that the size of the CO envelope is significantly smaller than predicted by [@Mamon1988]. That the situation is complex may be discerned from the $^{12}$CO $J$=1-0 and $^{13}$CO $J$=2-1 pure rotational lines. Weak emission is observed for these lines, but no emission is predicted when we adopt r$_{1/2}$ = 0.4 r$_{1/2}^{\rm \,m}$. These lines are, however, mainly excited in the outer parts of the CO envelope (r $\gtrsim$ 600 R$_{\star}$, or 15$\arcsec$ for the adopted stellar parameters and distance), a region where the PACS images show that the envelope of WHya is not predicted well by our constant mass-loss rate model. The $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio ----------------------------- For the first time, we have multiple isotopic transitions in $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO available to constrain the $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO isotopologic ratio. Three of the four lines for which we have data for the $^{13}$CO isotopologue, i.e. $J$=10-9, 9-8, and 6-5, point to an intrinsic $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio of 18. For comparison, the line ratios between the two isotopologues observed by HIFI are around 8 and 8.7 for transitions $J$=10-9 and $J$=6-5, respectively. The only previous attempt to constrain the intrinsic ratio is by [@Milam2009], who found a value of 35 using the $J$=2-1 of $^{13}$CO transition. We could not use this particular transition, since it is poorly reproduced by our model. We note that @Milam2009 considered a mass loss that is an order of magnitude greater than was found by us and [@Justtanont2005], and a three times lower $^{12}$CO abundance. They also assumed WHya to be at a distance of 115 pc, which implies a twice higher luminosity than we have adopted. Given the intricacies in forming the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO lines, especially in the case of the outer envelope of WHya, it is hard to assess the meaning of the factor-of-two difference in the intrinsic $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C. We therefore discuss the uncertainties in this ratio in more detail. This discussion is also important in view of a comparison with theoretical predictions, this ratio being a very useful tool for constraining AGB evolution models. ### The uncertainty of the determined $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio In order to quantify the robustness of the derived $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio, we carried out a test in which we vary parameters that so far were held fixed in our model grid and studied the effect. First, we investigate the impact of varying the assumed $^{12}$CO abundance relative to H (standard at $2.0 \times 10^{-4}$) and the stellar luminosity considered (5400$L_{\odot}$). We calculated models in which we changed each of these parameters, but only one at a time, by a factor of two – both toward higher and lower values. When these parameters are varied, the $^{12}$CO line fluxes and shapes also change. We scaled the mass-loss rate in order to fit the line flux observed by SPIRE, since the $^{12}$CO lines observed by this instrument are excited in the same region as $^{13}$CO transitions used to determine the isotopic ratio. We did not attempt a fine-tuning to match the strengths and shapes of the profiles. The factor-of-two changes in each of the two parameters affect the line fluxes of $^{13}$CO by typically 20 to 25 percent and at most 30 percent. Second, we studied the effect of changes in the input stellar spectrum. As pointed out in Sect. \[sec:radiation\_field\], the stellar flux in the near infrared may have an important effect on the CO line strengths as photons of these wavelengths can efficiently pump molecules to higher rotational levels. In our models, the spectral emission of WHya is approximated by a black body of 2500 K. However, the stellar spectrum is much more complex, and its intensity changes considerably even for small differences in wavelength. Specifically, molecules in the stellar atmosphere can absorb photons, thereby reducing the amount available for exciting $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO further out in the envelope. Figure \[fig:fit\_ISO\] indicates that the molecular absorption at 4.7 $\mu$m is less than a factor of two. We assume a factor-of-two decrease in the stellar flux in the 4.7 $\mu$m region to assess the impact of the near-IR flux on the modelled lines. The change in the integrated line flux of $^{12}$CO lines is only about five percent. The $^{13}$CO lines respond more strongly, varying by typically 25%. The combined impact of these three sources of uncertainties on the derived isotopic ratio would be $\sim$40% in this simple approach. Also accounting for uncertainties due to the flux calibration and noise (which are about 25% uncertain) and the actual model fitting (25% uncertain), we conclude that the intrinsic isotopic ratio determined here is uncertain by 50% to 60%. This implies that WHya has a $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO ratio of $18 \pm 10$. Better signal-to-noise observations of, particularly, $^{13}$CO, in combination with spatial maps of both $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO lines, are required to constrain this value better. ### Connecting the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio to stellar evolution From evolutionary model calculations, the surface $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio is expected to change in dredge-up events. It is found to decrease by a factor of a few after the first dredge-up, taking place during the ascent on the red giant branch (RGB) and reaching a value of typically 20 for stars more massive than 2 M$_\odot$. For stars with masses lower than 2 M$_\odot$, it is found to increase with decreasing mass, reaching about 30 at 0.8 M$_\odot$. In stars that experience the second dredge-up (M$_\star \gtrsim$ 4.5 M$_\odot$), this ratio is found to decrease further by a few tens of percent during the ascent on the AGB [@Busso1999; @Karakas2011]. Stars with masses higher than 1.5 M$_\odot$ experience the third dredge-up, a continuous process that occurs during the thermally pulsing AGB phase. Evolutionary models show that this ratio is steadily increasing thanks to the surface enrichment of $^{12}$C or is not changing significantly if the star is massive enough, M$_\star \gtrsim 4.0$ M$_\odot$, for hot bottom burning to operate. Recent calculations include extra-mixing processes to explain the low values of the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio observed in low mass RGB stars [@Tsuji2007; @Smiljanic2009; @Mikolaitis2012]. Extra-mixing processes are thought to occur also during the AGB phase [@Busso2010], but its causes and consequences are more uncertain. Models that include extra mixing in the RGB predict lower isotopic ratios ($\sim$10) for low mass stars ($\sim$1M$_\odot$). When compared to model predictions, a value of 18 for the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio would be consistent with WHya having an isotopic ratio that reflects the value set by the first dredge-up [@Boothroyd1999; @Charbonnel2010] for star with masses higher than about 2 M$_\odot$. If WHya’s mass lies between 1.5 M$_\odot$ and 4.0 M$_\odot$, the value found by us further suggests that the star has experienced few or none of these third dredge-up events. Our intrinsic isotopic ratio, however, is not very constraining, since it agrees within the uncertainties with three very different scenarios for WHya’s evolutionary stage: first, having a low value of this ratio ($\sim$8), hence having suffered extra mixing in the first dredge-up, characteristic of low mass stars; second, having a ratio of indeed 18, which implies a higher mass; or, third, having a higher ratio ($\sim$28) and being on its way to becoming a carbon star. Decreasing the error bars by a factor of three or four would allow one to draw stronger conclusions on this matter. Such accuracy may be achieved with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array. The wind acceleration --------------------- The wind acceleration in WHya is quite slow. The highest excitation line for which we have an observed line shape, $^{12}$CO $J$=16-15, has an excitation of its upper level that peaks at eight stellar radii, decreasing to one-fifth of this peak value at 30$R_{\star}$. The triangular shape and the width of this profile indicate that it is formed in the accelerating part of the flow. The $^{12}$CO $J$=10-9 line is still explained well by a $\beta$ = 5.0 model, but the region where this line is excited seems to be where the wind starts to be accelerated faster than our model with $\beta$ = 5.0. Interestingly, this effect is noted mainly in the blue-shifted part of the flow. The population of level $J$=10 of $^{12}$CO reaches a maximum at 25 $R_{\star}$, decreasing to one-fifth of this peak value at 70 $R_{\star}$. This shows that the wind approaches the terminal velocity indeed much later than expected, somewhere around 50 stellar radii. Furthermore, transition $J$=6-5 of $^{12}$CO is formed in a region where the wind has already reached maximum expansion velocity, contrary to what a model with $\beta$=5.0 predicts. This indicates that, although the wind has a slow start until 5.5 - 6.0 km/s, the last injection of momentum happens quite fast. Other authors have also concluded that the wind of WHya is accelerated slower than expected [@Lucas1992; @Szymczak1998], in agreement with our results. The shapes of $^{13}$CO $J$=10-9 and $J$=9-8 lines are also asymmetric, as is that of $^{12}$CO $J$=10-9 line. The reason for this is not clear but may be connected to large scale inhomogeneities that damp out, or smooth out, at large distances. A direction-dependent acceleration law, for example, or direction-dependent excitation structures of the higher levels of these two transitions might be the reason we see this asymmetry. The higher optical depth in the $^{12}$CO lines might be able to make this feature less pronounced in the $J$=10-9 of this isotopologue. We note that these two $^{13}$CO lines do not have a high signal-to-noise ratio, therefore, no firm conclusion can be drawn based on this apparent asymmetry. Summary {#sec:summary} ======= We have constrained the wind structure of WHya using an unprecedented number of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO emission lines. We were especially interested in understanding the excitation of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO for this source. The envelope structure derived in this study will enable analysis of other molecular abundances in the outflow, such as ortho- and para-water and its isotopologues, SiO and its isotopologues, SO, SO$_2,$ and even carbon-based molecules such as HCN. Specifically, we may thus obtain excitation conditions of these molecules and the heating and cooling rates – mainly thanks to water transitions – associated to it. These species too will add to our understanding of the physical and chemical processes in the wind. The main conclusions obtained from modelling $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO are - [The model that best fits the data has a mass-loss rate of $1.3 \times 10^{-7}\ M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, an expansion velocity of $7.5$ km/s, a temperature power-law exponent of $0.65$, a CO dissociation radius 2.5 times smaller than what is predicted by theory, and an exponent of the $\beta$-type velocity law of 5.0. We note that the wind has a slow start that is better reproduced by a high value of this exponent, but that the envelope reaches its final expansion velocity sooner than such a model would predict.]{} - [The smaller outer CO radius is supported mainly by the line strengths of the low-$J$ lines. Introducing a broken temperature law does not fix this problem, and a varying mass-loss rate, lower in the outer envelope, seems to contradict what is seen in the PACS dust maps.]{} - [By comparing our constant mass-loss rate dust model with recently published PACS images of WHya, we note that our dust model does not reproduce the observations beyond 20$\arcsec$, corresponding to 800 R$_\star$ for the adopted parameters and distance. This extra emission may originate in material expelled in a phase of higher mass loss or be the result of a build up of material from interaction with previously ejected gas or interstellar medium gas.]{} - [We derive a $^{12}$CO to $^{13}$CO isotopic ratio of 18 $\pm$10. The accuracy is not sufficient to draw firm conclusions on the evolutionary stage or main-sequence mass of WHya, but a ratio of 20 would be expected for an AGB star with mass higher than 2 M$_\odot$ that did not experience $^{12}$C enrichment due to the third dredge-up phase. Spatially resolved observations may help constrain the $^{12}$CO abundance and the $^{13}$CO excitation region and allow for a more precise estimate of this ratio.]{} HIFI has been designed and built by a consortium of institutes and university departments from across Europe, Canada, and the United States under the leadership of SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Groningen, The Netherlands and with major contributions from Germany, France, and the US. Consortium members are Canada: CSA, U. Waterloo; France: CESR, LAB, LERMA, IRAM; Germany: KOSMA, MPIfR, MPS; Ireland, NUI Maynooth; Italy: ASI, IFSI-INAF, Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri-INAF; Netherlands: SRON, TUD; Poland: CAMK, CBK; Spain: Observatorio Astronómico Nacional (IGN), Centro de Astrobiología (CSIC-INTA). Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology Ð MC2, RSS & GARD; Onsala Space Observatory; Swedish National Space Board, Stockholm University Ð SStockholm Observatory; Switzerland: ETH Zurich, FHNW; USA: Caltech, JPL, NHSC. PACS has been developed by a consortium of institutes led by MPE (Germany) and including UVIE (Austria); KUL, CSL, IMEC (Belgium); CEA, OAMP (France); MPIA (Germany); IFSI, OAP/AOT, OAA/CAISMI, LENS, SISSA (Italy); IAC (Spain). This development has been supported by the funding agencies BMVIT (Austria), ESA-PRODEX (Belgium), CEA/CNES (France), DLR (Germany), ASI (Italy), and CICYT/MCYT (Spain). SPIRE has been developed by a consortium of institutes led by Cardiff Univ. (UK) and including Univ. Lethbridge (Canada); NAOC (China); CEA, LAM (France); IFSI, Univ. Padua (Italy); IAC (Spain); Stockholm Observatory (Sweden); Imperial College London, RAL, UCL-MSSL, UKATC, Univ. Sussex (UK); Caltech, JPL, NHSC, Univ. Colorado (USA). This development has been supported by national funding agencies: CSA (Canada); NAOC (China); CEA, CNES, CNRS (France); ASI (Italy); MCINN (Spain); SNSB (Sweden); STFC (UK); and NASA (USA). T.Kh. gratefully acknowledges the support from NWO grant 614.000.903. R.Sz. and M.Sch. acknowledge support from NCN grant N 203 581040. This work has been partially supported by the Spanish MICINN, programme CONSOLIDER INGENIO 2010, grant “ASTROMOL” (CSD2009-00038). JB, PR, BvB acknowledge support from the Belgian Science Policy office through the ESA PRODEX programme. FK is supported by the FWF project P23586 and the ffg ASAP project HIL. [^1]: [Send offprint requests to T. Khouri]{} [^2]: Herschel is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
MC-TH-2003-09\ hep-ph/0309342\ October 2003 \ [Apostolos Pilaftsis and Thomas E. J. Underwood]{}\ [Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester,\ Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom]{} ABSTRACT [We study the scenario of thermal leptogenesis in which the leptonic asymmetries are resonantly enhanced through the mixing of nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos that have mass differences comparable to their decay widths. Field-theoretic issues arising from the proper subtraction of real intermediate states from the lepton-number-violating scattering processes are addressed in connection with an earlier developed resummation approach to unstable particle mixing in decay amplitudes. The pertinent Boltzmann equations are numerically solved after the enhanced heavy-neutrino self-energy effects on scatterings and the dominant gauge-mediated collision terms are included. We show that resonant leptogenesis can be realized with heavy Majorana neutrinos even as light as $\sim 1$ TeV, in complete accordance with the current solar and atmospheric neutrino data. ]{} [PACS numbers: 11.30.Er, 14.60.St, 98.80.Cq]{} Introduction ============ The recent results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite have dramatically improved the accuracy of many cosmological parameters [@WMAP], thus signalling a new era of precision cosmology. For the first time, the baryon–to–photon ratio of number densities $\eta_B$ has been measured to the unprecedented precision of less than 10%. The reported value for $\eta_B$ is [@WMAP] $$\label{BAUexp} \eta_B\ \equiv\ \frac{n_B}{n_\gamma}\ =\ 6.1\, ^{+0.3}_{-0.2}\,\times 10^{-10}\, ,$$ where $n_B = n_b - n_{\bar{b}}$ and $n_\gamma$ are the number densities of the net baryon number $B$ and photons at the present epoch, respectively. Many theoretical models have been suggested in the literature [@KT; @BAUreview] in order to explain the presently small but non-zero value of $\eta_B$ that quantifies the so-called cosmological Baryon Asymmetry in the Universe (BAU). One of the most attractive as well as field-theoretically consistent scenarios of baryogenesis is the one proposed by Fukugita and Yanagida [@FY]. In this model, out-of-equilibrium $L$-violating decays of singlet neutrinos $N_i$ with Majorana masses considerably larger than the critical temperature $T_c\approx 100$–200 GeV produce initially an excess in the lepton number $L$. This excess in $L$ is then converted into the observed $B$ asymmetry through $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron interactions [@NSM; @KRS], which are in thermal equilibrium for temperatures ranging from $T_c$ up to $10^{12}$ GeV [@AMcL; @BS; @HT]. Many studies have been devoted to analyze in detail this scenario of baryogenesis through leptogenesis [@epsilonprime; @MAL; @Paschos; @CRV; @APRD; @ELN; @LV; @BCST; @Hambye; @DI; @BBP; @GCBetal; @FHY; @JCP; @NT; @ERY; @WR; @BFT; @BDPS; @AFS; @Anupam; @CT; @APreview; @KH]. In the last few years, the on-going neutrino experiments, mainly at Super-K [@Super-K] and SNO [@SNO], have been able to address another important question in particle and astro-particle physics [@ADD]. Their analyses have offered overwhelming support to the theoretical idea that the ordinary neutrinos have tiny but non-zero masses and mixings [@PMNS], thereby enabling them to oscillate from one type of lepton to another [@MSW]. In the Standard Model (SM) neutrinos are strictly massless. An economical as well as natural solution to this problem can be achieved by augmenting the SM field content with right-handed (singlet) neutrinos. By the same token, bare Majorana masses that violate the lepton number by two units are allowed to be added to the Lagrangian. The scale of these singlet masses is rather model-dependent and may range from about 1 TeV in Left-Right Symmetric [@PS; @Moh/Sen] or certain E${}_6$ [@witten] models up to $10^{16}$ GeV in typical Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) such as SO(10) [@FM; @Wol/Wyl] models. From the low-energy point of view, the large Majorana masses present in the complete neutrino mass matrix give rise to a kind of a seesaw mechanism [@seesaw], through which the phenomenologically favoured values for neutrino masses of order 0.1 eV and smaller can be explained without unnaturally suppressing the Yukawa couplings of the theory. One of the central questions that several articles have been addressing recently is to which extent the afore-mentioned heavy Majorana neutrinos can be responsible for both the observed BAU and the neutrino oscillation data, including possible data from other non-accelerator experiments. In this context, it has been found [@DI; @BBP] that if the heavy singlet neutrinos have an hierarchical mass spectrum, a lower bound of about $10^8$–$10^9$ GeV on the leptogenesis scale can be derived. In the derivation of this lower bound, the size of the leptonic asymmetry between the heavy Majorana neutrino decay into a lepton doublet $L$ and a Higgs doublet $\Phi$, $N_i\to L\Phi$, and its respective charge and parity (CP) conjugate mode, $N_i\to L^C\Phi^\dagger$, plays a key role. In other words, the larger the leptonic CP asymmetry, the smaller the lower bound on the leptogenesis scale becomes. (450,120)(0,0) (20,60)(50,60)(80,60)(50,60) (50,60)\[\][[$\times$]{}]{} (110,40)(80,60)(110,90)(80,60)[5]{} (20,65)\[bl\][$N_i$]{}(72,65)\[br\][$N_i$]{} (115,40)\[l\][$L^C$]{}(115,90)\[l\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (70,10)\[\][(a)]{} (170,60)(200,60)(200,60)(240,60) (240,60)(270,60)(255,60)\[\][[$\times$]{}]{} (220,60)(20,180,0)[5]{} (300,40)(270,60)(300,90)(270,60)[5]{} (170,65)\[bl\][$N_i$]{}(265,65)\[br\][$N_j$]{} (220,85)\[b\][$\Phi$]{}(220,55)\[t\][$L$]{} (305,40)\[l\][$L^C$]{}(305,90)\[l\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (220,10)\[\][(b)]{} (340,70)(370,70)(370,70)(400,70) (400,70)(400,30)(430,30)(400,30) (401,50)\[\][[$\times$]{}]{} (430,90)(400,70)[5]{}(370,70)(400,30)[5]{} (340,65)\[lt\][$N_i$]{}(385,80)\[\][$L$]{}(408,50)\[l\][$N_j$]{} (437,90)\[l\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{}(435,30)\[l\][$L^C$]{} (388,40)\[r\][$\Phi$]{} (390,10)\[\][(c)]{} As is shown in Fig. \[f1\] in a Feynman–diagrammatic way, there are two one-loop graphs that contribute to the CP-violating leptonic asymmetry. In particular, the interference of the tree-level decay amplitude with the absorptive parts of the one-loop self-energy and vertex graphs violates CP and hence gives rise to a non-vanishing leptonic asymmetry. These self-energy and vertex contributions are often termed in the literature [@IKS; @APreview] $\varepsilon$- and $\varepsilon'$-types of CP violation, respectively. Unlike $\varepsilon'$-type [@FY; @epsilonprime; @MAL], $\varepsilon$-type CP violation can be considerably enhanced [@Paschos; @CRV; @APRD] through the mixing of two nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos. The fact that $\varepsilon$-type CP violation can become several orders of magnitude larger than $\varepsilon'$-type CP violation might raise concerns on the validity of perturbation theory. Indeed, finite-order perturbation theory breaks down if two heavy Majorana neutrinos become degenerate. However, based on a field-theoretic approach that consistently resums all the higher-order self-energy-enhanced diagrams, it has been shown in [@APRD] that the leptonic CP asymmetry is not only analytically well-behaved, but it can also be of order [unity]{} if two of the heavy Majorana neutrinos have mass differences comparable to their decay widths. Because of this resonant enhancement of the leptonic asymmetries, we call this scenario of leptogenesis [resonant leptogenesis]{}. An immediate consequence of resonant leptogenesis is that the singlet mass scale can be drastically lowered to TeV energies [@APRD; @APreview]. However, these previous studies have not considered possible limits that may arise from the presently better constrained light-neutrino sector. In this paper we will analyze the scenario of resonant leptogenesis in light of the current solar and atmospheric neutrino data [@nudata; @JWFV]. In particular, we will show that resonant leptogenesis can occur with heavy Majorana neutrinos even as light as $\sim 1$ TeV, within the framework of light-neutrino scenarios with normal or inverted mass hierarchy and large $\nu_e$-$\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\mu$-$\nu_\tau$ mixings, namely within schemes currently suggested by neutrino oscillation data. Our predictions for the BAU are obtained after numerically solving a network of Boltzmann Equations (BEs) related to leptogenesis. In our analysis, we include the dominant collision terms that account for $2 \to 2$ scatterings involving the SU(2)$_L$ and U(1)$_Y$ gauge bosons. Furthermore, the resonantly enhanced CP-violating as well as CP-conserving effects on the scattering processes thanks to heavy-neutrino mixing are taken into account. To the best of our knowledge, these two important contributions to the BEs have not been considered in the existing literature before. The proper description of the dynamics of unstable particles and their mixing phenomena is a subtle issue within the context of a field theory. To deal with this problem, one is compelled to rely on resummation approaches to unstable particles that consistently maintain all desirable field-theoretic properties, such as gauge-invariance, analyticity and unitarity [@PP; @Stuart]. In this context, a resummation approach to unstable particle mixing in decay amplitudes was developed in [@APRD] which preserves CPT invariance and unitarity [@AP; @APreview]. In this paper we address another important issue related to the proper subtraction of the so-called real intermediate states (RIS) from the $L$-violating $2\to 2$ scattering processes that result from the exchange of unstable particles in the $s$-channel. Such a subtraction is necessary in order to avoid double-counting in the BE’s [@KW] from the already considered $1\to 2$ decays and $2\to 1$ inverse decays of the unstable particles, namely those associated with heavy Majorana neutrino decays. By examining the analytic properties of the pole and residue structures [@Stuart; @AP] of a resonant $L$-violating scattering amplitude, we can identify the part of the $2\to 2$ amplitude that contains RIS contributions only. We find that the so-derived resonant amplitude exhibits the very same analytic form with the one obtained with an earlier proposed resummation method [@APRD]. Since the present derivation does not rely on resorting to a kind of Lehmann–Symanzik–Zimmermann (LSZ) reduction formalism [@LSZ] for the decaying unstable particle, it offers therefore a firm and independent support to the earlier treatment presented in [@APRD]. The paper is organized as follows: in Section \[sec:models\] we discuss the generic structure of a heavy Majorana-neutrino model that possesses a low singlet scale and predicts nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos. Employing the Froggatt–Nielsen (FN) mechanism [@FN], we also put forward a generic texture for the light neutrino mass matrices that enable an adequate description of the present solar and atmospheric neutrino data. In Section \[sec:RIS\] we address field-theoretic issues that arise from the proper subtraction of RIS from the $L$-violating scattering processes. In particular, we explicitly demonstrate how the resonant part of the scattering amplitude is intimately related to the resummed decay amplitude derived earlier by means of an LSZ-type resummation approach [@APRD]. Analytic formulae related to the general case of three heavy-Majorana-neutrino mixing are given in Appendix \[app:mixing\]. In Section \[sec:BEs\] we derive the relevant network of BE’s for resonant leptogenesis, where the gauge-mediated collision terms and the resonantly enhanced CP-violating as well as CP-conserving contributions to scatterings due to heavy neutrino mixing are taken into account. Analytic expressions of reduced cross-sections for all relevant $2\to 2$ scattering reactions are presented in Appendix \[app:CT\]. Our conclusions are summarized in Section \[sec:concls\]. Low-Scale Heavy Majorana-Neutrino Model\ and Neutrino Data {#sec:models} ======================================== In this section, we first set up our conventions by briefly reviewing the low-energy structure of a minimally extended SM that includes heavy Majorana neutrinos. We then put forward a generic scenario that predicts nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos at the TeV scale and can naturally be realized by means of the FN mechanism [@FN]. In this generic scenario, the light-neutrino sector admits the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein (MSW) [@MSW] solution and so may explain the solar neutrino data through a large $\nu_e$-$\nu_\mu$ mixing. The light-neutrino sector also allows for a large $\nu_\mu$-$\nu_\tau$-mixing to account for the atmospheric neutrino anomaly. Another property of our generic scenario is that it leads to a mass spectrum for the light neutrinos, denoted as $\nu_{1,2,3}$ (with the mass convention $m_{\nu_1} \le m_{\nu_2} \le m_{\nu_3}$), with normal or inverted hierarchy, depending on whether the lightest physical neutrino $\nu_1$ has predominantly a $\nu_e$ or a $\nu_\tau$ component. In particular, the generic scenario can accommodate the phenomenologically favoured neutrino-mass differences [@nudata; @JWFV]: $$\label{nudata} 1.4\times 10^{-3}\: <\: \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}~[{\rm eV}^2]\ <\ 3.7\times 10^{-3}\,,\qquad 5.4\times 10^{-5}\: <\: \Delta m^2_\odot~[{\rm eV}^2]\ <\ 9.5\times 10^{-5}\,,$$ at the 3$\sigma$ confidence level, with $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm} = m^2_{\nu_3} - m^2_{\nu_2}$ and $\Delta m^2_\odot = m^2_{\nu_2} - m^2_{\nu_1}$. A minimal, symmetric realization of a model with heavy Majorana neutrinos can be obtained by adding to the SM field content one right-handed (singlet) neutrino per family $\nu_{iR}$, with $i=1, 2, 3$. The leptonic sector of this minimal model consists of the fields: $$L_l\ =\ \left( \begin{array}{c} \nu_{lL} \\ l_{lL} \end{array} \right)\ ,\qquad l_{lR}\ , \qquad \nu_{iR}\ ,$$ where the obvious labelling, $l= (1,2,3) = (e,\mu,\tau)$, will be employed. At temperatures $T$ larger than the critical temperature $T_c$ associated with the electroweak phase transition, the $T$-dependent vacuum expectation value (VEV) $v(T)$ of the SM Higgs doublet $\Phi$ vanishes, i.e. $\langle \Phi (T) \rangle = v(T)/\sqrt{2} = 0$. This is the epoch where a possible leptonic asymmetry created by out-of-equilibrium heavy Majorana-neutrino decays can be actively reprocessed into the BAU through the equilibrated $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron interactions. At this epoch relevant to leptogenesis, the dynamics of the early Universe is usually described by a Lagrangian in the unbroken gauge-symmetric phase of the theory. In this unbroken phase, the Lagrangian of the leptonic sector of the model under study may conveniently be expressed as $$\label{Llept} {\cal L}_{\rm lept}\ =\ {\cal L}_{\rm kin}\: +\: {\cal L}_{\rm Y}\: +\: {\cal L}_{\rm M}\, ,$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \label{Lkin} {\cal L}_{\rm kin} & = & \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}\,\bigg(\, \bar{L}_i\, i\!\not\!\partial\, L_i \: +\: \bar{\nu}_{iR}\, i\!\not\!\partial\, \nu_{iR}\: +\: \bar{l}_{iR}\, i\!\not\!\partial\, l_{iR}\,\bigg)\,,\\ \label{LYint} {\cal L}_{\rm Y} & = & -\, \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{3}\, \bigg(\, h^{\nu_R}_{ij}\, \bar{L}_i\, \tilde{\Phi}\, \nu_{jR}\: +\: h^l_{ij}\, \bar{L}_i\, \Phi\, l_{jR}\ +\ \mbox{H.c.}\,\bigg)\,,\\ \label{Majmass} {\cal L}_{\rm M} &=& -\, \frac{1}{2}\, \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{3}\, \bigg(\, (\bar{\nu}_{iR})^C\, (M_S)_{ij}\, \nu_{jR}\ +\ \bar{\nu}_{iR}\, (M_S)^_{ij}\, (\nu_{jR})^C\, \bigg)\, .\end{aligned}$$ In the above, ${\cal L}_{\rm kin}$, ${\cal L}_{\rm Y}$ and ${\cal L}_{\rm M}$ describe the kinetic terms, the Yukawa sector and the Majorana masses of the model, respectively. In addition, $\tilde{\Phi}=i\tau_2\Phi^$ is the isospin conjugate of the Higgs doublet $\Phi$, where $\tau_2$ is the usual Pauli matrix, and the superscript $C$ denotes charge conjugation. In the unbroken phase of the theory, only the singlet neutrinos are massive. Their physical masses can be found by diagonalizing the 3-by-3 singlet Majorana mass matrix $M_S$ in (\[Majmass\]). The matrix $M_S$ is symmetric and in general complex, and can be diagonalized by means of a unitary transformation $$\label{Utrans} U^T\, M_S\, U\ =\ \widehat{M}_S\ \equiv\ {\rm diag}\, \big(\,m_{N_1},\, m_{N_2},\, m_{N_3}\,\big)\,,$$ where $U$ is a $3\times 3$-dimensional unitary matrix and $m_{N_{1,2,3}}$ denote the 3 physical masses of the heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_{1,2,3}$, ordered as $m_{N_1} \le m_{N_2} \le m_{N_3}$. Correspondingly, the flavour states $\nu_{iR}$ and $(\nu_{iR})^C$ are related to the mass eigenstates $N_i$ through $$\label{nuRs} \nu_{iR}\ =\ P_R\,\sum\limits_{j=1}^{3}\, U_{ij} N_j\,,\qquad (\nu_{iR})^C\ =\ P_L\,\sum\limits_{j=1}^{3}\, U^_{ij} N_j\,,$$ where $P_R = (1 + \gamma_5)/2$ and $P_L = (1 - \gamma_5)/2$. Note that $\nu_{iR}$ and $(\nu_{iR})^C$ do not transform independently of one another under a unitary rotation. In the physical basis, the Yukawa leptonic sector reads $$\label{LYphys} {\cal L}_{\rm Y} \ =\ -\, \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{3}\, \bigg(\, h^\nu_{ij}\, \bar{L}_i\, \tilde{\Phi}\, P_R\, N_j\: +\: \hat{h}^l_{ii}\, \bar{L}_i\, \Phi\, P_R\, l_i\quad + \quad \mbox{H.c.}\,\bigg)\,,$$ where a four-component chiral representation for all fermionic fields should be understood. In (\[LYphys\]), $\hat{h}^l_{ii}$ is a diagonal positive matrix and $h^\nu_{ij}$ is related to $h^{\nu_R}_{ij}$ through a bi-unitary transformation: $h^\nu\, =\, V_L^\dagger\, h^{\nu_R}\, U$, where $V_L$ is a 3-by-3 unitary matrix that transforms the left-handed charged leptons to their corresponding mass eigenstates. Our computations of the leptonic asymmetries and collision terms relevant to leptogenesis will be based on the Lagrangian (\[LYphys\]). Having set the stage, it is now instructive to discuss the possible flavour structure of low singlet-scale models with nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos. Such a class of models may be constructed by assuming that lepton-number violation (and possibly baryon-number violation) occurs at very high energies at the GUT scale $M_{\rm GUT} \sim 10^{16}$–$10^{17}$ GeV, or even higher close to the Planck scale $M_{\rm Planck} \sim 10^{19}$ GeV through gravitational interactions. On the other hand, operators that conserve lepton number are allowed to be at the TeV scale. Since our interest is to resonant leptogenesis, the following sufficient and necessary conditions under which leptonic asymmetries of order unity can take place have to be satisfied by the model under discussion [@APRD]: $$\label{CPres} m_{N_i} \, -\, m_{N_j}\ \sim\ \frac{\Gamma_{N_{i,j}}}{2}\ ,\qquad \frac{\big\| {\rm Im}\, \big( h^{\nu\dagger} h^\nu \big)^2_{ij}\,\big\|}{ (h^{\nu\dagger} h^\nu)_{ii}\, (h^{\nu\dagger} h^\nu)_{jj}}\ \sim \ 1\, ,$$ for a pair of heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_{i,j}$. In (\[CPres\]), $\Gamma_{N_i}$ are the $N_i$ decay widths, which at the tree level are given by $$\label{GNi} \Gamma^{(0)}_{N_i}\ =\ \frac{(h^{\nu\dagger} h^\nu)_{ii}}{8\pi}\ m_{N_i}\; .$$ In the following, we present a rather generic scenario that minimally realizes the above requirements and still has sufficient freedom to describe the neutrino data. Our generic scenario is based on the FN mechanism [@FN]. Specifically, we introduce two FN fields, $\Sigma$ and $\overline{\Sigma}$, with opposite U(1)$_{\rm FN}$ charges, i.e. $Q_{\rm FN} ( \Sigma ) = - Q_{\rm FN} ( \overline{\Sigma} ) = + 1$. Under U(1)$_{\rm FN}$, the following charges for the right-handed neutrinos are assigned: $$\label{QFN} Q_{\rm FN}\, (\nu_{1R}) \ =\ -1\,,\qquad Q_{\rm FN}\, (\nu_{2R} )\ =\ +1\,,\qquad Q_{\rm FN}\, (\nu_{3R} )\ =\ 0\; .$$ In addition, all other fields, including charged leptons, are singlets under U(1)$_{\rm FN}$. Then, the singlet mass matrix $M_S$ assumes the generic form: $$\label{MS} M_S\ \sim \ M\, \left(\! \begin{array}{ccc} \varepsilon^2 & 1 & \varepsilon\\ 1 & \bar{\varepsilon}^2 & \bar{\varepsilon}\\ \varepsilon & \bar{\varepsilon} & M_X/M \end{array}\! \right)\,,$$ where $\varepsilon = \langle \Sigma \rangle /M_{\rm GUT}$ and $\bar{\varepsilon } = \langle \overline{\Sigma } \rangle / M_{\rm GUT}$. In (\[MS\]), $M$ sets up the scale of the leptonic symmetry $L_e - L_\mu$,[^1] while $M_X$ represents the scale of $L_\tau$ violation. It is conceivable that these two scales may be different from one another. For the case of our interest, it is $M \sim 1$ TeV, while $M_X$ is considered to be many orders of magnitude larger close to $M_{\rm GUT}$. The FN mechanism also determines the strength of the Yukawa couplings. After spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB), the resulting Dirac-neutrino mass matrix $m_D$ has the generic form $$\label{mD} m_D\ \equiv\ \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}\, h\ \sim \ \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}\, \left(\! \begin{array}{ccc} \varepsilon & \bar{\varepsilon} & 1\\ \varepsilon & \bar{\varepsilon} & 1\\ \varepsilon & \bar{\varepsilon} & 1 \end{array}\! \right)\, ,$$ where $h$ is a $3\times 3$ matrix containing the neutrino Yukawa couplings, expressed in the positive and diagonal basis of the respective charged-lepton Yukawa couplings. If one assumes that $\langle \Sigma \rangle \sim \langle \overline{\Sigma } \rangle \sim \sqrt{M\, M_{\rm GUT}}$ and $M_X \sim M_{\rm GUT}$, a rather simple pattern for the mass matrices $m_D$ and $M_S$ emerges. In this case, the mass spectrum of the generic scenario under investigation contains one super-heavy Majorana neutrino, with a mass $m_{N_3} \sim M_X \sim M_{\rm GUT}$, and two nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_{1,2}$, with $m_{N_{1,2}} \sim M$ and a mass difference $m_{N_1} - m_{N_2} \sim \varepsilon^2 M \sim M^2/M_{\rm GUT}$. Since it is $\Gamma^{(0)}_{N_{1,2}} \sim \varepsilon^2 M \sim M^2/M_{\rm GUT}$, it can be readily seen that one of the crucial conditions for resonant leptogenesis in (\[CPres\]), i.e. $m_{N_1} - m_{N_2} \sim \frac{1}{2}\,\Gamma_{N_{1,2}}$, can naturally be satisfied within our generic framework. In the above exercise, one should bear in mind that the FN mechanism can only give rise to an order-of-magnitude estimate of the different entries in the mass matrices $m_D$ and $M_S$. Moreover, since our focus will be on the neutrino sector of this minimal model of resonant leptogenesis, we will not attempt to explain the complete quark- and charged-lepton-mass spectrum of the SM by analyzing all possible solutions through the FN mechanism. Such an extensive study is beyond the scope of the present article and may be given elsewhere. We will now explicitly demonstrate that the mass textures stated in (\[MS\]) and (\[mD\]) can lead to viable light-neutrino scenarios, when the latter are confronted with the present solar and atmospheric neutrino data. To further simplify our discussion, we assume that the super-heavy neutrino decouples completely from the light-neutrino spectrum. As a result, to leading order in the FN parameters $\varepsilon$ and $\bar{\varepsilon}$, the 3-by-3 light-neutrino mass-matrix ${\bf m}^\nu$ may be cast into the form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{mnulight} {\bf m}^\nu\ \approx \ -\, \frac{v^2}{2M}\, \left(\! \begin{array}{ccc} 2h_{11}h_{12} & h_{11}h_{22} + h_{12}h_{21} & h_{11}h_{32} + h_{31}h_{12} \\ h_{11}h_{22} + h_{12}h_{21} & 2h_{21}h_{22} & h_{21}h_{32} + h_{31}h_{22} \\ h_{11}h_{32} + h_{31}h_{12} & h_{21}h_{32} + h_{31}h_{22} & 2h_{31}h_{32} \end{array}\!\right)\, .\end{aligned}$$ Here, $h_{ij}$ are the neutrino Yukawa couplings in the weak basis described after (\[mD\]). Note that effects due to the mass degeneracy of the heavy Majorana neutrinos contribute terms ${\cal O} (\varepsilon^3 \bar{\varepsilon}, \varepsilon \bar{\varepsilon}^3)$ to ${\bf m}^\nu$. As long as $\varepsilon\,,\ \bar{\varepsilon}\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-3}$, these sub-leading terms do not affect the light-neutrino mass spectrum and hence they can be safely neglected. The scenarios which we will address numerically in Section 4.3 are compatible with these limits on $\varepsilon$ and $\bar{\varepsilon}$. Let us now present a concrete example by considering the following set of Yukawa couplings (given in units of $\varepsilon = \bar{\varepsilon}$): $$\label{hmodel} h_{11}\ =\ -\,\frac{1}{3}\,;\quad h_{12}\ =\ \frac{2}{3}\,;\quad h_{21}\ =\ 2\,;\quad h_{22}\ =\ 1\,;\quad h_{31}\ =\ 1\,; \quad h_{32}\ =\ 2\,.$$ For our illustrations, we also neglect the existence of possible CP-odd phases in the Yukawa couplings. Then, the light-neutrino mass matrix exhibits the structure $$\begin{aligned} \label{mnuappr} {\bf m}^\nu \ \approx\ -\, \frac{v^2 \varepsilon\bar{\varepsilon} }{2M}\ \left(\! \begin{array}{ccc} -4/9 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 4 & 5 \\ 0 & 5 & 4 \end{array}\!\right)\, .\end{aligned}$$ It is not difficult to see that the above light-neutrino mass matrix ${\bf m}^\nu$ can be diagonalized by large $\nu_\mu$-$\nu_\tau$ and $\nu_e$-$\nu_\mu$ mixing angles, i.e. $\|\theta_{\nu_\mu\nu_\tau}\| \sim \pi/4$ and $\|\theta_{\nu_e\nu_\mu}\| \sim \pi/6$. Instead, the $\nu_e$-$\nu_\tau$ mixing angle is estimated to be small, i.e. $\|\theta_{\nu_e \nu_\tau}\| \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.1$, as is suggested by the CHOOZ experiment [@CHOOZ; @JWFV]. Furthermore, the physical light-neutrino masses derived from ${\bf m}^\nu$ are approximately given by $$\label{mnuth} \big(\, m_{\nu_1},\ m_{\nu_2},\ m_{\nu_3}\,\big)\ \approx\ \frac{v^2 \varepsilon\bar{\varepsilon}}{2M}\ \big( 0.04,\ 1.5,\ 9 \big)\ \sim\ \frac{m^2_t}{M_{\rm GUT}}\ \big( 0.04,\ 1.5,\ 9 \big)\, .$$ In deriving the last step of (\[mnuth\]), we have used the fact that $\|\varepsilon \bar{\varepsilon}\| \sim M/M_{\rm GUT}$ and $m_t \approx v/\sqrt{2}$. Observe that although our approach here has been different, the light-neutrino masses in (\[mnuth\]) still obey the known seesaw mass relation [@seesaw], and scale independently of $M$. In particular, one can easily check that (\[mnuth\]) is compatible with the observed light-neutrino mass differences stated in (\[nudata\]). Even though the present example realizes a light-neutrino mass spectrum with normal hierarchy, an inverted hierarchy can easily be obtained by appropriately rearranging the Yukawa couplings in (\[hmodel\]). Our numerical estimates in Section \[sec:BEs\] will rely on neutrino models that make use of the generic structures for the matrices $M_S$ and $m_D$, given in (\[MS\]) and (\[mD\]), respectively. Subtraction of RIS and Leptonic Asymmetries {#sec:RIS} =========================================== In this section we wish to address an important issue related to the proper subtraction of the so-called real intermediate states (RIS), e.g. heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_i$, from the $L$-violating $2\to 2$ scattering processes. As we will see in Section \[sec:BEs\], such a subtraction is necessary in order to avoid double-counting in the BEs [@KW] from the already considered $1\to 2$ decays and $2\to 1$ inverse decays of the unstable heavy Majorana neutrinos. By studying the analytic properties of the pole and the residue structures of a resonant $L$-violating scattering amplitude, we are able to identify the resonant part of a $2\to 2$ amplitude that contains RIS contributions only. The so-derived resonant amplitude can then be shown to exhibit the very same analytic form with the one obtained with an earlier proposed resummation method [@APRD]. Another important result of our considerations is that we can define one-loop resummed effective Yukawa couplings that capture all dominant effects of heavy Majorana-neutrino mixing and CP violation. Approach to the Subtraction of RIS ---------------------------------- Let us first consider the simple scattering process $L\Phi \to N^\to L^C\Phi^\dagger$, mediated by a single heavy-neutrino exchange $N$. This exercise will help us to demonstrate our approach to subtracting the RIS part of an amplitude. The more realistic case of resonant leptogenesis with two heavy Majorana neutrinos will be discussed later on. To keep things at an intuitive level, we assume throughout this section that all particles involved in this process are scalar, e.g.scalar neutrinos or sneutrinos $\widetilde{N}_i$ that are predicted in supersymmetric theories [@soft]. Nevertheless, we will discuss the complications that may arise in our considerations from the spinorial nature of the lepton and heavy neutrino fields. The $s$-channel contribution to the scattering amplitude ${\cal T}(L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)$ due to a single $\widetilde{N}$-exchange reads: $$\label{Tsimple} {\cal T}_s (L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\ =\ {\cal T}_A(L\Phi \to {\widetilde{N}}^)\ \frac{1}{s - m^2_{\widetilde{N}} + i\,{\rm Im}\,\Pi_{\widetilde{N} \widetilde{N}}(s)}\ {\cal T}_B(\widetilde{N}^ \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\ ,$$ where the Breit–Wigner-like propagator has been obtained by summing up an infinite series of heavy sneutrino self-energies $\Pi_{\widetilde{N}\widetilde{N}} (s)$. The dispersive part of the self-energy ${\rm Re}\,\Pi_{\widetilde{N}\widetilde{N}} (s)$, which has been omitted here, can be suppressed by renormalization at the resonant region $s\approx m^2_{\widetilde{N}}$ (see also our discussion below). Instead, its absorptive part ${\rm Im}\,\Pi_{\widetilde{N}\widetilde{N}} (m^2_{\widetilde{N}}) = m_{\widetilde{N}}\Gamma_{\widetilde{N}}$ is essential to obtain an analytically well-behaved amplitude at $s = m^2_{\widetilde{N}}$, where $\Gamma_{\widetilde{N}}$ is the total decay width of the heavy sneutrino $\widetilde{N}$. As we will see in Section \[sec:BEs\].1, out-of-equilibrium constraints on the heavy-(s)neutrino width $\Gamma_N$ ($\Gamma_{\widetilde{N}}$) imply $\Gamma_N \ll m_N$ ($\Gamma_{\widetilde{N}} \ll m_{\widetilde{N}}$). In this kinematic regime, the so-called pole-dominance or narrow-width approximation constitutes a very accurate approach to subtract the RIS part from the squared matrix element $\|{\cal T}_s (L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\|^2$. According to the pole-dominance approximation, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{Approx} \frac{1}{(s - m^2_{\widetilde{N}} )^2\: +\: m^2_{\widetilde{N}} \Gamma^2_{\widetilde{N}} } & = & \nonumber\\ &&\hspace{-3cm} \frac{1}{(s - m^2_{\widetilde{N}} + i m_{\widetilde{N}} \Gamma_{\widetilde{N}} ) \, ( s - m^2_{\widetilde{N}} - im_{\widetilde{N}}\Gamma_{\widetilde{N}}) }\ \to\ \frac{\pi}{m_{\widetilde{N}} \Gamma_{\widetilde{N}} }\ \delta (s - m^2_{\widetilde{N}})\: \theta (\sqrt{s})\; ,\qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta(x)$ and $\theta (x)$ are the usual Dirac and step functions, respectively. Notice that in (\[Approx\]) only one residue related to the physical pole at $s = m^2_{\widetilde{N}} - i m_{\widetilde{N}} \Gamma_{\widetilde{N}}$ is considered by means of the Cauchy theorem. Substituting (\[Approx\]) into $\|{\cal T}_s (L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\|^2$, i.e. after squaring (\[Tsimple\]), we can uniquely isolate the RIS part for this process: $$\label{TRIS} \|{\cal T}_{\rm RIS} (L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\|^2\ =\ \frac{\pi}{m_{\widetilde{N}}\Gamma_{\widetilde{N}}}\ \delta (s - m^2_{\widetilde{N}})\:\theta (\sqrt{s})\; \|{\cal T}_A(L\Phi \to {\widetilde{N}})\|^2\ \|{\cal T}_B({\widetilde{N}}\to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\|^2\; .$$ This last result is fully consistent with the one presented in [@KW]. As we will discuss below, however, the above approach of identifying the proper RIS part of the squared amplitude becomes more involved in the presence of two strongly-mixed unstable particles. The above derivation of the RIS component of the squared amplitude was based on the assumption that the heavy neutrino ${\widetilde{N}}$ is a scalar particle. The spinorial nature of $N$ introduces further complications. It naively violates the factorized form of (\[TRIS\]), and $\|{\cal T}_{\rm RIS} (L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\|^2$ can no longer be written as a product of a production and a decay squared amplitude, i.e. it is not proportional to $\|{\cal T}_A(L\Phi \to N)\|^2$ and to $\|{\cal T}_B(N\to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\|^2$. Instead, we find $$\begin{aligned} \label{Tspin} \|{\cal T}_{\rm RIS}\|^2 &=& \frac{\pi}{m_N\Gamma_N}\ \delta (s - m^2_N)\: \theta (\sqrt{s})\nonumber\\ &&\hspace{-1cm}\times\,\sum\limits_{s_{1,2,3,4}}\ \delta_{s_1s_2}\, \delta_{s_3s_4}\: {\rm Tr}\,\bigg[\, {\cal T}_A\, u_N (p,s_1) \bar{u}_N (p,s_2) {\cal T}_B\:{\cal T}_B^\dagger\, u_N (p,s_3) \bar{u}_N (p,s_4)\, {\cal T}_A^\dagger\,\bigg]\; ,\qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $u_N (p,s)$ is the on-shell 4-component spinor, with $p^2 = m^2_N$, and the trace is understood to act on the spinor space. The RIS squared amplitude can be written in the factorized form (\[TRIS\]), only after we perform a Fierz rearrangement of the spinors and have integrated over the phase space of the initial and final states in the calculation of the corresponding reduced cross-section (see also our discussion in Appendix \[app:CT\]). Then, after the phase-space integrations, the only non-vanishing Lorentz structure that survives is of the parity-even form: $a\!\not\! p + b$, where $a$ and $b$ are mass dependent constants. Based on this observation, it can be shown that the final result is fully equivalent to (\[TRIS\]), and amounts to substituting into (\[Tspin\]): $$\label{Fierz} \delta_{s_1 s_2}\, \delta_{s_3 s_4}\ \to \ \delta_{s_1 s_4}\, \delta_{s_2 s_4}\; .$$ It is important to note here that the above spin de-correlated subtraction of RIS carrying spin can always be carried out independently of the number of the exchanged particles in the $s$-channel, such as heavy neutrinos, provided the resonant amplitude itself can be written as a sum of single-pole resonance terms that have the simple factorized form of (\[Tsimple\]). We will elucidate this point below, while deriving the RIS squared amplitude due to the exchange of two heavy Majorana neutrinos. (400,100)(0,0) (0,70)(20,50)[4]{}(0,30)(20,50) (0,75)\[b\][$\Phi$]{}(0,25)\[t\][$L$]{} (20,50)(60,50)(40,50)[7]{}[0.9]{} (25,45)\[t\][$N_1$]{}(55,45)\[t\][$N_1$]{} (13,50)\[r\][$A$]{}(67,50)\[l\][$B$]{} (80,70)(60,50)[4]{}(80,30)(60,50) (80,75)\[b\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{}(80,25)\[t\][$L^C$]{} (40,0)\[\][(a)]{} (110,70)(130,50)[4]{}(110,30)(130,50) (110,75)\[b\][$\Phi$]{}(110,25)\[t\][$L$]{} (130,50)(170,50)(150,50)[7]{}[0.9]{} (135,45)\[t\][$N_1$]{}(165,45)\[t\][$N_2$]{} (123,50)\[r\][$A$]{}(177,50)\[l\][$B$]{} (190,70)(170,50)[4]{}(190,30)(170,50) (190,75)\[b\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{}(190,25)\[t\][$L^C$]{} (150,0)\[\][(b)]{} (220,70)(240,50)[4]{}(220,30)(240,50) (220,75)\[b\][$\Phi$]{}(220,25)\[t\][$L$]{} (240,50)(280,50)(260,50)[7]{}[0.9]{} (245,45)\[t\][$N_2$]{}(275,45)\[t\][$N_1$]{} (233,50)\[r\][$A$]{}(287,50)\[l\][$B$]{} (300,70)(280,50)[4]{}(300,30)(280,50) (300,75)\[b\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{}(300,25)\[t\][$L^C$]{} (260,0)\[\][(c)]{} (330,70)(350,50)[4]{}(330,30)(350,50) (330,75)\[b\][$\Phi$]{}(330,25)\[t\][$L$]{} (350,50)(390,50)(370,50)[7]{}[0.9]{} (355,45)\[t\][$N_2$]{}(385,45)\[t\][$N_2$]{} (343,50)\[r\][$A$]{}(397,50)\[l\][$B$]{} (410,70)(390,50)[4]{}(410,30)(390,50) (410,75)\[b\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{}(410,25)\[t\][$L^C$]{} (370,0)\[\][(d)]{} Let us therefore turn our attention to the case of two heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_1$ and $N_2$. Analytic expressions for unstable particle-mixing effects with three heavy neutrinos are given in Appendix \[app:mixing\]. Again, we initially assume that the heavy neutrinos $N_1$ and $N_2$ are scalar particles, i.e. sneutrinos ${\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}$, but we will discuss in Section 3.2 the complications originating from their spinorial nature. As is shown in Fig. \[fig2\], the $s$-dependent part ${\cal T}_s$ of the amplitude ${\cal T} (L\Phi\to L^C\Phi^\dagger)$ may conveniently be expressed as $$\label{Ts} {\cal T}_s (s)\ =\ \Gamma^A_1\, \Delta_{11}(s)\, \Gamma^B_1\: +\: \Gamma^A_1\, \Delta_{12}(s)\, \Gamma^B_2\: +\: \Gamma^A_2\, \Delta_{21}(s)\, \Gamma^B_1\: +\: \Gamma^A_2\, \Delta_{22}(s)\, \Gamma^B_2\; .$$ In (\[Ts\]), $\Gamma^{A}_{1,2}\ (\Gamma^{B}_{1,2})$ represent the vertices $\Phi L {\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}$ ($\Phi^\dagger L^C {\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}$) that include the wave-functions of the initial and final states. Analogously with the single heavy-sneutrino case described above, $\Delta_{ij}(s)$ (with $i,j = 1,2$) are the corresponding ${\widetilde{N}}_i{\widetilde{N}}_j$-propagators obtained by resumming an infinite series of heavy sneutrino self-energy graphs [@APRD]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{D11} \Delta_{11}(s) &=& \left[ \, s\, -\, m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_1} +\Pi_{11}(s)-\, \frac{\Pi^2_{12}(s)}{s - m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_2} + \Pi_{22}(s)}\,\right]^{-1}\,,\nonumber\\ \label{D22} \Delta_{22}(s) &=& \left[ \, s\, -\, m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_2} +\Pi_{22}(s)-\, \frac{\Pi^2_{12}(s)}{s - m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_1} + \Pi_{11}(s)}\,\right]^{-1}\, ,\\ \label{D12} \Delta_{12}(s) &=& \Delta_{21}(s)\ =\ -\, \Pi_{12}(s) \Bigg[ \Big( s - m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_1} + \Pi_{11}(s) \Big) \Big( s - m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_2} + \Pi_{22}(s)\Big)\, -\, \Pi^2_{12}(s)\, \Bigg]^{-1}\, ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi_{12}(s) = \Pi_{21}(s)$. We assume that the heavy sneutrino self-energies $\Pi_{ij} (s)$ have already been renormalized in the on-shell (OS) scheme, i.e. they satisfy the properties: $$\label{OSren} {\rm Re}\, \Pi_{ij} (m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_i})\ =\ {\rm Re}\, \Pi_{ij} (m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_j})\ =\ 0\, ,\qquad \lim_{s\to m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_i}}\, \frac{{\rm Re}\, \Pi_{ii} (s) }{s - m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_i}} \ =\ 0\; ,$$ where ${\rm Re}$ indicates that only the dispersive part of the self-energies must be considered. Further details on OS renormalization in scalar theories may be found in [@AP]. To technically facilitate our discussion, it is convenient to introduce the following abbreviations: $$\begin{aligned} \label{auxi} D_{ij}(s) & = & \delta_{ij}\, (s-m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_i})\ +\ \Pi_{ij} (s)\;,\nonumber\\ D(s) & = & D_{11} (s)\, D_{22}(s)\: - \: D_{12}(s)\,D_{21}(s)\; .\end{aligned}$$ With the above definitions, the resummed ${\widetilde{N}}_i{\widetilde{N}}_j$-propagators in (\[D22\]) can now be expressed in the simplified forms: $$\label{Dresum} \Delta_{11} (s) \ =\ \frac{D_{22} (s)}{D (s)}\ ,\quad \Delta_{22} (s) \ =\ \frac{D_{11} (s)}{D (s)}\ ,\quad \Delta_{12} (s) \ =\ \Delta_{21} (s) \ =\ -\,\frac{D_{12} (s)}{D (s)}\ \ =\ -\,\frac{D_{21} (s)}{D (s)}\ .$$ In addition, we introduce the quantity $$\label{WVF} Z_i (s)\ =\ \bigg(\, \frac{d}{ds}\, \Delta^{-1}_{ii}(s)\,\bigg)^{-1}\;.$$ In the OS scheme, with all contributions from unitarity cuts neglected, we obtain the known relation for the residues of the diagonal propagators: $Z^{\rm OS}_i (m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_i})~=~1$. However, $Z_i (m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_i})$ is in general complex, but UV finite at order $(h^\nu)^2$. The two complex pole positions $s_{{\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}}$ associated with the heavy sneutrinos ${\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}$ are determined by the equation $D(s_{{\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}}) = 0$, where $D(s)$ is given in (\[auxi\]). Since each resummed propagator $\Delta_{ij} (s)$ given in (\[Dresum\]) contains two complex poles at $s = s_{{\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}}$, it can be expanded about $s_{{\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{D11exp} \Delta_{11}(s) &=& \frac{D_{22}(s)}{D(s)}\,\bigg\|_{s\approx s_{{\widetilde{N}}_1}}\ +\quad \frac{D_{22}(s)}{D(s)}\,\bigg\|_{s\approx s_{{\widetilde{N}}_2}}\ +\ \dots\nonumber\\ &=& \frac{Z_1(s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_1}}\ +\ \frac{D_{12}(s)}{D_{11}(s)}\,\frac{D_{11}(s)}{D(s)}\, \frac{D_{12}(s)}{D_{11}(s)}\,\bigg\|_{s\approx s_{{\widetilde{N}}_2}}\ +\ \dots\nonumber\\ &=& \frac{Z_1(s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_1}}\ +\ \frac{D_{12}(s)}{D_{11}(s)}\,\frac{Z_2(s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_2}}\, \frac{D_{21}(s)}{D_{11}(s)}\ +\ \dots\ ,\\[3mm] \label{D22exp} \Delta_{22}(s) &=& \frac{Z_2(s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_2}}\ +\ \frac{D_{21}(s)}{D_{22}(s)}\,\frac{Z_1(s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_1}}\, \frac{D_{12}(s)}{D_{22}(s)}\ +\ \dots\ ,\\[3mm] \label{D12exp} \Delta_{12}(s) &=& -\,\frac{Z_1(s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_1}}\, \frac{D_{12}(s)}{D_{22}(s)} \ -\ \frac{D_{12} (s)}{D_{11} (s)}\,\frac{Z_2 (s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_2}}\, \ +\ \dots\ ,\\[3mm] \label{D21exp} \Delta_{21}(s) &=& -\,\frac{Z_2(s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_2}}\, \frac{D_{21}(s)}{D_{11}(s)} \ -\ \frac{D_{21} (s)}{D_{22} (s)}\,\frac{Z_1 (s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_1}}\, \ +\ \dots\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the ellipses denote off-resonant terms which are non-singular at $s=s_{{\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}}$. Notice that we have retained the $s$-dependent analytic form for the residues in the above complex pole expansion by virtue of the Cauchy theorem. Substituting (\[D11exp\])–(\[D21exp\]) into the $s$-channel amplitude $T_s$ in (\[Ts\]) and neglecting off-resonant terms yields $$\label{Tres} \widetilde{\cal T}_s (s)\ =\ V^A_1 (s)\ \frac{Z_1 (s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_1} }\ V^B_1(s)\ +\ V^A_2 (s)\ \frac{Z_2 (s)}{s - s_{{\widetilde{N}}_2} }\ V^B_2(s)\, ,$$ with $$\label{VAB} V_1^{A\, (B)}(s)\ =\ \Gamma_1^{A\, (B)}\ -\ \frac{D_{12}(s)}{D_{22}(s)}\ \Gamma_2^{A\, (B)} \,,\qquad V_2^{A\, (B)}(s)\ =\ \Gamma_2^{A\, (B)}\ -\ \frac{D_{21}(s)}{D_{11}(s)}\ \Gamma_1^{A\, (B)} \; .$$ Here, it is important to remark that the expressions $V_{1,2} (s)$ in (\[VAB\]) become identical at $s = m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}}$ to the resummed decay amplitudes derived in [@APRD1], using an LSZ-type reduction formalism. Instead, in the present approach, the corresponding resummed decay amplitude can be obtained by studying the analytic structure of the residues of the complete resonant scattering amplitude, in which the unstable heavy sneutrinos are described as intermediate states in the $s$-channel. The fact that these two approaches lead to identical results provides a firm support for the validity of the method developed in [@APRD]. The RIS squared amplitude pertinent to the propagation of ${\widetilde{N}}_1$ and ${\widetilde{N}}_2$ can now be identified as $$\begin{aligned} \label{TRIS2} \|{\cal T}_{\rm RIS}(L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\|^2 \!&=&\! \\[2mm] &&\hspace{-2cm} \frac{\|Z_1\|^2 \pi\, \delta_+ (s-m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_1})}{m_{{\widetilde{N}}_1} \Gamma_{{\widetilde{N}}_1}}\, \|V^A_1\|^2\: \|V^B_1\|^2 \ +\ \frac{\|Z_2\|^2 \pi\, \delta_+ (s-m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_2})}{m_{{\widetilde{N}}_2} \Gamma_{{\widetilde{N}}_2}}\, \|V^A_2\|^2\: \|V^B_2\|^2 \ ,\qquad\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\delta_+ (s - m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}}) = \delta (s-m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_{1,2}})\ \theta (\sqrt{s})$. In (\[TRIS2\]), $Z_1$ ($Z_2$) and $V^{A,B}_1$ ($V^{A,B}_2$) are evaluated at $s = m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_1}$ ($s = m^2_{{\widetilde{N}}_2}$). Observe that up to higher-order wave-function renormalization effects, the RIS squared amplitude (\[TRIS2\]) for two unstable particles is very analogous to the corresponding one (\[TRIS\]) derived for one single resonance. Although we will not address this issue in detail here, we simply note that our subtraction approach of isolating the RIS part of a squared amplitude can be extended to more than two unstable particles. The key observation to be made here is that such a generalization is possible, since the $s$-channel dependent amplitude in the pole-dominance approximation can always be expressed as a sum of products of resummed vertices \[cf. (\[VAB\])\] and Breit–Wigner propagators with single complex poles \[cf. (\[Tsimple\]) and (\[Tres\])\]. One might worry that the subtraction approach described above may not be applicable for the case of our interest with overlapping resonances, i.e. for $m_{N_2} - m_{N_1} \sim \Gamma_{N_{1,2}}/2$. However, we should realize that the particles associated with the complex poles, e.g. $s_{N_{1,2}}$, of a transition amplitude have a completely different thermal history, because of their many decoherentional collisions with the other particles in the thermal bath. On the other hand, the so-called quantum memory effects are expected to play a relevant role only when the decay widths $\Gamma_{N_{1,2}}$ or the mass difference $m_{N_2} - m_{N_1}$ are much smaller than the Hubble parameter $H$ governing the expansion rate of the early Universe at $T\approx m_{N_{1,2}}$. In the former case, one also finds that $N_{1,2}$ are weakly thermalized [@BBP]. Otherwise, our subtraction approach not only takes into account the part of the squared amplitude associated with the RIS, but also provides a consistent description of the incoherent properties of the heavy neutrinos [^2]. Resummed Effective Yukawa Couplings and\ Leptonic Asymmetries ---------------------------------------- Until now in this section, the heavy Majorana neutrinos were mainly treated as scalar particles. However, our approach described above for subtracting the RIS from the squared amplitude of the process $L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger$ carries over very analogously to a strongly-mixed fermionic system, including the spinorial nature of the heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_1$ and $N_2$. To see the above point, we first introduce an abbreviated form for the one-loop corrected inverse $N_iN_j$-propagator matrix: $$\label{Dij} \not\!\! D_{ij} (\not\! p)\ = \ \delta_{ij}\, (\not\! p - m_{N_i} )\: +\: \Sigma_{ij} (\not\! p )\, ,$$ where $\Sigma_{ij} (\not\!\! p )$ denote the self-energy transitions $N_j (p) \to N_i (p)$, renormalized in the OS scheme, and $p$ is the 4-momentum of $N_{1,2}$. With the aid of these newly-introduced spinorial functions (\[Dij\]), the resummed $N_iN_j$-propagators $S_{ij}(\not\!\! p)$ are given by (suppressing the argument $\not\! p$ everywhere) $$\begin{aligned} \label{Sresum} S_{11} &=& \Big( \not\!\!D_{11}\: -\: \not\!\!D_{12}\, \not\!\!D^{-1}_{22}\, \not\!\!D_{21}\, \Big)^{-1}\,,\qquad S_{22}\ \, = \ \, \Big( \not\!\!D_{22}\: -\: \not\!\!D_{21}\, \not\!\! D^{-1}_{11}\, \not\!\!D_{12}\, \Big)^{-1}\,,\nonumber\\ S_{12} &=& -\,S_{11}\: \not\!\!D_{12}\,\not\!\!D^{-1}_{22}\ = \ \ - \not\!\!D^{-1}_{11}\, \not\!\!D_{12}\, S_{22}\,,\nonumber\\ S_{21} &=& -\, S_{22}\: \not\!\!D_{21}\,\not\!\!D^{-1}_{11}\ = \ - \not\!\!D^{-1}_{22}\, \not\!\!D_{21}\, S_{11}\; ,\qquad\end{aligned}$$ with $\not\!\!\!D^{-1}_{ij}(\not\!\! p) \ = \ [\not\!\!\!D_{ij} (\not\!\!p) ]^{-1}$. These expressions coincide with those presented in [@APRD]. In analogy to the scalar case, we also introduce the corresponding $Z$-factors: $$\label{Zf} \not\!\!Z_i (\not\! p ) \ =\ \bigg(\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\!\not\!p}\, S^{-1}_{ii}(\not\! p )\,\bigg)^{-1}\; ,$$ where the partial derivative $\partial/\partial\!\not\!p$ may act on spinorial expressions that depend on $\not\!p$ and $p^2 {\bf 1}_4 = (\not\! p)^2$. Since the heavy-neutrino self-energies $\Sigma_{ij} (\not\! p)$ are renormalized in the OS scheme, their dispersive parts satisfy the renormalization conditions: $$\label{OSfermion} {\rm Re}\, \Sigma_{ij} (\not\! p)\; u_j (p)\ =\ 0\,,\qquad \frac{1}{\not\! p - m_{N_i}}\ {\rm Re}\, \Sigma_{ii} (\not\! p)\; u_i (p)\ =\ 0\; .$$ Again, neglecting contributions from unitarity cuts, it can be shown [@KP] that the conditions (\[OSfermion\]) assure: $\not\!\!Z^{\rm OS}_i (\not\!p)\; u_i(p) = u_i (p)$ and $\bar{u}_i(p) \not\!\!Z^{\rm OS}_i (\not\!p) = \bar{u}_i (p)$. In general, there are deviations from this last equality, which result, however, from scheme-dependent, UV-finite terms of order $(h^\nu)^2$. The complex pole positions of the resummed $N_iN_j$-propagators can be determined by solving the equations: $$\label{poles} D_i (s)\ =\ {\rm det}\, \Big[\, S^{-1}_{ii} (\not\! p) \, \Big]\ =\ 0\; ,$$ where the determinant is taken over the spinorial components [^3]. In fact, if ${\rm det}\, [\not\!\! D_{ij} (\not\! p)] \neq 0$ for $i\neq j$, it is then sufficient to solve one of the two equations: $D_1 (s) = 0$ or $D_2 (s) = 0$, to find the two complex poles associated with the unstable heavy neutrinos $N_1$ and $N_2$. In particular, exactly as in the scalar case, each resummed $N_iN_j$-propagator contains two complex poles at $\sqrt{s} = \sqrt{s}_{N_{1,2}} = m^{\rm pole}_{N_{1,2}}\ -\ \frac{i}{2}\,\Gamma^{\rm pole}_{N_{1,2}}$. By means of Cauchy’s theorem, each resummed $N_iN_j$-propagator can now be expanded about the complex poles $\sqrt{s} = \sqrt{s}_{N_{1,2}}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{S11exp} S_{11}(\not\!p) &=& \frac{(\not\!p + m_{N_1})\, \not\!\!Z_1}{ s - s_{N_1}}\ +\ \frac{\not\!\!D^{-1}_{11}\, \not\!\!D_{12}\, (\not\!p + m_{N_2})\, \not\!\!Z_2\, \not\!\!D_{21}\,\not\!\!D^{-1}_{11}}{s - s_{N_2}}\ +\ \dots\ ,\nonumber\\[3mm] \label{S22exp} S_{22} (\not\!p) &=& \frac{ (\not\!p + m_{N_2})\, \not\!\!Z_2} {s - s_{N_2}}\ +\ \frac{\not\!\!D^{-1}_{22}\,\not\!\! D_{21}\, (\not\!p + m_{N_1} )\, \not\!\!Z_1\,\not\!\!D_{12}\,\not\!\!D^{-1}_{22}}{s - s_{N_1}}\ +\ \dots\ ,\nonumber\\[3mm] \label{S12exp} S_{12}(\not\!p) &=& -\,\frac{(\not\!p + m_{N_1})\,\not\!\!Z_1\, \not\!\!D_{12}\,\not\!\!D^{-1}_{22} }{s - s_{N_1}} \ -\ \frac{\not\!\!D^{-1}_{11}\, \not\!\!D_{12}\, (\not\!p + m_{N_2})\, \not\!\!Z_2}{s - s_{N_2}}\, \ +\ \dots\ ,\nonumber\\[3mm] \label{S21exp} S_{21}(\not\!p) &=& -\,\frac{(\not\!p + m_{N_2})\,\not\!\!Z_2\, \not\!\!D_{21}\,\not\!\!D^{-1}_{11}}{s - s_{N_2}} \ -\ \frac{\not\!\!D^{-1}_{22}\, \not\!\!D_{21}\, (\not\!p + m_{N_1})\, \not\!\!Z_1 }{s - s_{N_1}}\, \ +\ \dots\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the explicit dependence of $\not\!\!Z_i$ and $\not\!\!D_{ij}$ on $\not\!\!p$ is not shown. As before, the ellipses indicate that non-singular terms at $s=s_{N_{1,2}}$ have been omitted as well as higher-order scheme-dependent terms beyond the OS renormalization. After inserting the pole-expanded expressions (\[S11exp\]) into the transition amplitude for the process $L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger$, we find very analogously to the scalar case: $$\label{Tresf} \widetilde{\cal T}_s (s)\ =\ \overline{\not\!V}^A_1\ \frac{(\not\!p + m_{N_1})\,\not\!\!Z_1}{s - s_{N_1} }\ \not\!V^B_1\ +\ \overline{\not\!V}^A_2 \ \frac{(\not\!p + m_{N_2})\, \not\!\!Z_2}{s - s_{N_2}}\ \not\! V^B_2\, ,$$ with $$\label{VABf} \not\!V_1^{A\, (B)}\ =\ \Gamma_1^{A\, (B)}\ -\ \not\!\!D_{12} \not\!\!D^{-1}_{22}\, \Gamma_2^{A\, (B)} \,,\qquad \not\!V_2^{A\, (B)}\ =\ \Gamma_2^{A\, (B)}\ -\ \not\!\!D_{21} \not\!\!D^{-1}_{11}\, \Gamma_1^{A\, (B)} \; ,$$ and $\overline{\not\! V}^{A\, (B)}_{1,2} = \not\! V^{A\,(B)\,\dagger}_{1,2} \gamma_0$. The incoherent subtraction of the RIS from the squared amplitude $\|{\cal T}(L\Phi\to L^C\Phi^\dagger) \|^2$ can be consistently performed, after the de-correlation effect of the heavy-neutrino spins discussed in the previous subsection has been taken into account by means of (\[Fierz\]). Then, in the pole-dominance approximation, we obtain for $\|{\cal T}_{\rm RIS}(L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\|^2$ a formula analogous to (\[TRIS2\]), where $\|V_{1,2}^{A\, (B)}\|^2$ is replaced by $${\rm Tr}\, [\overline{\not\! V}^{A\, (B)}_{1,2} (\not\!p + m_{N_{1,2}}) \not\!V_{1,2}^{A\, (B)}]\; .$$ Finally, we should stress again that these results are in complete agreement with those derived by the LSZ-type resummation approach in [@APRD]. In either resummation approach, i.e. the LSZ-type approach or the one followed here, the resummed effective amplitudes for the decays $N_{1,2}(p)\to L \Phi$, denoted as ${\cal T}_{N_{1,2}}$, are uniquely determined by $$\begin{aligned} \label{TN} {\cal T}_{N_1} \!\!&=&\!\! \bar{u}_l P_R\, \Big\{ h^\nu_{l1}+i{\cal V}^{\rm abs}_{l1} (\not\! p) - i\Big[h^\nu_{l2}+ i{\cal V}^{\rm abs}_{l2} (\not\! p) \Big]\, \Big[\not\! p - m_{N_2} + i\Sigma_{22}^{\rm abs}(\not\! p)\Big]^{-1} \Sigma_{21}^{\rm abs}(\not\! p)\Big\} u_{N_1}(p)\; ,\nonumber\\ {\cal T}_{N_2} \!\!&=&\!\! \bar{u}_l P_R\, \Big\{ h^\nu_{l2}+i{\cal V}^{\rm abs}_{l2} (\not\! p) - i\Big[h^\nu_{l1}+ i{\cal V}^{\rm abs}_{l1} (\not\! p) \Big]\, \Big[\not\! p - m_{N_1} + i\Sigma_{11}^{\rm abs}(\not\! p)\Big]^{-1} \Sigma_{12}^{\rm abs}(\not\! p)\Big\} u_{N_2}(p)\; ,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where one-loop contributions from the vertices $N_{1,2}\to L \Phi$ have also been included. In writing (\[TN\]), we have implicitly assumed that all Yukawa couplings and masses are renormalized in the OS scheme. Then, up to higher-order scheme-dependent terms, only the absorptive parts ${\cal V}^{\rm abs}_{li} (\not\! p)$ and $\Sigma_{ij}^{\rm abs}(\not\! p)$ of the one-loop vertices and self-energies become relevant. These are given by [@APRD] $$\begin{aligned} \label{Sabs} \Sigma^{\rm abs}_{ij} (\not\! p) \!&=&\! A_{ij} \not\! p\, P_L\ +\ A^_{ij} \not\! p\, P_R\ =\ \sum\limits_{l'=1}^3\ \bigg(\, \frac{h^\nu_{l'i}\,h^{\nu }_{l'j}}{16\pi} \not\! p\, P_L\ +\ \frac{h^{\nu }_{l'i}\,h^\nu_{l'j}}{16\pi} \not\! p\, P_R\,\bigg)\, ,\\ \label{Vabs} {\cal V}^{\rm abs}_{li}(\not\! p) \!&=&\! \frac{B_{li}}{\sqrt{p^2}} \not\!p\,P_L \ =\ -\, \sum\limits_{l'=1}^3\ \sum\limits_{\stackrel{j=1,2}{{}^{(j\neq i)}}}\ \frac{h^{\nu }_{l'i}\,h^\nu_{l'j}\,h^\nu_{lj}}{16\pi\sqrt{p^2}} \not\!p\, P_L\, f\bigg(\frac{m^2_{Nj}}{p^2}\bigg)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{ji} = A^_{ij}$ and $f(x)=\sqrt{x}[1-(1+x)\ln(1+1/x)]$ is the Fukugita–Yanagida one-loop function [@FY]. Substituting (\[Sabs\]) and (\[Vabs\]) into (\[TN\]) and neglecting terms which are formally of order $(h^\nu)^4$ and higher yields $$\label{Thres} {\cal T} (N_i \to L\Phi) \ =\ (\bar{h}^\nu_+)_{li}\ \bar{u}_l\, P_R\, u_{N_i}\; ,$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \label{hres} (\bar{h}^\nu_+)_{l1} \!&=&\! h^\nu_{l1}\, +\, iB_{l1}\: -\: \frac{i h^\nu_{l2}\, m_{N_1}\, ( m_{N_1}\, A_{12}\: +\: m_{N_2}\, A_{21} )}{m^2_{N_1}\, -\, m^2_{N_2}\, +\, 2i\,A_{22}\,m^2_{N_1} }\ ,\nonumber\\ (\bar{h}^\nu_+)_{l2} \!&=&\! h^\nu_{l2}\, +\, iB_{l2}\: -\: \frac{i h^\nu_{l1}\, m_{N_2}\, ( m_{N_2}\, A_{21}\: +\: m_{N_1}\, A_{12} )}{m^2_{N_2}\, -\, m^2_{N_1}\, +\, 2i\,A_{11}\,m^2_{N_2} }\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters $A_{ij}$ and $B_{li}$ are defined in (\[Sabs\]) and (\[Vabs\]). The CP-conjugate decay amplitudes ${\cal T}(N_i\to L^C\Phi^\dagger )$ can easily be recovered from (\[Thres\]) by just taking the complex-conjugate Yukawa couplings in (\[hres\]), i.e. $$\begin{aligned} \label{hresC} (\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{l1} \!&=&\! h^{\nu }_{l1}\, +\, iB^_{l1}\: -\: \frac{i h^{\nu }_{l2}\, m_{N_1}\, ( m_{N_1}\, A^_{12}\: +\: m_{N_2}\, A^_{21} )}{m^2_{N_1}\, -\, m^2_{N_2}\, +\, 2i\,A_{22}\,m^2_{N_1} }\ ,\nonumber\\ (\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{l2} \!&=&\! h^{\nu }_{l2}\, +\, iB^_{l2}\: -\: \frac{i h^{\nu }_{l1}\, m_{N_2}\, ( m_{N_2}\, A^_{21}\: +\: m_{N_1}\, A^_{12} )}{m^2_{N_2}\, -\, m^2_{N_1}\, +\, 2i\,A_{11}\,m^2_{N_2} }\ .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that as a consequence of CP violation, it is $\|(\bar{h}^{\nu }_+)^_{li}\| \neq \|(\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{li}\|$. In particular, it is important to remark that the effective Yukawa couplings $\bar{h}^\nu_\pm$ defined in (\[hres\]) and (\[hresC\]) contain the dominant part of the one-loop radiative corrections as well as the enhanced heavy-neutrino self-energy effects in the kinematic region $(m_{N_2} - m_{N_1}) \ll (m_{N_1} + m_{N_2})$. As we will see below and in Appendix \[app:CT\], the leptonic asymmetries and the radiatively-corrected collision terms can be expressed in a compact manner in terms of the resummed effective Yukawa couplings $\bar{h}^\nu_\pm$. (300,100)(0,0) (50,50)[2]{} (50,50)(90,50)(70,62)\[\][$N_i$]{} (130,50)(170,50)(150,62)\[\][$N_j$]{} (110,50)[20]{}[0.9]{}(110,50)\[\][[$\varepsilon$]{}]{} (180,50)[10]{}[0.9]{}(180,50)\[\][[$\varepsilon'$]{}]{} (187,55)(220,80)[5]{}(225,80)\[l\][$\Phi$]{} (187,45)(220,20)(225,20)\[l\][$L$]{} Let us now turn our attention to the discussion of the leptonic asymmetries $\delta_{N_{1,2}}$. The CP-violating quantities $\delta_{N_{1,2}}$ are defined and easily calculated as $$\label{deltaNi} \delta_{N_i}\ =\ \frac{\Gamma (N_i\to L\Phi )\, -\, \Gamma (N_i\to L^C \Phi^\dagger)}{\Gamma (N_i\to L\Phi )\, +\, \Gamma (N_i\to L^C \Phi^\dagger)}\ =\ \frac{(\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ \bar{h}^\nu_+)_{ii} \: - \: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- \bar{h}^\nu_-)_{ii}}{ (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ \bar{h}^\nu_+)_{ii} \: + \: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- \bar{h}^\nu_-)_{ii}}\ .$$ In (\[deltaNi\]), a matrix notation for the resummed effective Yukawa couplings $(\bar{h}^\nu_\pm)_{li}$ should be understood, with $l=1,2,3$ and $i = 1,2$. As is illustrated in Fig. \[fig3\], it is now interesting to discuss the two different types of CP violation contributing to $\delta_{N_i}$, the so-called $\varepsilon'$- and $\varepsilon$- types of CP violation. If we neglect all self-energy contributions to $\delta_{N_i}$ and ${\cal O}[(h^{\nu})^3]$ CP-conserving terms, we then find the known result for the $\varepsilon'$-type CP violation [@FY]: $$\label{eps'N} \delta_{N_i}\ \approx\ \varepsilon'_{N_i}\ =\ \frac{ {\rm Im}\, (h^{\nu\dagger}\,h^\nu)^2_{ij}}{ 8\pi (h^{\nu\dagger}\,h^\nu)_{ii}}\ f\bigg(\frac{m^2_{N_j}}{m^2_{N_i}}\bigg)\, ,$$ with $i \neq j$. Instead, if all one-loop vertex corrections have been neglected, we obtain a simple formula for the $\varepsilon$-type CP violation [@APRD; @APreview]: $$\label{epsN} \delta_{N_i}\ \approx\ \varepsilon_{N_i}\ =\ \frac{{\rm Im}\, (h^{\nu\dagger}\,h^\nu)^2_{ij}}{ (h^{\nu\dagger}\,h^\nu)_{ii}\,(h^{\nu\dagger}\,h^\nu)_{jj} }\ \frac{ (m^2_{N_i} - m^2_{N_j})\, m_{N_i}\, \Gamma^{(0)}_{N_j} }{ (m^2_{N_i} - m^2_{N_j})^2\, +\, m^2_{N_i}\Gamma^{(0)\,2}_{N_j}}\ ,$$ where $i,j=1,2$ $(i \neq j)$ and the tree-level decay widths $\Gamma^{(0)}_{N_i}$ of the heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_i$ are given in (\[GNi\]). In finite-order perturbation theory, the absorptive term $m^2_{N_i} \Gamma^{(0)\,2}_{N_j}$ that occurs in the last denominator on the RHS of (\[epsN\]) is absent, thereby leading to a singular behaviour for $\varepsilon_{N_i}$ in the mass-degenerate limit $m_{N_i}\to m_{N_j}$. However, the appearance of this regulating absorptive term due to the finite width of the heavy Majorana neutrinos should be expected on physical grounds and emerges naturally within our resummation approach. Finally, it should be noted that (\[epsN\]) is valid for a mixing system with two heavy Majorana neutrinos only. The generalization of (\[epsN\]) for the case of a three-heavy-Majorana-neutrino mixing is more involved and hence has been relegated to Appendix \[app:mixing\]. A non-zero leptonic asymmetry can be created, if and only if the following CP-odd quantity does not vanish [@APRD]: $$\label{CPodd} \Delta_{\rm CP}\ \equiv\ {\rm Im}\, {\rm Tr}\, \bigg[\, (h^{\nu_R})^\dagger\, h^{\nu_R}\, M^\dagger_S\, M_S\, M^\dagger_S\, (h^{\nu_R})^T\, (h^{\nu_R})^\, M_S\,\bigg] \ \neq\ 0\; ,$$ where $h^{\nu_R}$ and $M_S$ are the Yukawa-coupling and the singlet neutrino-mass matrices, defined in the weak basis through (\[LYint\]) and (\[Majmass\]), respectively. An important property of the CP-odd quantity $\Delta_{\rm CP}$ is that it is invariant under the so-called generalized CP transformations [@BBG; @Branco]. In the physical basis, $\Delta_{\rm CP}$ is found to be $$\begin{aligned} \label{2genCP} \Delta^{\rm 2G}_{\rm CP} \!& = &\! m_{N_1}\, m_{N_2}\, (m^2_{N_2} - m^2_{N_1})\, {\rm Im}\, \Big[ (h^{\nu\dagger}\,h^\nu)^2_{12}\Big]\;, \\[3mm] \label{3genCP} \Delta^{\rm 3G}_{\rm CP} \!& = &\! m_{N_1}\, m_{N_2}\, (m^2_{N_2} - m^2_{N_1})\, {\rm Im}\, \Big[ (h^{\nu\dagger}\,h^\nu)^2_{12}\Big]\: +\: m_{N_2}\, m_{N_3}\, (m^2_{N_3} - m^2_{N_2})\, {\rm Im}\, \Big[ (h^{\nu\dagger}\,h^\nu)^2_{23}\Big]\nonumber\\ \!&&\! +\, m_{N_1}\, m_{N_3}\, (m^2_{N_3} - m^2_{N_1})\, {\rm Im}\, \Big[ (h^{\nu\dagger}\,h^\nu)^2_{13}\Big]\; ,\end{aligned}$$ for a two- and a three-generation heavy-neutrino model, respectively. In general, the total number ${\cal N}_{CP}$ of all non-trivial CP-violating phases in a model with $n_L$ weak isodoublets and $n_R$ neutral singlets is ${\cal N}_{CP} = n_L(n_R-1)$ [@KPS]. However, after summing over all lepton flavours that occur in the final states of heavy Majorana-neutrino decays, only one CP-violating phase becomes relevant for leptogenesis which can be equivalently represented by the rephasing-invariant quantity $\Delta_{\rm CP}$ in (\[CPodd\]). Technically, we may understand this last point as follows. As we will explicitly see in Section 4.2, the net source $\delta n_L$ for generating a non-zero value for the number density $n_L$ of the lepton number $L$ has the analytical structure: $$\label{dnL} \delta n_L\ =\ \sum\limits_{i=1,2,3}\, \delta_{N_i}\,\Gamma_{N_i}\ g(m_{N_i})\; ,$$ where $\Gamma_{N_{1,2,3}}$ are the radiatively-corrected total decay widths of $N_i$ and $g (m_{N_i})$ is an analytic function of $m_{N_i}$ that contains Boltzmann-type factors, and whose precise form is not important for the present discussion. Since $\delta n_L$ is a physical CP-violating quantity in leptogenesis, it should be proportional to $\Delta_{\rm CP}$. Indeed, it can be straightforwardly checked that in ordinary finite-order perturbation theory, both $\varepsilon$- and $\varepsilon'$- types of CP violation are proportional to $\Delta_{\rm CP}$, only after the sum over $N_i$ is considered [^4]. Most remarkably, it has been shown for a model with two heavy Majorana neutrinos [@APRD] that even the resummed expressions of $\delta_{N_i}$ given in (\[deltaNi\]) lead to a $\delta n_L \propto \Delta^{\rm 2G}_{\rm CP}$; the three-heavy-Majorana-neutrino case is discussed in Appendix \[app:mixing\]. This property shows the consistency of our resummation approach with respect to generalized CP transformations. Boltzmann Equations for Resonant Leptogenesis {#sec:BEs} ============================================= Before we solve numerically the relevant BEs, it is useful to give a qualitative discussion of the out-of-equilibrium constraints on the parameters of the theory. Specifically, within the context of resonant leptogenesis, we demonstrate how moderate departures from the out-of-equilibrium condition on the decay rates of the heavy Majorana neutrinos are sufficient to significantly lower the singlet scale to the TeV range, without being in conflict with neutrino data. Subsequently, we set up the relevant network of BEs, where important contributions to scatterings from enhanced heavy-neutrino self-energy graphs and from gauge-mediated interactions are included. Solving numerically the BEs for specific scenarios compatible with neutrino data, we show that the leptogenesis scale can be lowered up to the TeV scale or even lower close to the critical temperature $T_c$, namely up to the scale at which the $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron interactions are still in thermal equilibrium. Out-of-Equilibrium Constraints ------------------------------ The out-of-thermal equilibrium condition on the heavy Majorana neutrino decays places severe limits on the Yukawa couplings of neutrino models [@KT]. To obtain a qualitative understanding of those limits, let us first introduce the parameters $$\label{Ki} K_i\ =\ \frac{\Gamma^{(0)}_{N_i}}{H(T=m_{N_i})}\ \sim\ \frac{\Gamma_{N_i}}{H(T=m_{N_i})}$$ where $\Gamma^{(0)}_{N_i}$ and $\Gamma_{N_i}$ are the tree-level and resummed total decay widths of $N_i$, respectively, and $H(T)$ in (\[Ki\]) is the Hubble parameter $$\label{Hubble} H(T)\ =\ 1.66\, g_^{1/2}\, \frac{T^2}{M_{\rm Planck}}\ .$$ In (\[Hubble\]), $M_{\rm Planck} = 1.2\times 10^{16}$ TeV is the Planck mass and $g_\approx 107$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom of the SM. Obviously, the parameters $K_i$ quantify the deviation of the heavy-neutrino decay rates $\Gamma^{(0)}_{N_i}$ from the expansion rate of the Universe. These parameters should not be much larger than a certain maximum value $K_i^{\rm max}$, such that leptogenesis can be successfully realized. Even though most analyses conservatively assume $K_i^{\rm max} \sim 1$, much larger values of $K_i^{\rm max}$ even larger than 1000 can still be tolerated. In Section \[sec:BEs\].3, we provide a firm support of this observation, after numerically solving the corresponding BEs. Let us now consider the out-of-equilibrium constraint $K_i \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} K_i^{\rm max}$. This is easily translated into the upper bound $$\label{hli_bound} (h^{\nu\dagger} h^\nu)_{ii}\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ 3.5\, K^{\rm max}_i \times 10^{-14}\ \bigg(\frac{m_{N_i}}{1\ \mbox{TeV}}\bigg)\, .$$ The very same upper bound can be expressed in terms of new parameters $\widetilde{m}_i$, called effective neutrino masses in [@BBP], i.e. $$\label{meff_bound} \widetilde{m}_i\ \equiv\ \frac{v^2\, (h^{\nu\dagger} h^\nu)_{ii}}{2\, m_{N_i}}\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ 10^{-3}\, K^{\rm max}_i~{\rm eV}\, .$$ At temperatures $T$ above the electroweak phase transition, i.e. for $T\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} T_c \approx 200$ GeV, $(B+L)$-violating interactions mediated by sphalerons are in thermal equilibrium. This in-equilibrium condition gives rise to the following relations among the number-to-entropy ratios of densities [@BS; @HT]: $$\label{conversion} Y_B (T > T_c)\ =\ \frac{28}{79}\ Y_{B-L} (T > T_c)\ =\ -\frac{28}{51}\, Y_L (T > T_c)\,,$$ where we have defined $$\label{Yx} Y_X\ =\ \frac{n_X}{s}\ ,$$ with $X=B,L,(B-L)$, and $s$ is the entropy density. Thus, approximately one-half of the lepton-to-entropy density ratio $Y_L = n_L/s$ gets converted into a baryon-to-entropy density ratio $Y_B = n_B/s$ through the equilibrated $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron interactions. In order to relate the $Y_B$ generated at a temperature $T=T_ > T_c$ to $\eta_B$ measured much later at the recombination epoch $T_0$, we may conveniently assume that there is no source or mechanism for significant entropy release while the Universe is cooling down from $T_$ to $T_0$. Under this plausible assumption of entropy conservation, one can then establish the relation $Y_B (T_) = Y_B (T_0)$. Employing now the fact that $s (T) = g_s (T) n_\gamma (T)$ is the entropy density of a plasma with a number $g_s$ of relativistic degrees of freedom at temperature $T$, we arrive at the relation: $$\label{etaBth} \eta_B\ =\ \frac{g_s (T_0)}{g_s (T_)}\ \frac{n_B(T_)}{n_\gamma(T_)}\ .$$ For our numerical analysis, we use [@KT; @BBP]: $g_s (T_0) = 3.91$ and $g_s (T_) = 107$, i.e. $g_s (T_0)/g_s (T_)\approx 1/27$. If $K_i < K_i^{\rm max}$, an order-of-magnitude estimate for $\eta_B$ may be obtained by $$\label{etaBapprox} \eta_B\ \sim\ -\! \sum\limits_{i=1,2,3}\ \frac{\delta_{N_i}}{200\, K_i}\ \approx\ -\! \sum\limits_{i=1,2,3}\ \frac{1}{200}\ \bigg(\frac{10^{-3}~{\rm eV}}{\widetilde{m}_i}\bigg)\ \delta_{N_i}\ .$$ In the above formula, the lepton-to-baryon conversion factor through sphalerons, given in (\[conversion\]), has also been implemented. It is not difficult to see from (\[etaBapprox\]) that $\eta_B$ can be around the observed value of $6\times 10^{-10}$ if $\|\delta_{N_i}\|/K_i$ is of order $10^{-8}$. Evidently, CP asymmetries of order unity allow for very large values of $K_i$. In fact, large values of $K_i \gg 1$ lead to a thermally dense plasma, so the required conditions of kinetic equilibrium and decoherence of the heavy Majorana neutrinos in the BEs are comfortably satisfied. Furthermore, since most of the heavy neutrinos have already decayed at $T\approx m_{N_i}\approx m_N$, there are no dilution factors through entropy production at lower temperatures $T\ll m_N$ [@MAL]. It is now straightforward to examine whether the out-of-equilibrium constraints on the Yukawa couplings (\[hli\_bound\]), together with the estimate (\[etaBapprox\]) for a successful generation of the BAU, still allow a light-neutrino sector that can adequately describe the solar and atmospheric neutrino data. In the framework of the generic models discussed in Section \[sec:models\], their hierarchical light-neutrino mass spectrum requires that ${\rm Tr}\,({\bf m}^\nu) \approx 0.05$ eV, where ${\bf m}^\nu$ is given by (\[mnuappr\]). This implies that $$\label{hbound} \bigg\| \sum\limits_{i=1,2,3}\, h_{i1}\,h_{i2}\, \bigg\|\ \approx\ 10^{-12}\, \bigg(\,\frac{m_N}{{\rm TeV}}\,\bigg)\; .$$ Comparing (\[hli\_bound\]) and (\[hbound\]) and assuming no accidental cancellations in the different sums of Yukawa couplings, we find that values of $K_i$ larger than $\sim 30$ are sufficient to successfully describe the solar and atmospheric neutrino data, provided $K_i^{\rm max}\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 100$. Most remarkably, this result is almost independent of the leptogenesis scale $m_N$, which can be as low as 1 TeV. A rigorous demonstration of this observation will be given in Section \[sec:BEs\].3. In our discussion above, we have assumed that finite temperature effects will not affect significantly the main results of our analysis. In particular, one may have to worry whether the condition for resonant CP violation stated in (\[CPres\]) will drastically modify under the influence of thermal effects. Indeed, finite temperature effects on the $T=0$ masses of the SM particles are significant. Gauge and top-quark Yukawa interactions give rise to appreciable thermal masses for the leptons and the Higgs fields [@HAW], i.e. $$\begin{aligned} \label{thermal} \frac{m^2_L(T)}{T^2} &=& \frac{1}{32}\, (3g^2\, +\, g^{\prime 2})\, , \nonumber\\ \frac{M^2_\Phi (T)}{T^2} &=& 2\,d\, \bigg(\,1\: -\: \frac{T^2_c}{T^2}\,\bigg)\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ and $g'$ are the SU(2)$_L$ and U(1)$_Y$ gauge couplings at the running scale $T$, and $d = (8M^2_W + M^2_Z + 2m^2_t + M^2_H)/(8v^2)$. At temperatures $T\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} m_{N}$ where leptogenesis becomes more operative, thermal mass effects on leptons are roughly one order of magnitude smaller than the heavy Majorana neutrino mass. However, thermal contributions to the mass of the Higgs field are more important, and highly depend [@CKO] on the actual value of the $T=0$ Higgs-boson mass $M_H$. If the range of Higgs-mass values $115~{\rm GeV} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} M_H \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 190$ GeV is considered, which is deduced from direct Higgs searches and electroweak precision data, one then gets the upper and lower limits: $0.5 \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} M_\Phi (T)/T \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.7$. As a result, the effective decay widths of the heavy neutrinos $\Gamma_{N_i}(T=m_{N_i})$ will reduce at most by a factor $\sim 2$ with respect to $\Gamma_{N_i}(T=0)$ due to phase-space corrections. Instead, thermal effects on heavy Majorana-neutrino masses are very suppressed, as they are proportional to the heavy-neutrino Yukawa couplings $h^\nu_{ij}$. Adapting the results of [@HAW] to our model, the size of these thermal effects may be computed by $$\label{mN(T)} \frac{\widehat{M}^2_S (T)\, -\, \widehat{M}^2_S (0)}{T^2}\ =\ \frac{1}{16}\, (h^{\nu\dagger} h^\nu )_{ij}\, ,$$ where $\widehat{M}_S (0)$ is the physical diagonal heavy-neutrino mass matrix defined in (\[Utrans\]) in the symmetric phase of the theory at $T=0$. At finite temperatures, $\widehat{M}^2_S (T)$ is in general not diagonal and therefore needs a $T$-dependent re-diagonalization. However, from (\[mN(T)\]) it can be estimated that for nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos with $m_{N_i} \approx m_N$, the thermally induced mass splitting is $$\label{thsplit} m_{N_i}(T)\ -\ m_{N_j} (T)\ \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}\ \frac{1}{16}\ {\rm Re}\,[(h^{\nu\dagger} h^\nu )_{ij}]\ \frac{T^2}{m_N}\; .$$ This thermally induced mass splitting is comparable to the decay widths $\Gamma_{N_i}$ of the heavy Majorana neutrinos at temperatures $T\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} m_N$, at which a net $L$ and $B$ number can in principle be created. As a consequence, the conditions for resonant CP violation in (\[CPres\]) are not spoiled by thermal effects in a relevant way. Boltzmann Equations ------------------- Our derivation of the BEs relies on a number of approximations and valid simplifications. In particular, we neglect thermal effects on all collision terms which become less significant for temperatures $T\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} m_{N_1}$ relevant to leptogenesis. In addition, we adopt the Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics, which is expected to introduce errors no larger than 20%. Nevertheless, several crucial improvements, which were neglected in the existing literature, have now been implemented in the BEs. To be specific, we include the gauge-mediated collision terms that describe processes such as $N_i L_j\! \leftrightarrow\! \Phi^\dagger V_\mu$ and their crossing-symmetric reactions, where $V_\mu$ collectively denotes the SU(2)$_L$ and U(1)$_Y$ gauge bosons $W^a_\mu$ (with $a=1,2,3$) and $B_\mu$ in the unbroken symmetric phase of the SM. Since our main interest is resonant leptogenesis, we include heavy-neutrino self-energy enhanced contributions to scatterings according to the resummation approach analyzed in Section \[sec:RIS\]. Before writing down the relevant set of the BEs, it is useful to establish notation and define a number of auxiliary quantities. For this purpose, let us start by reviewing a few basic concepts. The number density $n_a$ of particle species $a$, with $g_a$ internal degrees of freedom, is given by [@KW] $$\begin{aligned} \label{na} n_a (T) &=& g_a\, \int \frac{d^3{\bf p}}{(2\pi)^3}\ \exp\Big[ - \Big(\sqrt{{\bf p}^2 + m^2_a} - \mu_a (T)\Big)/T\,\Big]\nonumber\\ &=& \frac{g_a\, m^2_a\,T\ e^{\mu_a (T)/T}}{2\pi^2}\ K_2\bigg(\frac{m_a}{T}\bigg)\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_a$ is the $T$-dependent chemical potential and $K_n(x)$ is the $n$th-order modified Bessel function [@AS]. In our minimal leptogenesis model, the $g_a$ factors are: $g_{W^a} = 3 g_{B} = 6$ and $g_\Phi = g_{\Phi^\dagger} = 2$, and for the $i$th family: $g_{N_i} = 2$, $g_{L_i} = g_{L^C_i} = 4$, $g_{Q_i} = g_{Q^C_i} = 12$, and $g_{u_i} = g_{u_i^C} = 6$. If the chemical potential $\mu_a$ vanishes, i.e. $\mu_a = 0$, $n_a (T)$ automatically satisfies an in-equilibrium number-density distribution, which is usually denoted as [@KW; @MAL] $n^{\rm eq}_a (T)$ and takes on the simple forms in certain limits: $$\label{neq} n^{\rm eq}_a (T)\ =\ \left\{\begin{array}{cc} g_a \Big(\frac{\displaystyle m_a T}{\displaystyle2\pi}\Big)^{3/2}\, e^{-m_a/T}\,,\qquad & (m_a \gg T);\\[2mm] \frac{\displaystyle g_a\,T^3}{\displaystyle \pi^2}\ ,\qquad & (m_a \ll T)\, .\end{array} \right.$$ Here, we should note that although the condition of thermal equilibrium does not imply by itself the vanishing of the chemical potential, the in-equilibrium number density $n^{\rm eq}_a$ defined for $\mu_a = 0$ is a useful quantity in writing the BEs later on. In analogy to the formalism introduced in [@MAL], let us define the CP-conserving collision term for a generic process $X\to Y$ and its CP-conjugate one $\overline{X} \to \overline{Y}$ as $$\label{CT} \gamma^X_Y\ \equiv \ \gamma ( X\to Y)\: +\: \gamma ( \overline{X} \to \overline{Y} )\; ,$$ with $$\label{gamma} \gamma ( X\to Y)\ =\ \int\! d\pi_X\, d\pi_Y\, (2\pi )^4\, \delta^{(4)} ( p_X - p_Y )\ e^{-p^0_X/T}\, \|{\cal M}( X \to Y )\|^2\; .$$ In the above, $\|{\cal M}( X \to Y )\|^2$ is the squared matrix element which is summed but [not]{} averaged over the internal degrees of freedom of the initial and final multiparticle states $X$ and $Y$. In addition, we have used the short-hand notation for the phase-space factors: $$\label{dpiX} d\pi_X\ =\ \frac{1}{S_X}\, \prod\limits_{i=1}^{n_X}\, \frac{d^4 p_i}{(2\pi )^3}\ \delta ( p^2_i - m^2_i )\; \theta (p^0_i)\; ,$$ where $S_X = n_{\rm id}!$ is a symmetry factor in case $X$ contains a number $n_{\rm id}$ of identical particles. An analogous definition holds for $d\pi_Y$ related to the final multiparticle state $Y$. Since CPT is preserved, the CP-conserving collision term $\gamma^X_Y$ obeys the relation $$\label{CPTrel} \gamma^X_Y \ =\ \gamma^Y_X\; .$$ In addition to the CP-conserving collision term $\gamma^X_Y$, we may analogously define a CP-violating collision term as $$\label{dgamma} \delta \gamma^X_Y\ \equiv\ \gamma (X\to Y)\ -\ \gamma (\overline{X} \to \overline{Y})\ =\ -\,\delta \gamma^Y_X\; ,$$ where the last equality in (\[dgamma\]) follows from CPT invariance. Following [@KW; @MAL], the BEs for the number densities $n_a$ of all particle species $a$ in a given model form a set of coupled first-order differential equations. These coupled differential equations can generically be written down as $$\label{BEgeneric} \frac{dn_a}{dt}\: +\: 3 H n_a\ =\ -\, \sum\limits_{aX^\prime\leftrightarrow Y}\,\bigg[\ \frac{n_a n_{X^\prime}}{n^{\rm eq}_a n^{\rm eq}_{X^\prime}}\,\gamma (a X^\prime \to Y)\ -\ \frac{n_Y}{n^{\rm eq}_Y}\, \gamma (Y\to a X^\prime )\ \bigg]\; ,$$ where the sum is over all possible reactions in which the particle $a$ can be annihilated or created through a reaction of the form $a X^\prime \to Y$ or $Y\to a X^\prime$. Special treatment [@KW] is required if a particle species $a$ is unstable and hence allowed to occur as a RIS in a resonant process like $X \to a\to Y$. We will discuss below our approach to this problem for the case of the unstable heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_i$. In order to reduce the large number of the coupled BEs, we assume that all chemical potentials of the Higgs field $\Phi$, the quarks and the gauge fields $V_\mu$ are significantly smaller than the one associated with the lepton number $L$. This assumption can be justified from a thermal equilibrium analysis of the chemical potentials. For a three-generation model, such an analysis yields [@HT; @APreview]: $$\label{mupot} \mu_V\ =\ 0\,,\quad \mu_\Phi\ =\ \frac{4}{21}\,\mu_L\,,\quad \mu_Q \ =\ -\, \frac{1}{3}\,\mu_L\,,\quad \mu_u\ =\ \frac{5}{21}\, \mu_L\,,$$ where $\mu_L = \sum_{i=1}^3 \mu_{L_i}$, $\mu_Q = \sum_{i=1}^3 \mu_{Q_i}$ and $\mu_u = \sum_{i=1}^3 \mu_{u_i}$. Note that the remaining chemical potentials $\mu_d$ and $\mu_e$, albeit comparable to $\mu_L$, enter the BEs only through sub-dominant collision terms, e.g. the $b$-quark Yukawa-coupling contribution is smaller at least by a factor $10^{-3}$ with respect to the corresponding one due to $t$-quarks. Employing (\[BEgeneric\]) and the definitions (\[gamma\]) and (\[dgamma\]) for the collision terms, it is now straightforward to derive the BEs for $n_{N_i}$ and $n_L$ that govern the time evolution of the number densities of the heavy Majorana neutrinos and the lepton number, respectively. To leading order in the small parameter $n_L/n^{\rm eq}_l$ [^5], we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{BE1} \frac{dn_{N_i}}{dt}\: +\: 3 H n_{N_i} \!\!&=&\!\! \bigg( 1 \: -\: \frac{n_{N_i}}{n^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\,\bigg)\, \bigg( \gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i L}_{Q u^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i Q}_{L u}\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\!+\, \gamma^{N_i V_\mu}_{L\Phi} \: +\: \gamma^{N_i L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i\Phi^\dagger }_{LV_\mu}\, \bigg)\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\!-\, \frac{n_L}{2n^{\rm eq}_l}\, \bigg[\, \delta\gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_i Q}_{L u}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_i V_\mu}_{L\Phi}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_i\Phi^\dagger }_{LV_\mu}\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\! +\: \frac{n_{N_i}}{n^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\, \bigg(\, \delta\gamma^{N_i L}_{Q u^C}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_i L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\,\bigg)\,\bigg]\; ,\\[3mm] \label{BE2} \frac{dn_L}{dt}\: +\: 3 H n_L \!\!&=&\!\! -\,\bigg( 1 \: -\: \frac{n_{N_i}}{n^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\,\bigg)\, \bigg( \delta\gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi}\: -\: \delta\gamma^{N_i L}_{Q u^C}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_i Q}_{L u}\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\!+\, \delta\gamma^{N_i V_\mu}_{L\Phi}\: -\: \delta\gamma^{N_i L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\: +\: \delta\gamma^{N_i\Phi^\dagger }_{LV_\mu}\, \bigg)\nonumber\\ \!\!&&\!\!-\, \frac{n_L}{2n^{\rm eq}_l}\, \bigg[\, \gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi}\: +\: 2\gamma^{\,\prime L\Phi}_{\,L^C\Phi^\dagger} +\: 4\gamma^{LL}_{\Phi^\dagger\Phi^\dagger} +\: 2\gamma^{N_i L}_{Q u^C} +\: 2\gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\, +\: 2\gamma^{N_i Q}_{L u}\nonumber\\ &&+\: 2\gamma^{N_i V_\mu}_{L\Phi} +\: 2\gamma^{N_i L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu} +\: 2\gamma^{N_i\Phi^\dagger }_{LV_\mu} +\: \frac{n_{N_i}}{n^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\, \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_i L}_{Q u^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\,\bigg)\,\bigg]\; .\quad\end{aligned}$$ In (\[BE2\]), $\gamma^{\,\prime L\Phi}_{\,L^C\Phi^\dagger}$ denotes the collision term defined in (\[dgamma\]) after the RIS contributions due to heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_i$ have been subtracted (see also our discussions in Section \[sec:RIS\] and in Appendix \[app:CT\]). In order to terminate the infinite series of collision terms that could be added in the BEs (\[BE1\]) and (\[BE2\]), we have developed a systematic expansion in powers of coupling constants for all $1\leftrightarrow 2$ and $2\leftrightarrow 2$ processes [^6]. More precisely, for all these processes that involve only one heavy Majorana neutrino, we have included all collision terms depending on the coupling constants as $(\bar{h}_\pm^\nu)^2$, $(\bar{h}_\pm^\nu)^2 g^2$, $(\bar{h}_\pm^\nu)^2 g^{\prime 2}$ and $(\bar{h}^\nu_\pm)^2 h^2_u$, where $\bar{h}^\nu_\pm \sim h^\nu$ are the one-loop resummed effective Yukawa couplings calculated in Section \[sec:RIS\]. In fact, we neglected $2\leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings ${\cal O} [(h^\nu)^4]$ with two external heavy Majorana neutrinos, such as $N_i N_j \leftrightarrow LL$ and its CP-conjugate part. Instead, we included the collision terms of order $(h^\nu)^4$ for $2 \leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings where all external particles are massless, e.g. $LL \leftrightarrow \Phi^\dagger\Phi^\dagger$, $L\Phi\leftrightarrow L^C\Phi^\dagger$. An important intermediate step in the derivation of (\[BE2\]) has been the proper implementation of the relations of unitarity and CPT invariance that govern the collision terms pertaining to reactions with different number of external particles, i.e. between the RIS-subtracted $2\leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings and $1\leftrightarrow 2$ processes or between the RIS-subtracted $3\leftrightarrow 2$ processes and $2\leftrightarrow 2$ reactions. More explicitly, on account of unitarity and CPT invariance, the following perturbative relations for the CP-violating parts of the RIS-subtracted collision terms can be established $$\begin{aligned} \label{CPT1} \gamma\,'(L\Phi \to L^C\Phi^\dagger)\: -\: \gamma\,'(L^C\Phi^\dagger \to L\Phi) &=& \delta\gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi}\ +\ {\cal O}[(h^\nu)^4]\;,\nonumber\\ \gamma\,'(L Q^C \to L^C \Phi^\dagger u^c)\: -\: \gamma\,'(L^C Q \to L \Phi u ) &=& \delta\gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\ +\ {\cal O}[(h^\nu)^4 h^2_u]\;,\nonumber\\ \gamma\,' (Q u^C \to L L \Phi )\: -\: \gamma\,' ( Q^C u \to L^C L^C \Phi^\dagger ) &=& \delta\gamma^{N_i L}_{Qu^C}\ +\ {\cal O}[(h^\nu)^4 h^2_u]\qquad {\rm etc.},\quad\end{aligned}$$ where the prime defines an operation of RIS subtraction. Notice that the omission of the higher-order terms is fully consistent with our truncated expansion outlined above. In this context, we also formally neglected as higher-order effects the CP-conserving RIS-subtracted collision terms related to $2\to 3$ scatterings. Unlike $2\to 3$ scatterings, $3 \to 2$ scatterings, e.g. $L \Phi u \to L^C Q$, $L L \Phi \to Qu^C$ etc., should not be subtracted, as they have not been counted before. Moreover, CPT invariance and unitarity give rise to the following constraints for this set of reactions: $$\begin{aligned} \label{CPT2} \gamma (L \Phi u \to L^C Q )\: -\: \gamma (L^C \Phi^\dagger u^C \to L Q^C ) &=& {\cal O}[(h^\nu)^4 h^2_u]\;,\nonumber\\ \gamma (L L \Phi \to Q u^C )\: -\: \gamma ( L^C L^C \Phi^\dagger \to Q^C u ) &=& {\cal O}[(h^\nu)^4 h^2_u]\qquad {\rm etc.}\quad\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, the $3\to 2$ scatterings contribute additional CP-conserving wash-out $2\leftrightarrow 2$ scattering terms to the BE (\[BE2\]), through the resonant exchange of heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_i$. These extra wash-out terms can easily be calculated by applying the narrow-width approximation to the $3\to 2$ scatterings, e.g. $$\begin{aligned} \label{NWA} \gamma (L^C \Phi^\dagger u^C \to L Q^C )\: +\: \gamma (L \Phi u \to L^C Q ) &=& \frac{1}{2}\, \gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\: +\: {\cal O}[(h^\nu)^4 h^2_u]\;,\nonumber\\ \gamma (L L \Phi \to Q u^C )\: +\: \gamma ( L^C L^C \Phi^\dagger \to Q^C u ) &=& \frac{1}{2}\,\gamma^{N_i L}_{Qu^C}\: +\: {\cal O}[(h^\nu)^4 h^2_u]\qquad {\rm etc.}\quad\end{aligned}$$ Note that these last relations have already been implemented in the BE (\[BE2\]). Finally, since CP violation is predominantly mediated by the resonant exchange of heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_i$, the CP-violating collision terms can be further approximated in terms of the CP-conserving ones as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{simpl} \delta \gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi} \!\!&=&\!\! \delta_{N_i}\, \gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi}\,,\qquad \delta\gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\ =\ \delta_{N_i}\,\gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\,,\qquad \delta\gamma^{N_i L}_{Qu^C}\ =\ -\, \delta_{N_i}\,\gamma^{N_i L}_{Qu^C}\qquad {\rm etc.},\quad\end{aligned}$$ where the CP asymmetries $\delta_{N_i}$ are given in (\[deltaNi\]) and all CP-conserving collision terms are presented in Appendix \[app:CT\]. To numerically solve the BE’s, we introduce a number of new variables. This will also enable us to compare our results with the literature. To this end, we make use of the relation between the cosmic time $t$ and the temperature $T$: $$\label{Tt} t \ =\ \frac{z^2}{2\, H(z=1)}\ ,$$ where $$\label{zeta} z\ =\ \frac{m_{N_1}}{T}\ .$$ The relation (\[Tt\]) is valid in the radiation-dominated epoch of the Universe relevant to baryogenesis. In addition, we introduce the parameters $\eta_a$ which give the number density of a particle species $a$ normalized to the number density of photons, i.e. $$\label{etas} \eta_a (z) \ =\ \frac{n_a (z)}{n_\gamma (z)}\ ,$$ with $$\label{ngamma} n_\gamma (z)\ =\ \frac{2\,T^3}{\pi^2}\ =\ \frac{2\, m^3_{N_1}}{\pi^2}\,\frac{1}{z^3}\ .$$ With the above definitions, the BEs (\[BE1\]) and (\[BE2\]) can be written down in a more compact form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{BEN} \frac{d \eta_{N_i}}{dz} &=& \frac{z}{H(z=1)}\ \bigg[\,\bigg( 1 \: -\: \frac{\eta_{N_i}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\,\bigg)\, \bigg(\, \Gamma^{D\; (i)} \: +\: \Gamma^{S\; (i)}_{\rm Yukawa}\: +\: \Gamma^{S\; (i)}_{\rm Gauge}\, \bigg) \nonumber\\ &&-\, \frac{1}{4}\, \eta_L\, \delta_{N_i}\, \bigg(\, \Gamma^{D\; (i)} \: +\: \widetilde{\Gamma}^{S\; (i)}_{\rm Yukawa}\: +\: \widetilde{\Gamma}^{S\; (i)}_{\rm Gauge}\, \bigg)\,\bigg]\,,\\[3mm] \label{BEL} \frac{d \eta_L}{dz} &=& -\, \frac{z}{H(z=1)}\, \bigg\{\, \sum\limits_{i=1}^3\, \delta_{N_i}\ \bigg( 1 \: -\: \frac{\eta_{N_i}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\,\bigg)\, \bigg(\, \Gamma^{D\; (i)} \: +\: \Gamma^{S\; (i)}_{\rm Yukawa}\: +\: \Gamma^{S\; (i)}_{\rm Gauge}\, \bigg) \nonumber\\ &&+\, \frac{1}{4}\, \eta_L\, \bigg[\, \sum\limits_{i=1}^3\, \bigg(\, \Gamma^{D\; (i)} \: +\: \Gamma^{W\;(i)}_{\rm Yukawa}\: +\: \Gamma^{W\; (i)}_{\rm Gauge}\,\bigg)\: +\: \Gamma^{\Delta L =2}_{\rm Yukawa} \bigg]\,\bigg\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{GD} \Gamma^{D\; (i)} & = & \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\ \gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi}\;, \nonumber\\ \label{GSY} \Gamma^{S\; (i)}_{\rm Yukawa} & = & \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\ \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_i L}_{Q u^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i Q}_{L u}\, \bigg)\; ,\nonumber\\ \widetilde{\Gamma}^{S\;(i)}_{\rm Yukawa} &=& \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\ \bigg(\, \frac{\eta_{N_i}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\, \gamma^{N_i L}_{Q u^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i Q}_{L u}\, \bigg)\;,\nonumber\\ \label{GSG} \Gamma^{S\; (i)}_{\rm Gauge} & = & \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\ \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_i V_\mu}_{L\Phi}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i\Phi^\dagger }_{LV_\mu}\, \bigg)\;,\nonumber\\ \widetilde{\Gamma}^{S\; (i)}_{\rm Gauge} &=& \frac{1}{n_\gamma}\ \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_i V_\mu}_{L\Phi}\: +\: \frac{\eta_{N_i}}{\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\, \gamma^{N_i L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i\Phi^\dagger }_{LV_\mu}\, \bigg)\; ,\nonumber\\ \label{GWY} \Gamma^{W\; (i)}_{\rm Yukawa} & = & \frac{2}{n_\gamma}\ \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_i L}_{Q u^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i u^C}_{L Q^C}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i Q}_{L u}\: +\: \frac{\eta_{N_i}}{2\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\, \gamma^{N_i L}_{Q u^C}\, \bigg)\; ,\nonumber\\ \label{GWG} \Gamma^{W\; (i)}_{\rm Gauge} & = & \frac{2}{n_\gamma}\ \bigg(\, \gamma^{N_i V_\mu}_{L\Phi}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\: +\: \gamma^{N_i\Phi^\dagger }_{LV_\mu}\: +\: \frac{\eta_{N_i}}{2\eta^{\rm eq}_{N_i}}\, \gamma^{N_i L}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu}\, \bigg)\;,\nonumber\\ \label{GDL2} \Gamma^{\Delta L =2}_{\rm Yukawa} &=& \frac{2}{n_\gamma}\ \bigg(\, \gamma^{\,\prime L\Phi}_{\,L^C\Phi^\dagger} +\: 2\gamma^{LL}_{\Phi^\dagger\Phi^\dagger}\, \bigg)\; .\end{aligned}$$ In writing the BEs (\[BEN\]) and (\[BEL\]), we used the approximate relations (\[simpl\]). Hence, all CP-violating contributions do only depend on the parameters $\delta_{N_{1,2,3}}$. Finally, it is worth stressing that the BEs (\[BEN\]) and (\[BEL\]) can be applied without any additional restriction to a more general context of thermal leptogenesis, including scenarios of non-resonant leptogenesis. Most importantly, we observe that CP-violating scatterings provide an additional non-negligible source of CP violation and may lead to an increase in the predicted values for $\eta_L$ at $T\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} m_{N_1}$, as opposed to previous studies where those effects were neglected. In the next section, we will present numerical estimates for the generated BAU in a few representative light-neutrino models compatible with solar and atmospheric neutrino data. Numerical Examples ------------------ In our numerical analysis, we will consider scenarios with two nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos $N_{1,2}$ with masses at the TeV range. The mass of the third heavy Majorana neutrino $N_3$ will be taken to be of order $10^{15}$ GeV, so the decoupling of $N_3$ from the low-energy sector of the theory is natural. For the generic light-neutrino model described by (\[mnuappr\]), the neutrino Yukawa couplings $(h^\nu)_{l1,2}$ are expressed in the mass basis as $$\label{hnumodel} h^\nu_{l1}\ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\; \Big( h_{l1}\,\varepsilon\: +\: h_{l2}\,\bar{\varepsilon}\,\Big)\,,\qquad h^\nu_{l2}\ =\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\; \Big( h_{l1}\,\varepsilon\: -\: h_{l2}\,\bar{\varepsilon}\,\Big)\,,\qquad$$ where the Yukawa couplings $h_{l1,2}$ are given in (\[hmodel\]). In addition, the FN expansion parameters $\varepsilon$ and $\bar{\varepsilon}$, or equivalently $h_{l1}$ and $h_{l2}$, are assumed to be complex. For the models of our interest, $\|\varepsilon\|$ and $\|\bar{\varepsilon}\|$ are taken to be smaller than $10^{-3}$. According to our discussion in Section \[sec:models\], the scenario given by (\[hnumodel\]) can accommodate the neutrino data, provided $\|\varepsilon\,\bar{\varepsilon}\| \sim m_{N_1}/M_{\rm GUT}$. Therefore, in addition to scenarios with $\|\varepsilon\| \sim \|\bar{\varepsilon}\|$, we will also present numerical estimates of the BAU for models with $\|\bar{\varepsilon}\| \ll \|\varepsilon \|$, where the product $\|\varepsilon\,\bar{\varepsilon}\|$ is fixed to $m_{N_1}/M_{\rm GUT}$. (13.5,20)(0,0) (-0.7,15.7)\[\][(a)]{} (-0.7,5.6)\[\][(b)]{} (0,0)[![Numerical estimates of $\eta_L$, $\eta_{N_{1,2}}$ as functions of $z = m_{N_1}/T$, for a model where $m_{N_1}=1$ TeV, $x_N = \frac{m_{N_2}}{m_{N_1}}-1= 7.7\times 10^{-10}$, $\varepsilon = 4.3\times10^{-7}$, $\bar{\varepsilon}= -i\,4.3\times10^{-7}$, and for [(a)]{} $\eta^{\,\mathrm{in}}_{L}=0$ and [(b)]{} $\eta^{\,\mathrm{in}}_{L}=1$. The horizontal dotted line shows the value of $\eta_L$ needed to produce the observed $\eta_B$. The vertical dotted line corresponds to $T = T_c = 200$ GeV. “Improved” and “partial” refer to whether or not the CP-violating scattering terms proportional to $\delta_{N_i}\left(\Gamma^{S\;(i)}_{\rm Yukawa} + \Gamma^{S\;(i)}_{\rm Gauge}\right)$ are included in the BE (\[BEL\]).[]{data-label="fig:num1"}](numfig2v2.eps "fig:")]{} (0,10.2)[![Numerical estimates of $\eta_L$, $\eta_{N_{1,2}}$ as functions of $z = m_{N_1}/T$, for a model where $m_{N_1}=1$ TeV, $x_N = \frac{m_{N_2}}{m_{N_1}}-1= 7.7\times 10^{-10}$, $\varepsilon = 4.3\times10^{-7}$, $\bar{\varepsilon}= -i\,4.3\times10^{-7}$, and for [(a)]{} $\eta^{\,\mathrm{in}}_{L}=0$ and [(b)]{} $\eta^{\,\mathrm{in}}_{L}=1$. The horizontal dotted line shows the value of $\eta_L$ needed to produce the observed $\eta_B$. The vertical dotted line corresponds to $T = T_c = 200$ GeV. “Improved” and “partial” refer to whether or not the CP-violating scattering terms proportional to $\delta_{N_i}\left(\Gamma^{S\;(i)}_{\rm Yukawa} + \Gamma^{S\;(i)}_{\rm Gauge}\right)$ are included in the BE (\[BEL\]).[]{data-label="fig:num1"}](numfig1v2.eps "fig:")]{} We start our numerical analysis by exhibiting in Fig. \[fig:num1\] numerical values of the lepton asymmetry $\eta_L$ and the heavy-neutrino number densities $\eta_{N_{1,2}}$ as functions of the parameter $z = m_{N_1}/T$. Specifically, we have set $m_{N_1}=1$ TeV, $x_N = \frac{m_{N_2}}{m_{N_1}}-1= 7.7\times 10^{-10}$, $\varepsilon = 4.3\times10^{-7}$, $\bar{\varepsilon} = -i\,4.3\times10^{-7}$. The horizontal dotted line shows the value of $\eta_L$ needed at temperatures $T$ close to the critical temperature $T_c = 200$ GeV (indicated by the vertical dotted line) to produce the observed $\eta_B$. In Fig. \[fig:num1\](a), we have taken $\eta^{\,\mathrm{in}}_{L}=0$ as the initial value of the leptonic asymmetry. As initial conditions for the heavy-neutrino number densities $\eta_{N_{1,2}}$, we have considered two possibilities, depending on whether the heavy neutrinos are initially in thermal equilibrium, $\eta^{\rm in}_{N_{1,2}} = 1$, or strongly out-of-equilibrium, $\eta^{\rm in}_{N_{1,2}} = 0$. On the same panel, we also show numerical results obtained if the CP-violating scattering terms proportional to $\delta_{N_i}\left(\Gamma^{S\;(i)}_{\rm Yukawa} + \Gamma^{S\;(i)}_{\rm Gauge}\right)$ are not included in the BE (\[BEL\]). The latter is the approach followed in the existing literature. We refer to such a numerical computation as ‘partial’. For the model under discussion, these results are compared with those obtained with our ‘improved’ treatment where those terms are included. We find that the two predictions for $\eta_B$ at $T \ll m_{N_1}$ ($z\gg 1$) turn out to come very close together; they only differ by $\sim 3\%$. However, at $T \sim m_{N_{1,2}}$ corresponding to $z \sim 1$, the ‘improved’ and ‘partial’ computations may differ even by a factor of 3. Most interestingly, with the new CP-violating scattering terms included, the asymptotic value of the leptonic asymmetry $\eta_L$ is attained at a somewhat higher temperature than in the ‘partial’ approach. An important consequence of resonant leptogenesis is that the generated leptonic asymmetry $\eta_L(T)$ is independent of the primordial (initial) lepton asymmetry $\eta^{\rm in}_L$. As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:num1\](b), even if the initial leptonic asymmetry is taken to be maximal corresponding to $\eta^{\rm in}_L = 1$, this primordial lepton asymmetry gets rapidly erased and the predicted $\eta_L$ is finally set by the resonant leptogenesis mechanism itself for $z\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 1$. Because of the independence of $\eta_L$ at $T=T_\sim T_c$ on the initial conditions, in the following we will only show numerical values using our ‘improved’ approach to BEs for initial conditions: $\eta^{\rm in}_L = 0$ and $\eta^{\rm in}_{N_{1,2}} = 1$. (13.5,20)(0,0) (-0.7,15.7)\[\][(a)]{} (-0.7,5.6)\[\][(b)]{} (0,0)[![Numerical estimates of $\eta_L$, $\eta_{N_{1,2}}$ as functions of $z = m_{N_1}/T$, for two scenarios with $m_{N_1}=1$ TeV, $x_N = \frac{m_{N_2}}{m_{N_1}} - 1 = \varepsilon^2$ and $\eta^{\rm in}_L = 0$, $\eta^{\rm in}_{N_{1,2}} = 1$: [(a)]{} $\bar{\varepsilon} = e^{i\theta} \varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon = 4.3\times10^{-7}$; [(b)]{} $\bar{\varepsilon} = i\xi \varepsilon$ and $\|\varepsilon \bar{\varepsilon}\| = 1.85 \times10^{-13}$. The meaning of the horizontal and vertical dotted lines is the same as in Fig. \[fig:num1\].[]{data-label="fig:num2"}](numfig4v2.eps "fig:")]{} (0,10.2)[![Numerical estimates of $\eta_L$, $\eta_{N_{1,2}}$ as functions of $z = m_{N_1}/T$, for two scenarios with $m_{N_1}=1$ TeV, $x_N = \frac{m_{N_2}}{m_{N_1}} - 1 = \varepsilon^2$ and $\eta^{\rm in}_L = 0$, $\eta^{\rm in}_{N_{1,2}} = 1$: [(a)]{} $\bar{\varepsilon} = e^{i\theta} \varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon = 4.3\times10^{-7}$; [(b)]{} $\bar{\varepsilon} = i\xi \varepsilon$ and $\|\varepsilon \bar{\varepsilon}\| = 1.85 \times10^{-13}$. The meaning of the horizontal and vertical dotted lines is the same as in Fig. \[fig:num1\].[]{data-label="fig:num2"}](numfig3v2.eps "fig:")]{} We now present numerical predictions of the BAU for two representative variants of our generic model, where we implement the additional constraint, $x_N = \frac{m_{N_2}}{m_{N_1}} - 1 = \varepsilon^2$ (with $\varepsilon$ being real), according to our discussion in Section \[sec:models\]. Fig. \[fig:num2\] shows numerical values of $\eta_L$, $\eta_{N_{1,2}}$ as functions of $z = m_{N_1}/T$, for two scenarios with $m_{N_1}=1$ TeV and $\eta^{\rm in}_L = 0$, $\eta^{\rm in}_{N_{1,2}} = 1$: (a) $\bar{\varepsilon} = e^{i\theta} \varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon = 4.3\times10^{-7}$; (b) $\bar{\varepsilon} = i\xi \varepsilon$ (with $\xi < 1$) and $\|\varepsilon \bar{\varepsilon}\| = 1.85 \times10^{-13}$. As before, the adopted values for the FN expansion parameters $\varepsilon$ and $\bar{\varepsilon}$ are chosen to be in agreement with neutrino data. In the first variant where $\|\bar{\varepsilon}\| = \|\varepsilon \|$, we see from \[fig:num2\](a) that CP-violating phases $\|\theta \|$ as small as $10^{-4}$ are sufficient to account for the observed BAU. In this small phase regime, the predicted values for $\eta_L$ and consequently for the BAU scale linearly with the CP-violating phase $\theta$. The second variant of our generic model realizes a large CP-violating phase ($\theta = \pi/2$), but introduces an hierarchy between the FN parameters, i.e. $\bar{\varepsilon} = i\xi \varepsilon$, with $\xi < 1$. From \[fig:num2\](b) we observe that a mild hierarchy with values of $\xi$ of order $10^{-3}$–$10^{-2}$ can well explain the BAU. As can also be seen from Fig. \[fig:num2\](b), the predictions for $\eta_L$ scale quadratically with the hierarchy factor $\xi$ in this scenario. A particularly interesting point that needs be emphasized here is that the scenarios with $\xi \approx 2\times 10^{-3}$ and $10^{-3}$ give rise to out-of-equilibrium-departure factors $K_i$ defined in (\[Ki\]) much larger than $10^3$. In particular, we find that the simple order-of-magnitude estimate given in (\[etaBapprox\]) remains valid for $K_i$ values at least up to order $10^4$. In Figs. \[fig:num1\] and \[fig:num2\], we have also displayed the dependence of the heavy-neutrino number densities $\eta_{N_{1,2}}$, for temperatures $T\ll T_c$, where the $(B+L)$-violating sphaleron interactions were turned off. We see that it is $\eta_{N_{1,2}} \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 10^{-10}$ at temperatures $T\gg 1$ GeV. Hence, the heavy Majorana neutrinos are under-abundant, much before the epoch of big-bang nucleosynthesis [@KT]. This conclusion holds true for heavy Majorana-neutrino masses as low as 0.3 TeV. In this case, the observed BAU can still be generated, with the only difference that the reprocessing of leptons into baryons will freeze out at smaller $z$, i.e. $z\sim 1$. In this context, one may wonder whether the leptogenesis scale can be lowered even further, by contemplating models where the freeze-out of sphalerons happens at $z \ll 1$. Although this is in principle possible, one should expect, however, that thermal and non-perturbative sphaleron effects will start playing a crucial role for this class of models and hence a different approach based on space-time-dependent diffusion equations [@EWBAU] would be more appropriate to reliably address such scenarios. (13.5,10)(0,0) (0,0)[![Functional dependence of the various collision terms contributing to the BEs on $z=m_{N_1}/T$. The input parameters are the same as those in Fig. \[fig:num2\](a) for $\theta = - 1.6\times 10^{-4}$. The corresponding wash-out contributions $\Gamma^{W\; (1)}_{\rm Yukawa}$ and $\Gamma^{W\; (1)}_{\rm Gauge}$ are not shown, as they are approximately: $\Gamma^{W\; (1)}_{\rm Yukawa} \approx 2\Gamma^{S\; (1)}_{\rm Yukawa}$ and $\Gamma^{W\; (1)}_{\rm Gauge} \approx 2\Gamma^{S\; (1)}_{\rm Gauge}$.[]{data-label="fig:num3"}](numfig5v2.eps "fig:")]{} We conclude this section by commenting on two points. First, in our numerical analysis the gauge-mediated collision terms provide one of the dominant sources of the scattering collision terms at $T\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} m_{N_1}$. As is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:num3\], the scattering collision term $\Gamma^{S\;(i)}_{\rm Gauge}$ is comparable to $\Gamma^{S\;(i)}_{\rm Yukawa}$ which describes the top-Yukawa interactions. Observe that $\Gamma^{\Delta L =2}_{\rm Yukawa}$ is negative due to the unphysical RIS-subtracted collision term $\gamma^{\,\prime L\Phi}_{\,L^C\Phi^\dagger}$ in (\[GDL2\]). Nevertheless, it can be shown that the sum $\Gamma^{\Delta L =2}_{\rm Yukawa} + \frac{1}{8}\sum_{i=1,2} \Gamma^{D\; (i)}$ is in general physically meaningful and always positive. Second, we have investigated the theoretical uncertainties from the IR mass regulator $m_{\rm IR}$ introduced in Appendix \[app:CT\] to deal with IR singularities that occur in the reduced cross sections of certain reactions. Specifically, we find that the uncertainties in the numerical predictions are always less than $10\%$ when $m_{\rm IR}$ is varied from $m_L(T)$ to $m_\Phi (T)$. This last fact provides additional confidence on the stability of the numerical results presented here. Conclusions {#sec:concls} =========== We have studied the scenario of thermal leptogenesis in which the leptonic asymmetries are resonantly amplified through the mixing of nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos that have mass differences comparable to their decay widths. We have shown that this particularly interesting scenario of baryogenesis, which has been termed here [resonant leptogenesis]{}, can be realized with heavy Majorana neutrinos even as light as 0.5–1 TeV, in complete accordance with the current solar and atmospheric neutrino data. Models that might predict nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos at the TeV and sub-TeV scales and lead to light-neutrino mass matrices compatible with neutrino oscillation data can be constructed by means of the Froggatt–Nielsen mechanism. Alternatively, specific E$_6$ models [@witten] in which the lepton number is approximately violated may also naturally realize nearly degenerate heavy Majorana neutrinos of TeV mass. An important field-theoretic issue we have been addressing in the present article is related to the proper subtraction of RIS’s from the lepton-number-violating scattering processes. In order to identify the proper RIS contributions, we have examined the analytic properties of the pole and residue structures of a resonant $L$-violating scattering amplitude. If the RIS’s carry spin as is the case for the heavy Majorana neutrinos, the effect of spin de-correlation in the squared amplitude should be considered as well. We have shown that the present method of extracting the effective decay amplitude from the resonant part of a scattering amplitude is fully equivalent to an earlier developed resummation approach [@APRD] based on an LSZ-type formalism for the unstable particles. In addition, within the context of thermal leptogenesis, i.e. with a strongly thermalized bath, all quantum information related to the preparation or production mechanism of the initial heavy Majorana-neutrino states gets lost. In this case, only the pole positions and residues of a given scattering amplitude are invariant under weak-basis transformations. The present approach naturally embodies these symmetry properties. Hence, it takes consistently into account the phenomena of decoherence in the thermal bath of the early Universe, thereby providing a natural solution to the so-called initial-state problem. Our predictions for the BAU have been obtained after numerically solving the relevant network of BE’s, where all dominant contributions related to $1\leftrightarrow 2$ and $2\leftrightarrow 2$ processes have been consistently considered. In particular, we have included the enhanced heavy-neutrino self-energy effects on scatterings as well as the most important contributions at $T\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} m_{N_1}$ that originate from gauge-mediated collision terms. The self-energy effects on scatterings provide new sources of CP violation. As a consequence, the generated BAU at $T\sim m_{N_1}$ could be larger even by a factor of 3, with respect to the one predicted without the inclusion of these additional sources of CP violation. Finally, we should stress again that our improved BE’s are not only valid for a quantitative description of resonant leptogenesis, but they can be applied to other thermal leptogenesis scenarios as well, including those with hierarchical neutrinos. The minimal leptogenesis model under study has the unpleasant feature that it does not provide a testable candidate for cold dark matter (CDM). For example, the CDM problem could be solved by introducing additional massive sterile neutrinos into the theory, but these could not be experimentally observed. Another more attractive solution would be to consider supersymmetric versions of the SM with right-handed neutrinos, where the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), e.g. the lightest neutralino, is stable because of $R$-parity conservation and so it may qualify as CDM. A non-supersymmetric but equally appealing alternative would be to consider the invisible Peccei–Quinn (PQ) axion [@PQ; @ZDFS; @KSVZ] as CDM [@KT2], thereby solving the known strong CP problem on the same footing. Dedicated experiments [@Sikivie; @Zioutas] searching for PQ axions can probe this hypothesis. Although we have demonstrated that heavy Majorana neutrinos with sub-TeV masses can still be responsible for the observed BAU, without being in conflict with neutrino data, one may raise the question whether this resonant leptogenesis scenario can give rise to further predictions for lepton-flavour-violating processes [@IP; @KPS_Z; @LFV], e.g. for decays $\mu \to e\gamma$, $\mu \to eee$, $\mu$-$e$ conversion in nuclei etc. Here, we should recall that the out-of-equilibrium constraints discussed in Section \[sec:BEs\].1 imply rather suppressed Yukawa-couplings, thus leading to unobservably small lepton-flavour-violating phenomena. However, resonant leptogenesis allows for significant departures from the out-of-equilibrium constraints, which in turn implies significantly less suppressed Yukawa couplings. It would be very interesting to study in detail the phenomenological implications of this exciting scenario of resonant leptogenesis for low-energy and collider experiments. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ---------------- This work was supported in part by PPARC grant no: PPA/G/O/2001/00461. AP thanks the organizers of the workshop on [Baryogenesis]{} at Michigan University (10–28 June 2003), Wilfried Buchmüller, Gordon Kane and Carlos Wagner, for the inspiring atmosphere. Note added {#note-added .unnumbered} ---------- While revising our paper, we became aware of [@GNRRS] where thermal effects on the collision terms, relevant to the domain $T\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} m_{N_1}$, were computed. Unlike [@GNRRS], we have included CP-violating contributions to the BE (\[BEL\]) from $2\leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings which can be several orders of magnitude larger than those from $1\leftrightarrow 2$ decays in the above temperature domain, at least as is suggested in the $T=0$ approximation. In the same context, we have also considered the extra $2\leftrightarrow 2$ wash-out terms which originate from the resonant exchange of heavy Majorana neutrinos in the $3\to 2$ scatterings. Finally, we reiterate that resonant leptogenesis compatible with neutrino data requires sizeable out-of-equilibrium departure factors $K_i \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 30$. As a result, $2\leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings thermalize the plasma much faster, so the impact of thermal effects on such leptogenesis scenarios for the interesting region $T\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} m_{N_1}$ becomes even less significant with respect to scenarios with $K_i \sim 1$. Three-heavy-Majorana-neutrino mixing {#app:mixing} ==================================== It is interesting to see how the analytic expressions for the resummed $N_iN_j$-propagators $S_{ij}(\not\! p)$ given in (\[Sresum\]) for a model with two heavy Majorana neutrinos generalize to the three-heavy-neutrino case. Our starting point is the inverse one-loop corrected $N_iN_j$-propagator matrix: $$\label{Sinvres} S^{-1}_{ij} (\not\! p)\ =\ \delta_{ij}\, (\not\! p - m_{N_i} )\: +\: \Sigma_{ij} (\not\! p )\ =\ \not\!\! D_{ij}(\not\! p)\,,$$ where $i,j=1,2,3$ and $\not\!\! D_{ij}(\not\! p)$ is analogously defined to the three-generation case \[cf. (\[Dij\])\]. The inversion of the 3-by-3 matrix-valued matrix in (\[Sinvres\]) gives rise to the resummed $N_iN_j$-propagator matrix $S_{ij}(\not\!\! p)$. In doing so, it proves useful to introduce first the spinorial quantities (no sum over repeated indices): $$\label{Dijk} \not\!\!D^{(k)}_{ij}(\not\! p )\ =\ \not\!\!D_{ij}(\not\! p ) \: - \: \not\!\!D_{ik}(\not\! p ) \not\!\!D^{-1}_{kk}(\not\! p ) \not\!\!D_{kj}(\not\! p )\; ,$$ where $k\neq i$ and $k\neq j$, and $\not\!\!D^{-1}_{kk}(\not\! p ) = [\not\!\! D_{kk}(\not\! p )]^{-1}$. Making use of (\[Dijk\]), the resummed $N_iN_j$-propagators may be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{SN11} S_{11}(\not\! p) &=& \Big( \not\!\!D^{(3)}_{11}\: -\: \not\!\!D^{(3)}_{12}\, \not\!\!D^{(3)-1}_{22}\not\!\!D^{(3)}_{21}\, \Big)^{-1}\ =\ \Big( \not\!\!D^{(2)}_{11}\: -\: \not\!\!D^{(2)}_{13}\, \not\!\!D^{(2)-1}_{33}\not\!\!D^{(2)}_{31}\, \Big)^{-1}\,,\\[3mm] \label{SN22} S_{22}(\not\! p) &=& \Big( \not\!\!D^{(3)}_{22}\: -\: \not\!\!D^{(3)}_{21}\, \not\!\!D^{(3)-1}_{11}\not\!\!D^{(3)}_{12}\, \Big)^{-1}\ =\ \Big( \not\!\!D^{(1)}_{22}\: -\: \not\!\!D^{(1)}_{23}\, \not\!\!D^{(1)-1}_{33}\not\!\!D^{(1)}_{32}\, \Big)^{-1}\,,\\[3mm] \label{SN12} S_{12}(\not\! p) &=& -\, S_{11}(\not\! p)\, \not\!\!D^{(3)}_{12}\, \not\!\!D^{(3) -1}_{22}\ =\ -\, \not\!\!D^{(3) -1}_{11} \not\!\!D^{(3)}_{12}\, S_{22}(\not\!p)\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where the dependence of $\not\!\!D_{ij}$ on $\not\! p$ has not been displayed. The remaining entries of $S_{ij}(\not\! p)$ can easily be obtained by obvious cyclic permutations of the indices $i,j,k=1,2,3$. Exactly as in the two-generation case, there are now 3 complex poles for each resummed heavy-neutrino propagator. For non-trivial mixing among the heavy neutrinos, the 3 complex pole positions can be calculated by (\[poles\]). The resummed decay amplitudes ${\cal T} (N_i \to L\Phi)$ can be calculated by following a line of steps similar to those presented in Section \[sec:RIS\].2. For example, we find for ${\cal T}_{N_1} (N_1\to L\Phi)$ $$\label{T3gN1} {\cal T}_{N_1} \ =\ \bar{u}_l\, \Big(\, \Gamma_1\: -\: \Gamma_2\, \not\!\!D^{(3)-1}_{22}\not\!\! D^{(3)}_{21}\: -\: \Gamma_3\, \not\!\!D^{(2)-1}_{33}\not\!\! D^{(2)}_{31}\,\Big)\,u_{N_1} (p)\; .$$ Here, $\Gamma_{1,2,3}$ contain the proper vertex corrections to $\Phi L N_{1,2,3}$. The remaining resummed decay amplitudes ${\cal T}_{N_{2,3}}$ exhibit an analogous analytic form. Again, only the absorptive part of the self-energies and vertices are relevant in the OS renormalization scheme. Exactly as in the two-generation case, we may compute from (\[T3gN1\]) the corresponding resummed effective Yukawa couplings $\bar{h}^\nu_\pm$ in terms of self-energy and vertex absorptive parts $A_{ij}$ and $B_{li}$, defined in (\[Sabs\]) and (\[Vabs\]) and appropriately extended to a three-generation model. Neglecting self-energy terms that are formally ${\cal O}[(h^\nu)^4]$ in (\[T3gN1\]), we derive the resummed effective Yukawa couplings: $$\begin{aligned} \label{hres3g} (\bar{h}^\nu_+ )_{li} \!&=&\! h^\nu_{li}\, +\, iB_{li}\: -\: i\, \sum_{j,k=1}^3\, \|\varepsilon_{ijk}\|\, h^\nu_{lj}\nonumber\\ &&\hspace{-2cm}\times\,\frac{m_{N_i} ( m_{N_i} A_{ij} + m_{N_j} A_{ji}) + R_{ik} \Big[ m_{N_i} A_{kj} ( m_{N_i} A_{ik} + m_{N_k} A_{ki} ) + m_{N_j} A_{jk} ( m_{N_i} A_{ki} + m_{N_k} A_{ik} ) \Big]} { m^2_{N_i}\, -\, m^2_{N_j}\, +\, 2i\,m^2_{N_i} A_{jj} + 2i\,{\rm Im}R_{ik}\, \Big( m^2_{N_i} \|A_{jk}\|^2 + m_{N_j} m_{N_k} {\rm Re}A^2_{jk}\Big) }\ ,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$R_{ij}\ =\ \frac{m^2_{N_i}}{m^2_{N_i} - m^2_{N_j} + 2i\, m^2_{N_i} A_{jj}}$$ and $\|\varepsilon_{ijk}\|$ is the modulus of the usual Levi–Civita anti-symmetric tensor. The respective CP-conjugate effective Yukawa couplings $(\bar{h}^\nu_-)_{li}$ are easily obtained from (\[hres3g\]) by replacing the ordinary Yukawa couplings $h^\nu_{li}$ by their complex conjugates. In the decoupling limit of $m_{N_3} \gg m_{N_{1,2}}$, (\[hres3g\]) can be approximated by (\[hres\]). Using the resummed effective Yukawa couplings $(\bar{h}^\nu_\pm)_{li}$ derived in this appendix, it is straightforward to compute the leptonic asymmetries $\delta_{N_i}$ in (\[deltaNi\]) for the three-generation mixing case. CP-conserving collision terms {#app:CT} ============================= In this appendix we present analytic expressions for the CP-conserving collision terms required for the numerical solution of the BEs (\[BEN\]) and (\[BEL\]). For computational convenience and comparison with the literature, the following rescaled variables will be used: $$z = \frac{m_{N_1}}{T}\,, \qquad x = \frac{s}{m_{N_1}^2}\,, \qquad a_i = \left(\frac{m_{N_i}}{m_{N_1}}\right)^2,\qquad a_r = \left(\frac{m_{\rm IR}}{m_{N_1}}\right)^2,$$ where $s$ is the usual Mandelstam variable and $m_{\rm IR}$ is an infra-red (IR) mass regulator to be discussed below. In terms of the resummed effective Yukawa couplings $\bar{h}^\nu_\pm$ given in (\[hres\]) and (\[hresC\]), the radiatively corrected total decay width $\Gamma_{N_i}$ is given by $$\Gamma_{N_i}\ =\ \frac{m_{N_i}}{16\pi}\ \Big[\, (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ \bar{h}^\nu_+)_{ii}\: +\: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- \bar{h}^\nu_-)_{ii}\,\Big]\; .$$ Using the latter, we may also define the auxiliary parameters $c_i$ as $$\label{cj} c_i\ =\ \left(\,\frac{\Gamma_{N_i}}{m_{N_1}}\,\right)^2\; .$$ We will now employ the formula (\[gamma\]) to calculate the CP-conserving collision terms for $1\to 2$ and $2\to 2$ processes that occur in the BEs (\[BEN\]) and (\[BEL\]). These CP-conserving collision terms have been defined as $\gamma^X_Y$ in (\[CT\]) for a generic process $X\to Y$ and its CP-conjugate counterpart $\overline{X}\to \overline{Y}$. For a $1\to 2$ process, e.g. $N_i\to L\Phi$ or $N_i\to L^C\Phi^\dagger$, the corresponding CP-conserving collision term $\gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi}$ is found to be $$\begin{aligned} \gamma^{N_i}_{L\Phi}\ =\ \gamma (N_i \to L\Phi)\: +\: \gamma (N_i \to L^C\Phi^\dagger) \!&=&\! \Gamma_{N_i}\, g_{N_i}\, \int \frac{d^3{\bf p}_{N_i}}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{m_{N_i}}{E_{N_i}({\bf p})}\, e^{-E_{N_i}({\bf p})/T} \nonumber\\ &=&\! \frac{m^4_{N_1} a_i\,\sqrt{c_i}}{\pi^2\, z}\ K_1(z \sqrt{a_i})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{N_i} = 2$ is the number of internal degrees of freedom of $N_i$, $E_{N_i}({\bf p}) = \sqrt{{\bf p}^2 + m^2_{N_i}}$, and $K_n(z)$ is an $n$th-order modified Bessel function [@AS]. For $2\to 2$ processes, the usual definition of the reduced cross-section introduced in [@MAL] was used: $$\label{reducedxs} \widehat{\sigma}(s)\ \equiv\ 8\pi\,\Phi (s)\int\! d\pi_Y\: (2\pi)^4 \,\delta^{(4)} (q-p_Y)\: \left\|{\cal M}(X\rightarrow Y)\right\|^2\; ,$$ where $s = q^2$ and $\|{\cal M}(X\to Y)\|^2$ is the squared matrix element summed over all internal degrees of freedom of the initial and final states. In (\[reducedxs\]), $\Phi (s)$ is the so-called initial phase space integral defined as $$\label{Phi} \Phi (s)\ \equiv\ \int\! d\pi_X\: (2\pi)^4\,\delta^{(4)} (p_X-q)\,.$$ The above expressions simplify to give the more practically useful equation $$\label{sigmat} \widehat{\sigma}(s)\ =\ \frac{1}{8\pi s}\ \int\limits_{t_-}^{t_+}\! dt\ \left\|{\cal M}(X\rightarrow Y)\right\|^2\; ,$$ where $t$ is the usual Mandelstam variable. In the calculation of the reduced cross-sections, we face the problem that not all of them are IR safe. In processes, such as $N_i V_\mu\to L\Phi$, the exchanged particles, e.g. $\Phi$ and $L$, that occur in the $t$ and $u$ channels are massless. Thus, one finds divergences at the $t$-integration limits $t_\pm$ when performing the phase-space integral in (\[sigmat\]). A more appropriate framework to deal with this problem is finite-temperature field theory, where such IR singularities are regulated by the thermal masses of the particles involved in the reaction. In fact, although thermal mass effects break the manifest Lorentz invariance, they preserve chirality and the gauge symmetries of the theory [@Bellac]. In our $T=0$ field theory calculation of the collision terms, we have regulated the IR divergences by cutting off the phase-space integration limits $t_\pm$, using a universal IR-mass regulator $m_{\rm IR}$ related to the thermal masses of the exchanged particles. Evidently, our IR regularization preserves chirality and gauge invariance, as is expected from a finite-$T$ calculation. More explicitly, for the reduced cross-sections (\[NutoLQ\]), (\[NLtoHV\]) and (\[NHtoLV\]) which are calculated below, the following upper and lower limits of $t$ were used: $$t_+\ =\ -\,m_{\rm IR}^2\,,\qquad t_-\ =\ m_{N_i}^2\, -\, s\; .$$ The reduced cross-section (\[NVtoLH\]) was computed by cutting-off the integral at both $t$-limits, with $$t_+\ =\ -\,m_{\rm IR}^2\,,\qquad t_-\ =\ m_{N_i}^2\, +\, m_{\rm IR}^2\, -\, s\; .$$ The IR-mass regulator $m_{\rm IR}$ is chosen to vary between the lepton and Higgs thermal masses, $m_L(T)$ and $m_\Phi (T)$, at $T\approx m_{N_1}$ \[cf. (\[thermal\])\]. The resulting variations in the predictions of the number densities should be considered as theoretical uncertainties due to our $T=0$ field-theory calculation of the collision terms. A simple formula can be found for the CP-conserving collision terms pertinent to $2\to 2$ processes, if (\[reducedxs\]) and (\[Phi\]) are inserted into (\[gamma\]). In this way, we obtain the expression, $$\label{22CT} \gamma^X_Y\ =\ \frac{m^4_{N_1}}{64\,\pi^4 z}\ \int\limits_{x_{\rm thr} }^\infty\! dx\ \sqrt{x}\;K_1(z\sqrt{x})\;\widehat{\sigma}^X_Y (x)\; ,$$ where $x_{\rm thr}$ is the kinematic threshold for a given $2\to 2$ process. In addition, the CP-conserving reduced cross-section $\widehat{\sigma}^X_Y$ in (\[22CT\]) is defined analogously to $\gamma^X_Y$ in (\[CT\]), i.e.$$\label{redXY} \widehat{\sigma}^X_Y\ \equiv\ \widehat{\sigma}(X\to Y)\: +\: \widehat{\sigma}(\overline{X} \to \overline{Y})\ =\ \widehat{\sigma}^{\,Y}_X \; ,$$ where the last equality follows from CPT invariance. (470,70)(0,30) (150,100)\[bl\] (10,20)\[\][$L$]{} (10,80)\[\][$N_i$]{} (140,20)\[\][$u^C$]{} (140,80)\[\][$Q$]{} (75,60)\[\][$\Phi$]{} (20,20)(50,50) (20,80)(50,50) (50,50)(100,50)[5]{} (130,20)(100,50) (100,50)(130,80) (150,100)\[bl\] (10,25)\[\][$u^C$]{} (10,75)\[\][$N_i$]{} (140,25)\[\][$Q^C$]{} (140,75)\[\][$L$]{} (65,50)\[\][$\Phi$]{} (75,25)(22,25) (22,75)(75,75) (75,25)(75,75)[5]{} (127,25)(75,25) (75,75)(127,75) (150,100)\[bl\] (10,25)\[\][$Q$]{} (10,75)\[\][$N_i$]{} (140,25)\[\][$u$]{} (140,75)\[\][$L$]{} (65,50)\[\][$\Phi$]{} (22,25)(75,25) (22,75)(75,75) (75,25)(75,75)[5]{} (75,25)(127,25) (75,75)(127,75) (0,0) (160,0) (320,0) In the following, we present analytic results of CP-conserving reduced cross-sections for all $2\to 2$ reactions that contribute to the BEs. As is shown in \[fig:rc1\], we start by listing the reduced cross-sections involving $\Delta L = 1$ transitions between leptons, heavy Majorana neutrinos and quarks. To leading order in $a_r$, these are given by [^7] $$\begin{aligned} \label{NLtoQu} \widehat{\sigma}^{N_iL}_{Qu^C} & = & 3\,\alpha_u\, \Big[\, (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ \bar{h}^\nu_+)_{ii}\: +\: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- \bar{h}^\nu_-)_{ii}\,\Big]\, \left(\frac{x-a_i}{x}\right)^2\;,\\[3mm] \label{NutoLQ} \widehat{\sigma}^{N_iu^C}_{LQ^C} & = & \widehat{\sigma}^{N_iQ}_{Lu}\nonumber\\ &=& 3\,\alpha_u\, \Big[\, (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ \bar{h}^\nu_+)_{ii}\: +\: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- \bar{h}^\nu_-)_{ii}\,\Big]\, \left[1-\frac{a_i}{x}+\frac{a_i}{x} \ln\left(\frac{x-a_i+a_r}{a_r}\right)\right]\; .\end{aligned}$$ In (\[NLtoQu\]) and (\[NutoLQ\]), we have defined $$\alpha_u\ =\ \frac{{\rm Tr}(h^{u \dagger} h^u)}{4\pi}\ \simeq\ \frac{\alpha_w\,m_t^2}{2\, M_W^2}\;,$$ where and $h^u$ is the up-quark Yukawa-coupling matrix, and $m_t$ is the top-quark mass. (350,180)(0,20) (150,100)\[bl\] (10,20)\[\][$\Phi$]{} (10,80)\[\][$L$]{} (140,20)\[\][$L^C$]{} (140,80)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (75,60)\[\][$N_i$]{} (20,20)(50,50)[5]{} (20,80)(50,50) (50,50)(100,50) (130,20)(100,50) (130,80)(100,50)[5]{} (75,10)\[\][(a)]{} (150,100)\[bl\] (10,25)\[\][$\Phi$]{} (10,75)\[\][$L$]{} (140,25)\[\][$L^C$]{} (140,75)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (65,50)\[\][$N_i$]{} (22,25)(75,25)[5]{} (22,75)(75,75) (75,25)(75,75) (127,25)(75,25) (127,75)(75,75)[5]{} (75,10)\[\][(b)]{} (150,100)\[bl\] (10,25)\[\][$L$]{} (10,75)\[\][$L$]{} (140,25)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (140,75)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (65,50)\[\][$N_i$]{} (22,25)(75,25) (22,75)(75,75) (75,25)(75,75) (127,25)(75,25)[5]{} (127,75)(75,75)[5]{} (75,10)\[\][(c)]{} (150,100)\[bl\] (10,25)\[\][$L$]{} (10,75)\[\][$L$]{} (140,25)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (140,75)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (65,50)\[\][$N_i$]{} (22,25)(75,25) (22,75)(75,75) (75,25)(75,75) (102.5,50)(75,25)[5]{} (127,75)(102.5,50)[5]{} (75,75)(102.5,50)[5]{} (127,25)(102.5,50)[5]{} (75,10)\[\][(d)]{} (0,100) (200,100) (0,0) (200,0) In addition to the above $\Delta L =1$ Higgs-mediated reactions, there are also $2\leftrightarrow 2$ processes that change the lepton-number by two units, i.e. $\Delta L =2$. As is diagrammatically presented in Fig \[fig:rc2\], these processes are: $L\Phi \leftrightarrow L^C \Phi^\dagger$ and $L L \leftrightarrow \Phi^\dagger \Phi^\dagger$, and their CP-conjugate counterparts. For the first process, particular care is needed to properly subtract the RIS’s from the reduced cross-section $\widehat{\sigma}^{\,L\Phi}_{L^C\Phi^\dagger}$. To this end, we first define the Breit-Wigner $s$-channel propagators as $$\label{Pi} P^{-1}_i (x) \ =\ \frac{1}{x-a_i+i\sqrt{a_i c_i}}\ .$$ Then, the modulus square of a RIS subtracted propagator may be determined by $$\label{Di} \|D^{-1}_i (x)\|^2 \ =\ \|P^{-1}_i (x)\|^2 \ -\ \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{a_i c_i}} \; \delta (x - a_i)\ \to \ 0\,.$$ This subtraction method is in line with the pole-dominance approximation discussed in Section \[sec:RIS\], where the last step of (\[Di\]) may be obtained by means of (\[Approx\]) [^8]. Note that $\|D^{-1}_i (x)\|^2$ only occurs in the squared amplitude pertaining to an $s$-channel diagram. With the help of the newly-defined quantities in (\[Pi\]) and (\[Di\]), the properly RIS-subtracted reduced cross-section $\widehat{\sigma}^{\prime\,L\Phi}_{L^C\Phi^\dagger}$ may be expressed as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{LHtoLH} \widehat{\sigma}^{\,\prime\, L\Phi}_{L^C\Phi^\dagger} \!\!&=&\!\! \sum_{i,j=1}^{3}\ {\rm Re}\, \Bigg\{\, \Big[(\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ \bar{h}^\nu_+)^2_{ij}\: +\: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- \bar{h}^{\nu}_-)^2_{ij}\Big] \:\mathcal{A}^{(ss)}_{ij}\: + \: 2 (h^{\nu\,\dagger} h^\nu)^2_{ij}\; \mathcal{A}^{(tt)}_{ij}\nonumber\\* \!\!&&\!\! +\:2\, \Big[(\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ h^{\nu})^2_{ij}\: +\: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- h^{\nu })^2_{ij}\Big] \mathcal{A}^{(st)}_{ij}\bigg]\,\Bigg\}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{calAij} \mathcal{A}^{(ss)}_{ij} \!\!&=&\!\! \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{\displaystyle x a_i}{\displaystyle 4\pi \|D^2_i\|}\ \to\ 0\,, &\quad (i=j)\,,\\[3mm] \frac{\displaystyle x\sqrt{a_i\,a_j}}{\displaystyle 4\pi P^_i P_j}\ ,&\quad (i\neq j)\,, \end{array} \right. \nonumber\\[10pt] \mathcal{A}^{(st)}_{ij} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{\sqrt{a_i\,a_j}}{2\pi P_i}\left[\, 1\ -\ \frac{x+a_j}{x}\, \ln\bigg(\frac{x+a_j}{a_j}\,\bigg)\right]\,,\nonumber\\[10pt] \mathcal{A}^{(tt)}_{ij} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{\sqrt{a_i\,a_j}}{2\pi x\:(a_i-a_j)}\left[\, (x+a_j)\,\ln\bigg(\frac{x+a_j}{a_j}\bigg)\ -\ (x+a_i)\,\ln\bigg(\frac{x+a_i}{a_i}\bigg)\, \right]\,,\qquad (i \neq j)\,, \nonumber\\[10pt] \mathcal{A}^{(tt)}_{ii} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{a_i}{2\pi x}\Bigg[\, \frac{x}{a_i}\ -\ \ln\bigg(\frac{x+a_i}{a_i}\bigg)\, \Bigg]\,.\end{aligned}$$ (350,280)(0,20) (150,100)\[bl\] (10,25)\[\][$V_\mu$]{} (10,75)\[\][$N_i$]{} (140,25)\[\][$L$]{} (140,75)\[\][$\Phi$]{} (65,50)\[\][$L$]{} (22,25)(75,25)[2]{}[5]{} (22,75)(75,75) (75,75)(75,25) (75,25)(127,25) (75,75)(127,75)[5]{} (75,10)\[\][(a)]{} (150,100)\[bl\] (10,25)\[\][$V_\mu$]{} (10,75)\[\][$N_i$]{} (140,25)\[\][$L$]{} (140,75)\[\][$\Phi$]{} (65,50)\[\][$\Phi$]{} (22,25)(75,75)[2]{}[5]{} (22,75)(75,25) (75,25)(75,75)[5]{} (75,25)(127,25) (75,75)(127,75)[5]{} (75,10)\[\][(b)]{} (150,100)\[bl\] (10,20)\[\][$L$]{} (10,80)\[\][$N_i$]{} (140,20)\[\][$V_\mu$]{} (140,80)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (75,60)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (20,20)(50,50) (20,80)(50,50) (100,50)(50,50)[5]{} (100,50)(130,20)[2]{}[5]{} (130,80)(100,50)[5]{} (75,10)\[\][(c)]{} (150,100)\[bl\] (10,25)\[\][$L$]{} (10,75)\[\][$N_i$]{} (140,25)\[\][$V_\mu$]{} (140,75)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (65,50)\[\][$L$]{} (22,25)(75,25) (22,75)(75,75) (75,25)(75,75) (75,25)(127,25)[2]{}[5]{} (127,75)(75,75)[5]{} (75,10)\[\][(d)]{} (150,100)\[bl\] (10,20)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (10,80)\[\][$N_i$]{} (140,20)\[\][$V_\mu$]{} (140,80)\[\][$L$]{} (75,60)\[\][$L$]{} (50,50)(20,20)[5]{} (20,80)(50,50) (50,50)(100,50) (100,50)(130,20)[2]{}[5]{} (100,50)(130,80) (75,10)\[\][(e)]{} (150,100)\[bl\] (10,25)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (10,75)\[\][$N_i$]{} (140,25)\[\][$V_\mu$]{} (140,75)\[\][$L$]{} (65,50)\[\][$\Phi^\dagger$]{} (75,25)(22,25)[5]{} (22,75)(75,75) (75,75)(75,25)[5]{} (75,25)(127,25)[2]{}[5]{} (75,75)(127,75) (75,10)\[\][(f)]{} (0,200) (200,200) (0,100) (200,100) (0,0) (200,0) The second $\Delta L=2$ reaction $LL \to \Phi^\dagger\Phi^\dagger$ and its CP-conjugate one does not involve RIS’s and hence can be written down in the shorter form: $$\label{LLtoHH} \widehat{\sigma}^{LL}_{\Phi^\dagger\Phi^\dagger} \ = \ \sum_{i,j=1}^{3}\; {\rm Re}\, \Big[ (h^{\nu \dagger} h^\nu)^2_{ij}\Big]\; \mathcal{B}_{ij}\;,$$ where $$\label{calBij} \mathcal{B}_{ij}\ =\ \frac{\sqrt{a_i\,a_j}}{2\pi} \left[\, \frac{1}{a_i-a_j} \ln\left(\frac{a_i(x+a_j)}{a_j(x+a_i)}\right)\: +\: \frac{1}{x+a_i+a_j} \ln\left(\frac{(x+a_i)(x+a_j)}{a_i\,a_j}\right)\,\right]\,.$$ For $i=j$, this last expression simplifies to $$\mathcal{B}_{ii} \ = \ \frac{1}{2\pi}\left[\,\frac{x}{x+a_i}\: +\: \frac{2\,a_i}{x+2a_i} \ln\left(\frac{x+a_i}{a_i}\right)\,\right]\, .$$ Note that all the expressions for ${\cal A}_{ij}$ in (\[calAij\]) and ${\cal B}_{ij}$ in (\[calBij\]) vanish individually in the limit $x \to 0$. Finally, there are additional $\Delta L =1$ reactions that involve the SM gauge bosons $V_\mu = B_\mu,\,W^a_\mu$ and are depicted diagrammatically in Fig. \[fig:rc3\]. To leading order in $a_r$, the corresponding CP-conserving reduced cross-sections are given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{NVtoLH} \widehat{\sigma}^{N_iV_\mu}_{L\Phi} \!&=&\! \frac{n_V g_V^2}{8\pi\,x} \, \Big[\, (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ \bar{h}^\nu_+)_{ii}\: +\: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- \bar{h}^\nu_-)_{ii}\,\Big]\, \left[\frac{(x+a_i)^2}{x-a_i + 2 a_r}\, \ln\left(\frac{x-a_i + a_r}{a_r}\right)\right]\,,\\[3mm] \label{NLtoHV} \widehat{\sigma}^{N_iL}_{\Phi^\dagger V_\mu} \!&=&\! \frac{n_V g_V^2}{16\pi\, x^2}\, \Big[\, (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ \bar{h}^\nu_+)_{ii}\: +\: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- \bar{h}^\nu_-)_{ii}\,\Big]\nonumber\\ &&\times\, \Bigg[\, (5x-a_i)\,(a_i -x)\: +\: 2(x^2+xa_i - a^2_i)\, \ln\left(\frac{x-a_i + a_r}{a_r}\right)\Bigg]\, ,\qquad\quad\\[3mm] \label{NHtoLV} \widehat{\sigma}^{N_i\Phi^\dagger}_{LV_\mu} \!&=&\! \frac{n_V g_V^2}{16\pi\,x^2} \, \Big[\, (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_+ \bar{h}^\nu_+)_{ii}\: +\: (\bar{h}^{\nu\,\dagger}_- \bar{h}^\nu_-)_{ii}\,\Big]\,\nonumber\\ \!&&\! \times\, (x-a_i)\, \Bigg[ x-3a_i\: +\: 4a_i\, \ln\left(\frac{x-a_i+a_r}{a_r}\right)\Bigg]\, ,\end{aligned}$$ with $g_V = g',g$ and $n_V=1,3$ for $V_\mu = B_\mu,\,W^a_\mu$, respectively. Notice that up to an overall factor, the analytic expressions for the SU(2)$_L$ and U(1)$_Y$ reduced cross-sections are identical. The different overall factors can be evaluated by properly tracing the gauge degrees of freedom when a gauge boson couples to an iso-doublet field such as $L$ and $\Phi$: $\frac{1}{4}\, g^2\, {\rm Tr}\, (\tau_a \tau_a) = \frac{3}{2}g^2$ for SU(2)$_L$ and $\frac{1}{4}\, g'^2\, {\rm Tr}\, ({\bf 1}_2\,{\bf 1}_2) = \frac{1}{2} g'^2$ for U(1)$_Y$, where $\tau_{1,2,3}$ are the usual Pauli matrices and [1$_2$]{} is the $2\times 2$ unit matrix. [9]{} D.N. Spergel [et al.]{}, astro-ph/0302209. E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner, [The Early Universe]{}, (Addison–Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989). For recent reviews, see, M. Dine and A. Kusenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. [76]{} (2004) 1;\ K. Enqvist and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rept. [380]{} (2003) 99. M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. (1986) 45. G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. [37]{} (1976) 8; N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. [D28]{} (1983) 2019; F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. [D30]{} (1984) 2212. V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. [B155]{} (1985) 36. P. Arnold and L. McLerran, Phys. Rev. [D36]{} (1987) 581; [D37]{} (1988) 1020. A. Bochkarev and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Mod. Phys. Lett. [A2]{} (1987) 417; Mod. Phys. Lett. [A2]{} (1987) 921; S. Yu. Khlebnikov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. [ B308]{} (1988) 885; E. Mottola and A. Wipf, Phys. Rev. [D39]{} (1989) 588. J. A. Harvey and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. [D42]{} (1990) 3344. P. Langacker, R. D. Peccei and T. Yanagida, Mod. Phys. Lett. [A1]{} (1986) 541; R. N. Mohapatra and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. [D45]{} (1992) 5331; K. Enqvist and I. Vilja, Phys. Lett. [B299]{} (1993) 281; A. Acker, H. Kikuchi, E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. [D48]{} (1993) 5006; M. P. Worah, Phys. Rev. [D53]{} (1996) 3902. M. A. Luty, Phys. Rev. [D45]{} (1992) 455. M. Flanz, E. A. Paschos and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. (1995) 248; [E382]{} (1996) 447; M. Flanz, E. A. Paschos, U. Sarkar and J. Weiss, Phys. Lett. [B389]{} (1996) 693. L. Covi, E. Roulet and F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. [ B384]{} (1996) 169. A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. [D56]{} (1997) 5431. J. R. Ellis, S. Lola and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. (1999) 87; M.S. Berger and B. Brahmachari, Phys. Rev. (1999) 073009. G. Lazarides and N. D. Vlachos, Phys. Lett. [ B459]{} (1999) 482. R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli, A. Strumia and N. Tetradis, Nucl. Phys. [B575]{} (2000) 61. T. Hambye, Nucl. Phys. [B633]{} (2002) 171; hep-ph/0307237. S. Davidson and A. Ibarra, Phys. Lett. [B535]{} (2002) 25. W. Buchmüller, P. Di Bari and M. Plümacher, Nucl. Phys. [B643]{} (2002) 367. G. C. Branco, R. Gonzalez Felipe, F. R. Joaquim, I. Masina, M. N. Rebelo and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Rev. [D67]{} (2003) 073025. M. Fujii, K. Hamaguchi and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. (2002) 115012. J. C. Pati, hep-ph/0209160. H. B. Nielsen and Y. Takanishi, Nucl. Phys. [B636]{} (2002) 305. J. Ellis and M. Raidal, Nucl. Phys. [B643]{} (2002) 229; J. R. Ellis, M. Raidal and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. [B546]{} (2002) 228. A.S. Joshipura, E.A. Paschos and W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. [B611]{} (2001) 227; W. Rodejohann, Phys. Lett. B [542]{} (2002) 100; S. Pascoli, S. T. Petcov and W. Rodejohann, hep-ph/0302054. F. Buccella, D. Falcone and F. Tramontano, Phys. Lett. (2002) 241; A. Broncano, M.B. Gavela and E. Jenkins, Phys. Lett. [B552]{} (2003) 177. L. Boubekeur, S. Davidson, M. Peloso and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. [D67]{} (2003) 043515. E. K. Akhmedov, M. Frigerio and A. Y. Smirnov, hep-ph/0305322. R. Allahverdi and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. [D67]{} (2003) 023509; R. Allahverdi, B. Dutta and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. (2003) 123515. P.H. Chankowski and K. Turzynski, Phys. Lett. [B570]{} (2003) 198. For a review and discussion of field-theoretic issues in leptogenesis, see, A. Pilaftsis, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. [A14]{} (1999) 1811. For an extensive review of leptogenesis in supersymmetric theories, see, K. Hamaguchi, hep-ph/0212305. Y. Fukuda [et al]{} (Super-Kamionkande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [81]{} (1998) 1158; Phys. Rev. Lett. [82]{} (1999) 1810. Q. R. Ahmad [et al]{} (SNO collaboration), nucl-ex/0204008. For a review, see, A. D. Dolgov, Phys. Rept. [370]{} (2002) 333. B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP [7]{} (1958) 172 \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [34]{} (1957) 247\]; Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. [28]{} (1962) 870. L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. [D17]{} (1978) 2369; S.P. Mikheev and A.Y. Smirnov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [42]{} (1985) 913 \[Yad. Fiz. [42]{} (1985) 1441\]. J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. [D10]{} (1974) 275. G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. [D12]{} (1975) 1502. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [B268]{} (1986) 79; R.N. Mohapatra and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. [D34]{} (1986) 1642; S. Nandi and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [56]{} (1986) 564; J.W.F. Valle, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. (1991) 91. H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [93]{} (1975) 193. D. Wyler and L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. [B218]{} (1983) 205. M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in [ Supergravity]{}, eds. D.Z. Freedman and P. van Nieuwenhuizen (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979); T. Yanagida, in Proc. of the [Workshop on the Unified Theory and the Baryon Number in the Universe]{}, Tsukuba, Japan, 1979, eds. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto; R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanović, Phys. Rev. Lett. [44]{} (1980) 912. A. Yu. Ignatiev, V.A. Kuzmin and M.E. Shaposhnikov, JETP Lett. [30]{} (1979) 688; F.J. Botella and J. Roldan, Phys. Rev. [D44]{} (1991) 966; J. Liu and G. Segré, Phys. Rev. [ D48]{} (1993) 4609. For example, see, G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Phys. Rept. [320]{} (1999) 295; hep-ph/0206077; J.N. Bahcall, P.I. Krastev and A. Yu. Smirnov, JHEP [05]{} (2001) 015; G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. [D64]{} (2001) 093007; A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey S. Goswami and K. Kar, Phys. Lett. [B519]{} (2001) 83; J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pena-Garay, JHEP [0207]{} (2002) 054; P.C. de Holanda and A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0205241; M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. A. Tortola and J. W. Valle, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [114]{} (2003) 203. For most recent analyses that include the SNO-salt data, see, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. A. Tortola and J. W. Valle, hep-ph/0309130; A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, S. Goswami, S. T. Petcov and D. P. Roy, hep-ph/0309174. J. Papavassiliou and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [75]{} (1995) 3060; Phys. Rev. [D53]{} (1996) 2128; Phys. Rev. [D54]{} (1996) 5315; D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. [D66]{} (2002) 111901; hep-ph/0301096. R.G. Stuart, Phys. Lett. [B262]{} (1991) 113; A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [67]{} (1991) 240. A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. [B504]{} (1997) 61. E.W. Kolb and S. Wolfram, Nucl. Phys. [B172]{} (1980) 224. H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik, and W. Zimmermann, Nuovo Cim. [1]{} (1955) 439; N. Bogoliubov and D. Shirkov, Fortschr. der Phys. [3]{} (1955) 439; N. Bogoliubov, B. Medvedev, and M. Polivanov, Fortschr. der Phys. [3]{} (1958) 169. C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. [B147]{} (1979) 277. G. C. Branco, W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, Nucl. Phys. (1989) 492. CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio et al., Phys. Lett. [B466]{} (1999) 415. For recent discussions, see, Y. Grossman, T. Kashti, Y. Nir and E. Roulet, hep-ph/0307081; G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice and M. Raidal, hep-ph/0308031; L.L. Boubekeur, hep-ph/0208003. One may compare this formula with (3.11) in [@APRD]. For a discussion of OS renormalization in theories with Majorana fermions, see, B. A. Kniehl and A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. (1996) 286. J. Bernabéu, G.C. Branco and M. Gronau, Phys. Lett. [B169]{} (1986) 243. G. C. Branco, T. Morozumi, B. M. Nobre and M. N. Rebelo, Nucl. Phys. [B617]{} (2001) 475. J.G. Körner, A. Pilaftsis and K. Schilcher, Phys. Rev. [D47]{} (1993) 1080. H.A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. [D26]{} (1982) 2789. J.M. Cline, K. Kainulainen and K.A. Olive, Phys. Rev. [D49]{} (1994) 6394. , edited by M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun (Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt, 1984). For recent studies, see, M. Carena, M. Quirós and C.E.M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. [B524]{} (1998) 3; M. Laine and K. Rummukainen, Nucl. Phys. [B535]{} (1998) 423; K. Funakubo, Prog.Theor. Phys. [102]{} (1999) 389; J. Grant and M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. [D59]{} (1999) 116014; M. Losada, Nucl. Phys. [B569]{} (2000) 125; J. M. Cline, M. Joyce and K. Kainulainen, JHEP [0007]{} (2000) 018; M. Carena, J.M. Moreno, M. Quiros, M. Seco and C.E.M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. [B599]{} (2001) 158; M. Laine and K. Rummukainen, Nucl. Phys. [B597]{} (2001) 23; K. Kainulainen, T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt and S. Weinstock, JHEP [0106]{} (2001) 031. R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [38]{} (1977) 1440; Phys. Rev. [D16]{} (1977) 1791. A.P. Zhitnitskii, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [31]{} (1980) 260; M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. [ B104]{} (1981) 199. J.E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [43]{} (1979) 103; M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein and V. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. [B166]{} (1980) 493. For a pedagogical discussion of axions as CDM, see [@KT]. P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. [51]{} (1983) 1415; Nucl. Phys. [B87]{} (Proc. Suppl.) (2000) 41 \[hep-ph/0002154\]. K. Zioutas [et al.]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. [A425]{} (1999) 482. A. Ilakovac and A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. [B437]{} (1995) 491. J.G. Körner, A. Pilaftsis and K. Schilcher, Phys. Lett. [B300]{} (1993) 381; J. Bernabeu, A. Santamaria, J. Vidal, A. Mendez and J. W. Valle, Phys. Lett. B [187]{} (1987) 303; J. Bernabéu, J.G. Körner, A. Pilaftsis and K. Schilcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [71]{} (1993) 2695; J. Bernabéu and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Lett. [B351]{} (1995) 235. The following is an incomplete list of references: G. Bhattacharya, P. Kalyniak and I. Melo, Phys. Rev. (1995) 3569; S. Fajfer and A. Ilakovac, Phys. Rev. [ D57]{} (1998) 4219; J. I. Illana and T. Riemann, Phys. Rev. [D63]{} (2001) 053004; M. Czakon, J. Gluza and J. Hejczyk, Nucl. Phys. [B642]{} (2002) 157; G. Cvetic, C. Dib, C. S. Kim and J. D. Kim, Phys. Rev. [D66]{} (2002) 034008. M. Le Bellac, [Thermal Field Theory]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996); J.I. Kapusta, [ Finite-Temperature Field Theory]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1989). G.F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto and A. Strumia, hep-ph/0310123. See discussion of the footnote 12 in [@GNRRS]. See discussions after Eqs. (6.4) and (6.9) in [@APRD]. [^1]: Similar textures of $M_S$ may result from E$_6$ theories [@witten], where the lepton numbers are approximately broken [@BGL]. [^2]: For instance, within the context of thermal leptogenesis, the use of a time-integrated CP-asymmetry formula, very analogous to the one applied for a coherently oscillating $B^0\bar{B}^0$-system, leads to an erroneous incorporation of the decoherentional properties of the thermal bath. [^3]: To give an example, we note that ${\rm det}\,(\not\! p - m ) = (s - m^2)^2$, with $s=p^2$. Observe that the solutions of ${\rm det}\,(\not\! p - m ) = 0$ contain a double positive root at $\sqrt{s} = \sqrt{s}_{L,R} = m$, reflecting the fact that the left- and right-handed components of a chiral field have the same physical pole as a consequence of CPT invariance of the theory. [^4]: This statement is only valid for a three-generation heavy-neutrino model. For a model with two heavy Majorana neutrinos, the $\varepsilon$-type CP-violating terms in $\delta_{N_i}$ are individually proportional to $\Delta^{\rm 2G}_{\rm CP}$. [^5]: The quantity $n^{\rm eq}_l = 2n_\gamma$ is the in-equilibrium number density for an individual lepton doublet $L_i$ with $\mu_{L_i} = 0$ \[cf. (\[neq\])\]. [^6]: As we will see in Section \[sec:BEs\].3, $1\leftrightarrow 2$ processes become important at $T\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} m_{N_1}$, whereas $2\leftrightarrow 2$ scatterings dominate at $T\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} m_{N_1}$ (see also [@BCST; @BBP]). In this respect, $1 \leftrightarrow 3$ and $2 \leftrightarrow 3$ processes should be regarded as higher-order corrections to the corresponding $1\leftrightarrow 2$ and $2\leftrightarrow 2$ processes. [^7]: Up to an overall factor, our analytic result in (\[NutoLQ\]) (specifically the coefficient multiplying the non-logarithmic term proportional to $-a_i/x$) agrees with [@MAL], but differs from the one stated in [@BBP; @GCBetal]. This discrepancy may be traced in the different methods used to regularize the IR singularities. [^8]: Even though our subtraction approach appears to be similar to the one suggested recently in [@GNRRS], our subtracted RIS propagator squared $\|D^{-1}_i (x)\|^2$ actually differs from [@GNRRS1] by the fact that we use the physical spectral representation of (\[Approx\]) for the distribution function $\delta (x -a_i)$, instead of an arbitrary regulating function with the same mathematical features. We have checked that the difference of the two approaches is numerically insignificant. Therefore, in agreement with earlier remarks in [@APRDremark] and the recent observation made in [@GNRRS], we also find that the earlier RIS-subtraction approaches, see e.g. [@MAL; @BBP; @BCST], tend to approximately overestimate the CP-conserving wash-out term $\gamma^{N}_{L\Phi}$ in the BE (\[BEL\]) by a factor of 3/2.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We give a simple proof of a sharp bound of Ahlfors–Beurling operator on complex-valued radial functions. In the language of the Calculus of Variation we prove a certain estimates for stretch and twist functions. Our estimate go slightly beyond this case. This article was written in February 2009 and then delivered at a seminar talk at UW, Madison on February, 2009.' address: 'Alexander Volberg, Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University and the University of Edinburgh. [[email protected]]{}and[[email protected]]{}' author: - Alexander Volberg date: 5 February 2009 title: '[Ahlfors-Beurling operator on radial functions]{}' --- Introduction {#1} ============ “Everything has been thought of before, the task is to think about it again" said Goethe. We want to take another look at Ahlfors-Beurling operator $T$, it is the operator that sends $\bar{\partial}f$ to ${\partial}f$ for smooth functions $f$ with compact support on the plane ${{\mathbb C}}$. Here $${\partial}f =\frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}z} = \bigg( \frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}x} - i \frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}y}\bigg)\,,\,\,\bar{\partial}f =\frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}z} = \bigg( \frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}x} +i \frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}y}\bigg)\,.$$ We intentionally omitted ${\frac12}$, this will not bring complications. This operator was much studied in the last 30 years. There are several reasons for that. a\) Operator $T$ and its multidimensional analogs play an important part in the theory of quasiregular mappings. b\) Attempts to calculate (estimate) the norm of $T$ are closely related to important conjectures in the Calculus of Variation: Morrey’s conjecture of 1952 and Sverak’s conjecture of 1992. Morrey’s conjecture states that “rank one convex functions are not necessarily quasiconvex", so in essence it asks for a series of counterexamples, of rank one convex functions that are not quasiconvex. Sverak’s conjecture asks about a [concrete]{} rank one convex function whether it is quasiconvex. c\) There is a deep connection of Ahlfors-Beurling operator to stochastic calculus and stochastic optimal control. Saying all that let us state several very innocent looking problems. Some problems {#problems} ============= We mostly follow in this section the exposition of A. Baernstein–S. Montgomery-Smith [@BaMS]. Define a function $L:{{\mathbb C}}^2\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}$ as follows $$L(z,w)=\begin{cases} \|z\|^2-\|w\|^2\,,\,\,\, \text{if}\,\,\, \|z\|+\|w\|\le 1 \,,\\ 2\|z\|-1\,,\,\,\,\text{if}\,\,\, \|z\|+\|w\|>1\,.\end{cases}$$ [Sverak’s problem]{}: Let $f \in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb C}})$. Is it true that $$\label{Svconj} \int_{{{\mathbb C}}} L(\bar{\partial}f, {\partial}f) dxdy \ge 0\,?$$ We can restate this problem in the language of quasiconvex functions of matrix argument. Then we will explain Morrey’s problem. Let $M(m,n)$ be the set of all $m\times n$ matrices with real entries. A function $\Psi: M(m,n)\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}$ is called [rank one convex]{} if $t\rightarrow \Psi (A +tB)$ is convex function for any $B\in M(m,n)$ that has rank $1$ and any $A\in M(m,n)$. Function $\Psi$ is called [quasiconvex]{} if it is locally integrable, and for each $A\in M(m,n)$ and each bounded domain $\Omega\subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and each smooth function $f:{{\mathbb R}}^n\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^m$ one has $$\label{qconv} \frac{1}{\|\Omega\|}\int_{\Omega} \Psi (A + Df) dx \ge \Psi(A)\,.$$ Here $Df$ is the Jacobi matrix of the map $f$. For $n=1$ or $ m=1$ quasiconvexity is equivalent to convexity (which of course is equivalent for this case to rank one convexity). Always convexity implies quasiconvexity that implies rank one convexity. [Morrey’s problem]{}: If $m>1, n>1$ rank one convexity does not imply quasiconvexity. This was conjectured by Morrey in 1952 in [@Mo]. Sverak [@Sv2] proved that problem if $m>2$. If $m=2$ this is still open even in the case $n=2$. Morrey’s problem enjoyed a lot of attention in the last 57 years. We can translate easily Sverak’s problem to this language (this is how it appeared in the first place). In fact, for $A\in M(2,2)$, $A=\begin{bmatrix} a\,& b\\c\,&d\end{bmatrix}$. Put $z= a-d +i(b+c)$, $w=a+d +i (c-b)$. We see that $$\label{detdef} \Psi(A) := L(z,w) =\begin{cases} -4\det (A)\,,\,\,\,\text{if}\,\,\, (\|A\|_2^2 - 2\det A)^{\frac12} + (\|A\|_2^2 - 2\det A)^{\frac12} \le 1\,,\\ 2(\|A\|_2^2 - 2\det A)^{\frac12} -1\,,\,\,\,\text{otherwise}\,.\end{cases}$$ This function is rank one convex on $M(2,2)$. A very simple proof is borrowed from [@BaMS]. We fix $A, B\in M(2,2)\,, {{\rm rank}}(B)=1$. Let $(z, w)$ corresponds to $A$ and $(Z, W)$ to $B$. The fact that ${{\rm rank}}(B)=1$ means that the map $\zeta\rightarrow Z\zeta +W \bar\zeta$ maps the plane to the line, so $\|Z\|=\|W\|$. Then $\|z+tZ\|^2 -\|w+tW\|^2 = a + tb$ for some $a,b\in {{\mathbb R}}$—there is no quadratic term. Also $\Psi(A+tB) = \|z+tZ\|^2 -\|w+tW\|^2 = a + tb$ if and only if $\|z+tZ\| +\|w+tW\| \le 1$. As all $z,Z, w, W$ is fixed and $t\rightarrow \|\alpha +t \beta\|$ is convex for any complex $\alpha, \beta$, we conclude that $\{t\in{{\mathbb R}}: \|z+tZ\| +\|w+tW\| \le 1\}$ is an interval (may be empty). On the other hand outside of this interval $\Psi(A+tB) = 2\|z+tZ\|-1$, that is a convex function. Now continuity of $\Psi(A+tB)$ implies that it is convex. Let $f:{{\mathbb R}}^2\rightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^2$, smooth, and with compact support. Write $f=u+iv$, $Df = \begin{bmatrix} u_x \,& u_y\\v_x\,&v_y\end{bmatrix}$. Then using the notations above $z= u_x - v_y +i( v_x +u_y) =\bar{\partial}f$, $w= u_x + v_y +i( v_x-u_y)={\partial}f$. This means that $\Psi (Df) = L(\bar{\partial}f, {\partial}f)$ and Sverak’s conjecture states that $$\int \Psi(Df) dxdy \ge \Psi(0) =0\,.$$ In other words, means that $\Psi$ from is quasiconvex at $A=0$. We conclude that Sverak’s conjecture is not true, then $\Psi$ gives an example of rank one convex function which is not quasiconvex. This would solve Morrey’s conjecture which exactly asks for such an example for the case $n=2, m=2$. However, is probably true. Everybody who worked with these questions believes in it. We will explain this belief. Consequences of Sverak’s inequality . {#cons} ===================================== In what follows $$p^* = \max (p, \frac{p}{p-1}) =\max (p, p')\,.$$ Here is one other function on $M(2,2)$ which is rank one convex but for which it is unknown whether it is quasiconvex. It is also on $M(2,2)$. Several such functions are discussed in [@Sv1], [@Sv2], but the function $\Psi$ above and $\Psi_p$ below are especially important for us. $$\Psi_p(A) =$$ $$((p^* -1) (\|A\|_2^2 -2\det A)^{\frac12} - (\|A\|_2^2 +2\det A)^{\frac12}) ((\|A\|_2^2 -2\det A)^{\frac12}+(\|A\|_2^2 +2\det A)^{\frac12})^{p-1}\,.$$ Repeat our correspondence between real matrices $M(2,2)$ and ${{\mathbb C}}^2$: for $A\in M(2,2)$, $A=\begin{bmatrix} a\,& b\\c\,&d\end{bmatrix}$, put $z= a-d +i(b+c)$, $w=a+d +i (c-b)$. We see that $$\label{detdefp} \Psi_p(A) := L_p(z,w) = ((p^-1) \|z\|-\|w\|) (\|z\|+\|w\|)^{p-1}\,.$$ See now e. g. [@BaMS] for $$L_p(z,w) = \frac2{p(2-p)}\int_0^{\infty} t^{p-1} L(\frac{z}t, \frac{w}t) dt\,,\,\,\,\text{if}\,\, 1<p<2\,.$$ Obviously, for any $z, w, Z, W, \|Z\|=\|W\|$ the function $t\rightarrow L_p(z+tZ, w+tW)$ is convex because of the formula and because we just proved such a property for $L$. Then, automatically, $$\Psi_p(A) = \int_0^{\infty} t^{p-1} \Psi(\frac{A}t) dt\,,\,\,\,\text{if}\,\, 1<p<2\,.$$ And then $\Psi_p$ is a rank one convex function in an obvious way, if $1<p<2$. But for $2< p<\infty$ another formula holds (see again [@BaMS]): put $$M(z,w) = L(z,w)- (\|z\|^2-\|w\|^2) = (\|w\|^2 -(\|z\|-1)^2){\bf 1}_{\|z\|+\|w\|>1}\,.$$ Obviously, for any $z, w, Z, W, \|Z\|=\|W\|$ the function $t\rightarrow M(z+tZ, w+tW)$ is convex because we subtract the linear term $a+bt$ from $L(z+tZ, w+tW)$. Then $${{\mathcal M}}_p(z,w) = \frac2{p(p-1)(p-2)}\int_0^{\infty} t^{p-1} M(\frac{z}t, \frac{w}t) dt\,,\,\,\,\text{if}\,\, 2<p<\infty\,,$$ is such that for any $z, w, Z, W, \|Z\|=\|W\|$ the function $t\rightarrow M_p(z+tZ, w+tW)$ is convex. And, automatically, $$\Psi_p(A) = \int_0^{\infty} t^{p-1} (\Psi(\frac{A}t) + \frac4{t^2}\det A)dt\,,\,\,\,\text{if}\,\, 2<p<\infty\,,$$ is a rank one convex function on $M(2,2)$. [Banuelos-Wang problem]{}: Is it true that for any smooth function with compact support on ${{\mathbb C}}$ $$\label{BWpr} \int_{{{\mathbb C}}} L_p(\bar{\partial}f, {\partial}f) dx dy \ge 0\,?$$ If were [not]{} true we would have that $\Psi_p$ is [not]{} quasiconvex at $A=0$ and Morrey’s problem would be solved in the remaining case. If were true than we would have solved Iwaniec’s problem of 1982. [Iwaniec’s problem]{}: Ahlfors-Beurling operator T which sends $\bar{\partial}f$ to ${\partial}f$ has norm $p^-1$. Essentially it is the following inequality for all $f\in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb C}})$: $$\label{Iwpr} \int_{C} \|{\partial}f\|^p dx dy \le (p^-1)^p\int_{C} \|\bar{\partial}f\|^p dx dy \,?$$ In equivalent form is stated as follows $$\label{IwprT} \int_{C} \|Tf\|^p dx dy \le (p^-1)^p\int_{C} \|f\|^p dx dy\,,\,\,\,\text{for all}\,\,\, f\in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb C}}) \,?$$ In fact, $\Rightarrow$ follows from a pioneering research of Burkholder, who in [@Bu1], [@Bu3], p. 77, noticed that $$\label{Bur1} p\bigg(1-\frac1{p^}\bigg)^{p-1} L_p(z,w) \leq (p^-1)^p \|z\|^p - \|w\|^p\,.$$ Now it is clear why implies . [Remark.]{} What is subtle and interesting is the whole theory of inequalities of the type like Burkholder’s inequality . This is actually the essence of the so-called Bellman function approach. The literature is now extensive, and it relates to Monge-Ampère equation and stochastic control, see e. g. Slavin-Stokolos’ paper [@SlSt] or Vasyunin and Volberg [@VaVo2]. Sverak’s conjecture and, as a result, Banuelos-Wang’s conjecture were proved in the paper of Baernstein and Montgomery-Smith [@BaMS] in the case of so-called “stretch functions" $f$. A stretch function (in our notations, which differ slightly from those in [@BaMS]) is a function of the form $$f(re^{i\theta}) = g(r) e^{-i\theta}\,,$$ where $g$ is a smooth function on ${{\mathbb R}}_+$, $g(0)=g(\infty)=0$, and $g\ge 0$. We will call such $g$’s [stretches]{}. A straightforward calculation shows: $$\label{d} \bar{\partial}f = g'(r) +\frac{g(r)}{r}\,,\,\,\, {\partial}f = e^{-2i\theta} \bigg(g'(r) - \frac{g(r)}{r}\bigg)\,.$$ So in [@BaMS] it is proved that for any stretch $g$ (in particular, $g$ must be non-negative) $$\label{g} \int_0^{\infty}\|g'(r) -\frac{g(r)}{r}\|^p \,rdr\le (p^-1)^p\int_0^{\infty} \|g'(r) + \frac{g(r)}{r}\|^p \,rdr\,, 1<p<\infty\,.$$ Let us change the variable: $$\label{beta} \beta(\rho) := {\frac12}\bigg(g'(\sqrt{\rho}) + \frac{g(\sqrt\rho)}{\sqrt\rho}\bigg)\,,\rho\in {{\mathbb R}}_+\,.$$ If we introduce Hardy operator: $$H \beta(u) = \frac1u\int_0^u \beta(s)\,ds$$ on locally integrable functions on $[0, \infty)$, we an invert for any $g\in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb R}}_+)$: $$\label{invbeta} g(\sqrt\rho) = \sqrt\rho (H\beta)(\rho)\,.$$ In fact, if we define $g_1(\sqrt\rho)=\sqrt\rho (H\beta)(\rho)$, where $\beta$ is from , we get that both $g, g_1$ satisfy (an easy calculation for $g_1$). Let $g_2= g-g_1$. Then $$g_2'(\sqrt{\rho}) + \frac{g_2(\sqrt\rho)}{\sqrt\rho} =0\,,\,\,\forall \rho\in{{\mathbb R}}_+\,.$$ Consider $f(re^{i\theta}) := g_2(r) e^{-i\theta}$. The previous formula and our previous calculation of $\bar{\partial}f= g_2'(r) +\frac{g_2(r)}{r}$ shows that $\bar{\partial}f=0$. Function $f$ is entire and vanishes at infinity, this $\|g_2\|= \|f\|=0$. On the other hand, implies $$\frac12 \bigg(g'(\sqrt{\rho}) - \frac{g(\sqrt\rho)}{\sqrt\rho}\bigg) =\rho (H\beta)'(\rho) =\beta(\rho)-(H\beta)(\rho)\,.$$ So [@BaMS] proves that for all $\beta=g'(\sqrt{\rho}) + \frac{g(\sqrt\rho)}{\sqrt\rho}$, where $g$ is a [stretch]{} one has $$\label{H_I} \int_0^{\infty} \|(H-I) \beta(\rho)\|^p\,d\rho \leq (p^-1)^p \int_0^{\infty} \|\beta(\rho)\|^p \, d\rho\,.$$ In particular, holds for all $\beta$ such that $H\beta\ge 0, H\beta\in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb R}}_+)$. In the paper of Banuelos and Janakiraman [@BaJa2] it was observed that such $\beta$’s are dense in $L^p_{\text{real}}({{\mathbb R}}_+)$. Therefore, means $$\label{normH_Ireal} \\|H-I\\|_{L^p_{\text{real}}({{\mathbb R}}_+)\rightarrow L^p_{\text{real}}({{\mathbb R}}_+)} \le p^-1\,.$$ It is interesting to compare this with classical Hardy’s inequality: $$\label{normH} \\|H\\|_{L^p_{\text{real}}({{\mathbb R}}_+)\rightarrow L^p_{\text{real}}({{\mathbb R}}_+)} \le p^\,, 1<p\le 2\,.$$ And both results are sharp for $1<p\le 2$: $$\\|H-I\\|_{L^p_{\text{real}}({{\mathbb R}}_+)\rightarrow L^p_{\text{real}}({{\mathbb R}}_+)} = p^-1\,,\,\,\\|H\\|_{L^p}= p^\,,\,1<p\le 2\,.$$ But the word “real" can betaken out by Marcinkiewicz–Zygmund’s lemma (which says that the operator with the real kernel will have the same norm on complex-valued and real-valued functions), and we come to $$\label{normH_I} \\|H-I\\|_{L^p({{\mathbb R}}_+)\rightarrow L^p({{\mathbb R}}_+)} \le p^-1\,.$$ From this we can easily conclude that for [complex stretches]{} $g$ (smooth, compactly supported) inequality holds. Therefore, $$\label{IwprT1} \int_{C} \|Tf\|^p dx dy \le (p^-1)^p\int_{C} \|f\|^p dx dy\,,\,\,\,\text{for all}\,\,\, f\in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb C}})\,,f(z)=f(\|z\|)\,, f:{{\mathbb C}}\rightarrow{{\mathbb C}}$$ holds for all complex valued radial $f$. This was a question in [@BaJa2]. We can also show how to do the estimate on complex-valued radial functions using Bellman function techniques. The interest of that is in the fact that we can go a bit beyond the radial functions. Otherwise Marcinkiewicz–Zygmund lemma is enough. But the advantage of the method below is that it is applicable to other situations. It also illustrate how genuinely convex functions can sometimes be involved in a rather sophisticated way in proving [quasiconvexity]{} statements. Bellman function and Ahlfors-Beurling operator on radial functions. {#Bfsection} =================================================================== The kernel of $T$ is $K(z) = \frac1{\pi}\frac1{z^2}= :e^{-2i\theta}k(r)\,,z=re^{i\theta}$. So for radial $g$ $$Tg(\rho e^{i{\varphi}}) = \int_{{{\mathbb C}}} k(z)g(\|z-\rho e^{i{\varphi}}\|) dA(z) =e^{-2i{\varphi}}\int\int e^{-2i\psi}k(r) g(\|re^{i\psi} -\rho\|)\,rdrd\psi =$$ $$e^{-2i{\varphi}}\int K(w+\rho) g(\|w\|) dA(w)= e^{-2i{\varphi}}\int (\int_0^{2\pi} K(\|w\|e^{it} +\rho)\,dt) g(\|w\|) dA(w)\,.$$ Symmetrization {#symm} -------------- If we denote $n(\rho,r)=\int_0^{2\pi} K(re^{it} +\rho)\,dt $, and $Ng(\rho):= \int_0^{\infty} n(\rho,r) g(r)\,rdr$ we get $$Tg(\rho e^{i{\varphi}}) = e^{-2i{\varphi}}\int_0^{\infty} n(\rho,r) g(r)\,rdr=: e^{-2i{\varphi}}Ng(\rho)\,.$$ Hence to check the norm of $Tg(\rho e^{i{\varphi}})$ in $L^p$ we can take a function $f\in L^{p'}({{\mathbb C}})$, write [bilinear]{} form $$(f, Tg)=\int_{{{\mathbb C}}} f Tg \, dA = \int (\int e^{-2i\psi} f(re^{i\psi}) d\psi)Ng(r)\,rdr\,.$$ Let us notice that the family ${\mathcal{F}}$ of functions having the form $$f(re^{i\theta}) = \sum_{k=-N}^N e^{-ik\theta} f_k(r)\,,$$ where $f_k$ are smooth compactly supported functions, give us a dense family in $L^{p'}({{\mathbb C}}),\,, 1<p<\infty$. Also let us call $e^{-ik\theta} f_k(r)$ a $k$-mode function. The set of $k$-modes is called ${\mathcal{F}}_k$. Continuing the last formula we write $$(f, Tg)=\int_{{{\mathbb C}}} f Tg \, dA =$$ $$\label{samemode} 2\pi\int f_{-2}(r) Ng(r)\,rdr= \int_{{{\mathbb C}}} f_{-2}(\|z\|) Ng(\|z\|) \, dA(z)= (e^{2i\theta}f_{-2}(\|z\|), Tg)\,.$$ Let us notice that projection $\Pi_k:{\mathcal{F}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{F}}_k$ has norm at most $1$ in any $L^p$. In fact, Let $R_{{\varphi}}$ is a rotation of ${{\mathbb C}}$ by ${\varphi}$. Then $$f_k(\|z\|) = \frac1{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} e^{ik{\varphi}}f(R_{{\varphi}}z)\,d{\varphi}\,.$$ So projection $\Pi_k$ is just the averaging-type operator, and thus has norm at most $1$. Conclusion: to estimate $\\|Tg\\|_p$, $g\in {\mathcal{F}}_0$, it is sufficient to estimate the bilinear form $\|(f,Tg)\|$ only for $f\in {\mathcal{F}}_{-2}$ (and in the unit ball of $L^{p'}({{\mathbb C}})$). We proved actually the following \[k\_2\] For $g\in {\mathcal{F}}_k$, $$\\|Tg\\|_p =\sup_{f\in L^{p'}\cap {\mathcal{F}}_{k-2}\,,\\|f\\|_{p'}\le 1} \|(f, Tg)\|\,.$$ We actually repeated also the following well-known simple calculation. \[symmkernel\] Let a complex valued kernel $K(re^{i\theta}) = e^{-il\theta} k(r)$. Let ${{\mathcal K}}f:= K\star f$ be a convolution operator. Then it maps ${\mathcal{F}}_k$ to $F_{k-l}$ and for every $g= e^{-ik\theta}g_k(r)\in F_k$ we have $${{\mathcal K}}g(\rho^{i{\varphi}}) = e^{-i(k-l){\varphi}}\int_0^{\infty} N_{k}(\rho,r) g_k(r)\,rdr\,,$$ where $$N_k(\rho,r) := \int_0^{2\pi} K(re^{it} +\rho) e^{-ikt}\, dt\,.$$ For ${{\mathcal K}}=T$ one can compute the kernel of $N_m$: $${\frac12}N_m(t,x) = x\delta_x - (m+1) \frac{1}{t^{m+2}} x^m{\bf 1}_{[0,t]}(x)\,.$$ It is not very nice, but let us denote by $h:{{\mathbb R}}_+\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}_+$ the map $h(t)=t^2$. Then the operator $\Lambda_m$ (see [@BaJa2] for this) is $$\Lambda_m g(u) = g(u) - (m+1) \frac1{u^{\frac{m+2}2}}\int_0^u v^{\frac{m}2}\,g(v)\,dv\,.$$ For $m=0$ this is $\Lambda_0= {\mbox{\rm Id}}- H$, where $H $ is Hardy’s averaging operator on half-axis: $$Hg(u) := \frac1u\int_0^u g(v) \,dv\,.$$ Famous Hardy’s inequality is practically equivalent to computing $$\\|H\\|_{l^p({{\mathbb R}}_+)\rightarrow L^p({{\mathbb R}}_+)} = p^\,,\,\, \text{if}\,\, 1<p\le 2\,.$$ Curiously, we can see now that the question about complex valued radial functions from [@BaJa2] is equivalent to $$\label{HI} \\|H-{\mbox{\rm Id}}\\|_{l^p({{\mathbb R}}_+)\rightarrow L^p({{\mathbb R}}_+)} \le p^-1\,,\,\, \text{if}\,\, 1<p\le 2\,.$$ A Bellman function {#Bf} ------------------ We will use a certain interesting convex functions on ${{\mathbb R}}^6$ and ${{\mathbb R}}^4$ to approach our “quasiconvexity" inequality for complex valued radial functions. Suppose we have function ${{\mathcal B}}(u,v, \xi, \eta, H,Z)$ of $6$ real variables defined in $$\Omega= \{\|(u,v)\|^p \le H\,, \|(\xi,\eta)\|^{p'} < Z\}\,,$$ and satisfying I\) For an arbitrary $a\in\Omega\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}^6$ we want to have $$\langle -\frac{d^2 {{\mathcal B}}}{d a^2}\alpha,\alpha\rangle\ge 2 (\alpha_1^2+ \alpha_2^2)^{1/2}(\alpha_3^2+ \alpha_4^2)^{1/2}\,.$$ and II\) For an arbitrary $a\in\Omega$ $${{\mathcal B}}(a) \le (p^-1) \bigg(\frac{H}{p} + \frac{Z}{p'}\bigg)\,,\,\,\text{where}\,\, p^ =\max (p,p')\,.$$ For the sake of future convenience we prefer to work with the following transformation of ${{\mathcal B}}$ ($a=(u,v,\xi,\eta, H,Z)$): $$B(u,v, \xi,\eta) :=\sup_{a\in\Omega} \{B(a) - (p^-1)\bigg(\frac{H}{p} + \frac{Z}{p'}\bigg)\}\,.$$ Then it is not difficult to check that this $B$ is still concave (in spite of being [isupremum ]{} of concave functions): $$\label{d2} -d^2B \ge 2 \|(du,dv)\| \|(d\xi,d\eta)\|\,.$$ $$\label{bds} -(p^-1)\bigg(\frac{\|(u,v)\|^p}{p} + \frac{\|(\xi,\eta)\|}{p'}\bigg) \le B(u,v,\xi,\eta) \le 0\,.$$ The existence of such ${{\mathcal B}}$ was proved in [@PV],[@DV1]. Heat extension {#heat} -------------- Let $f,g$ be two test functions on the plane. By the same letters we denote their heat extensions into ${{\mathbb R}}_+^3$. This is a simple lemma observed in [@PV]: \[hext\] $$\int_{{{\mathbb C}}} f Tg \,dA = -2 \int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} ({\partial}_x +i{\partial}_y) f \cdot ({\partial}_x +i{\partial}_y)g \,dxdydt\,.$$ Let us use below the following notations: $$f=u+iv, z_1= u_x+iu_y, z_2 = v_x+iv_y,$$ $$g=\xi+i\eta, \zeta_1 = \xi_x +i\xi_y, \zeta_2 = \eta_x +i\eta_y\,.$$ Now we can read Lemma \[hext\] as follows: $$\label{zext} \int fTg = -2\int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} (z_1+iz_2)(\zeta_1 + i \zeta_2)\,, \|\int fTg\| \le 2\int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} \|z_1+iz_2\|\|\zeta_1 + i \zeta_2\|\,.$$ And from here we see $$\label{zext1} \|\int fTg\| \le 2\int\bigg[\frac{\|z_1+iz_2\|^2 + \|z_1-iz_2\|^2}{2}\bigg]^{1/2}\bigg[\frac{\|\zeta_1+i\zeta_2\|^2 + \|\zeta_1-i\zeta_2\|^2}{2}\bigg]^{1/2}\,.$$ Property of $B$ can be rewritten \[d2z\] $$-\langle d^2 B (z_1, z_2, \zeta_1, \zeta_2)^{T}, (z_1, z_2, \zeta_1, \zeta_2)^{T}\rangle \ge 2 [\|z_1\|^2 + \|z_2\|^2]^{1/2} [\|\zeta_1\|^2 + \|\zeta_2\|^2]^{1/2}\,.$$ This lemma gives now $$\begin{aligned} \label{mix} -2\langle d^2 B (\frac{z_1+i z_2}{2}, \frac{z_1-i z_2}{2}, \frac{\zeta_1+i\zeta_2}{2}, \frac{\zeta_1-i\zeta_2}{2})^{T}, (\text{the same vector})^{T}\rangle \ge \\2\bigg[\frac{\|z_1+iz_2\|^2 + \|z_1-iz_2\|^2}{2}\bigg]^{1/2}\bigg[\frac{\|\zeta_1+i\zeta_2\|^2 + \|\zeta_1-i\zeta_2\|^2}{2}\bigg]^{1/2}\,. \end{aligned}$$ After integration and using we get $$\label{LHS} \|\int_{{{\mathbb C}}} fTg\|\le \int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} LHS\,.$$ The rest is the estimate of $\int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} LHS$ from above. First of all simple algebra ($a:=(u,v,\xi,\eta)$: $$\begin{aligned} \int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} LHS = -{\frac12}\int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} \langle d^2B(a) (z_1, z_2, \zeta_1, \zeta_2)^T, (\text{the same})^T\rangle -\\ {\frac12}\int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} \langle d^2B(a) (z_2, -z_1, \zeta_2, -\zeta_1)^T, (\text{the same})^T\rangle + \\ \int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} \text{auxiliary terms} =: I + II + III\,.\end{aligned}$$ It has been proved in [@PV], [@DV1] that (the convention is that $u,v, \xi, \eta$ are heat extensions of homonym functions on the plane) $$I = {\frac12}\int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3}\bigg(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t} -\Delta\bigg) B(u,v, \xi, \eta)\,,$$ $$II = {\frac12}\int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3}\bigg(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t} -\Delta\bigg) B(v,-u, \eta, -xi)\,.$$ [An estimate of I from above.]{} Let $H$ denote the heat extension of function $\|f\|^{p'} = (u^2 +v^2)^{p'/2}$, $Z$ denote the heat extension of function $\|g\|^p = (\xi^2 +\eta^2)^{p/2}$. In ${{\mathbb R}}_+^3$ consider $\Psi(x,y,t)= B(u,v, \xi,\eta) + (p^* -1) \bigg(\frac{H}{p'}+\frac{Z}{p}\bigg)$. Then $$2I = \int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3}\bigg(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t} -\Delta\bigg) \Psi\,,$$ Then obviously (integration by parts) $$2I= \int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}\Psi = \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} \Psi(\cdot,t) - \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} \Psi(\cdot,0) \le \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} \Psi(\cdot,t)\,.$$ Using ($B\le 0$) we get $$I \le {\frac12}(p^-1) \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\Bigg(\frac{H(\cdot,t}{p'} + \frac{Z(\cdot, t}{p}\bigg)= {\frac12}(p^-1) \bigg(\frac{\\|f\\|_{p'}^{p'}}{p'} + \frac{\\|g\\|_p^p}{p}\bigg)\,.$$ Similarly, $$II \le {\frac12}(p^-1) \bigg(\frac{\\|-if\\|_{p'}^{p'}}{p'} + \frac{\\|-ig\\|_p^p}{p}\bigg)\,.$$ So $$I + II \le (p^-1) \bigg(\frac{\\|f\\|_{p'}^{p'}}{p'} + \frac{\\|g\\|_p^p}{p}\bigg)\,.$$ We are going to prove next that $$III\le 0\,.$$ Combining we get $\|\int_{{{\mathbb C}}} fTg\| \le (p^-1) \bigg(\frac{\\|f\\|_{p'}^{p'}}{p'} + \frac{\\|g\\|_p^p}{p}\bigg)$ and the usual polarization argument proves out final statement: $$\|\int_{{{\mathbb C}}} fTg\| \le (p^-1)\\|f\\|_{p'}\\|g\\|_p\,.$$ Why $III=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}_+^3} \text{auxiliary terms}\,dxdydt \le 0$? {#III} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ First of all the symmetry implies that $$B(u,v, \xi,\eta) = \Phi(\sqrt{u^2 +v^2}, \sqrt{\xi^2+\eta^2})\,.$$ So far we did not use the fact that $$\label{fact} g(z) = \xi(r) +i \eta(r)\,, f(z) = e^{2i\theta} (m(r) +ik(r))\,.$$ Let as before $a(x,y,t) = (u,v, \xi, \eta)$ with heat extension functions. Automatically, with a fixed $t$ $$\label{r} \Phi (a), d\Phi (a), d^2\Phi(a)\,,\,\,\text{depend only on}\,\,\,r+\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\,.$$ [Remark.]{} In proving that $III=0$ we are going to use this fact a lot. But $III=0$ seems to hold under some other assumptions on $f,g$. All auxiliary terms are in $$\langle d^2 B(a) (z_1, z_2, \zeta_1,\zeta_2)^T, (z_2, -z_1, \zeta_2, -\zeta_1)^T\rangle -\langle d^2 B(a) (z_2, -z_1, \zeta_2,-\zeta_1)^T, (z_1, z_2, \zeta_1, \zeta_2)^T\rangle\,.$$ This expression $= A+D_1 + D_2 +C$, where $$A = (B_{11}+ B_{22}) \Im z_2\bar z_1\,, C =(B_{33}+ B_{44}) \Im \zeta_2\bar \zeta_1\,.$$ Also $$D_1 = B_{13} \Im \zeta_2 \bar z_1 + B_{23} \Im \zeta_2\bar z_2 + B_{14} \Im z_1\bar \zeta_1 + B_{24} \Im z_2\bar \zeta_1\,.$$ $$D_2= B_{13} \Im z_2 \bar \zeta_1 + B_{23} \Im \zeta_1\bar z_1 + B_{14} \Im z_2\bar \zeta_2 + B_{24} \Im \zeta_2\bar z_1\,.$$ [Why $\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} D_1(x,y,t) \,dxdy=0$?]{} In $D_1$ the smaller index of $B_{kl}$, $k\in {1,2}, l\in {3,4}$ coincides with the index of $z_i$. In $D_2$ this is not the case. This is the explanation why integrating each term of $D_1$ returns $0$. For example, (the last equality uses $\eta_{\theta}=0$) $$\Im \zeta_2\bar z_1 = \det\begin{bmatrix} u_x,\, \eta_x\\u_y,\, \eta_y\end{bmatrix} = \det\begin{bmatrix} u_r,\, \eta_r\\u_{\theta}/r,\, \eta_{\theta}/r\end{bmatrix}=-\eta_r u_{\theta}/r\,.$$ But (recall $f=u+iv, g= \xi+i\eta$) $$B_{13} = \frac{u}{\|f\|}\frac{\xi}{\|g\|} \Phi_{12} (\|f\|,\|g\|)\,.$$ Then the first term of $D_1$ $$= \phi(r) u u_{\theta}\,,$$ and its integral along any circle is zero. Similarly, $$\label{D1} D_1 = (uu_{\theta} + vv_{\theta})\frac{\eta\xi_r-\xi\eta_r}{r} \frac{\Phi(\|f\|,\|g\|)}{\|f\|\|g\|}\,,$$ and so $D_1= \phi_1(r) u u_{\theta} + \phi_2(r) vv_{\theta}$. Hence for each fixed $t$ $$\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} D_1(x,y,t) \,dxdy=0\,.$$ Coming to $D_2$ we can similarly see that $$\label{D2} D_2 = (uv_{\theta}- vu_{\theta} ) \frac{\xi\xi_r + \eta\eta_r}{r} \frac{\Phi_{12}(\|f\|,\|g\|}{\|f\|\|g\|}\,.$$ Recall that from it follows that $ u= m\cos 2\theta - k\sin 2\theta\,, v = m\sin 2\theta + k \sin 2\theta$, and from this $$u v_{theta} - v u_{\theta} = 2 (m^2(r) + k^2(r)) = 2 (u^2(r) + v^2(r)) = 2 \|f\|^2(r) =: 2 M^2(r)\,.$$ Using similarly the notation $N(r)=\|g\|$ we can see from and the previous equality that $$D_2= \frac2r \Phi_{12} (M(r), N(r)) N'(r) M(r)\,.$$ Now we compute $$A= (B_{11} +B_{22})\Im z_2\bar z_1 = (\Phi_{11} + \frac1{M} \Phi_1) (u_r v_{\theta}/r - v_r u_{\theta}/r)\,.$$ Using we get $u_r v_{\theta} - v_r u_{\theta}= 2 M(r) M'(r)$. Therefore $$A= \frac2r (\Phi_{11} + \frac1{M} \Phi_1)MM' = \frac2r (\Phi_{11} MM' +\Phi_1 M')\,.$$ Notice (again ) that in $$C= (B_{33} +B_{44}) \Im \zeta_2\bar \zeta_1$$ the expression $\Im \zeta_2\bar \zeta_1 = \xi_r \eta_{\theta}/r - \eta_r \xi_{\theta}/r =0$. So $C=0$. Adding the expressions for $A, D_2$ we obtain after integration over ${{\mathbb R}}^2$: $$\begin{aligned} \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} (A(x,y,t) +D_2(x,y,t)) \,dxdy = 4\pi\int_0^{\infty} (\Phi_{12}(M,N) M(r) N'(r) +\\ \Phi_{11}(M,N) M(r) M'(r)) \,dr + 4\pi\int_0^{\infty} \Phi_1(M,N) M'(r)\,dr =: a+b\,.\end{aligned}$$ Integrating $b$ by parts we get $-a$ and $- \Phi_1(M(0), N(0)) M(0)$. Actually, in our particular case $III=0$. Function $f=u+iv$ on ${{\mathbb C}}$ has the form $f= e^{2i\theta} (m(r) +ik(r))$, therefore, its heat extension $f(x,y,t)$ obviously satisfies $f(x,y, 0) =0$. So $M(0)=\|f(x,y,0)\|=0$. As we saw $$III = - \Phi_1(M(0), N(0)) M(0)=0\,.$$ [XXXXXX]{} \[rf\] , Ark. Mat. [21]{}(1983), 163–168. , [$L^p$–bounds for the Beurling–Ahlfors transform]{}. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [360]{} (2008), no. 7, 3603–3612. , [On the weak-type constant of the Beurling-Ahlfors transform]{}, Preprint, 2008, pp. 1–22. , [Space-time Brownian motion and the Beurling-Ahlfors transform.]{} Indiana Univ. Math. J. [52]{} (2003), no. 4, 981–990. , [Sharp inequalities for martingales with applications to the Beurling-Ahlfors and Riesz transforms]{}, Duke Math. J., [80]{} (1995), 575–600. , [Some conjectures about integral means of $\partial f$ and $\overline\partial f$]{}, Complex anlysis and Differential Equations, Proc. of the Marcus Wallenberg symposium in honour of Matts Essén, Uppsala, Sweeden, 1997, 92–109. Personal communication. arxiv: math/0509262v1 12 Sep 2005. , [The power law for the Buffon needle probability of the four-corner Cantor set: an estimate from below]{}, Preprint, 2008, pp. 1–10. , [Boundary value problems and sharp estimates for the martingale transforms]{}, Ann. of Prob. [12]{} (1984), 647–702. , [An extension of classical martingale inequality]{}, Probability Theory and Harmonic Analysis, ed. by J.-A. Chao and W. A. Woyczynski, Marcel Dekker, 1986. , [Sharp inequalities for martingales and stochastic integrals]{}, Colloque Paul L' evy sur les Processus Stochastiques (Palaiseau, 1987), Ast' erisque No. 157-158 (1988), 75–94. , [Differential subordination of harmonic functions and martingales]{}, (El Escorial 1987) Lecture Notes in Math., [1384]{} (1989), 1–23. , [Explorations of martingale theory and its applications]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. [1464]{} (1991), 1–66. , [Strong differential subordination and stochastic integration]{}, Ann. of Prob. [22]{} (1994), 995–1025. , [A proof of the Peczynski’s conjecture for the Haar system]{}, Studia MAth., [91]{} (1988), 79–83. , [Some recent results on polyconvex, quasiconvex and rank one convex functions]{}, Adv. Math. Appl. Sci., World Science Publ., 1994, pp. 169-176. , Direct Methods in the Calculus of Variations, Springer, 1989. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">O. Dragicevic, A. Volberg</span> [Sharp estimates of the Ahlfors-Beurling operator via averaging of Martingale transform,]{} Michigan Math. J. [51]{} (2003), 415-435. , [Bellman function, Littlewood–Paley estimates, and asymptotics of the Ahlfors–Beurling operator in $L^p(\mathbb{C})$, $p\rightarrow \infty$]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. [54]{} (2005), no. 4, 971–995. , [Bellman function and dimensionless estimates of classical and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Riesz transforms.]{} J. of Oper. Theory, [56]{} (2006) No. 1, pp. 167-198. ,[A rotation method which gives linear $L^p$-estimates for powers of the Ahlfors-Beurling operator.]{} Journal des Mathématiques Pures et Appliqueés, [86]{}, No. 6 (2006), 492-509. , [A lemma about $3$ quadratic forms]{}, arXiv:0710.3249. To appear in Intern. Math. Research Notices. ,[ On singular integral and martingale transforms,]{} arxiv: math. CA/0701516v1 18 June 2007. , [Quasiconvexity and semicontinuity of multiple integrals]{}, Pacific J. Math., [2]{} (1952), 25–53. , Amer. J. Math. 129 (2007), no. 5, 1355–1375. , [On the best values of the constants in the theorems of M. Riesz, Zygmund, and Kolmogorov]{}, Studia Math., [44]{} (1972) 165–179. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Petermichl, S. Treil, A. Volberg,</span> [Why the Riesz transforms are averages of the dyadic shifts?]{} Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Harmonic Analysis and Partial Differential Equations (El Escorial, 2000). Publ. Mat. 2002, Vol. Extra, 209–228. , [Heating the Beurling operator: weakly quasiregular maps on the plane are quasiregular,]{} Duke Math. J., [112]{} (2002), no.2, pp. 281–305. , [The maximal operator on $L^p({{\mathbb R}}^n)$]{}, Preprint, 2007. , [Rank-one convexity does not imply quasiconvexity]{}, Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburg, v. 120A, (1990), 185-189. , [New examples of quasiconvex functions]{}, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., v. 119, (1992), 293-300. , [Bellman approach to some problems in Harmonic Analysis]{}, Séminaires des Equations aux derivées partielles. Ecole Politéchnique, 2002, exposé XX, pp. 1–14. , [The Bellman function for certain two weight inequality: the case study]{}, St. Petersburg Math. J. [18]{} (2007), no. 2, pp. 201–222. , [Monge–Ampère equation and Bellman optimization of Carleson Embedding Theorems]{}, arXiv:0803.2247. , [Bellster and others]{}, Preprint, 2008. Math. Res. Lett. [7]{} (2000), no. 1, 1–12.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
Super congruences concerning binomial coefficients and Apéry-like numbers Zhi-Hong Sun School of Mathematics and Statistics Huaiyin Normal University Huaian, Jiangsu 223300, P.R. China Email: [email protected] Homepage: http://maths.hytc.edu.cn/szh1.htm 1. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} =============== Let $p>3$ be a prime. In 2003, based on his work concerning hypergeometric functions and Calabi-Yau manifolds, Rodriguez-Villegas \[RV\] conjectured the following congruences: $$\aligned &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\e \Ls{-1}p\mod{p^2},\q\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\e\Ls {-3}p\mod{p^2}\\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k}\e \Ls{-2}p\mod{p^2},\q \sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k}\e \Ls{-1}p\mod{p^2},\endaligned\tag 1.1$$ where $\sls ap$ is the Legendre symbol. These congruences were later confirmed by Mortenson \[M1-M2\] via the Gross-Koblitz formula. It is easily seen that (see \[S7\]) $$\aligned &\b{-\f 12}k^2=\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k},\q\b{-\f 13}k\b{-\f 23}k= \f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}, \\&\b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f 34}k=\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k}, \q \b{-\f 16}k\b{-\f 56}k=\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k}.\endaligned\tag 1.2$$ Let $\Bbb Z$ be the set of integers. For a prime $p$ let $\Bbb Z_p$ be the set of rational numbers whose denominator is not divisible by $p$. In \[S7\] the author generalized (1.1) by proving that for $a\in\Bbb Z_p$, $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\e (-1)^{\ap}\mod {p^2},\tag 1.3$$ where $\ap\in\{0,1,\ldots,p-1\}$ is given by $a\e \ap\mod p$. In \[S9\] the author established the congruence $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b {-1-a}k\f{2a+1}{2k+1}\e 1+2\f{a-\ap}p\mod {p^2}.\tag 1.4$$ Let $p$ be an odd prime and $a,b\in\Bbb Z_p$ with $ab\not\e 0\mod p$. In Section 2 we show that for $\bp\le \ap$ and $\bp\le p-1-\ap$, $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{k+b}\e \f{p(s+t+1)(s-t)}{b^2(s+1)\b{\ap}{\bp}\b{p-1-\ap}{\bp}} \mod {p^2},\tag 1.5$$ where $t=(a-\ap)/p$ and $s=(b-\bp)/p\not\e -1\mod p$. In Section 3 we present a congruence for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f p{k-a}\mod {p^2}$ under the condition $1\le \ap<\f p2$. In Section 4, using a combinatorial identity we obtain a congruence for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f p{16^k(k+b)}\mod {p^2}$ under the condition $\bp>\f p2$. In particular, we prove that $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f p{16^k(6k+1)} \e 4x^2-2p\mod{p^2}\q\t{for}\q p=x^2+3y^2\e 1\mod 3,\\& \big(2-(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f p{16^k(8k+1)} \e 4x^2-2p\mod{p^2}\ \t{for}\ p=x^2+2y^2\e 1,3\mod 8, \\&\Big(3\Ls p3-2\Big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f p{16^k(12k+1)}\e 4x^2-2p\mod{p^2}\ \t{for}\ p=x^2+4y^2\e 1\mod 4, \endalign$$ where $x$ and $y$ are integers. We mention that in \[S11, Theorem 2.8 and (6)\] the author proved that $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f p{16^k(4k+1)}\e 4x^2-2p-\f{p^2}{4x^2}\mod {p^3}\q\t{for prime $p=x^2+4y^2\e 1\mod 4$.}$$ In Section 5 we use congruences in Sections 2-4 to prove super congruences for three Apéry-like numbers. Let $\{D_n\},\{b_n\}$ and $\{W_n\}$ be Apéry-like numbers given by $$\align &D_n=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk^2\b{2k}k\b{2n-2k}{n-k},\tag 1.6 \\& b_n=\sum_{k=0}^{[n/3]}\b{2k}k\b{3k}k\b n{3k}\b{n+k}k(-3)^{n-3k},\tag 1.7 \\&W_n=\sum_{k=0}^{[n/3]}\b{2k}k\b{3k}k\b n{3k}(-3)^{n-3k},\tag 1.8 \endalign$$ where $[x]$ is the greatest integer not exceeding $x$. The numbers $D_n$ $(n=0,1,2,\ldots)$ are called Domb numbers, and $b_n$ $(n=0,1,2,\ldots)$ are called Almkvist-Zudilin numbers. For $D_n,b_n,W_n$ See A002895, A125143 and A291898 in Sloane’s database “The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences", and related papers \[AT\], \[CZ\], \[S8\] and \[S12\]. For positive integers $a,b$ and $n$, if $n=ax^2+by^2$ for some integers $x$ and $y$, we briefly write that $n=ax^2+by^2$. Let $p$ be a prime with $p>3$. In \[Su2\], the author’s brother Z.W. Sun posed the following conjecture: $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{16^n}\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{4^n} \e \cases 4x^2-2p\mod{p^2}&\t{if $3\mid p-1$ and so $p=x^2+3y^2$,}\\0\mod {p^2}&\t{if $3\mid p-2$.} \endcases\tag 1.9$$ In \[S12, Conjecture 4.15\] the author conjectured that $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{4^n}\e\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{16^n}\e 4x^2-2p-\f{p^2}{4x^2}\mod {p^3}\qtq{for}p=x^2+3y^2\e 1\mod 3,$$ and $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{4^n}\e -2\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{16^n} \e\f{p^2}2\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-5}6}^{-2}\mod {p^3}\qtq{for}p\e 2\mod 3.$$ In \[S12, Conjecture 4.16\] the author also conjectured that $$\align \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n}\e \cases 4x^2-2p-\f{p^2}{4x^2}\mod {p^3}&\t{if $12\mid p-1$ and $p=x^2+9y^2$,} \\2p-2x^2+\f{p^2}{2x^2}\mod {p^3}&\t{if $12\mid p-5$ and $2p=x^2+9y^2$}\endcases\endalign$$ and $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e -15 \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} \e\cases -\f 53p^2\b{[p/3]}{[p/12]}^{-2}\mod {p^3}&\t{if $12\mid p-7$,} \\\f 56p^2\b{[p/3]}{[p/12]}^{-2}\mod {p^3}&\t{if $12\mid p-11$.}\endcases$$ In Section 5 we prove (1.9) and $$\aligned\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}&\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n}\e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\cdot\f p{4k+1} \\&\e \cases 4x^2-2p\mod {p^2}&\t{if $12\mid p-1$ and so $p=x^2+9y^2$,} \\2p-2x^2\mod {p^2}&\t{if $12\mid p-5$ and so $2p=x^2+9y^2$,}\\0\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 3\mod 4$.} \endcases\endaligned\tag 1.10$$ We also determine $\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{W_n}{(-3)^n}$ modulo $p^2$. In particular, we show that for $p\e 1\mod 3$ with $4p=L^2+27M^2$ and $L\e 1\mod 3$, $\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{W_n}{(-3)^n}\e -L+\f pL\mod {p^2}$. This was conjectured by the author’s brother Z.W. Sun in \[Su1\]. Throughout this paper, let $q_p(a)=(a^{p-1}-1)/p$ for given odd prime $p$ and $a\in\Bbb Z$, and let $H_0=0$ and $H_n=1+\f 12+\cdots+\f 1n$ $(n\ge 1)$. 2. Congruences for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{k+b}\mod {p^2}.$ {#congruences-for-sum_k0p-1bakb-1-akf-1kbmod-p2. .unnumbered} ====================================== We begin with basic congruences for harmonic numbers $H_n$. For odd prime $p$ and $k\in\{1,2,\ldots,p-1\}$, it is clear that $$H_{p-1-k}=\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}\f 1i-\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{p-i}\e 0+\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1i=H_k\mod p.\tag 2.1$$ For $k=1,2,\ldots,\f{p-1}2$ we have $$H_{\f{p-1}2-k}=H_{\f{p-1}2}-\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{\f{p+1}2-i} \e H_{\f{p-1}2}+2\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{2i-1}=H_{\f{p-1}2}+2(H_{2k}-\f 12H_k)\mod p.$$ It is well known that (see \[L\]) $$H_{\f{p-1}2}\e -2q_p(2)\qtq{and}H_{[\f p3]}\e -\f 32q_p(3)\mod p \ \t{for}\ p>3.\tag 2.2$$ Thus $$2H_{2k}\e 2q_p(2)+H_k+H_{\f{p-1}2-k}\mod p\qtq{for}k=1,2,\ldots,\f{p-1}2.\tag 2.3$$ From (2.2) and (2.3) we deduce the known congruences (see \[L\]): $$H_{[\f p4]}\e -3q_p(2)\mod p\qtq{and}H_{[\f p6]} \e -2q_p(2)-\f 32q_p(3)\mod p\ \t{for}\ p>3.\tag 2.4$$ Let $p$ be an odd prime, $a,m\in\Bbb Z_p$, $k\in\{1,2,\ldots,p-1\}$ and $a-i\not\e 0\mod {p^2}$ for $i=0,1,\ldots,k-1$. Then clearly $$\align \b{a+mp}k&=\f{(mp+a)(mp+a-1)\cdots(mp+a-k+1)}{k!} \\&\e \f 1{k!}\Big(a(a-1)\cdots(a-k+1)+mp\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\f{a(a-1) \cdots(a-k+1)}{a-i}\Big)\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ That is, $$\b{a+mp}k\e\b ak\Big(1+\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\f{mp}{a-i}\Big)\mod {p^2}.\tag 2.5$$ By \[S9,(2.2)\], for $n=0,1,2,\ldots$, $$\sum_{k=0}^n\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f {ab+1}{bk+1}-\sum_{k=0}^n\b {a-1}k\b{-a}k\f {ab-1}{bk+1}=2\b{a-1}n\b{-a-1}n.$$ Replacing $b$ with $\f 1b$ yields $$\sum_{k=0}^n\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f {a+b}{k+b}-\sum_{k=0}^n\b {a-1}k\b{-a}k\f {a-b}{k+b}=2\b{a-1}n\b{-a-1}n.\tag 2.6$$ By \[S9, Lemma 2.2\], for odd prime $p$ and $a\in\Bbb Z_p$ with $a\not\e 0\mod p$, $$\b {a-1}{p-1}\b{-a-1}{p-1}\e \f{(a-\ap)(p+a-\ap)}{a^2}\mod {p^3}.\tag 2.7$$ Now taking $b=a$ in (2.6) and applying (2.7) yields $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b ak\b{-1-a}k}{k+a}=\f 1a\b{a-1}{p-1}\b{-a-1}{p-1}\e \f{(a-\ap)(p+a-\ap)}{a^3}\mod {p^3}.\tag 2.8$$ Let $p$ be an odd prime, $a,b\in\Bbb Z_p$, $a\not\e 0\mod p$, $b+\langle-b\rangle_p\not\e 0\mod {p^2}$ and $$S(a,b)=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f p{k+b}.$$ Suppose that $m\in\{0,1,\ldots,\ap-1\}$ and $\langle a+b\rangle_p\not\in\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$. Then $$S(a,b)\e \f{\b{a-b}{m+1}}{\b{a+b}{m+1}}S(a-m-1,b)\mod{p^3}.$$ Proof. Since $b+\langle-b\rangle_p\not\e 0\mod {p^2}$ we see that $b+k\not\e 0\mod {p^2}$ and so $\f p{k+b}\in\Bbb Z_p$ for $k=0,1,\ldots,p-1$. Hence $S(a,b)\in\Bbb Z_p$. For $k=0,1,\ldots,\ap-1$ we have $a-k\not\e 0\mod p$. From (2.6) and (2.7), $$\align&(a-k+b)S(a-k,b)-(a-k-b)S(a-k-1,b) \\&=2p\b{a-k-1}{p-1}\b{-(a-k)-1}{p-1}\e 0\mod {p^3}.\endalign$$ Thus, for $k=0,1,\ldots,m$, $$S(a-k,b)\e \f{a-b-k}{a+b-k}S(a-k-1,b)\mod {p^3}.$$ Therefore, $$\align S(a,b)&\e \f{a-b}{a+b}S(a-1,b)\e \f{a-b}{a+b}\cdot \f{a-b-1}{a+b-1}S(a-2,b)\\&\e\cdots\e \prod_{k=0}^m\f{a-b-k}{a+b-k}\cdot S(a-m-1,b)\mod{p^3}.\endalign$$ To see the result, we note that $$\prod_{k=0}^m\f{a-b-k}{a+b-k} =\f{\b{a-b}{m+1}}{\b{a+b}{m+1}}.$$ Let $p$ be an odd prime, $b,t\in\Bbb Z_p$, $bt\not\e 0\mod p$ and $s=(b-\bp)/p\not\e -1\mod p$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b {pt}k\b{-1-pt}k\f p{k+b}\e \Big(1+\f t{s+1}\Big)\f pb\Big(1-\f {pt}b\Big) \mod {p^3}.$$ Proof. It is well known that $\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f 1k\e 0\mod p$. Thus, $$\aligned &\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\b {pt}k\b{-1-pt}k\f p{k+b}\\&=\sum_{k=1}^{p-1} (-1)^k\f{pt(pt+k)(p^2t^2-1^2)\cdots(p^2t^2-(k-1)^2)}{k!^2}\cdot\f p{k+b}\\&\e -\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{pt(pt+k)}{k^2}\cdot\f p{k+b}=-p^2t^2\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f p{k^2(k+b)}-\f{pt}b\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\Big(\f pk-\f{p}{k+b}\Big) \\&\e -\f{p^2t^2}{(p-\bp)^2(p-\bp+b)/p}+\f{pt}b\Big(\f 1{(p-\bp+b)/p} +\sum\Sb k=1\\k\not=p-\bp\endSb^{p-1}\f p{k+b}\Big) \\&\e -\f{p^2t^2}{b^2(s+1)}+\f{pt}b\Big(\f 1{s+1}-\f pb\Big) \mod{p^3}, \endaligned$$ which yields the result. Let $p$ be an odd prime, $a,b\in\Bbb Z_p$, $ab\not\e 0\mod p$ and $\bp\le p-1-\ap$. Assume $t=(a-\ap)/p$ and $s=(b-\bp)/p\not\e -1\mod p$. For $\bp\le\ap$ we have $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{k+b}\e \f{p(s+t+1)(s-t)}{b^2(s+1)\b{\ap}{\bp}\b{p-1-\ap}{\bp}} \mod {p^2}.$$ For $\bp>\ap$ we have $$\align\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{k+b}&\e \f{s+1+t}{b(s+1)}\cdot \f{\b{\bp-1}{\ap}}{\b{p-1-\bp}{\ap}}\Big(1 +p\f{s+1}b+p(2s+1)H_{\bp-1}\\&\q-p(s-t)H_{\bp-\ap-1} -p(s+t+1)H_{\ap+\bp} \Big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Proof. For $k\in\{0,1,\ldots,p-1\}$ clearly $k+b\not\e 0\mod p$ for $k\not=p-\bp$. For $k=p-\bp$ we have $k+b\not\e 0\mod {p^2}$, $\b ak=\b a{p-\bp}\e \b {\ap}{p-\bp}=0\mod p$ and so $\b ak\f 1{k+b}\in\Bbb Z_p$. Therefore, $\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{k+b}\in\Bbb Z_p$ for $k=0,1,\ldots,p-1$. Now taking $m=\ap-1$ in Lemma 2.1 and then applying Lemma 2.2 gives $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{k+b}\e \f{\b{a-b}{\ap}}{\b{a+b}{\ap}} \Big(1+\f t{s+1}\Big)\f 1b\Big(1-\f {pt}b\Big)\mod {p^2}.\tag 2.9$$ We first assume $\bp\le \ap$. Since $a-b\e \ap-\bp\mod p$, we see that $$\align \f{\b{a-b}{\ap}}{\b{a+b}{\ap}} &= (a-b-(\ap-\bp))\f{(a-b)(a-b-1)\cdots (a-b-(\ap-\bp-1))}{\ap!}\\&\qq\times\f{(a-b-(\ap-\bp+1)) \cdots(a-b-\ap+1)}{\b{a+b}{\ap}} \\&\e p(t-s)\f{(\ap-\bp)!}{\ap!}\cdot\f{(-1)(-2)\cdots(-(\bp-1))}{\b{\ap+\bp}{\ap}} \\&=\f{p(t-s)}{-\bp}\cdot\f{(\ap-\bp)!(-1)^{\bp}\bp!}{\ap!(-1)^{\bp}\b{-1-\ap}{\bp}} \e \f{p(s-t)}{b\b{\ap}{\bp}\b{p-1-\ap}{\bp}} \mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ This together with (2.9) yields the result in the case $\bp\le \ap$. For $\bp>\ap$, using (2.5) we see that $$\align \f{\b{a-b}{\ap}}{\b{a+b}{\ap}} &=\f{\b{b-1-a+\ap}{\ap}}{\b{-b-1-a+\ap}{\ap}}=\f{\b{\bp-1+p(s-t)}{\ap}} {\b{p-1-\bp-p(s+t+1)}{\ap}} \\& \e\f{\b{\bp-1}{\ap}(1+p(s-t)\sum_{i=0}^{\ap-1}\f 1{\bp-1-i})} {\b{p-1-\bp}{\ap}(1-p(s+t+1)\sum_{i=0}^{\ap-1}\f 1{p-1-\bp-i})} \\&\e\f{\b{\bp-1}{\ap}(1+p(s-t)(H_{\bp-1}-H_{\bp-\ap-1})} {\b{p-1-\bp}{\ap}(1+p(s+t+1)(H_{\ap+\bp}-H_{\bp})} \\&\e\f{\b{\bp-1}{\ap}}{\b{p-1-\bp}{\ap}} (1+p(s-t)(H_{\bp-1}-H_{\bp-\ap-1})\\&\qq\times(1-p(s+t+1)(H_{\ap+\bp}-H_{\bp}) \\&\e\f{\b{\bp-1}{\ap}}{\b{p-1-\bp}{\ap}} \Big(1+p\f{s+t+1}b+p(2s+1)H_{\bp-1}\\&\qq-p(s-t)H_{\bp-\ap-1} -p(s+t+1)H_{\ap+\bp}\Big) \mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ This together with (2.9) yields the remaining part. Let $p$ be a prime with $p>3$, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$, $1\le \ap\le \f{p-3}2$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p\not\e -1\mod p$. Then $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{k+a+1} \\&\e\f{2t+1}{(a+1)(t+1)\b {p-2-\ap}{\ap}} \Big(1+p\f{t+1}{a+1}-p(2t+1)(H_{2\ap+1}-H_{\ap})\Big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Proof. Set $b=a+1$. Then $\bp=\ap+1$ and so $\ap<\bp\le p-1-\ap$. Now putting $b=a+1$ in Theorem 2.1 and noting that $s=t$ yields the result. Let $p>3$ be a prime. Suppose $b\in\Bbb Z_p$, $\bp\not=0$ and $s=(b-\bp)/p\not\e -1\mod p$. Then $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(k+b)} \e \f {(s+1/2)^2p}{b^2(s+1)\b{(p-1)/2}{\bp}^2} \mod{p^2}\qtq{for}\bp<\f p2,\tag 2.10 \\&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(k+b)} \e \f {b-\bp}{b^2\b{(p-1)/2}{\bp}^2} \mod{p^2}\qtq{for}\bp<\f p2,\tag 2.11 \\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k(k+b)}\e (-1)^{\bp}\f {(s+1/3)(s+2/3)p}{b^2(s+1)\b{2\bp}{\bp}\b{[p/3]+\bp}{[p/3]-\bp}} \mod{p^2}\ \t{for}\ \bp<\f p3,\tag 2.12 \\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k(k+b)}\e (-1)^{\bp}\f {(s+1/4)(s+3/4)p}{b^2(s+1)\b{2\bp}{\bp}\b{[p/4]+\bp}{[p/4]-\bp}} \mod{p^2}\ \t{for}\ \bp<\f p4,\tag 2.13 \\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k(k+b)}\e (-1)^{\bp}\f {(s+1/6)(s+5/6)p}{b^2(s+1)\b{2\bp}{\bp}\b{[p/6]+\bp}{[p/6]-\bp}} \mod{p^2}\ \t{for}\ \bp<\f p6.\tag 2.14 \endalign$$ Proof. Set $a=-\f 12$. Then $\ap=\f{p-1}2$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p=-1/2$. For $\bp<\f p2$ we have $\bp\le p-1-\ap=\ap$. Since $\b{-1/2}k^2=\b{2k}k16^{-k}$, taking $a=-\f 12$ in Theorem 2.1 yields (2.10). Clearly, $$\align\f 1p\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp} &=\f{(2p-2\bp)(2p-(2\bp-1))\cdots(p+1)\cdot(p-1)\cdots(p-(\bp-1))}{(p-\bp)!} \\&\e \f{(p-2\bp)!(-1)^{\bp-1}(\bp-1)!}{(p-\bp)!} \e \f{2(-1)^{\bp}\bp!}{(p-\bp))\cdots (p-2\bp)} \\&\e \f{2}{-b\b{2\bp}{\bp}}\e \f{2}{-b(-4)^{\bp}\b{(p-1)/2}{\bp}} \mod{p}.\endalign$$ Since $p\mid \b{2k}k$ for $\f p2<k<p$, using (2.10) we see that $$\align\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(k+b)} &\e\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(k+b)}- \f {\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp}^2}{16^{p-\bp}(p-\bp+b)} \\&\e\f {p(s+1/2)^2}{b^2(s+1)\b{(p-1)/2}{\bp}^2}- \f 1{16^{p-\bp}(s+1)}\cdot\f {4p}{16^{\bp}b^2\b{(p-1)/2}{\bp}^2} \\&\e\f{ps}{b^2\b{(p-1)/2}{\bp}^2}=\f {b-\bp}{b^2\b{(p-1)/2}{\bp}^2} \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ This proves (2.11). Now we consider (2.12)-(2.14). We first note that $$\align \b{\ap}{\bp}\b{p-1-\ap}{\bp}&\e \b{\ap}{\bp}\b{-1-\ap}{\bp} =(-1)^{\bp}\b{\ap}{\bp}\b{\ap+\bp}{\ap}\\&=(-1)^{\bp}\b{2\bp}{\bp} \b{\ap+\bp}{\ap-\bp} \mod p.\endalign$$ Set $a=-\f 13$ or $-\f 23$ according as $p\e 1\mod 3$ or $p\e 2\mod 3$. Then $\ap=[\f p3]$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p= -\f 13$. Recall that $\b{-1/3}k\b{-2/3}k=\b{2k}k\b{3k}k27^{-k}$. From Theorem 2.1 and the above we obtain (2.12). Next consider (2.13). Set $a=-\f 14$ or $-\f 34$ according as $p\e 1\mod 4$ or $p\e 3\mod 4$. Then $\ap=[\f p4]$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p= -\f 14$. Recall that $\b{-1/4}k\b{-3/4}k=\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}64^{-k}$, (2.13) follows from Theorem 2.1 (with $a=-\f 14$). Finally consider (2.14). Set $a=-\f 16$ or $-\f 56$ according as $p\e 1\mod 6$ or $p\e 5\mod 6$. Then $\ap=[\f p6]$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p= -\f 16$. Since $\b{-1/6}k\b{-5/6}k=\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}432^{-k}$, applying Theorem 2.1 yields (2.14). The proof is now complete. Let $p$ be a prime with $p>3$. As examples, from (2.10), (2.11) and the fact $\b{(p-1)/2}k\e \b{-1/2}k=\b{2k}k4^{-k}\mod p$ we deduce that $$\align &-\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(4k+3)} \e 3\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(4k+3)} \e p\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}4}^{-2}\mod{p^2}\ \t{for}\ p\e 1 \mod 4, \\&8\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(3k+1)} \e 5\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(6k+1)} \e p\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-5}6}^{-2}\mod {p^2}\ \t{for}\ p\e 5\mod 6,\\&45\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(8k+1)} \e 7\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(8k+3)}\e -p\b{[\f p4]}{[\f p8]}^{-2}\mod {p^2}\ \t{for}\ p\e 5\mod 8, \\&\f{14}9\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(8k+1)} \e 10\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(8k+3)}\e p\b{[\f p4]}{[\f p8]}^{-2}\mod {p^2}\ \t{for}\ p\e 7\mod 8. \endalign$$ Let $p$ be a prime with $p>3$. Then $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k(3k+2)} \e \f 1{2\b{2(p-1)/3}{(p-1)/3}}\mod {p^2}\qtq{for}p\e 1\mod 3,\tag 2.15 \\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k(3k+1)} \e \f {1+2p}{2\b{2(p-2)/3}{(p-2)/3}}\mod {p^2}\qtq{for}p\e 2\mod 3,\tag 2.16 \\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k(4k+3)}\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\f{2^{p-1}+1}{6\b{(p-1)/2}{(p-1)/4}}\mod {p^2} \q \t{for}\q p\e 1\mod 4,\tag 2.17 \\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k(4k+1)}\e (-1)^{\f{p+1}4}\f{2^{p-1}+2p+1}{6\b{(p-3)/2}{(p-3)/4}}\mod {p^2} \q \t{for}\q p\e 3\mod 4,\tag 2.18 \\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k(6k+5)}\e \f{1-\f 43(2^{p-1}-1)}{5\b{5(p-1)/6}{(p-1)/6}}\mod {p^2} \q \t{for}\q p\e 1\mod 6,\tag 2.19 \\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k(6k+1)}\e \f 45\cdot\f{1+5p-\f 43(2^{p-1}-1)}{\b{(5p-7)/6}{(p-5)/6}}\mod {p^2} \ \t{for}\ p\e 5\mod 6.\tag 2.20 \endalign$$ Proof. For $a=-\f 13$ and $p\e 1\mod 3$ we see that $\ap=\f{p-1}3$, $\f{a-\ap}p=-\f 13$ and $$H_{2\ap+1}-H_{\ap}=H_{\f{2p+1}3}-H_{\f{p-1}3} \e H_{p-1-\f{2p+1}3}-H_{\f{p-1}3}=H_{\f{p-4}3} -H_{\f{p-1}3}=-\f 3{p-1}\e 3\mod p.$$ Thus, from Corollary 2.1 and (1.2), $$\align \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k(3k+2)} &=\f 13\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 13}k\b{-\f 23}k\f 1{k+2/3} \\&\e\f{2t+1}{3(a+1)(t+1)\b {p-2-(p-1)/3}{(p-1)/3}} \e \f{1}{2\b{2(p-1)/3}{(p-1)/3}}\mod{p^2}, \endalign$$ For $a=-\f 23$ and $p\e 2\mod 3$ we see that $\ap=\f{p-2}3$, $\f{a-\ap}p=-\f 13$ and $$H_{2\ap+1}-H_{\ap}\e H_{p-2-2\ap}-H_{\ap}=H_{\f{p-2}3}-H_{\f{p-2}3} =0\mod p.$$ Thus, from Corollary 2.1 and (1.2), $$\align \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k(3k+1)} &=\f 13\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 13}k\b{-\f 23}k\f 1{k+1/3} \\&\e\f{2t+1}{3(a+1)(t+1)\b {p-2-(p-2)/3}{(p-2)/3}} \Big(1+p\f{t+1}{a+1}\Big) =\f {1+2p}{2\b{2(p-2)/3}{(p-2)/3}}\mod{p^2}. \endalign$$ For $a=-\f 14$ and $p\e 1\mod 4$ we see that $\ap=\f{p-1}4$ and $\f{a-\ap}p=-\f 14$. It is well known that $H_{\f{p-1}2}\e -2q_p(2)\mod p$ and $H_{\f{p-1}4}\e -3q_p(2)\mod p$. Thus, $$H_{2\ap+1}-H_{\ap}=\f 1{(p+1)/2}+H_{\f{p-1}2}-H_{\f{p-1}4}\e 2-2q_p(2)+3q_p(2)=2+q_p(2)\mod p.$$ By \[S3, Lemma 2.5\], $$(-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\b{3(p-1)/4}{(p-1)/4} \e \Big(3-2(-4)^{\f{p-1}4}\Big)\b{(p-1)/2}{(p-1)/4} \e (1-pq_p(2)) \b{(p-1)/2}{(p-1)/4} \mod {p^2}.$$ Therefore, taking $a=-\f 14$ in Corollary 2.1 and applying the above and (1.2) gives $$\align&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k(4k+3)} \\&=\f 14\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f 34}k\f 1{k+3/4} \e\f 14\cdot\f {\f 12}{\f 34\cdot\f 34\b{p-2-(p-1)/4}{(p-1)/4}} \Big(1+p-\f p2(H_{\f{p-1}2+1}-H_{\f{p-1}4})\Big) \\&\e \f 1{3\b{3(p-1)/4}{(p-1)/4}}\Big(1-\f p2q_p(2)\Big) \e \f 13(-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\f 1{(1-pq_p(2))\b{(p-1)/2}{(p-1)/4}} \Big(1-\f p2q_p(2)\Big) \\&\e \f 13(-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\f 1{\b{(p-1)/2}{(p-1)/4}}(1+pq_p(2))\Big(1-\f p2q_p(2)\Big) \e \f 13(-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\f {1+pq_p(2)/2}{\b{(p-1)/2}{(p-1)/4}} \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ For $a=-\f 34$ and $p\e 3\mod 4$ we see that $\ap=\f{p-3}4$ and $\f{a-\ap}p=-\f 14$. By \[S3, Lemma 2.5\], $$\align (-1)^{\f{p-3}4}\f{\b{(p-1)/2+(p-3)/4}{(p-3)/4}} {\b{(p-1)/2}{(p-3)/4}} &\e 3-2(-4)^{\f{p-3}4}\f{\b{(p-1)/2}{(p-3)/4}} {\b{(p-3)/2}{(p-3)/4}}=3-2(-4)^{\f{p-3}4}\f{2p-2}{p+1} \\& \e 3-2\cdot(-1)^{\f{p+1}4}2^{\f{p-1}2}(1-2p) \\&\e 3-2(1+pq_p(2)/2)+4p =1+4p-pq_p(2)\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ Hence $$\align &(-1)^{\f{p-3}4}\b{\f{p-1}2+\f{p-3}4}{\f{p-3}4}\e (1+4p-pq_p(2)){\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-3}4}} \\&=(1+4p-pq_p(2))\f{2p-2}{p+1}{\b{(p-3)/2}{(p-3)/4}} \e -2(1+2p-pq_p(2)){\b{(p-3)/2}{(p-3)/4}} \endalign$$ Also, $$H_{2\ap+1}-H_{\ap}=H_{\f{p-1}2}-H_{\f{p-3}4} \e-2q_p(2)+3q_p(2)=q_p(2)\mod p.$$ Now, taking $a=-\f 34$ in Corollary 2.1 and then applying the above gives $$\align\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k(4k+1)} &=\f 14\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f 34}k\f 1{k+1/4} \e\f 23\cdot\f{1+3p-pq_p(2)/2}{\b{\f{p-1}2+\f{p-3}4}{\f{p-3}4}} \\&\e \f 23(-1)^{\f{p+1}4}\f{1+3p-\f 12pq_p(2)}{2(1+2p-pq_p(2)) \b{\f{p-3}2}{\f{p-3}4}} \e \f 13(-1)^{\f{p+1}4}\f{1+p+\f 12pq_p(2)}{\b{\f{p-3}2}{\f{p-3}4}}\mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ For $a=-\f 16$ and $p\e 1\mod 6$ we have $\ap=\f{p-1}6$, $\f{a-\ap}p =-\f 16$. Applying (2.2) and (2.4), $$H_{2\ap+1}-H_{\ap}=\f 1{(p+2)/3}+H_{\f{p-1}3}-H_{\f{p-1}6} \e\f 32+2q_p(2)\mod p.$$ Now taking $a=-\f 16$ in Corollary 2.1 yields $$\align&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{64^k(6k+5)} =\f 16\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 16}k\b{-\f 56}k\f 1{k+5/6}\\& \e \f{\f 16\cdot\f 23}{\sls 56^2\b{p-2-(p-1)/6}{(p-1)/6}}\Big(1+p-\f 23p\Big(\f 32+2q_p(2)\Big)\Big)\e\f {1-\f 43(2^{p-1}-1)}{5\b{5(p-1)/6}{(p-1)/6}} \mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ For $a=-\f 56$ and $p\e 5\mod 6$ we have $\ap=\f{p-5}6$ and $ \f{a-\ap}p=-\f 16$. Also, $H_{2\ap+1}-H_{\ap}=H_{[\f p3]}-H_{[\f p6]}\e 2q_p(2)\mod p.$ Now taking $a=-\f 56$ in Corollary 2.1 and applying the above yields (2.20). The proof is now complete. Let $p$ be a prime with $p>3$. Then $$\align&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k(3k+1)}\e \cases\f{2^{p-1}+2}{3\cdot 2^{\f{p-1}3}}\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 1\mod 6$,} \\2^{\f{p+1}3}(2^{p-3}-1)\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 5\mod 6$.} \endcases \endalign$$ Proof. We first assume $p\e 1\mod {6}$. Set $a=-\f 16$ and $b=\f 13$. Then $\ap=\f{p-1}6$, $\bp=\f{2p+1}3$, $t=(a-\ap)/p=-\f 16$ and $s=(b-\bp)/p=-\f 23$. Since $\ap<\bp<p-1-\ap$, from Theorem 2.1 and (2.1)-(2.4), $$\align \sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k(3k+1)}&\e \f{\b{(2p-2)/3}{(p-1)/6}} {2\b{(p-4)/3}{(p-1)/6}}\Big(1+p-\f p3H_{\f{2p-2}3}+\f 12pH_{\f{p-1}2} -\f p6H_{\f{5p+1}{6}}\Big) \\&\e \f{\b{(2p-2)/3}{(p-1)/6}} {2\b{(p-4)/3}{(p-1)/6}}\Big(1+p-\f p3H_{\f{p-1}3}+\f 12pH_{\f{p-1}2} -\f p6\big(H_{\f{p-1}{6}}-\f 1{(p-1)/6}\big)\Big) \\&\e \f{\b{(2p-2)/3}{(p-1)/6}} {\b{(p-1)/3}{(p-1)/6}}\Big(1-\f 23pq_p(2)+\f 34pq_p(3)\Big) \mod {p^2}\endalign$$ By \[S3, Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5\], for $k=1,2,\ldots,\f{p-1}2$, $$\align\b{\f{p-1}2+k}k&\e (-1)^k\b{\f{p-1}2}k\Big(1+2p\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{2i-1}\Big) \\&\e \b{2k}k4^{-k}\Big(1-p\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{2i-1}\Big)\Big(1+2p\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{2i-1}\Big) \\&\e \b{2k}k 4^{-k}\Big(1+p\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{2i-1}\Big) \mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ That is, $$\b{\f{p-1}2+k}k\e \b{2k}k 4^{-k}\Big(1+p\big(H_{2k}-\f 12H_k\big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.\tag 2.21$$ Thus, $$\f{\b{(2p-2)/3}{(p-1)/6}}{\b{(p-1)/3}{(p-1)/6}}\e 4^{-\f{p-1}6}\Big(1+p\big(H_{\f{p-1}3}-\f 12H_{\f{p-1}6}\big)\Big) \e 2^{-\f{p-1}3}\Big(1+pq_p(2)-\f 34pq_p(3)\Big)\mod {p^2}.$$ Therefore, $$\align \sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k(3k+1)}&\e \Big(1-\f 23pq_p(2)+\f 34pq_p(3)\Big)2^{-\f{p-1}3}\Big(1+pq_p(2)-\f 34pq_p(3)\Big) \\&\e 2^{-\f{p-1}3}\Big(1+\f 13pq_p(2)\Big)=\f{2^{p-1}+2}{3\cdot 2^{\f{p-1}3}} \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Now assume $p\e 5\mod {6}$. Set $a=-\f 56$ and $b=\f 13$. Then $\ap=\f{p-5}6$, $\bp=\f{p+1}3$, $t=(a-\ap)/p=-\f 16$ and $s=(b-\bp)/p=-\f 13$. Since $\ap<\bp<p-1-\ap$, from Theorem 2.1 and (2.1)-(2.4), $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k(3k+1)}\\&\e \f 34\cdot\f{\b{(p-2)/3}{(p-5)/6}} {\b{(2p-4)/3}{(p-5)/6}}\Big(1+2p+\f p3H_{\f{p-2}3}+\f p6H_{\f{p+1}6} -\f p2H_{\f{p-1}{2}}\Big) \\&\e \f 34\cdot\f{\b{(p-2)/3}{(p-5)/6}} {\b{(2p-4)/3}{(p-5)/6}}\Big(1+2p+\f p3\Big(-\f 32\qp 3\Big)+\f p6\Big(\f 1{(p+1)/6}-2\qp 2-\f 32\qp 3\Big) -\f p2(-2\qp 2)\Big) \\&\e\f 34\cdot \f{2(p-2)}{p+1}\cdot\f{\b{(p-5)/3}{(p-5)/6}} {\b{(2p-4)/3}{(p-5)/6}}\Big(1+3p+\f 23p\qp 2-\f 34p\qp 3\Big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ By (2.21), $$\align \b{\f{2p-4}3}{\f{p-5}6}& \e \b{\f{p-5}3}{\f{p-5}6}4^{-\f{p-5}6}\Big(1+p\Big(H_{\f{p-5}3}-\f 12H_{\f{p-5}6}\Big)\Big) \\&\e \b{\f{p-5}3}{\f{p-5}6}4^{-\f{p-5}6}\Big(1+p\Big(-\f 32\qp 3-\f 1{(p-2)/3}-\f 12\Big(-2\qp 2-\f 32\qp 3\Big)\Big)\Big) \\&\e \b{\f{p-5}3}{\f{p-5}6}2^{-\f{p-5}3}\Big(1+p\Big(\f 32+\qp 2-\f 34\qp 3\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Hence $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k(3k+1)}\\&\e \f 32\cdot \f{(p-2)(1-p)}{1-p^2}\cdot\f{2^{(p-5)/3}}{1+p(\f 32+\qp 2-\f 34\qp 3)}\Big(1+p\Big(3+\f 23\qp 2-\f 34\qp 3\Big)\Big) \\&\e \f 32(-2+3p)2^{\f{p-5}3}\Big(1-p\Big(\f 32+\qp 2-\f 34\qp 3\Big)\Big)\Big(1+p\Big(3+\f 23\qp 2-\f 34\qp 3\Big)\Big) \\&\e \f 32\cdot 2^{\f{p-5}3}\Big(-2+\f 23p\qp 2\Big) =2^{\f{p+1}3}(2^{p-3}-1)\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ This completes the proof. Let $p$ be a prime with $p\e 1\mod 4$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k(4k+1)}\e\cases (-1)^y \mod {p^2}&\t{if $p=x^2+9y^2\e 1\mod{12}$,}\\(-3)^{\f{p-1}4}\mod {p}&\t{if $p\e 5\mod{12}$.}\endcases$$ Let $p$ be a prime with $p>3$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k(3k+1)} \e\cases 1\mod{p^2}&\t{if $p\e 1\mod 3$,} \\-\f 54\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 2\mod 3$} \endcases$$ and $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k(3k+2)} \e\cases \f 12\mod{p^2}&\t{if $p\e 1\mod 3$,} \\-\f 25\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 2\mod 3$.} \endcases$$ Let $p$ be a prime with $p\e 1\mod 6$ and so $p=x^2+3y^2$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k}\cdot\f p{6k+1} \e (-1)^{\f{p-1}6}\Big(4x^2-2p-\f{p^2}{4x^2}\Big)\mod{p^3}.$$ 3. The congruence for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f p{k-a} \mod {p^2}$ {#the-congruence-for-sum_k0p-1b-akb-1-akf-pk-amod-p2 .unnumbered} ============================================================== Let $p$ be an odd prime. Replacing $a$ with $-1-a$ in Corollary 2.1 we obtain a congruence for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{k-a}\mod {p^2}$ under the condition $\f p2<\ap<p-1$. Now we present the congruence for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f p{k-a}\mod {p^2}$ under the condition $1\le \ap<\f p2$. We note that for $k=\ap$, $\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{k-a}\not\in\Bbb Z_p$, but $\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f p{k-a}\in\Bbb Z_p$ provided that $a-\ap\not\e 0\mod{p^2}$. Let $p$ be an odd prime, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$, $1\le \ap<\f p2$ and $t=\f{a-\ap}p\not\e 0\mod p$. Then $$\align\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f p{k-a} &\e\f {2t+1}t(-1)^{\ap-1}\b{2\ap}{\ap}+2\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap} \\&\e (-1)^{\ap-1}\b{2\ap}{\ap}\Big(\f 1t+2p(H_{2\ap}-H_{\ap})\Big)\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Proof. Set $S(a)=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f p{k-a}.$ From \[G, (1.41)\], $$\sum_{k=0}^n\b nk(-1)^k\f 1{k+x}=\f 1{x\b{x+n}n}=\f{(-1)^n}{(x+n)\b{-x}n}. \tag 3.1$$ Thus, $\sum_{r=0}^k\b kr(-1)^r\f p{r-a} = \f {(-1)^kp}{(k-a)\b ak}.$ From \[S7, Theorem 2.4\] and the above, $$\aligned &(-1)^{\ap}S(a)\\&\e\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k \f {(-1)^kp}{(k-a)\b ak}=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}(-1)^k\b{-1-a}k\f p{k-a} \\&=\sum\Sb k=0\\k\not=\ap\endSb^{p-1}(-1)^k\b{-1-a}k\f p{k-a} +(-1)^{\ap}\b{-1-a}{\ap}\f 1{(\ap-a)/p} \\&\e\sum\Sb k=0\\k\not=\ap\endSb^{p-1-\ap}(-1)^k\b{p-1-\ap}k\f p{k-a} +(-1)^{\ap}\b{-1-a}{\ap}\f 1{(\ap-a)/p} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1-\ap}(-1)^k\b{p-1-\ap}k\f p{k-a}+(-1)^{\ap}\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}\f 1t -(-1)^{\ap}\b{-1-a}{\ap}\f 1t \\&=\f{(-1)^{p-1-\ap}p}{(p-1-\ap-a)\b a{p-1-\ap}} +\f{(-1)^{\ap}}t\Big(\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}-\b{-1-a}{\ap}\Big) \mod{p^2}. \endaligned$$ Applying (2.5) we see that $$\align S(a)&\e-\f p{(a+\ap-p+1)\b a{p-1-\ap}} +\f 1t\Big(\b{-1-a+p(t+1)}{\ap}-\b{-1-a}{\ap}\Big) \\&\e-\f p{(a+\ap-p+1)\b a{p-1-\ap}} +\f 1t\b{-1-a}{\ap}\sum_{i=0}^{\ap-1}\f{p(t+1)}{-1-a-i} \\&=-\f{(p-1-\ap)!\cdot p}{a(a-1)\cdots(a-(p-1-\ap))}- \f {t+1}t\b{-1-a}{\ap}\sum_{i=0}^{\ap-1}\f p{1+a+i} \mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ Since $\ap<\f p2$, $$\align &\f{(p-1-\ap)!\cdot p}{a(a-1)\cdots(a-(p-1-\ap))} \\&=\f{(p-1-\ap)!\cdot p}{(pt+\ap)(pt+\ap-1) \cdots(pt+1)pt(pt-1)\cdots(pt-(p-1-2\ap))} \\&\e\f {(p-1-\ap)!}{t\cdot \ap!(1+pt\sum_{i=1}^{\ap}\f 1i) \cdot (p-1-2\ap)!(1-pt\sum_{i=1}^{p-1-2\ap}\f 1i)} \\&\e \f 1t\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}\Big(1-pt\sum_{i=1}^{\ap}\f 1i\Big) \Big(1+pt\sum_{i=1}^{p-1-2\ap}\f 1i\Big) \\&\e \f 1t\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}\Big(1-ptH_{\ap} +ptH_{p-1-2\ap}\Big)\mod {p^2} \endalign$$ and $$\align &\b{-1-a}{\ap}\sum_{i=0}^{\ap-1}\f p{1+a+i} \\&\e \b{-1-a}{\ap}p\sum_{i=0}^{\ap-1}\f 1{\ap+1+i} \e p\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}(H_{2\ap}-H_{\ap})\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ Recall that $H_{p-1-k}\e H_k\mod p$. From the above we deduce that $$\align &S(a)\\&\e -\f 1t\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}(1+pt(H_{2\ap}-H_{\ap})) -\f{p(t+1)}t\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}(H_{2\ap}-H_{\ap}) \\&=-\f 1t\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}-p\f {2t+1}t\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}(H_{2\ap}-H_{\ap})\mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ By (2.5), $$\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}=(-1)^{\ap}\b{2\ap-p}{\ap} \e(-1)^{\ap}\b{2\ap}{\ap}(1-p(H_{2\ap}-H_{\ap}))\mod {p^2}.$$ Hence $$\align &S(a)\\&\e -\f 1t(-1)^{\ap}\b{2\ap}{\ap}(1-p(H_{2\ap}-H_{\ap})) -p\f {2t+1}t(-1)^{\ap}\b{2\ap}{\ap}(H_{2\ap}-H_{\ap}) \\&=-\f 1t (-1)^{\ap}\b{2\ap}{\ap}-2p(-1)^{\ap}\b{2\ap}{\ap}(H_{2\ap}-H_{\ap}) \\&\e \f 1t (-1)^{\ap-1}\b{2\ap}{\ap}+2\Big(\b{p-1-\ap}{\ap}-(-1)^{\ap}\b{2\ap}{\ap}\Big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ This completes the proof. Let $p$ be a prime with $p\e 1\mod 4$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k}\cdot\f p{4k+1} \e (-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\f{3-2^{p-1}}2\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}4}\mod {p^2}.$$ Proof. By (2.2) and (2.4), $H_{\f{p-1}2}\e -2q_p(2)\mod p$ and $H_{[\f p4]}\e -3q_p(2)\mod p.$ Taking $a=-\f 14$ in Theorem 3.1 and noting that $\ap=\f{p-1}4$ and $t=-\f 14$ gives $$\align&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k}\cdot\f p{4k+1} =\f 14\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f 34}k\f p{k-(-\f 14)} \\&\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}4} \b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}4}(1-\f p2(H_{\f{p-1}2} -H_{\f{p-1}4})) \e (-1)^{\f{p-1}4} \b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}4}(1-\f p2q_p(2))\mod {p^2} \endalign$$ This proves the theorem. Let $p$ be a prime with $p\e 1\mod 3$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1}\e \b{2(p-1)/3}{(p-1)/3}\mod{p^2}.$$ Proof. Taking $a=-\f 13$ in Theorem 3.1 and noting that $\ap=\f{p-1}3$, $t=-\f 13$ and $\b{-1/3}k\b{-2/3}k=\b{2k}k\b{3k}k27^{-k}$ yields the result. Let $p$ be a prime with $p\e 1\mod 6$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k}\cdot\f p{6k+1} \e \f{5-2^p}3(-1)^{\f{p-1}6}\b{(p-1)/3}{(p-1)/6} \mod {p^2}.$$ Proof. By (2.2) and (2.4), $H_{[\f p3]}\e -\f 32q_p(3)\mod p$ and $H_{[\f p6]}\e -2q_p(2)-\f 32q_p(3)\mod p.$ Thus, putting $a=-\f 16$ in Theorem 3.1 and noting that $\ap=\f{p-1}6$ and $t=-\f 16$ gives $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k}\cdot\f p{6k+1} =\f 16\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 16}k\b{-\f 56}k\f p{k-(-\f 16)} \\&\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}6}\b{(p-1)/3}{(p-1)/6}\big(1-\f p3(H_{[\f p3]}-H_{[\f p6]})\big)\\&\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}6}\b{(p-1)/3}{(p-1)/6}\big(1-\f 23pq_p(2)\big)\mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ This proves the theorem. 4. Congruences for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f p{16^k(k+b)}\mod {p^2}$ {#congruences-for-sum_k0p-1b2kk2f-p16kkbmod-p2 .unnumbered} ======================================================================= Let $p$ be an odd prime and $b\in\Bbb Z_p$. From (2.10) we have a congruence for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k(k+b)}$ $\mod {p^2}$ under the condition $1\le \bp\le \f{p-3}2$. Now we present a congruence for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f p{16^k(k+b)}\mod {p^2}$ under the condition $\bp>\f p2$. Let $p$ be an odd prime, $b\in\Bbb Z_p$, $\bp>\f p2$ and $s=(b-\bp)/p\not\e -1\mod p$. Then $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+b}\e\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+b}\\&\e \f{\b{2(\bp-\f{p+1}2)}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}^2}{(s+1)16^{\bp-\f{p+1}2}} \big(1+p(2s+1)(H_{p-\bp} -H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2})\big) \\&\e \f 1{s+1}\b{\f{p-1}2}{p-\bp}^2 \Big(1+p\big(2q_p(2)+(2s+2)H_{p-\bp}-(2s+1)H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\big)\Big) \\&\e \f{\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp}^2}{(s+1)16^{p-\bp}} \Big(1+p(2s+2)\big(H_{p-\bp}-H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\big)\Big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Proof. From \[G, (3.100)\] we know that $$\sum_{k=0}^n\b{2k}k(-1)^k\b{n+k}{2k}\f {1}{k+b} =(-1)^n\f{(b-1)(b-2)\cdots(b-n)}{b(b+1)\cdots(b+n)}.\tag 4.1$$ From \[S3, Lemma 2.2\], $$\b{\f{p-1}2+k}{2k}\e\f{\b{2k}k}{(-16)^k}\Big(1-p^2\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{(2i-1)^2}\Big) \mod{p^4}\qtq{for}k=1,2,\ldots,\f{p-1}2.$$ Thus, $$\f{\b{2k}k}{(-16)^k}\e \Big(1+p^2\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{(2i-1)^2}\Big)\b{\f{p-1}2+k}{2k} \mod{p^4}\qtq{for}k=1,2,\ldots,\f{p-1}2.\tag 4.2$$ Appealing to (4.1) and (4.2), $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{\f{p-1}2}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+b} \\&\e \sum_{k=0}^{\f{p-1}2}\b{2k}k(-1)^k\b{\f{p-1}2+k}{2k} \Big(1+p^2\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{(2i-1)^2}\Big)\f p{k+b} \\&\e \sum_{k=0}^{\f{p-1}2}\b{2k}k(-1)^k\b{\f{p-1}2+k}{2k} \f p{k+b}\\&\qq+p^2\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp}(-1)^{p-\bp}\b{\f{p-1}2+p-\bp}{2(p-\bp)} \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{p-\bp}\f 1{(2i-1)^2}\Big)\f p{p-\bp+b} \\&\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\f{(b-1)(b-2)\cdots(b-\f{p-1}2)} {b(b+1)\cdots(b+p-\bp-1)\f{b+p-\bp}p(b+p-\bp+1)\cdots (b+\f{p-1}2)} \\&\qq +\f {(-1)^{p-\bp}}{s+1}\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp}\Big(\f{\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp}} {(-16)^{p-\bp}}-\b{\f{p-1}2+p-\bp}{2(p-\bp)}\Big) \mod{p^3}.\endalign$$ That is, $$\aligned \sum_{k=0}^{\f{p-1}2}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+b} &\e \f{(-1)^{p-\bp}\b{b-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{\f{p-1}2}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}} {(s+1)\b{-1+p+b-\bp}{p-\bp}\b{-1-(p+b-\bp)}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}} \\&\q+\f {(-1)^{p-\bp}}{s+1}\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp}\Big(\f{\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp}} {(-16)^{p-\bp}}-\b{\f{p-1}2+p-\bp}{2(p-\bp)}\Big) \mod {p^3}. \endaligned\tag 4.3$$ From (4.3), (2.5) and (4.2), $$\align&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+b} \\&\e \f{(-1)^{p-\bp}\b{b-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{\f{p-1}2}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}} {(s+1)\b{-1+p+b-\bp}{p-\bp}\b{-1-(p+b-\bp)}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}} =\f{(-1)^{p-\bp}\b{\bp-1+ps}{\f{p-1}2}\b{\f{p-1}2}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}} {(s+1)\b{-1+p(s+1)}{p-\bp}\b{-1-p(s+1)}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}} \\&\e \f{(-1)^{p-\bp}}{s+1}\cdot\f{\b{\bp-1}{\f{p-1}2} (1+ps\sum_{i=1}^{\f{p-1}2}\f 1{\bp-i})\b{\f{p-1}2}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}} {\b{-1}{p-\bp}(1+p(s+1)\sum_{i=1}^{p-\bp}\f 1{-i}) \b{-1}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}(1-p(s+1)\sum_{i=1}^{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\f 1{-i})} \\&=\f 1{s+1}(-1)^{\bp-\f{p+1}2} \f{\b{\bp-1}{\f{p-1}2}(1+ps(H_{\bp-1}-H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2})\b{\f{p-1}2}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}}{(1-p(s+1)H_{p-\bp}) (1+p(s+1)H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2})} \\&\e \f 1{s+1}(-1)^{\bp-\f{p+1}2} \b{\bp-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{\f{p-1}2}{\bp-\f{p+1}2} \big(1+ps(H_{p-\bp}-H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2})\big) \\&\qq\times\big(1+p(s+1)H_{p-\bp}\big) \big(1-p(s+1)H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\big) \\&\e (-1)^{\bp-\f{p+1}2} \f{\b{\f{p-1}2+\bp-\f{p+1}2}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\b{\f{p-1}2}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}}{s+1} \big(1+p(2s+1)(H_{p-\bp} -H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2})\big) \\&=(-1)^{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\f{\b{2(\bp-\f{p+1}2)}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\b{\f{p-1}2 +\bp-\f{p+1}2}{2(\bp-\f{p+1}2)}}{s+1} \big(1+p(2s+1)(H_{p-\bp} -H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2})\big)\\& \e \f{\b{2(\bp-\f{p+1}2)}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}^2}{(s+1)16^{\bp-\f{p+1}2}} \big(1+p(2s+1)(H_{p-\bp} -H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2})\big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ By \[S3, Lemma 2.4\], for $k=1,2,\ldots,\f{p-1}2$, $$\b{\f{p-1}2}k\e \f{\b{2k}k}{(-4)^k}\Big(1-p\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{2i-1}\Big)=\f{\b{2k}k}{(-4)^k}\Big(1-p\big(H_{2k}-\f 12H_k\big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.\tag 4.4$$ Thus, $$\b{\f{p-1}2}k^2\e \f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\Big(1-p\big(H_{2k}-\f 12H_k\big)\Big)^2\e \f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}(1-2pH_{2k}+pH_k)\mod {p^2}\tag 4.5$$ and so $$\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\e \b{\f{p-1}2}k^2(1+2pH_{2k}-pH_k)\mod{p^2}.\tag 4.6$$ Now, from the above and (2.3) we deduce that $$\align&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+b} \\& \e \f 1{s+1}\b{\f{p-1}2}{\bp-\f{p+1}2}^2 \big(1+2pH_{2\bp-p-1}-pH_{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\big) \\&\qq\times \big(1+p(2s+1)(H_{p-\bp} -H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2})\big) \\&\e\f 1{s+1}\b{\f{p-1}2}{p-\bp}^2 \Big(1+p\big(2H_{2(p-\bp)} +(2s+1)H_{p-\bp}-(2s+2)H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\big)\Big) \\&\e \f 1{s+1}\b{\f{p-1}2}{p-\bp}^2 \Big(1+p\big(2q_p(2)+(2s+2)H_{p-\bp}-(2s+1)H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\big)\Big) \\&\e \f 1{(s+1)16^{p-\bp}}\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp}^2 \big(1-2pH_{2p-2\bp}+pH_{p-\bp}\big) \\&\qq\times\Big(1+p\big(2H_{2(p-\bp)}+(2s+1) H_{p-\bp}-(2s+2)H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\big)\Big) \\&\e \f{\b{2(p-\bp)}{p-\bp}^2}{(s+1)16^{p-\bp}} \Big(1+p(2s+2)\big(H_{p-\bp}-H_{\bp-\f{p+1}2}\big)\Big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ To complete the proof, we note that $p\mid \b{2k}k$ for $\f p2<k<p$. Let $p$ be an odd prime, $b\in\Bbb Z_p$, $\bp>\f p2$ and $s=(b-\bp)/p\not\e -1,-\f 12\mod p$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+\f 12-b}\e-\f{2s+2}{2s+1} \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+b}\mod {p^2}.$$ Proof. Set $b'=\f 12-b$ and $s'=(b'-\langle b'\rangle_p)/p$. Then $\langle b'\rangle_p=p+\f{p+1}2-\bp>\f p2$ and $s'=-\f 32-s$. By Theorem 4.1, $$\align&(s'+1)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+b'} \\&\e \b{\f{p-1}2}{p-\langle b'\rangle_p}^2 \Big(1+p\big(2q_p(2)+(2s'+2)H_{p-\langle b'\rangle_p}-(2s+1)H_{\langle b'\rangle_p-\f{p+1}2}\big)\Big) \\&= \b{\f{p-1}2}{p-\langle b\rangle_p}^2 \Big(1+p\big(2q_p(2)+(2s+2)H_{p-\langle b\rangle_p}-(2s+1)H_{\langle b\rangle_p-\f{p+1}2}\big)\Big) \\&\e (s+1)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+b} \mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ This yields the result. Let $p$ be a prime with $p\e 1\mod 3$ and so $p=x^2+3y^2$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1} \e\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{6k+1} \e 4x^2-2p\mod{p^2}.$$ Proof. Putting $b=\f 13$ in Theorem 4.1 and noting that $\bp=\f{2p+1}3$ and $s=-\f 23$ gives $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1}\\&\e\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}3}^2 \Big(1+p\big(2q_p(2)+\f 23H_{\f{p-1}3}+\f 13H_{\f{p-1}6}\big)\Big) \\&\e\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}3}^2 \Big(1+p\Big(2q_p(2)+\f 23\Big(-\f 32q_p(3)\Big)+\f 13\Big(-2q_p(2)-\f 32q_p(3)\Big)\Big)\Big) \\&=\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}6}^2\Big(1+p\Big(\f 43q_p(2)-\f 32q_p(3)\Big)\Big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ By \[Y\] or \[BEW, Theorem 9.4.4\], $$\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}6}\e \Big(2x-\f p{2x}\Big) \Big(-1+\f 23pq_p(2)-\f 34pq_p(3)\Big)\mod {p^2}.$$ Thus, $$\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}6}^2\e (4x^2-2p)\Big(1-\f 43pq_p(2)+\f 32pq_p(3)\Big)\mod{p^2}.$$ Hence $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1}\\&\e (4x^2-2p)\Big(1-p\Big(\f 43q_p(2)-\f 32q_p(3)\Big)\Big)\Big(1+p\Big(\f 43q_p(2)-\f 32q_p(3)\Big)\Big) \e 4x^2-2p\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Taking $b=\f 13$ in Corollary 4.1 gives $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{6k+1} \e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1} \mod {p^2}.$$ Thus, the theorem is proved. Let $p$ be a prime with $p>3$, $p\e 1,3\mod 8$ and so $p=x^2+2y^2$. Then $$\align \big(2-(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{8k+1}&\e \big(2+(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{8k+3}\\&\e 4x^2-2p\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Proof. Since $\f 38=\f 12-\f 18$, from Corollary 4.1 we only need to prove the congruence for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{8k+1}\mod {p^2}.$ Set $b=\f 18$. For $p\e 1\mod 8$, $\bp=\f{7p+1}8>\f p2$, $p-\bp=\f{p-1}8$, $\bp-\f{p+1}2=\f{3(p-1)}8$ and $s=\f{b-\bp}p =-\f 78$. By Theorem 4.1, $$\f 18\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+1/8}\e \b{\f{p-1}2}{[p/8]}^2 \Big(1+p\Big(2q_p(2)+\f 34H_{[\f{3p}8]}+\f 14H_{[\f p8]}\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.$$ For $p\e 3\mod 8$, $\bp=\f{5p+1}8>\f p2$, $p-\bp=[\f{3p}8]$, $\bp-\f{p+1}2=[\f p8]$ and $s=\f{b-\bp}p =-\f 58$. By Theorem 4.1, $$\f 38\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+1/8}\e \b{\f{p-1}2}{[p/8]}^2 \Big(1+p\Big(2q_p(2)+\f 34H_{[\f{3p}8]}+\f 14H_{[\f p8]}\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.$$ By (2.3), $H_{[\f p8]}+H_{[\f{3p}8]}\e 2H_{[\f p4]}-2q_p(2)\e -8q_p(2)\mod p$. Hence, for $p\e 1,3\mod 8$, $$\align \big(2-(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{8k+1}&\e \b{\f{p-1}2}{[\f p8]}^2 \Big(1+p\Big(2q_p(2)+\f 34(-8q_p(2))-\f 24H_{[\f p8]}\Big)\Big) \\&=\b{\f{p-1}2}{[\f p8]}^2 \Big(1-p\Big(4q_p(2)+\f 12H_{[\f p8]}\Big)\Big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ On the other hand, taking $n=[\f p8]$ and $t=-\f 14$ in \[S7, Theorem 3.2(ii)\] gives $$\align \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{128^k} &=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f 34}k\f 1{2^k} \e \b{\f{p-1}2}{[ p/8]}\Big(1+p\Big(\f 34H_{[\f p4]}-\f 14H_{[\f p8]}+\f 14q_p(2)\Big)\Big) \\&\e \b{\f{p-1}2}{[p/8]}\Big(1-p\Big(2q_p(2)+\f 14H_{[\f p8]}\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ From \[S5, Theorem 4.3\], $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{128^k}\e (-1)^{[\f p8]+\f{p-1}2}\Big(2x-\f p{2x}\Big)\mod {p^2},$$ where $x\e 1\mod 4$. Thus, $$\align 4x^2-2p&\e \Big(2x-\f p{2x}\Big)^2\e \Big(\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{128^k}\Big)^2 \e\b{\f{p-1}2}{[p/8]}^2\Big(1-p\Big(2q_p(2)+\f 14H_{[\f p8]}\Big)\Big)^2 \\&\e\b{\f{p-1}2}{[p/8]}^2\Big(1-2p\Big(2q_p(2)+\f 14H_{[\f p8]}\Big)\Big)\\&\e \big(2-(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{8k+1} \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ This proves the theorem. Let $p$ be a prime, $p\e 1\mod 4$ and so $p=x^2+y^2$ with $2\nmid x$. Then $$\align \Big(3\Ls p3-2\Big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{12k+1}&\e\Big(3\Ls p3+2\Big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{12k+5} \\&\e 4x^2-2p\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Proof. Since $\f 5{12}=\f 12-\f 1{12}$, from Corollary 4.1 we only need to prove the congruence for $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{12k+1}\mod {p^2}.$ Set $b=\f 1{12}$. For $p\e 1\mod {12}$, $\bp=\f{11p+1}{12}>\f p2$, $p-\bp=\f{p-1}{12}$, $\bp-\f{p+1}2=\f{5(p-1)}{12}$ and $s=\f{b-\bp}p =-\f {11}{12}$. By Theorem 4.1, $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{12k+1}\e\b{\f{p-1}2}{[\f p{12}]}^2\Big(1+p\Big(2q_p(2)+\f 16H_{[\f p{12}]}+\f 56H_{[\f{5p}{12}]}\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.$$ For $p\e 5\mod {12}$, $\bp=\f{7p+1}{12}>\f p2$, $p-\bp=\f{5p-1}{12}$, $\bp-\f{p+1}2=\f{p-5}{12}$ and $s=\f{b-\bp}p =-\f {7}{12}$. By Theorem 4.1, $$\Big(1-\f 7{12}\Big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{k+1/12}\e\b{\f{p-1}2}{[\f p{12}]}^2\Big(1+p\Big(2q_p(2)+\f 16H_{[\f p{12}]}+\f 56H_{[\f{5p}{12}]}\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.$$ Since $[\f p{12}]+[\f {5p}{12}]=\f{p-1}2$, from (2.3) and (2.4), $$H_{[\f{5p}{12}]}+H_{[\f p{12}]}\e 2H_{[\f p6]}-2q_p(2) \e -6q_p(2)-3q_p(3)\mod p.\tag 4.7$$ Thus, $$\align 2q_p(2)+\f 16H_{[\f p{12}]}+\f 56H_{[\f{5p}{12}]} &\e2q_p(2) -\f 46H_{[\f p{12}]}+\f 56(-6q_p(2)-3q_p(3)) \\&=-3q_p(2)-\f 52q_p(3) -\f 23H_{[\f p{12}]}\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ On the other hand, putting $n=[\f p{12}]$ and $t=-\f 16$ in \[S7, Theorem 3.1(ii)\] we deduce that $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{864^k}=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \b{-\f 16}k\b{-\f 56}k\f 1{2^k}\e \b{\f{p-1}2}{[\f p{12}]}\Big(1+p\Big(\f 56H_{[\f p6]}-\f 13H_{[\f p{12}]}+\f 16q_p(2)\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.$$ By \[S6, Theorem 3.2\], $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{864^k}\e 2c-\f p{2c}\mod {p^2}$, where $$c=\cases x&\t{if $p\e 1\mod {12}$ and $3\nmid x$,} \\-x&\t{if $p\e 1\mod {12}$ and $3\mid x$,} \\y&\t{if $p\e 5\mod {12}$ and $y\e x\mod 3$} \endcases\tag 4.8$$ and $x\e 1\mod 4$. By (2.4), $H_{[\f p6]}\e -2q_p(2)-\f 32q_p(3)\mod p$. Thus, $$2c-\f p{2c}\e \b{\f{p-1}2}{[\f p{12}]}\Big(1-p\Big(\f 32q_p(2) +\f 54q_p(3)+\f 13H_{[\f p{12}]}\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}\tag 4.9$$ and so $$\align 4c^2-2p&\e \b{\f{p-1}2}{[\f p{12}]}^2\Big(1-p\Big(3q_p(2) +\f 52q_p(3)+\f 23H_{[\f p{12}]}\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}\\& \e \cases \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{12k+1}\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 1\mod {12}$,} \\5\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{12k+1}\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 5\mod {12}$.}\endcases\endalign$$ To complete the proof we note that $4c^2-2p=4y^2-2p\e -(4x^2-2p)\mod {p^2}$ for $p\e 5\mod{12}$. Based on calculations with Maple, we pose the following conjectures. Let $p$ be a prime such that $p\e 1\mod 6$ and so $p=x^2+3y^2$. Then $$\align \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1}\e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{6k+1} \e 4x^2-2p-\f{p^2}{4x^2}\mod{p^3}.\endalign$$ Let $p$ be a prime with $p>3$, $p\e 1,3\mod 8$ and so $p=x^2+2y^2$. Then $$\align \big(2-(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{8k+1}&\e \big(2+(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{8k+3}\\&\e 4x^2-2p-\f{p^2}{4x^2}\mod {p^3}.\endalign$$ Let $p$ be a prime, $p\e 1\mod 4$ and so $p=x^2+y^2$ with $2\nmid x$. Then $$\align \Big(3\Ls p3-2\Big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{12k+1}&\e\Big(3\Ls p3+2\Big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{12k+5} \\&\e 4x^2-2p-\f{p^2}{4x^2}\mod {p^3}.\endalign$$ 5. Congruences for Domb and Almkvist-Zudilin numbers {#congruences-for-domb-and-almkvist-zudilin-numbers .unnumbered} ==================================================== This section is devoted to proving some conjectures on congruences for Domb and Almkvist-Zudilin numbers. Let $p$ be a prime with $p>3$. Then $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{16^n}\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{4^n} \e \cases 4x^2-2p\mod{p^2}&\t{if $p\e 1\mod 3$ and so $p=x^2+3y^2$,}\\0\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 2\mod 3$.} \endcases$$ Proof. From \[S8\] we know that $$D_n=(-1)^n\sum_{k=0}^n\b{2k}k^2\b{3k}k\b{n+2k}{3k}(-16)^{n-k}.\tag 5.1$$ From \[G, (1.52)\], $$\sum_{n=r}^m\b nr=\b{m+1}{r+1}.\tag 5.2$$ Thus, $$\align \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{16^n}&=\sum_{n=0}^{p-1} \sum_{k=0}^n\b{2k}k^2\b{3k}k\b{n+2k}{3k}\f 1{(-16)^k} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\b{3k}k\f 1{(-16)^k}\sum_{n=k}^{p-1}\b{n+2k}{3k} =\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\b{3k}k\f 1{(-16)^k}\b{p+2k}{3k+1}.\endalign$$ If $\f{2p}3<k<p$, then $\b{2k}k^2\b{3k}k=\f{(2k)!(3k)!}{k!^5}\e 0\mod {p^3}$. If $\f p2<k<\f{2p}3$, then $3k+2\le 2p<p+2k$ and so $$\b{p+2k}{3k+1}=\b{p+2k}{p-1-k}= \f{(p+2k)(p+2k-1)\cdots(3k+2)}{(p-1-k)!}\e 0\mod p.$$ Hence $p^3\mid \b{2k}k^2\b{p+2k}{3k+1}$ and therefore $$\aligned\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{16^n}&=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\b{3k}k\f 1{(-16)^k}\b{p+2k}{3k+1}\\&\e \sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b{2k}k^2\b{3k}k\f 1{(-16)^k}\b{p+2k}{3k+1}\mod{p^3}.\endaligned\tag 5.3$$ For $1\le k<\f p2$ with $k\not=\f{p-1}3$, $$\align \b{3k}k\b{p+2k}{3k+1}&= \f{(p+2k)\cdots(p+1)p(p-1)\cdots(p-k)}{k!(2k)!(3k+1)} \\&=\f p{3k+1}\cdot\f{(p^2-1^2)\cdots(p^2-k^2)(p+k+1)\cdots(p+2k)}{k!(2k)!} \\&\e \f p{3k+1}\cdot\f{(-1^2)\cdots(-k^2)(k+1)\cdots 2k}{k!(2k)!}\Big(1+p\Big(\f 1{k+1}+\cdots+\f 1{2k}\Big)\Big) \\&=\f{(-1)^k}{3k+1}(p+p^2(H_{2k}-H_k))\mod{p^3}.\endalign$$ For $k=\f{p-1}3$ we see that $$\align &\b{3k}k\b{p+2k}{3k+1}=\b{p-1}{\f{2(p-1)}3}\b{p+\f{2(p-1)}3}p \\&=\f{(p-1)(p-2)\cdots(p-\f{2(p-1)}3)}{\f{2(p-1)}3!}\cdot \f{(p+\f{2(p-1)}3)\cdots(p+1)p(p-1)\cdots(\f{2(p-1)}3+1)} {p!} \\&=\f{(p^2-1^2)(p^2-2^2)\cdots(p^2-\sls{2(p-1)}3^2)}{\f{2(p-1)}3!^2} \e 1-p^2\sum_{i=1}^{2(p-1)/3}\f 1{i^2}\mod {p^4}. \endalign$$ Let $\{U_n\}$ be given by $$U_0=1,\q U_n=-2\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\b n{2k}U_{n-2k}\q(n\ge 1).\tag 5.4$$ Using \[S1, Theorem 5.1(a)\] and \[S4, Theorem 3.3\], $$\sum_{i=1}^{2(p-1)/3}\f 1{i^2}\e \sum_{i=1}^{2(p-1)/3} \f 1{(p-i)^2}=\sum_{x=\f{p-1}3+1}^{p-1}\f 1{x^2} =\sum_{x=1}^{p-1}\f 1{x^2}-\sum_{x=1}^{(p-1)/3}\f 1{x^2} \e 0-3U_{p-3}\mod p.$$ From \[S4, Theorem 3.2(iii)\], $$\sum_{i=\f{p-1}3+1}^{2(p-1)/3}\f 1i=\sum_{i=1}^{2(p-1)/3} \f 1i-\sum_{i=1}^{(p-1)/3}\f 1i =\sum_{i=1}^{2(p-1)/3}\f{(-1)^{i-1}}i\e 3pU_{p-3}\mod{p^2}.$$ Hence for $p\e 1\mod 3$, $$\b{p-1}{\f{p-1}3}\b{p+\f{2(p-1)}3}p \e 1-p^2\sum_{i=1}^{2(p-1)/3}\f 1{i^2} \e 1+3p^2U_{p-3}\e 1+p(H_{\f{2(p-1)}3}-H_{\f{p-1}3})\mod {p^3}.$$ Therefore, from (5.3) and the above congruence for $\b{3k}k\b{p+2k}{3k+1}\mod {p^3}$ we derive that $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{16^n} \e\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1}(1+p(H_{2k}-H_k))\mod{p^3}.\tag 5.5$$ Note that $H_{\f{2(p-1)}3}=H_{p-1-\f{p-1}3}\e H_{\f{p-1}3}\mod p$. We get $\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{16^n} \e\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1}\mod{p^2}.$ Since $$\b{p-1}{\f{p-1}3}\b{p+\f{p-1}3}p=\f{(p^2-1^2)(p^2-2^2)\cdots (p^2-\sls{p-1}3^2)}{\sls{p-1}3!^2}\e 1\mod{p^2},$$ from \[S10, p.137\] we know that $\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{4^n} \e\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b{2k}k^2\f 1{16^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1}\mod{p^2}.$ Now applying (2.11) and Theorem 4.2 yields the result. [Remark 5.1]{} Suppose that $p$ is a prime with $p>3$. In \[S10\] the author proved that $\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{D_n}{4^n}\e 0\mod{p^2}$ for $p\e 2\mod 3$. Let $\{b_n\}$ be Almkvist-Zudilin numbers. From \[S8, (5.1) and (5.2)\] we know that $$\aligned b_n&=\sum_{k=0}^{[n/3]}\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}\b{n+k}{4k}(-3)^{n-3k} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^n\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}\b{n+3k}{4k}(-27)^{n-k}.\endaligned \tag 5.6$$ Suppose that $p$ is a prime with $p>3$. Then $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n} \e\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} \e\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k} \cdot\f p{4k+1}\mod {p^2}.$$ Proof. Using (5.6) and (5.2), $$\align \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n} &=\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\sum_{k=0}^{[n/3]}\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}\b{n+k}{4k} \f 1{(-27)^k} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}\f 1{(-27)^k}\sum_{n=3k}^{p-1}\b{n+k}{4k} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}\f 1{(-27)^k}\b{p+k}{4k+1} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f{(p+k)(p+k-1)\cdots(p+1)p(p-1)\cdots(p-3k)}{(4k+1)\cdot (-27^k)\cdot k!^4} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f p{4k+1}\cdot \f{(p^2-1^2)(p^2-2^2)\cdots(p^2-k^2)\cdot (p-(k+1))\cdots(p-3k)}{k!^4\cdot (-27)^k}.\endalign$$ Thus, $$\align &\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n} \\&\e \sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f p{(4k+1)(-27)^k\cdot k!^4}\cdot (-1^2)(-2^2)\cdots(-k^2)\Big(1-p^2\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{i^2}\Big) \\&\qq\times(-(k+1))\cdots(-3k)\Big(1-p\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f 1i+p^2\sum_{k+1\le i<j\le 3k}\f 1{ij}\Big) \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f p{4k+1}\cdot\f{(3k)!}{k!^3\cdot 27^k} \Big(1-p^2\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{i^2}\Big) \Big(1-p\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f 1i+\f{p^2}2\Big(\Big(\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f 1i\Big)^2-\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f 1{i^2}\Big)\Big) \\&\e \sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f p{4k+1}\cdot\f{(3k)!}{k!^3\cdot 27^k} \Big(1-p\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f 1i+\f{p^2}2\Big(\Big(\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f 1i\Big)^2-\sum_{i=1}^{3k}\f 1{i^2}-\sum_{i=1}^k\f 1{i^2}\Big)\Big) \mod{p^3}.\endalign$$ For $k=\f{p-1}4$ we see that $\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f 1i=H_{p-1-\f{p-1}4}-H_{\f{p-1}4}\e 0\mod p$ and $$\sum_{i=1}^{3(p-1)/4}\f 1{i^2}+\sum_{i=1}^{(p-1)/4}\f 1{i^2} \e \sum_{k=(p-1)/4+1}^{p-1}\f 1{k^2}+\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/4}\f 1{k^2} =\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f 1{k^2}\e 0\mod p.$$ Thus, $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f p{4k+1}\cdot\f{(3k)!}{k!^3\cdot 27^k} \Big(1-p\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f 1i\Big)\mod {p^3}\tag 5.7$$ and so $\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f p{4k+1}\cdot\f{(3k)!}{k!^3\cdot 27^k}\mod {p^2}.$ Similarly, $$\align \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} &=\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}\b{n+3k}{4k} \f 1{(-27)^k} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}\f 1{(-27)^k}\sum_{n=k}^{p-1}\b{n+3k}{4k} =\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}\f 1{(-27)^k}\b{p+3k}{4k+1} \\&=p+\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{(p+3k)(p+3k-1)\cdots(p+1)p(p-1)\cdots(p-k)}{(4k+1)\cdot (-27^k)\cdot k!^4} \\&=p+\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f p{4k+1}\cdot \f{(p^2-1^2)(p^2-2^2)\cdots(p^2-k^2)\cdot (p+(k+1))\cdots(p+3k)}{k!^4\cdot (-27)^k}.\endalign$$ For $\f p3<k<p$ we see that $\f p{4k+1}\cdot\f{(3k)!}{k!^3\cdot 27^k}\e 0\mod{p^2}$. Recall that $\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f 1i\e 0\mod p$ for $k=\f{p-1}4$. From the above we then get $$\align \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} &\e p+\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f p{(4k+1)(-27)^k\cdot k!^4} (-1^2)(-2^2)\cdots(-k^2)(k+1)\cdots 3k\Big(1+\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f pi\Big) \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f p{4k+1}\cdot\f{(3k)!}{k!^3\cdot 27^k} \Big(1+\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f pi\Big) \e \sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f p{4k+1} \cdot \f{(3k)!}{k!^3\cdot 27^k}\Big(1+\sum_{i=k+1}^{3k}\f pi\Big) \\&\e\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]} \f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k} \cdot\f p{4k+1}\mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ For $\f{2p}3<k<p$ we have $p^2\mid (3k)!$, for $\f p3<k<\f{2p}3$ we have $p\nmid (4k+1)$ and $p\mid (3k)!$. Thus, $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k} \cdot\f p{4k+1}\e\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]} \f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k} \cdot\f p{4k+1}\mod {p^2}.$$ Combining the above proves the lemma. Suppose that $p$ is a prime with $p>3$ and $p\e 3\mod 4$. Then $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} \e 0\mod{p^2}.$$ Proof. From Lemma 5.1 and (2.12) (with $b=\f 14$), $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} \e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\cdot \f p{4k+1} \e 0\mod {p^2}.$$ Let $p$ be a prime with $p\e 1\mod 4$. Then $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} \e\cases 4x^2-2p\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 1\mod{12}$ and so $p=x^2+9y^2$,} \\2p-2x^2\mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 5\mod{12}$ and so $2p=x^2+9y^2$.} \endcases$$ Proof. Set $S(a)=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f p{4k+1}.$ By (1.2), $S(-\f 13)=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{(3k)!}{k!^3\cdot 27^k}\cdot \f p{4k+1}.$ Applying Lemma 5.1, $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} \e S\Big(-\f 13\Big)=S\Big(-\f 23\Big)\mod {p^2}.\tag 5.8$$ For $p\e 1\mod{12}$, taking $a=-\f 13$, $b=\f 14$ and $m=\f {p-1}{12}-1$ in Lemma 2.1 yields $$S\Big(-\f 13\Big)\e \f{\b{-7/12}{(p-1)/12}}{\b{-1/12}{(p-1)/12}} S\Big(-\f 14-\f p{12}\Big) \mod {p^3}.\tag 5.9$$ For $p\e 5\mod{12}$, taking $a=-\f 23$, $b=\f 14$ and $m=\f {p-5}{12}-1$ in Lemma 2.1 yields $$S\Big(-\f 23\Big)\e \f{\b{-11/12}{(p-5)/12}}{\b{-5/12}{(p-5)/12}} S\Big(-\f 14-\f p{12}\Big) \mod {p^3}.\tag 5.10$$ Note that $\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f 1{2k-1}=H_{p-1}-\f 12H_{\f{p-1}2}\e q_p(2)\mod p$. By \[S2, Theorem 3.1(ii)\], $$\sum_{i=0}^{(p-1)/4-1}\f 1{4i+1}=\sum\Sb k=1\\k\e p\mod 4\endSb^{p-1}\f 1k\e \f 34q_p(2)\mod p.\tag 5.11$$ Thus, $$\sum_{i=0}^{\f{p-1}4-1}\f 1{4i+3}=\sum_{k=1}^{\f{p-1}2}\f 1{2k-1} -\sum_{i=0}^{\f{p-1}4-1}\f 1{4i+1}\e q_p(2)-\f 34q_p(2)=\f 14q_p(2)\mod p.\tag 5.12$$ Using (2.5), (5.11) and (5.12), $$\align S\Big(-\f 14-\f p{12}\Big)&=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 14-\f p{12}}k\b{-\f 34+\f p{12}}k\f p{4k+1} \\&\e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f 34}k\f p{4k+1} \Big(1+\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\f{-\f p{12}}{-\f 14-i}\Big) \Big(1+\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\f{\f p{12}}{-\f 34-i}\Big) \\&= \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f 34}k\f p{4k+1} \Big(1+\f 13\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\f p{4i+1}\Big)\Big(1-\f 13\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\f p{4i+3}\Big) \\&\e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f 34}k\f p{4k+1} \Big(1+\f 13\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\Big(\f p{4i+1}-\f p{4i+3}\Big)\Big) \\&\e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f 34}k\f p{4k+1} +\f p3\b{-\f 14}{\f{p-1}4}\b{-\f 34}{\f{p-1}4}\sum_{i=0}^{(p-1)/4-1}\Big(\f 1{4i+1}-\f 1{4i+3}\Big) \\&\e S\Big(-\f 14\Big)+\f p3\cdot \f{\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}4}\b{p-1}{\f{p-1}2}}{64^{\f{p-1}4}}\Big(\f 34q_p(2)-\f 14q_p(2)\Big)\\&\e S\Big(-\f 14\Big)+\f p6\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}4} (-1)^{\f{p-1}4}q_p(2) \mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ Now applying Theorem 3.2 gives $$S\Big(-\f 14-\f{p}{12}\Big) \e S\Big(-\f 14\Big)+\f p6\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}4} (-1)^{\f{p-1}4}q_p(2) \e (-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}4} \Big(1-\f 13pq_p(2)\Big) \mod {p^2}.$$ Suppose $p=A^2+B^2$ with $A\e 1\mod 4$. From \[CDE\] or \[BEW\], $$\b{(p-1)/2}{(p-1)/4}\e \Big(1+\f 12pq_p(2)\Big)\Big(2A-\f p{2A}\Big)\mod {p^2}.\tag 5.13$$ Thus, $$\align S\Big(-\f 14-\f{p}{12}\Big)&\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}4} \Big(1+\f 12pq_p(2)\Big)\Big(2A-\f p{2A}\Big)\Big(1-\f 13pq_p(2)\Big) \\&\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\Big(1+\f 16pq_p(2)\Big)\Big(2A-\f p{2A}\Big) \mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Combining this with (5.8)-(5.10) yields $$\aligned &\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} \\&\e \cases \f{\b{-7/12}{(p-1)/12}}{\b{-1/12}{(p-1)/12}} (-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\big(1+\f 16pq_p(2)\big)\big(2A-\f p{2A}\big) \mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 1\mod{12}$,} \\\f{\b{-11/12}{(p-5)/12}}{\b{-5/12}{(p-5)/12}} (-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\big(1+\f 16pq_p(2)\big)\big(2A-\f p{2A}\big) \mod {p^2}&\t{if $p\e 5\mod{12}$.} \endcases\endaligned\tag 5.14$$ For $p\e 1\mod {12}$ suppose $p=x^2+9y^2$. Using (2.5) we see that $$\align\f{\b{-\f 7{12}}{\f{p-1}{12}}}{\b{-\f 1{12}}{\f{p-1}{12}}} &=\f{\b{\f{7(p-1)}{12}-\f{7p}{12}}{\f{p-1}{12}}} {\b{\f{p-1}{12}-\f{p}{12}}{\f{p-1}{12}}} \e\f{\b{\f{7(p-1)}{12}} {\f{p-1}{12}}\big(1-\f 7{12}p\sum_{i=0}^{\f{p-1}{12}-1}\f 1{\f{7(p-1)}{12}-i}\big)} {\b{\f{p-1}{12}} {\f{p-1}{12}}\big(1-\f p{12}\sum_{i=0}^{\f{p-1}{12}-1}\f 1{\f{p-1}{12}-i}\big)} \\&=\b{\f{7(p-1)}{12}} {\f{p-1}{12}}\f{1-\f 7{12}p(H_{\f{7(p-1)}{12}}-H_{\f{p-1}2})}{1-\f p{12}H_{\f{p-1}{12}}} \\&\e \b{\f{7(p-1)}{12}} {\f{p-1}{12}}\Big(1-\f 7{12}p(H_{\f{7(p-1)}{12}}-H_{\f{p-1}2})\Big) \Big(1+\f p{12}H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\Big) \\&\e \b{\f{7(p-1)}{12}} {\f{p-1}{12}}\Big(1-\f 7{12}p\big(H_{\f{7(p-1)}{12}}+2q_p(2)\big)+\f p{12}H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\Big)\mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ By (4.7), $H_{\f{7(p-1)}{12}}\e H_{\f{5(p-1)}{12}}\e -6q_p(2)-3q_p(3)-H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\mod p$. By \[S3, Lemma 2.5\], $$\align \b{\f{7(p-1)}{12}} {\f{p-1}{12}}&\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}{12}}\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}{12}} \Big(1+2p\Big(H_{\f{p-1}6}-\f 12H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\Big)\Big) \\& \e (-1)^{\f{p-1}{12}}\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}{12}} \Big(1-p\big(4q_p(2)+3q_p(3)+H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\big)\Big)\mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ Therefore, $$\align &(-1)^{\f{p-1}{4}}\Big(1+\f 16pq_p(2)\Big)\b{-\f 7{12}}{\f{p-1}{12}}\b{-\f 1{12}}{\f{p-1}{12}}^{-1}\\ &\e \Big(1+\f 16pq_p(2)\Big)\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}{12}} \Big(1-p\big(4q_p(2)+3q_p(3)+H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\big)\Big) \\&\qq\times\Big(1-\f 7{12}p\big(-4q_p(2)-3q_p(3)-H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\big)+\f p{12}H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\Big) \\&\e\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}{12}} \Big(1-p\Big(\f 32q_p(2)+\f 54q_p(3)+\f 13H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\Big)\Big) \mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ This together with (5.14) and (4.9) yields $$\align \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}&\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} \e \b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}{12}} \Big(1-p\Big(\f 32q_p(2)+\f 54q_p(3)+\f 13H_{\f{p-1}{12}}\Big)\Big) \Big(2A-\f p{2A}\Big) \\&\e \Big(2c-\f p{2c}\Big)\Big(2A-\f p{2A}\Big) \e\cases 4A^2-2p=4x^2-2p \mod {p^2}&\t{if $3\nmid A$,} \\-(4A^2-2p)\e 4x^2-2p\mod {p^2}&\t{if $3\mid A$}, \endcases\endalign$$ where $c=A$ or $-A$ according as $3\nmid A$ or $3\mid A$. Now assume $p\e 5\mod {12}$ and $p=A^2+B^2$ with $A\e 1\mod 4$ and $B\e A\mod 3$. Appealing to (2.5), $$\align\f{\b{-\f {11}{12}}{\f{p-5}{12}}}{\b{-\f 5{12}}{\f{p-5}{12}}} &=\f{\b{\f{7p-11}{12}-\f{7p}{12}}{\f{p-5}{12}}} {\b{\f{p-5}{12}-\f{p}{12}}{\f{p-5}{12}}} \e\f{\b{\f{7p-11}{12}} {\f{p-5}{12}}\big(1-\f {7}{12}p\sum_{i=0}^{\f{p-5}{12}-1}\f 1{\f{7p-11}{12}-i}\big)} {\b{\f{p-5}{12}} {\f{p-5}{12}}\big(1-\f p{12}\sum_{i=0}^{\f{p-5}{12}-1}\f 1{\f{p-5}{12}-i}\big)} \\&=\b{\f{7p-11}{12}} {\f{p-5}{12}}\f{1-\f {7}{12}p(H_{\f{7p-11}{12}}-H_{\f{p-1}2})}{1-\f p{12}H_{\f{p-5}{12}}} \\&\e \b{\f{7p-11}{12}} {\f{p-5}{12}}\Big(1-\f {7}{12}p(H_{\f{7p-11}{12}}-H_{\f{p-1}2})\Big) \Big(1+\f p{12}H_{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big) \\&\e \b{\f{7p-11}{12}} {\f{p-5}{12}}\Big(1-\f {7}{12}p\big(H_{\f{7p-11}{12}}+2q_p(2)\big)+\f p{12}H_{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big)\mod {p^2}. \endalign$$ By (4.7), $$H_{\f{7p-11}{12}}=H_{p-1-\f{5p-1}{12}}\e H_{\f{5p-1}{12}} \e -6q_p(2)-3q_p(3)-H_{\f{p-5}{12}}.$$ By \[S3, Lemma 2.5\], $$\align \b{\f{7p-11}{12}} {\f{p-5}{12}}&\e (-1)^{\f{p-5}{12}} \b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big(1+2p\Big(H_{\f{p-5}6}-\f 12H_{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big)\Big) \\&\e (-1)^{\f{p-5}{12}} \b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big(1-p\Big(4q_p(2)+3q_p(3)+ H_{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$ Hence $$\align\f{\b{-\f {11}{12}}{\f{p-5}{12}}}{\b{-\f 5{12}}{\f{p-5}{12}}} &\e(-1)^{\f{p-5}{12}} \b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big(1-p\Big(4q_p(2)+3q_p(3)+ H_{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big)\Big) \\&\qq\times\Big(1-\f {7}{12}p\big(-6q_p(2)-3q_p(3)-H_{\f{p-5}{12}}+2q_p(2)\big)+\f p{12}H_{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big) \\&\e(-1)^{\f{p-5}{12}} \b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big(1-p\Big(\f 53q_p(2)+\f 54q_p(3)+\f 13 H_{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big)\Big)\mod {p^2} \endalign$$ and so $$\align &\b{\f{7p-11}{12}} {\f{p-5}{12}} (-1)^{\f{p-1}4}\Big(1+\f 16pq_p(2)\Big) \\&\e-\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big(1+\f 16pq_p(2)\Big) \Big(1-p\Big(\f 53q_p(2)+\f 54q_p(3)+\f 13 H_{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big)\Big) \\&\e-\b{\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-5}{12}} \Big(1-p\Big(\f 32q_p(2)+\f 54q_p(3)+\f 13 H_{\f{p-5}{12}}\Big)\Big) \e -\Big(2B-\f p{2B}\Big)\mod {p^2} \endalign$$ by (4.9). This together with (5.14) yields $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-27)^n} \e -\Big(2A-\f p{2A}\Big) \Big(2B-\f p{2B}\Big)\e -4AB\mod {p^2}.$$ Suppose $2p=x^2+9y^2$. Then clearly $\sls{x+3y}2^2+\sls{x-3y}2^2=p$ and $\f{x+3y}2\e \f{x-3y}2\mod 3$. Thus, $$2p-2x^2=9y^2-x^2=-4\cdot\f{x+3y}2\cdot\f{x-3y}2=-4AB.$$ Thus the theorem is proved. Let $p$ be a prime of the form $12k+5$. Then $p=A^2+B^2$ with $A\e 1\mod 4$ and $B\e A\mod 3$, and $2p=x^2+9y^2$. We have $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}}{(-12288)^k}\e -4AB\e -2x^2\mod p.$$ Proof. Taking $u=-1/3$ in \[S8, Theorem 5.1\] gives $\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{2k}k^2\b{4k}{2k}}{(-12288)^k}\e\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{b_n}{(-3)^n}$ $\mod p.$ Thus the result follows from Theorem 5.3 and its proof. Let $p>3$ be a prime. Then $$\align &\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{W_n}{(-3)^n}\e\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k} \cdot\f p{3k+1}\\&\e \cases -L+\f pL\mod{p^2}&\t{if $3\mid p-1$ and so $4p=L^2+27M^2$ with $3\mid L-1$,} \\ -\f p3\big(\f{p-2}3!\big)^3 \mod{p^2}&\t{if $p\e 2\mod 3$.} \endcases\endalign$$ Proof. Using (1.8) and (5.2), $$\align\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{W_n}{(-3)^n}& =\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\sum_{k=0}^{[n/3]}\b{2k}k\b{3k}k\b n{3k}\f 1{(-27)^k} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\b{2k}k\b{3k}k\f 1{(-27)^k}\sum_{n=3k}^{p-1} \b n{3k}=\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\b{2k}k\b{3k}k\f 1{(-27)^k}\b p{3k+1} \\&=\sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\b{2k}k\b{3k}k\f 1{(-27)^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1}\cdot\f{(p-1)(p-2)\cdots(p-3k)}{(3k)!}\\& \e \sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k} \cdot\f p{3k+1} \mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ For $\f p3<k<p$ with $k\not=\f{2p-1}3$ we have $p\nmid 3k+1$ and $\b{2k}k\b{3k}k=\f{(3k)!}{k!^3}\e 0\mod p$. Thus, $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1} - \sum_{k=0}^{[p/3]}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1} \\&\e\cases 0\mod{p^2}&\t{if $p\e 1\mod 3$,} \\\f{(2p-1)!}{(\f{2p-1}3)!^3}\cdot \f 1{2\cdot 27^{(2p-1)/3}}\mod{p^2}&\t{if $p\e 2\mod 3$.} \endcases\endalign$$ For $p\e 1\mod 3$ it is well known that $4p=L^2+27M^2$ with $L,M\in\Bbb Z$ and $L\e 1\mod 3$. By \[BEW, Theorem 9.4.4\], $\b{\f{2(p-1)}3}{\f{p-1}3}\e -L+\f pL\mod{p^2}$. Hence applying the above and Theorem 3.3, $$\sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{W_n}{(-3)^n}\e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1} \e \b{\f{2(p-1)}3}{\f{p-1}3}\e -L+\f pL\mod{p^2}.$$ For $p\e 2\mod 3$, $$\align\f{(2p-1)!}{(\f{2p-1}3)!^3}\cdot \f 1{2\cdot 27^{(2p-1)/3}}& =\f{p(p^2-1^2)(p^2-2^2)\cdots(p^2-(p-1)^2)\cdot\sls{p-2}3!^3} {\sls{2p-1}3!^3\sls{p-2}3!^3\cdot 2\cdot 3^{2p-1}} \\&\e p\cdot\Big(\f{p-2}3!\Big)^3\f{\b{p-1}{(p-2)/3}^3}{(p-1)!\cdot 2\cdot 3} \e \f p6\Big(\f{p-2}3!\Big)^3\mod{p^2} \endalign$$ and $$\b{\f{2(p-2)}3}{\f{p-2}3}^{-1}=\f{\big(\f{p-2}3!\big)^2(p-1)(p-2)\cdots(p-\f{p+1}3)} {(p-1)!}\e -\f 13\big(\f{p-2}3!\big)^3\mod p.$$ From (2.16) and the above, $$\align \sum_{n=0}^{p-1}\f{W_n}{(-3)^n}&\e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\cdot\f p{3k+1}- \f p6\Big(\f{p-2}3!\Big)^3\e \f p2\b{\f{2(p-2)}3}{\f{p-2}3}^{-1} -\f p6\Big(\f{p-2}3!\Big)^3\\&\e - \f p6\Big(\f{p-2}3!\Big)^3- \f p6\Big(\f{p-2}3!\Big)^3=- \f p3\Big(\f{p-2}3!\Big)^3 \mod{p^2}. \endalign$$ Thus, the theorem is proved. To conclude the paper, we pose two challenging conjectures. Let $p>3$ be a prime. Then $$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\cdot\f p{4k+1} \\&\e \cases 4x^2-2p-\f{p^2}{4x^2}\mod {p^3}&\t{if $12\mid p-1$ and so $p=x^2+9y^2$,} \\2p-2x^2+\f{p^2}{2x^2}\mod {p^3}&\t{if $12\mid p-5$ and so $2p=x^2+9y^2$,} \\ -\f 5{27}p^2\b{[p/3]}{[p/12]}^{-2}\mod {p^3}&\t{if $12\mid p-7$,} \\\f 5{54}p^2\b{[p/3]}{[p/12]}^{-2}\mod {p^3} &\t{if $12\mid p-11$.}\endcases\endalign$$ Suppose that $p$ is a prime of the form $4k+1$. Then $$(-1)^{[\f p{12}]}\b{[\f p3]}{[\f p{12}]}\e\cases 2x\mod p&\t{if $p\e 1\mod{12}$ and so $p=x^2+9y^2$ with $3\mid x-1$,} \\x\mod p&\t{if $p\e 5\mod{12}$ and so $2p=x^2+9y^2$ with $3\mid x-1$.} \endcases$$ [BEW]{} T. Amdeberhan and R. Tauraso, [Supercongruences for the Almkvist-Zudilin numbers]{}, Acta Arith. [173]{}(2016), 255-268. B.C. Berndt, R.J. Evans and K.S. Williams, [Gauss and Jacobi Sums]{}, Wiley, New York, 1998. H.H. Chan and W. Zudilin, [New representations for Apéry-like sequences]{}, Mathematika [56]{}(2010), 107-117. S. Chowla, B. Dwork and R. J. Evans, [ On the mod $p^2$ determination of $\b{(p-1)/2}{(p-1)/4}$]{}, J. Number Theory [24]{}( 1986), 188-196. H.W. Gould, [Combinatorial Identities, A Standardized Set of Tables Listing 500 Binomial Coefficient Summations]{}, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 1972. E. Lehmer, [On congruences involving Bernoulli numbers and the quotients of Fermat and Wilson]{}, Ann. Math. [39]{}(1938), 350-360. E. Mortenson, [A supercongruence conjecture of Rodriguez-Villegas for a certain truncated hypergeometric function]{}, J. Number Theory [99]{}(2003), 139-147. E. Mortenson, [Supercongruences between truncated $\ _2F_1$ hypergeometric functions and their Gaussian analogs]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [355]{}(2003), 987-1007. F. Rodriguez-Villegas, [Hypergeometric families of Calabi-Yau manifolds]{}, in: Noriko Yui, James D. Lewis (Eds.), Calabi-Yau Varieties and Mirror Symmetry , Toronto, ON, 2001, in: Fields Inst. Commun., vol. 38, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2003, pp.223-231. Z.H. Sun, [Congruences concerning Bernoulli numbers and Bernoulli polynomials]{}, Discrete Appl. Math. [105]{}(2000), 193-223. Z.H. Sun, [Congruences involving Bernoulli and Euler numbers]{}, J. Number Theory [128]{}(2008), 280-312. Z. H. Sun, [Congruences concerning Legendre polynomials]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [139]{}(2011), 1915-1929. Z.H. Sun, [Identities and congruences for a new sequence]{}, Int. J. Number Theory [8]{}(2012), 207-225. Z. H. Sun, [Congruences concerning Legendre polynomials II]{}, J. Number Theory [133]{}(2013), 1950-1976. Z. H. Sun, [Legendre polynomials and supercongruences]{}, Acta Arith. [159]{}(2013), 169-200. Z. H. Sun, [Generalized Legendre polynomials and related supercongruences]{}, J. Number Theory [143]{}(2014), 293-319. Z. H. Sun, [Congruences for Domb and Almkvist-Zudilin numbers]{}, Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. [26]{}(2015), 642-659. Z. H. Sun, [Supercongruences involving Bernoulli polynomials]{}, Int. J. Number Theory [12]{}(2016), 1259-1271. Z.H. Sun, [Congruences for sums involving Franel numbers]{}, Int. J. Number Theory [14]{}(2018), 123-142. Z.H. Sun, [Super congruences for two Apéry-like sequences]{}, J. Differ. Equ. Appl. [24]{}(2018), 1685-1713. Z.H. Sun, [Congruences involving binomial coefficients and Apéry-like numbers]{}, Publ. Math. Debrecen, to appear. Z.W. Sun, [Connections between $p=x^2+3y^2$ and Franel numbers]{}, J. Number Theory [133]{}(2013), 2914-2928. Z.W. Sun, [Conjectures and results on $x^2$ mod $p^2$ with $4p=x^2+dy^2$]{}, in: Number Theory and Related Area (eds., Y. Ouyang, C. Xing, F. Xu and P. Zhang), Higher Education Press $\&$ International Press, Beijing and Boston, 2013, pp.149-197. K.M. Yeung, [On congruences for binomial coefficients]{}, J. Number Theory [33]{}(1989), 1-17.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'Maximally dissipative boundary conditions are applied to the initial-boundary value problem for Einstein’s equations in harmonic coordinates to show that it is well-posed for homogeneous boundary data and for boundary data that is small in a linearized sense. The method is implemented as a nonlinear evolution code which satisfies convergence tests in the nonlinear regime and is stable in the weak field regime. A linearized version has been stably matched to a characteristic code to compute the gravitational waveform radiated to infinity.' address: \| ${}^{1}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy\ University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA\ ${}^{2}$ Max-Planck-Institut f" ur Gravitationsphysik, Albert-Einstein-Institut,\ 14476 Golm, Germany author: - 'Béla Szilágyi${}^{1}$ , Jeffrey Winicour${}^{1,2}$' title: 'Well-Posed Initial-Boundary Evolution in General Relativity' --- The waveform emitted in the inspiral and merger of a relativistic binary is theoretical input crucial to the success of the fledgling gravitational wave observatories. A computational approach is necessary to treat the highly nonlinear regime of a black hole or neutron star collision. Developing this computational ability has been the objective of the Binary Black Hole (BBH) Grand Challenge [@gc] and other world wide efforts. The Grand Challenge based a Cauchy evolution code on the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) [@adm] formulation of Einstein’s equations. Exponentially growing instabilities encountered with that code have been traced to improper boundary conditions [@cboun]. (Even in the absence of boundaries, an ADM system linearized off a Minkowski metric has a power law instability [@cas]; this triggers an exponential instability when the background Minkowski metric is treated in non-Cartesian, e.g. spherical, coordinates.) Other groups have encountered difficulties in treating boundaries (see [@lehn] for a recent discussion) and the working practice is to forestall problems by placing the outer boundary far from the region of physical interest (see e.g. [@mars]) or compactify the spacetime (see e.g. [@husa]). This deficiency extends beyond numerical relativity to a lack of analytic understanding of the initial-boundary value problem (IBVP) for general relativity. The local-version of the IBVP is schematically represented in Fig. \[fig:domain\]. Given Cauchy data on a spacelike hypersurface ${\cal S}$ and boundary data on a timelike hypersurface ${\cal B}$, the problem is to determine a solution in the appropriate domain of dependence. Whereas there is considerable mathematical understanding of the gravitational initial value problem (for reviews see [@crev]), until recently the IBVP has received little attention (see e.g. [@stewart; @Friedrich98]). Indeed, only relatively recently has the method of maximally dissipative boundary conditions [@friedrichs; @lax] been extended to the nonlinear IBVP with boundaries containing characteristics [@rauch; @secchi2], such as occurs in symmetric hyperbolic formulations of general relativity. Friedrich and Nagy [@Friedrich98] have applied these methods to give the first demonstration of a well-posed IBVP for Einstein’s equations. The Friedrich-Nagy work is of seminal importance for introducing the maximally dissipative technique into general relativity. Their formulation, which uses an orthonormal tetrad, the connection and the curvature tensor as evolution variables, is quite different from the metric formulations implemented in current codes designed to tackle the BBH problem. Although it is not apparent how to apply the details of the Friedrich-Nagy work to other formalisms, the general principles can be carried over provided Einstein’s equations are formulated in the symmetric hyperbolic form $$\sum_\alpha A^\alpha (u) \partial_\alpha u = S(u) \label{eq:sh}$$ with coordinates $x^\alpha=(t,x,y,z)=(t,x^i)$ and evolution variables $u=(u_1,...,u_N)$, where $A^\alpha$ are $N\times N$ symmetric matrices and $A^t$ is positive-definite. The simplest symmetric hyperbolic version of Einstein’s equations employs harmonic coordinates satisfying $H^\alpha:=\sqrt{-g}\Box x^\alpha =\partial_\beta (\sqrt{-g}g^{\alpha\beta})=0$, in which the well-posedness of the initial value problem was first established [@bruhat; @fisher]. Well-posedness expresses the existence of a unique solution with continuous dependence on the data. In the nonlinear case, existence is only guaranteed for a short time, reflecting the possibility of singularity formation. Here we show how this approach (i) can be applied to the IBVP problem in harmonic coordinates, (ii) can be implemented as a robustly stable, convergent 3-dimensional nonlinear Cauchy evolution code and (iii) can be accurately matched, in the linearized approximation, to an exterior characteristic evolution code to provide the proper physical boundary condition for computing the waveform radiated to infinity by an isolated source. Reference [@Garf] discusses the suitability of harmonic coordinates for numerical work and for simulating the approach to a curvature singularity. We base the evolution on the metric density $\gamma^{\alpha\beta}=\sqrt{-g}g^{\alpha\beta}$, with $g = \det(\gamma^{\alpha\beta})=\det(g_{\alpha\beta})$. As in Eq. (B.87) of Fock [@fock], we split the Einstein tensor into $G^{\alpha\beta}={\cal E}^{\alpha\beta}+\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha\beta}B-B^{\alpha\beta}$, where $B^{\alpha\beta}=-(-g)^{-1/2}\nabla^{(\alpha}H^{\beta)}$ vanishes when $H^\alpha=0$, where $${\cal E}^{\alpha\beta} =\frac{1}{2g} \gamma^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu \gamma^{\alpha\beta} + S^{\alpha\beta}$$ and where $S^{\alpha\beta}$ contains no second derivatives of the metric. When the harmonic conditions $H^\alpha=0$ are satisfied, the reduced Einstein equations ${\cal E}^{\alpha\beta}=0$ have principal part which is governed by the wave operator $\gamma^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu$. In terms of the evolution variables $u=(\gamma^{\alpha\beta}, {\cal T^{\alpha\beta}, {\cal X}^{\alpha\beta}},{\cal Y}^{\alpha\beta}, {\cal Z}^{\alpha\beta})$, where ${\cal T^{\alpha\beta}}=\partial_t \gamma^{\alpha\beta}$, ${\cal X^{\alpha\beta}}=\partial_x \gamma^{\alpha\beta}$, ${\cal Y^{\alpha\beta}}=\partial_y \gamma^{\alpha\beta}$ and ${\cal Z^{\alpha\beta}}=\partial_z \gamma^{\alpha\beta}$, we put these wave equations in symmetric hyperbolic form (\[eq:sh\]) by a standard construction [@cour]. We adapt the harmonic coordinates to the boundary so that the evolution region lies in $z<0$, with the boundary fixed at $z=0$ in the numerical grid. We write $x^\alpha=(x^a,z)=(t,x,y,z)$ to denote coordinates adapted to the boundary, so that $x^\alpha=(x^a,z)=(t,x^i)$ depending whether the Latin index is near the beginning or end of the alphabet. We further adapt the coordinates so that $\gamma^{za}\|_{\cal B}=0$ (and hence ${\cal T}^{za}\|_{\cal B}=0$). For any timelike ${\cal B}$, these harmonic [gauge]{} conditions can be satisfied and they are assumed throughout the following discussion. We base the well-posedness of the homogeneous IBVP on Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 of Secchi [@secchi2], which require that $u$ satisfy a boundary condition of the form $Mu=0$, where $M$ is a matrix independent of $u$ and of maximal rank such that the normal flux ${\cal F}^z=(u,A^z u)$ associated with an energy norm be non-negative. Secchi’s theorems include the present case where the boundary is “characteristic with constant rank”, i.e. $A^z$ has a fixed number of 0 eigenvalues. The above gauge conditions considerably simplify this maximally dissipative condition for the reduced system ${\cal E}^{\alpha\beta}=0$. The boundary matrix takes the form $A^z=\gamma^{zz} C$, where $C$ is a constant matrix, and the flux inequality reduces to $${\cal F}^z = -\sum_{\alpha ,\beta} {\cal T^{\alpha\beta}} {\cal Z^{\alpha\beta}} \ge 0. \label{eq:maxd}$$ Here ${\cal F}^z$ is identical to the standard energy flux for the sum of 10 independent scalar fields. This requirement can be satisfied in many ways, e.g. by combinations of the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition $\partial_t \gamma^{\alpha\beta}={\cal T^{\alpha\beta}}=0$, the homogeneous Neumann condition $\partial_z \gamma^{\alpha\beta} ={\cal Z^{\alpha\beta}}=0$ and the homogeneous Sommerfeld condition $(\partial_t+\partial_z) \gamma^{\alpha\beta} ={\cal T^{\alpha\beta}} +{\cal Z^{\alpha\beta}}=0$ on the various field components. All these boundary conditions have the required form $Mu=0$. The maximality of the rank of $M$ ensures that boundary conditions only be applied to variables propagating along characteristics entering the evolution region from the exterior [@kreiss]. For instance, assignment of a boundary condition to the variable ${\cal T^{\alpha\beta}}-{\cal Z^{\alpha\beta}}$, which propagates from the interior toward the boundary, would violate (\[eq:maxd\]). Whereas the well-posedness of the IBVP for the reduced system can be accomplished by a variety of boundary conditions, it can only be established for the full system in a limited sense. The Bianchi identities and reduced equations imply $\nabla_\mu (B^{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}B)=0$, which has the explicit form $$\begin{aligned} \gamma^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu H^\alpha +C^{\alpha\mu}_\nu \partial_\mu H^\nu + D^{\alpha}_\nu H^\nu=0, \label{eq:constrpr}\end{aligned}$$ where $C^{\alpha\mu}_\nu$ and $D^{\alpha}_\nu$ depend algebraically on $u$ and $H^\alpha$. Thus $H^\alpha$ obeys a symmetric hyperbolic equation of the form (\[eq:sh\]). Harmonic Cauchy data satisfying the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints and $H^\alpha =0$ also satisfy $\partial_t H^\alpha =0$ on ${\cal S}$ by virtue of the reduced equations, so that uniqueness guarantees $H^\alpha=0$ in the domain of dependence ${\cal D}_1$ (see Fig. \[fig:domain\]) and hence the well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the full system. To extend well-posedness to the homogeneous IBVP, i.e. to include region ${\cal D}_2$, we impose boundary conditions for the reduced system that imply the homogeneous boundary conditions $H^z=0$ and $\partial_z H^a=0$ for the harmonic constraints. Combined with the gauge condition $\gamma^{za}=0$, the condition $H^z:=\partial_b \gamma^{zb}+\partial_z \gamma^{zz}=0$ requires the Neumann boundary condition $Z^{zz}=0$. We also impose the homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions ${\cal Z}^{ab}=0$ so that $\partial_z H^a:=\partial_b Z^{ab}+\partial_z^2 \gamma^{az}=0$ requires $\partial_z^2 \gamma^{az}=0$ at the boundary. Remarkably, subject to the above conditions, the reduced equation ${\cal E}^{az}=0$ implies $\partial_z^2 \gamma^{az}=0$ at the boundary! Underlying this result is that $S^{az}=0$ at the boundary due to the local reflection symmetry implied by the above conditions. This establishes the maximally dissipative boundary conditions $H^z=\partial_z H^a=0$ for the constraint propagation equations (\[eq:constrpr\]) which ensure that the full Einstein system is satisfied. In practice, homogeneous boundary conditions do not correspond to a given physical problem, e.g. homogeneous Neumann data at the end of a string lead to a free endpoint whereas the the endpoint might be undergoing a forced oscillation requiring inhomogeneous data. This flexibility is supplied within the maximally dissipative formalism by the ability to extend the homogeneous boundary condition $Mu=0$ to the inhomogeneous form $M(x^a)(u-q(x^a))=0$[@Friedrich98]. This preserves the well-posedness of the IBVP for the reduced system with inhomogeneous Neumann data ${\cal Z}^{zz}=q^{zz}$ and ${\cal Z}^{ab}=q^{ab}$. For the full system, the gauge condition $\gamma^{za}=0$ and the boundary constraint $H^z=0$ forces $q^{zz}=0$. Next, $\partial_z H^a=0$ implies $$D_a( {\cal Z}^{ab}/\sqrt{-g^{zz}/g})=0 , \label{eq:bconstr}$$ where $D_a$ is the connection intrinsic to the boundary. The appearance of the metric and $D_a$ in Eq. (\[eq:bconstr\]) introduces $u$-dependence in the boundary data so that Secchi’s theorems do not apply. However, the theory does apply to boundary data $\delta q^{ab}$ linearized off a nonlinear solution with homogeneous data, either exact or generated numerically. Then Eq. (\[eq:bconstr\]) has the form $$\partial_b \delta q^{ab}+ F^a_{bc}(x^d) \delta q^{bc}=0, \label{eq:lbconstr}$$ where $F^a_{bc}(x^d)$ is explicitly known via the metric and connection of the homogeneous solution. The principal part of Eq. (\[eq:lbconstr\]) is identical to the analogous equation in the linearized version of the harmonic IBVP treated in Ref. [@hbdry]. In terms of the coordinates $x^a=(t,x^A)=(t,x,y)$ on the boundary, a simple transformation of variables (see [@hbdry]) recasts Eq. (\[eq:lbconstr\]) as a symmetric hyperbolic system of equations for $\phi =\frac{1}{2}\delta_{AB}\delta q^{AB}$ and $y^A=\delta q^{tA}$. (Here $\delta_{AB}$ is the Kronecker delta.) This system uniquely determines $\phi$ and $y^A$ in terms of their initial values and the 3 pieces of free boundary data $y^{AB}= \delta q^{AB}+ \delta^{AB}(\delta q^{tt}-\delta_{CD}\delta q^{CD})$. (This in accord with Ref. [@Friedrich98], although there is no direct correspondence with the three free pieces of boundary data in [@Friedrich98]). Since only coordinate conditions have been imposed here, the only restriction on physical generality is the linearity of the boundary data. The IBVP also requires consistency between the Cauchy data and boundary data at ${\cal S}\cup {\cal B}$, which determines the degree of differentiability of the solution [@secchi2]. As in the string example, consistent homogeneous Neumann boundary data and Cauchy data imply a virtual reflection symmetry across the boundary, which is broken in the inhomogeneous case. Although the IBVP is well-posed for the reduced system and for the constrained system with boundary data linearized about the homogeneous case, no available theorems guarantee well-posedness for the constrained inhomogeneous case. In this respect, the analytic underpinnings are not as general as the Friedrich-Nagy formulation. Numerical simulations are necessary to shed further light on this question. The key feature of our formulation is that [if a solution exists, as provided by a convergent numerical simulation, then it necessarily satisfies the constraints]{}, since the constraint propagation equation (\[eq:constrpr\]) is then satisfied with maximally dissipative, homogeneous boundary data. In the strong field convergence tests described below, exact solutions provide the Cauchy and boundary data. In constructing a code to demonstrate these results, we take considerable liberty with the symmetric hyperbolic formalism. In particular, we use the second differential order form of the equations based upon the 10 variables $\gamma^{\alpha\beta}$ rather than the 50 first order variables $u$; we use a cubic boundary aligned with Cartesian coordinates, although the mathematical theorems only apply to smooth boundaries; and we replace the gauge condition $\gamma^{za}=0$ by $\gamma^{za}=q^a(x^b)\gamma^{zz}$, where $q^a=\partial_z x^a\|_{\cal B}$ is the free Neumann boundary data in the transformation to a general harmonic coordinate system satisfying $\Box x^a=0$. The harmonic boundary constraint $H^z=0$ now implies $q^{zz}=-\partial_a(q^a \gamma^{zz})\|_{\cal B}$ and the constraint $\partial_z H^a=0$ again determines $\phi$ and $y^A$ in terms of the free boundary data $(q^a,y^{AB})$, now through a symmetric hyperbolic system obtained from adding source terms arising from $q^a \ne 0$ to the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:bconstr\]). We use the finite difference techniques described in [@hbdry], where robust stability and convergence of a linearized harmonic code was demonstrated. In the linearized theory, the decoupling of the metric components gives more flexibility in formulating a well-posed IBVP. The linearized harmonic code could be consistently implemented with Dirichlet boundary conditions, in which case it ran stably for $2000$ crossing times even with a piecewise-cubic spherical boundary cut out of the Cartesian grid. However, we have not found a well-posed version of the nonlinear theory that avoids Neumann boundary conditions and the associated numerical complications which we describe below. We tested robust stability [@mex] of the nonlinear code by initializing the evolution with random, constraint violating initial data $\gamma^{\alpha\beta}=\eta^{\alpha\beta}+\epsilon^{\alpha\beta}$ and by assigning random boundary data $q(x^a)=\epsilon$ at each point of the cubic grid boundary, with the $\epsilon$’s random numbers in the range $(-10^{-10},10^{-10})$. (Although differing from the standard numerical definition of stability related to convergence, robust stability is computationally practical for revealing short wavelength instabilities.) Under these conditions, the noise in the nonlinear code grows linearly at the same rate for 2000 crossing times for both the $48^3$ and $72^3$ grids. We tested convergence in the nonlinear regime using a gauge-wave generated by the harmonic coordinate transformation $(x,y)=x^B \rightarrow x^B + a^B \sin\left[ 2 \pi \, (\sqrt{3} t + x+y+z)\right]$ acting on the Minkowski metric, with $a^x = 0.06\, A , \, a^y = 0.04\, A$. The resulting gauge-wave has amplitude $\|\|g^{\alpha \beta}-\eta^{\alpha \beta}\|\|_{\infty} \approx A$. We use periodicity in the $(x,y)$ plane to evolve with smooth toroidal boundaries at $z=\pm 1/2$. Second-order convergence in the non-linear regime was confirmed with the amplitude $A = 10^{-1}$. Figures \[fig:gauge.conv\] demonstrates the convergence of the solution and Fig. \[fig:2D.full\] shows the absence of anomalous boundary error. Error arising from the application of Neumann boundary conditions eventually triggers a nonlinear instability, which occurs after 30 crossing times with the $120^3$ grid. Runs with the amplitude $A = 10^{-3}$ were carried out on the $80^3$ grid for $300$ crossing times without encountering the above non-linear instability (see Figure \[fig:gauge.conv\]). In the case of a cubic boundary, the nonlinear code cleanly propagates a physical pulse with amplitude $10^{-7}$ that corresponds to an exact linearized solution; but, for a gauge-wave of amplitude $A=10^{-3}$, substantial error arises at the edges and corners due to our present method of applying Neumann boundary conditions and leads to an instability after $60$ crossing times. The physically proper boundary data for a given problem is a separate and difficult problem for nonlinear systems. One approach is to supply $q(x^a)$ by Cauchy-characteristic matching (CCM) in which an interior Cauchy evolution with cubic boundary is matched to an exterior characteristic evolution on a sequence of outgoing null cones extending to infinity (for a review see [@wliv]). In simulations of a nonlinear scalar wave with periodic source, CCM was demonstrated to compute the radiated waveform more efficiently and accurately than existing artificial boundary conditions on a large but finite boundary. [@jcp] Previous attempts at CCM in the gravitational case were plagued by boundary induced instabilities growing on a scale of 10 to 20 grid crossing times. Although stable behavior of the Cauchy boundary is only [a necessary but not a sufficient]{} condition for CCM, tests carried out with a linearized harmonic Cauchy code with a well-posed IBVP matched to a linearized characteristic code show no instabilities. In the tests of CCM, the linearized Cauchy code was supplied outer boundary data $q$ in Sommerfeld form by the exterior characteristic evolution and boundary data for the characteristic code was supplied on an interior spherical boundary by the Cauchy evolution. Robust stability for 2000 crossing times on a Cauchy grid of $45^3$ was confirmed. For a linearized wave pulse, Figure \[fig:2D.ccm\] shows a sequence of profiles of the metric component $\gamma^{xy}$ propagating cleanly through the spherical boundary as the wave pass to the characteristic grid, where it is propagated to infinity. Further details and tests of CCM and the question of its extension to the nonlinear theory will be reported elsewhere. At present, the major limitation in the nonlinear code stems from the difficulty in handling large values of $\gamma^{tz}$ at the boundary. This is evidenced by numerical experiments with the manifestly well-posed IBVP consisting of a scalar wave propagating between smooth toroidal boundaries according to the flat-space wave equation $$\bigg (-\partial_t^2 -2v\partial_t\partial_z+\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2+ (1-v^2)\partial_z^2 \bigg )\Phi=0,$$ which arises from the transformation $z\rightarrow z+vt$ on standard inertial coordinates. The value of $\gamma^{tz}$ represents the velocity of the boundary relative to observers at rest with respect to the Cauchy slicing. For the flat space wave equation in second order form, there have apparently been no studies of numerical algorithms which apply Neumann boundary conditions to such moving boundaries. In fact, only very recently has there been a thorough treatment of Neumann boundary conditions for the the flat space wave equation with a stationary (but curvilinear) boundary [@kreiss2]. This treatment uses Neumann data to update the field at a boundary point at the current time step by a one-sided finite difference approximation for the normal derivative. Such stencils for approximating normal derivatives apply only when the normal direction is tangent to the Cauchy slicing, i.e. when $g^{tz}\|_{\cal B}=0$. The general case in which $g^{tz}\|_{\cal B}\ne0$ requires a more complicated stencil involving interior points to the future or past of the current time step. We have developed a new approach which successfully handles this general case for the above scalar wave test problem but requires further refinement to handle boundaries with edges and corners before it can be implemented in the gravitational code. We thank H. Friedrich and B. Schmidt for educating us in the intricacy of the IBVP. The code was parallelized with help from the Cactus development team of the AEI. The work was supported by NSF grant PHY 9988663. S. Brandt et al, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, [85]{}, 5496 (2000). R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. Misner, in [Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research]{}, ed. L. Witten (Wiley, NY, 1962). B. Szilágyi, R. Gómez, N. T. Bishop and J. Winicour, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, [62]{}, 104006 (2000). G. Calabrese, J. Pullin, O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, [66]{}, 041501 (2002). G. Calabrese, L. Lehner and M. Tiglio, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, [65]{}, 104031 (2002). R. L. Marsa and M. W. Choptuik, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, [54]{}, 4929 (1996). S. Husa, [Problems and Successes in the Numerical Approach to the Conformal Field Equations]{}, in [The Conformal Structure of Spacetimes: Geometry, Analysis, Numerics]{}, ed. J. Frauendiener and H. Friedrich, Lecture Notes in Physics 604 (Springer, New York, 2002). O. Reula, [Living. Rev. Rel.]{}, [1]{}, 3 (1998); H. Friedrich and A. Rendall, in [Einstein’s Equations and Their Physical Implications]{}, edited by B. Schmidt (Springer, New York, 2000); A, Rendall, [Living. Rev. Rel.]{}, [4]{}, 1 (2001). J. M.Stewart, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{}, [15]{}, 2865 (1998). H. Friedrich and G. Nagy, [Commun. Math. Phys.]{}, [201]{}, 619 (1999). K. O. Friedrichs, [Comm. Pure Appl. Math.]{}, [11]{}, 333 (1958). P. D. Lax and R. S. Phillips, [Comm. Pure Appl. Math.]{}, [13]{}, 427 (1960). J. Rauch, [Trans. Am. Math. Soc.]{}, [291]{}, 167 (1985). P. Secchi, [Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.]{}, [134]{}, 155 (1996). Y. Foures-Bruhat, [Acta. Math.]{}, [88]{}, 141 (1955). A. E. Fisher and J. E. Marsden, [Comm. Math. Phys.]{}, [28]{}, 1 (1972). D. Garfinkle, [Phys.Rev.]{}, [D65]{}, 044029 (2002). V. Fock,[The Theory of Space, Time and Gravitation]{}, p. 392 (MacMillan, New York, 1964). R. Courant and D. Hilbert, [Methods of Mathematical Physics, Vol. II]{}, p. 594 (Interscience, NY, 1962). B. Gustafsson, H.-O. Kreiss and J. Oliger, [Time Dependent Problems and Difference Methods]{} (Wiley, NY, 1995). B. Szilágyi, B. Schmidt and J. Winicour, [Phys. Rev.]{}, [D65]{}, 064015 (2002). J. Winicour, [Living. Rev. Rel.]{}, [4]{}, 3 (2001). The robust stability test has been extended to include dependence on grid size in “Toward standard testbeds for numerical relativity”, M. Alcubierre [et al]{}, gr-qc/0305023. N. T. Bishop et al, [J. Comp. Phys.]{}, [136]{}, 140 (1997). H.-O. Kreiss, N. A. Petersson and J. Ystr[" o]{}m, [SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis]{}, [40]{}, No. 5, pp 1940-1967 (2002). =1.5in \[lb\] \[lb\] \[lb\] \[lb\] \[lb\] \[cb\] =3.1in \[cc\][$x$]{} \[cc\][$z$]{} \[c\][$\gamma^{zz}( t = 30 )$]{} =3.0in \[cc\][$x$]{} \[cc\][$y$]{} \[c\][$\gamma^{xy}( t = 0 )$]{} =3.0in \[cc\][$x$]{} \[cc\][$y$]{} \[c\][$\gamma^{xy}( t = 1/4 )$]{} =3.0in \[cc\][$x$]{} \[cc\][$y$]{} \[c\][$\gamma^{xy}( t = 1 )$]{} =3.0in	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }
--- abstract: 'We consider a $2 \times 2$ operator matrix ${\mathcal A}_\mu,$ $\mu>0$ related with the lattice systems describing two identical bosons and one particle, another nature in interactions, without conservation of the number of particles. We obtain an analogue of the Faddeev equation and its symmetric version for the eigenfunctions of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$. We describe the new branches of the essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ via the spectrum of a family of generalized Friedrichs models. It is established that the essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ consists the union of at most three bounded closed intervals and their location is studied. For the critical value $\mu_0$ of the coupling constant $\mu$ we establish the existence of infinitely many eigenvalues, which are located in the both sides of the essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$. In this case, an asymptotic formula for the discrete spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ is found.' author: - 'Tulkin H. Rasulov and Elyor B. Dilmurodov' title: 'Analysis of the spectrum of a $2\times 2$ operator matrix. Discrete spectrum asymptotics' --- [Faculty of Physics and Mathematics, Bukhara State University\ M. Ikbol str. 11, 200100 Bukhara, Uzbekistan\ E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]]{} Primary 81Q10; Secondary 35P20, 47N50. Key words and phrases: operator matrix, bosonic Fock space, coupling constant, dispersion function, essential and discrete spectrum, Birman-Schwinger principle, spectral subspace, Weyl creterion. Introduction and statement of the problem ========================================= It is well-known that [@CT08], if $H$ is a bounded linear operator in a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$ and a decomposition ${\mathcal H}={\mathcal H}_1 \oplus {\mathcal H}_2$ into two Hilbert spaces ${\mathcal H}_1$, ${\mathcal H}_2$ is given, then $H$ always admits a block operator matrix representation $$H=\left( \begin{array}{cc} H_{11} & H_{12}\\ H_{21} & H_{22}\\ \end{array} \right)$$ with bounded linear operators $H_{ij}: {\mathcal H}_j \to {\mathcal H}_i$, $i,j=1,2$. In addition, $H=H^$ if and only if $H_{ii}=H_{ii}^$, $i=1,2$ and $H_{21}=H_{12}^$. Such operator matrices often arise in mathematical physics, e.g. in quantum field theory, condensed matter physics, fluid mechanics, magnetohydrodynamics and quantum mechanics. One of the special class of $2 \times 2$ block operator matrices is the Hamiltonians acting in the one- and two-particle subspaces of a Fock space. It is related with a system describing three-particles in interaction without conservation of the number of particles in Fock space. Here off-diagonal entries of such block operator matrices are annihilation and creation operators. Operator matrices of this form play a key role for the study of the energy operator of the spin-boson Hamiltonian with two bosons on the torus. In fact, the latter is a $6 \times 6$ operator matrix which is unitarily equivalent to a $2 \times 2$ block diagonal operator with two copies of a particular case of $H$ on the diagonal, see e.g. [@MNR]. Consequently, the location of the essential spectrum and finiteness of discrete eigenvalues of the spin-boson Hamiltonian are determined by the corresponding spectral information on the operator matrix $H$. We recall that the spin-boson model is a well-known quantum-mechanical model which describes the interaction between a two-level atom and a photon field. We refer to [@LChDFGZ] and [@HSp95] for excellent reviews from physical and mathematical perspectives, respectively. Independently of whether the underlying domain is a torus ${\Bbb T}^{\rm d}$ or the whole space ${\Bbb R}^{\rm d}$, the full spin-boson Hamiltonian is an infinite operator matrix in Fock space for which rigorous results are very hard to obtain. One line of attack is to consider the compression to the truncated Fock space with a finite number $N$ of bosons, and in fact most of the existing literature concentrates on the case $N \leq 2$. For the case of ${\Bbb R}^{\rm d}$ there are some exceptions, e.g. [@Gerard96], [@HSp95-1] for arbitrary finite $N$ and [@ZhM95] for $N=3$, where a rigorous scattering theory was developed for small coupling constants. In [@OI2018] it is shown that the discrete spectrum of the spin-boson model with two photons in ${\Bbb R}^{\rm d}$ is finite and the essential spectrum consists of a half-line, the bottom of which is a unique zero of a simple Nevanlinna function. For the case when the underlying domain is a torus, the spectral properties of some versions of $H$ were investigated in [@ALR], [@ALR1], [@OT2018], [@MR14], [@RT2019]. An important problem of the spectral theory of such matrix operators is the infiniteness of the number of eigenvalues located outside the essential spectrum. We mention that, the infiniteness of the discrete eigenvalues below the bottom of the essential spectrum of the Hamiltonian in Fock space, which has a block operator matrix representation, and corresponding discrete spectrum asymptotics were discussed in [@ALR], [@Ras2011]. These results were obtained using the machinery developed in [@Sob] by Sobolev. In the present paper we consider a $2 \times 2$ operator matrix ${\mathcal A}_\mu,$ ($\mu>0$ is a coupling constant) related with the lattice systems describing two identical bosons and one particle, another nature in interactions, without conservation of the number of particles. This operator acts in the direct sum of one- and two-particle subspaces of the bosonic Fock space and it is related with the lattice spin-boson Hamiltonian [@MNR; @Ras2016]. We find the critical value $\mu_0$ of the coupling constant $\mu$, to establish the existence of infinitely many eigenvalues lying in [both]{} sides of essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_{\mu_0}$ and to obtain an asymptotics for the number of these eigenvalues. We point out that the latter assertion seems to be quite new for the discrete models and similar result have not been obtained yet for the three-particle discrete Schrödinger operators and operator matrices in Fock space. In all papers devoted to the infiniteness of the number of eigenvalues (Efimov’s effects) the situation on the neighborhood of the left edge of essential spectrum are discussed, see for example [@AL; @ALM; @ALR; @ALR1; @LM; @MR14]. Since the essential spectrum of the three-particle continuous Schrödinger operators [@Mog; @RS4; @Sob] and standard spin-boson model with at most two photons [@Mal-Min; @MS] coincides with half-axis $[\kappa; +\infty)$, the main results of the present paper are typical only for lattice case, and they do not have analogues in the continues case. Now we formulate the problem. Let ${\Bbb T}^3$ be the three-dimensional torus, the cube $(-\pi,\pi]^3$ with appropriately identified sides equipped with its Haar measure. Let $L_2({\Bbb T}^3)$ be the Hilbert space of square integrable (complex) functions defined on ${\Bbb T}^3$ and $ L_2^{\rm s}(({\Bbb T}^3)^2)$ be the Hilbert space of square integrable (complex) symmetric functions defined on $({\Bbb T}^3)^2.$ Denote by ${\mathcal H}$ the direct sum of spaces ${\mathcal H}_1:=L_2({\Bbb T}^3)$ and ${\mathcal H}_2:=L_2^{\rm s}(({\Bbb T}^3)^2),$ that is, ${\mathcal H}:={\mathcal H}_1 \oplus {\mathcal H}_2.$ The spaces ${\mathcal H}_1$ and ${\mathcal H}_2$ are called one- and two-particle subspaces of a bosonic Fock space ${\mathcal F}_{\rm s}(L_2({\Bbb T}^3))$ over $L_2({\Bbb T}^3),$ respectively. Let us consider a $2 \times 2$ operator matrix ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ acting in the Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$ as $${\mathcal A}_\mu:=\left( \begin{array}{cc} A_{11} & \mu A_{12}\\ \mu A_{12}^ & A_{22}\\ \end{array} \right)$$ with the entries $$\begin{aligned} & (A_{11}f_1)(k)=w_1(k)f_1(k), \quad (A_{12}f_2)(k)= \int_{{\Bbb T}^3} f_2(k,s)ds,\\ & (A_{22}f_2)(k,p)=w_2(k,p)f_2(k,p),\quad f_i \in {\mathcal H}_i,\quad i=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\mu>0$ is a coupling constant, the functions $w_1(\cdot)$ and $w_2(\cdot, \cdot)$ have the form $$w_1(k):=\varepsilon(k)+\gamma, \quad w_2(k,p):=\varepsilon(k)+\varepsilon(\frac{1}{2}(k+p))+\varepsilon(p)$$ with $\gamma \in {\Bbb R}$ and the dispersion function $\varepsilon(\cdot)$ is defined by $$\label{epsilon} \varepsilon(k):=\sum_{i=1}^3 (1-\cos \, k_i),\,k=(k_1, k_2, k_3) \in {\Bbb T}^3,$$ $A_{12}^$ denotes the adjoint operator to $A_{12}$ and $$(A_{12}^f_1)(k,p)=\frac{1}{2} (f_1(k)+f_1(p)), \quad f_1 \in {\mathcal H}_1.$$ Under these assumptions the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ is bounded and self-adjoint. We remark that the operators $A_{12}$ and $A_{12}^$ are called annihilation and creation operators [@Frid], respectively. In physics, an annihilation operator is an operator that lowers the number of particles in a given state by one, a creation operator is an operator that increases the number of particles in a given state by one, and it is the adjoint of the annihilation operator. Faddeev’s equation and essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ =============================================================== In this section we obtain an analogue of the Faddeev type integral equation for eigenvectors of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ and investigate the location and structure of the essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$. Throughout the present paper we adopt the following conventions: Denote by $\sigma(\cdot),$ $\sigma_{\rm ess}(\cdot)$ and $\sigma_{\rm disc}(\cdot),$ respectively, the spectrum, the essential spectrum, and the discrete spectrum of a bounded self-adjoint operator. Let $H_0:={\Bbb C}$. To study the spectral properties of the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ we introduce a family of bounded self-adjoint operators (generalized Friedrichs models) ${\mathcal A}_\mu(k),$ $k\in {\Bbb T}^3$ which acts in ${\mathcal H}_0 \oplus {\mathcal H}_1$ as $2 \times 2$ operator matrices $${\mathcal A}_\mu(k):=\left( \begin{array}{cc} A_{00}(k) & \frac{\mu}{\sqrt{2}} A_{01}\\ \frac{\mu}{\sqrt{2}} A_{01}^ & A_{11}(k)\\ \end{array} \right),$$ with matrix elements $$\begin{aligned} & A_{00}(k)f_0=w_1(k) f_0,\,\, (A_{01}f_1)= \int_{{\Bbb T}^3} f_1(t)dt,\\ & (A_{11}(k)f_2)(p)=w_2(k,p)f_1(p), \quad f_i \in {\mathcal H}_i, \quad i=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ From the simple discussions it follows that $\sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu (k))=[m(k), M(k)],$ where the numbers $m(k)$ and $M(k)$ are defined by $$\label{m(p) and M(p)} m(k):=\min\limits_{p\in {\Bbb T}^3} w_2(k,p), \quad M(k):= \max\limits_{p\in {\Bbb T}^3} w_2(k,p).$$ For any $k\in {\Bbb T}^3$ we define an analytic function $I(k\,; \cdot)$ in ${\Bbb C} \setminus \sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu(k))$ by $$I(k\,; z):=\int_{{\Bbb T}^3} \frac{dt}{w_2(k,t)-z}.$$ Then the Fredholm determinant associated to the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu(k)$ is defined by $$\Delta_\mu(k\,; z):=w_1(k)-z-\frac{\mu^2}{2}\, I(k\,; z),\,\, z\in {{\Bbb C} \setminus \sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu(k))}.$$ A simple consequence of the Birman-Schwinger principle and the Fredholm theorem implies that for the discrete spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu (k)$ the equality $$\sigma_{\rm disc}({\mathcal A}_\mu (k))=\{z \in {\Bbb C} \setminus [m(k); M(k)]:\, \Delta_\mu(k\,; z)=0 \}$$ holds. Set $$\begin{aligned} & m:= \min\limits_{k,p\in {\Bbb T}^3} w_2(k,p), \quad M:= \max\limits_{k,p\in {\Bbb T}^3} w_2(k,p), \\ & \Lambda_\mu:=\bigcup_{k \in {\Bbb T}^3} \sigma_{\rm disc}({\mathcal A}_\mu (k)), \quad \Sigma_\mu:=[m; M] \cup \Lambda_\mu.\end{aligned}$$ For each $\mu>0$ and $z \in {\Bbb C} \setminus \Sigma_\mu$ we define the integral operator $T_\mu(z)$ acting in the Hilbert spaces $L_2({\Bbb T}^3)$ by $$(T_\mu(z)g)(p)=\frac{\mu^2 }{2\Delta_\mu(p;\, z)}\int_{{\Bbb T}^3} \frac{g(t)dt}{w_2(p,t)-z}.$$ The following theorem is an analog of the well-known Faddeev’s result for the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ and establishes a connection between eigenvalues of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ and $T_\mu(z).$ \[Main Theorem 1\] The number $z \in {\Bbb C} \setminus \Sigma_\mu$ is an eigenvalue of the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ if and only if the number $\lambda=1$ is an eigenvalue of the operator $T_\mu(z).$ Moreover the eigenvalues $z$ and $1$ have the same multiplicities. We point out that the integral equation $g=T_\mu(z) g$ is an analogue of the Faddeev type system of integral equations for eigenfunctions of the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ and it is played crucial role in the analysis of the spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu.$ For the proof of Theorem \[Main Theorem 1\] we show the equivalence of the eigenvalue problem ${\mathcal A}_\mu f=zf$ to the equation $g=T_\mu(z) g$. The following theorem describes the location of the essential spectrum of the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ by the spectrum of the family of generalized Friedrichs models ${\mathcal A}_\mu (k)$. \[Main Theorem 2\] For the essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ the equality $\sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu)=\Sigma_\mu$ holds. Moreover the set $\Sigma_\mu$ consists of no more than three bounded closed intervals. The inclusion $\Sigma_\mu \subset \sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu)$ in the proof of Theorem \[Main Theorem 2\] is established with the use of a well-known Weyl creterion, see for example [@RT2019]. An application of Theorem \[Main Theorem 1\] and analytic Fredholm theorem (see, e.g., Theorem VI.14 in [@RS4]) proves inclusion $\sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu) \subset \Sigma_\mu.$ In the following we introduce the new subsets of the essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu.$ The sets $\Lambda_\mu$ and $[m; M]$ are called two- and three-particle branches of the essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu,$ respectively. The definition of the set $\Lambda_\mu$ and the equality $$\bigcup_{k \in {\Bbb T}^3} [m(k); M(k)]=[m; M]$$ together with Theorem \[Main Theorem 2\] give the equality $$\label{essential spectrum of mathcal A} \sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu)=\bigcup_{k \in {\Bbb T}^3} \sigma({\mathcal A}_\mu (k)).$$ Here the family of operators ${\mathcal A}_\mu (k)$ have a simpler structure than the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu.$ Hence, in many instance, provides an effective tool for the description of the essential spectrum. Using the extremal properties of the function $w_2(\cdot,\cdot),$ and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem one can show that the integral $I(\overline{0};0)$ is finite, where $\bar{0}:=(0,0,0) \in {\Bbb T}^3$, see [@RD2019; @RD2019-1]. For the next investigations we introduce the following quantities $$\begin{aligned} & \mu_l^0(\gamma):=\sqrt{2\gamma} \left( I(\overline{0},0) \right)^{-1/2}\,\, \mbox{for}\,\, \gamma>0;\\ & \mu_r^0(\gamma):=\sqrt{24-2\gamma} \left( I(\overline{0},0) \right)^{-1/2}\,\, \mbox{for}\,\, \gamma<12.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${{\Bbb T}^3}$ is compact, and the functions $\Delta_\mu(\cdot;0)$ and $\Delta_\mu(\cdot;18)$ are continuous on ${{\Bbb T}^3}$, there exist points $k_0,k_1\in {{\Bbb T}^3}$ such that the equalities $$\begin{aligned} \max\limits_{k\in {\Bbb T}^3} \Delta_\mu(k;0)=\Delta_\mu(k_0;0), \quad \min\limits_{k\in {\Bbb T}^3} \Delta_\mu(k;18)=\Delta_\mu(k_1;18)\end{aligned}$$ hold. Let us define the following notations: $$\begin{aligned} & \gamma_0:=\left( 12\frac{I(k_0;0)}{I(\overline{0};0)}-\varepsilon(k_0) \right) \left( 1+\frac{I(k_0;0)}{I(\overline{0};0)}\right)^{-1};\\ & \gamma_1:=\left(18-\varepsilon(k_1)\right) \left( 1-\frac{I(k_1;18)}{I(\overline{0};0)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Denote $$\begin{aligned} & E_{\mu}^{(1)}:=\text {min}\left\{\Lambda_\mu\cap(-\infty;0] \right\}; E_\mu^{(2)}:=\text {max}\left\{ \Lambda_\mu\cap(-\infty;0] \right\};\\ & E_{\mu}^{(3)}:=\text {min}\left\{ \Lambda_\mu\cap[18;\infty)\right\}; E_\mu^{(4)}:=\text {max}\left\{ \Lambda_\mu\cap[18;\infty)\right\}.\\\end{aligned}$$ We formulate the results, which are precisely describe the structure of the essential spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$. The structure of the essential spectrum depends on the location of the parameters $\mu>0$ and $\gamma \in {\Bbb R}$. \[THM3.1\] Let $\mu=\mu_r^0(\gamma),$ with $\gamma<12.$ The following equality holds $$\sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu)=\begin{cases} [E_1;E_2]\bigcup[0;18], & \text {if $ \gamma < \gamma_0 $}; \\ [E_1;18], & \text {if $ \gamma_0 \leq \gamma < 6$;}\\ [0;18], & \text {if $ 6 \leq \gamma<12 $.} \end{cases}$$ \[THM3.2\] Let $\mu=\mu_l^0(\gamma),$ with $\gamma>0.$ The following equality holds $$\sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu)=\begin{cases} [0;18], & \text{if $ 0<\gamma \leq 6$}; \\ [0;E_\mu^{(4)}], & \text{if $ 6 < \gamma \leq \gamma_1 $};\\ [0;18]\bigcup[E_\mu^{(3)};E_\mu^{(4)}], & \text {if $ \gamma > \gamma_1$.} \end{cases}$$ The proof of these two theorems are based on the existence conditions of the eigenvalue $z_\mu(k)$ of the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu(\cdot)$ and the continuity of $z_\mu(\cdot)$ on its domain. Birman-Schwinger principle and discrete spectrum asymptotics of the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ =============================================================================================== Let us denote by $\tau_{\min}({\mathcal A}_\mu)$ and $\tau_{\max}({\mathcal A}_\mu)$ the lower and upper bounds of the essential spectrum $\sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu)$ of the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu$, respectively, that is, $$\tau_{\min}({\mathcal A}_\mu):\equiv \min\sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu), \quad \tau_{\max}({\mathcal A}_\mu):\equiv \max\sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu).$$ For an interval $\Delta \subset {\Bbb R},$ $E_{\Delta}({\mathcal A}_\mu)$ stands for the spectral subspace of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ corresponding to $\Delta.$ Let us denote by $\sharp\{\cdot\}$ the cardinality of a set and by $N_{(a, b)}({\mathcal A}_\mu)$ the number of eigenvalues of the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu,$ including multiplicities, lying in $(a, b) \subset {\Bbb R} \setminus \sigma_{\rm ess}({\mathcal A}_\mu),$ that is, $$N_{(a, b)}({\mathcal A}_\mu):=\dim E_{(a, b)}({\mathcal A}_\mu).$$ For a $\lambda \in {\Bbb R},$ we define the number $n(\lambda, A_\mu)$ as follows $$n(\lambda, A_\mu):=\sup \{{\rm dim} F: (A_\mu u,u)>\lambda,\, u\in F \subset {\mathcal H},\,\|\|u\|\|=1\}.$$ The number $n(\lambda, A_\mu)$ is equal to the infinity if $\lambda<\max\sigma_{\rm ess}(A_\mu);$ if $n(\lambda, A_\mu)$ is finite, then it is equal to the number of the eigenvalues of $A_\mu$ bigger than $\lambda.$ By the definition of $N_{(a; b)}({\mathcal A}_\mu),$ we have $$\begin{aligned} N_{(-\infty; z)}({\mathcal A}_\mu)&=n(-z, -{\mathcal A}_\mu),\,-z>-\tau_{\min}({\mathcal A}_\mu),\\ N_{(z; +\infty)}({\mathcal A}_\mu)&=n(z, {\mathcal A}_\mu),\,z>\tau_{\max}({\mathcal A}_\mu).\end{aligned}$$ In our analysis of the discrete spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ the crucial role is played by the compact operator $\widehat{T}_\mu(z)$, $z\in {\Bbb R}\setminus [\tau_{\min}({\mathcal A}_\mu); \tau_{\max}({\mathcal A}_\mu)]$ in the space $L_2({\Bbb T}^3)$ as integral operator $$\begin{aligned} (\widehat{T}_\mu(z)g)(p)&=\frac{\mu^2}{2\sqrt{\Delta_\mu(p;\,z)}}\int_{{\Bbb T}^3} \frac{g(t)dt}{\sqrt{\Delta_\mu(t;\,z)}(w_2(p,t)-z)}, \quad \mbox{for} \quad z<\tau_{\min}({\mathcal A}_\mu),\\ (\widehat{T}_\mu(z)g)(p)&=-\frac{\mu^2}{2\sqrt{-\Delta_\mu(p;\,z)}}\int_{{\Bbb T}^3} \frac{g(t)dt}{\sqrt{-\Delta_\mu(t;\,z)}(w_2(p,t)-z)}, \quad \mbox{for} \quad z>\tau_{\max}({\mathcal A}_\mu).\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma is a realization of the well-known Birman-Schwinger principle for the operator ${\mathcal A}_\mu$ (see [@ALR]). \[LEM 4.3\] For $z\in {\Bbb R}\setminus [\tau_{\min}({\mathcal A}_\mu); \tau_{\max}({\mathcal A}_\mu)]$ the operator $\widehat{T}_\mu(z)$ is compact and continuous in $z$ and $$\begin{aligned} N_{(-\infty; z)}({\mathcal A}_\mu)& = n(1, \widehat{T}_\mu(z))\quad \mbox{for}\quad z<\tau_{\min}({\mathcal A}_\mu),\\ N_{(z; +\infty)}({\mathcal A}_\mu)&=n(1, \widehat{T}_\mu(z))\quad \mbox{for}\quad z>\tau_{\max}({\mathcal A}_\mu).\end{aligned}$$ This lemma can be proven quite similarly to the corresponding result of [@ALR]. Let ${\Bbb S}^2$ being the unit sphere in ${\Bbb R}^3$ and $$S_r: L_2((0, r), \sigma_0) \to L_2((0, r), \sigma_0), \quad r>0, \quad \sigma_0=L_2({\Bbb S}^2)$$ be the integral operator with the kernel $$S(t; y)=\frac{25}{8\pi^2 \sqrt{6}}\, \frac{1}{5 \cos(h y)+t},$$ $$y=x-x', \quad x, x' \in (0, r), \quad t=(\xi, \eta), \quad \xi, \eta \in {\Bbb S}^2.$$ For $\lambda>0,$ define $$U(\lambda)=\frac{1}{2} \lim_{r \to \infty} r^{-1} n(\lambda, S_r).$$ The existence of the latter limit and the fact $U(1)>0$ shown in [@Sob]. From the definitions of the quantities $\mu_l^0(\gamma)$ and $\mu_r^0(\gamma)$ it is easy to see that $\mu_l^0(6)=\mu_r^0(6)$. We set $\mu_0:=\mu_l^0(6)$. We can now formulate our last main result. \[main theorem-3\] The following relations hold: $$\sharp (\sigma_{\rm disc} ({\mathcal A}_{\mu_0}) \cap (-\infty, 0))= \sharp (\sigma_{\rm disc} ({\mathcal A}_{\mu_0}) \cap (18, \infty))=\infty;$$ $$\label{main asymp} \lim\limits_{z \nearrow 0}\frac{N_{(-\infty,\, z)}({\mathcal A}_{\mu_0})}{\|\log\|z\|\|}= \lim\limits_{z \searrow 18} \frac{N_{(z,\, \infty)}({\mathcal A}_{\mu_0})}{\|\log\|z-18\|\|}=U(1).$$ Clearly, by equality the infinite cardinality of the parts of discrete spectrum of ${\mathcal A}_{\mu_0}$ in $(-\infty; 0)$ and $(18; +\infty)$ follows automatically from the positivity of $U(1)$. [9]{} Zh.I.Abdullaev, S.N.Lakaev. Asymptotics of the discrete spectrum of the three-particle Schrödinger difference operator on a lattice. Theor. Math. Phys., 136 (2003), no. 2, pp. 1096–1109. S.Albeverio, S.N.Lakaev, Z.I.Muminov. Schrödinger operators on lattices. The Efimov effect and discrete spectrum asymptotics. Ann. Henri Poincaré, 5 (2004), pp. 743–772. S.Albeverio, S.N.Lakaev, T.H.Rasulov. On the spectrum of an Hamiltonian in Fock space. Discrete spectrum asymptotics. J. Stat. Phys., 127 (2007), no. 2, pp. 191–220. S.Albeverio, S.N.Lakaev, T.H.Rasulov. The Efimov effect for a model operator associated with the Hamiltonian of a non conserved number of particles. Methods Funct. Anal. Topology, 13 (2007), no. 1, pp. 1–16. K.O.Friedrichs. Perturbation of spectra in Hilbert space. Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, Rhole Island, 1965. C.Gérard. Asymptotic completeness for the spin-boson model with a particle number cutoff. Reviews in Mathematical Physics. [8]{} (1996), no. 4, pp. 549–589. M.Huebner, H.Spohn. Spectral properties of spin-boson Hamiltonian. Annl. Inst. Poincare, [62]{} (1995), no. 3, pp. 289–323. M.Hübner, H.Spohn. Radiative decay: nonperturbative approaches. Rev. Math. Phys., [7]{} (1995), no. 3, pp. 363–387. O.O.Ibrogimov. Spectral Analysis of the Spin-Boson Hamiltonian with Two Photons for Arbitrary Coupling. Ann. Henri Poincaré, [19]{} (2018), 3561–3579. O.O.Ibrogimov, C.Tretter. On the Spectrum of an Operator in Truncated Fock Space. In: Alpay D., Kirstein B. (eds) Indefinite Inner Product Spaces, Schur Analysis, and Differential Equations. Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, vol 263. Birkhäuser, Cham, pp. 321-334. S.N.Lakaev, M.É.Muminov. Essential and discrete spectra of the three-particle Schrödinger operator on a lattices. Theor. Math. Phys., 135 (2003), no. 3, pp. 849–871. A.J.Leggett, S.Chakravarty, A.T.Dorsey, M.P.A.Fisher, A.Garg, W.Zwerger. Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system. Rev. Mod. Phys., [59]{} (1987), pp. 1–85. V.A.Malishev, R.A.Minlos. Linear infinite-particle operators. Translations of Mathematical Monographs. 143, AMS, Providence, RI, 1995. R.A.Minlos, H.Spohn. The three-body problem in radioactive decay: the case of one atom and at most two photons. [Topics in Statistical and Theoretical Physics. Amer. Math. Soc. Transl.,]{} Ser. 2, [177]{}, AMS, Providence, RI, 1996, pp. 159–193. A.I.Mogilner. Hamiltonians in solid state physics as multiparticle discrete Schrödinger operators: problems and results. Advances in Sov. Math., [5]{} (1991), pp. 139–194. M.Muminov, H.Neidhardt, T.Rasulov. On the spectrum of the lattice spin-boson Hamiltonian for any coupling: 1D case. Journal of Mathematical Physics, [56]{} (2015), 053507. M.I.Muminov, T.H.Rasulov. On the number of eigenvalues of the family of operator matrices. Nanosystems: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, [5]{} (2014), no. 5, pp. 619–626. T.Kh.Rasulov. Branches of the essential spectrum of the lattice spin-boson model with at most two photons. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, [186]{} (2016), no. 2, pp. 251–267. T.Kh.Rasulov. On the number of eigenvalues of a matrix operator. Siberian Math. J. [52]{} (2011), no. 2, 316–328.\ T.H.Rasulov, E.B.Dilmurodov. Threshold analysis for a $2 \times 2$ operator matrix. Nanosystems: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics. [10]{} (2019), no. 6, pp. 616–622. T.H.Rasulov, E.B.Dilmurodov. Eigenvalues and virtual levels of a family of $2 \times 2$ operator matrices. Methods of Functional Analysis and Topology, [25]{} (2019), no. 3, pp. 273–281. T.H.Rasulov, N.A.Tosheva. Analytic description of the essential spectrum of a family of $3 \times 3$ operator matrices. Nanosystems: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics. [10]{} (2019), no. 5, pp. 511–519. M.Reed, B.Simon. Methods of modern mathematical physics. IV: Analysis of Operators. Academic Press, New York, 1979. A.V.Sobolev. The Efimov effect. Discrete spectrum asymptotics. Comm. Math. Phys. 156 (1993), pp. 101–126. C.Tretter. Spectral theory of block operator matrices and applications. Imperial College Press, 2008. Y.V.Zhukov, R.A.Minlos. The spectrum and scattering in the “spin-boson” $ $ model with at most three photons. Theor. Math. Phys., [103]{} (1995), no. 1, pp. 63–81.	{ "pile_set_name": "ArXiv" }

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.